What is a 'kind'?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Brett, Jul 6, 2003.

  1. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would someone please define a 'kind' so far as it pertains to both the animals that were taken on the ark and the limits of which adaptation cannot change an animal.

    Because, scientists have observed small instances of evolution in which successive generations of organisms have evolved to the extent that they cannot interbreed with the first generation. So if a 'kind' is not a species, what is it?? :confused:
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to John Woodmorappe, author of the ICR-endorsed "Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study", "kind" takes in various species, genera, and families.

    That would mean, for example, that all cats would be one kind, all canids another, and all primates another. Well... er, it doesn't apply to primates.

    It just doesn't. Don't ask why.
     
  3. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why? [​IMG]
     
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    LOL, Gina.. cause that monkey might be your own mother in law! LOL :rolleyes:
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah. The "Barminologists" come right up to humans, and suddenly change the rules.

    We come from the dust of the earth. We have no reason to be ashamed of evolving from other organisms, if we remember that God gave us an immortal soul that is not from the dust.

    As C.S. Lewis said of us (through Screwtape the devil), humans can be "creatures of blood and slime, speaking openly with beings before which (devils) can only cringe."
     
  6. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I don't really see either why evolution is so insulting to some people. After all, according the the Bible, we came from dirt, which seems worse. [​IMG]

    As Galatians said, the fact that we have an immortal soul is what separates us from the animals. I'd rather come from an ape-like ancestor than dirt. [​IMG] After all, we can assume that God guided the evolutionary process, so it's not as if evolution lacks the Creator's hand.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    128
    Science, when you come right down to it, is just a way of classifying the facts that we collect. The life classification system that most of us are familiar with was devised by Carl Linnaeus in the mid 1700’s. Linnaeus’s system has held up quite well and is just beginning to show its age with the establishment of genetic coding. The system that will follow the Linnaean system will be solidly rooted in evolutionary theory.

    The word “kind” is translated from the Hebrew word “min”. Moses was no biologist. Attempts to define the word scientifically have been fruitless. The system the Hebrews used was based on utility (use or motion) and general visual appearances. ‘Kind’ is a very broad term, including much more than our current usage of species. Our groupings of family and order also do not do it full justice either.

    The Hebrews were very concerned about purity of lines, hybridizing was considered an impurity (see Leviticus 19:19). This may be related to their understanding of the word, ‘kind’. Strong’s Concordance defines the word nicely:
    This definition allows the fixity of a “kind”, while allowing the vast diversity of flora and fauna found within our current ecosystem.

    In my mind, Moses’ use of the word “kind” would negate the Theistic Evolutionists theory of direct decent from a single ancestor. Progressive Creationists (another OEC stance) retain the meaning of ‘kind’ while not limiting variation within the grouping.

    One of the difficulties that Young earth creationists encounter is the diversity of animals found on earth. There have been numerous books explaining how Noah was able to collect and maintain animals on the Ark. If this is your stance then evolutionary forces had to have been very strong and effective following the flood to have repopulated and diversified to the extent that we find today.

    Rob
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Kind" refers to the originally created populations of plants and animals. Today there are efforts to find how broad these original categories are, but they do not have to correlate to the manmade taxonomic categorizations. Hybridization is one way of checking roughly where some of the baramin boundaries are. Thus the canine, feline, equine, and bovine distinctions seem to be indications of kind boundaries.

    The animals that were taken on the Ark were only those kind representatives which were land-dwellers, or flew, and also had 'nephesh', or the breath of life. "Nephesh" is also translated 'soul' and thus indicates those animals with unique personalities -- and this indicates that these were the animals with complex central nervous systems, as this is the avenue through which personality is expressed. So there is a definite limit to the numbers and types of animals which were to go on the Ark.

    About the idea of kind equating with species -- they used to be thought of as the same about 200 years ago. Some ideas sure hang on! But speciation is not at all the same thing as kind. An easy way to demonstrate this is by the way we use the term even now: a species of fly, or a species of monkey, or a species of giraffe, etc. There is, even in the use of the word, the understanding that species is simply a subdivision of a well-known larger group which is a group unto itself. There is never any indication of a species showing up which is so far away from any original group that it can no longer be identified with that group. This interpretation is given to some of the fossils, but we have never dealt with anything like it in our own experience. "Species" are always "species of" something -- and that something would be far closer to the Biblical kind than the concept of 'species' would be.

    I hope that helps there.

    As far as Galatian's caustic comments about men and primates, although he delights in blaming man, it is the Bible, in Genesis 1:27 which refers to man with the verb 'bara', which means 'created from nothing', and is ONLY used, in the Bible, with God as the subject. Biblically, God created man directly. Man is directly from the hand of God, not from the genes of animals. That's the meaning of the verb; that's the meaning of the passage. It has nothing to do with trying to artificially separate man from primates and nothing to do with liking or not liking how God did it. He did it Himself, directly -- this has to do with what the Bible says quite clearly.

    So it's not a matter of evolution being insulting; it's simply a matter of evolution being wrong.

    As God said to Adam:
    By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are and to dust you will return.


    Man returns directly to dust. Man does not go backwards through the animal kingdom to get there. Man was also made directly from the dust of the ground and did not have to go through the animal kingdom first to arrive at human-hood.

    God knows what He is talking about; and He knows how to communicate clearly.

    Did God "guide" the evolutionary process? Not according to Him! You see, if death came before Adam's sin, then the statement of Paul that death entered the WORLD (not just human beings) because of sin is invalid.

    Genesis in its historic and clearly understood meaning is truly the foundation of the Bible. It also presents the truth.

    It has nothing to do with liking or not liking it, or any so-called artificial distinctions among living things -- it simply says was is.

    Not what man would like to pretend it to be to fit his own 'scientific discoveries.'
     
  9. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that can't be, since God says that man was made from the earth, not "created from nothing".

    The word is used to show that what God does in creation is unique, and not related to the way creatures like man do it. This is another illustration why calling God a "designer" is an insult to Him.

    But no, being created from dust is definitely not "created from nothing". Nor does "bara" mean that.
     
  10. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    'bara' does indeed mean that, Galatian, when it is used in juxtaposition to any other verb meaning 'make or form.' It is also a verb applied exclusively to God.

    Man's body was made out of the dust of the ground, and to dust it will return. It was made of the same elements as animal bodies -- and plants and stars and rocks -- but it was not the result of evolution through them. Man's soul, nephesh, was also not a new thing in terms of creation. It was new when the animals were created with it, but not unique to man.

    Man is created -- bara-- in the image of God. Man has a spirit. Man is the only part of physical creation with a spirit. Adam's body was formed from the elements, or dust, as were the animal bodies. Directly by God, no evolution involved. Man's nephesh was formed for man. But man's spirit was new -- a new thing from nothing.

    You need to read what the Bible actually says, not what you want it to say. "From dust you are and to dust you will return."

    And it is only you who seems to think that crediting God with the intelligent design of the universe and earth and life on earth is somehow an insult to Him. Is that the result of you not thinking it is all part of a grand and incredible design or because you don't think God was capable of doing it?
     
  11. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since God, by His own testimony, did not create man from nothing (He says He used the dust of the earth), we cannot consistently use "bara" for that, and at the same time insist it means "creation ex nihilo."

    And yes, the fact that "bara" is used exclusively for creation by God tells us that we should not attribute the limitations of "designer" to Him. He is the Creator.

    We are designers.

    And there's an infinite difference.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    So the universe is created and not designed?
     
  13. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

     
  14. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, created, not designed. Design is the mark of a limited creature.

    The gnostics said that Jahweh was a demiurge who imagined himself to be a god, because he designed the world and the beings in it.

    "Design" denies omnipotence.

    It is an insult to God.
     
  15. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for being ignorant here, but I'm confused at the distinction you make between 'design' and 'creation'.
     
  16. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea of design by God first came up with the gnostics, who asserted that God only created the material world, and did not know about the higher spiritual realsms. He was limited, and therefore, had to plan, figure things out, and so on, which is what "designing" does.

    The Deists thought of God as a very wise and powerful being, who planned out creation as a creature might. Here's Blake's idea of the God of the Deists.

    http://internet.cybermesa.com/~nmd/om-tat-sat/blake-william-ancient-of-day-lg.jpg

    But the Bible makes clear that creation is something more than "design". It uses "bara", which applies only to God's activity in creation, not the sort of thing humans do. So far as I know, "bara" is never used for design.

    God is the creator. His act of creation is unique, and not related to something as human as "design". It is an insult to Him to say so.
     
  17. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know what definition Galatian is using for 'design', but when something is spoken of as designed, it means that it is not the product of undirected random or chaotic forces. In limiting the concept of 'design' to man, Galatian is making an artificial distinction based on the idea that man is limited to step by step design. But the fact is that something can show design -- or purposeful, non-random, useful construction without us knowing who the designer was or how long it took or what the process (or lack of it) was.

    In looking at life, at the earth, at the universe itself, we are not looking at random undirected chaotic results. We are looking at finely-tuned mechanisms large and small, from galaxies to atoms. We see laws at work, and purpose -- especially in biological structures. Thus, as a way of saying this is not the product of undirected random chaos, we speak of it as designed.

    By whom?

    God is the answer for the Christian. We can refer to Him as the Great Designer without needing to attribute to Him human limitations. I think Galatian does not understand this.
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have three dictionaries in my library, and they all pretty much agree.

    Actually, it requires both a conscious mind, and planning or figuring things out. Your definition would include things like hurricanes and sorting of pebbles on a beach, which clearly are not "designed".

    True. But irrelevant to the fact that "bara" means the sort of creative act only God does, and to the fact that God has no need of figuring out things.

    True, again, but there are processes which are not random, which do not exhibit design.

    But such things can arise with no intelligent design at all.

    http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordial.jsp

    But that is a logical error, since many undesigned things are not the result of randomness.

    God is indeed the Creator.

    But the real wonder is in His creation of a universe in which He does all this by natural means.

    That is highly disrespectful to Him.

    Accusing Him of "design", which is the mark of an inferior creature is always attributing limitations to Him.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    ony to you, Galatian.

    I have no trouble at all praising God for the incredible design of all I see around me.
     
  20. NeilUnreal

    NeilUnreal
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand Galatian's distinction between "design" and "creation," and also why attributing "design" to God would be considered disrespectful in that context. Conceptually I agree, though I would say that the colloquial use of the term "design" in that context is probably OK.

    It's like the joke about why it's offensive to compliment rich people: the fact that you felt it necessary to compliment them implies that less than the best might have been expected. [​IMG]

    -Neil
     

Share This Page

Loading...