The question creationists will never answer, what is a "kind" with regards to Noah's Ark?

Question

They won't asnwer this if they're 'smart' creationists.

So since cheetahs and lions and house cats are all a separate species they would have had to evolve. Yay I win.

LOL you think a lion can reproduce with a house cat. Look up the definition of species. LOLOL

Creationists have to either accept that every single living species was on the Ark or that the "kinds" that were had to evolve into all the different species we see today. Lions can't mate with kittens.
Just like a donkey can't mate with a horse to create a viable offspring that's why hybird mules are sterile. That's why they are different species.

Answer 1

whats your point? you haven't proved anything with what you are saying so how can you "win"?

Answer 2

Have you seen the documentation around the flood actually being rather small geographically speaking but to those all those many years ago it must have truly seemed like the whole world flooded (as their "whole world" did)? I think that rather explains some of it. From a geographical perspective, I believe part of what gives the ocean it's salt is the minerals and such that the water picks up as it makes it's way down the various streams and rivers into the ocean. I cannot recall the rate at which this occurs or how much this is replaced back by rain water that picks up sediments but it is a thing to look into just from a scientific perspective.

Answer 3

"Kind" would roughly translate to "species". Hopefully, you're aware how fluid the definition of species is within the scientific community.

Many will claim there are currently "millions" of species in the world. This is not true. Depends on how you define species.

For example, there was no need for 2 great danes, 2 labs, 2 poodles, etc. 2 original dogs was sufficient. All the genetic code of the various "species" (breeds) of dogs was present in those 2 dogs. Anyone who knows about dog breeding, knows how many of the breeds came about.
Anyway, microevolution (adaptation using existing DNA) is a fact. Macroevolution (assuming the creation of new genetic code) is in question.

Noah didn't need African elephants AND Asian elephants, just a pair of elephants, these subspecies descended from the original pair.

When the definition of "species" is restricted to actually distinct species, we find we no longer have millions of species, but much, much fewer.

We should also remember that fish and aquatic creatures were not brought on board. Lastly, many, many of these thousands of species are insects (i.e. very small).

Anyway, I forget the specifics, so I can't quote on the fly like this, but the dimensions of Noah's Ark given represent a huge storage capacity equaling hundreds and hundreds of box cars.
Assuming the average size of the animals was about the size of a sheep, approximately 40,000 species of animals could have been stored in the ark within the dimensions given, and this wouild only take one-third of the available space, leaving the remaining two-thirds for storage of food and/or water (water storage may not have been necessary).

On a side note, Noah's Ark did not look like a curved boat as depicted in cartoons, but was a large rectangular tanker shape. Naval designers have determined that the shape of Noah's ark would have made it an extremely stable vessel, and it could have been almost tipped up 90 degrees by a wave without sinking.

If you truly had an open mind, you might research this on your own considering all the possibilities without simply regurgitating false assumptions which had been passed on to you.

Remember, 80% of the world's populations have a ancient tradition remembering a global flood where everybody died. A large perecentage of these say 8 people survived in a boat with animals on board. Some of these cultures even preserve the name of Noah. The ancient tradition of the Hawaiins called him "Nu'u". A Mongolian group called him "No'a".
These traditions predate missionary contact and are some of their earliest traditions.

Answer 4

Can you really get anything resembling a house cat from lions in under 6000 years naturally????

Even if you could, there are way more serious problems with the story.

The one that no one realizes is that in order to have rainbows for the first time is that either water or light has to have changed, i.e. prior to the flood we would not have had sunrises and sunsets or water would not have appeared to be blue... (think about why a rainbow appears.... )

Edit:
RoVale has a good point, Kolas never eat the same eucalyptus tree leaves in a row, they switch tree types daily.

Edit 2:
Since there is no scientific difference or even recognition of micro and macro evolution, didn't C.L just prove that evolution happens?

Answer 5

As a devout creationist let me start by saying that I believe in evolution. BUT, Darwin never claimed that every type of animal evolved from a primordial soup. That came later by people who twisted his research and his findings to their own needs. What Darwin said is that in an environment where 2 traits are present in 2 animals of the same species, the trait that helps the animal survive in that environment will naturally be passed on in that species by the survival (and the thriving) of the animal with that trait. Simple.

He never supposed that (nor is there any evidence for) an animal of one species becoming another species. Evolution theory takes as much or more "faith" to believe as does creation.

My suggestion is that you study things for yourself before you open your piehole. Abe Lincoln said: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Answer 6

A "kind" is a group of animals that are similar enough to reproduce. Lions, tigers, cheetahs, and even your house cat are a kind. Wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs are another.

Here:

"What is a 'kind'? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits. The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).



One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the kind may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the kind with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.



For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind."


Edit: There is a breed of house cat called the Bengal that came about by breeding an ordinary house cat with an Asian leopard. Large wild cats can mate and reproduce easily amongst themselves, probably because they are closer in size (but that's just my guess). There have been many cases of lion/tiger breeding, lion/leopard breeding, etc.

Edit2: No one is disputing micro-evolution, which can be observed. But slime doesn't turn into fish which then turn into reptiles and birds and mammals. That has never been observed, not in our day and not in the fossil record either. :) It's genetically impossible as an organism can't gain anything "new" to its DNA that wasn't already present in its parents.

Answer 7

Creationism is a belief, and I believe that the primal cause was God.

As for "kind", the Hebrew word is nephesh [H5315] which means:
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind [dubious]
h) activity of the will [dubious]
i) activity of the character

Answer 8

One thing I've wondered is exactly how did Noah know about pandas and koalas and which food they ate? Both animals eat only one kind of food and those plants were unknown in Biblical times.

Answer 9

It simply means 'of their species'. There were different kinds of 'birds', different kinds of 'cows', just as there are today.
I figured you would get into 'evolution', so here's your question...how did all the birds 'evolve' from the CHICKEN?
How did the CHICKEN evolve into a BLUEBIRD?
Your play on 'species' does not prove evolution.

Answer 10

I think you're incorrect in bunching creationists with those who believe in the Bible.

Answer 11

"Their kind" means SPECIES, dear one. No mystery THERE.

And yes, I'm a creationist and I did answer it. ;-)

God bless!