-
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!
Biblical 'Kinds'
- Thread starter DeitySlayer
- Start date
Still, in actual reality there are no such fixed kinds. Instead we have species that keep giving origin to new species, sometimes disappointing the expectations of those who want to claim that biblical kinds are a fact of life (e.g. by having amphibians originate avians and reptiles, which by their turn begat mammalians).
If God created Kinds, one can only assume that he found them too limiting after a while.
If God created Kinds, one can only assume that he found them too limiting after a while.
Such as this bit in the Flood narrative (Genesis 7)?
In light of Creationist talk of "kinds" as a biological unit that represents the limits of allowable variation/speciation, here's how I interpret this:
- there are "kinds" of "clean" animals.
- there are "kinds" of "unclean" animals.
... "clean" and "unclean" presumably referring to the dietary restrictions outlined in Leviticus... IOW, "kosher" or "non-kosher".
Now... I interpret this to mean that the descendents of kosher animals will never become non-kosher, and vice versa.
So... any disagreements so far? Does everyone consider this all properly Biblical?
I think you're missing my point.
Whatever the definition of a "kind" is, has the definition changed since Noah? Did Pentecost somehow change all of past history so that now we have common descent?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Skwim
Veteran Member
And how far could a kind go in reproducing? Was there a pair of "rodent kind" that rode the ark, and later gave birth to all 600± species of mice? And are any direct descendants of this curious parental pair of animals still around---those that did not mutate into one of the 600 species---or did these two prolific rodent kind individuals just vanish from the planet after the female gave birth to the 1,200 (600 of each sex) individuals? How about all the other parental pairs of kinds that gave birth to all their subsequent species? Did the two "cat kind" parents also disappear after generating two cheetahs, two lions, two leopards, two cougars, two bobcats, etc? Did the two "dog kind" parents also disappear after generating two fennec foxes, two raccoon dogs, two coyotes, two gray wolves, etc?
And isn't it odd that these very strange animals, the two of each kind who each gave birth to such an odd assortment of species, are not mentioned in any writings anywhere and from any time? Were they singular pairs of oddly constructed birthing machines that god constructed just as to insure that today we would have 1.8 million different species? Gotta wonder how quickly a female rodent kind could pump out 1,200 different mice.
Of course one could play the god card here, but why start now? Unless of course . . . . things are getting too complicated.
Okay... so are we in agreement that when we consider any given kosher animal and any given non-kosher animal, we can be sure that they're of different kinds?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Possibly yes, as creatures were given names of each according their 'kind'(s).
I'm going by Genesis 7 here. I'm also thinking of how the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" livestock is laid out in Leviticus 11:
So... here's what I get from all this:
- the cow is explicitly declared to be "clean".
- only animals (land animals, anyhow - I know that there are other rules for fish and birds, but I'm just sticking to mammals for this) that have both a split hoof and chew the cud are "clean". Any animal that does not have both of these characteristics is "unclean".
If we add on top of this the idea that "kinds" are either clean or unclean (i.e. that no "kind" includes both clean and unclean animals), as well as the idea that evolution can never take place between kinds, then this implies that if we trace the ancestry of a "clean" animal, such as a cow, then its entire family tree will consist of animals that both have a split hoof and chew the cud.
Animals with a split hoof are all within the order Artiodactlya... or the order of even-toed ungulates. This order includes all kosher mammals (though not all even-toed ungulates are kosher - for instance, Leviticus says that camel is not kosher).
The requirement for cud-chewing would further narrow the field to the sub-order Ruminatia... or cud-chewers.
So... all this suggests that the idea of "kinds" as it is expressed by many modern Creationists is actually specific enough to be falsifiable: if there is any animal in the family tree of modern cattle that either does not have a split hoof or does not chew its cud, then the hypothesis that the Biblical "kind" presents some immutable barrier that speciation cannot cross would be disproven.
Do you agree so far?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
It's in Genesis chapter 1. The Bible doesn't address genetics concerning the issue in terms of classification systems.
Skwim
Veteran Member
But creationists do. They say it is impossible for one species (a ranked organism in taxonomy---a classification system) to evolve (which involves genetic change) into another species. So while the Bible doesn't define "kind," those who subscribe to the idea--whatever it is--are relying on their belief that the Bible is speaking about a concept that does not conform to the definition of species. Therefore, it is pertinent to pin down what the Bible means when using "kind."
So if, as creationist claim, a single kind gave rise to all sorts of species I think it's relevant to ask what kind of genetic limits are involved in this rather odd birthing process. A single cat kind for instance giving birth to panthers, lions, bobcats, tigers, tabby cats, etc. none of which can hardly, if ever, successfully interbreed.
Last edited:
But however "kind" is defined, it doesn't necessarily have to line up with Linnean taxonomy. By itself, it suggests a "Creationist orchard" instead of a "tree of life". This is enough to start making some testable predictions even if we don't have a specific definition for "kind".
And we can make even more predictions once we take into account the things that Genesis says about kinds, and how certain animals are different "kinds". Show an ancestral link between any of them, and you disprove the hypothesis... even without a specific, rigorous definition for the term.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I would be dumbfounded if it did.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No.
Did you notice that your definition includes the term you're defining? Could you try again, this time define the word "kind" without using the word "kind" in the definition? Thanks.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And what is a "kind?"
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
A specifically named and classified creature in the Animal kingdom . .?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What the heck does that mean? A single creature? For example, a polar bear? Or bears in general? Or what?
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Kind: a group united by common traits or interests
Think koala bear compared to polar bear. Even though both look like bears, the koala is not.
Or where whales and fish swim in the ocean, one is a mammal the other is not.
This is biblical kind. If they looked alike and walked alike they were the same kind.
Think koala bear compared to polar bear. Even though both look like bears, the koala is not.
Or where whales and fish swim in the ocean, one is a mammal the other is not.
This is biblical kind. If they looked alike and walked alike they were the same kind.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
A group united by common interests? Like bibliophiles or NASCAR fans? Are you saying that whales and fish are the same kind, or different? Koalas and bears? YOu definition is just incredibly vague, as well as confusing.