Creationists, what is a "kind" (please read question details)?

You are questioning that which cannot be questioned. Be advised to watch for lightning bolts coming to smite you. It is not acceptable to question the word of God.

Well, actually, it isn't really the word of God, it is a translation of "the word of God." Well, actually, not really a translation...more of a self-fulfilling translation commissioned by an English king who didn't like what the then current translation said..

Well, actually, not really that, but a translation of that translation of that change. No...more accurately a translation of that translation of that change of that translation of the original change made by the Catholic church.

Oh, now you have done it! You have incurred the wrath. Shirley, you will be smited. Oh? Sorry, I do know that your name is not Shirley.

With a kind nod to Monty Python and Mel Brooks for their help in understanding that which we cannot understand without being told by our priest.

Ever heard of the Scientific Term "Adaptation"? What you describe as evolution in species (kinds of creatures) is just animals adapting to their environment. If evolution were factual, and the author of it (Darwin) says it is not, then where are the "in between species" fossils? None have ever been found because none exist.

Even the greatest supporting scientific minds admit that there is no evidence of evolution. There is not one single fact or piece of evidence to support it.

Creationists have Jesus. You may not believe that He is the son of God, but at least it is provable that He did exist on the earth and the things recorded in the bible have historical evidence to back them up. That is far more than evolution ever had or has until this day.

Edit: As far as your "kitties" arguement goes, They may "look" different from kitties today, but the are still kitties with the same basic genetic code. They will never change into dogs, or monkeys, or fish, or any other "kind" of animal. They will only be able to reproduce kitties. I have seen bobcats breed with house cats and produce a crossbreed of cat but the offspring are sill cats.

I like your question. It's interesting. Honestly, I'm not an expert in this stuff so maybe I will misunderstand and not answer well. Or perhaps the "type" argument is kind of bunk like you are trying to point out. This is my understanding though.

Logically, how people categorize animals may or may not fit the animal types as thought of in the Bible. We can theoretically change the categories tomorrow. I could state that all animals with 2 legs are one type and all animals with 4 legs are another and 6 and 8 others. Then I could state that the Bible doesn't fit the categories so it must be wrong.

The example given is a dog. We have different breeds of dogs like German Shepherd, Labs etc. These can all interbreed and are the same type. It's my understanding that all dogs came from the same dog "type".

Creationists do not consider the diverging dogs as evolution, because it's just separating out characteristics in dogs by breeding. No new genetic code is involved. It's just selecting within the available gene pool of dogs.

Scripture actually uses the phrase "his kind" therefore it refers to genetics as the "his" refers to each animal individually. Every offspring is dependent on the "kind" of parents he has. This is why a mule is neither horse nor donkey because it's parents are one of each.

Of course, while creationists are wrong about whether or not evolution is real or not, evolutionist are wrong for taking the idea of evolution past what they should. Example: A rock is eroded at a certain rate. Taking in reverse and assuming a constant rate of erosion, you can determine how big the rock was a long time ago. What evolutionists have done with the idea of evolution is equivalent to saying that each and every rock was once the size of a continent therefore the world was once bigger than it is ... millions and millions of years ago. It's balderdash.

The world began when God created it and each generation thereafter is different than the generation that came before it.

I thought that ring species disproved the concept of biblical kinds since although the end points of the ring cannot breed, they are definately still the same kind.

Living organisms don't change from one "kind" to another,accept over hundreds of millions of years.You could insert the word "species" to be more exact.

@no chance without jesus: some species of gecko spread through micro evolution into two diffrent directions and met at the same place (circular spreading ofpopulation) .. they couldnt interbreed ....so they must be a diffrent 'kind'

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God make the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:24,25).

Three verses earlier, we learn that the fowl of the air reproduce “after his kind” (v.21). Finches, revealing a variety of differently shaped genetics confirms that organisms vary only within certain parameters.

Again, five times in our present text we see that animals reproduce after their kinds. For example, peppered moths reproduce only peppered moths—never butterflies or sparrows. The Lord’s created order stands.

One of the things distinctive about man’s creation is no mention of reproducing after his kind. Man is made in God’s image. He is different from God but also like God.

In fact, a remarkable thing happened in human history. The Creator Himself took on human flesh and walked among us. He did not do this for animals not made in His image, but He did it for us who were meant to be like Him.

Our first parents failed. The Lord had tested them to see if they could be confirmed in righteousness, but they fell into sin.

He could, but it involved stooping low. He had to become man and even bloody His own hands and side. It was possible to do this, however, because man was made to be like God. The Lord could become one of us because we were originally made to be like Him. He became like us—even carrying the weight of our sin on the cross—to make us like Him.

Animals may vary only with kinds, but humans may be adopted into God’s family!

Good luck getting them to provide a definition, especially one taking into account ring species.

>with a kind nod to David Mills

A "kind" nod? What is kind?

but if they define it today, then they can't change it tomorrow when the evidence shows something which did evolve between today's definition of "Kind!"