ex-robot

I have seen them "attempt" to define it quite a bit. Let me know if you want me to look them up. As far as denying evolution despite it being observed to occur, that is a strawman that shouldn't be used. Any honest person knows that they are not referring to "evolution" occuring now. Evolutionists have many meanings for evolution, so we shouldn't fault creationists with using the definition of their choice.

xr

ex-robot

Maybe it was meant for flying animals. I don't know. That is why I asked if anybody knew hebrew. It was a serious question because they could enlighten us to the literal meaning to hebrews. Did they have the words "birds", "rodents", etc. back then? I'll do some searching to see what the bible apologetic crowd have to say and get back to you.

xr

ex-robot

I just posted an intro.

That is a good question. Hmmmm... I guess you take several things into consideration like their vocabulary back then, the hebrew word that has been tranlated, and other related things. You have people who know what the hebrew word is, but you also have two different hebrew "experts" saying things mean different things, different ways, etc. Maybe your individual logic makes the final call....?....

bluefugue

Devnet can read this stuff in the original Hebrew. Anyone who wants to get a real insider's take on that passage should ask him.

pug846

Scigirl, given that the bible has actually given us an example of what is a "kind," I suggest you use that in your debate w/Douglas. Whatever definition he gives, it better allow for bats to be of the "kind" bird. If he tried to argue that members of the same kind can breed, then you might want to bring this example up. Anyone see possible counter-arguments to this?

Dr Rick

You do that, and while you're at it, please be so kind as to ask them to explain these little gems of wisdom from the same chapter (Leviticus 11):

20: All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

There is no such animal, insect or otherwise.

21-22: There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

These insects walk/hop on six legs.

23: But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Once again, there is no such creature.

Undercurrent

But they were. The whole notion of "kind" as being a distinct category from species is a reaction to the observation of speciation events in real time. Before that, "kind" was just a word used in Genesis, and the creation evengelists boldly asserted that species never evolve into other species. They were wrong.

That's a specious comparison. When a scientist writes a paper and says that "species X evolved into species Y" or "species X and species Y share a recent common ancestor" he is making a statement and there is little question as to which meaning of the word "evolution" he is using. E.g. in the first statement, he isn't talking about stellar evolution. He is making a definite statement which may later be proven wrong.

The word "kind" on the other hand is a way of not making a statement. When a creation evangelist says "one kind can't evolve into another kind" he is trying to avoid making a statement. The word "kind" has expanded over the years from meaning something barely larger than species to having entire kingdoms of organisms grouped as a single kind by creationist trying to retroactively modify previous statements so they're still true by changing the definitions of the words in the sentences.

Kaina

The creationists are stuck between a "kind" that means seperate species, such that there has been no macroscopic evolutionary change between species, and a "kind" that means everything you could possibly stuff onto the ark, when it means something closer to family or phylum. The creationist has to be able to change between these two definitions as the need arises.

ex-robot

I'll stick with the previous subject at hand. I found this:

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/batbird.html" target="_blank">bats and birds</a>

If you believe what this guy is saying, then my skepticism was on the right trail.

xr

ex-robot

But you have to see it from their side. They are obviously not talking about a species of salmon separating into two groups and no longer able to interbreed anymore and the like. So if you use the current definition of species or I should say "new" species, they are not going to be impressed. Don't get me wrong. I see your point, but I also see that current and/or recent speciation that has been observed is definitely not what "they" are talking about when it comes to "kinds".
I totally agree. There is definitely no question about that meaning. Of course, I am referring to evolutionists claiming observed evolution/speciation.

In of itself, I agree. If however, they are stating this in the face of a report of two groups of squirrels no longer able to interbreed as before, I don't see how this can seem so illogical if you have any grasp of what they mean by kind.
If they modify the definition in some cases because of honestly looking at scientific data, I have no problem with that.