Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Definition of KIND
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Barbarian" data-source="post: 77599351" data-attributes="member: 7989"><p>An ark that's larger inside than its physical dimensions is a fictional device. If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is, if you can just invent a miracle to deal with the problems.</p><p>For the creationist POV, you might want to read <em>Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study </em>by John Woodmorappe. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Pity. It's a rational attempt to reconcile creationism with reality. </p><p>In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Doesn't matter. Woodmorappe realized the issues and explained how this would impact the understanding of Biblical "kinds."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because the limitations of the ark showed this to be the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction. </p><p></p><p>Comes down to evidence. Sorry about that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 77599351, member: 7989"] An ark that's larger inside than its physical dimensions is a fictional device. If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every impossibility in your assumptions, then any story is equally plausible. It is, if you can just invent a miracle to deal with the problems. For the creationist POV, you might want to read [I]Noah's Ark; A Feasiblity Study [/I]by John Woodmorappe. Pity. It's a rational attempt to reconcile creationism with reality. In an email conversation with Woodmorappe, he confirmed to me that the feasibility of such an Ark depended on "kind" being something like the scientific term "family." Doesn't matter. Woodmorappe realized the issues and explained how this would impact the understanding of Biblical "kinds." Because the limitations of the ark showed this to be the case. Non-scriptural insertions of extra-dimensional space is just science fiction. Comes down to evidence. Sorry about that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Definition of KIND
Top
Bottom