"1) What is a "kind"? Same question I asked before, which you did not answer."
I don't define it, the Scriptures do.
My guess would be a more defined taxonomic classification based upon observation or physical evidence of the animals themselves. Whereas we know a coyote/dog when we see it. And can observe this is a "kind" of canine and it's characteristics attests to the evidence of such. And we know that dogs can't breed with aligators. Nor would I expect a wolf breeding with a cockerspaniel produce a new "kind", such as a bird.
The creation by God of distinct "kinds" is described in 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least superfluous.
1 Corinthians 15:38-39 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
38 But God gives it a body as He wants, and to each of the seeds its own body.
39 Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
Otherwise, I guess you could google it! LOL!
"2) What is the scientific mechanism that erects a barrier between kinds, so that evolution can work up to that point, but no further?"
Because God created life "each according to its kind" as specified in Genesis. See also, again, 1 Corinthians 15:38-39. The same reason we cannot breed with apes, they are of a different kind. If we were of like kind, then this would be possible. But we're not. We may share similar DNA, (what? something like 96%? Can't remember)etc, but this doesn't tell us anything. Clouds are 100% water. Watermellon is approximately 98% water. Are we to conclude they have a similar "make up" and should expect to observe mellons in the sky?
I supposed God could evolve Man as you implied. Nothing is impossible for God, but I've not read anything suggesting this. I guess you could argue the term "creation" in general terms and that God used a process. However, the references in the Scriptures clearly use the term "create". Until there is anything compelling that is "discovered" and goes through a proper peer review, I'll still remain within the word of the Gospel otherwise.
I've tried to honestly and respectly respond to your questions based on my belief system irrespective of the so-called evidence that you've embraced--and haven't been a wise guy or silly like I was earlier. Now I have a couple of questions--
1. Why is it you would discount the word of God and why would you believe that God did not do the things as described? Is God a liar? If God created Man in His image, then why are the Scriptures that difficult to understand/believe--especially in light of the "Y chromosone Adam" discovery?
2. Why is it important to put your faith in what Man tells you rather than an all encompassing God?
"1) What is a "kind"? Same question I asked before, which you did not answer."
<< I don't define it, the Scriptures do. >>
No, they don't. The Bible just says "kinds" without defining what that entails. That's the problem. That's why creationists come up with so many different definitions -- based on the needs of the argument of the moment.
<< Nor would I expect a wolf breeding with a cockerspaniel produce a new "kind", such as a bird. >>
Nor would evolution. A wolf breeding with a cocker spaniel would produce an animal with inherited characteristics of both. Then that creature mating with another animals that IT can breed with produces a new generation with more mixtures of characteristics. Again -- populations evolve -- not individuals.
This whole nonsense about producing radically different species in one generation has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The fact that you argue in this way says nothing against the theory, but it does say something about yoru lack of understanding of just what it is you are arguing against.
Ever heard of a "ring species"?
<< The creation by God of distinct "kinds" is described in 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least superfluous.
1 Corinthians 15:38-39 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
38 But God gives it a body as He wants, and to each of the seeds its own body.
39 Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. >>
Actually -- that does NOT preclude speciation in the least! Nor does it preclude "one flesh" becoming "another flesh." All it is saying is that these large categories are different from each other. In fact, it does not preclude very large developments from one large category of animal to another.
I can see how someone could take from it that "animal flesh" cannot become "man flesh" if one were to take it as a scientific statement concerning limits. But that is not what it is -- and that is not what the discussion in that passage is about. To get THAT meaning from the passage would entail twisting the scripture to make it say something it is not really saying -- and believers are cautioned -- in that same Bible -- against doing such a thing, although that is the standard creationist practice.
"2) What is the scientific mechanism that erects a barrier between kinds, so that evolution can work up to that point, but no further?"
<< Because God created life "each according to its kind" as specified in Genesis. See also, again, 1 Corinthians 15:38-39. The same reason we cannot breed with apes, they are of a different kind. If we were of like kind, then this would be possible. But we're not. >>
So what about domestic wheat being unable to interbreed with emmer grass, which it is clearly descended from? They are of the same "kind" in the sense you are using the term here. There are many, many other examples of such speciation, both in the lab and in nature. That's exactly how evolution works.
And -- quoting a passage of scripture that says how they were created does not give any scientific mechanism by which evolution cannot continue to proceed beyond the arbitrary barrier of a "kind" -- however you choose to define it.
"We may share similar DNA, (what? something like 96%? Can't remember)etc, but this doesn't tell us anything. Clouds are 100% water. Watermellon is approximately 98% water. Are we to conclude they have a similar "make up" and should expect to observe mellons in the sky?"
No offense intended -- but what a stupid argument! Clouds are not living things that reproduce, or have DNA, or undergo genetic mutations, nor are affected by natural selection in terms of survival to reproduction. Melons are. So melons that can interbreed will undergo these processes to the point that some of them eventually cannot interbreed anymore.
That is speciation. And you still have not provided any scientific mechanism that limits the level to which this speciation will take things over a long period of time. Quoting a Bible passage is not exactly a "final answer" to a scientific question.
<< However, the references in the Scriptures clearly use the term "create". Until there is anything compelling that is "discovered" and goes through a proper peer review, I'll still remain within the word of the Gospel otherwise. >>
Plenty has been discovered that is compelling in this regard. Plenty has gone through peer review. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. Sticking to a Bible passage that does not even speak to the issue is not "remaining within the word of the Gospel." It is scripture twisting and deliberate closing of one's eyes to the actual evidence.
<< I've tried to honestly and respectly respond to your questions based on my belief system >>
There's the problem. I was trying to have a discussion of science -- not belief systems.
<< 1. Why is it you would discount the word of God and why would you believe that God did not do the things as described? Is God a liar? If God created Man in His image, then why are the Scriptures that difficult to understand/believe--especially in light of the "Y chromosone Adam" discovery? >>
Lots of religious questions. That sounds like a lot of great questions for people to discuss within the framework of shared presuppositions. We do not share the same presuppositions about scripture. You have no idea what I "believe" about "God" -- so asking a question like, "Did God lie?" has no relevance.
<< 2. Why is it important to put your faith in what Man tells you rather than an all encompassing God? >>
I am not "putting my faith" in anything. I am studying the evidence -- and I accept the conclusions of evolution based on a study of the evidence that has been found. That is not "faith." I am not "embracing" it either. I am not emotionally attached to it.
I don't care where the evidence leads. If it were to lead elsewhere, I would follow it there -- and so would all honest scientists. As history has shown, many scientists -- who are just as flawed as everyone else -- have shown resistance to new evidence that calls into question what they have accepted as the best scientific answer.
But with the way science works -- with the competition, the peer review, the rush to disprove each other, the desire to be the one to find that next great discovery -- eventually, we all are dragged along by the evidence. The biblical idea of a universal flood was abandoned before Darwin came along, and it was abandoned by "creationists" who found that the evidence simply wasn't there to support it.
The evidence for evolution does not have feelings, or intentions, or goals. It's just what it is. Our feelings about it -- our feelings about how it may fit or contradict our cherished religious beliefs -- our desire to be right -- none of these things has any relevance to the truth value of the evidence itself.
Ya wanna discuss religion -- ya got the wrong guy, and the wrong thread.