Our Front Porch

Not too long.

Applying heavy moderation isn’t much fun either, but some people don’t want to respect any rules at all. Idealy the moderators work to educate people to the rules, and rarely need to intervene.


Obviously, I’ve been hearing this “orchard model” and “evolution within created kinds” for many years now but I can’t claim to really understand it. The same evolutionary processes and copious evidence which explains the divisions into families and orders also explains classes and kingdoms. So what is the evidence for rigid “boundaries” at those taxonomic levels? I don’t understand that. (Would I be mistaken that religion-based presuppositions are forcing selective notice of the overwhelming evidence? If yes—that is, I’m mistaken—I would love to get educated on this topic.)


It makes no sense. Do not adjust your television set.

You nailed it, IMO. It’s an effort to make “Kinds” or Baramin correspond to the creatures aboard Noah’s Ark.
As I understand it, the surviving Kinds then go through a hyper-evolutionary process, losing information from the original super-genome while diversifying into the species we see today. So the original “wolf-kind” split up into all the canines we see today, an so on. This greatly reduces the number of species on the Ark needed to repopulate the Earth.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go flush my brain …


Always happy to help. :slight_smile:

Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory that Distinct Organisms Arose Independently from the Primordial Pond, Showing that Evolutionary Theories are Fundamentally Incorrect

Not true in the case of @AJRoberts and RTB. Their flood is regional, and does not require all animals to fit on the ark.


I am not very familiar with RTB, but I accept they are different. I was describing the AiG position.

I don’t associate RTB with the sort of presuppositions and presuppositionalist arguments that I see from AiG. I’m pretty sure I have that much correct?