After their own "kind"

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
My answer is if they can mate and reproduce they are a kind, if they can't then they aren't.
An example would be a Liger.

That's basically the definition of a species. You might as well forget the word "kind" and use taxonomic terms.

Welcome to accepted science.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Good answers? I'm sorry, you're not even providing one...

Now, mating and producing offspring broadens things out. You bring up a liger...I've not seen any examples of a fertile liger. So you're basically bumping things up to a genus level...or maybe species. So...why use the term 'kind' instead of genus?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Already a lot of good answers.

My answer is if they can mate and reproduce they are a kind, if they can't then they aren't.
An example would be a Liger.

But you can't mate a Gorilla with a Snake, it just won't work.

But 99% of species on this planet don't mate at all. Sex is limited to relatively few species..

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by randyvs

 

It's hardly redundant when the answer is vague and shifts according to whim or to suit an argument.

Well then we disagree . Oh and science is flawed.

reply to post by randyvs


And how exactly is science flawed? What is the problem with the methodology and practice of science?

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by randyvs

 

It's hardly redundant when the answer is vague and shifts according to whim or to suit an argument.

Well then we disagree . Oh and science is flawed.

edit on 1-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Who cares whether or not you disagree if you never even bother backing up your claims?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Already a lot of good answers.

My answer is if they can mate and reproduce they are a kind, if they can't then they aren't.
An example would be a Liger.

But you can't mate a Gorilla with a Snake, it just won't work.

If you're using that definition, there's still hundreds of thousands of "species"...which makes it abundantly clear that the entire Noah story's just that...a story, a myth, and nothing more.

Thanks for at least offering a definition though, some people in here are just trolling without ever at least giving it a go...so thumbs up for that!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
my question: what is a "kind"?

i've asked this repeatedly and nobody has ever given me a straight answer

i know it's not species, because people retreat to the "kind =/= species" argument when they're given irrefutable proof of speciation

so what is a "kind"?

first off I would just like to say that the term you used "After their own "kind" " is not a term used in the any of the books of the bible. however, the word "kind" was used as a general description for everything that moves on earth (Gen 8:19) such as birds, animals,and all the creatures that move along the ground.

reply to post by Theophorus


Really? It's used in Genesis 1.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

And what about this bit in Genesis 6?

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

Hell, let's toss in a last one from Genesis 7:

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

BONUS ROUND:

The passage you referred to is this:

Gen 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, [and] whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

Plural. Because the author didn't want to have to rewrite all of those 'after his/their kind' bits all over again. It's not used to refer to all animals, it's used to refer to 'after their own kinds'...as in they all came in grouped together.

Even more references!

Leviticus 11:14-29, used 8 times.
Deuteronomy 14:13-19, used 3 times


So...it's used several times in three separate books.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Again, no book in the bible uses the term "After their own "kind" " You are placing the word "own" where it simply is not. Example: A birds "own" kind tells us nothing of the species of bird. If you were to say a humming birds own kind you would be speaking of a humming bird. "Kind" is a generalized term referring to a generalized species and not a specific one.
I personally believe that the author of Genesis is referring to a certain genera which in English could mean "kind".

Actually Maddness, you may want to delve into ancient Hebrew and see what you come up with. I believe that is what it was originally written in, but I may be wrong.

reply to post by Conclusion1


You might want to show me that there's a significant difference in the meaning between Hebrew and the various English translations for me to even bother.

Screw it, I looked it up...and found this odd little apologetic sandwiched into a simple reference source...

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

..obviously this makes no sense as it relies on a complete ignorance of genetics to pass its arguments. Speciation doesn't have to do with inbreeding and genetic information is gained. It's been documented. Repeatedly. Hell, every single human being has between 100-200 differences in their genetic code, some of those would be additive changes.

Anyway, BlueLetterBible says that its root is in:

From an unused root meaning to portion out

...which makes no sense at all.

reply to post by Theophorus

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Again, no book in the bible uses the term "After their own "kind" " You are placing the word "own" where it simply is not. Example: A birds "own" kind tells us nothing of the species of bird.

You're right, I used the word "own" erroneously several years ago when I first started this thread...but it doesn't change the argument.

If you were to say a humming birds own kind you would be speaking of a humming bird. "Kind" is a generalized term referring to a generalized species and not a specific one.

...based on...? I'm guessing you mean a 'genus' when you say 'generalized species'.

I personally believe that the author of Genesis is referring to a certain genera which in English could mean "kind".

Ok, and why do you believe that? I mean, it just says "after their kind"...which means...well, it's incredibly vague.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Ok, and why do you believe that? I mean, it just says "after their kind"...which means...well, it's incredibly vague.

your right, its incredibly vague. No argument here.

reply to post by randyvs

Oh and science is flawed.

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by randyvs

 

Oh and science is flawed.

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

I never troll. What would bve the point ? To waste time ?

Science is flawed. By it's very protocol, empirical rules, simply by being the study of observable phenomena.
If you can not see, touch, taste, smell, or take into a lab and disect it. It does not exist. By this very premise,
You and I Mr. XYZ and you to Madness don't even have any brains. Although Madness did say his has been measured. We have had no sensory perception of our brains. I have always said that if eliminate God from the picture ? You can 't stop there. In fact you must keep eliminating things until nothing is left.



Life with Christ is endless hope. Life with out him is a hopeless end.

reply to post by randyvs


You clearly don't understand science. I've already explained this to you and many others. Reasonable inference. Extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence. Reasonable claim, reasonable evidence. The claim "I have a brain" is based on inference from the dissection and scanning of various mammal species, including humans.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Then by what you just said and by my thinking ahead of you, in the placement of the video, Jesus Christ also existed. Gods do exist because we do have evidence of them as giant idols in egypt for example. The shroud is proof of the reserrection and you can now admit you're flawed and you lose.I don't understand science. Big deal.
That's not tough to admit. But by it's very premise I'm smart enough to understand unlike you. That it should keep it's ass faraway from spirituality. Or it might get a bunson burn.

Did ceasar exist ? yes. Was ceasar a God ? The Romans would say yes. So you are flawed if you say there is no proof.


I think also to accuse me of trolling is another flaw.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


google is your friend

List of Crossbred Big Cats

Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species.

Thus genus family type equals "kind"

reply to post by randyvs

All mammals have brains.
You are a mammal.
Therefore you have a brain.

This is a syllogism, an example of deductive logical inference.

Gods do exist because we do have evidence of them as giant idols in egypt for example.

No, we have evidence of idols in Egypt. A representation of a thing isn’t proof of a thing.

The shroud is proof of the reserrection and you can now admit you're flawed and you lose.

No, we have evidence of a shroud. A representation of a thing isn’t proof of a thing.

I don't understand science.

You don’t seem to be trying, either. Tell you what, take a shot at constructing a syllogism that supports either one of your two arguments there where the conclusions you’re making are logically drawn from the two premises.

That it should keep it's ass faraway from spirituality. Or it might get a bunson burn.

If spirituality showed the same courtesy, there we be far less of these conversations.

Did ceasar exist ? yes. Was ceasar a God ? The Romans would say yes. So you are flawed if you say there is no proof.

So if I get enough people to claim that you don’t exist, you don’t exist? Excellent! I’ll get cracking on that one right away.

I think also to accuse me of trolling is another flaw.

Asking and accusing are two different things.