How Many Kinds On Earth?

[outhouse]

Yes - it is a secondary point. But you can take your pick:

1) There has never been enough water on earth for a worldwide flood of the magnitude that Genesis describes

2) If there were such a flood, there would be indisputable geological evidence for it all over the world

3) Even a local flood could not be literally described as Genesis describes it (covering mountains). Even a flood like this would have left an unmistakable mark

All other points are seconary:

a) the integrity of the boat

b) the unstainability of the animals

c) the impossibility of fitting all the animals on the ark

Of course, apologists have sought to explain away all of these problems. But whichever impossibility leads someone away from such a horrid misunderstanding of Scripture is good.

for me its just amazing how people can bypass reason and logic in favor of a known myth.


I often wonder if its wrong to start teaching myths like santa and easter bunny and tooth fairy to our children as it its setting them up for this primitive behaviour.

with that said, my daughter loves all those and I wont spoil it for her. So im just as guilty. main difference is she wil grow up and shed these myths.

 

[Man of Faith]

there is no imagination in something that is both fact and scientific theory.


like it or not we all evolved from a common ancestor and creation myths are just that, myths.



you are using theology to explain the natural world around you. Ancient Theology and imagination go hand in hand.

none of which applys to evolution

How did Darwin come up with his theory without using his imagination?

 

[idav]

How did Darwin come up with his theory without using his imagination?

Common sense?

 

[Man of Faith]

Common sense?

Try again, Darwin admits to using his imagination.

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts..."

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: Chapter 8

 

[outhouse]

How did Darwin come up with his theory without using his imagination?

the difference is they back imagination with not just reason and logic, but facts.

thats something theology does not nor will ever do.



your reaching, we all use imagination.

imagination is still not part of ToE no matter how harde you move goal post or twist words.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Try again, Darwin admits to using his imagination.

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts..."

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: Chapter 8

Lesson: how to misquote Darwin.

 

[idav]

Try again, Darwin admits to using his imagination.

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts..."

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: Chapter 8

I don't agree with him in saying it wasn't a logical deduction. Oh well, people are their own worst critics.

 

[idav]

Lesson: how to misquote Darwin.

An interesting quote mine to say the least.

 

[fantome profane]

It's amazing what God can do. He created life in such a way that it changes and adapts and spreads throughout the whole world, changing colors, shapes, and habitats yet still maintaining an orderly division among the kinds.

That is just fantastic! It is good to know that these “orderly divisions” exist. I can only wonder why no Creationist has ever been able to show where these “orderly divisions” are.

 

[Skwim]

That is just fantastic! It is good to know that these “orderly divisions” exist. I can only wonder why no Creationist has ever been able to show where these “orderly divisions” are.

Ah . . . well . . . you see . . . we gots these baramin groups of created kinds. 'Course none of them have any relationship with each other, so there's no real order to speak of other than each has individual kinds that look alike. You know, like the "cat kinds" group and the "snake kinds" group, (haven't figured out if limbless lizards should go in there or not) and the "potato kinds" group (sweet potatoes are also giving us a problem).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That is just fantastic! It is good to know that these “orderly divisions” exist. I can only wonder why no Creationist has ever been able to show where these “orderly divisions” are.

Well if you want the very simple version from Genesis there are the kinds in the water, the kinds on land and the kind that fly.

 

[fantome profane]

Well if you want the very simple version from Genesis there are the kinds in the water, the kinds on land and the kind that fly.

Honestly, would you describe these as “orderly divisions”? For example is a penguin the same kind as a chimpanzee? Or is a penguin the same kind as a trout? It certainly isn’t the same kind as a seagull because it doesn’t fly. And what about frogs? Where do frogs fit into this “orderly division”?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Honestly, would you describe these as “orderly divisions?"

Not in a Linneaic sense.

For example is a penguin the same kind as a chimpanzee? Or is a penguin the same kind as a trout? It certainly isn’t the same kind as a seagull because it doesn’t fly. And what about frogs? Where do frogs fit into this “orderly division”?

Penquins and frogs would be "beasts of the earth."

 

[fantome profane]

Not in a Linneaic sense.Penquins and frogs would be "beasts of the earth."

Are tadpoles “beasts of the earth”?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are tadpoles “beasts of the earth”?

That might depend on whether the water brought them forth.:yes:

 

[camanintx]

Well if you want the very simple version from Genesis there are the kinds in the water, the kinds on land and the kind that fly.

Which "kind" are bats? Or the platapus for that matter?

 

[idav]

Which "kind" are bats? Or the platapus for that matter?

Those were an obvious creation from Satan to throw us off and make us think evolution is fact. Think Vampires and Wereducks!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which "kind" are bats? Or the platapus for that matter?

I believe that bats are "winged fowl" and a platypus would be a "beast of the earth."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Those were an obvious creation from Satan to throw us off and make us think evolution is fact. Think Vampires and Wereducks!

You give Satan too much credit. Left alone all of us can screw things up all by ourselves.

 

[camanintx]

I believe that bats are "winged fowl" and a platypus would be a "beast of the earth."

But "winged fowl" are birds and bats are definitely not birds.

Would you call whales and dolphins "kinds in the water"?