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.
Then it is what it is, can it speak also?It can breathe in water. It can breathe on land. It can swim underwater. It can walk on land (it climbs trees for heaven's sake...). I can't see that anyone could possibly argue that it's not a combination of a creature that lives in water and one that lives on land. It does both!
QED.
I haven't answered it, I'm asking you.You already answered it. If they can't breed they're either hybrid, which still makes them the same kind as their parents, or they are a different kind.
Quite, it implies either two creatures of the same 'kind' that can't interbreed, contradicting the definition of kind, or two creatures that both are and are not members of the same kind, which is a logical contradiction.So hang on, you accept that gradual changes could result in a different 'kind' that cannot interbreed with the original? Colour me confused.
It is a recurring thing that I see often in threads on this forum when evolution is brought up and someone invariably from the Creationist side tries to go "Well, that's microevolution, no macroevolution?"
But I've never seen anyone make an attempt to actually explain what the barrier is that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.
So, can anyone from Creationist side of the debate answer the question: what is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?
after their kind (micro-evolution) capable of reproducing off spring (biblically correct)
God made the barrier.
As I've said: Kind is a useless term because it's such a catch-all term. I've even given two examples of it including bats with birds and all non-whales together in the same groups of Kind.
able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.
Leviticus 11:13-19:
13“And these you shall detest among the birds;a they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle,b the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15every raven of any kind, 16the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
Deuteronomy 14:11-18:
11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
See what the bat is included with? Birds, aka fowl.
So to use the Biblical Kind is worthless for science since it's such a catch all term.
It's talking about clean and unclean animals .... not their animal family.
And yet it's the only time the Bible makes the attempt to comment on bats, since the only other time anything flying is mentioned is in Genesis 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
Not every single animal species is listed in the bible .... again ... the verses you are quoting is in regard to clean and unclean animals ... and no .... we aren't supposed to eat bats.
CONTEXT
I'm just responding to the post in front of me, expecting me to think according to your context is absurd.That you are ignoring the evidence and asking nonsensical questions is noted.
And yet we can eat bats. Anything can be eaten if its prepared properly. Even humans. Though that last one should be rule number for cooking.
But again, in context, your claim is bogus. The writers of the Bible listed bats with birds because they thought that bats were birds. They didn't know they were mammals, they just knew they flew.
And also, you're doing nothing to show that Kind is an actual thing.
sure .... we can eat anything even dog poop .... but that doesn't mean it's good for us ... and that is what was being stated .... these foods are ok for you .... these foods are not ok for you.
The word mammal hadn't been invented yet .... because it hadn't don't mean there were not many different kinds of animals.
God created the animals ... Adam and mankind going forward named them.
You are assuming things that are not there.
No my context is not bogus .... your's is.
able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.
This causes two problems for the Creationist narrative.able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.
You said that Kind reproduces after Kind. If we take the Bible's identification of Kind literally, then that leaves far too much wriggle room on what animal belongs to which Kind.
If you want to be sincere and just mean species, then say species.
I go by whats stated in His word. God decided how reproduction would occur.
The biological species concept connects the idea of a species to the process of evolution.
I don't believe in evolution.
I'm just responding to the post in front of me, expecting me to think according to your context is absurd.
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?