How Many Kinds On Earth?

[sandy whitelinger]

But "winged fowl" are birds and bats are definitely not birds."

In a Biblical sense they are. Linnaeus wasn't around back then to complicate matters.

Would you call whales and dolphins "kinds in the water"?

It seems that if they were in the water when they were created then they are of "kinds of the water" as you put it. The Bible doesn't list where all of the created life goes. It's probably because it's just not that important in the grand Biblical scheme of things.

 

[fantome profane]

In a Biblical sense they are. Linnaeus wasn't around back then to complicate matters.

It seems that if they were in the water when they were created then they are of "kinds of the water" as you put it. The Bible doesn't list where all of the created life goes. It's probably because it's just not that important in the grand Biblical scheme of things.

I think the point has been made that “simple” is not always “clear”. And although the definition that Sandy has provided may be “Biblically correct”, it is not clear, it is not orderly and it bears no resemblance to reality. And I think Sandy knows this well. It may be true in some alternate parallel reality, but in this reality penguins are birds and bats are not.

 

[johnhanks]

It seems that if they were in the water when they were created then they are of "kinds of the water" as you put it.

You and I spent the first nine months or so of our existence floating in our own private watery pond in our mothers' amniotic sac. Does that make us of the fishy kind?

 

[averageJOE]

it's amazing what god can do. He created life in such a way that it changes and adapts and spreads throughout the whole world, changing colors, shapes, and habitats yet still maintaining an orderly division among the kinds.

magic!!!

 

[fantome profane]

You and I spent the first nine months or so of our existence floating in our own private watery pond in our mothers' amniotic sac. Does that make us of the fishy kind?

No, just kind of fishy. :goldfish:

 

[johnhanks]

No, just kind of fishy. :goldfish:

Guess that writes fin to the whole question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You and I spent the first nine months or so of our existence floating in our own private watery pond in our mothers' amniotic sac. Does that make us of the fishy kind?

Nope.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think the point has been made that “simple” is not always “clear”. And although the definition that Sandy has provided may be “Biblically correct”, it is not clear, it is not orderly and it bears no resemblance to reality. And I think Sandy knows this well. It may be true in some alternate parallel reality, but in this reality penguins are birds and bats are not.

Of course it's clear just not Linnaeic.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

...but in this reality penguins are birds and bats are not.

In the times Genesis was written if it flew and was not an insect it was a "winged fowl."

 

[outhouse]

I believe that bats are "winged fowl" and a platypus would be a "beast of the earth."

i dont know what else to say

 

[sandy whitelinger]

i dont know what else to say

Is that because you have little understanding of Genesis 1 or because you insist that Biblical kinds fit a Linnaeic system?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You and I spent the first nine months or so of our existence floating in our own private watery pond in our mothers' amniotic sac. Does that make us of the fishy kind?

Man is not listed as a kind in Genesis.

 

[McBell]

It's amazing what God can do.

Not really.
I mean, think about it for a minute.
God does anything that we cannot explain.
At least until we can explain it.

 

[Skwim]

It's amazing what God can do.

And what he chooses not to do.

 

[fantome profane]

Of course it's clear just not Linnaeic.

In the times Genesis was written if it flew and was not an insect it was a "winged fowl."

No, you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter what kind of “system” you use. A seagull is much more closely related to a penguin than it is to a bat. The seagull and the penguin share a relatively recent common ancestor, where as a seagull and a bat share a much more distant common ancestor.

To say that flying things and land creatures cannot share a common ancestor because they are “different kinds” is simply, clearly, and demonstrably not true. It is not true now, and it was not true “in the times Genesis was written”.

 

[Otherright]

2.2 million ocean dwellers. It stands to reason, at least to me, that there are probably far more than that. But being that we are obviously limited in our ability to explore it thoroughly, and it covers 2/3 of the planet, we get a much smaller number of actual known vs what's probably there.

Speaking of such. Forget the animals, how did the fish breathe? Did the freshwater die off or the saltwater. One of them would've.

And no one has ever answered this flood question for me; what about the beans?

 

[camanintx]

That might depend on whether the water brought them forth.:yes:

I would be really curious to know what definition of "brought forth" you are using in this context.

 

[Otherright]

And still nobody answers the question; what about the beans?

Its a more important question than you realize, once you understand it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Funny thing is, in that picture, that is not even half of all of the species


Anyways, my Baptist minister always taught me, when I was a Baptist, that the species had mated with other species creating new species during and after the Noah's ark period, but before hand there was just enough to fit on there.

 

[idav]

And still nobody answers the question; what about the beans?

Its a more important question than you realize, once you understand it.

They came from deep in the ground and were bean stalks for giants.