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.
Don't care.Actually the Hebrew when translated into Greek (the LXX) uses a word more akin to "species"....
genus: (Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin,"
I was responding to someone who did when you replied with: "And that from an atheist...."I never made the claim...
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.
I was responding to someone who did when you replied with: "And that from an atheist...."
I assume you are a YEC? If so, how do you explain genetic diversity and speciation of the modern world?
At the point of speciation the two lineages were considerably more similar, it's inaccurate to picture a modern mammal, reptile or amphibian when considering the original split.Not a YEC. You must have never read any of my 100s of posts. I explain these the same as you with the exception that due to lack of evidence of anything other, I would say speciation ONLY produces variety and does not cause transmutation of one type of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles)...
This is a case in point. AV defined it as Genus, you have said it more like species.
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.
At the point of speciation the two lineages were considerably more similar, it's inaccurate to picture a modern mammal, reptile or amphibian when considering the original split.
I agree that speciation occurs in the same type of organism, in this case it is the Amniote type of organism.Speciation only produces variety within the same type of organism. SHOW ME otherwise. All natural events of speciation (even Darwin's finches) and ALL lab experiments done, only prove my position.
Why should they? The environment they are in isn't conducive to anything radically different.Lenski's team has been running their test for decades approaching 100,000 generations of E-Coli with all sorts of mutation and adaptation being presented and guess what? They are still E-Coli!
Why haven't they become something other?
No, they're all members of the same species. 'Species' isn't a well-defined scientific term, it's used in different ways in different biological sciences, and the boundaries between species can be fuzzy, but broadly (for sexually reproducing multicellular organisms), a species is a breeding population that is significantly reproductively isolated, i.e. it's members generally can't or won't mate with members of other populations.Let me get this straight. A cocker spaniel mates with a poodle, giving rise to a cockapoo, and that cockapoo is not a new species?
One.
More than that, and they wouldn't be bats.
Kind = GenusAnd they're all in the same genus, right?
So we have four primary source bats in the Noah story and each female has about three litters per season (usually only one offspring at a time) so first season the number became a minimum of ten, the more females born the greater the number in the next generation, and so on.
Now though there is no way to do the math accurately it is certainly possible.
Sweet.
Sweet.
Then 92 kinds of bats boarded the Ark by twos, not counting the extinct forms (whatever "forms" are).
Unclean.Are bats clean or unclean?
Yes.tas8831 said:Do you realize that you have, in effect, opened the floodgates, as it were, on what gets on the ark?
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?