This is a heavily edited version of that exchange where I expand upon the brief arguments I made in the original thread.
I am not going to name the person I am quoting. Here, I am going to call him Antagonist.
What was Antagonist attempting to argue? Essentially, that it is obvious what the Bible meant by the anti-concept of “kinds”. We shall see that is not the case.
Let us get started with his objections.
Isn’t “kind” just another word for “species”?Antagonist
What gives you that idea? How could it be? The authors of the Bible had no idea of the concept of species as used today.
Until 1686, the term “species” was simply used as a term for a kind of organism. That is, it had little more meaning that used in the Bible.
In 1686, John Ray introduced the biological concept of species as distinguished by always producing members of the same species.
Carolus Linnaeus then formalized the taxonomic rank of species.
So, again, how could the authors of the Bible have the modern concept of species in mind? They did not know about that concept when the Old Testament was compiled over 2,500 years ago!
If it were a known concept back then, why would the Creationists not point this out, instead of refusing to define the term?
They would not talk about their “cat” kinds or “bear” kinds, since “cat” and “bear” kinds are not species.
If by “kind” the Bible meant species, then why does it talk about the “fowl” kind?
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.Bible, King James, Genesis, 1:25
What is the fowl kind? Who knows what a fowl kind is, whatever the authors of the Bible considered fowls to be?
More importantly, is there a “fowl” species? No there is not. There is no single species that we could logically call a fowl.
So, it seems that the “fowl kind” does not correspond to a “fowl” species.
Let us go into a deep dive of the King James Bible and find every time it mentions kinds.
Keep in mind that later, our Antagonist is going to assert that perhaps the Bible authors meant family or genus. Let us see if we can find any use of the word kind that implies species, family or genus.
And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.Genesis, 8-18-8:19
Nothing about species, family or genus here. Just vague descriptions of “kinds” which could mean almost anything.
And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.Ezekiel, 47:10
Again, nothing about species of family or any genus of fish.
15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.Corinthians, 15:39
Here we are talking about kinds of flesh. It is not clear this is the same … um … kind of kinds. But there are certainly more than one “kind” of best, fish or birds.
In any case, nothing about the concepts of species, family or genus.
For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.James, 3:7-3:8
Yet again, no mention of the concept of species, family or genus. What a surprise!
So, how does any of this suggest that by “kind” that the Bible mean species? Or family? Or genus?
Nothing in the Bible indicates this. So, why would we assume this?
Or what we call “family”. Or “genus”. Using a different word for the same concept doesn’t invalidate the concept.Antagonist
How could it be referring to either the concept of family or genus? Those concepts, as used in modern taxonomy, did not exist back then.
So, again, how could the Bible have had these concepts in mind when they were not known to exist then?
So, no this is not a matter of using a different word for the same concept. There is no indication that the Bible is talking about species, family or genus. It gives no indication it is talking about any of these.
Nor did these concepts exist then, as far as we know!
It seems Antagonist is giving the Bible authors credit for taxonomic concepts that were not known to have existed for almost 2,000 years.
I somehow doubt we should attribute a bunch of goat-herders such advanced knowledge.
You say that but give no evidence as to why it couldn’t mean that other than a semantically irrelevant argument.Antagonist
It is not my place to show that it could not mean that. It is your place to that is what the Bible meant. Which you have failed to do. Which everyone that has ever tried to pin down what the Bible meant has failed to do!
Having said that, I managed to show that what the Bible means is not a species.
Please show me any evidence that the Bible authors meant any such thing.
I’m not saying Creationism is right, I’m saying making a semantical argument and acting incredulous towards a plausible explanation is not an argument.Antagonist
You have yet to provide me with a plausible explanation. I have pointed out that your “plausible explanations” are not relevant.
You have yet to show that they are plausible explanations for what the Bible meant. Since there is no evidence at all to support that is what was meant.
It is not my place to prove that it does mean that. It is the Creationists place to define what they think the concept of “kind” means. Which they seem unable to do.
Instead, they use the word without giving any definition.
It does not mean species, family or genus. The Bible does not use it in a way consistent with species. Creationists do not use it in a sense consistent with any of these concepts.
Creationists decide things that look or act similar are “the same kind”. And this seems to be how the Bible authors were thinking. But whether they were thinking has nothing to do with “species” or “family” or “genus”.
I’m not saying creationism is right, I’m saying making a semantical argument and acting incredulous towards a plausible explanation is not an argument.Antagonist
Why are you defending the Bible’s use of the word “kind”? This is a lot like trying to argue with a Creationist. Which is funny because I am reasonable sure that you are not one.
And where is this plausible argument you claim to have presented?
Why don’t they define what they mean by a kind? You would think that if you had a point, you would be able to show this.
You are right though, acting incredulous is not an argument. Good thing I presented arguments then and even better arguments now!