- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,105
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I give up ... can it? are they in the same genus?Can a tiger reproduce with a sand cat?
They should, according to you post.
They are separate genuseses.I give up ... can it? are they in the same genus?
That they are two different kinds; as I stipulated earlier?They are separate genuseses.
What does that tell you?
That's what I thought.
Same species, different breeds.
Nice way for science to get around that problem, isn't it?
Dogs = different breeds, but [for some reason] bats = different species.
Only Satan could make propaganda like that stick.
Any particular reason why they are in two different genera, according to science?The golden-capped fruit bat is an entirely different species than the bronze tube-nosed bat; they are not only different species they are different genera and entirely different families.
Any particular reason why they are in two different genera, according to science?
Then why are they called "bats"?Because they are more distantly related, not very closely related. It's like comparing foxes, tanukis, and wolves.
So a tiger is a different kind to a sand cat?That they are two different kinds; as I stipulated earlier?
Bats are an Order, not Genus.Then why are they called "bats"?
So what's the problem then?So by your logic they are different kinds as you said kind was genus.
It is showing to all and sundarie that you don't have a good grasp on this topic.So what's the problem then?
Why are we having this conversation?
If two golden-capped fruit bats and two bronze tube-nosed bats got aboard the Ark, what's all the hullabaloo about?
I may not have a good grasp on this topic, but please show me how "kind" can't be defined as "genus."It is showing to all and sundarie that you don't have a good grasp on this topic.
No they can't, but they are still bats and in theory a tiger and a sand cat could produce offspring (albeit sterile) despite being of different genus (which you equated to kind).I may not have a good grasp on this topic, but please show me how "kind" can't be defined as "genus."
For instance, can a golden-capped fruit bat mate with a bronze tube-nosed bat and produce a viable offspring?
The hyper-evolution proposed by YECs to fill the logical gaps left by the flood narrative are completely counter to evidence.
If you are comfortable in abandoning science, then feel free to do so. An omnipotent deity is an explanation for any mystery, but you can no longer claim evidence or reason have any real meaning.
Pshun wrote:
How many bat-kinds do you suppose were on the ark?
I ask because there are around 1000 species around today.
If there was but a single breeding Kind-pair, and the ark myth supposedly happened 4500 years ago, that is roughly 1 speciation even every 4 years or so.
What is your proposed, evidence-supported mechanism for this?
No they can't, but they are still bats and in theory a tiger and a sand cat could produce offspring (albeit sterile) despite being of different genus (which you equated to kind).
So kind cannot be defined as genus.
What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.Actually the Hebrew when translated into Greek (the LXX) uses a word more akin to "species"....
I'm going to respectfully disagree.So kind cannot be defined as genus.
The Bible has a built-in dictionary of certain words.What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?