<<A separatism among species at creation in no way implies what would happen
in the future to these organisms anymore than the picking up of separate food
stuffs at the store indicates that each ingredient will be eaten by itself>>
I would be more inclined to accept this analogy if food cooked itself. But it
doesn't. And while I disagree that the separatism at creation doesn't imply
anything. God creates according to a "kind." That certainly implies that kinds
arise from the hand of God. Do they remain fixed? No implication of evoultion
here, of course. But then we move on:
<<What version are you using? I don't find this statement "multiply AS FOWL"
in any version I checked. [snip] If the preacher at your wedding had been
crass enough to have said, "Let Jim
and ___(enter your wife's name)___ multiply in the earth" Would you have
thought that this meant that you and your wife were to turn out little clones
of yourselves? Of course not. Why do we think that it means birds must turn
out clones of themselves?>>
My son is so much like me it's scary (and that should scare YOU, too!) But
yes, when we had kids we were sure we weren't going to have toasters, or fish,
but human beings. Guess what? We were right!
God said, let fowl multiply. Not lizards. Not fish. Birdies still have little
birdies. Is this a surpise to you? Clones are exactly what organisms produce.
Not perfect clones, of course, but biological copies of themselves.
Your kids, Glenn, do they have gills? I ask because, as you have said, you
recently crawled up on land yourself.
No? They don't? You mean you had little humans too? What implication do you
draw from this?
Jim