>I believe that the Bible speaks to us in a very general way with respect
>to "kinds".
>
>First, it does not use the term as we use taxonomic terms. It speaks to
>individual groups of organisms as belonging to a "kind" or grouping (
>possessively, i.e. "their kind"). This represents a direct link between
>the organism and the "kind" that it belongs to. Strong's defines the
>Hebrew word for "kind" as meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e.- a
>species (although in a general sense and not taxanomically).
>
>As a creationist, I think that this sorting represents a planned
>separate biologic unit. As has been clearly seen on many occasions,
>there are surprising examples of taxonomically separate species capable
>of reproduction. It is quite possible that these species possess a
>common, ancestral, biblical "kind" or grouping that scientific taxonomy
>has not yet been capable of duplicating.
>
So would you agree that the canidae (jackals hyaenas, foxes etc) and the
equidae (horses, onagers, kulans etc) represent two of these kinds?
>Second, and with that idea in mind, it plainly appears that the Bible
>has linked the concept of "kinds" with reproduction. The use of the
>phrases "yielding fruit after his kind" and "herb yielding seed after
>his kind" in Genesis 1 are examples. But until we reach a common
>understanding of the Biblical grouping, or "kinds", of organisms the
>details of the linkage to reproduction will remain elusive and
>troublesome.
>
I used to do a bit of gardening. Each year I had a whole garden full of
"herb yielding seed after his kind." But that still does not say that in
the future a carrot could not give rise to a different kind of seed.
Your friend,
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm