Jump to content


Photo

Noah Had Two Of Every Kind On The Ark


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:47 PM

According to Adam 777:

Yeah, but the different kinds were preserved and how many seeds do you suppose were taking root as dry land reappeared?

It wasn't square one.

God didn't say; "Noah, take this super-duper bacterium and let evolution start over again." All the kinds were around before the flood and guess what? All the kinds were around the moment that boat settled because they weren't destroyed.

View Post


So, what exactly is a "kind" in your opinion?

#2 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:02 PM

Any two lifeforms with a common ancestor are the same kind.

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:51 PM

Any two lifeforms with a common ancestor are the same kind.

View Post


So a common sheep is the same as a mountain goat?

#4 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 24 December 2008 - 05:21 PM

Basically are you saying that Noah took two of the kitty cat kind, two of the doggie kind, two of the horsey kind, two of the froggie kind, etc. on the ark, and over a mere 4000 years, all of the different species of kitty cats, doggies, horsies, froggies etc. have evolved?

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 December 2008 - 11:56 PM

So, what exactly is a "kind" in your opinion?

View Post

I don't see this as easily answered because we simply don't know perfectly. I think in a more general sense it is obvious but if you wanted to scrutinize the concept of kinds exactingly it can be difficult because the proof is stuck in the past on the day Noah ushered those animals on to the ark.

Can I offer this feasibility study to show how creationists approach this question?:

bdC1re_NqkI

NPcbeWJtf84

NkxXm1jHO3A

#6 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 December 2008 - 07:45 AM

Basically are you saying that Noah took two of the kitty cat kind, two of the doggie kind, two of the horsey kind, two of the froggie kind, etc. on the ark, and over a mere 4000 years, all of the different species of kitty cats, doggies, horsies, froggies etc. have evolved?

View Post

I never said any creature evolved. I prefer not to abuse the English language, and I prefer terms that are readily understood. The descendants of the creatures on the ark are what we see today.

#7 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 December 2008 - 07:47 AM

So a common sheep is the same as a mountain goat?

View Post

It looks that way. Do we need to look this up somewhere?

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 December 2008 - 08:00 AM

It looks that way. Do we need to look this up somewhere?

View Post


It's funny how a form of critical thinking is kicked in to high gear when questioning scripture but when evolution is mentioned, no thought is required because they have been told... <_<

BTW, I think the ideas and questions around Noah's flood are legitimate and worth investigating. However, saying Noah's flood didn't happen because we aren't certain what kinds are; is like saying the pyramids aren't man made because we aren't sure how they were built.

#9 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 December 2008 - 09:00 AM

It's funny how a form of critical thinking is kicked in to high gear when questioning scripture but when evolution is mentioned, no thought is required because they have been told... <_<

BTW, I think the ideas and questions around Noah's flood are legitimate and worth investigating. However, saying Noah's flood didn't happen because we aren't certain what kinds are; is like saying the pyramids aren't man made because we aren't sure how they were built.

View Post

I don't know what gear it's in. After the thorough job of undefining that's been done to 'species', that term has become useless for anything beyond expressing an opinion. The term 'kind', as employed by creation scientists and many creationists permits research.

For example, one could study the types of genetic similarities found among kinds and the differences found between kinds, and apply any patterns discovered to unknown cases. With evolutionism + 'species', one cannot even conceive of such a program because it is contrary to sacred assumptions. Even worse, its employment would threaten to remove vital gaps in knowledge, taking away the liberty to fill them in with imagination.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 December 2008 - 12:36 PM

Basically are you saying that Noah took two of the kitty cat kind, two of the doggie kind, two of the horsey kind, two of the froggie kind, etc. on the ark, and over a mere 4000 years, all of the different species of kitty cats, doggies, horsies, froggies etc. have evolved?


Were saying,Noah took two of every species and some of those species have changed due to genetic isolation,climate change,changes in food sources,domestication,etc.

I'm working on some global geologic correlations at the moment,so I can't tell you for sure if dinosaurs were on the ark or not,most people seem to think so.

Thanks.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 December 2008 - 12:45 PM

I don't know what gear it's in. After the thorough job of undefining that's been done to 'species', that term has become useless for anything beyond expressing an opinion. The term 'kind', as employed by creation scientists and many creationists permits research.


I always thought a dolphin and a killer whale were a different genus,it turns out that they are interfertile,so even a genus may be flawed.

I also thought that hawks and eagles would be a variation within a species,but DNA analyses has shown them to be a completely different group.

Thanks.

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 December 2008 - 01:25 PM

So a common sheep is the same as a mountain goat?


I don't know about sheep,but all varities of goats are from artificial selection (Domestication).The same as cows,etc.


Thanks.

#13 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 December 2008 - 02:08 PM

I don't know about sheep,but all varities of goats are from artificial selection (Domestication).The same as cows,etc.
Thanks.

View Post

Except of course for the wild ones.

#14 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 06:21 AM

Hope everyone had a good Christmas. I couldn't help but notice how many Christians posted on here even on Christmas day. Your families didn't mind that you were pounding away on the computer keyboard while they were all trying to get you to play Pictionary, eh?

:P

I don't see this as easily answered because we simply don't know perfectly. I think in a more general sense it is obvious but if you wanted to scrutinize the concept of kinds exactingly it can be difficult because the proof is stuck in the past on the day Noah ushered those animals on to the ark.

Can I offer this feasibility study to show how creationists approach this question?:

View Post



Thanks for the videos, Adam. The Woodmorappe Method of Feasibility strikes again. I think it's interesting that you can swallow the could-have-happened-like-this style of argument from people like this, while completely discounting speculations actually based on science from people like Carl Sagan.

I do have to wonder though, as a former farm girl, and thinking back on my many trips to the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park, just how Noah and his family of approximately 8 people would have been logistically able to care for even 1,000 pairs of animals for a year, let alone 10's of thousands of pairs?

Maybe God helped Noah out with some supernatural miracles a bit more than these feasibility studies let on.

;)


And yet, getting back to the topic of this thread, we are no closer to figuring out just what the heck a "kind" is . . . .

#15 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 December 2008 - 07:53 AM

;)
And yet, getting back to the topic of this thread, we are no closer to figuring out just what the heck a "kind" is . . . .

View Post

Neither are we any further away. Looks like someone might want to get busy...

#16 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:23 AM

Neither are we any further away. Looks like someone might want to get busy...

View Post


Busy doing what?

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:48 AM

Thanks for the videos, Adam.  The Woodmorappe Method of Feasibility strikes again.  I think it's interesting that you can swallow the could-have-happened-like-this style of argument from people like this, while completely discounting speculations actually based on science from people like Carl Sagan.

View Post


Judy,

You think Carl Sagan dreaming the impossible on supposed natural terms while no scientific method could verify, his or other theorists concepts of evolution, and numerous known principles work strongly against their ideas (to the point of absurdity), Carl Sagan's "good science" is beyond me, Sister.

Carl Sagan was a clever polite version of Richard Dawkins. He was a pantheist's pantheist. He just hid behind the cloak of agnosticism and his philosophy was just as fatally flawed.

As for the concept of believing the Bible verses some goofy theories of billions of years and a common decent from goo for which there is no evidence. How does a person continue to believe in evolution as the evidence mounts against it? The only estimation I have is strong faith.

However, scripture is history and the things in scripture that are easily verified prove it to be the most reliable rendition of what this world has experienced.

So while you have faith in unnatural concepts of nature and the dreams dreamed up in the bellies of boats like the beagle and reclined at office desks of others imagining evolution for all the world to believe. We instead believe in the reasonable conclusion that God's power is revealed and revealed again in His nature and His Word.

I trust the Word that has miraculously resisted manipulation, but known for transforming scrutinizing individuals, like myself and many others over the pipe dreams that refuse delivery of miracles, not because of a lack of evidence but a faulty philosophy meant to denude the recipient of ever finding the truth.

How's that?

...as for Christmas posting? When the wife is taking a nap a post or two does not offend? ;)

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 26 December 2008 - 09:02 AM

Busy doing what?

View Post


Uh huh you already understand and know the definition of the word kind. Don't beat a dead horse anymore than you possibly need to.

Doggy kind, Horsey Kind, yeah that pretty much explains it with no further questions asked. We could seperate kinds into hundreds of different groups, doesn't matter because since we don't know the exact animals that were divided into two's then no one can give an exact answer or definition.

Also, if we could give an exact answer we would be giving an absolute truth. Just like it's an absolute truth that I typed on this computer, therefore any notion that absolute truths do not exist has just been utterly and easily disproven.

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 09:14 AM

And yet, getting back to the topic of this thread, we are no closer to figuring out just what the heck a "kind" is . . . .

View Post


This is a drive towards a faulty antithesis, actually an anti-scientific antithesis. It goes like this:

"Oh, you don't know everything about kinds? Well, I guess since you aren't sure... how can you know anything?"

If believing that exhaustive knowledge is needed before being able to obtain any objective knowledge how would we do science? Please tell us.

Don't forget the word species enjoys a high level of ambiguity that isn't questioned. So what's your problem again?

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 December 2008 - 03:16 PM

I do have to wonder though, as a former farm girl, and thinking back on my many trips to the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park, just how Noah and his family of approximately 8 people would have been logistically able to care for even 1,000 pairs of animals for a year, let alone 10's of thousands of pairs?


Hi Judy,we hope you had a merry christmas.

The bible said Noah spent 120 years building the ark.I'm sure that was plenty of time for him to stock the stalls with food.If you locked a herd of cattle in a barn full of hay would they starve to death?




Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users