Amen! The term kind is also used when God tells Noah about gathering the animals, which makes getting them on the ark reasonable, since there are way less kinds (categories like feline, canine, etc.) than species. Although God could make it happen even if it was every species.
People try to use the Galapagos birds as “proof” for evolution but it doesn’t prove anything other than that animals can adapt to their environment — which really only proves how awesome God’s creation is.
The more I read the Bible, the more amazed I am at how much God has revealed to us through His word. I am so glad we don’t live in the Dark Ages and we can read it any time we want.
13 comments
...and Evolution of Finches on the Galapagos is infinitely more credible when you consider that the Rochambeau , the largest wooden-hulled ship proven to exist was so unseaworthy it only sailed once, and was scrapped soon after because of that, than an 'Ark' which was utterly impossible for it to actually be seaworthy enough for it to be the world's first ship-cum-submarine ...!
...then you wonder why 'Arks' that have been built - using actual dimensions stated in the Bible - from a rich Dutch fundie loony to Ken Ham's 'Attraction' that is unattractive to theme park-goers have never actually been revealed to do what your 'God' told you in a book of fairytales, Sazza?!
At least the Beagle - the craft that took Charles Darwin to those islands - was built by shipwrights with minds that were the result of Evolution .
And did you know that felines and canines also have a common heritage and are carnivores? Then why not consider them a single "kind"? But there are so many problems with the ark story. Here are a few.
The story is an adaptation of an older one in a polytheistic context, where one god wanted to destroy humans and another god saved a few. The same story with the returning bird is in it, demonstrating the common heritage, other than the region the older myth is from.
In geology we know that no worldwide flood occurred in the claimed time frame. A wooden boat of those dimensions and of that weight would simply not hold together. It would be impossible to fit so many animals even if only a couple of each was selected. At the same time, so few animals could never repopulate the earth, the same for humans. Animals could not suddenly leave their own environment and migrate to the ark's location without special assistance and could not move back to their own environment back again. Said migration would also require so much time that it defeats the story. Then what were they feeding the obligate carnivores with (no, they were not all herbivores)? The necessary time for the limited evolution you are admitting can occur is much greater than a few thousand years. You likely also claim that fossil deposits are a result of a single flood event, but that is also impossible, especially when the layers go back to millions of years and over, and are not sorted by mass...
As for birds, read about continental radiations (nothing to do with isotopes), it's a fascinating topic.
Edit: adding a conclusion: many of those problems go away if we accept that it's one of many stories of human tradition. Another way to dismiss reality away would be to say: well that's why it's a miracle. But then you have to explain why we don't see them throughout history, only in stories. And why those who claim to be miracle workers are scammers or self-deluded and not actually producing any...
“kinds (categories like feline, canine, etc.)”
What tells you that canine and feline are different ‘categoeies’ within ‘kinds’?
Were lions and tigers both on the ark? They’re cross-fertile, though usually distance prevents this. So, are they the same kind? If they are, then Noah only needed to take Lions aboard, right?
Actually, “kind” is English for “species” (and indeed, in German, species and the German equivalent of kind are synonymous is the context of biology). After all, the Systema Naturae predates The Origin of Species by 124 years. Linnean taxonomy was not invented on the assumption of Darwinism (see: Cladistics), but rather, analysing the patterns of biodiversity inescapably leads to the conclusion of evoltuion from common descent.
Also, it is interesting that they put the “kind” consistently at the traditional rank of the family. A fairly low level of taxonomy that is not anywhere deep enough to not be obviously related to anything else for the most part, but still too deep to not often require far more evolution than creationists should be comfortable with, and in any case far too numerous for the stupid box story…
@Bastethotep #135571
Only adding a few more creationist terms for reference: baramin/baraminology, "created kind" (the way it's often presented, as you said it's really a cherry picked type of custom taxonomy to try to fit biology into the doctrine, the inverse of how science works, of course).
<@KeithInc. > #135557
On top of that, they’re only semi-cross-fertile. Their offspring (tions/ligers, depending on respective sex of the parents) are always infertile. Same with horses and donkeys always produce mules, as well as many more examples.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
