How many "kinds" were on the ark?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question isn't about total animals, but "kinds" that were on the ark.

[garthoverman]

Even more interesting to me would be an explanation of how marsupial mammals and other "kinds" unique to the continent of Australia managed to traverse the entire distance from the continent to Noah's ark (roughly in the modern-day middle east), survive 40 days and nights on a boat crowded with predatory animals that they were not "designed" to elude, and then survive the entire journey BACK to the continent (and NO OTHER continent, mind you, even in fragments) while somehow managing to preserve the delicate predator-prey ecological balances in the populations of the original group that set off FROM Australia. Not to mention the fact that a sigfnicant proportion of these animals survive exclusively on fauna that is also unique to Australia (meaning, of course, that all of those animals had the foresight to bring their sustenance WITH them to the ark and think well enough ahead to SAVE some for the return journey). Also not to mention that we find species of plant-life on the continent today that could not survive 40 days of submersion - especially subject to the type of violent erosion and sedimentation that is supposed to account for observed sedimentary layers, lake varves and ice cores (meaning, of course, that the animals - when packing their lunches, so to speak - had the foresight to preserve over their long journey a sufficient number of specimens of each plant species to re-seed the continent upon their return from the voyage). Why is it that it seems the more robustly "designed" placental mammals didn't seem to survive the journey to Australia?

Don't we have a resident Australian here that has been recently distinguished for his alleged wealth of knowledge on this subject? Perhaps he might shed some light on it for us. Is it simply another miracle which we shouln't bother questioning? How did it happen?

Yours,
Garth

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86200#post86200)
garthoverman:

Even more interesting to me would be an explanation of how marsupial mammals and other "kinds" unique to the continent of Australia managed to traverse the entire distance from the continent to Noah's ark (roughly in the modern-day middle east),

What is interesting to me is how you were able to calculate the distance from Australia to the Middle East in the days of Noah, how you know what the terrain was like in those days, how you know the method by which they were transported, and finally how you know that the Ark started or landed someplace in the present-day Middle East?

survive 40 days and nights on a boat crowded with predatory animals that they were not "designed" to elude, and then survive the entire journey BACK to the continent (and NO OTHER continent, mind you, even in fragments) while somehow managing to preserve the delicate predator-prey ecological balances in the populations of the original group that set off FROM Australia.

Of course it is laughable that you know so little about the Genesis flood story that you would think the animals stayed on the Ark only 40 days and nights. Do you also know so little that you believe that the water for the flood came chiefly from a downpour of rain?

But back to the other assumptions implied in your posting.

predatory animals that they were not designed to elude,

Are you assuming that creatures from 4500 years would act, behave and look the way you observe them to do so today when there is abundant evidence in the literature that lifeforms make amazing adjustments in their behavior and food preferences (and sometimes form) in very short time periods, e.g. in the presence of modern humanity and cities.

and then survive the entire journey BACK to the continent (and NO OTHER continent, mind you, even in fragments)

Are you ignoring the possibility that this was due more to a deliberate or accidental transportaion rather than a journey? And again, how did you determine the distance and time that the "journey" entailed and the terrain over which it took place?

while somehow managing to preserve the delicate predator-prey ecological balances in the populations of the original group that set off FROM Australia.

Are you assuming some knowledge here about ancient situations that you are certain is accurate?

Not to mention the fact that a sigfnicant proportion of these animals survive exclusively on fauna that is also unique to Australia (meaning, of course, that all of those animals had the foresight to bring their sustenance WITH them to the ark and think well enough ahead to SAVE some for the return journey).

Are you assuming here again that your knowledge of the current situation is a reliable model of the situation when the alleged "journey" might have taken place

Also not to mention that we find species of plant-life on the continent today that could not survive 40 days of submersion - especially subject to the type of violent erosion and sedimentation that is supposed to account for observed sedimentary layers, lake varves and ice cores (meaning, of course, that the animals - when packing their lunches, so to speak - had the foresight to preserve over their long journey a sufficient number of specimens of each plant species to re-seed the continent upon their return from the voyage). Why is it that it seems the more robustly designed placental mammals didn't seem to survive the journey to Australia?

If we had a time machine I am sure all of your skepticism would be answered in a perfectly reasonable way and would show you where in your amazing number of arbitrary assumptions your fallible human reasoning has let you down.

Remember, evolutionists had worked this kind of stuff out very carefully prior to the widespread adoption of the theory of continental drift and they were every bit as certain of their conclusions as you are of yours.

In astronomy the saying goes, "Astronomers are frequently wrong, but never in doubt". I think this holds for evolutionists as well.

Don't we have a resident Australian here that has been recently distinguished for his alleged wealth of knowledge on this subject? Perhaps he might shed some light on it for us. Is it simply another miracle which we shouln't bother questioning? How did it happen?

Since we weren't there to see we can only speculate, if we are so foolish to even try, considering that the prediction of rain is generally limited to a few days at most despite countless hours of model building and the amazing speed of modern computers.

But despite these obvious limitations of technology to predict the far past (or future either) some people delude themselves with modern myths of oraclelism (is that a word?).

Science is great and I love it but scientific prognostication is something else again altogether.

BTW, I am sure that Socrates could do much better than I did if he even cares to respond to the likes of you, but the bottom line is this:

Evolution didn't happen. Get used to it.

[garthoverman]

It is painfully obvious that you've missed the point of my post.

Yesterday @ 09:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86602#post86602)
Socratism:

What is interesting to me is how you were able to calculate the distance from Australia to the Middle East in the days of Noah, how you know what the terrain was like in those days, how you know the method by which they were transported, and finally how you know that the Ark started or landed someplace in the present-day Middle East?
I don't know. That's why I was asking. I noticed your response didn't offer much in the way of answers, though.


Of course it is laughable that you know so little about the Genesis flood story that you would think the animals stayed on the Ark only 40 days and nights. Do you also know so little that you believe that the water for the flood came chiefly from a downpour of rain?
No answers again, I see.


Are you assuming that creatures from 4500 years would act, behave and look the way you observe them to do so today when there is abundant evidence in the literature that lifeforms make amazing adjustments in their behavior and food preferences (and sometimes form) in very short time periods, e.g. in the presence of modern humanity and cities.
Any reasons why I SHOULDN'T assume that animals behaved then as we observe them to today? Again, you're falling mighty short on supplying the info which I requested. You might have saved yourself a lot of time simply replying "I don't know" or not replying at all.


Are you ignoring the possibility that this was due more to a deliberate or accidental transportaion rather than a journey? And again, how did you determine the distance and time that the "journey" entailed and the terrain over which it took place?
Questions, questions, questions... Not one declarative sentence in that quote. No info yet?


Are you assuming some knowledge here about ancient situations that you are certain is accurate?
No answers still.


Are you assuming here again that your knowledge of the current situation is a reliable model of the situation when the alleged "journey" might have taken place
I don't HAVE a model. I want to see YOURS. What is it? (is that clear enough?)


If we had a time machine I am sure all of your skepticism would be answered in a perfectly reasonable way and would show you where in your amazing number of arbitrary assumptions your fallible human reasoning has let you down.
Yessirree-bob! Of course, if we had a time machine, we could account for all of this because of the very real possibility that persons from the future had returned to the time of Noah's flood with their teleportation technology and simply zapped the entire population off the continent pre-flood and back to it after! There! Easy as pie.:lol:

Remember, evolutionists had worked this kind of stuff out very carefully prior to the widespread adoption of the theory of continental drift and they were every bit as certain of their conclusions as you are of yours.
What, exactly, is an "evolutionist." Does one need a certification to be one? Are "evolutionists" registered with any organization?


Since we weren't there to see we can only speculate, if we are so foolish to even try, considering that the prediction of rain is generally limited to a few days at most despite countless hours of model building and the amazing speed of modern computers.
This is your best answer? You respond that it would be "foolish to even try" to reach reasonable conclusions based on the evidence we currently possess? Man, I had higher hopes for you.


Science is great and I love it but scientific prognostication is something else again altogether.
I'm just interested in which model best accounts for the evidence.

BTW, I am sure that Socrates could do much better than I did if he even cares to respond to the likes of you, but the bottom line is this:

Evolution didn't happen. Get used to it.


Evolution didn't happen, but the flood did... hmmm.... Sorry buddy, you got a long way to go before convincing me of that whopper. So far this post hasn't taken you much closer to that goal. What evidence is there that a flood actually occurred? How did the ecological system which is unique to Australia manage to survive a mass exodus and return in perfect balance? How did they even know to go? I suppose God miracled them all away? Why is it that we observe dinosaur fossils in deeper layers of sediment than flowering plants? Are we to assume that the sunflowers somehow outran the velociraptors in the race to higher ground as the flood waters rose? Let's have some real answers this time, huh? I think the change would do you good.

Yours,
Garth

[Woman]

Garth,

After you have hung around here for a while you'll learn that there are some amazing beliefs shared by some of the Biblical inerrant Christians.

You think you're amazed now....

The actual Flood, according to Genesis, lasted for 371 days. That's how long Noah and the animals were confined on the ark. Many Christians believe that there were no carnivores prior to the Flood! They only became that way after they got off the boat.

Also, there is widespread belief that Pangea (one large continent) was the state of the earth pre-flood and that, during the Flood, continents, islands mountains and the Grand Canyon were formed. They believe that within the next five hundred years (which brings us up to about 2000 B.C.) there was an ice age which killed off some animals and created temporary land bridges.

Despite Socratism's non-commital, Biblically the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the middle east so therefore the kangaroos did have to migrate to Australia somehow.

Socratism:
there is abundant evidence in the literature that lifeforms make amazing adjustments in their behavior and food preferences (and sometimes form) in very short time periods...

yep, it's called evolution, but it generally take a long, long time.

[Socrates]

Garth to Socratism:Evolution didn't happen, but the flood did... hmmm.... Sorry buddy, you got a long way to go before convincing me of that whopper. So far this post hasn't taken you much closer to that goal. What evidence is there that a flood actually occurred? There is plenty of evidence that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is false. And plenty of evidence that a global Flood occurred -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp There's no point spoonfeeding biblioskeptics who don't study what they are attacking.

Garth:How did the ecological system which is unique to Australia manage to survive a mass exodus and return in perfect balance? How did they even know to go? I suppose God miracled them all away?Once again, a misrepresentation. Australia didn't exist before the Flood, and the marsupial fossils are post-Flood. See also How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp) [list] Why is it that we observe dinosaur fossils in deeper layers of sediment than flowering plants? Are we to assume that the sunflowers somehow outran the velociraptors in the race to higher ground as the flood waters rose?No, because they were buried by a Flood in deeper layers. Let's have some real answers this time, huh? I think the change would do you good.Look what's talking. Socratism was perfectly right to point out that you hadn't even studied what you're attacking. For example, ignorance about the source of water (see Noah’s Flood — Where did the water come from? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html)), the pre-Flood land mass, and migration patterns.

[Socrates]

Woman to Garth:After you have hung around here for a while you'll learn that there are some amazing beliefs shared by some of the Biblical inerrant Christians.Yes, because we believe in an amazing God. But it's far more amazing to see the rationalizations by people who reject God.

Woman:You think you're amazed now....

The actual Flood, according to Genesis, lasted for 371 days. Rather a long time for a mere local Flood, as Hugh Ross and his disciple Wienerdog believe.That's how long Noah and the animals were confined on the ark.Rather a waste to build an ocean-liner–sized Ark if it was just a local Flood -- the people and animals could just have migrated. Many Christians believe that there were no carnivores prior to the Flood! They only became that way after they got off the boat.I know of none who think that. Rather, carnivory is post-FALL. It was only humans who were given permission to eat meat after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). The language is clear that the people were meant to be vegetarian before then (cf. Genesis 1:29), "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." By analogy, this is the way animals were created in the beginning (Genesis 1:30), but in their case, there is no indication that their change was any other than at the biggest discontinuity, the Fall.

The original vegetarianism of both humans and animals is an insoluble problem for Christian compromisers on Genesis.

Woman:Also, there is widespread belief that Pangea (one large continent) was the state of the earth pre-flood and that, during the Flood, continents, islands mountains and the Grand Canyon were formed. And there were post-Flood catastrophes, e.g. during the Ice Age. But indeed, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics seems to be the best model for Earth's geological history. See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.aspThey believe that within the next five hundred years (which brings us up to about 2000 B.C.) there was an ice age which killed off some animals and created temporary land bridges.:thumb: Oh good, you HAVE been studying some things :joy: That's right. If evolutionists are allowed to posit that migration occurred across land bridges during the Ice Age, why shouldn't creationists. And creationists have a good explanation for the Ice Age: warm oceans due to the fountains of the great deep, and cool continents due to volcanic ash sunblock (see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.asp )
Despite Socratism's non-commital, Biblically the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the middle east so therefore the kangaroos did have to migrate to Australia somehow. And the problem is, what?

Socratism:

there is abundant evidence in the literature that lifeforms make amazing adjustments in their behavior and food preferences (and sometimes form) in very short time periods...

Woman:yep, it's called evolution, but it generally take a long, long time.Here we go with more boring equivocation about the word "Evolution", which of course is undisputed by creationists if it means "change of gene frequency over time". But even this may not be occurring, since Socratism seems to be talking about built-in ability in INDIVIDUALS to respond to environmental changes.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked how many "kinds" of animals were on the ark? Can't any thread stay on topic?!!

[Woman]

Soc,

You know, I answered all that from memory. And before I met/ran into/had the "experience" of Socrates, I wouldn't have been able to do so.:teeth:

Now, that being said, I'm still not a creationist. But, I believe I can state, without undo prejudice, a creationist viewpoint. And that's progress in communication if nothing else.

Jimmy
I asked how many "kinds" of animals were on the ark? Can't any thread stay on topic?!!

Sorry:smile: - 5,426

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86978#post86978)
Jimmy Higgins:

I asked how many "kinds" of animals were on the ark? Can't any thread stay on topic?!!

Yeah, you're right. That's my bad.

FYI - Woodmorappe's feasabilty study suggests that there were just short of 8,000 kinds on the ark. (15,754 total animals) These numbers are apparently derived by the assumption that one (pair) of each genus was collected. If it were one pair of each species, the number would be increased roughly three-fold. Apparently Woodmorappe allows that speciation actually occurs. :huh:

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86908#post86908)
Socrates:

There is plenty of evidence that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is false. And plenty of evidence that a global Flood occurred -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp There's no point spoonfeeding biblioskeptics who don't study what they are attacking.
Your characterization of evolutionary theory as "goo to you via the zoo" indicates that you are attacking a strawman. Can you describe in greater detail what you understand to be the theory of evolution? It would help clear up any misconceptions you might be needlessly battling against.

Why is it that we observe dinosaur fossils in deeper layers of sediment than flowering plants? Are we to assume that the sunflowers somehow outran the velociraptors in the race to higher ground as the flood waters rose?No, because they were buried by a Flood in deeper layers.
Hand-waving at its finest. I know that they were supposedly buried by a flood (why do you capitalize it?) in layers. I want to know how the layering occurred such that it is perfectly consistent with our independant dating methods and evolution. Do you have any experimental data that might corroborate your assertion?

Look what's talking. Socratism was perfectly right to point out that you hadn't even studied what you're attacking. For example, ignorance about the source of water (see Noah’s Flood — Where did the water come from? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html)), the pre-Flood land mass, and migration patterns.
If you want to turn this into a link war, let me know and I will then reply in kind. Personally, I don't find them gratifying.

Yours,
Garth

[Socratism]

Garth,

Speciation is a term that is not scientifically precise. No one does breeding experiments on the myriad of lower forms: they classify on the basis of appearance. This is why there are "lumpers" and "splitters" who disagree on detailed classification and why there is a certain amount of "churning" of species census counts at the very detailed levels.

John Maynard-Smith (a famous evolution) has noted that it is remarkable that there can be any such classification at all since evolution proceeds by very tiny mutations, generating a spectrum of change. at any given point in time.

Thus, a "snapshot" of a cross-section of lifeforms should reveal many speciations in the process of occurring and hence many intermediate forms should be appearing in at least some "branches" of the evolutionary tree (because there are so many different "species" or branches.

Depending on how one views the term "species" determines whether one believes it occurs or not.

Certainly all the air-breathing animals we see today could have easily been derived in 4500 years from only a few thousand representatives saved on the Ark.

Incidentally, I consider it doubtful that all of the juvenile dinosaur types carried on the Ark survived to maturity, but from the book of Job as well as persistent legends of "dragons", and drawings of such, I believe a few types might have up until relatively recent times.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87325#post87325)
Socratism:
....YOu going to answert the question or not? If you want start another thread, but the question is simple, HOW MANY "KINDS" WERE ON THE ARK!!!

[Woman]

Socratism
Speciation is a term that is not scientifically precise. No one does breeding experiments on the myriad of lower forms: they classify on the basis of appearance. This is why there are "lumpers" and "splitters" who disagree on detailed classification and why there is a certain amount of "churning" of species census counts at the very detailed levels.

You might find this interesting.

The biological creation model assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with reproduction only occurring within "kinds." The term "baraminology" has been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind. It seems that for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the species, but for others it is at the genus or higher levels. At one time most creationists argued that speciation (as defined by reproductive viability) does not occur. However most now accept that reproductive barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise today, but our model allows this to occur within certain limits. This process operating since the flood would have greatly reduced the number of animals required on the ark.

It's an example of the kind of work being done by "creation scientists." They are trying to figure out what "kinds" are.

I have read excerpts from several of the 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. (The Creation
Research Society Quarterly) Their methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'.

They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.
One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.

A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208

From the introduction:

“…valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.”

So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:

“We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

Here is a paper from CRSQ that pretty much explains this new science of baraminology.

www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm

[Woman]

Jimmy,

No one alive can answer that question because "kinds" has not been identified. Get it?

[Socrates]

Socrates:

There is plenty of evidence that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is false. And plenty of evidence that a global Flood occurred -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp There's no point spoonfeeding biblioskeptics who don't study what they are attacking.

Garth:Your characterization of evolutionary theory as "goo to you via the zoo" indicates that you are attacking a strawman.Rubbish -- it was an accurate paraphrase of the General Theory of Evolution as defined by Prof. Gerald Kerkut of Southampton University, UK (Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960):

‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Garth splutters:Can you describe in greater detail what you understand to be the theory of evolution? It would help clear up any misconceptions you might be needlessly battling against.Don't patronise me lad, especially with straw men of your own devising, e.g. that evolution just means something like "change of gene frequency over time". Despite deceitful bait'n' switch tactics by evolutionary propagandists, creationists do NOT deny change, natural selection, mutation, or even speciation. The dispute is clearly over the GTE.

Garth: Why is it that we observe dinosaur fossils in deeper layers of sediment than flowering plants? Are we to assume that the sunflowers somehow outran the velociraptors in the race to higher ground as the flood waters rose?

Soc: No, because they were buried by a Flood in deeper layers.

Garth:Hand-waving at its finest. Look what's talking, with your absurd caricature above.I know that they were supposedly buried by a flood (why do you capitalize it?) in layers. The capital is because it's a specific unique global Flood that occurred in Noah's days. The Hebrew has a special word for it, mabbul, and the Greek New Testament calls it kataklusmos and uses the corresponding verb katakluzo.I want to know how the layering occurred such that it is perfectly consistent with our independant dating methods and evolution. I would like to know why you ask such leading questions.

Socrates:

Look what's talking. Socratism was perfectly right to point out that you hadn't even studied what you're attacking. For example, ignorance about the source of water (see Noah’s Flood — Where did the water come from?), the pre-Flood land mass, and migration patterns.

Garth:If you want to turn this into a link war, let me know and I will then reply in kind. Personally, I don't find them gratifying.No, I was pointing out that people who criticise another position should represent it fairly, and study existing explanations.

[Socrates]

Garth:FYI - Woodmorappe's feasabilty study suggests that there were just short of 8,000 kinds on the ark. (15,754 total animals) These numbers are apparently derived by the assumption that one (pair) of each genus was collected. If it were one pair of each species, the number would be increased roughly three-fold.And if the kinds were families, as they seem to be in many cases as shown by by hybridization experiments, the number would be decreased about fourfold. For what creationists really believe about kinds, here is an introduction: www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#really
Apparently Woodmorappe allows that speciation actually occurs. Of course. And if you had bothered to read what you splutter against, you would know that creationists believe in speciation. And in fact, creationists are delighted with proven examples of rapid speciation, because this is an implicit prediction of the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model. See Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp)

BTW, this does not constitute a "link war", since my links are merely supporting information for things I've put in my own words.

[Socrates]

Woman to Socrates:You know, I answered all that from memory. Very good! :teeth:And before I met/ran into/had the "experience" of Socrates, I wouldn't have been able to do so.Well then, maybe my time here has been worthwhile :joy:, and maybe even my Member of the Month award :yipee: despite Atheist Archon's whinging :whack:
Now, that being said, I'm still not a creationist. But, I believe I can state, without undo prejudice, a creationist viewpoint. And that's progress in communication if nothing else.Indeed so :smile:. Now all we need to work on is the persistence in equating evolution with "change" :shrug:

In another post, Woman sez:
The biological creation model assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with reproduction only occurring within "kinds." Correct.The term "baraminology" has been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind.Indeed so, from the Hebrew bara = "create" and min = "kind". It's not really my area though. I also think that the combination of Greek and Hebrew in the nomenclature of modern baraminology is somewhat inelegant -- Greek prefixes are tacked onto a Hebrew-derived term.

Most of the AiG articles I've read concentrate on hybridization, which is additive evidence for what constitutes a monobaramin, a group of creatures descended from one kind. This is more of a priority, since the main arguments against creationist classification and the Ark seem to center on speciation, so it's more of a priority to concentrated on "lumping", which places a number of species into the same kind. Also, hybridization is clear-cut evidence.

The whole created kind is called the holobaramin. Hybridization can determine what is part of the kind, but hybridization barriers can arise for various reasons (we all know infertile human couples even, but we don't claim that one of them is no longer part of the human kind). So lack of hybridization ability doesn't rule out being a member of the holobaramin. So baraminologists have subtractive characteristics to remove creatures from being in the same created kind. If creatures are from different created kinds, then they are apobaraminic (from apo = away from). The holobaramin can be determined in principle by additive criteria widening the monobaramin, and subtractive criteria that take creatures into different apobaramins.

Woman continues:It seems that for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the species, but for others it is at the genus or higher levels.Whose fault is this? Obviously, that of the man-made classification system! At one time most creationists argued that speciation (as defined by reproductive viability) does not occur.Did they really? I've already shown that this is not so. At least as far back as 1941, Dr Frank Marsh outlined his hybridization criterion, and argued that the kind was much broader than so-called "biological species", and was high as the so-called "family" in many cases.

The problem occurred with Linnaeus, because he mistakenly identified what he called "species" with the same term in the Latin Bible which translated "kinds". But this is not the fault of the Bible, but of trying to read modern scientific concepts into it. In fact, Linnaeus himself came to realise that the Biblical kinds were wider than his notion of species. And just a reminder, Linnaeus, the father of modern classification, was a Biblical creationist! Just in case anyone claims that one can't be a creationist and make fantastic contributions to biology. However most now accept that reproductive barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise today, but our model allows this to occur within certain limits.Of course, and as I said, rapid speciation is an implicit prediction of the Biblical creation model. This process operating since the flood would have greatly reduced the number of animals required on the ark.:thumb:It's an example of the kind of work being done by "creation scientists." They are trying to figure out what "kinds" are. And this is legitimate science.I have read excerpts from several of the 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. (The Creation Research Society Quarterly) Their methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'. Not arbitrary at all, since they are based on historical accounts (Genesis).

They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). [/list]Indeed so. Conversely, evolutionists justify their results by appeal to the uber-paradigm of materialism. When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.There are lots of examples of this in evolutionary literature, e.g. discarding certain homologies that don't fit with accepted phylogenetic schemes and calling them homoplasies instead, or discarding radiometric "dates" when they conflict with fossil "dates".
One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.Correct. Otherwise it undermines the whole connection of the death brought by the first man, Adam, with the Resurrection of the Last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45.A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208

From the introduction:

“…valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.”

So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Just like evolutionists make the assumption that all creatures ARE phylogenetically related.Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:

“We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”What's wrong with that? Evolutionists also make judgment calls on what are the appropriate criteria to construct phylogenies.

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins:The question isn't about total animals, but "kinds" that were on the ark.I've provided a lot more detail in my response to Woman, who has done quite a bit of research. But an introductory article explaining this is How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87659#post87659)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins:The question isn't about total animals, but "kinds" that were on the ark.I've provided a lot more detail in my response to Woman, who has done quite a bit of research. But an introductory article explaining this is How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp).

And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts, and that chews the cud, among the animals.How many animals is this?

[Jimmy Higgins]

05-04-2003 @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87747#post87747)
Jimmy Higgins:
How many animals is this?

So how many "kinds" were on the ark. It can be a "rough" number, say in 250 intervals. Was it 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc...?

[SLPx]

05-04-2003 @ 04:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86897#post86897)
Woman:
Despite Socratism's non-commital, Biblically the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the middle east so therefore the kangaroos did have to migrate to Australia somehow.

Even more interesting is how the ark - unsteerable though it was, hurtled around on violent seas (according to many YECs), came to rest in essentially the same place it left from one year earlier...

:shrug:

[SLPx]

05-05-2003 @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87621#post87621)
Socrates:
And if the kinds were families, as they seem to be in many cases as shown by by hybridization experiments, the number would be decreased about fourfold.

What "experiments" are these?

[SLPx]

05-05-2003 @ 02:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87645#post87645)
Socrates:
I have read excerpts from several of the 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. (The Creation Research Society Quarterly) Their methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'. [/list]Not arbitrary at all, since they are based on historical accounts (Genesis).


No, they are purely arbitrary. I possess the propaganda pieces in question, and it is no surprise that a simple chemistry tech cannot understand the arbitrariness of these laughable papers
They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). [/list]Indeed so. Conversely, evolutionists justify their results by appeal to the uber-paradigm of materialism.
What an idiotic assertion. Talk about false witness - here we have Socrates justifying the anti-scienitfic misadventures of the CRSQ "baraminologists" then fabricating some gibberish about real scientists doing the same thing. Absurd.
I challenge Socrates to actually support this charge or retract it as a sin.

When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.There are lots of examples of this in evolutionary literature, e.g. discarding certain homologies that don't fit with accepted phylogenetic schemes and calling them homoplasies instead, or discarding radiometric "dates" when they conflict with fossil "dates".
The usual unsupported assertions from the chemist. It is a shame that chemists do not understand the workings of systematics any more than plant physiologists understand population genetics. What is more of a shame is that such chemists pontificate on such matters as if they actually did understand them. These charges are baseless and inflammatory. As is much of Socrates' writing.


One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.Correct. Otherwise it undermines the whole connection of the death brought by the first man, Adam, with the Resurrection of the Last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45.
So, better ot discard science in favor of mythology! What a great chemist Socrates must be! I sure hope nobody has to actually rely on anything Socrates has put out in mainstream science (if he even has). They should be warned...

A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208

From the introduction:

“…valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.”

So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Just like evolutionists make the assumption that all creatures ARE phylogenetically related.
Sadly for the anti-science supernaturlaists, the EVIDENCE supports the evolutionary assumption.

Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:

“We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”What's wrong with that? Evolutionists also make judgment calls on what are the appropriate criteria to construct phylogenies.
Examples? Provide some of your famous out-of-context quotes, chemist, and I will educate you as to what they really mean.

:poke:

[Socrates]

SLPx spruiks:Even more interesting is how the ark - unsteerable though it was, hurtled around on violent seas (according to many YECs), came to rest in essentially the same place it left from one year earlier...:dufus: If SLPx were intellectually honest, he would know that YECs say that we have no idea where the Ark took off from, because the Earth's topography was so drastically rearranged by the Flood. And te Ark did not need to be steerable, just float stably, as it was well designed to do as shown by Korean naval architects (who would know better than biology tech SLP).

Socrates:

And if the kinds were families, as they seem to be in many cases as shown by by hybridization experiments, the number would be decreased about fourfold.

SLPx:What "experiments" are these?Experiments that show in many cases that members of the same family actually interbreed, e.g. Dr Batten's on lychees and longans, as he describes in www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp

Woman:I have read excerpts from several of the 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. (The Creation Research Society Quarterly) Their methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'.

Socrates: Not arbitrary at all, since they are based on historical accounts (Genesis).

SPLx:No, they are purely arbitrary. I possess the propaganda pieces in question, and it is no surprise that a simple chemistry tech cannot understand the arbitrariness of these laughable papers.Which are written by people at least as well qualified in genetics and other biological subjects as SLP, so his pathetic blustering argumentum ad verecundiam should fool no-one (although he does a great job of fooling himself).

Woman:They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible).

Socrates: Indeed so. Conversely, evolutionists justify their results by appeal to the uber-paradigm of materialism.

SPLx:What an idiotic assertion. Talk about false witnessAnd under SLP's misotheistic philosophy that we are just rearranged pond scum, then he has no objective basis for objecting to false witness.

SLPx:here we have Socrates justifying the anti-scienitfic misadventures of the CRSQ "baraminologists" then fabricating some gibberish about real scientists doing the same thing. Absurd.
I challenge Socrates to actually support this charge or retract it as a sin.“ What pathetic nonsense from a known misotheist. Dawkins refused to debate Behe but claimed that to posit a "Design" solution would be "giving up". Sydney Fox said that a theistic solution for chemical evolution was a "cop out". Others, even on this board, have expressed their commitment to what they call "methodological naturalism" even about Earth history.

Mind you, those like Dawkins are at least up front about their atheistic bias. So are Lewontin and Todd, as I've cited. But other anti-creationists, including particularly obnoxious and rabidly misotheistic ones like Ian Plimer and Scott Page, affect concern that creation is damaging to Christianity, e.g. "My principal objection to creation science is that the fraud underpinning creationism is in the name of God and is very damaging for Christianity" (Letter to Cyril Robinson, February 10, 1989, on University of Newcastle Department of Geology letterhead, signed by Plimer's secretary on his behalf ), and that creationists are "an embarrassment to the greater Christian community" http://geocities.com/huxter4441/index.html

SLPx:These charges are baseless and inflammatory. As is much of Socrates' writing.What a pot! I'm not the one in the Matrix :poke:

Woman: One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.

Soc: Correct. Otherwise it undermines the whole connection of the death brought by the first man, Adam, with the Resurrection of the Last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45.

SPLx:So, better ot discard science in favor of mythology!
You mean, better to discard historical evidence in favor of atheistic bigotry!

SPL:Sadly for the anti-science supernaturlaists, the EVIDENCE supports the evolutionary assumption.Another amazing elephant hurl, whereas his real motivation is his a priori rejection of a Creator.

[Socratism]

SPLx,

Do you know what the expression "bearing false witness means"?

[Blake Reas]

05-14-2003 @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96100#post96100)
SLPx:



No, they are purely arbitrary. I possess the propaganda pieces in question, and it is no surprise that a simple chemistry tech cannot understand the arbitrariness of these laughable papers
What an idiotic assertion. Talk about false witness - here we have Socrates justifying the anti-scienitfic misadventures of the CRSQ "baraminologists" then fabricating some gibberish about real scientists doing the same thing. Absurd.
I challenge Socrates to actually support this charge or retract it as a sin.
The usual unsupported assertions from the chemist. It is a shame that chemists do not understand the workings of systematics any more than plant physiologists understand population genetics. What is more of a shame is that such chemists pontificate on such matters as if they actually did understand them. These charges are baseless and inflammatory. As is much of Socrates' writing.
So, better ot discard science in favor of mythology! What a great chemist Socrates must be! I sure hope nobody has to actually rely on anything Socrates has put out in mainstream science (if he even has). They should be warned...
Sadly for the anti-science supernaturlaists, the EVIDENCE supports the evolutionary assumption.
Examples? Provide some of your famous out-of-context quotes, chemist, and I will educate you as to what they really mean.

:poke:

Unless you have evidence to back up what you are saying about Creationist then do not post. Also lets get the post back on track with the first question. "

How many "Kinds were on the ark?"<=== Original question

God Bless,
Blake

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98733#post98733)
Blake Reas:
Also lets get the post back on track with the first question. &quot;

How many &quot;Kinds were on the ark?&quot;

God Bless,
Blake I still haven't gotten an answer from Socrates or Socratism on this, the two largest pro-flood supporters. I find that intriguing.

[SLPx]

05-16-2003 @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98733#post98733)
Blake Reas:



Unless you have evidence to back up what you are saying about Creationist then do not post. Also lets get the post back on track with the first question. &quot;



God Bless,
Blake


In do have evidence. And what I was writing about does relate to the topic. Baraminologists are trying to prove that extant diversity could havce arisen form a few "kinds" in a short period of time. Their methodology is flawed.

[SLPx]

05-15-2003 @ 06:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97022#post97022)
Socrates:

SLPx spruiks:Even more interesting is how the ark - unsteerable though it was, hurtled around on violent seas (according to many YECs), came to rest in essentially the same place it left from one year earlier...If SLPx were intellectually honest, he would know that YECs say that we have no idea where the Ark took off from, because the Earth's topography was so drastically rearranged by the Flood.

Any evidence for this mere assertion? Are you implying that the stories iin the bible - including the ark myth - were not set in the middle east somewhere?
By the way, since you have dug into my personal information, you know that I am not a biology tech, and so writing that I am is a lie.


And te Ark did not need to be steerable, just float stably, as it was well designed to do as shown by Korean naval architects (who would know better than biology tech SLP).

Exactly my point - thank you for makng it for me. So it takes off in the mniddle east, floats for a year in violent seas, then just happens to land back in the middle east. Divine intervention, sure. Plausible scineitfically? Not at all.

Socrates:



SLPx:What &quot;experiments&quot; are these?Experiments that show in many cases that members of the same family actually interbreed, e.g. Dr Batten's on lychees and longans, as he describes in www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
Surely, even a chemist knows that plants interbreed and behave differently than air-breathing "kinds".



Socrates: Not arbitrary at all, since they are based on historical accounts (Genesis).

SPLx:No, they are purely arbitrary. I possess the propaganda pieces in question, and it is no surprise that a simple chemistry tech cannot understand the arbitrariness of these laughable papers.Which are written by people at least as well qualified in genetics and other biological subjects as SLP, so his pathetic blustering argumentum ad verecundiam should fool no-one (although he does a great job of fooling himself).[/quote]
Hmmm... I am in fact an expert on molecular phylogentics, I state that the CRSQ 'baraminology' papers are fraudulent, I offer to explain this, and a chemist accuses me of engaging in the "he is expert one area, so he is an expert in another" fallacy. Interesting.
Of course, the authors of the papers in question - D. Ashley Robinson and David Cavanaugh are, in fact, not as qualified as I am. Robinson has a bachelor's degree, and Cavanaugh is a computer scientist.
In fact, it appears that, as is so often the case, it is Socrates that is engaging in argumentum ad verecundiam. And it fools no one.



Socrates: Indeed so. Conversely, evolutionists justify their results by appeal to the uber-paradigm of materialism.

SPLx:What an idiotic assertion. Talk about false witnessAnd under SLP's misotheistic philosophy that we are just rearranged pond scum, then he has no objective basis for objecting to false witness.[/quote]
Another false assertion. Non-theists have long held philosophical objections to things such as lying and stealing. It is just that theists refuse to acknowledge this, for they seem to need threats of eternal punishment in order to behave in a civil manner., And even this threat clearly does not always work.

SLPx:here we have Socrates justifying the anti-scienitfic misadventures of the CRSQ &quot;baraminologists&quot; then fabricating some gibberish about real scientists doing the same thing. Absurd.
I challenge Socrates to actually support this charge or retract it as a sin.“ What pathetic nonsense from a known misotheist. Dawkins refused to debate Behe but claimed that to posit a &quot;Design&quot; solution would be &quot;giving up&quot;. Sydney Fox said that a theistic solution for chemical evolution was a &quot;cop out&quot;. Others, even on this board, have expressed their commitment to what they call &quot;methodological naturalism&quot; even about Earth history.
This bizarre response has absolutely no relation to what I had written. I mentioned - and can easily docuiment - the flim-flammery used in baraminology studies. You indicate that real scientists do the same thing. I challenge you to support it or retract the charge. You reply with some gibberish about Dawkins not wanting to debate.
If you cannot support your claims, just say so. Or better yet, don't make them.

Mind you, those like Dawkins are at least up front about their atheistic bias. So are Lewontin and Todd, as I've cited. But other anti-creationists, including particularly obnoxious and rabidly misotheistic ones like Ian Plimer and Scott Page, affect concern that creation is damaging to Christianity, e.g. &quot;My principal objection to creation science is that the fraud underpinning creationism is in the name of God and is very damaging for Christianity&quot; (Letter to Cyril Robinson, February 10, 1989, on University of Newcastle Department of Geology letterhead, signed by Plimer's secretary on his behalf ), and that creationists are &quot;an embarrassment to the greater Christian community&quot; http://geocities.com/huxter4441/index.html

Interesting that Socrates has dug into my personal information and has violated the anonymity rule of this board while enjoying some 'anonymity' himself. Of course, what I say is true. In fact ALL of the Christians I kknow personally are embarrassed by the likes of Sarfati, Gish, etc. But thanks for posting the link to my little hobby site. The reader can see how "true Christians" like those at the Baptist Board engage in all sorts of underhanded tactics to try to "win." Also, I will be posting my review of "Refuting Evolution" shortly, wherein I document several eroneous claims. This review was removed at Amazon.com by lobbying form the book's author.


SLPx:These charges are baseless and inflammatory. As is much of Socrates' writing.What a pot! I'm not the one in the Matrix
Looking through only a handful of your psots, the reason that you are not is obvious.

Soc: Correct. Otherwise it undermines the whole connection of the death brought by the first man, Adam, with the Resurrection of the Last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45.

SPLx:So, better ot discard science in favor of mythology!
You mean, better to discard historical evidence in favor of atheistic bigotry! [/quote]
What is the "historical evidence" of Adam - of dirt to Dan mythology?

SPL:Sadly for the anti-science supernaturlaists, the EVIDENCE supports the evolutionary assumption.Another amazing elephant hurl, whereas his real motivation is his a priori rejection of a Creator.
I will thank you to not tell me what I need to think or believe. These typical claims are baseless, and built only on a need to engage in propagandistic rhetoric to prop up one's sad beliefs.

As I have tried to explain - and been told by other theists what I really believe - I do not 'reject' any supernatural being. I simply find no compelling evidence to warrant an unquestioning belief in any of them.

If you would like to discuss baraminooogy in a rational manner not rife with AiG links to essays written by medical doctors or horticulturists, I will gladly do so. However, any further tirades form you will result in you being put on my ignore list.

[rogerthomas]

Two questions--

What is caught in the matrix?

2. How DO they divide kinds? I'm kind of curious about this one myself, and see no explanation forthcoming. Also, SPLX, that was a fine job, as socrates is an abrasive sort of fellow, it is sometimes deserving of one to taste a bit of sand during a fall.

[SLPx]

05-20-2003 @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102312#post102312)
rogerthomas:

Two questions--

What is caught in the matrix?

2. How DO they divide kinds? I'm kind of curious about this one myself, and see no explanation forthcoming. Also, SPLX, that was a fine job, as socrates is an abrasive sort of fellow, it is sometimes deserving of one to taste a bit of sand during a fall.

Caught in the matrix is what happens when you try to give Socrates a taste of his own medicine. It means that your posts are heavily censored, if they make oit to the board at all.


"Kinds" are arbitrarily split. Utilizing the vague and often meaningless prattle in Genesis, the 'baraminologists' attempt to segregate extant creatures into their 'kind'. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is not. When it is not, they co-opt the methods used by molecular and phenetic phylogeneticists. And when they do this, they establish bogus criteria and set up arbitrary barriers to make the analyses conform to their underlying presuppostions.

Thank you for the kind words.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow! This just proves YEC proponents don't deal with details. I still haven't received a number of kinds of the ark yet!

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108383#post108383)
Jimmy Higgins:

Wow! This just proves YEC proponents don't deal with details. I still haven't received a number of kinds of the ark yet!

I still don't know how many "kingdoms" there are either. As soon as I figure that one out I'll start working on your question.

BTW, the "kinds" were created 1656 years prior to the Flood and had diversified considerably by that time.

Thus we might conclude that there were zero "pure-bred" animals around to be placed on the Ark, which is probably what you meant by "kinds".

Ask yourself this question for today's situation, "What 'kinds' of animals would you select to represent current animal life, if you only had room on your spaceship for a thousand or so before the Earth was destroyed in a nuclear holocaust?"

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108383#post108383)
Jimmy Higgins:

Wow! This just proves YEC proponents don't deal with details. I still haven't received a number of kinds of the ark yet!

I should have said that people who fuss about the details of a plan before they understand what the overall plan is about are not very bright.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108861#post108861)
Socratism:
I should have said that people who fuss about the details of a plan before they understand what the overall plan is about are not very bright. I'll take that as a "I don't know."

So does anyone have a rough guess as to how many "kinds" were put on the ark?

[SLPx]

05-27-2003 @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108861#post108861)
Socratism:



I should have said that people who fuss about the details of a plan before they understand what the overall plan is about are not very bright.

So, what you are saying is that one has to blindly accept a literal Genesis and ignore the details that undermine its veracity?

[James]

05-27-2003 @ 09:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108858#post108858)
Socratism:

BTW, the &quot;kinds&quot; were created 1656 years prior to the Flood and had diversified considerably by that time.

Thus we might conclude that there were zero &quot;pure-bred&quot; animals around to be placed on the Ark, which is probably what you meant by &quot;kinds&quot;.

So, by the time we got to the ark, the miracle heterozygousity of all animal genes had already broken down as per the "sexual reproduction = diversity" assertion? If this was so, how could the ark have accounted for all the organisms needed to produce today's diversity if the gene pool had already been divided? After all, there are millions of species today, a mere 4400 years or so after the flood. Why should we accept that the number of "kinds" at the time of Noah would not number in the hundreds of thousands? They had almost half the time of today's animals to diversify, yet a representative of every type could still fit on a single boat?

[NEONBlack]

:shrug:

I think there were more or less as many kinds as there needed to be so that we can have hamburgers and pork (ohhh, glorious pork!) and chops of all kinds and wallabies and tigons and ligers and koalas and pikachus ... oh, wait, those weren't on the ark ... and all the other fluffy, feathered, cuddly, wonderfully edible types of animals that are now with us.

Or maybe there were 2 kinds: the ones we can assume were there and the ones we don't know about.
:teeth:

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
So, what you are saying is that one has to blindly accept a literal Genesis and ignore the details that undermine its veracity?


We don't blindly accept what the Bible says. That would be fideism. Our faith in scripture is not blind. Rather, God has provided clear evidence. The most powerful of which is the fact that without it you are left without a rational foundation for affirming the existence logic, human freedom of action/thought/will, objective and universally binding ethics, etc. In essence, by denying God's revelation you are left being unable to prove or disprove anything. In other words, unless you have an objective and universally binding standard by which you can determine truth from error (about the nature of reality, man, etc.) you are left with a myriad of opinions with no way of determining which, if any, is true.

God's revelation in both nature and Scripture (which cannot contradict each other since both have their source in God) is the ONLY possible framework through which truth can be deduced from the evidence that we come into contact with.

For example, without Scripture you have no way of determining the nature of the universe. Does only matter and energy exist or do immaterial things/entities also exist? Do all things operate according to fixed cause/effect laws or is there a random component to the universe? On what basis can you rationally affirm that man is a rational being if your underlying assumption is that his brain is the result of millions of years of accidents?

I'll stop with that.

[Archimedes]

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113355#post113355)
TheFiveSolas:

God has provided clear evidence. The most powerful of which is the fact that without it you are left without a rational foundation for affirming the existence logic, human freedom of action/thought/will, objective and universally binding ethics, etc. In essence, by denying God's revelation you are left being unable to prove or disprove anything. In other words, unless you have an objective and universally binding standard by which you can determine truth from error (about the nature of reality, man, etc.) you are left with a myriad of opinions with no way of determining which, if any, is true.

That's very convicing, I suppose now I will give up my materialistic faith and choose a supernaturalistic framework to follow. I pick... hmm... Islam! No wait, Wicca! No, Catholocism! Mormonism! Judaism! Deism! Zoroastrianism (spelling? Oh well, I can always check that one out once I've converted...)! Protestantism! Watchtower Society! Rael! New Age! Baha'i! Animism! Etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, I suppose I'll pick something eventually. I'm just glad I don't have to worry about myriad human opinions anymore.

:juggle:

God's revelation in both nature and Scripture (which cannot contradict each other since both have their source in God) is the ONLY possible framework through which truth can be deduced from the evidence that we come into contact with.

And what is your "objective and universally binding standard" for affirming that you can use Scripture in this manner, let alone that it's the only means? Let me guess... the Scripture. Certainly, if circular reasoning fits your criteria of "rational foundation", that's your business, but what on Earth makes you think no one else can do the same? For example, if I assert that "scientific method works and this sentence is true because I say so", isn't that exactly as rational by your standard?

:no:

For example, without Scripture you have no way of determining the nature of the universe. Does only matter and energy exist or do immaterial things/entities also exist? Do all things operate according to fixed cause/effect laws or is there a random component to the universe? On what basis can you rationally affirm that man is a rational being if your underlying assumption is that his brain is the result of millions of years of accidents?

There are considerable survival benefits for organisms that can make reasonably correct deductions about their environment and act upon that knowledge, whereas organisms that cannot distinguish between what's real and what's not will have trouble surviving in the wild. Evolution picks things up from there. Oh wait, but now you'll tell me that I'm being circular because I'm affirming the methodology that leads to evolution with evolution... but you are wrong. We don't need to know why we are rational in order to tell whether we are rational.

I'll stop with that.

Perhaps you shouldn't have even started. Your little rant was way off-topic in Archeology Dept, and belongs in Philosophy or Religion 101 instead.

And why is Jimmy dubbed as wanting to be a "martyr" just because he points out that creationists have immense trouble coming up with number of kinds in the Ark, when this should be child's play to them considering how fundamentally different they think different kinds are.

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113355#post113355)
TheFiveSolas:



We don't blindly accept what the Bible says. That would be fideism. Our faith in scripture is not blind. Rather, God has provided clear evidence. The most powerful of which is the fact that without it you are left without a rational foundation for affirming the existence logic, human freedom of action/thought/will, objective and universally binding ethics, etc. In essence, by denying God's revelation you are left being unable to prove or disprove anything. In other words, unless you have an objective and universally binding standard by which you can determine truth from error (about the nature of reality, man, etc.) you are left with a myriad of opinions with no way of determining which, if any, is true.

I do not find this sort of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo satisfying. It smacks of condescension and is question begging sophistry.

Thanks for the sermon, though.

[SLPx]

I was hoping Socrates would respond to my refutation.

I suppose I shall have to accept his concession instead.

[Duvenoy]

05-26-2003 @ 11:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108383#post108383)
Jimmy Higgins:

Wow! This just proves YEC proponents don't deal with details. I still haven't received a number of kinds of the ark yet!

Ok Jimmy, I guess it'll take a vile atheist such as myself, to actually answer the question. Nobody else seems willing or able to stick to the topic.

The Ark carried but a single kind: Crab-bait Kind.

doov

[geochron]

06-02-2003 @ 05:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115056#post115056)
SLPx:

I was hoping Socrates would respond to my refutation.

I suppose I shall have to accept his concession instead.

Blessed is he who expecteth nothing, for he shall surely not be disappointed.

[Socratism]

I'm still waiting for that definition of the primitive protocell.:poke:

[WinAce]

05-30-2003 @ 11:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113355#post113355)
TheFiveSolas:

For example, without Scripture you have no way of determining the nature of the universe.

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical assertions ever to grace the deepest pits of Creationist messageboards. And despite repeated, systematic and crushing rebuttals, I have no doubt that TheFiveSolas is going to repeat it on and on whenever he gets the chance, while running for cover whenever a link to a rebuttal is posted.

[Lobstrosity]

Hey, it makes him feel all warm and cuddly inside to believe such nonesense, and in the end isn't that what really counts?

[Roy]

05-29-2003 @ 09:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111897#post111897)
NEONBlack:

:shrug:

I think there were more or less as many kinds as there needed to be so that we can have hamburgers and pork (ohhh, glorious pork!)

... the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he chetewh not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh ye shall not eat... (Lev 11)

Blasphemer! Heretic! Unclean! Unclean! UNCLEAN!

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137426#post137426)
rthearle:



... the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he chetewh not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh ye shall not eat... (Lev 11)

Blasphemer! Heretic! Unclean! Unclean! UNCLEAN!

You don't know much about scripture or Christianity do you?

[Socratism]

06-29-2003 @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135621#post135621)
Lobstrosity:

Hey, it makes him feel all warm and cuddly inside to believe such nonesense, and in the end isn't that what really counts?

No. What counts is one's relationship with God.