FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-11-2001, 01:49 PM   #21
Muad'Dib
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emc2:
<STRONG>OK - Let's look at that for a minute. The current scientific understanding is a group of like beings that can mate and produce offspring. That still implies that at least two of every type/kind/species (you can choose the word), had to be there. After all, you can't take a goat and a giraffe and get a horse (if that were possible, we'd be back at evolution again, albiet a very extreme case.) LOL

So that again, brings us back to the size of boat, hence it's capacity, vs. number of animals on board. (and then of course, the amount of food it requires to feed all of them over a 40 day span)

</STRONG>
I agree completely with your approach, and would most likely use something very like it myself. I think I misunderstood your original comments, and that we're most likely on the same page in terms of definitions and the like. My apologies for any miscommunication.

My point is that such an argument as you've described will not work on YECs (young earth creationists) who believe in the flood, not at all because it's a bad argument (it's not), but because they somehow manage to contort their beliefs in such a way that their assertions become impregnable to any kind of falsification.

Edited to add: if you haven't already, you can check out the Evolution/Creation forum to see what kinds of things YECs come up with. You might find it (morbidly) interesting.

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 11-11-2001, 02:44 PM   #22
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Understood. I wonder why none of them have responded to our discussion? It suddenly became a conversation between you and I. Hmmm.
emc2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2001, 02:46 PM   #23
jayh
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,606
Post

Quote:
...presented with the huge number of species that would have to have fit in that tiny ark, and afterwards they usually claimed that kinds are different things.
The problem here is that when discussing evolution, they used kind to refer to animals who cannot effectively cross breed. This corresponds pretty closely (not exactly) with the scientific definition of species. Suddenly when it comes to Noah's ark, the term 'kind' is redefined to incorporate animals that can no longer cross breed.

j
jayh is offline  
Old 11-11-2001, 11:13 PM   #24
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by jayh:
<STRONG>

The problem here is that when discussing evolution, they used kind to refer to animals who cannot effectively cross breed. This corresponds pretty closely (not exactly) with the scientific definition of species. Suddenly when it comes to Noah's ark, the term 'kind' is redefined to incorporate animals that can no longer cross breed.

j</STRONG>
I'm sorry, but aren't you saying the same thing here? (cannot vs. can no longer)



Oh- wait, after a nap I think I understand where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are trying to say that we said that animals that can't reproduce now, could then. If I am understanding you correctly, that just leads me to one question - who said that?

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: emc2 ]
emc2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2001, 05:31 AM   #25
brighid
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Post

And if thousands of years ago - these animals COULD breed, but CAN'T now - this would mean they have EVOLVED!!! WOW - evolution creeping into an argument in support of Noah's Ark!! HOW CURIOUS!!

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 11-12-2001, 05:41 AM   #26
Oolon Colluphid
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emc2:
<STRONG>I'm sorry, but aren't you saying the same thing here? (cannot vs. can no longer)
</STRONG>
It's a subtle difference. Cretinists assume that kinds, whatever they are, are fixed, therefore 'cannot'. Evolutionists know that, since everything's ultimately related, it's a case of 'can no longer'.

However, the evidence for speciation -- the erection by evolution of reproductive barriers -- is so overwhelming that, despite the obvious definition of 'kinds = species', creationists have to redefine kinds, usually to the genus level.

Sophistic nonsense, of course, but it allows them to say that no new kinds have evolved. Of course, when we demonstrate from eg fossils that new genera can come about by evolution (see eg here), they presumably have to move further up the taxonomic levels: subfamily, family or so on.

But even within genera, sufficient morphological differences can be found to make any creationist look really stupid. And the higher up the tree they go to defend immutable 'kinds', naturally the more different mambers of the 'kind' are .

Stag Beetles (pair) Odontolabis femoralis



Stag Beetle (male) Odontalabis gazella



Both the same genus. They do not interbreed, so are classed as separate species.

(Sorry, best pics I could come up with in a few mins at lunchtime...)

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 11-12-2001, 06:06 AM   #27
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emc2:
<STRONG>OK- First an issue that I have personally have. The ark was 515 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 80 ft tall. This is based on the biblical measurements of cubits converted. There is no way possible that a pair of every animal in the entire world could fit in a boat that small. Various religions deny the possibility of evolution. Taking that into count, a pair of every animal that exist today would have to have been on that boat (and then that doesn't account for the food issues).
</STRONG>

To brighid:

To make it clear, I support evolution. In my original post, I was taking "Bible's advocate" to state a question that if evolution in not possible as many religious individuals will have you believe, then how did they fit ALL the animals on the boat.

I further went on to say, "I do believe there was an ark, I do believe there was a flood. I do believe there were animals on it. As far as that story goes, that's pretty much it."

I'm trying to get an answer from a religious perspective that can justify a pair of all animals that exist today fitting on the boat. That would have to be if evolution did not occur (based on religious beliefs,since they do not believe in evolution.)

I had thought it was a fairly simple question. But no seems to be able to be able to answer it.


To Oolon Colluphid:

As I stated in that same post, I later grasped what he was referring to (I have been awake now for 24hrs), but asked him who he thought said it in this post, as I know it wasn't I. Your description above is my understanding as well.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: emc2 ]
emc2 is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 12:10 AM   #28
emc2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emc2:
<strong>

I'm trying to get an answer from a religious perspective that can justify a pair of all animals that exist today fitting on the boat. That would have to be if evolution did not occur (based on religious beliefs,since they do not believe in evolution.)

I had thought it was a fairly simple question. But no seems to be able to be able to answer it.

</strong>

Can anyone present a possible explanation? This has gone uncontested for nearly a month.
emc2 is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 06:07 AM   #29
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

The most common apologetic I have seen is either that Noah only took a pair of each "kind" of animal not every species, and that evolution has occurred since then to create the biodiversity we see today. It's the old macroevolution versus microevolution argument, which is frivolous and absurd, but convincing to some people.
CX is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 07:14 AM   #30
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Note to self: read entire thread before shooting my mouth off
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.