EvC Forum: What "kind" are penguins?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: What "kind" are penguins?

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 83 (328977)
07-05-2006 1:44 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-05-2006 1:18 PM

Re: Were there only kinds pre-Flood?

So there was one kind of "kind" before the flood and a different kind of "kind" after the flood?

If there was hyper-evolution after the flood - due to DNA being over-stuffed with "genetic potential" - wouldn't there have been even more dramatic hyper-evolution before the flood?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:18 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:51 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 20 of 83 (328992)
07-05-2006 2:25 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
07-05-2006 1:51 PM

Re: Were there only kinds pre-Flood?

The problem is that the Bible uses the same word - "kind" - at the creation, at the flood and after the flood, in Leviticus. There is no indication of the "varieties of kinds" that you speak of. I'm going with the simple *ahem* literal interpretation that the word "kind" means the same thing in all three places.

So it seems to me that the "kinds" in Leviticus should be the same as the "kinds" in Genesis. One "kind" should not be able to become two or more "kinds". Simply put, the idea of rapid "microevolution" doesn't fit the usage of the word "kind" in the Bible.

The question remains: Are penguins a "kind" today, or were they a "kind" during the flood or were they a "kind" at creation?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:51 PM		Faith has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 71 of 83 (329450)
07-06-2006 5:27 PM

Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
07-06-2006 4:46 PM

Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.

arachnophilia writes:

... it's not meant to be specific -- the NAME of the kind is specific, the word "kind" is not.

Exactly. The "kinds" of cattle mentioned in Gen. 6:20, etc. could mean different species of livestock - e.g. sheep, goats, camels, etc. - or it could mean different breeds of cattle - e.g. Holstein, Jersey, Angus, etc.

The "kind" concept - and its companion hyper-evolution - were made up by YECs when it became obvious that all animal species would not fit on the ark. It is no more Biblical than it is scientific.

Penguins could be a "kind" of bird, based on Faith's criteria. But since bats are birds, it is equally possible that penguins are fish.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 4:46 PM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 5:30 PM	ringo has not replied
	Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 07-06-2006 7:28 PM	ringo has replied
	Message 76 by deerbreh, posted 07-07-2006 10:05 AM	ringo has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 74 of 83 (329489)
07-06-2006 8:18 PM

Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
07-06-2006 7:28 PM

Re: Why kinds was introduced...

NosyNed writes:

... aside from the ark problem, speciation and new genera have been demonstrated to occur. Thus the YEC'ers were forced to move the line up.

That's true, though I think the speciation is easier to handwave away.

How many of us have actually "seen" speciation? And how many of us have seen a three-ring circus jammed into a space the size of a football field? Propaganda-wise, it's more important to sell the ark story.

They've had to move the line and now it is "high" enough that humans and their relatives are one kind if they have a single consistent and clear definition.

In one breath, a "kind" has to be broad enough to fit all of them on the ark - and to explain away any observed speciation. In the next breath, it has to be narrow enough to differentiate us from the apes.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 07-06-2006 7:28 PM		NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 75 by ReverendDG, posted 07-06-2006 10:50 PM		ringo has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0