|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On Kinds... again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
"Kind" - the great escape word of the Creationist. You could, they say, fit every animal on the Ark because you only need each kind.
"14: And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;15: Every raven after his kind; 16: And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17: And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18: And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19: And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. 20: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. 21: Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; 22: Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 23: But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11: 14-23 Doesn't this rather imply that whatever a biblical Kind may or may not be, it isn't a broad category? Locust and bald locusts are different kinds, little owls and great owls are different kinds, and so forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Amazing folks, those ancient, goat-herding baraminologists. Two different kinds of owl, yet beetles, it appears, are all one kind. So a kind could be anything from a genus to a whole order!
As you are no doubt aware, creationists are in a Catch-22. If a kind is a small unit, they won’t all fit on the ark; if it is a large unit, so they can fit on board, then heaps of ‘microevolution’ is required after the flood to create modern biodiversity. They will doubtless say that there is a balance there somewhere. I’ll consider it when see it. Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
I’m also very curious what a flying creeping thing with four feet is. Anyone know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
I’m also very curious what a flying creeping thing with four feet is. Anyone know? [god logic] Q: Which month has 28 days?A: All of them! God was just screwing around with us when He said four feet. He really meant to say 'greater than four feet'. Obvious really. And funny. [/godlogic] PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2885 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
A flying creeping thing with four feet?
A bat? (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Nah, bats are birds, apparently (fowl of the air, iirc, can't remember the verse).
DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Don't have legs above their feet, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
I heard this apologetic a few times that apparently 'answers' this question. The explanation suggests that these creatures do not have four feet, they could have any number of feet, but 'going on all fours' is a term that is used to described a person crawling on the floor. We have four limbs so when we crawl we go on 'all fours' and some apologists claim that the authors of the Bible used this phrase to get across an image, their audience would know what was meant by going on four legs. One of the major problems with this is that the saying 'going on all fours' comes from Jacobean times and appears in the KJV, and it is being used to explain what Hebrews writing 2000 years before the KJV were actually meaning. The legs above their feet is meant to be a reference to the way grasshoppers move their feet! It must be a nightmare being a literalist, the cognitive dissonance that they display is embarrassing. Brian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr Jack writes:
quote: What sort of organism has legs somewhere other than above their feet? Isn't that the definition of a leg: The connection between the foot and the body? Therefore, the leg is necessarily above the foot. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Bat's wings connect to their 'hands' and 'feet', so they don't have distinguishable 'legs' above their feet. Their front 'feet' of course being a single claw.
Hmm, I guess bats don't really fall into an easily classified area of hands, feet, arms, legs and wings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr Jack responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. If you look at a bat's wings, you will see that it is simply a webbed hand. There are bones in the wing and they are equivalent to the fingers of your hand. The webbing extends from the smallest phalange, down the side of the body. The claw on the wing is actually the thumb of the hand. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Er, yes. I'm aware of that but I couldn't find a picture to illustrate my point as well as yours does.
[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
IM not sure what the problem is - a biblical kind is defined differently than our scientific species and genus, thats all - so its a different way of ordering things, but there is logic to it.
as for theh "catch-22" -there is none -obviously the whole ark story is meant as a miracle on par with other miracles that occur. So the answer is -a kind is whatever size it is but they all fit on the ark. There is no logical problem here, only a problem of understading the nature of a miracle. Either way, who said microevolution is a problem for literalists...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mendy Inactive Member |
I think kinds of locusts and grashoppers are meant which have extra appendages they use...definitely 2, maybe even 4? need to check but i think i read that once...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: "Defined"? Really? How?"Logic"? Really? What?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024