Evidence for God from Science

Baraminology is strictly a Creationist study. It is based on certain interpretations of Sciprure: Genesis 7:13–16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11–18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 is concerned with kinds of cloth, cattle, and seeds. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.
There has been speculation on what classification level 'kind' is on. Is it at Order or Family?
It is most likely on the Family level. All primates are a single Order, and therefore we would be a member of the created 'kind' of ape. We obviously know Noah did not give rise to gibbons and orangutans.
However, even if it was at the Family level, it would imply gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangs were in the same Baramin as humans.
One of the main reasons baraminology is so important in young-earth circles is because they must find a way to squeeze all those millions of species of animals on the ark.
I have suggested that Deuteronomy 14 tells us that 'kind' would more than likely refer to any recognizable species or group of animals.

3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.[a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

So we know the sheep, the goat, the gazelle, and the antelope are different 'kinds'. These animals comprise family Bovidae. So we know there is no Bovid 'kind'.
What about the two goats mentioned? The wild goat is obviously distinguishable from the domestic form. They are classified as different 'kinds' even though goats came from wild goats!

11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

So according to this verse, there are two 'kinds' of kite, yet both 'kinds' have been able to produce offspring! There are several different kinds of falcon (genus Falco) different kinds of owls (the great owl is the Pharaoh eagle owl), there are numerous kinds of hawk (there are numerous species within subfamily Acciptridae). Guess what else. Ospreys are also members of Acciptridae.

I have brought this up before in debates. Here are some objections to my theory as to what 'kind' means, coupled with responses:

It could merely be listing any recognizable species within their 'kinds'.
Response:
It tells them to avoid 'any KIND of falcon.' We know there are numerous 'kinds' within genus Falco. You can't have it any other way. It tells you right there in the most obvious light that there are several kinds of falcons.

According to your reasoning, anything with fins and scales ought to be a single 'kind', as it tells us in the previous passages that these you can eat.
It neglects to say all creatures with fins and scales are a single 'kind', so I don't think all things with fins and scales are a single 'kind'.

It's in a different context.
It's in the very same context to describe as 'kind'. There is no way around it. 'kind' means roughly the species level.

It identifies the stork as a single Kind. Storks form Family Ciconiidae, so this means that at least one 'kind' is at the Family level.
We do not know what type of stork it was referring to. For all we know, there might have only been on recognizable species in that region at that time. There might even be just one genus/species of stork living in that region today.

'Kind' does not have to be restricted to the strictures imposed by evolutionary model.
Actually, according to young earth creationists, there are Bear kinds, Dolphin kinds, Cow kinds, Camel kinds, Cat kinds. They are ALL on the family level. No animals have been interbred outside of Family level. Besides, today's classification scheme is based off of Carl Linnaeus' method, who happened to be a creationist.

So if 'kind' refers to genus/species level, then what about animals that can interbreed outside of genus?
In Genesis, God tells the animals to reproduce after their kinds. Essentially, no animal can be what its parent was not. Every scientist agrees on this. It also means they will naturally bring forth within their species/genus. As demonstrated above, the kites are different 'kinds', yet they have been shown to interbreed, so two different 'kinds' can in fact interbred.
So does this mean the ark would have had to hold several times more 'kinds' than estimated by young-earth-creationists?
It most certainly does!
If the Hebrews could recognize individual species as 'kinds', then it is certain that 'kind' is at the genus or species level. This shows the YEC view on 'kind' is flawed. There is no Biblical reason behind not accepting macro-evolution, or change between 'kinds'.

Thoughts?

You seem to lack an operational - that is, determinable, definition of "kind". It means whatever you need it to mean in any particular case. For example, in the case of "falcon", you claim it means species, as there are different "kinds" of falcons.

In the case of "stork", you claim it means family (Cicconidae), and you guess that there might have been just one kind of stork in the area at the time that portion of the Bible was written.

But you have failed on several points. The words "falcon" and "stork" are English glosses for the Greek or Aramaic words. But which words? And what did those words refer to at the time the manuscripts were written? Did you bother checking? Was there more than one species of falcon in the region? Was there more than one species of stork in the region?

Such a fluid definition of a word suggests that you are applying your defintions post hoc, which is not a good thing.

adocus wrote: For example, in the case of "falcon", you claim it means species, as there are different "kinds" of falcons.

In the case of "stork", you claim it means family (Cicconidae),

There is no reason that the definition of "kind" has to map specifically to either "species" or "family".

"There is no reason that the definition of "kind" has to map specifically to either "species" or "family"."

No, but it has to map to something. It can't mean whatever you'd like it to mean, when it suits you. It has to have a meaning which is then used consistently.

Adocus

adocus,

We are dealing with a single Hebrew word and the Bible's definition fits something on the order of genus or species. You have given no possitive evidence to support a different meaning of min. Please stop dodging the issue and give us your evidence.

Lev. 11
13 'These, moreover, you shall detest among the flying creatures; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15 every raven in its kind,
16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,
17 and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,
18 and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,
19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

In these verses alone you have four owl kinds, although the owl of verse 16 may be the nighthawk. Then you have the hawk, kite, falcon and eagle as different kinds and different vultures are listed as kinds. The same can be seen in Deut. 14.

It can't mean whatever you'd like it to mean, when it suits you. It has to have a meaning which is then used consistently.

In biology, there are at least 12 different ways to define a species. Are you consistently using only one definition?

adocus wrote:It can't mean whatever you'd like it to mean, when it suits you. It has to have a meaning which is then used consistently.

And precisely where in the examples was it used inconsistently? We currently use different words for ruby and spinel. The ancients did not. But they were very consistent in lumping them together as one type of stone.

Sandy, you're kidding, right? After reading the last half dozen posts you can seriously ask where the word "kind" was used inconsistently?

Come on, if you want to have a discussion, that's great. But if you're just going to repeat questions over and over after they've been answered, I've better things to do.

Hint: try "falcon" and "stork".

Adocus

adocus wrote:Hint: try "falcon" and "stork".

Adocus is claiming that because today we classify animals according to one scheme it is inconsistent to use some other scheme. What part of the ruby/spinel example is not clear?

Sandy continues to twirl and pirouette. In one case, "kind" means a species (falcon). In the next case, "kind" means an order (Cicconiformes).

What part of "shifting definitions" do you not understand?

adocus wrote:Sandy continues to twirl and pirouette. In one case, "kind" means a species (falcon). In the next case, "kind" means an order (Cicconiformes).

What part of "shifting definitions" do you not understand?

They are two different classification systems. You can argue about the worth of "kind" etc., but to complain that the two systems are different is ludicrous.
In one case "light" means wave; in another "light" means particle. No wonder you are not interested in chemistry or physics.

adocus wrote:In one case, "kind" means a species (falcon). In the next case, "kind" means an order (Cicconiformes).

What part of "shifting definitions" do you not understand?

Here's an interesting example of "different" ("shifting" only to turtles) definitions i happened to run across this morning (N.B. distinction between knowledge and wisdom):


http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/ ... -in-a-blt/

First, I want to say that tomatoes are a fruit. Here is a scientific definition of fruit:

Fruit noun, plural: fruits

(1) (botany) The seed-bearing structure in angiosperms formed from the ovary after flowering.

source

See? Tomato is a fruit.

Having said that, in common English parlance we do not call a tomato a fruit. We put the tomatoes in with the vegetables. Is this because we are unknowledgeable? No. It is because we are wise. Anyone who reads Fortune Cookies knows this:

Knowledge is knowing that a Tomato is a Fruit. Wisdom is not putting a Tomato in the Fruit Salad.

There are two things that bother me about this. First, we don’t do this with cucumbers. Cucumbers are also a fruit. Or butternut squash. That’s also a fruit. Or peppers. Fruit. We only do this “I’m a smart skeptic look how smart I am” thing with tomatoes. Why? Perhaps because of all the “vegetables” that are “fruit,” tomatoes are the most fruit-esque, more near the vegetable-fruit line, more positioned, as it were, to challenge the common knowledge. Or, maybe the “knowledgeable” who like to make fun of the villagers by pointing out that this vegetable is a fruit don’t know that a lufa sponge is also a fruit. Personally, I think it is because tomatoes are red, and so are a LOT of fruits. (Most of which are inedible, it seems, but that’s another story.)

So, the first thing that bothers me is that it isn’t taken far enough. The second thing that bothers me is that it is taken too far. Tomatoes are not fruit, they are vegetables, as are summer and winter squash, carrots, lettuce, and onions. Why? Because that is what we call them in English. Oh, the scientists? They have a different set of terms for these things. In fact, scientists have a huge big pile of terms related to plants…Achene, Laevigate, Inframedial, Staminode, and Spinescent to name a few…and among those terms there are two that look a lot like common English words and that have overlapping definitions: Fruit and flower. Just as the word “fruit” in English does not overlap with the scientific term “fruit,” the English word “flower” does not overlap with the scientific term. You do know, for instance, that those showy red flowery things on Poinsettias are not flowers. Those are just red leaves. Yet, they are flowers. When you visit Grandma at Christmas time and she’s got a big Poinsettia sitting there on the side table, you don’t say “Oh my, Grandmother, what large and pretty leaves you have there!”

So, the second thing that bothers me is this: The “fact” that tomatoes are “fruit” is not true. In English, they are vegetables. They are in the vegetable section, separate from the fruit, in the store. We treat them as vegetables. They taste like vegetables. There is no fruit in a BLT. Oh, sure, in Science Tomatoes are “fruit” … I know this because I wrote my PhD thesis in Science on Fruit so I’m a total expert on the subject. But I also wrote my PhD thesis in Anthropology of human-plant interactions. And I noticed that while the scientific lexicon and the natural language lexicon often overlap, they are not the same. I’m not big on “separate magisteria” because that’s a bunch of crap. But if we see the world as having One True Terminology, then we see the world without its culture. That would be wrong, boring, and close minded.

So, this is the thing: Science can’t communicate by standing on a box and shouting out its rules and insisting that variance between science and culture is indicative of culture being wrong. Tomatoes are not fruit, and the word “theory” means an idea that is weak. In English. Scientists and science boosters can insist as hard as they want that everyone who believes these things are wrong, and if they insist hard enough, in intro science classes an on the Intertubes, then everyone will eventually get it and use proper botanical terms and make correct reference to The Scientific Method when talking about their’ boyfriend’s chance of getting a job at the Target. Not.

Besides. Did you ever ponder the scientific meaning of the term “Vegetable? Turns out, Tomatoes are vegetables if we consider that “The noun vegetable means an edible plant or part of a plant.” Vegetarians eat vegetables, including strawberries.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a vegetable. Wisdom is understanding that a seeming contradiction is not a contradiction at all, but rather, a reflection of the cultural complexity of science and the scientific complexity of culture.