Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

im not claiming to know more then them, of course not.But science is not the ultimate truth. They have been wrong about things in the past so i think its wise to take what they say with a grain of salt.their research into genes has shown that all people are decended from one pair and they give certain dates for when these ancestors lived but is their calculation accurate??? Can you be sure they are 100% accurate in their dates??personally, I dont think they can be and for this reason i remain doubtful.

the point about the genesis 'kind' is that it is refering to 'interfertility'if a gernsey and a herford can breed, according to Genesis, they are the same kind.its that simple.

if you believe humans evolved from lower life forms, i guess so.

Well to answer your question its important to note that the bible doesnt classify animals into groups, it mentions kinds in the general sense.eg"living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind""the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth""the great sea monsters ...which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds/genus""every winged flying creature according to its kind/genus"What genesis shows is that many 'kinds' of animals were created. Not just one type/variety of bird, but different varieties of birds. The ones that are of the same 'kind' or variety are the ones that can interbreed and multiply.And according to RADZ 'definition of species' thread, the definition of a 'species' is:
"a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."This would be in harmony with the Genesis 'kind' I can only speculate here, but can a penguin and an ostrich reproduce? If not, they are a different genesis 'kind'That is how I understand it to be. As i said, Gensis does not classify animals into groups in the way scientists do today so its impossible for me to give specifics, but it does classify them into 5 broard categories:1. sea creatures
2. winged creatures
3. domestic animal
4. wild beast
5. humanin terms of humans, an asian and an african have many differences, but they can reproduce...this would mean they are of the same genesis kind.it would be the same for other animals...tigers and lions are normally considered to be two different species, but the fact that they can reproduce shows that they must have come from the same kind at some point in the past.

i think this has more to do with modern definitions, and the way evolutionists have determined what a species is, rather then what a genesis 'kind' is.I've said previously that genetics can send animals into different directions...for example genetics have produced many varieties of dog...but all the varieties are still dogs, right?With regard to ring species, my personal opinion is that its genetics that causes the phenomenon rather then a new species of bird being created but again it depends on what the modern definition for species really means....some will say that a doberman and a terrier are different species whereas i'd call it a variety within a 'kind' or 'species' (and even then i'm not sure if species is the right word)

except that moses was not trying to postulate anything other then the fact that God had created the animals.Genesis was not trying to explain nature, it was explaining where nature came from.

not necessarily for the reason that there are many different 'kinds' of birds and within each 'kind' there are many different
'varieties'

i have no idea, perhaps they are the same thing?But i draw the line at linking all existing animals with previous lower life forms. I'm aware of that, but its been said that ring species is proof that evolution changes animals from one species into anotheras i said, i think it has more to do with genetics rather then animals slowly evolving into new species of animal. this is where i gets confusing because its still a bird, but its a different variety of bird...yet you call it a new species.So while you are calling this particular bird a new 'species', genesis would be calling it a 'kind'the winged kind and a variety within the winged kind.I think it has everything to do with definitions. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

its not the genetics that is the problem, its the dating they put to it that I think is harder to pinpoint. And there have been many examples where one scientist dates something at a particular point and someone else at a much younger point and someone else at a much older point.You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?

animals of the same kind were told to go forth and multiply, so the genesis kind is one that can reproduce. However I did also say that there were multiple 'kinds' createdfor example: God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kindshow many sea creatures are there? Millions? And these millions of sea creatures cannot all reproduce together, only ones of the same 'kind' can do so.For a simpler example, we have dogs.
Dogs are one 'kind' but they come in great variety. You may call it 'speciation' because dogs have become so different???but they are still dogs and they are still the same 'kind'i hope that is clearer. the bible kept it very simple because, unlike evolutionists, it wasnt trying to define anything.the hebrew word 'kind' is literally a 'genus'I dont really know how else to explain it. I think the problem is that the terms evolutionists use today is much different to a genesus 'kind' so they are incompatible.What do evolutionists call animals that can interbreed? (please keep in mind that lions and tigers can interbreed)

it fits with the evolution theory so i guess it must be true!I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.

Its been correcting itself over human origins for years...but it keeps making the same mistakes over and over lolThe theoretical family tree of human evolution is full of castoffs of previously accepted so called 'links'Piltdown man was accepted by the whole scientific community for about 40 years before modern testing revealed it was a fakeOne of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal (not sure of its name) supposed to have lived about 70 million years ago. There was also the Aegyptopithecus or Egypt ape of 40 million years ago. It was proclaimed to be our human ancestor even though there was no link to the small rodent that came before it. Then a new creature called Ramas ape came along that was said to be from 14 million years ago. From its fossils evolutionsists constructed an apelike creature who walked on two limbs. It was called the first representative of the human family and it was presented as such in evolutionary literiture as such. But all this was based on a few jawbone fragments and teeth! How do you get an upright walking ape with such little evidence??? Pure imagination!The mistakes kept coming though. The next one that had been listed as an ape-man was the Australopithecus of about 3 or 4 million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor. But later it was discovered that the Australopithecine skull was simian, not human. All this after telling the world that the real ape-man had finally been found!then there is Lucy. She's our ancestor for sure except that her scull is a 3rd the size of a human scull and even New Scientist reported that Lucy's skull is more chimp then human. Neanderthal man was first pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. But now it is known that the original reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton that was badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found and its been confirmed that he was not much different from modern humans. It wasnt an ape at all just like Cro-Magnon man who is also not an ape man.It seems pretty clear to me that belief in ape-men is unfounded. Any apelike creatures that did live in the past were simply that, apes. And any fossils of ancient humans that do differ from ours demonstrate the variety within the human kind. We have large and small living side by side today and they are all still human.Evolutionists may correct themselves, but they continually repeat the same mistakes because they are hell bent on proving their theory that humans came from apes.

Why can a small bird such as a parrot learn to speak, but an ape who has many of the physical characteristics needed for speech such as lips, tongue, vocal cords, cannot learn to speak?
if we are so close, explain why they cannot speak.Humans and apes cannot hybridize which means they are not closely related.Another thing that sets us apart dramatically is our cerebral cortex Our cortex is not only much larger then any ape, but it also has a much larger 'uncommitted' area, meaning it is not used for the physical functions of the body but is mostly used for mental processes...this is completely different to any ape.and more recently the DNA of chimpanzees and orangutans among other monkeys has shown that their genetic makeup is not as similar as was once thought. Apparently there are large differences in their DNA compared to ours.These facts make it nothing more then speculation that we are related to chimps...or any other type of ape.

i've never once claimed to be a scientistbut this site is for debating both sides and therefore im debating why i believe evolution is not sound. I'm pretty sure creationists are allowed to post their views here.

as far as i'm aware, it has not been done.here is an article about the possiblity of doing so but it does state that it has not been done yet. "A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."

​

EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully."