Bible and "kind"

Strictly speaking the Bible doesn't use "kind" - it is a translation of a Hebrew word.But in all probability it refers to the "folk-concept" of species - the distinctions that would be made by the people who wrote thos books of the Bible. There's really no plausible case that it means anything significantly different.

If you mean "kind" as creationists use it then I am afraid that you have to say so. Creationists like to pretend that the idea comes from the Bible but it has much more to do with their need to set limits on evolution.As for your specific examples "it's still a spider!" is the sort of answer you can expect. Only the most educated creationists would see the need to make any finer distinction than that - and even most of them would be strongly biased in favour of lumping the tarantulas all together (since there is no theological problem in having different species of tarantula related and it saves room on the Ark).

I dealt with your comments in my first post to this thread.Yes "kind" is used in English translations of the Bible, but no, the Bible doesn't use it in the technical sense some creationists do.

That's what I've been saying. The whole idea of a "kind" is to invent a limit for evolution.If "kinds" were real then we should be able to find them. Instead the only way to get a definite boundary between "kinds" is to propose soem example of evolution that a creationist finds theologically unacceptable.

The "barrier" only looks real because we have these general classifications in our minds and because evolution is very slow. There is a lot of diversity between spiders (considered objectively I'd guess more than between all the primates put together, let alone humans and chimpanzees). Once it SEEMED obvious that species never changed at all - we could find modern species mummified in ancient Egyptian tombs ! Now even creationists rarely take that view.On the one hand scientists investigating evolution have come up with very good evidence of the relationships between species based on morphological comparisions and more recently genetic studies. Although there are complications at the very roots there is no sign of any real barrier. On the other humans and chimpanzees are classified as different "kinds" not on morphological or genetic evidence but because Genesis lists man as a seperate creation.

The evidence can only point to similarities berween "kinds" if the "kinds" are identified in the first place. It is better to say that the morphological evidence finds no evidence of distinct "kinds" at all.Looking at chimps the hands, feet, skeletal structure, and internal organs are not that far from human. While not fully bipedal chimps are half-way there. While their intelligence is well below that of an adult human it is well above that of most other animals. Add in the fossil hominids and no, there is no clear division between between some nebulous "ape" kind and humans.The "common design" explanation fails to explain much of the evidence - notably the overall pattern of similarities and also the genetic evidence.And I still bet that a spider expert could find bigger morphological differences between spider species than between humans and chimps. The ability to build a web is a big one - some spiders do, others don't.

OK Mike, since you want to insist that 'kinds" in the sense used by creationists is in the Bible, where is it ? Not just some place where the word is used, but where it clearly and unequivocally refers to the creationist concept. Chapter and verse please.And just to be clear having spent long threads arguing with you because you won't read what I write, I must repeat that simply finding a place where the word is used will not do. There must be clear evidence that it is used to refer to the creationist concept of "kinds".

I know where creationists get the WORD "kind". My point is that the MEANING is not taken from the Bible. The creationist concept of "kind" is a creationist invention - and one with no basis in reality.

Well if you WANT to say that the "kind" in the Bible has the same meaning as creationists assign it perhaps you could start with explaining how it rules out gradual change as proposed by evolution.