Atheism, Agnosticism, Belief.

[Theland]

Nine and a half minutes. Very interesting.
Presented by Dinesh D'Souza, featuring Neo de Grasses Tyson.

https://youtu.be/jYi7yHeKBEI

[pixie374]

I don't have a bible here, theland. Please help me with the "explanation".

[naomi24]

Theland, I'll take an educated guess and say that whoever wrote Genesis 1:24 was well aware that there are various 'kinds' of animals. The ancients weren't that daft!

[pixie374]

I googled it. It doesn't explain anything (it doesn't really even make sense)

[pixie374]

//Genesis 1:24, KJV: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."//

So we now animals can and do breed different "kinds". Then what?

[naomi24]

//And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. //

In short, the bible says God made animals.

[pixie374]

Are all animals supposed to be "God's kind" then?

[naomi24]

It means each animal’s ‘kind’, E.g. various reptiles, mammals, birds, fish, etc etc.

[pixie374]

Sorry, I got the "inaccurate" bible version from Google.

[Theland]

It means what it says, that animals beget young of their own kind.

[pixie374]

But they don't always. What does or would it prove about evolution? Which was the original point?

[Theland]

The original point is that evolution is a pseudo science.

[pixie374]

Theland, it wasn't. You said this proved against macro evolution, but it didn't. I was asking, what now? If you know some "kinds" or "species" can create others, and you haven't denied it, but that was your proof.

[naomi24]

//It means what it says, that animals beget young of their own kind.//

I don't understand why you think that's some kind of marvellously wise revelation, Theland. Do you not realise that ancient man was well aware of that?

[pixie374]

I thought he was suggesting that you couldn't breed a new species (or kind)?

[Theland]

Precisely Pixie.

[pixie374]

This is like blood out of a stone lol. Do you now agree that animals can breed different kinds, and so, it doesn't disprove macro evolution at least? I'm genuinely trying to work out why you think that. Or again, how about human evolution?

[Theland]

Blood out of a stone?
No!
Its easy.
Cows beget cows.
Dogs beget dogs.
Mice beget mice.
Cows do not beget whales, or dogs, or cats, or mice.
Simple isn't it?

[Theland]

And no, I don't agree that animals can produce different kinds.

[Mozz71]

Dogs "beget" anything they can get. Other dogs, cats, legs, slippers...

Also, other animals do their fair share of begetting. Horse, donkeys and zebras have been known to enjoy one anothers company, and all those ligers and tigrons a happily mixed race.

[pixie374]

That's my point, mozz. I mentioned mules, ligers etc, who are bred a different species. But theland hasn't responded or denied it. You "know" they can produce different kinds, as it's happened. So why are you still suggesting they can't?