Yep. It says that grasshoppers (a suborder!) are one kind. It says that birds and bats, (different classes!) are a kind. Do you not see that the "kind" in the Bible is a functional classification, which does not consider relationships between living things.?
Oh? Where?
Let's say two-thirds of them are fish or otherwise not necessary on the Ark.
No fish were on the Ark. They could survive the planetary flood. Of course, many would die and others would survive, by chance and or by God saving them.
Feed for a year for them. And someone will have to daily clean up the excretia and climb to the upper deck to dump it out.
The animals were almost certainly very young when taken on board the Ark.
If you were in Noah's day, would you take on big animals, rather than eggs and babies?
You could, of course, resort to adding another nonscriptural miracle to make it work. But if you're allowed to insert miracles every time your interpretation has a problem, then any story works.
What did we add? Right, you can't specify, because that assertion is hollow like a taxidermy animal. No meat just fluff.
"Kind" is a modern religious belief, like the tooth fairy.
Modern? When was it supposedly "invented"?
As you learned, that was a flawed argument.
"Kind" is from the Bible, you are basically arguing against the taxonomic family at this point. Linnaeus died believing the Biblical kind was "family".
What religious belief integrates the tooth fairy? Flawed arguing on your part.
the leading voice arguing for the recentcreation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCreadyPrice (1870-1963),
Mmmmhmm.
And who was, BEFORE 1870? Hmmm?
You focus a lot on recent history, after 1800s, but typically refuse to accept/address BEFORE 1800s. I know why. Because it stabs big holes in K2K evo and its reputation. At least I face the 1800s and later.
As you learned accepting OE in the Scopes trial was a stupid mistake. They should have stood on the coherent, Biblie-exclusive position, called YEC.
OE acceptance is why the Christian was defeated and Paganism, along with its creation K2K evo, won the case.
Did you really think OE gave the Christian one bit of strength in that case?????
Pagans argued for K2K evolution. Then it lie down in the dust like a false teaching, instead of standing like a Bible-based teaching.
Then Darwin became the leading voice for it later on.
Most creationists below the level of televangelists, believe in creationism.
That's literally what "creationist" means. If they don't, then calling them a "creationist" is a misapplied label.
Notice it sometimes would fit "family" sometimes "order" or sometimes "class." Depends on the case in scripture.
No verses given.
Nope. Before Price spread the SDA doctrine to evengelicals, most of them were OE creationists.
Before pagans invented OE, most were YEC. Biologos contradicts your claims.
Ham is partly correct: the Adventists certainly didn’t invent the idea of a young earth. Nearly all Christians prior to the late eighteenth century believed that God created the world just a few thousand years ago
Is Biologos lying? Or are you wrong?
How could an F2F-evolution bastion ORGANIZATION like them get a detail so wrong?? Mind boggling.
In fact, many geologists in the 1600s thought the Earth was young.
Because the Bible told them so.
Only after the evidence accumulated, did they reluctantly accept an old Earth.
No, only after they let assumptions supersede Biblical teaching.
Remember, gasoline still works. Hmm i wonder why.
OE is a problem not a solution.
Since Darwin attributed the origin of life to God,
Many people refer to God and even profess to be Christian. That does not mean they aren't lukewarm Christians.
Matthew 7:22-24
"
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
"
So how do you know Darwin was not lukewarm?
you couldn't be more wrong in making that assumption.
That's not because of Darwin, that's because you finally admitted that most geologists accepted what the Bible said, until they let in compromise.
Why didn't they ask themselves about other factors, and not just jump to "lots of time!!"
Say you have a mechanical alarm clock in your room, like the circular one with hands that you hit on the top.
And you have a digital watch. So you prepare for work, leave your house, and go to work.
But then, you clock out for the day, return home, enter your room, and your alarm clock says 10 am! But the digital watch says "8 pm". And the sun going down confirms that your watch is correct.
So does that mean that 14 hours passed, and that your reliable watch is wrong? NO!!
You then look at a camera, and see that the prankster kid who likes to do pranks on you broke into your house and messed with the clock.
The mechanical clock is like your "evidence" for long ages.
Your watch and camera are like the Bible.
The sun going down is like evidence for the Bible, as opposed to athiests' tales like K2K Evo and deep time.
The prankster is like all that REALLY happened in the span of around 6,000 that causes us to assume something is so ridiculously old.
Your checking of your camera and digital watch is like you relying on the Bible, instead of blindly assuming that the clock is always right. OE is a blind faith belief after all. Or at least one with big dark spots in its vision! But the Biblical position on creation (which is ANTI-oeK2Ke), however, is 20/20.
