Rev. David Rives — Wasn’t the Ark Crowded?

It started out to be a peaceful day, but suddenly the Drool-o-tron™ called to us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: Could all the animals fit on Noah’s ark?. Wow — what a question!

The rev tells us that Noah didn’t need to take every species on the ark. That would have required a whole fleet of cargo ships. He only needed to take two (in some cases seven) pairs of every “kind” — and not even all of them. He didn’t need to take any fish, for example.

A “kind” isn’t the same as a “species.” Creationists researchers study baraminology –and according to their specialized science, from each “kind” we can get every species we see today. They estimate that Noah need only 1,700 “kinds,” so with a pair of each (and seven pairs of some) Noah needed only a few thousand animals, plus food and supplies. There was plenty of room on the ark! We can trust the bible.

The rev is wearing his blue bible-boy suit, and he’s still the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is only three minutes long before the commercial at the end. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Wasn’t the Ark Crowded?

  1. The concept of a “baramin” (“kind”) as different from a “species” is something imposed on the Bible from the mid-20th century.
    What more need be said about it?

    It is a fairly recent discovery about the large number of species of air-breathing vertebrates. Linnaeus named something like 4000 species of animals, I think, so I thing that the problem didn’t seem to be bothersome in the 18th century. (The are a lot of fishes, remember.)

  2. Maybe the Rev isn’t quite the same as Ham, but Ham’s “kinds” are all over the place: single species (e.g. human), genus, family (he likes family “kinds” for some mammals), order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain (bacterial “kind”, into which he probably conflates archaea, if he’s ever heard of them). Why not simplify the whole confusion and stick with a “life kind”, linked by common decent, which he is happy to do with equids?
    But I think Ham’s “kinds” have a venerable history in Plato’s forms: a class of things which everyday dealings make it convenient to have a single word or short phase to refer to, corresponds to a form, or, in Ham’s case restricted to living things, a “kind”.

  3. But to call humans a “kind” has no Scriptural basis. The Hebrew word “min” is never used for humans.

  4. michaelfugate

    “Creationist “researchers” study baraminology –and according to their specialized fabricated science pseudoscience, from each “kind” we can get every species we see today.”

  5. Eddie Janssen

    Building the Ark is step 1. Collecting two of each of these 1700 ‘kinds’ would be step 2 and keeping them alive for one year in the Ark would be step 3 (does Ken Ham have three married sons?)..

  6. The problem with “baramins” or “kinds” is that they then unpack unto the millions of species we see today using “macroevolution”, which, creationists assure us, can never cross the species barrier.

  7. There is a basic problem with having all the macroevolution occurring since the ark.

    As I have posted here before: Creationist John Woodmorappe, in his “The Non-Transitions in ‘Human Evolution’—on Evolutionists’ Terms” claims that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis took place after the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.

    The implications of this are huge: Woodmorappe’s perceived change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now a creationist has not only proposed such a change, but sees it operating several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!

    Good thing creationists don’t have to follow the evidence or scientific method or anything sensible like that, eh?

  8. macroevolution
    Creationists make the transition to macroevolution (which they deny) from microevolution (which they accept) as the barrier between kinds. Thus they say that the explosion to new species after the Flood is a explosion of microevolution.
    Scientists define microevolution as evolution within a species. Speciation is considered macroevolution only for those who follow science.

  9. TomS: Some creationists make that transition and have that reaction to it. Most of them have no idea at all of what either one is, and never think about such things. (William Jennings Bryan: “I never think about things… I don’t think about.” Clarence Darrow: “Do you ever think about the things you do think about?”)

    Then you get utter loons like R@y M@rtinex (forgive the encription but he’s an inveterate self-googler) who deny all change in populations whatsoever.

  10. ANd the ‘Noah did not need to take fishes’ totally illustrates their abysmal ignorance on what a world wide, mountain high flood would do to fishes of all ‘kinds’!!! Or simply the flood illustrates their abysmal ignorance..period!

  11. Bariminology, another feeble attempt to force a fit between science and myth. Humans belong to the family Hominidae. If this is a barimin kind, it also includes orangutans, gorillas and chimps. Since humans were the hominid kind on the ark, we must conclude that its robust genome gave rise to these other apes. Got’a love macroevolution! The rev’s wink makes it true!

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s