Kinds of animals can of course be interpreted or understood differently. Seeing the term as analogous to species makes the most sense as a way of distinguishing different animals as of course different species as a general rule can not interbred.
"
Seeing the term as analogous to species makes the most sense as a way of distinguishing different animals"......sure, if you want to confuse the issue.
There is a marked difference between a "kind" of creature and "species" within a kind. When Darwin was formulating his ideas on the evolution theory, what was he observing? He saw finches, but not like the ones on the mainland.
These are all varieties of one "species" of bird. These are all finches. There are many more. To suggest that all representative members of every bird family needed to be on the ark is ridiculous...and not what the Bible says at all. One pair of representative finches would in time produce many varieties due to natural adaptive changes according to the food source or environment in the locations where they ended up.
The iguanas on the Galapagos had also adapted to a marine environment, but were still clearly a "variety" of iguana....a "species" of the reptile family. Darwin saw evidence of adaptation, not the kind of evolution that science suggests, but cannot prove.
All creatures possess adaptive capabilities as a survival mechanism....even humans. How many different varieties of humans are there? Their location on earth usually determines skin, hair and eye color. Hot climates usually produce people with dark skin, dark hair and dark eyes as a protection from the sun....in cold climates the skin is usually fair, the hair can be dark or blond or even red. Eyes are often blue. There are fat ones and skinny ones, tall ones and short ones.....infinite variety, but all of the human "kind".
There is the horse kind, the feline kind and the canine kind...these can include every species of horse, cat or dog in one classification. A "kind" is not a "species" but encompasses the whole taxonomic family. That is not hard to understand surely?
The reason bible literalists reject species as not being the same as 'kind' is because its so easy to prove the impossibility of physically locating all species on Noah's Ark. The evidence against placing all known species aboard the Ark is so overwhelming as to be practically irrefutable....that is to all bexcept die hard literalists who are never going to believe anything other than their church teaches them.
No Adrian, it is merely stating a fact. It was not necessary for all species to be on the Ark. God brought them, so he chose them, not Noah. I think God knows what he's doing, but you seem to doubt him for some reason?
Spiritually speaking, what do you believe other than what your prophet tells you? Are you seriously going to go there?
o the next step is to fudge the issue by taking about "kinds of animals" as not being species but something else. However once bible literalists go down that road, their conflict with science just becomes even more insurmountable.
I find none of it insurmountable actually. Science is the only thing that makes it complex. What the Bible says simply makes perfect sense to me. There was plenty of room on the ark for all the basic "kinds" and obviously there was no problem with them breeding after they came out of the Ark, because we have all these amazing varieties of creatures now, all over the world. Maybe God put them where he wanted them to be.....as I said, Genesis concentrates on what became of the humans, not the animals. Who knows for sure? God does obviously. In faith I believe him. I don't necessarily believe science as if it must know better than the Creator. You can if you like....
That's the kind of "faith" you need to apply. You could have a never ending food supply for every 'kind' of animal.
Is that impossible for the Creator? Are you placing limitations on him again, as though he has some? It says clearly in the scriptures that God accomplishes all that he sets out to do. (Isaiah 55:11) Are you saying that he can't do that for some reason?
Baha'is don't need to twist science or it malign it as under the influence of Satan. We don't need to create pseudoscience to debunk established science.
Pseudo-science debunks itself.....it only takes a little bit of digging to see that none of what it believes about macro-evolution is actually provable. That makes it a belief, not a fact. Facts are provable. Suggestions and assumptions are not facts. There is no "established science" relating to macro-evolution. Its mostly guesswork based on adaptation, but taken way beyond anything provable by science.
We don't live in a world of magical proclaiming ourselves 'faithful' and attacking everyone else as 'faithless'. We have very different world views.
Giving my view of things is not attacking.....I am just speaking the truth as I understand it and responding to what you have said. When people misrepresent the God of the Bible, and twist his words to suit their own beliefs, then I will call them out on it. Are you not doing the same? We each give our reasons for why we believe as we do, and others are free to take away from that what they wish.
If the dissenters want to put their 2 cents worth in then that is up to them. I have no wish to read their distorted ramblings....why would I?
This is a religious debate forum.....its about debating the subject of religion, is it not? When you feel as if you have to attack someone yourself, perhaps its time to take that break?
......
