- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Not a different kind... an infertile offspring, which is still the same kind as its parents.
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.
Not a different kind... an infertile offspring, which is still the same kind as its parents.So hang on, you accept that gradual changes could result in a different 'kind' that cannot interbreed with the original? Colour me confused.
Not a different kind... an infertile offspring, which is still the same kind as its parents.
It doesn't matter how widely separated they are, if the can breed they're the same kind. I've not said they can't change anymore, variations will continue indefinitely for each individual parent with different lines, but not for these particular two because their offspring is infertile. Again, the infertile offspring is still the same kind as its parents though.That would require breeding two creatures that are already widely separated genetically from an original ancestor. But still can, at that time, breed. But your position is that those two creatures have changed dramatically...but can't change anymore.
It doesn't matter how widely separated they are, if the can breed they're the same kind. I've not said they can't change anymore, variations will continue indefinitely for each individual parent with different lines, but not for these particular two because their offspring is infertile. Again, the infertile offspring is still the same kind as its parents though.
The water kind according to Genesis 1:21What Kind are dolphins and whales?
Not necessarily, but not excluded either.Sounds like something in transition between a water based creature and a land based one. What do you think?
The water kind according to Genesis 1:21
Did you think it would have one those fancy Latin names?'Water kind'.
Did you think it would have one those fancy Latin names?
Now you're getting it... there are different water kinds, each determined by their ability to breed. Baraminology will will eventually give them all fancy names.Considering it wasn't written in Latin but in Aramaic, then no, not likely.
But again, all you are doing is highlighting how useless the term Kind is. 'Water Kind' is useless, especially if we take your "reproduce according to their Kind" claim, so that means that a fish can mate with a dolphin no problem, correct? Or a shark with an octopus? Or a squid with an eel? They're all 'Water Kind' after all.
Now you're getting it... there are different water kinds, each determined by their ability to breed. Baraminology will will eventually give them all fancy names.
Non-whales is pretty broad, especially when you consider the primary factor for a kind is the ability to breed.But there isn't. There's just 'water kinds', or to use the actual text: "great whales, and every living creature that moveth," (Genesis 1:21), so there isn't just 'different water kinds'. There's only two in the Bibles: Whales and non-Whales.
Non-whales is pretty broad, especially when you consider the primary factor for a kind is the ability to breed.
I think we just made a 360... I'm gonna take a break. Enjoyed the conversation.Exactly my point on why Kind is a useless term in biology. It's too broad to mean anything serious and worthwhile in science.
Hebrew
Not necessarily, but not excluded either.
It doesn't matter how widely separated they are, if the can breed they're the same kind. I've not said they can't change anymore, variations will continue indefinitely for each individual parent with different lines, but not for these particular two because their offspring is infertile. Again, the infertile offspring is still the same kind as its parents though.
Aramaic became the common language late in the Biblical (i.e. Old Testament) period. Only a couple of parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic; everything else is written in Hebrew.Was it not Aramaic then Hebrew?
Aramaic became the common language late in the Biblical (i.e. Old Testament) period. Only a couple of parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic; everything else is written in Hebrew.
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?