>
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Several genera, including the larger genera, could all have been
> >>
> >>>one Kind at the time of the Flood.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>So the genera Homo and Pan could also all have been one Kind at the time
> >>of the Flood . . . .? How about the genera Homo and Australopithecus?
> >>
> >>Why or why not.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think the genera Homo and Australopithecus may have been one kind
before
> > the Flood, the variant species of man
>
>
>
> There is only one species of man, Davey.
>
So you deny H. neanderthalensis existed?
That's nice.
Why should I believe your denial of neanderthalensis over that of scientists
who've actually got so far as to look at the genome?
You're arguing like one of those rednecked ignorant extremists who just deny
what science gives us.
>
>
>
> being the result of the
> > nephiliphilistic relationships that pre-Flood man engaged in.
>
>
>
>
>
> Where do the space aliens and the flying saucers fit in, Davey.
>
>
I don't know. I don't think there are any.
Some people may have seen angels and taken them for UFOs.
>
>
> >
> > Chimps and Bonoboes I would say could have been one kind, and all the
> > gibbons could have been one kind, and the various subspecies of gorilla
one
> > kind,
> >
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> What, again, is a "Kind"? How, again, do we tell whether or not two
> organism are or are not the same "kind"? Or do you jsut want us to take
> your Holy Word for it, Davey? Talking to God again, Davey?
>
I'm just saying my opinion.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
|