Question about "kinds"

soley on the genesis account, the 'kinds' were capable of reproducing together.So, based purely on that, 'kinds' are those that can reproduce.

i dont really feel like getting into this one again...i just wanted to provide the simple answer to what genesis says a kind is.

no it doest say....it only says according to its kind (genus).Hebrew word is leminoh', the greek word is genos and the Latin is genus.Its believed to mean a family kind that can reproduce because in Gen 1:21 it says And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22With that God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and become many..."being fruitful means to reproduce offspring.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

the ancient language says they are both, but you should keep in mind that languages change over time and the scientific definition of today is not the same as what the hebrews had in mind. The simple definition of genus back then was that if two animals could breed, they were the same kind/family/genus. If they cannot breed, then they are not the same kind/family/genus.

but wouldnt that be more about genetics then genus?its like the end of the line as far as they can go due to the genes....they've still come from the one familyThis is an important difference about the modern definition of 'species' and the ancient idea of a 'kind'with the ancient definition, there could actually be many species within the one kind. ie, lion, tiger, jaguar, pantha, leopard, cheetah, lynx etc etc etc, If these could all be interbred to produce offspring, then they would all be classed as one 'kind'And correct me if i'm wrong here, but wouldnt the modern definition say that each of these cats are actually an individual species?

Im not saying that God only produced one breeding pair from which all others came. Genesis says he made a 'variety' of different sea, land and flying animals.So perhaps the raven, kite and vulture were among the variety of different bird kinds....likely there were many more. Also noah had more then one 'kind' of bird on the ark...he had a dove and a raven which indicates that they are of a different family/genus/kindAnd me a new person??? i"m confused lol.

Not reallyThe original word for 'kinds' has a meaning, so it is based on that meaning AND it is based on the fact that Genesis says the same 'kinds' could reproduce.So our interpretation that these 'kinds' could have produced a great variety within its family (what we today call different species of cats for instance) is based on these two facts keeping in mind the definition of the hebrew 'kind', no. A cat produces a cat, a dog produces a dog, a cow produces a cowyes the 'variety' of them changes....but they are still the same 'kind' in the hebrew sense of the word. genesis uses the specific wording "According to their Kinds"this means that there is not cross breeding between the different 'kinds'We cant cross breed a cow with a horse for instance, there is a barrier between the two that cannot be crossed....this is in harmony with what Genesis says : become many 'according to their kinds'But a horse can go from being a large horse to a small horse, from a black horse to a white horse....the kinds can produce a great variety among themselves....they can change their shapes/sizes/colours/abilities.... this is evolution yes. But they will always be a horse kind. as with the horse example above, each kind will always be the same kind, but the 'variety' of the kind can change.Gen 1:21 'be fruitful and multiply according to their kind' yes a kind is every sort of creature God created, however, they could only mulitply with their own kind.Imagine all the nations of the earth represent each 'kind' that God made. The chinese can reproduce only with other chinese, and the mexicans can only reproduce with other mexicans.So it is with the genesis kinds. They could only reproduce with the animals within their kind. A tiger could not breed with a moose and a rabbit could not breed with a porcuipine. i dont believe that dinosaurs and birds are related. One is cold blooded and one is warm blooded, one has feathers, one does not, birds have to incubate their eggs, dinosaurs did not, bird bones are thin and hollow, dinosaurs are not, they have completely different respritory systems... the differences are so wide that is more like science fiction to say that birds came from dinosaurs.This is where creation and evolution split apart. The kinds did not interbreed, they did not diverge to become a new kind some stage down the track. A genesis kind will always be a genesis kind. It has the ability (thru genetics) of changing its shape and size ect....but it will always remain a part of the same family kind as God made it.

the greek & latin words are what was used in the translation of the bible from the old hebrew into the modern languages of the day. When i say the modern languages of the day, i dont mean OUR day....i mean at the time the hebrew was translated. The greek septuagint was translated around 2 BCE and the latin came a few hundred years later. So thats almost 2,000 years ago.Modern science is really only a few hundred years old, so our modern definition has only arisen in very VERY recent times. Its fairly pointless to apply the modern definition to the definition from over 2,000 years ago. They are different. Understanding the difference helps to clear up the misunderstanding. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

hybrids are not the issue.The fact that the lion and tiger can breed and produce anything shows that they are the same kind.

thats exactly what the genesis definition means....animals of the same 'kind' could reproduce together. the bible writer used plenty of expressions that are not literal...like the 4 corners of the earth for instance. Moses could have been describing insects as crawling around on all fours the way other animals do....or he may have been refering to the locusts who have two leaper legs for jumping and four other legs they use when crawling... perhaps moses was describing that

the bible isnt a scientific book so its doesnt go into great detail and the only distinction that it does make is that some, lets say cats, were 'domestic cat kinds' and others 'wild cat kinds'.from the first wildcat kinds, come all the variety of wildcat kinds and vice versa. how does this idea fit with Darwins theory of the origin of species? earlier someone commented that birds are decendents of dinosaurs...how does this idea fit in with clades? i completey agree. However, I think creationists have a problem with the evolutionary view that all the clades orginally decended from some other clade. Darwin said he did not view each species as a special creation but as decendents from just a few species.I see you mention dinosaurs and birds, yet that kind of contradicts your explaination of the clades...this is what i dont understand. Scientists have learned that animals reproduce after their clades, and these clades produce variety (speciation?) and they can only breed with each other etc etcbut its still accepted that a clade will eventually become something completely different, such as a dinosaur to a bird???Edited by Peg, : No reason given.