• 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'

Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
At the time that the bible was written, "kind" referred to physical attributes. A whale swam in the ocean, fish swam in the ocean, therefore a whale was a big fish.
They didn't have all the advanced DNA testing at the time to say a whale wasn't a fish.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I'm guessing, rakhel, that you are not a Young Earth Creationist? Those are the people who are trying to use the word "kind" in a (psuedo) scientific way.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
That really doesn't help, Bible. YECs claim that evolution happens, but only within a "kind." That is, there is some sort of category that limits evolution. What is that category, and how can you tell?
 
Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
I'm guessing, rakhel, that you are not a Young Earth Creationist? Those are the people who are trying to use the word "kind" in a (psuedo) scientific way.
Click to expand...

YOu would be OH so wrong. I am using the word "kind" in the way it was used before they figured out how concrete was made.
 
RedOne77

RedOne77

Active Member
DeitySlayer said:
Addressed to Creationists:

Can I please have a definition of the Biblical 'kind'. Where are the genetic limits drawn, so to speak?
Click to expand...

You know how evolution posits a tree of life? Instead of just one tree, there is an orchard in which each tree is a "kind" and each branch a separate species of that kind. You can change the fine detail of what constitutes a kind as long as it adheres to two principles. One, and foremost, humans must be their own separate kind. And two, there must be enough trees in the orchard to account for biodiversity while not making the Noah's Ark story completely insaner.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
RedOne77 said:
You can change the fine detail of what constitutes a kind as long as it adheres to two principles. One, and foremost, humans must be their own separate kind. And two, there must be enough trees in the orchard to account for biodiversity while not making the Noah's Ark story completely insaner.
Click to expand...
I think the ship's sailed on your second principle regardless of how many "kinds" you propose.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
DeitySlayer said:
Yeah, I know YECs say 'variation within a kind'. But how do you tell which organisms are in which kind?
Click to expand...
They kind of look alike, and for creationists that's good enough.
pill_bug.jpg

​
--How about this one?
--Yeah, that looks like a bug. Put it in the bug tree.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I suspect "Biblical kind" is the same kind of kind as regular "kind". It's just that people on both sides of the argument make things more complicated than they have to be.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
Couldn't find any such definition. :shrug: Perhaps you could share your discovery.
Click to expand...
Didn't look very hard then.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen1:11-12 KJV

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen 1:21 KJV

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen 1:23-25 KJV

In case you can't follow that there are, grasses, herbs, fruit trees, great whales, every moving thing, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things, and beasts.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Didn't look very hard then.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen1:11-12 KJV

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen 1:21 KJV

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen 1:23-25 KJV

In case you can't follow that there are, grasses, herbs, fruit trees, great whales, every moving thing, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things, and beasts.
Click to expand...
Examples are not definitions. Would you know what "gerbask" means if I said

"They went after his gerbask"?

OR "And I made the pictures of the museum after their gerbask"?

OR "He brought the oysters after their gerbask"?

"Kind" as used in the Bible in reference of god's living creations is NEVER defined. And that it's not is amply demonstrated by creationists who stumble over themselves in an attempt to do just that: define the word. Why else bother trying to define "kind" if it didn't need defining?
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
So there's only one kind, which includes those 9 things? Because they covered pretty much every macroscopic organism in that one kind. Maybe there's only one kind, and that kind has a single common ancestor and always evolves within this kind that covers every organism in the world. Also known as the theory of evolution.
 
Noaidi

Noaidi

slow walker
sandy whitelinger said:
In case you can't follow that there are, grasses, herbs, fruit trees, great whales, every moving thing, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things, and beasts.
Click to expand...

"Every moving thing"?
"Creeping things"?
"Beasts"?

Can't we narrow it down a bit?

(I'm assuming you are being sarcastic in listing these categories for the purposes of a discussion on 'kinds')
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top