(March 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Think is bw, he hasn't GIVEN a definition of "sort". First he gave a definition which said "characteristic in common". When I pointed out that that didn't work he changed his mind and said that "sort" meant "family", then when I pointed out that that didn't work either he gave an example which was an order. Then at the last he admitted he didn't actually know what system used.

Nothing new there. The literalists must twist themselves into knots to a degree unusual even for them if they wish to defend the flood/Ark story with straight faces. Hence "sort/kind" becomes this meaningless catch-all word that morphs into whatever the apologist needs it to be in the moment: sometimes species, sometimes family, etc. If they too consistently hew to "sort" meaning something like species or perhaps genus, they set up a logistical nightmare of an ark that requires ever more fanciful and magical explanations from the apologist. If "sort" too consistently means order or even family, the apologist tacitly assumes rates of evolution never postulated by any evolutionary scientist.

(March 9, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote: Stillborn babies have everything a live baby has, except one thing. Can you guess?

Sigh. I'm guessing you're not thinking of "a pulse" Are you

exactly, which indicates life. now what is life?

(March 9, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote: and wrong about amniotic fluid.

Seriously?!

Let me try this using very small words.

When you mix stuff with water, we call it something different. Water with tea in it is called tea. Water with salt in it is called saline. Water with blood cells, electrolytes and a bunch of other stuff in it is called blood. And the water in a lady which has all sorts of of stuff dissolved in it is called amniotic fluid. The baby is made up of mostly water as well come to think of it!

don't even try it, this is your exact quote

Quote:Except that amniotic fluid is no more "water" than blood is.

Amniotic fluid is 98-99% water.
Amniotic fluid dynamics
Blood: Blood is a highly specialized tissue composed of more than 4,000 different kinds of components. Four of the most important ones are red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma.
I realize no one on these forums can ever admit when they are wrong, but go ahead, it's ok.

(March 9, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote: How Noah categorized the animals, I have no idea

There we go. So it's NOT "families" as you said.

It's still a "category" so the definition of "sort" still applies, could Noah have sorted them out by "families"? yes.

---

(March 9, 2014 at 1:10 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Why is your definition of 'sort' any better than ours? With the story of the ark, it is commonly believed that noah took two of every species on board. What makes you think that it wasn't that?

It's not my definition, I posted from the dictionary.

---

(March 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Think is bw, he hasn't GIVEN a definition of "sort". First he gave a definition which said "characteristic in common". When I pointed out that that didn't work he changed his mind and said that "sort" meant "family", then when I pointed out that that didn't work either he gave an example which was an order. Then at the last he admitted he didn't actually know what system used.

seriously? How is posting the definition not giving a definition.

sort
sôrt
noun
1.
a category of things or people having some common feature; a type.

so please explain how separating animals by families is not defined under sort. and how characteristic in common doesn't work since that is clearly in the definition.

(quick edit) and also my point was that Noah didn't take every animal he only took some of each "sort". how he sorted em , the Bible doesn't say.

(March 9, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So it's just a bunch of handwaving you pulled out of your ass? Why should we take you at all seriously, then? You're now just using the same, problem riddled, vague "kind" bullshit all the other creationists use.

The whole issue is what the word "sort" meant in the bible.

---

(March 9, 2014 at 12:27 pm)Rahul Wrote: Yeah. You nailed it, Huggy. The baby be missing it's god spark. That's why it's stillborn. You must be a doctor or something.



http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1014800/whe...z2vU2LvEWj

I clearly asked what was the difference between the two, not the cause.

There's no issue over what the word "sort" means in the bible for those of us who aren't trying to shoehorn modern knowledge into a clearly impossible story with zero evidence supporting it.

It's not possible to build a wooden ship large enough to house enough species of animals, sail them to safety, to repopulate the earth.

It's also not possible for a catastrophic flood of that size to leave no evidence, it's wildly off-topic and belongs in an Ark Apologetics thread.

Stop shifting the goalposts around to defend a ridiculous story.

(March 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: so please explain how separating animals by families is not defined under sort. and how characteristic in common doesn't work since that is clearly in the definition.

But the issue is that you aren't applying your definition consistently: you say it's based on Family typing and then include spiders based on Order, and now you're apparently working via two different usages of the definition at once. From the outside, it just looks like you're cobbling together an explanation on an ad hoc basis.

The problem is that your dictionary definition of "sort" is too vague to cover all the relevant biological factors involved in an undertaking like this; the more you attempt to add to it while admitting you don't know the actual criteria being used just shows the contradictions in your method more clearly. It'd be much easier to just stop at the "I don't know," part, and then we could examine whether the Noachian story is even true.

Which it isn't.

Quote:(quick edit) and also my point was that Noah didn't take every animal he only took some of each "sort". how he sorted em , the Bible doesn't say.

So why did you keep offering methods by which animals could be sorted, instead of just sticking to your ignorance to begin with to avoid lengthy, speculative nothing-conversations?

(March 9, 2014 at 2:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So why did you keep offering methods by which animals could be sorted, instead of just sticking to your ignorance to begin with to avoid lengthy, speculative nothing-conversations?

Because I was giving an example of what the word meant in context. And Jacob apparently took issue with it.

I am a member of concerned woman for America Huggy and agree completely with you that babies are still babies, weather they are faotus's or not.

~ Miss Meng

(March 9, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Miss Meng Wrote: I am a member of concerned woman for America Huggy and agree completely with you that babies are still babies, weather they are faotus's or not.

~ Miss Meng

I think you may have missed something.

(March 9, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Miss Meng Wrote: I am a member of concerned woman for America Huggy and agree completely with you that babies are still babies, weather they are faotus's or not.

~ Miss Meng

You wanna talk about babies and foetuses now? OK. I have a hypothetical situation for you and I would appreciate an answer.

In one hand you hold a 6 month old baby, in the other, you hold a petri dish with a zygote in it. You have to drop one. Which one would you drop?

(March 9, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Miss Meng Wrote: I am a member of concerned woman for America Huggy and agree completely with you that babies are still babies, weather they are faotus's or not.

~ Miss Meng

If they're fatuous?

(March 9, 2014 at 2:46 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: In one hand you hold a 6 month old baby, in the other, you hold a petri dish with a zygote in it. You have to drop one. Which one would you drop?

The petri dish.

~ Miss Meng