So the Bible has God creating all sorts of plants and animals, each according to their own kinds. You usher in the snake, having lost its legs as a punishment, after it was already created, and that qualifies as a “kind”… I don’t believe you have a cogent strategy here for classification.
5 Likes
J.E.S., give me a little time (perhaps even not until after church today) and I’m going to reply to your series of questions here but I will post my answers in the “Was the Behemoth a dinosaur or an elephant?” thread. (As it is now, the discussion has gotten bifurcated between the two threads and I think the conversation may be easier to follow over on that thread.)
POSTSCRIPT: I posted my reply on the other thread at:
1 Like
Thanks! I will check out the other thread…
(I should probably mention that this is my 100th post on the PS forum 
)
It says this implicitly. it clearly expects the audience to understand the snake lost its legs as a greater curse on it relative to other creatures. THIS IS A FACT. In large snakes they can find remnants of hips etc showing they did once have legs. They are amongst the few creatures with actual evidence for having changed their body plan. Evolutionists would say they kept som,e remnant becaise its used still for reproduction etc and thats why not completly vanished.
Why not? creation week finished the KINDS creation. The fall came distorting all biology. The snake loses its legs and this being its trait one knows there is a snake kind. so the species etc of snakes are not kinds and , very likely, all biological adaptative changed populations from a single looking type.
Its a good clue.
Read it in ancient Hebrew, than tell me whether it says ‘explicitly’.
3 Likes
In other words, it doesn’t actually say so. It is your interpretation.
I question your definition of fact.
Yes. But does the Genesis text state that?
Few? Are you sure?
3 Likes