How Many Kinds On Earth?

[David M]

Noah had precisely 2,853 pairs of animals.

There were a lot less back then.

So what you are saying is the evolution has definitely occurred and at a vastly accelerated rate from that which science proposes

Also didn't the clean animal come in 7s rather than pairs?

 

[Otherright]

They came from deep in the ground and were bean stalks for giants.

The point is, assuming a world flood event, the salt content would have to be high enough for saltwater life to continue to live. In this case, many of our plants would've died. All legumes are incredibly susceptible to salt. The least bit completely inhibits their ability to absorb water, and they die... very quickly.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter what kind of “system” you use. A seagull is much more closely related to a penguin than it is to a bat. The seagull and the penguin share a relatively recent common ancestor, where as a seagull and a bat share a much more distant common ancestor.

To say that flying things and land creatures cannot share a common ancestor because they are “different kinds” is simply, clearly, and demonstrably not true. It is not true now, and it was not true “in the times Genesis was written”.

I understand quite well despite your lack of understanding of my understanding.

A few pages back someone asked about a clear description of Biblical "kinds." I gave one. That it doesn't fit the sense of order that you are stuck on is irrelevant. Kinds are not based on cladistics or phylogeny or morphology but seemingly, simply, location. It is clear and simple. If it's in the water it's one kind. If it's on land it's one of two kinds, "beasts of the earth" or "creeping things." If it flies and is not a "creeping thing" it's a "winged fowl." That you want to disregard that the Hebrew word used in Genesis makes no distinction for birds or mamals does not change a valid discusssion of it's usage only your lack of understanding of it.

What seems to be left out of the common discussions are where do things like water plants or single-celled organisms fit into this general description of kinds. Were they not created? Is the Genesis 1 account only meant to be a general description? There are much more interesting and pertinent discussions surrounding "kinds" than wheter or not they fit into a modern taxonomical classification system.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I would be really curious to know what definition of "brought forth" you are using in this context.

It's the King James usage. I haven't really studied the specifics of it but in context it seems to refer to a location.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And still nobody answers the question; what about the beans?

Its a more important question than you realize, once you understand it.

Beans give you gass. Is there more to it than that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Funny thing is, in that picture, that is not even half of all of the species


Anyways, my Baptist minister always taught me, when I was a Baptist, that the species had mated with other species creating new species during and after the Noah's ark period, but before hand there was just enough to fit on there.

I wouldn't count on your Baptist minister to explain such things to you coherently.

 

[fantome profane]

I understand quite well despite your lack of understanding of my understanding.

Then help me to understand your understanding. Is it your understanding that “kinds” are immutable? Is it your understanding that something that is one kind can never evolve into another kind?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then help me to understand your understanding. Is it your understanding that “kinds” are immutable? Is it your understanding that something that is one kind can never evolve into another kind?

Gee, I thought I explained it pretty well. The Bible described kinds based on their location. I'm thinking that is hard for you to understand because your mind is stuck on something else.

 

[Photonic]

Gee, I thought I explained it pretty well. The Bible described kinds based on their location. I'm thinking that is hard for you to understand because your mind is stuck on something else.

Anyone else see the irony here?

 

[painted wolf]

I think Sandy makes an excellent point.

If you are going to be absolutely literal about the Bible, then there are only four "kinds" because those are the only ones ever mentioned. All of which are "brought fourth" by the Earth.

Anyone trying to inflate that number is adding to the Bible.

wa:do

I also agree with her in that most people are caught up on the definition of "kinds" that creationists have been trying to cobble together and pass off as scientific. Not in what the Bible actually has to say on the subject.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think Sandy makes an excellent point.

If you are going to be absolutely literal about the Bible, then there are only four "kinds" because those are the only ones ever mentioned. All of which are "brought fourth" by the Earth.

Anyone trying to inflate that number is adding to the Bible.

wa:do

I also agree with her in that most people are caught up on the definition of "kinds" that creationists have been trying to cobble together and pass off as scientific. Not in what the Bible actually has to say on the subject.

Ok, finally, someone gets it. We know from more modern understanding that certain species seem to be left out of the mix. For example where are the aquatic plants? Or single celled organisms?

Other attempts to try and ridicule the Genesis account by trying to say that bats are not fowl stem from not understanding the Genesis way of accounting for the "kinds" or the use of the Hebrew and it's translations.

The Biblical account would appear to be nothing more than a very general accounting that would imply that God created life. Trying to reconcile other more complete taxonomies to Genesis is, well, just weird.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then help me to understand your understanding. Is it your understanding that “kinds” are immutable? Is it your understanding that something that is one kind can never evolve into another kind?

The Biblical account of kinds says nothing to address those issues.