The Definition of KIND

[The Barbarian]

What say you?

Most creationists (largely because of the crowding problem on the Ark) have concluded that new species and genera form from other taxa. Some admit that some families might as well. But pretty much all of them now accept new species and genera.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most creationists (largely because of the crowding problem on the Ark) have concluded that new species and genera form from other taxa. Some admit that some families might as well. But pretty much all of them now accept new species and genera.

Only because they see the Ark as crowded ... correct?

So they feel they have to believe that new KINDS have appeared on the earth since the Creation Week ended?

If so, I totally disagree.

There were no crowding issues aboard the Ark, by way of its design.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most creationists (largely because of the crowding problem on the Ark) have concluded that new species and genera form from other taxa. Some admit that some families might as well. But pretty much all of them now accept new species and genera.

Only because they see the Ark as crowded ... correct?

You couldn't have housed all existing genera on the Ark. So they had to adjust creationist doctrines a bit.

So they feel they have to believe that new KINDS have appeared on the earth since the Creation Week ended?

Well, they think "kind" is more like the level of family.

If so, I totally disagree.

Doesn't matter.

There were no crowding issues aboard the Ark, by way of its design.

"Design" is not magic. You have an Ark of limited size. Existing genera won't fit.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Design" is not magic.

That is correct.

In the case of the Ark, design is miracle.

You have an Ark of limited size.

On the outside, that is correct.

Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

300 x 50 x 30 cubits on the outside.

But I believe the inside of this miraculous edifice was quite different.

I believe it was larger on the inside, than it was on the outside.

Kind of like a TARDIS booth.

Paul speaks of four dimensions of space.

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

And scientists have confirmed some ten others as well.

Existing genera won't fit.

Ten thousand times ten thousand could fit, with ten thousand times room for more, if God so ordained.

The Ark was a true miracle.

No screws, no hinges, no nails, no bolts, no nothing.

Only gopher wood, with pitch holding everything together.

And please don't act incredulous and expect me to believe you.

You already called it "magic," and that tells me you're not interested in discussing it, unless you can inject your science into the story.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe it was larger on the inside, than it was on the outside.

Kind of like a TARDIS booth.

A TARDIS is a fictional device. You think the Ark is like that? If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible. But of course, that's what fiction is.

The Ark was a true miracle.

No screws, no hinges, no nails, no bolts, no nothing.

Only gopher wood, with pitch holding everything together.

That's your addition to scripture. It does not say there were no fasteners used. For the creationist POV, you might want to read Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study by John Woodmorappe.

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, by Institute for Creation Research

How many animals did Noah take aboard the Ark? How did he feed all of them on the long voyage? Where did he keep the carnivorous animals? What were condit...

store.icr.org

In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family." "But not much beyond that" he said.

 

[AV1611VET]

A TARDIS is a fictional device.

That is correct.

But Noah's ark is not a fictional device.

You think the Ark is like that?

I think the Ark was bigger on the inside, than it was on the outside.

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible.

No, any story is not equally plausible.

I have a set of checks and balances in how far I go.

Here they are:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Let's see yours.

(Let me guess: it's the scientific method?)

But of course, that's what fiction is.

I see you're a Catholic.

Do you tell your brothers and sisters who believe the Eucharist consists of taking the literal blood and body of Jesus Christ, despite the fact that scientists have tested the DNA of these two elements and concluded there's no change?

What's your confirmation name?

If you -- (or your brothers and sisters) -- take an air trip, do you pray to St. Joseph of Cupertino before you go?

Do you baptize for the dead to get them out of Purgatory?

And you have the gall to say I'm espousing magic & fiction?

That's your addition to scripture.

I see.

So you'd rather I not do that, so I can be like you and consider the Ark overcrowded?

No thanks.

It does not say there were no fasteners used.

That is correct.

For the creationist POV, you might want to read Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study by John Woodmorappe.

I'll pass.

In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family."

Woodmorappe's view of Noah's ark is not the same as my view of it.

He evidently thinks the Ark should depend on a different definition of "kind" than I use.

And I think the Ark depends on another dimension of space.

You depend on the Ark being overcrowded.

"But not much beyond that" he said.

I think he's wrong.

And I think you're wrong too.

 

[The Barbarian]

But Noah's ark is not a fictional device.

An ark that's larger inside than its physical dimensions is a fictional device. If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible.

No, any story is not equally plausible.

It is, if you can just invent a miracle to deal with the problems.
For the creationist POV, you might want to read Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study by John Woodmorappe.

I'll pass.

Pity. It's a rational attempt to reconcile creationism with reality.
In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family."

Woodmorappe's view of Noah's ark is not the same as my view of it.

Doesn't matter. Woodmorappe realized the issues and explained how this would impact the understanding of Biblical "kinds."

He evidently thinks the Ark should depend on a different definition of "kind" than I use.

Because the limitations of the ark showed this to be the case.

And I think the Ark depends on another dimension of space.

Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction.

I think he's wrong.

And I think you're wrong too.

Comes down to evidence. Sorry about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction.

Post 84 please.

Here it is again, with the four dimensions highlighted:

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

 

[The Barbarian]

Here it is again:

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Ephesians 3:18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

This isn't about physical dimensions at all. He's talking about faith beyond sensory information, not how to build a Tardis. C'mon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ephesians 3:18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

This isn't about physical dimensions at all. He's talking about faith beyond sensory information, not how to build a Tardis. C'mon.

If you want to believe John Woodmorappe over me, knock yourself out.

How's that working out for you, by the way?

And what's your definition of KIND?

 

[The Barbarian]

Ephesians 3:18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

This isn't about physical dimensions at all. He's talking about faith beyond sensory information, not how to build a Tardis. C'mon.

If you want to believe John Woodmorappe over me, knock yourself out.

He cites evidence and thinks that it (in the absence of God telling us what it might be) shows that "kind" is somewhere around the level of family. You think the ark was a Tardis. Not much of a choice, really.

And what's your definition of KIND?

kind /kīnd/

noun​

1. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.
   "different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."
2. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category.
   "fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color."
3. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.

Asking a non-creationist Christian for the definition of "kind" as it was developed by creationists, is like a Hindu asking a Christian for a definition of samsara.
It's outside of Apostolic Christian belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Asking a non-creationist Christian for the definition of "kind" as it was developed by creationists, is like a Hindu asking a Christian for a definition of samsara.
It's outside of Apostolic Christian belief.

So if John Woodmorappe doesn't convince you what KIND is, why do you want me to listen to him?

Here's where I get my definition of KIND:

genus (n.) ... from Latin genus ... "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

SOURCE: Online Etymology Dictionary

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's where I get my definition of KIND:

genus (n.) ... from Latin genus ... "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

SOURCE: Online Etymology Dictionary

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind. (they share many, many common characteristics) You sure that's what you want to use?

 

[AV1611VET]

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

That takes a scientist to do that.

A scientist willing to play connect-the-dots.

(they share many, many common characteristics)

But one thing they don't share is the genus name.

Chimpanzees are given the genus Pan.

Humans are given the genus Homo.

That tells me that, on the sixth day of the Creation Week, created chimpanzees here, and Adam over there.

Completely separate from one another.

You sure that's what you want to use?

Yes.

 

[The Barbarian]

genus (n.) ... from Latin genus ... "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

SOURCE: Online Etymology Dictionary

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind. (they share many, many common characteristics) You sure that's what you want to use?

That takes a scientist to do that.

Nope. Just anyone willing to use your definition.

But one thing they don't share is the genus name.

Chimpanzees are given the genus Pan.

Humans are given the genus Homo.

Ironic, um? You not only classified them as the same kind, but have them more closely related than a scientist would have them. You sure that's what you want to use?

Yes.

Then you really have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

That would put humans and chimpanzees in different kinds.

Humans in "mankind" and chimpanzees in "pankind."

 

[Ophiolite]

That would put humans and chimpanzees in different kinds.

Humans in "mankind" and chimpanzees in "pankind."

Some members I would be inclined to place in bannedkind.

 

[The Barbarian]

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

That would put humans and chimpanzees in different kinds.

Not by your definition. Since they have numerous common characteristics, your definition would put them in the same genus. Ironically, that would make them more closely relate than the scientific evidence that puts them in the same family.

 

[AV1611VET]

So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

Have a nice day.

 

[The Barbarian]

AV1611VET said:

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Since humans and chimps have numerous common characteristics, your definition would put them in the same genus. Ironically, that would make them more closely relate than the scientific evidence that puts them in the same family.

Have a nice day.

You too.