Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,867 Year: 4,124/9,624 Month: 995/974 Week: 322/286 Day: 43/40 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 371 of 425 (542448)
01-10-2010 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by ICANT
01-07-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT
ICANT writes:
According to the Hebrew word and Greek word translated whale they are a sea monster kind.
God Bless,
I have been reading through most of this thread and couldn't resist just reaffirming your position on a little question I have
So a goldfish, and a blue whale according to you are one kind but wolf and a dog isn't?
How did these animals become so diverse so quick?
What about invertebrates that live in the ocean like squid or shrimp, or even Jellyfish, are they also the same kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 1:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2010 4:12 PM Chippo has replied

  
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 377 of 425 (542579)
01-11-2010 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by ICANT
01-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:
Well I did not say the goldfish and the blue whale were the same kind. The goldfish as his name implies is a gold colored, "fish kind".
The whale would be a sea serpent kind.
Thank you for the reply and thanks for the welcome I just want make sure I can accurately measure these kinds suggested because I do have a question to ask you on this subject but i need to know specifically what would constitute a kind in these cases.
You are saying goldfish is a fish kind because of the name we give it but you reject the jellyfish despite its name implying the same thing, so does the Jellyfish fall into another category if so in your opinion what would that be?
The blue whale as you say falls under the sea serpent kind, what other creatures in the ocean fall under that kind? Dolphins, Sharks, Giant Squid?
Edited by Chippo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2010 4:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:16 PM Chippo has replied

  
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 394 of 425 (543062)
01-15-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by ICANT
01-13-2010 2:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Why does Biblical kinds have to be broken down like science wants to catalog everything?
God created every individual kind that existed prior to Genesis 1:2. From those kinds He called into existence things after their kind in Genesis 1:2-2:3.
I cannot speak directly for others but I want to see if there is a way "to break down these creatures and catalog them" because there needs to be some way we can put your idea of kinds to the test, if they cannot be put to the test then it isn't science.
The Theory of Evolution says that dogs and whales for example have a common ancestor, while creation according to you suggests that they could not possibly be related because they are derived by two different kinds that are completely separate. If we take belief out of the question, how do we measure, study or even find such evidence to back up your assertion that animals of two 'kinds' cannot possibly be related?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:00 PM Chippo has not replied

  
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 422 of 425 (543193)
01-16-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by anglagard
01-15-2010 9:14 PM


Re: KIND
Coyote writes:
We can't correct you on this, as you are providing the biblical definition for "kind" (at long last!).
But we can point out that if kinds=species then the ark would have been awfully crowded! In fact, impossibly crowded.
And this is not even counting the stray Brontosaurus or two and all their cousins and in-laws that some believe were taken along for the ride!
anglagard writes:
Way back in the past (the early 70s) I read somewhere that if the purported ark was to hold all species known back then it would have had to have been scaled up to 60 miles long.
Strange that the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy become metaphor for convenience while Genesis becomes science due to a simple minded and fundamentally unchristian jealousy of the educated.
I am assuming also that this would not include the multitude of species that would have reproduced many times over and thus pushing the size of the ark required further and further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 9:14 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024