Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most creationists (largely because of the crowding problem on the Ark) have concluded that new species and genera form from other taxa. Some admit that some families might as well. But pretty much all of them now accept new species and genera.What say you?
Most creationists (largely because of the crowding problem on the Ark) have concluded that new species and genera form from other taxa. Some admit that some families might as well. But pretty much all of them now accept new species and genera.
You couldn't have housed all existing genera on the Ark. So they had to adjust creationist doctrines a bit.Only because they see the Ark as crowded ... correct?
Well, they think "kind" is more like the level of family.So they feel they have to believe that new KINDS have appeared on the earth since the Creation Week ended?
Doesn't matter.If so, I totally disagree.
"Design" is not magic. You have an Ark of limited size. Existing genera won't fit.There were no crowding issues aboard the Ark, by way of its design.
"Design" is not magic.
You have an Ark of limited size.
Existing genera won't fit.
A TARDIS is a fictional device. You think the Ark is like that? If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible. But of course, that's what fiction is.I believe it was larger on the inside, than it was on the outside.
Kind of like a TARDIS booth.
That's your addition to scripture. It does not say there were no fasteners used. For the creationist POV, you might want to read Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study by John Woodmorappe.The Ark was a true miracle.
No screws, no hinges, no nails, no bolts, no nothing.
Only gopher wood, with pitch holding everything together.
A TARDIS is a fictional device.
You think the Ark is like that?
If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible.
But of course, that's what fiction is.
That's your addition to scripture.
It does not say there were no fasteners used.
For the creationist POV, you might want to read Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study by John Woodmorappe.
In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family."
"But not much beyond that" he said.
An ark that's larger inside than its physical dimensions is a fictional device. If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible.But Noah's ark is not a fictional device.
It is, if you can just invent a miracle to deal with the problems.No, any story is not equally plausible.
Pity. It's a rational attempt to reconcile creationism with reality.I'll pass.
Doesn't matter. Woodmorappe realized the issues and explained how this would impact the understanding of Biblical "kinds."Woodmorappe's view of Noah's ark is not the same as my view of it.
Because the limitations of the ark showed this to be the case.He evidently thinks the Ark should depend on a different definition of "kind" than I use.
Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction.And I think the Ark depends on another dimension of space.
Comes down to evidence. Sorry about that.I think he's wrong.
And I think you're wrong too.
Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction.
Ephesians 3:18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.Here it is again:
Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Ephesians 3:18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.
This isn't about physical dimensions at all. He's talking about faith beyond sensory information, not how to build a Tardis. C'mon.
He cites evidence and thinks that it (in the absence of God telling us what it might be) shows that "kind" is somewhere around the level of family. You think the ark was a Tardis. Not much of a choice, really.If you want to believe John Woodmorappe over me, knock yourself out.
kind /kīnd/And what's your definition of KIND?
Asking a non-creationist Christian for the definition of "kind" as it was developed by creationists, is like a Hindu asking a Christian for a definition of samsara.
It's outside of Apostolic Christian belief.
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind. (they share many, many common characteristics) You sure that's what you want to use?Here's where I get my definition of KIND:
genus (n.) ... from Latin genus ... "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"
SOURCE: Online Etymology Dictionary
genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic
SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.
(they share many, many common characteristics)
You sure that's what you want to use?
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind. (they share many, many common characteristics) You sure that's what you want to use?genus (n.) ... from Latin genus ... "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"
SOURCE: Online Etymology Dictionary
genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic
SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Nope. Just anyone willing to use your definition.That takes a scientist to do that.
Ironic, um? You not only classified them as the same kind, but have them more closely related than a scientist would have them. You sure that's what you want to use?But one thing they don't share is the genus name.
Chimpanzees are given the genus Pan.
Humans are given the genus Homo.
Then you really have no one to blame but yourself.Yes.
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic
SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Not by your definition. Since they have numerous common characteristics, your definition would put them in the same genus. Ironically, that would make them more closely relate than the scientific evidence that puts them in the same family.That would put humans and chimpanzees in different kinds.
So that would put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.
AV1611VET said:
genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic
SOURCE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You too.Have a nice day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?