Intelligent design? Really?

[Crossless2.0]

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.

[Huggy Bear]

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Esquilax]

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.

(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?

[Huggy Bear]

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.

[Miss Meng]

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

[Huggy Bear]

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.

[Bad Wolf]

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?

[Mr. Moncrieff]

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?

[Miss Meng]

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