Answers Research Journal recently released a new article by Dr. Jean Lightner:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/avian-ark-kinds

Like the previous articles discussing the number of animal "kinds" aboard the ark, this article is technical, but very thorough with nice pictures.

The author proposes that there are (conservatively) around 196 kinds of birds alive today.  Not all of these are "clean" birds that would have come in sevens, but that would be somewhere under 1372 individual birds on the ark.  That number would be a little more precise if I was a little more familiar with which kinds were clean and unclean.

Views: 127

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Mosaic "Clean and Unclean" is not necessarily the same as the Noachic. The criteria may or may not be the same. I have seen creationist writers on both sides of that issue.

The Bible (Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) identifies the "Hawk" as a kind, and the "Vulture" as a kind, also the raven, the kite, owl, cuckow, stork and heron (two different kinds), lapwing, and bat are each identified as "kinds."

(Lev. 11:14-16;

Even some various sorts of insects are identified as kinds.

Interesting about bats, in the Bible they are ALL just ONE KIND. I wonder what would be shown by the DNA of bats. . . And I wonder what sorts of mating compatibility is found amongst bats.

I see bats as just post flood rats taking to the air.

The concept of breeding is important. Do these kinds of birds breed together if forced. Is there a wall of incompatibility.

birds look alike and are alike. Yet the bible implies they are different kinds. So , like the snake, a lesson here.

Was there indeed no other kinds of birds not now in existence before the flood? there was so much post flood extinction its hard to believe bird kinds didn't vanish!

Noah had doves and crows for sure. 

I sometimes wondr if kinds could appear out of original kinds.

However this would allow snake kinds out of original kinds and I think there is not just a original snake kind but still only one kind.

It would be fun to know exactly how different the "clean" and "unclean" classifications were for Noah and Moses.  At the time the animals came aboard Noah couldn't eat any of them, so the classification as "clean" would have to serve some other purpose, maybe sacrifice.
 
Jim Brenneman said:

The Mosaic "Clean and Unclean" is not necessarily the same as the Noachic. The criteria may or may not be the same. I have seen creationist writers on both sides of that issue.

The Bible (Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) identifies the "Hawk" as a kind, and the "Vulture" as a kind, also the raven, the kite, owl, cuckow, stork and heron (two different kinds), lapwing, and bat are each identified as "kinds."

(Lev. 11:14-16;

Even some various sorts of insects are identified as kinds.

Interesting about bats, in the Bible they are ALL just ONE KIND. I wonder what would be shown by the DNA of bats. . . And I wonder what sorts of mating compatibility is found amongst bats.

You see Robert, the Scripture does not support your extreme view of KINDS, that rats and bats are the same kind.

Robert Byers said:

I see bats as just post flood rats taking to the air.

Clearly in the passages from the Law of Moses (Lev. & Deut.) we see that bats are themselves a kind. They are not a "new kind" that arose out of rats. Why not believe instead that rats arose out of bats?

The concept of breeding is important. Do these kinds of birds breed together if forced. Is there a wall of incompatibility.

Different kinds cannot breed together. Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.

birds look alike and are alike. Yet the bible implies they are different kinds.

Amongst birds there are many different kinds. Not all birds are the same particular kind.

So , like the snake, a lesson here.

By way of parallel, not all serpents/snakes are necessarily the same particular kind. Cobra/Asps could be one kind, while a viper might be a different kind, and then constrictors might be yet another kind.

Was there indeed no other kinds of birds not now in existence before the flood? there was so much post flood extinction its hard to believe bird kinds didn't vanish!

Of course there were birds that existed before the Flood which no longer exist. But whether any of the bird kinds were completely eliminated is not knowable. Certainly some variations within a kind would have been rendered extinct, and it is also quite possible that entire kind-groups of birds went extinct after the Flood - not being able to survive predation or the pressure of human hunting, or the new environmental conditions that prevailed after the Flood.

Noah had doves and crows for sure. 

I sometimes wondr if kinds could appear out of original kinds.

However this would allow snake kinds out of original kinds and I think there is not just a original snake kind but still only one kind.

Have you any Scriptural or Scientific basis for this thinking? No you do not. The biblical description of kinds as we follow usage throughout the Hebrew text seems to disallow "new kinds." Kinds always reproduce after their kind. If a new kind were to arise, then the statement that they were to "multiply after their kind" would not be true after all.

I hope someone is working on the "Initial Assessment of Extinct Ark Kinds".  So far they have focuse on the extensive but relatively easy to study living kinds.

David,

Pretty sure they are going to go into the fossil evidence of kinds not extant, but there's a lot of work to be done.  

Bats may have been looked at already in the mammalian kinds, I don't recall.  I must admit I don't read through the whole aricle with these.

It was: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/mammalian-ark-kinds



Jim Brenneman said:

You see Robert, the Scripture does not support your extreme view of KINDS, that rats and bats are the same kind.

Robert Byers said:

I see bats as just post flood rats taking to the air.

Clearly in the passages from the Law of Moses (Lev. & Deut.) we see that bats are themselves a kind. They are not a "new kind" that arose out of rats. Why not believe instead that rats arose out of bats?

The concept of breeding is important. Do these kinds of birds breed together if forced. Is there a wall of incompatibility.

Different kinds cannot breed together. Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.

birds look alike and are alike. Yet the bible implies they are different kinds.

Amongst birds there are many different kinds. Not all birds are the same particular kind.

So , like the snake, a lesson here.

By way of parallel, not all serpents/snakes are necessarily the same particular kind. Cobra/Asps could be one kind, while a viper might be a different kind, and then constrictors might be yet another kind.

Was there indeed no other kinds of birds not now in existence before the flood? there was so much post flood extinction its hard to believe bird kinds didn't vanish!

Of course there were birds that existed before the Flood which no longer exist. But whether any of the bird kinds were completely eliminated is not knowable. Certainly some variations within a kind would have been rendered extinct, and it is also quite possible that entire kind-groups of birds went extinct after the Flood - not being able to survive predation or the pressure of human hunting, or the new environmental conditions that prevailed after the Flood.

Noah had doves and crows for sure. 

I sometimes wondr if kinds could appear out of original kinds.

However this would allow snake kinds out of original kinds and I think there is not just a original snake kind but still only one kind.

Have you any Scriptural or Scientific basis for this thinking? No you do not. The biblical description of kinds as we follow usage throughout the Hebrew text seems to disallow "new kinds." Kinds always reproduce after their kind. If a new kind were to arise, then the statement that they were to "multiply after their kind" would not be true after all.

Its just YOUR opinion what scripture allows me in these ideas.
There is no evidence that new kinds could not come from old kinds. I'm not sure they did but no evidence.
Its impossible for snakes to be several kinds since they lost their legs by the action of one kind of snake.
Thats logic and so all snakes come from a original kind.
Reproduction is not the evidence for kinds. Some horse types today do not reproduce yet are just horses. I mean mules/donkeys or whatever.
All the bible says is that there are kinds. It doesn;t say diversity can't bring such great denetic change as to interfere with reproduction.
I do think bats come from rats. The bible is silent.
anyways the birds on the ark and the snake do set boundaries for what kinds are or could be.
it is based on the bible and science and demands careful thinking. 

Excerpt of what Robert Byers said:

Its just YOUR opinion what scripture allows me in these ideas.

No, it is not just MY opinion. First of all it is not just MINE, but it is the considered position of vast numbers of creationist Bible scholars and Hebraists and it is the understanding of very many degreed scientists, including biologists who are creationist believers.  Secondly it is not "opinion." It is sound Hebrew scholarship and based on thorough examination of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax; and most importantly it is based on a thorough analysis of every occurrence of the word kind in the Hebrew Scripture.

There is no evidence that new kinds could not come from old kinds.

Oh, but there is plenty of evidence. Kinds are by definition are groups of animals that can only produce the same kinds.

I'm not sure they did but no evidence.

Biblical usage is good evidence. Science confirms that sense of usage.

Its impossible for snakes to be several kinds since they lost their legs by the action of one kind of snake.

No, the Bible does not say that ALL SNAKES would lose their legs. I am not aware of that verse any where in the Bible. And neither does it say that the Serpent in Genesis Three lost his legs. The word legs doesn't occur in Genesis Three. The word legs and serpent NEVER appears in the same verse.

Snakes and serpents are not necessarily all the same single kind. There could easily be several different kinds of snakes. I will leave it to biologists to sort out, but it must be based upon the capacity to reproduce within the single kind.

That's logic and so all snakes come from a original kind.

Nope, it is not logic, unless you include FLAWED logic. The Bible never speaks of snakes as a "kind" and the Genesis account of the Fall does not say that all snakes now crawl on their belly due to the curse on the Serpent (which is the devil - Rev. 12:9; 20:2).


Reproduction is not the evidence for kinds. Some horse types today do not reproduce yet are just horses. I mean mules/donkeys or whatever.

Capacity for reproduction is one of the few identifiable criteria for what is a kind. Similarity in body structure is not the criteria.

All the bible says is that there are kinds. It doesn;t say diversity can't bring such great denetic change as to interfere with reproduction.

Yes the Bible does say. It says THIRTY-FOUR TIMES that animals will always stay within their kind, and only reproduce after their kind.

I do think bats come from rats. The bible is silent.

Cute. So if the Bible is silent we can make up whatever we want? That's one fine kettle of fish!


anyways the birds on the ark and the snake do set boundaries for what kinds are or could be.
it is based on the bible and science and demands careful thinking.

OF course, careful thinking, we need that!



Jim Brenneman said:

Excerpt of what Robert Byers said:

Its just YOUR opinion what scripture allows me in these ideas.

No, it is not just MY opinion. First of all it is not just MINE, but it is the considered position of vast numbers of creationist Bible scholars and Hebraists and it is the understanding of very many degreed scientists, including biologists who are creationist believers.  Secondly it is not "opinion." It is sound Hebrew scholarship and based on thorough examination of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax; and most importantly it is based on a thorough analysis of every occurrence of the word kind in the Hebrew Scripture.

There is no evidence that new kinds could not come from old kinds.

Oh, but there is plenty of evidence. Kinds are by definition are groups of animals that can only produce the same kinds.

I'm not sure they did but no evidence.

Biblical usage is good evidence. Science confirms that sense of usage.

Its impossible for snakes to be several kinds since they lost their legs by the action of one kind of snake.

No, the Bible does not say that ALL SNAKES would lose their legs. I am not aware of that verse any where in the Bible. And neither does it say that the Serpent in Genesis Three lost his legs. The word legs doesn't occur in Genesis Three. The word legs and serpent NEVER appears in the same verse.

Snakes and serpents are not necessarily all the same single kind. There could easily be several different kinds of snakes. I will leave it to biologists to sort out, but it must be based upon the capacity to reproduce within the single kind.

That's logic and so all snakes come from a original kind.

Nope, it is not logic, unless you include FLAWED logic. The Bible never speaks of snakes as a "kind" and the Genesis account of the Fall does not say that all snakes now crawl on their belly due to the curse on the Serpent (which is the devil - Rev. 12:9; 20:2).


Reproduction is not the evidence for kinds. Some horse types today do not reproduce yet are just horses. I mean mules/donkeys or whatever.

Capacity for reproduction is one of the few identifiable criteria for what is a kind. Similarity in body structure is not the criteria.

All the bible says is that there are kinds. It doesn;t say diversity can't bring such great denetic change as to interfere with reproduction.

Yes the Bible does say. It says THIRTY-FOUR TIMES that animals will always stay within their kind, and only reproduce after their kind.

I do think bats come from rats. The bible is silent.

Cute. So if the Bible is silent we can make up whatever we want? That's one fine kettle of fish!


anyways the birds on the ark and the snake do set boundaries for what kinds are or could be.
it is based on the bible and science and demands careful thinking.

OF course, careful thinking, we need that!

Well. your snake idea is denying that the serpent most likely, only possible, could newly be crawling in the dirt IF it no longer had legs. thats the big thing about snakes. No legs.

To say snakes not having legs and looking alike is NOT evidence for being the same kind is surely wrong or needs solid reasoning behind it to justify it.

Your in effect saying the snake is not what the serpent was.

Its obvious all snakes are snakes because they are the same kind. the snake kind. nOt different kinds that were affected equally despite being a different kind from each other.

the snake is the great example for what kINDS are. I can't see any logical opposition to this.

Yes kinds are controled by their boundaries.

yet it doesn't say new kinds could not come from old original kinds. I'm not sure they did but its a option.

Reproduction is irrelevant after enough genetic diversity has kicked in to stop reproduction.

I lean toward few kinds that were on the ark but its possible that new kinds came from the old. The bird thing might hint at this.

It doesn't matter by the way of head counts for conclusions.

Creationism fights against this idea because evolutionists throw at YEC about head counts and authority.

if evolutionists can't persuade me by THESE GUYS SAY SO then neither invoking hebraists or anybody.

Its on the merits of the case.

I still say the snake thing defines the issues of KInds for YEC. Its simple and there. The birds on the ark help also.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service