Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Kinds... again.
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1 of 63 (63265)
10-29-2003 5:02 AM


"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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 8:19 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 23 by Loudmouth, posted 10-31-2003 2:56 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 11-07-2003 10:49 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 63 (63282)
10-29-2003 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
10-29-2003 5:02 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2003 5:02 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 10:42 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 42 by mendy, posted 11-03-2003 10:22 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 63 (63283)
10-29-2003 8:21 AM


I’m also very curious what a flying creeping thing with four feet is. Anyone know?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-29-2003 8:29 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 10-31-2003 7:27 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 14 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 10:48 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (63284)
10-29-2003 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier
10-29-2003 8:21 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 8:21 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 5 of 63 (63310)
10-29-2003 11:47 AM


Flying Creeping Thing
A flying creeping thing with four feet?
A bat?
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 12:34 PM Mespo has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2003 5:17 AM Mespo has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 63 (63315)
10-29-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mespo
10-29-2003 11:47 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
Nah, bats are birds, apparently (fowl of the air, iirc, can't remember the verse).
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mespo, posted 10-29-2003 11:47 AM Mespo has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 7 of 63 (63572)
10-31-2003 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mespo
10-29-2003 11:47 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
Don't have legs above their feet, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mespo, posted 10-29-2003 11:47 AM Mespo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:08 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 63 (63580)
10-31-2003 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier
10-29-2003 8:21 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 8:21 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 63 (63602)
10-31-2003 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Jack
10-31-2003 5:17 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
Mr Jack writes:
quote:
Don't have legs above their feet, though.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2003 5:17 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2003 9:21 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 20 by nator, posted 10-31-2003 12:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 10 of 63 (63605)
10-31-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rrhain
10-31-2003 9:08 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:28 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 11 of 63 (63610)
10-31-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
10-31-2003 9:21 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
Mr Jack responds to me:
quote:
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2003 9:21 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2003 9:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 12 of 63 (63611)
10-31-2003 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rrhain
10-31-2003 9:28 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:28 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-04-2003 5:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 63 (63623)
10-31-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Darwin's Terrier
10-29-2003 8:19 AM


kind
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 8:19 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Zhimbo, posted 10-31-2003 10:58 AM mendy has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 11:22 AM mendy has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 11-03-2003 5:52 AM mendy has replied
 Message 37 by Rei, posted 11-03-2003 12:24 PM mendy has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 63 (63625)
10-31-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier
10-29-2003 8:21 AM


Flying things with 4 legs
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-29-2003 8:21 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 15 of 63 (63627)
10-31-2003 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mendy
10-31-2003 10:42 AM


Re: kind
quote:
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.
"Defined"? Really? How?
"Logic"? Really? What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 10:42 AM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 11:47 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024