AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I want to run this past you guys and see what happens with it.

Here are the specific [land] kinds -- alive in Genesis 1:

  1. man
  2. satyr
  3. unicorn
  4. fowled bat
  5. four-legged grasshopper
  6. one or two miscellaneous unnamed
Thus, only these six 'representatives' had to board the Ark -- (even though more did, because we know there were doves and ravens aboard).

The purpose of this thread is to show that -- even though the details may be in error, you can at least get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are useful in orchestrating events that cannot be done naturally.

Let's see what happens with this.

(Note: I may add to this list as the discussion progresses.)
 
When you say useful, what exactly do you mean by that? I'm not sure what real work can be done with a 'kinds' classification scheme as opposed to a phylogenetic scheme. What tests can you carry out with this that you can't carry out without it?

If you mean in orchestrating non-natural (super natural?) events, how would the orchestrator benefit from this scheme as opposed to any other?
 
Upvote 0
Here is the text in question:

"A "kind" is what I call a 'loner word'.

It is one of those words that has no definition this side of Heaven, but is effective in making its point.

Like "trinity" and "faith" -- it is useful in making its point, but cannot be defined to the satisfaction of all.

Without that word, the Flood story would be much harder to explain."

I'm afraid I still don't understand. 1) When you say kind is effective in making its point, what point is that exactly? Why do you think it is more effective than other classification schemes? 2) I don't see how the flood story is harder to explain without resorting to this classification scheme.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm afraid I still don't understand. 1) When you say kind is effective in making its point, what point is that exactly? Why do you think it is more effective than other classification schemes? 2) I don't see how the flood story is harder to explain without resorting to this classification scheme.
I'm sorry, Jro -- I don't want to address that issue in this thread.

I've gone beyond the definition of 'kind' in this thread.

I'll be glad to address it though, if you want to start your own thread.

:)
 
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You haven't defined anything. Now you're unwilling to discuss kinds in a thread you started which is even simply titled "Kinds".

Did you realize you painted yourself into a corner or something?

Are you suggesting that these six "kinds" are the ancestors of every living thing on earth? What did the Satyr branch of into? How did the plants live? None of this post makes any sense whatsoever. You need to clear it up.
 
Upvote 0
I'm sorry, Jro -- I don't want to address that issue in this thread.

I've gone beyond the definition of 'kind' in this thread.

I'll be glad to address it though, if you want to start your own thread.

:)


The purpose of this thread is to show that -- even though the details may be in error, you can at least get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are useful in orchestrating events that cannot be done naturally.


I can't get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are more useful in orchestrating events if you can't tell me what you mean by useful. Nice talking with you though!
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I can't get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are more useful in orchestrating events if you can't tell me what you mean by useful.
Again -- for the second time -- if you want to discuss the definition of 'kind', please start your own thread, and I'll be happy to accommodate you.

Please understand though, that I don't think there is one.

In any event, it should lead to an interesting -- but short -- discussion.
Nice talking with you though!
You too!

Welcome to CF! :wave:
 
Upvote 0

singpeace

Senior Member
Supporter
Oct 21, 2009
2,443
458
U.S.
✟40,147.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I want to run this past you guys and see what happens with it.

Here are the specific [land] kinds -- alive in Genesis 1:

  1. man
  2. satyr
  3. unicorn
  4. fowled bat
  5. four-legged grasshopper
  6. one or two miscellaneous unnamed
Thus, only these six 'representatives' had to board the Ark -- (even though more did, because we know there were doves and ravens aboard).

The purpose of this thread is to show that -- even though the details may be in error, you can at least get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are useful in orchestrating events that cannot be done naturally.

Let's see what happens with this.

(Note: I may add to this list as the discussion progresses.)


I don't know what Bible you have read, but there is no translation I can find where Genesis 1 mentions leviathans, fouled bats, and four-legged grasshoppers.

It does mention the unicorn - original Hebrew text was re'em which means wild ox. And it mentions the satyr - original Hebrew text was se'ar which means hair or rabbit. It also mentions cattle, fish, birds, and every creeping thing.

So, I just can't see where you are trying to go with this. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What about the definition of "useful"? Useful to whom?

With an omnipotent God, how is any particular number of kinds more useful than another? What use would anything on earth be to an omnipotent God who supposedly spoke the universe into existence on a whim?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'm sorry I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm not asking you for your definition of 'kinds.' You said the purpose of your thread was to show how 'kinds' are useful in understanding non-natural events, but I'm not sure how they help the matter at all. How has your understanding of non-natural events, such as the flood, benefited from your understanding of kinds. Note, I'm not asking what you mean by kinds, just in your view how your own understanding has grown.

Thanks for the warm welcome! Delphiki is getting at pretty much the same thing I am.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, I just can't see where you are trying to go with this. Sorry.
I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.

Picture this as an oversimplified example:

The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.

The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.

They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.

See where I'm coming with this?

A kind is an animal with DNA specially encoded for punctuated equilibrium; and because of them, you don't need the Ark crammed full of every living creature in existence at the time, and you don't need long explanations as to how tree sloths got from the Ark to where they're found today, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So more physical impossiblities to support your physical impossibility. I get it.

Except, how does a unicorn raise all these predatory animals and teach them how to hunt for food? How does a unicorn provide the DNA for tigers when unicorns (if they existed) clearly show traits that indicate a completely different lineage than felines? How- Nevermind. No amount of questions I ask can even begin to scratch the surface of how ridiculous this is.

Have you even considered the much more plausible conclusion that the story is just that -- a story?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So more physical impossiblities to support your physical impossibility. I get it.
That's the nature of a miracle -- doing what nature can't.
Except, how does a unicorn raise all these predatory animals and teach them how to hunt for food?
Um ... like only a mother and father can, eh?
How does a unicorn provide the DNA for tigers when unicorns (if they existed) clearly show traits that indicate a completely different lineage than felines?
I suppose the same way the satyrs provided DNA for the dinosaurs and whatnot.
How- Nevermind.
Now you're getting it -- :thumbsup:
No amount of questions I ask can even begin to scratch the surface of how ridiculous this is.
As it should be, if one is not prone to allowing for the miraculous.
Have you even considered the much more plausible conclusion that the story is just that -- a story?
It is history -- or, as we like to say -- His story.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,680
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,965.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
... but if it's a miracle why is practicality even a concern?
A very good question, indeed.

Perhaps an Internet scientist here can answer as to why it's such a hot topic with them?
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.

Picture this as an oversimplified example:

The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.

The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.

They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.

See where I'm coming with this?

A kind is an animal with DNA specially encoded for punctuated equilibrium; and because of them, you don't need the Ark crammed full of every living creature in existence at the time, and you don't need long explanations as to how tree sloths got from the Ark to where they're found today, etc.
You forgot the crocoduck.
 
Upvote 0
A very good question, indeed.

Perhaps an Internet scientist here can answer as to why it's such a hot topic with them?

So you're proposing this classification scheme just to make miracles a little easier to swallow? Isn't that just classifying by agenda rather than any empirical standards? We might as well start classifying animals in order of tastiness. I propose pigs and lobster to be sister taxa.

edit: Delphiki pick one. You OBVIOUSLY can't have Wuzzles AND Popples. Yeesh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums