|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question about "kinds" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flatland Junior Member (Idle past 4466 days) Posts: 10 Joined: |
Since creationists love to claim that animals were created after their kind I have a very simple question. How do you determine which animals are part of which kind? For example, how do know that horses, zebras and donkeys are part of the same kind? Are cats and dogs the same kind? What about whales and cows? And how do you know that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Question about "kinds" thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
soley on the genesis account, the 'kinds' were capable of reproducing together.
So, based purely on that, 'kinds' are those that can reproduce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
But we already went over that, Peg. That can't be the definition of kind, for then there would not be enough room on the Ark. Further, this means that when gettin to ring species, we run into a problem. soley on the genesis account, the 'kinds' were capable of reproducing together. So, based purely on that, 'kinds' are those that can reproduce. If there are ring species A, B, and C, then A would be able to reproduce with B, making them the same kind, B, would be able to reproduce with A and C making them the same kind, Yet A would not be able to reproduce with C making them a different kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Oh dear. Another "kind" thread. Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) went 425 posts long, still without a working definition. Maybe now after the long hiatus, our local creo's have done some better detective work to provide us with one.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The problem is that there is NO scientific test to tell if animals DO belong to different "kinds". None.
The reason for that is simple. Kinds are unrelated by definition. The point of proposing "kinds" is to deny many relationships of common descent - so the proponents of "kinds" have to reject any evidence supporting those relationships, even though it is clearly relevant. But this leaves them with no test at all. The whole idea is religious, not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: But we already went over that, Peg. That can't be the definition of kind, for then there would not be enough room on the Ark. Further, this means that when gettin to ring species, we run into a problem. i dont really feel like getting into this one again...i just wanted to provide the simple answer to what genesis says a kind is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Well, then Genesis is wrong. It can't be the definition of kind, as has been shown via the ring species, it leads to a paradox. i dont really feel like getting into this one again...i just wanted to provide the simple answer to what genesis says a kind is. So, as of yet, no useful definition of kind has been produced for the OP. Hey, OP, I'll let you in on a secret, as you can see from the answers you've gotten so far, there isn't a way to tell which species belongs to which kind, creationists just make shit up as they go along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peg,
...i just wanted to provide the simple answer to what genesis says a kind is. Does genesis say what a kind is? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
soley on the genesis account, the 'kinds' were capable of reproducing together. I missed that part, where was it again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: Does genesis say what a kind is? no it doest say....it only says according to its kind (genus). Hebrew word is leminoh', the greek word is genos and the Latin is genus. Its believed to mean a family kind that can reproduce because in Gen 1:21 it says
And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22With that God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and become many..." being fruitful means to reproduce offspring. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Is it genus or family?
Those terms have good definitions in science, and are not interchangeable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: Is it genus or family? Those terms have good definitions in science, and are not interchangeable. the ancient language says they are both, but you should keep in mind that languages change over time and the scientific definition of today is not the same as what the hebrews had in mind. The simple definition of genus back then was that if two animals could breed, they were the same kind/family/genus. If they cannot breed, then they are not the same kind/family/genus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15Every raven after his kind; 16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, Leviticus 11 adds the above. I really don't think that there are multiple genera of kites and ravens, at least. That suggests that kind = species. Oh, and hello, new person!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3916 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
These threads are fun to watch ...
Let me just plant the flag of reason again, while I'm thinking of it, and point out that the thing in science that best corresponds to the Biblical concept of "kinds" is the clade. Clade - Wikipedia Regardless of what changes they go through over time, all creatures reproduce after their clade. All birds are dinosaurs, no rodents are birds; sugar gliders are not bats, but whales are fish (as are we.) Have fun!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024