(November 22, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think he means that a man might lie with a man or a woman with a woman, but never would these different kinds do anything so unholy as to lie together, and regardless no offspring could come of it.

That's the thing. The damnbible talks about animal being made "after their kind" etc, but it also says that bats are birds and the Moon is a light. Once we start to strip out everything we know to be wrong, how do we know where to stop?

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical.

---

(November 22, 2016 at 4:43 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Are you some kind of imbecile?

 Define "Imbecile" then Define that then Define that, then where did it come from?

Right. Herring identified and dismissed. Now where does the term 'kind' fit into the system used by actual taxonomists?

(November 22, 2016 at 4:45 pm)The Joker Wrote:

---

(November 22, 2016 at 4:43 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Are you some kind of imbecile?

 Define "Imbecile" then Define that then Define that, then where did it come from?

So you are an imbecile.

Nice dodging tactics

(November 22, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Right. Herring identified and dismissed. Now where does the term 'kind' fit into the system used by actual taxonomists?

I'd say Family.

---

(November 22, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 4:45 pm)The Joker Wrote:

---

 Define "Imbecile" then Define that then Define that, then where did it come from?

So you are an imbecile.

Yes and No

(November 22, 2016 at 4:45 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's the thing. The damnbible talks about animal being made "after their kind" etc, but it also says that bats are birds and the Moon is a light. Once we start to strip out everything we know to be wrong, how do we know where to stop?

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical.

Right, so what justification do you have for taking the knowledge of the day literally when it talks about 'kinds' and animals being created instead of what modern science has revealed?

(November 22, 2016 at 5:29 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Right. Herring identified and dismissed. Now where does the term 'kind' fit into the system used by actual taxonomists?

I'd say Family.

Great. Now we have a working definition. That would mean that, for example, dogs are the same 'kind' as coyotes, foxes and jackals; cats the same 'kind' as lions, tigers and leopards; horses the same 'kind' as zebras and donkeys; and humans are the same 'kind' as gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos.

So they should all be able to interbreed, yes?

(November 22, 2016 at 5:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 4:45 pm)The Joker Wrote: The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical.

Right, so what justification do you have for taking the knowledge of the day literally when it talks about 'kinds' and animals being created instead of what modern science has revealed?

Right, so what justification do you have for taking the knowledge of the day literally when it talks about 'kinds' and animals being created instead of what modern science has revealed?

The Bible teaches a literal  6 day creation and because a day and kinds are not the same thing, Kinds are Gods classification of animals he created and I do not follow Secular modernist evolutionists. I look at everything from the biblical perspective.

Yet things like "bats are birds" aren't meant to be taken literally. So what justification do you have for picking and choosing what you want to be literal? And why? By what metric can you tell the difference?

(November 22, 2016 at 5:47 pm)The Joker Wrote: The Bible teaches a literal  6 day creation and because a day and kinds are not the same thing, Kinds are Gods classification of animals he created and I do not follow Secular modernist evolutionists. I look at everything from the biblical perspective.

Translation:

"No, the book MUST be right! It's reality that's wrong!"