Creationists: What do you mean by the word "kind"? I'm looking for a definition, not just examples.

I am not what most people consider as a "Creationist" in the strictest sense of the term. The earth was NOT made in 6 literal days, the earth is MUCH older than 6,000 years old and dinosaur fossils are real and are millions of years old. I do, however, believe in the ACCURATE rendering of the Biblical creation account as found in Genesis and that the creative "days" mentioned were figurative which probably were thousands or even millions of years in length. http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm

The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that God created earth’s living things "according to their kinds." (Ge 1:11) These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring "according to their kind(s)" in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, THEN THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN "KINDS" IS TO BE DRAWN AT THE POINT WHERE FERTILIZATION CEASES TO OCCUR.

In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind." The basic meaning of "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. So there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds."

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds," there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed.

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. STERILITY CONTINUES TO BE THE DELIMITING FACTOR AS TO WHAT CONSTITUES A "KIND". This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today.

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Somatic memories is not hard to define. my earlier ones are of my muscle development because i was doing boxing at the boys club. Later in my teens it was quite a different discovery of somatic sensations that i will not go into here. During my war service i experienced some that was so hard to bear during our initial training. Marching until i thought i would co-lapse, but i learnt then what "second wind" really meant. Just when i thought it cannot get any worse, we had to do unarmed combat, my memories of that still make my limbs ache to this day. At 24 i got married and the best of all somatic memories were formed Now at 88 all that i have is the memories, there are no sensations any more. .

kind2 /kaɪnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kahynd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.

4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.

5. Archaic. a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.

b. manner; form.

6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

♦KIND

Main Entry:

Pronunciation:

\ˈkīnd\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin

Date:

before 12th century

1 aarchaic : nature barchaic : family lineage

2archaic : manner

3: fundamental nature or quality : essence

4 a: a group united by common traits or interests : category b: a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c: a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>

5 a: goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b: the equivalent of what has been offered or received

synonyms see type

— all kinds of

1: many <likes all kinds of sports>2: plenty of <has all kinds of time>

Are examples not sufficient for you to understand?

A canine is not the same "kind" as an amphibian. They did not branch off from a common ancestor. There is no proof of this claim.

Within the canine family, there is much variation due to evolution. There is much variation among amphibians due to evolution.

Why don't you focus on the logic rather than asking the definition of "kind".

Do you agree or not agree that a canine and an amphibian did NOT come from a common ancestor?

To your question... Creationists: What do you mean by the word "kind"? I'm looking for a definition, not just examples.

The simple answer would be what do you mean by kind, for instance the Bible says be kind to one another, it also tells of creating in kind or type.

If by creationist's you mean those who believe in a creator God, I would have to say there is not a simple definition that your question calls for.

Let them believe whatever they want, it's always nice to have something to laugh at.

------------------------------

Canines and amphibians did come from the same ancestor, but it was a very very distant one. There are similarities between amphibians and mamals. There is proof of this, just because you deny/ignore it doesnt mean it goes away.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/p...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind

Oh please, you want CREATIONISTS to give you a scientific definition? Puh-lease, they wouldn't know the difference between a theory and a jam tart...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species