Replies

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language ----kind----
1. [Archaic] (a) origin (b) nature (c) manner; way
2. a natural group or division (the rodent kind) sometimes used in compounds (human-kind)
3.essential character
4. sort; variety: class

So the definition of the word kind in the number 2 has been removed as a meaning which is a scientific determination of a division by you and the rest of the world must follow suit.

You can not remove a meaning of a word and call it useless in a specific application because you do not like that is is related to the Bible.
The word is legitimate to use as a scientific word it may not be the word of the day but it can define a situation as well as the word species.
Also the definition in number 4 has a scientific use a German Shepard is a sort of the dog kind.
A Japanese Silky is a variety of the chicken kind. Which is interfertil with a Rhode Island Red even though it is from across the ocean.
A Clydesdale is a class of the horse kind.

"So the definition of the word kind in the number 2 has been removed as a meaning which is a scientific determination of a division by you and the rest of the world must follow suit."

Not by me, by taxonomists. Blame Linnaeus. *Kind* hasn't been used for centuries. It's a Biblical word with no scientific meaning.

"The word is legitimate to use as a scientific word it may not be the word of the day but it can define a situation as well as the word species."

No, it can't, as you proved earlier when you called the family canidae the *dog kind* and then said all the species within it were also the *dog kind*. The word can be stretched by creationists to mean a species to a taxonomic family, or order, or class, depending on how desperate the creationist gets. That's why you couldn't tell me how many *kinds* there were of insects, or of birds, as there are millions of insect species, and about 10,000 bird species. There is no consistent way to divide biological populations by *kind*, nor is there even a hint of one. Species distinctions can get blurry, mainly because of the fact that they are not fixed in time. But *kind*? Could mean anything. Which is the way creationists want it.

Again, it wasn't I who discarded *kind* from taxonomy; it was scientists hundreds of years ago, long before Darwin. Blame Linnaeus.