Creationism vs. Macroevolution

Originally posted by telerion
I've asked some Creationists around here to no avail, "What is the 'scientific' definition of a 'kind'?"

kind [ kīnd ]


noun

1. group of individuals that share features: a group or class of individuals connected by shared characteristics
What kind of fruit is this?

3. essence of something: the primary character of something that determines the class to which it belongs

I found these definitions in the encarta dictionary.

Though the Bible is not a science book, it does speak of things that are studied by scientists now. And it refers more generally to what we now have designated species or (more probably) phylum, as kinds.

But does it matter whether we can fit the word kind into the particular jargon of modern science? No. What it means is rather apparent to any reader. God simply made different types of creatures and they reproduce only within those groups.

Originally posted by Darfius
Let me see if I understand, as a result of inter-species breeding, a new species was formed?

Yes indeed. Modern breadwheat is the result of two such hybridisations, the first of which almost certainly occurred in the region between N Israel and SE Turkey. The second probably occurred when early agriculturalists took Emmer wheat into the regions SE of the caspian Sea where a second hybridisation (with Aegilops sqarrosa) occurred

Originally posted by chinking58

kind [ kīnd ]


noun

1. group of individuals that share features: a group or class of individuals connected by shared characteristics
What kind of fruit is this?

3. essence of something: the primary character of something that determines the class to which it belongs

I found these definitions in the encarta dictionary.

Th ...[text shortened]... ader. God simply made different types of creatures and they reproduce only within those groups.

I just ask because if we are to test Creationism, we must know what a 'kind' means. I understand the general story, but the details are crucial.

Originally posted by telerion
I just ask because if we are to test Creationism, we must know what a 'kind' means. I understand the general story, but the details are crucial.

I see Tel.
But what further details are required to get what God meant? Or to argue with the viewpoint of your local creationist? Their point, garnered from the passage in Genesis, is simply to state that there is a built in limit to natural variation. ie. no room for extreme changes like those required for macroevolution to happen. No allowance for fish to fowl or monkey to man, as it were.

And isn't it interesting that this described limit was provided in the account many thousands of years ago? Long before it was 'needed' to answer an evolutionary theory? It's there because that's the way God did it, and that's the way God lead Moses to write it down. Pretty cooll!

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Yes indeed. Modern breadwheat is the result of two such hybridisations...

If Darfius finds what you have written to be convincing, then I think I can map out Darfius's scientific evolution thusly:

* Young Earth creationist

* Old Earth creationist

* Old Earth creationist plus microevolution but no macroevolution

* Old Earth creationist plus microevolution plus macroevolution in plants

I see a trend toward increasing scientific sophistication on the part of Darfius, and I applaud him for that progress.