The other problem, beyond the complete irrelevance of the term, is that creationists never see fit to actually define what a "kind" is. They use it as a challenge but it's not a word that anyone well versed in science will be familiar with, mostly because it's not a real word, and after that point the conversation is filled with theistic evasiveness, which they wouldn't need to do if they actually had a definition, or intended to give one.
The best we can hope to get is that bible passage about animals reproducing after their own kind, but that's either completely unhelpful if the theist insists that kind is not the same as species, or perfectly within the reach of evolution if it is just the same as species, as the passage seems to indicate, because we have seen one species (kind) bringing forth another species (kind.) So in the best case scenario, the theist is either being profoundly vague, or wrong.
The best we can hope to get is that bible passage about animals reproducing after their own kind, but that's either completely unhelpful if the theist insists that kind is not the same as species, or perfectly within the reach of evolution if it is just the same as species, as the passage seems to indicate, because we have seen one species (kind) bringing forth another species (kind.) So in the best case scenario, the theist is either being profoundly vague, or wrong.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
