Creationists - what 'kind" are the following?

[USIncognito]

Ok say you have animals A ,B and C. Animals A ,and B are capable of reproducing(again the offspring doesn't have to be fertile to count) ,and are therefore a part of the same "kind". Animals B ,and C are not capable of reproducing ,but A and C are. This would make all 3 a part of the original created kinds ,but if C couldn't mate with either A or B ,then you can safely conclude that C is not a part of that "kind".

So a ring species would constitute a "kind"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Cerebrum123]

From what I read ,the ring species would be a "kind" ,but it's still possible that there may be more animals in that "kind" than in the ring ,but it's a lot closer to "kind" than simply just a species.

[USIncognito]

Bump. In light of the classifcation and dichotomous keys thread.

If "kinds" is a scientifically valid concept, then my list in the OP should be no problem for Creationisists explaining what kinds the beings listed belong to and, more importantly, why each of the triads are not related to each other via common ancestry.

[magellan004]

Bump. In light of the classifcation and dichotomous keys thread.

If "kinds" is a scientifically valid concept, then my list in the OP should be no problem for Creationisists explaining what kinds the beings listed belong to and, more importantly, why each of the triads are not related to each other via common ancestry.

The Chinese Mafia didn't appear in your OP.

Magellan

[Jorge]

Shiitake mushroom.
White truffle.
Bakers yeast.
Lilac.
Apple tree.
Saguaro cactus.
Scarab beetle.
Tarantula.
Blue crab.
Little neck clam.
Humbolt squid.
Banana slug.
Dimetrodon.
Thylacine.
Confuciusornis.

Most of these are common and well known beings. To what "kind" do each of them belong?

*****************************************************

What applies here is, "do not answer a fool lest you be thought as one".

Nonetheless, let me be gracious here and give you something :
At the present, it MAY be possible to identify a 'kind'.
But most of the time it may not possible.
The problem is two-fold :
(1) We do not know what the original 'kinds' were.
(2) God has His own definition of 'kind' that we may not ever know completely.

"Reproduce after their kind" suggests that the ability to reproduce
is an attribute of a 'kind'.

I'll not say any more on this subject than that.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

We know for sure what "kind" Jorge is:

82413-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Cartoon-Chicken-Running-And-Losing-Feathers.jpg



- T

[rogue06]

At the present, it MAY be possible to identify a 'kind'.
But most of the time it may not possible.
The problem is two-fold :
(1) We do not know what the original 'kinds' were.
(2) God has His own definition of 'kind' that we may not ever know completely.

By this description evolution is far from being out of the picture.

[phank]

By this description evolution is far from being out of the picture.

Which raises an interesting point. Jorge struggles to make science fit the bible, however much insult must be done to science to do so. Rogue06 struggles just as mightily to make the bible fit science, however much creative interpretation must be done to do so. Do a simple bible-ectomy here, and suddenly all these problems go away.

[Tiggy]

Which raises an interesting point. Jorge struggles to make science fit the bible, however much insult must be done to science to do so. Rogue06 struggles just as mightily to make the bible fit science, however much creative interpretation must be done to do so. Do a simple bible-ectomy here, and suddenly all these problems go away.

Wow phank, what a great idea.

Here's an even better one - stick your head in a guillotine and pull the trip rope. Then suddenly all the off topic verbal cheap shots against the honest, pro-science Christians here you continually make will go away too.

- T

[phank]

So you can't see the irony here. Typical.

I have no problem with their posture toward science, nor with their knowledge, nor with their ability to commmunicate it, nor with their patience. Not that you would notice that. In fact, I have no PROBLEM with re-interpreting the bible to fit reality as required to fit the advance of knowledge. As you asked in a similar situation earlier, what's the point?

[rogue06]

Which raises an interesting point. Jorge struggles to make science fit the bible, however much insult must be done to science to do so. Rogue06 struggles just as mightily to make the bible fit science, however much creative interpretation must be done to do so. Do a simple bible-ectomy here, and suddenly all these problems go away.

Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Plato (world is eternal, species are fixed and nothing new could arise) – brought into Christianity primarily by St. Augustine. Even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) has realized that it is not a Biblical concept. Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction “according to their kind” is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds aren’t fixed.

Still, Genesis 1 does imply that a creature always produces more offspring of the same kind. But that is consistent with evolutionary theory which states that the child is always the same species as the parent. It's only after a many generations that a substantial change has taken place. Hence the idea that creatures reproduce “according to their kind” is in complete accord with what the Bible states. No "creative interpretation" needed. No "bible-ectomy" necessary.

[phank]

Still, Genesis 1 does imply that a creature always produces more offspring of the same kind. But that is consistent with evolutionary theory which states that the child is always the same species as the parent. It's only after a many generations that a substantial change has taken place. Hence the idea that creatures reproduce “according to their kind” is in complete accord with what the Bible states. No "creative interpretation" needed. No "bible-ectomy" necessary.

Do you think Jorge would agree with you on this?

I fully agree with you almost every time you wade into biblical interpretation. Yes, of course the ancient peasants aren't going to notice speciation events that would (to be visible and meaningful to them) take longer than humans have existed as a species! They see sheep giving birth to sheep, etc. They reported what they saw. If your God didn't see fit to inform them correctly (and why would He? He LIKED ignorant peasants, He made so many and did so little to improve their knowledge), well, that's OK.

So what confuses me is, why try to relate your bible to science in the first place? Why bother? If they can be made to agree, you didn't need the bible because it added nothing of value. If they can NOT be made to agree, then you have an unreliable sources not worth trying to rescue. In either case, it's moot. And yes, I understand we can regard the OT god (or at least the Genesis god) as imparting theological knowledge, and that god could have used ANY cosmology or biology or whatever, however preposterous, as His vehicle for doing so.

(And I would suppose the authors of Genesis had already learned that if you breed the runts, you get runts.)

[USIncognito]

Which raises an interesting point. Jorge struggles to make science fit the bible, however much insult must be done to science to do so. Rogue06 struggles just as mightily to make the bible fit science, however much creative interpretation must be done to do so. Do a simple bible-ectomy here, and suddenly all these problems go away.

If you want to crap on Christians for being stupid, irrational, whatever because they are religious, go to Tektonics, Apologetics or another thread. I'd like to keep this discussion about the scientific validity or lack thereof of "kinds" and I greatly appreciate the participation of my fellow advocates for evolution and standard science - especially the Christian ones.

[pancreasman]

I agree. These repeated and superficial attacks on a strawman version of a sophisticated metaphysical world view (albeit one I do not share) are exactly the same kind of dismissive and provocative pot stirring that Jorge or Mags engages in.

[Cerebrum123]

Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Plato (world is eternal, species are fixed and nothing new could arise) – brought into Christianity primarily by St. Augustine. Even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) has realized that it is not a Biblical concept. Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction “according to their kind” is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds aren’t fixed.

Still, Genesis 1 does imply that a creature always produces more offspring of the same kind. But that is consistent with evolutionary theory which states that the child is always the same species as the parent. It's only after a many generations that a substantial change has taken place. Hence the idea that creatures reproduce “according to their kind” is in complete accord with what the Bible states. No "creative interpretation" needed. No "bible-ectomy" necessary.

You would still need to explain how birds come before land animals, how mankind was made separately from the animals(and even certain animals were made separately from each other). You would need to explain why the Sun doesn't exist until after the Earth, and how the Earth was made from water rather than from some kind of magma. You would need to explain how Eve was a product of evolution, yet made from Adam's rib. You would need to explain how the days in Genesis could have been so extraordinarily long, since Adam was made on day six, and we know that he didn't live for more than 930 years. Basically, even if I granted your trying to equate "kinds" as being compatible with evolution, then you still have a LONG WAY to go, before you can make the naturalistic account of universal history match up with the Biblical account of history.