Bible and "kind"

Correct observation.As for kind it is infact a word in the english bible. It is used in Genesis - Don't make me quote it.

Yes - now they can't interbreed, they have changed within their kind. Remember - their kind is still a "spider". It may well be a one way system. Isn't natural selection responsible though? You see, they will adapt to their environments, and make the changes. Yet they will still produce after their kind. A spider will never become anything other than a spider. If they can't interbreed it simply means they have branched off of the main group and so that species gene pool has changed = evolution, or rather = natural selection. Even creo's allow for change - within a kind.

But there is a certain logic to it is there not. For example - the barrier seems to be real. Spiders really do produce spiders, when discussing spiders - we are discussing "kinds". It's not to invent an "evolution limit" because we can see that spiders=spiders. If you can show otherwise then I won't argue it.

Okay, I'll bare that in mind from now on. But the fact you actually own tarantulas scares the hell out of me. But that's another topic.

I am not arguing that there is no evidence of relationships between species. There are many species of "spider". But is there evidence of morphological similarities between "kinds"? But there are differences. No the usual differences between animals though. For example - man made New York, chimps made ?
Humans speak, chimps ?
Humans debate on PCs - chimps ?
Humans write books sometimes with 150 laws in which to write it correctly - chimps ?
Humans worship God - chimps ?Also - there are some differences in morphology also - surely. Put a chimp next to a human and they look different. The hands look very similar - yes, I will admitt that. But there behinds don't - and their feet? Their mouths? Even if categorized them overall as quite similar - similarities can also be because of a designer.

Haha - maybe, maybe Ned....let me calibrate the wiz box. But is it within a "kind"? - A new species yes, - a new kind? How can you know that for sure? What matters is that biblically it says they came forth according to their kind. However that process came about.....is history. What is your point though?

Well, yes - obviously it is not a scientific text, Lol. My point here though, is that even if we don't somewhat define "kind" we all know what it is because we all use it. We all know what a spider is, and no-one is confused by this. I think the position is, that "kinds" have infact always been around since creation. I suppose the evolutionist view is that eventually - things got more simplistic, untill we go as far back as abiogenesis. And abiogenesis is a "must" because then there would have been creatures going back and back and.....But, the creationist view is that species have came about through natural selection from the first "kinds". So all of the "spiders" today would of - as you say, speciated from that original gene pool containing all of the necessary traits for what we see today.In another thread, it was said that evolution can happen in a hundred years. And I myself have opened a thread which says millions of years would be too long.If we look at the fossil record as a grave yard rather than a proof of evolution, well, you'll know the argument,,....Anyways, my main point was that "kinds" is in the bible and we all use "kinds" despite the debate.

Brad I can't be sure this is what you mean, but I'll make my own point from it anyway...certainly there is a difference of behaviour when comparing chimps/apes with humans. I tried hard to understand your post, since the evolutionists have ignored it, I will assume you win the debate.I do notice that the other side seem to try and find the most complicated and confusing species as to intentionally baffle us as to their "kind". That always amuses me, but JT made an important point which covers this. S/he said something similar to "all animals now have came from a kind previously and/or the kinds of the biblical era". Nevertheless, as with the case of the spider - can we see their evolutionary ancestors in nature? Many species have died - what if a species is hard to identify as a certain "kind"? Surely the extinction of ancestry would explain their bafflement qualities and leave "kinds" intact, if those bafflements are few and far beteen???. Afterall - creationist do not deny the existence of fossils, and evo'd have regularly used the excuse, "But some things don't preserve well". I don't see why I can't use that excuse now. Maybe a "few" kinds are un"kind"able because of extinction of previous ancestry. Or even because we do not know of all of the "kinds" God has.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-05-2004 09:35 AM

This is so vague as to the actual realities that it is amusing. Btw - you should fix that quote, it's not my quote.Nearly every animal could fit your criteria. "Use tools". But can chimps "make tools" - or even make machines, roads cities etc.

Can you provide a more full quote?A spirit OF man or OF beast could also mean a designated spirit. Forget the full quote, I will find the chapter shortly.You see, it says "Who knoweth", so I must investigate what that means specifically. I myself know that we have a spirit - so then, what can it mean?

One thing it does talk about, after your quote, is that a man such be glad of his works, yet who shall bring him back to see what became of them?? - So, this could mean his spirit goes upward and so he doesn't see. Yet, what then will the spirit of the beast going downward mean?d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)I guess the spirit of beast is on the ground meaning what it discusses before your quote - the sons of men being equal to beasts, for all return to the dust.Yet the spirit of man goes upward. So, our spirit, or a spirit OF(designated for)man goes upward. So - either way we go upward, which indicates the rest of the bible as in agreement with this. Yet the spirit of beast, whether a designated spirit or an individual spirit, --> Goes downward.There are many possibilities. If they both become dust, then they are equal as in --> both animals, yet the human spirit (afterward) - still goes upward, if we consider the quote somehow significant to us being or having a soul, which might be another topic. So, I can only deduce that the sons of men are the same as beasts, --> animals, yet when we add spirituality it seems to be a completely different matter.When the new heavens and earth are complete, Revelation says the lamb will lie with the lion. Is there a particular spirit attached to how they are? As in, if the spirit of beast goeth down upon them, they will become beastly, yet if that spirit is not going down, then they will not. I suppose God could impart this spirit upon the sons of men, who are alive to sin (their bodies) and this would agree with the NT, which says men without God will serve the flesh, this obviously renders them similar to beasts, in that they only serve their flesh like the beasts do. If the spirit of man then goes upward, that could mean they no longer serve the spirit that they have and have been imparted beastly spirit.Lol, there sure are a lot of possibilities, sorry about this rant.

It may be questionable - fair point. But the only thing that is for sure, in the bible, is that human's have body soul and spirit. "Spirit of the beast" --> as we have seen, holds many possibilities. Even in the Nt it says that we can have a "evil spirit". Does that mean an individual human's spirit is evil? No, as that spirit was cast out by Christ.

No you are not the only one Almeyda, I also see the logic to the reality. And so does God. Infact, God didn't let Abraham sacrifice Izaac. He did however - find it acceptable, that animals were sacrificed. Nor was the lamb of God an actual lamb.God grants us charge over the animals and even gives them as meat. Obviously - to God, there is a difference. There is no way that quote by Sidelined can refute the whole bible. The evo's would have to show these exact words: "And God made the animals a living soul" --> But the fact is, he only said it about humans.I agree God made man.

Actually, the title includes "bible". S/he is doing nothing wrong. You are simply upset by the post because it makes sense.

Ahahaha, I love this. It's the return of jigsaw phenomenon. Ned will know what that means and therefore dread my post. But all I want to say is; Isn't the claim that apes are the same "kind" as humans by our (creos) standards?I mean, the transitionals are significant, but is there a difference between the argument that we "came from" apes and that we "are apes". I'm probably wrong ofcourse.