• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

According to their kinds

tarasan

tarasan

Well-Known Member
I was wondering if i could spark off discussion with young earth creationist about the definition of kind.

I heard recently that people like Mr Kent Hovind use this term (presumably because of the story Noah)

I have also heard that no one has been able to give an adequate answer as to what a kind actually is and how it can be applied to science.

So my question to young earth creationists, what is a kind?
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
tarasan said:
I have also heard that no one has been able to give an adequate answer as to what a kind actually is and how it can be applied to science.
Click to expand...

You've heard correctly, in my experience. I can't even get a creationist to define 'species'... much less 'kind.'

I think that if we use words -- especially in close argumentation -- which we refuse to define, then we're probably confused.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Similarity.. like family, genus, or species. There probably was less variety at the creation, than there is now.
 
tarasan

tarasan

Well-Known Member
seems...... well..... plain guess work to be honest... at least from the wiki entry and i guess it could be baised
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
tarasan said:
I was wondering if i could spark off discussion with young earth creationist about the definition of kind.

I heard recently that people like Mr Kent Hovind use this term (presumably because of the story Noah)

I have also heard that no one has been able to give an adequate answer as to what a kind actually is and how it can be applied to science.

So my question to young earth creationists, what is a kind?
Click to expand...

You equate belief in Genesis with being a YEC. That simply is not true. Many believe the Gensis account but are not young earth creationists.
Since the Bible is not a science book, it should not surprise us to find the term "kind" is not defined in scientific terms. What Genesis says, is that plants yield fruit "according to their kinds" and that fish, birds, and land animals were made "according to it's kind". (Genesis 1) Thus there is no basis to allow one kind to evolve into another kind.
Each kind has the potential for great variety. The large number of dog species is an example. It appears that animals that can reproduce with another are of the same Genesis kind.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
Each kind has the potential for great variety. The large number of dog species is an example.
Click to expand...

Hi, rusa. I think I understand what you're saying here, but most people would claim that all dogs are of the same species.

It appears that animals that can reproduce with another are of the same Genesis kind.
Click to expand...

Horses and donkeys are of the same kind then -- in your vocabulary?

What about Chihuahuas and Great Danes? They can't reproduce, but most people would think of them as being the same 'kind'.

I think people are wondering if anyone can give a close definition of 'kind.' A definition which closes as many cracks as possible.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
rusra02 said:
You equate belief in Genesis with being a YEC. That simply is not true.
Click to expand...
No. I think you have it bass ackwards. If anything I believe he's equating an advocation of creationism with a belief in Genesis.

Since the Bible is not a science book, it should not surprise us to find the term "kind" is not defined in scientific terms.
Click to expand...
This one is pretty scientific:
"As long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures belong to the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. Using the hybridization criterion as an operational definition would allow researchers to list known kinds today; however it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur that given creatures are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize can be the result of degenerative mutations)."
Source: .creationfaq.net
​
What Genesis says, is that plants yield fruit "according to their kinds" and that fish, birds, and land animals were made "according to it's kind". (Genesis 1) Thus there is no basis to allow one kind to evolve into another kind.
Click to expand...
Seems so.

Each kind has the potential for great variety. The large number of dog species is an example. It appears that animals that can reproduce with another are of the same Genesis kind.
Click to expand...
Err. There is no "large number of dog species," there is only one: Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. There are many breeds of dog, but they all are of the same species,Canis lupus.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Skwim said:
No. I think you have it bass ackwards. If anything I believe he's equating an advocation of creationism with a belief in Genesis.


Err. There is no "large number of dog species," there is only one: Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. There are many breeds of dog, but they all are of the same species,Canis lupus.
Click to expand...

Persons who believe in creation are not, by definition, YEC. I believe God created the earth and life, but reject the notion he did this in 6 24-hour 'days'.

Regarding dogs, I stand corrected.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
rusra02 said:
Persons who believe in creation are not, by definition, YEC. I believe God created the earth and life, but reject the notion he did this in 6 24-hour 'days'.
Click to expand...
And I didn't say they were. Creationists, whether YEC or OEC believe in Genesis. The YEC taking it literally, and the OEC, while not taking it as literally, generally take the accounts of creation in Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative more literally than theistic evolutionists. OEC reject evolution by purely natural means.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Skwim said:
And I didn't say they were. Creationists, whether YEC or OEC believe in Genesis. The YEC taking it literally, and the OEC, while not taking it as literally, generally take the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolutionists. OEC reject evolution by purely natural means.
Click to expand...

Yes, many people who believe in creation understand that the "days" in Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods, but rather epochs of time during which God prepared the earth for habitation and then created the plants, birds, and animals according to their kinds.
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
Yes, many people who believe in creation understand that the "days" in Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods, but rather epochs of time during which God prepared the earth for habitation and then created the plants, birds, and animals according to their kinds.
Click to expand...

hmmm.....And what chapter and verse explains that to be the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top