Behavioural traits and created kinds

I think we should try to stay away from analyzing all of the christian mythology, it just drags the topic off.edited cause: lack of sleep makes the rest of the post rambling and slighlty incoherent.edited again: since RAZD quoted the rambling part I'll put it back in for continuityI'm surprised no one has picked up that Faith has left an opening for "macroevolution". If you can't define the original "kinds" then you can't say which organism belongs in which "kind" to any degree of certainty which leaves open the possibility that animals today don't belong to the "kind" we think they are or have moved from one "kind" to another ie: "macroevolution".This message has been edited by DrJones*, 12-03-2005 06:52 PM

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I'm always ready for a chuckle. No question about it. Of course they often invoke macro changes after the flood so that they can limit the 'kinds' on the ark to a manageable number and temperment and diet and ..... oblivious to the fact that they are condensing more change into less time than evolution needs or uses.To say nothing of presuming massive changes in behavior in most animals ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What about sea birds that live most of their lives at sea and only coming to land to mate and breed. Obviously they could have survived if we let fishes and the like eh?If trees survives what about animals that live exclusively in the trees?Getting closer to koalas every minute. It's all a matter of interpretation eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Read the Biblical account. Fish obviously could not be taken on the ark but obviously survived in some small numbers at least. How could a bird survive the endless rain? It had to have been on the ark to have been saved.Are such birds found fossilized by the way? THE TREES WERE UNDER WATER. Just think for a change. YOU are, but I'm not. YOU read it and tell me what's possible and what isn't.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-03-2005 11:15 PM

No room at all, except in the minds of evolutionists who call every new generation proof of evolution. No, they have simply acquired changes to a degree that makes it difficult, such as perhaps in some cases those between the most bizarrely extreme breeds of dogs, AND great numbers of branches of all life have become extinct, huge numbers n the Flood for starters.

You think an olive tree is going to survive a year underwater? I don't know many trees at all that will survive a year underwater, salt water OR fresh.Any of the oldtimers around here remember a thread that discussed the difficulty of growing olives in the wrong conditions?AbE - http://EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood. -->EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood.found one threadThis message has been edited by Asgara, 12-03-2005 10:26 PM

I'm no Bible expert but can you show me the part where is says to leave some animals out rather than take all 2 by 2 (or 7 for some)?

The Flood was not at its height for a whole year. 150 days it says.Also, the varieties of everything living at that time were far hardier than they are now, including human beings who before the Flood lived for hundreds of years. Uniformitarianism assumes otherwise but it's wrong. Noah himself lived 950 years.Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-04-2005 12:25 AM

Noah took representatives of a Kind, seven clean, two unclean, from which Kind all the types now living descended.

Aren't you making your own assumptions? Where does it say that plants were hardier back then?As for olive trees, from what I have been seeing, keeping their roots swamped would kill them.

It sounded like branches were at a higher level. "Kinds" at the highest I have seen a creationist define it is a family. So where do "branches" fit?

Greater hardiness before the Flood, and in fact decreasing hardiness from the very beginning, are consistent reasonable inferences from the Biblical accounts of the Creation and the Fall that creationists customarily make and I've certainly referred to it many times at EvC.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-04-2005 12:43 AM

??? Current taxonomies aren't necessarily accurate, let alone complete.BY THE WAY, ADMINS, THIS THREAD IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REHASHING OF THE FLOOD. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT BEHAVIOR AS AN INDICATOR OF A KIND.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-04-2005 12:48 AM

Try the Storm Petrels for one. Once thought to be the harbinger of storms. They survive hurricanes. They live 99% of the time out in the open ocean. This is based on their behavior.Of course if they can't breath then none of the whales, dolphins, and other sea mammals could breath either, so this means that either Great Blues, Humpbacks, Rights, Sperms, Minkes, Grays, Orcas, Narwhales, Belugas, some 45 dolphin species⁽¹⁾, and about 33 pinneped species⁽²⁾ were either on the ark or they evolved in a scant couple thousand years since then: macroevolution at a macro fast time scale?Where were the tanks for these mammals? Yes, where it was silty and salty (as already mentioned) ... for several hundred days, IIRC, the first 40 at least with no hope of sunlight ... which species of trees can survive that long under water? Each step is closer than you think. But what value will my interpretation have to you? What is your interpretation of that, especially the highlighted portion?Enjoy

---

⁽¹⁾Current dolphins species include: Atlantic Hump-Backed Dolphin, Atlantic Spotted Dolphin, Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin, Black Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, Clymene Dolphin, Commerson's Dolphin, Common Dolphin, Dusky Dolphin, False Killer Whale, Fraser's Dolphin, Heaviside's Dolphin, Hector's Dolphin, Hourglass Dolphin, Indo-Pacific Hump-Backed Dolphin, Irrawady, Long-Finned Pilot Whale, Long-snouted Spinner, Melon-Headed Whale, Northern Right-Whale Dolphin, Pacific White-Sided Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin, Peale's Dolphin, Pygmy Killer Whale, Risso's Dolphin, Rough-Toothed Dolphin, Short-Finned Pilot Whale, Southern Right-Whale Dolphin, Striped Dolphin, Tucuzi Dolphin, White-Beaked Dolphin, Burmeister's Porpoise, Dall's Porpoise, Finless Porpoise, Spectacled Porpoise, Vaquita Porpoise, Amazon River Dolphin, Franciscana River Dolphin, Indus & Ganges River Dolphins, Yangtze River Dolphins
http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~narf/dolp/index.shtml⁽²⁾Walruses, Seals, Sea Lions ... there are 33 current species of pinnipeds.
http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/education/pinnipeds.htmThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*04*2005 11:28 AM{corrected spelling of petrel}This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*05*2005 11:02 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And this thread is one of the science forums where you are expected to actually support some of you assertions instead of continuing to simply call up magic, superstition and fairy tales.If you believe that you can support a scientific definition of KIND, please do so. Otherwise you can simply acknowledge that the concept of KIND is without foundation and means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

---