Muad'Dib

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 ]

emc2

Understood. I wonder why none of them have responded to our discussion? It suddenly became a conversation between you and I. Hmmm.

jayh

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

emc2

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 ]

brighid

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

Oolon Colluphid

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

emc2

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

Can anyone present a possible explanation? This has gone uncontested for nearly a month.

CX

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

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