Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Are there plant kinds? Rock kinds? Star kinds? So far each of these categories have not become identical, so why would one assume animals would?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is god a code monkey?
- Thread starter sonofdad
- Start date
Are there plant kinds? Rock kinds? Star kinds? So far each of these categories have not become identical, so why would one assume animals would?
Huh? There are plant kinds, rock kinds and star kinds. You are smarter than you appear today.
Oh ya, I forgot something. The SAME PERSON who made animals according to their kind also made those other things imo.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Okay...now where is this taught?
Someone else said thought has no "place" and cannot move so "where" is not applicable.
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good Genesis 1:12
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 1 Corinthians 15:41
and the gold of that land is good, there is the bdolach and the shoham stone; Genesis 2:12
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 1 Corinthians 15:41
and the gold of that land is good, there is the bdolach and the shoham stone; Genesis 2:12
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Well, let's continue on without addressing the source material then. Are all cats the same type of cat?
Find me something about rock and star kinds now.
No. How many times on forums have you read "they are all cats"?
So first I am thinking you mean now means 2013. And I'm like huh?
I added some above. Are those what you asked for?
Why not? Such fidelity makes a tiger, or elephant, or swan instantly recognizable. Since man was given dominion over the animals he was given the privilege of naming them. (Genesis 2:20)I believe God purposed for separation of animal groups to avoid destroying the distinct features of each animal "kind".
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
You, actually. You just said kinds were installed to prevent homogeneity. Now, given the amount of time cats have lived, why aren't all cats the same generic cat?
Is splendor the same as kind?
And is naming a stone a denotation of a kind? Because we name people, breeds, races, creeds, and they all manage to be of the same "kind".
What is your scriptural basis for that?
It does not matter if they look different. They all exist is the same (or similar) niche.
What something looks like does not matter to The Spirit.
It is more than "naming" at Genesis 2:12. The gold is described as "good". All good things come from The Father according to the same book.
The stars, I don't know.
The stars, I don't know.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Is man called only evil in the Bible? No good men? Drown the Earth? Surely "good" is not a description of a difference in kind.
So this:
...has nothing to do with looks? In that case, what role is a cat preserving that another carnivore could not?
Good is not a description of kind. It means rocks where created by the Giver Of Every Good Gift. I thought that was what we were talking about. So sorry. As Emily Litella says "Nevermind".
Skwim
Veteran Member
I got a kick out of Ken Ham's description of the evolution of the domestic dog in one of videos on evolution. He shows how the dog evolved from the wolf (mind you,this is micro-, and not macro-evolution). He even had a graphic showing this evolution.
Of course all these animals are the result of evolution, but not as he depicts them. Evolving animals, and other organisms don't change species or genera and then go back to a former species or genera.
Of course all these animals are the result of evolution, but not as he depicts them. Evolving animals, and other organisms don't change species or genera and then go back to a former species or genera.
Last edited:
In another thread I tried proposing the "guardian angels" hypothesis to explain how this "decreed limits or boundaries" thing works, but it was rejected by you. Can you yourself suggest a viable mechanism?
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
You have, as always, ducked the essence of the question. This was:
- Change in DNA base sequences over time is an observed reality.
- What mechanism prevents that change going far enough to produce a new "kind"?
3. What the hell is a "kind"?
but for the moment you have enough on your plate.
That is a question for science to answer. I suggest you Google "why animals cannot interbreed"
That is a question for science to answer. I suggest you Google "why animals cannot interbreed"
In case you don't realize, that is completely irrelevant to the 'mechanism' question.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Science already has an answer. There is no known mechanism that limits the amount by which a DNA base sequence can change. You are the one claiming that there is such a limit: it is for you to explain how that limit is imposed.
I assume you mean why animals of different species cannot interbreed. This is because their genomes have diverged so far through mutation, selection and drift that their chromosomes are no longer compatible. What you have yet to do is explain why there should be a limit on the extent of that divergence.