How do creationists define "kind"?

Posted earlier:

"The Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this."

How, exactly, do creationists define "kind"?

Note: examples are not definitions.

Specifically, in a ring species, are two neighboring populations (that can "bring forth") the same "kind"? How about two end populations (that cannot "bring forth")? Are they the same "kind"?

If the former are the same "kind" and the latter are not, it means that one population can be the same "kind" as two other populations, which are different "kinds". How do creationists explain this?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Best Answer

    Usually, they don't (define "kind").

    When pressed, sometimes they'll say whatever suits their argument at the moment, and something completely different an hour later. It's pretty ridiculous.

    Peace.

  • 8 years ago

    It is difficult to nail down. I would say basically it is the group that can interbreed with limited intervention. Thus buffalo and cattle are generally the same kind. All of the dogs, including wolves and foxes are likely the same kind. I would say that the 'end populations' that can not now 'bring forth' likely 'were' of the same kind, but are not now. This seems to support a level of evolutionism, but every possibility of small change cannot be extrapolated to a reality of great change.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    This isn't differentiation caused by genetic mutation, its reproductive genetics. So why would a creationist have a problem with ring species? But I would say this, what creationist in their right mind would define a species by their ability to breed since that same book - Genesis - tells of angels breeding with humans.

  • 8 years ago

    It is defined as a species.

    Unless you show them speciation, then it is defined as a genus. If you show them evolution that much, then they define it as a family, etc, etc.

    So ultimately, we need a plant evolving into an animal to satisfy them.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Kind = family, according to Kurt Wise.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Your question is extremely dull.

    I'm more interested in what "S1ut 4 God" has to say. I mean, what an awesome name!!!

  • 8 years ago

    In whatever way suits them at the time.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Dude creationists they have no idea what you just said

  • 8 years ago

    Members of the same species. Cat kind,dog kind, fish kind, bird kind, snake kind oh you get the idea.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    meow?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.