After their own "kind"

Kinds are defined by creationists strictly by basic morphology (shape) and specific animals named in the bible. The system is actually called Baraminology, and is not based on scientific principles at all. The bible itself doesn't actually define what a "kind" is. It's all based upon whoever is interpreting the groups of animals and the bible verses.

It's pretty much useless as a classification system. "Kind" as used by creationists doesn't give us any useful information, they're basically telling us "Hey, these animals look the same." Thanks, I could tell.

reply to post by PieKeeper


That's sort of the point of this thread. There are extant creationists on here that seem to have left the building upon a bit of scientific heat entering the discussion, so it seems O&C doesn't really have a debate going any longer. I feel I should rebump my old victory thread...

Yeah, I'm bumping this thread because creationists still keep using this thoroughly unscientific term that doesn't apply to anything. See, this is how frustrating things get. A thread that's a few years old that deals with a point has to be taken out of the graveyard and propped up to point out that we've killed the idea of a 'kind' as being useful at all.

So, things reproduce after their own 'kind'....what is a 'kind'?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The Bible is understood by only a certain KIND.

I guess you're just not that KIND.

Why do you want to complicate the simple things ?

I could 've said something but I will be kind.

If I ask you Madness ? What kind of thread is this ? And you said stupid. Then that would be, what kind of thread this is.

Kind of stupid.:

Im not even a Xtian and it took me all of 5 seconds to find this as their explanation:

Since two of each kind of land animal (and seven of some) were brought aboard the Ark for the purpose of preserving their offspring upon the earth (Genesis 7:3), it seems clear that a “kind” represents the basic reproductive boundary of an organism. That is, the offspring of an organism is always the same kind as its parents, even though it may display considerable variation.

Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others.

A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). This is an active area of creation research. As creation scientists, we are not ashamed to stand on the foundation of God’s Word for our research and understanding of living things.

www.answersingenesis.org...



Whew.. that googling was such hard work I think I need to go rest...

But before I do.. I have to wonder why an atheist is so obsessed over the christ eaters? **shrug** Ima go google it..

Originally posted by Advantage

Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others.

So a "kind" can correspond to any level of taxonomic classification?

How convenient.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

so what is a "kind"?

Anything that (in the eyes of creationists) still makes their creation hypothesis plausible...which obviously doesn't mean it's plausible in reality

reply to post by randyvs

Why do you want to complicate the simple things ?

Why can't you give a straight answer to a simple question instead of replying with ad hominem attacks?

reply to post by Advantage


As PieKeeper already pointed out, the definition is not given in any of those points. It in fact admits that there is no actual definition by saying 'it can be higher or lower' than the family level...which is why I bothered to ask the question.

It's not like I haven't done my research, I'm quite familiar with AiG and their answers. Of course, they don't really give any good ones. Their claim is that our system doesn't necessarily correspond with 'god's'...yet they cannot codify the seemingly real system that they believe exists.

reply to post by randyvs

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The Bible is understood by only a certain KIND.

I guess you're just not that KIND.

Special pleading with unnecessary capitalizations. Just use the bold function for emphasis, caps is internet shorthand for shouting.

Why do you want to complicate the simple things ?

There's nothing simple about biological classification, especially when genetics comes into play.

I could 've said something but I will be kind.

If I ask you Madness ? What kind of thread is this ? And you said stupid. Then that would be, what kind of thread this is.

Kind of stupid.

:

Yeah, it's such a stupid thread that you can't even scrape up a mediocre response...let alone a devastating one.

reply to post by JPhish

The more it rained, the more diluted the water would become, Yes. BUT the saltier (heavier) water that the salt water fish are used to would be deeper than the fresh water. They would only have to swim deeper. The fresh water fish would stay higher in the water.

I can't believe someone gave you a star for that answer

Look up what the fish are eating, and what their food requires to live...SUNLIGHT!! If you've ever been diving, you'd know that most corals don't live deeper than a few meters, so even if your whacky theory is correct, all the saltwater fish would simply starve.

Also, ever heard about currents?? The salt and fresh water wouldn't remain separated for long...but who cares about facts, right?

And where did all that water go that covered the highest mountain tops worldwide? And why don't we have any proof of a global flood? Hell, we KNOW for a fact a global flood never happened!

Open a biology book and start reading, because if the above is really how you try justifying your belief, you are deluding yourself! Stop the ignorance and open your eyes to reality!

Opps, bad me, I am responding without reading everyone's answers. I hope I don't repeat someone else.

Here is my definition. Of course let me set the stage of thought; It is utterly impossible that Noah took two of every species and repopulated the Earth with them. However, think about Mankind and why we are so disconnected from Nature. Think about Domesticated animals; they too are disconnected! We are all "a kind" of the original, or of the "wild" version; we are of a kind!

When Man arrived on the scene, domestication did too; someone or something created us outside of our Species, and also created those animals which are associated with Man, all domestication.

So Noah likely had dogs, cats, ducks, geese, chickens, rabbits, horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs to name a few. He likely had the entire farm!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Eh, no point in responding to years-old posts. Let's wait and see if we actually get anything new on here now. I'm really hoping someone will actually try to defend the creationist term "kind".

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ups, didn't even realize how old this thread is...just figured you made it because some people in other threads still don't understand what kind means, or are man enough to offer a definition that could be proven wrong

reply to post by Greensage


Um...and what about all of the wild animals? Were they all just wiped out by the supposed global flood that would have leveled mountains had it happened? I mean, the vast majority of species are not domesticated, so I doubt that Noah saving some farm animals would have done much...if the flood even did happen....

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well, that is why I originally made it...guess I'm still waiting several years later. Lots of biologists are waiting too. I'm sure Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers would love a definition for it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh ! You two can't be gett'in all but hurt now. Madness I will rephrase the question. K ? If I pointed to a Redtail hawk and asked you what kind of bird is that ? Would you overlook my misuse of the english language and simply answer the question, because you do understand slang? Or would you freak?

reply to post by randyvs


Slang isn't the right way assess reality or history...if everyone were using his personal slang, no one would ever figure stuff out.

So in the bible, what did they mean when saying "kind"? If the answer is so easy as you claim, you should have no problem giving an accurate definition

reply to post by MrXYZ


Alright I don't want you to feel left out so consider the question addressed to you as well X.
I'll answer yours and you answer mine ?
I can give you the Websters definition of kind and you know where that would take the conversation. So consider
that to be my answer. Now can you do me the same courtesy?
Both of you?

You guys are the ones who are always saying the Bibles been misinterpreted /mistranslated. But I guess that's only at your convenience right ?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I tend to believe that most humans at the time of the Great Flood were living along coastal areas. The design of the Flood, if there was one, was to remove the Nephilim and what-ever abominations happened to have been created. The "choice" of the "kind" was of Noah's choosing with probably a bit of "instruction" I am sure; but to literally think that there is a boat big enough to carry all the species one would have to be daft or the ship would be about the size of the planet! LOL

Please, I am not calling you daft, the motion to argue seems to be your premise here as you are not reasoning out a realistic nature of this historical event. You have to set realistic parameters otherwise it is just an argument for the sake of arguing.

It is utterly impossible for any ship to carry two of every species, but, given the fact that we do know those animals which are associated with Man, partnered with Man throughout antiquity, then the only conclusion can be that we are speaking of Domesticated Stock. If SHTF right now, I will be saving some animals of a kind, but I certainly won't be trying to save a lion or a tiger or a bear! They can hit the hills on their own as they are not in need of Man for their well-being.

All the rest of the Animal Kingdom can survive on its own as it has throughout the history of this Planet; but unless the Domesticated beast can find a niche' then it will perish without us.