t's not evolution, it's genetic variance. The genes were there in the original animals to vary into every smaller type of animal which you'd call the species. According the the taxonomic level, kinds could be the family level. It's like the human race. We have different facial features, colors, sizes, heights, etc....BUT WE ARE THE SAME-HUMANS. What I'm talking about is called microevolution (which isn't even evolution, but anyways)
This is a science board too, so if you are blindly going to alter the rules of science, there is not much point to this discussion. A dog becoming a fox is not micro-evolution, but macro-evolution, since the result is a new species, and happens to be what Darwin predicted in his theory. Do you even know what the mechanisms for evolution is? What do you mean by genetic variance? Any change in the genetic make-up, by whichever description, is half of the ToE, with natural selection being the other part. What you are describing is a biological impossibility, never observed to have worked in nature, and is one of the gaping holes in the ToE. Humans remain humans, and the same goes for dogs and other mammals. Again, unless you are going to tell us which species were supposed to have been present on the ark as the common ancestors to life today, with the way and pathway that they evolved into the diversity observable today, your argument remains a non-argument.
Species is still an arbitrary word. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, and maybe the foxes, are different species, BUT they can breed, which should make them the same species.
I gave you 4 different definitions of species. All of these, with maybe the exception of the evolutionary one, have been observed and documented, according to the relevant definition. Your insistence to not accept it shows your intellectual dishonesty. You have the right to believe what you want, but don't call it scientific.
Species exist on paper only-not a real thing...just like infinity-you can write it down, but you can't see it in nature.
Yes you can. Observed and documented, from many perspectives, as demonstrated. Your saying it is not so doesn't do anything to change it.
Noah didn't use steel, as Mastermind says-gopher wood (whatever the heck that is). And, I remember reading that huge massive rocks near the Ark could have been used for ballasts-and think how far into the water the ship would have rode?
I know he did not use steel, but if it took 4000 tonnes of steel, it would have taken a similar amount of cypress wood, as I stated in my post. There is no description in the Bible of using ballast, and the description of the ark in the Bible makes mention of only 3 floors, each about 33,000 sq feet. If one of these were filled with rocks for ballast, it would have left even less space for the almost 20,000 different creatures that was supposed to have been in there.
And, as I said above, the continents were together, and you have to realize the world has not always been the same, think man.
Mmmm, now I'm accused of not thinking. Good observation coming from someone who seems intent to parrot something from an arbitrary website, and not follow things on his own in a logical and scientific manner. Even though there is no proof of the continents having been together in the last 6000 years, I'll humor you and ask the same question I did before, how did the different species from South America walk the 12,000 miles in 7 days to get on board the ark?
Why else are one kind of animal found all over the world fossilized? Today animals live in smaller ranges (except humans, we live everywhere but underwater).
Which animal would that be? And why do we not have tigers in Africa, or elephants in North America, or Tazmanian Devils in Europe? If all of the animals were once in the same place, as you suggest, why do we not see this any more today, and if we see only one animal fossilized everywhere (link to proof please), why don't we see it for many?
Believe what you will, but don't claim it to be scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Some of the best OT scholars have studied the creation deed, and the flood in great detail, and have found no reason to agree with you. They rather agree with how the OT predicted creation and the flood and how scientific observation and empirical evidence supports it today.