randman

Actually, most scholars that I would pay attention to think the traditional idea that Moses is the author is perfectly pluasible, but noone can know for sure.
Obviously, the stories themselves happened before Moses' time.
One thing that has been debunked, fyi, is the old oral history argument that we were all taught. They had written lanquage, and used it quite freely, especially in something like this. Anything that occurred from Aberaham's time on was most likely written down, and not passed down only orally.
Also, it is completely possible that parts of Genesis had different authors and was put together by one man, or even a group, and yet not contradict anything basically. Obviously, whover compiled or wrote Genesis saw no contradiction in the text.

hezekiah jones

I think he has:

But earlier:

Yet you use "species" within your definition of "kind." So how "arbitrary" does that make your definition of "kind"?

randman

"Edited to say: just to be clear, I mean: how does it relate to normal taxonomy? Is it roughly species, genus, family, order, class... something in between, or something else?"

Maybe you should answer how normal taxonomy relates to "kind" since the idea of "kind" predated and actually played a big part in the development of taxonomy. If it is too difficult for you to do, that has little to do with the veracity of the idea of "kind". It is a pretty simple and well-defined concept.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry. I thought it a straightforward question. Does your sidestep of it mean you cannot answer it, or simply will not?

TTFN, Oolon

hyzer

"Kind is simply the original parent species created by God."

And these original kinds can be demonstrated how?

These original kind, would we find evidence for each one at the bottom of the fossil record?

randman

Words and lanquage are created to decribe real things. Semantic problems have no relevance on the underlying reality, which would exist regardless of whether the word "kind" or "species."
If you are having trouble udnerstanding a concept, I will be glad to help, but if you are merely playing bogus word games as it appears, I have nothing to say to you.
The idea that the Hebrews should have had different words for "bat" and "bird" is typical of the arrogance and aburdity which marks evolutionism in general.
We have one word "love" to describe many different psychological feelings does that mean anything written in English has no relevance in the study of psychology?
I mean who can argue that anyone that speaks a lanquage that equates love with parental care, desire for wealth, and sexual acts is worth listening to?

Oolon Colluphid

I'm not playing word-games. I just want to know what a kind is. So, let me rephrase: how do you identify a kind? If it is not by the reproductive isolation between species -- if a kind is a larger grouping of descendants from the original model -- how do you know which kind Malagasay mongooses, say, belong to?

And how do you know where lie the apparently impassable boundaries which kinds are claimed to possess?

Oolon

hezekiah jones

Nobody said the Hebrews should have. Now you are seizing on imaginary opportunities to vent your baseless insults.

Why can't you just answer the question and at least cite an example of a "kind" from among the fossils laid down by the flood? Or is "kind" even more "arbitrary" than "species," as you suggest?

randman

"These original kind, would we find evidence for each one at the bottom of the fossil record?"

No, the idea of Adam needing to replenish the earth suggests that many, maybe most or nearly all, of the creatures created in the th day era had perhaps gone extinct, and underwent a catalcyismic, or multiple cataclysmic events. So the earliest fossils should not necessarily be of creatures we see today.

The next layer of fossils should, if detailed enough, should give us some indication of some of the earliest descendants of the first "kinds" created in later periods.

Of course, the implications of your question are quite amusing since evolutionists state they have evidence of common descent, and speciation, but balk a the idea that "kinds" existed which the creatures we see today evolved from.

randman

The idea that the Bible should be ridiculed since the Hebrew lanquage uses the same word to categorize bats and birds is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard, and the fact some of you seem incapable of fathoming that is extremely telling. It kind of reminds me of how this guy couldn't realize if the 1st was on a Tuesday one month, that didn't mean it was on a Tuesday the next.

In fact, if I didn't know better I would think some of you were creationists in disguise trying to make evolutionists look just plain dumb.

Let me ask you something. How do you define the recent evolutionary lineage of today's creatures?

Don't tell me. It can't be done. You can't trace a group of animals to a single ancestor, to a "kind." But of course, we can trace everything, according to evolutionists to single ancestor for all creatures despite the massive hurdles it would take between major groups of creatures.