Define "Kind"

lol no we can't. but feel free to try anyways.

---

probably the best argument. here, for instance, is leviticus listing a few kinds:

quote:

---

Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

​

Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind;

​

Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

​

Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

​

Lev 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

---

• vultures: family Accipitridae, family Cathartidae
• kites: subfamily Milvinae, subfamily Elaninae
• raven: several species of the genus Corvus
• owl: order Strigiformes
  • family Strigidae
  • family Tytonidae
• nighthawk: several genera of family Caprimulgidae
  • genus Nyctiprogne
  • genus Podager
  • genus Lurocalis
  • genus Chordeiles
• cuckoo: family Cuculidae
• hawk:
  • subfamily Accipitrinae, or
  • all other members of family Accipitridae not previously included
• locust: family Acrididae
• bald locust: ?
• beetle:
  • order Coleoptera, or
  • some have suggested this means crickets, family Gryllidae
• grasshopper: suborder Caelifera (including all locusts)
• weasel: genus Mustela
• mouse: genus Mus
• tortoise: family Testudinidae

to be entirely honest, there's a few we can fudge a little in one direction or another. for instance we can probably push the definition of "mice" reasonably up to the family Muridae and include rats and gerbils, and "weasel" up to family Mustelidae and include otters, badgers, and wolverines. we could probably also include all crows, magpies, and jays with ravens, and say it refers to family Corvidae. maybe.looking it over, i'd say the closest definition of "kind" would be family. though as looking these up has demonstrated, it's hardly a complete and consistent definition. and, of course, the authors of the bible were using terms in the vernacular, not linnean scientific nomenclature.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

well, the term probably had similar (if not identical) meaning throughout the language. we can't say for sure, but leviticus certain does give us a hint at what the word itself means, and how it was used by people of the approximate time and place. i would, and did. as far as i know, no creationist has even tried. i'm unaware of any other example of logic or reasoning to support a proposed definition of kind. well, "i don't know" isn't a very good answer. especially when "kind" is being proposed as a strict limit for evolutionary adaptation -- but the term itself has no strict definition. that's just poor form, and kind of a cop-out way to avoid falsification. if there is no definition for "kind" then using it as a limit is meaningless.Edited by arachnophilia, : bad tag. bad, bad bad, tag. no cookie for you.

---

i'm sorry jaderis, i've already answered that claim and i have no intention of repeating myself or even pointing to where i did so.(welcome to the board!)

---