(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.
