Creationists: What is a "kind"?

It will depend how a person defines the word "kind" and how they define what "species" means.

I see dogs, cows, birds and fish as kinds. We can have hundreds of species of dogs (wolves etc. inclucded). The bottom line is cows don't mate with dogs so the the genetics of a "kind" has to line up that the one it mates with the 'bring forth offspring'

We do not over time have dogs turning into cows or cats turning into birds as each kind can be involved in speciation over time they do not mutate into other kinds.

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). (Fig. 22.)

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

What they are saying in a nutshell is this: while you have minor evolutionary changes, they do not typically result in completely new animals, but rather a different breed of the same animal. Like for example, there are Dalmatians and poodles. Both are dogs, and one could have evolved from the other. What they are denying is that there is any connection between a bird and umm.. I don't know, a cow, or something like that.

Here is how I basically define what a "kind" is. Without any specific scientific classifications, what animals look similar enough to be called the same. So all birds would be a "kind". You have different breeds, but a bird is still a bird. Same with dogs, cats, fish, frogs, turtles, etc. if you can call two breeds by the same common name, they are the same "kind"

Zodiahtes Word Study

ִמין

miyn: A masculine noun indicating a kind, a species. It indicates an animal or something that shares common characteristics (Gen_1:11-12, Gen_1:21, Gen_1:24-25; Gen_6:20; Gen_7:14; Lev_11:14-16, Lev_11:19, Lev_11:22, Lev_11:29; Deu_14:13-15, Deu_14:18; Eze_47:10). It does not equal the modern scientific definition of and the use of species.

That's what the Hebrew word means. While it is not as specific as we might want it to be, it definitely rules out a reptile becoming a mammal or something like that.

Biblical "Kind":

"Kind", in the Biblical context, means "a group of animals sufficiently different from other groups of animals that we Creationists can deny they have a common ancestry due to the fact that the evolutionary timescale required for such differentiation cannot be visually observed over a single human lifetime, and even though all evidence proves beyond any plausible refute that they did indeed descend from common ancestors, we're going to make up a nonsense word and call evolution over that scale 'macroevolution' and deny that it happened because we incorrectly assume that we still possess some shred of credibility with educated people that we can maintain by conceding to the existence of 'microevolution', and also because we don't understand science and hope that the people we're trying to convince are as equally ignorant of evolutionary biology as we are".

Suzy Suzy - Dogs to dogs, cats to cats, humans to humans. To their own kind, species."

So, "kind" means "species", then?

How does this apply to instances of speciation, then? Such as, say, ring species?

The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are over 400 dog breeds all belonging to one species (Canis familiaris), so many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the biblical “kind.”

It is obviously an attempt by the writer of genesis to create animal kingdom classes, but little did he know that one day, 3000 yrs from when he was writing, someone would come up with a system that's different than his, and then people would look at his system and judge him for his failure to live up the system that postdated his by 3000 yrs. . .lol . . .what a dumass!

Dogs to dogs, cats to cats, humans to humans. To their own kind, species.

Edited after more info: I do not believe that a badger can breed with a wolverine to produce offspring. Nor a mink with a ferret, get my point? Your question is very good. A mink begets another mink and so forth. Before you ask, a donkey can breed a horse and have a mule, but they are still in the equine category. A dog can breed a wolf but they are still K-9's. These crosses are also known as F-1 cross.

. 1. Nature; natural instinct or disposition.

He knew by kind and by no other lore.

- Chaucer.

Some of you, on pure instinct of nature,

Are led by kind t'admire your fellow-creature.

- Dryden.

2. Race; genus; species; generic class; as, in mankind or humankind.

Every kind of beasts, and of birds.

- James iii.7.

She follows the law of her kind.

- Wordsworth.

Here to sow the seed of bread,

That man and all the kinds be fed.

- Emerson.

3. Sort; type; class; nature; style; character; fashion; manner; variety; description; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc.

How diversely Love doth his pageants play,

And snows his power in variable kinds !

- Spenser.

There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

- I Cor. xv. 39.

A kind is often said by them as "being able to reproduce".

In that case we show them ringspecies.

After which we don't get a reply.

Sigh.

I mean this entire argument gets debunked by that. It proofs it 100% false.

I always compared the "kind" argument with a tree.

When do you speak of a branch? What is less? What is more?

It doesn't matter, in the end it's attached to a bigger one.

i have tried to figure that out. It is not genus or species or family but seems to be some weird combination of all three.