Noah's Ark volume calculation

the bible doesn't say that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought every species on the ark with him. the bible says that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought two animals of every 'KIND' on the ark with him. and as to the 'cubit', a cubit is length between elbow to fingertip. the bible says, "there were giants in the earth in those days" and there has been hundreds of giant bones found to reinforce this. so, their cubit was much larger than ours.

a 'kind' is an older term, like used in the bible, and probably one that has survived, even in science, until the term 'species' came about and moved to replace 'kinds'. about that time, i imagine, the studies of biology, physical science and, quite a bit later, genetics began to surface as predominant fields of interests in science. science has outdated different terminologies, like 'kinds', and began to replace them with more fluidic and "impressive" words to describe the subject matter, like 'species'. both terms describe the same concepts of appreciations of subject matter concerning animals and animal groups, but sadly miscategorizes critical constructs of organization in identified groups. where 'speciation' focuses on and distinguishes between small physical similarities in animals, including the anomaly of DNA, and categorizes them according to such similarities. 'kinds' employs a more applicable categorization of animals and/or groups. 'kinds' is the categorization of animals based on limited factors of "bringing forth" or the production of offspring. meaning, animals that can produce offspring are of the same kind. obviously this is suggesting that two animals that can, naturally, produce offspring can vary in shape, size, color and likely share a common ancestor, one of the same kind as said animals. 'kinds' focuses on limiting factors and shuts out the possibility of common ancestry outside of common genetic production. evolution primarily suggests that every "living" or otherwise organic thing shares a common ancestor. in evolution, any scientific term to suggest the contrary must immediately be replaced and dismissed.

you forgot the limiting factors. species may employ genetic descension, but it doesn't only employ genetic descension. one 'kind' can affiliate hundreds to thousands of species. I'll list 10 popular 'kinds'.
dog, cat, deer, lizard, chicken, elephant, scavenger bird (crow), majestic bird (eagle), horse, giraffe.
each probably employing hundreds of species and each probably employed into larger families with hundreds of species. and they're only shared common ancestors are something of their same kind.

im sorry, i thought this thread was "NOAH'S ARK VOLUME CALCULATION" drawn from the bible. so, using the bible i drew the assertion that THEY WERE BIGGER than we are today. and finally, "scientists" don't dictate how we build inclusive standpoints that is pulled from a immeasurable or invariable reference, like the bible. thanks.

thank you for the trivial pursuit. I'm not Websters dictionary, but i will say that 'kinds' again is both of what i said in conjecture and comparison. my definition(s) don't conflict, they conjoin. they are set in limitations to mating, as i have said, and the results of variable mating, lineage. it may be true that lions and house cats cannot mate. but neither can great Danes and chihuahuas. or chickens and turkeys. not to mention donkeys and "ligers" which are sterile. i will also take note that 'kinds' are safely tucked away in the natural mating process, not manipulations of science. I will, reluctantly, admit that i did not invent the word 'kinds', nor is it used in evolutionary science. the point of my assertion was that the invention of the word 'species' sets up the rules for evolutionary biology and has assimilated conventional biology and there's nothing wrong with that, except that evolution is theoretical and unproven. no, i don't mean adaptation when i say evolution. i separate evolution from other terminologies so's to not confuse people.
I am new to these links, but it helps.Created kind - WikipediaKinds Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Websternote: Websters does not recognize "baraminology" lol, apparently, neither does spell check.

notice i said the bible was invariable. this thread, again, is called "Noah's ark volume calculation". you are suggesting we examine it's happenings without using the bible as a reference, without measuring it with biblical considerations or presupposing it even existed. of course you would be suggesting to examine it without even consideration for the flood. so, you are basically saying, no assertions are credible except those that distort and discredit it. alright, good job buddy. seems pretty monotonous and pointless.

your almost as bad as kuresu. no creation "science" for creation material, that's great. first, i would like to bring to your attention the Smithsonian, national geographic and a fistful of other geographical and historical "authorities" are corrupt to their toes, like many other acclaimed "authorities". not only do they play an extreme bias for evolution, like most evolutionists, but they do an incredible, high budget job of covering up the discovery of giant human skeletons (found primarily in the middle east/northern Africa) in an attempt to disprove the bible, once, I believe the information was readily available.of course, the legend, DR. Kent hovind's materialhttp://www.drdino.com/downloads.phprandom photos, i think most, if not all were discredited by "authorities". (you see the idea is to discredit them all, the belief in god is intolerable, that we cannot deal with, evolution is the only alternative). also note, i don't endorse any of these links, I'm saying I believe in giants and I believe truth is there.Have any large / giant human skeletons / bones been found?http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/...s_sumeranu/anu11_02.jpghttp://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/...s/9104_ke%20giant%202.jpghttp://i159.photobucket.com/...1/freedom_042/giantcouple.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsAUgCZPBohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P42j9Xltyg&feature=related

the big picture to this entire argument is that creation and evolution are theories. whether you say they are considerations for examinations in science, unproven and subjective validity, or that they unite facts and gives provision for phenomenon. like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. creation is supplemented by the bible and practical application to the rule of design. evolution is fueled by the disdain and contempt for god and Christians/the church/godly things, and assimilation of theorem into facts.

just another stab at the "giants" profile. obviously, will be discredited by evolutionists, as the suggestion of giants plays against the criterion theory.http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.htmlGiant Humans and DinosaursAs to the "authoritative" corruption.
Smithsonian cover up;Humanoid Giants Existed! Smithsonian Coverup;Not just Theory---Lot's of Evidence!As well as the lies from national geographic; but I've lost train of thought. The point is, this elements exist and there are people that know about it. With such considerations, examining biblical accounts are subjective to the examinees interests.

No.See we have "Giants" even today, people being 7'" and on up.
So its a very practical thing to have said people years ago may have been 'giants'. You don't like the idea because it employs creationist idea.

Yes, I saw that and yet I continued to post my links anyway.Why?because since the idea that really big/tall people may have existed years ago is so alienable to you, you ask for "evidence", since I have no bones in my home I post links to photos to illustrate that possibility. I happen to believe that some of these photos may be credible. And of course, you failed to give the same guideline speech to everyone else that posted links before me.