> But notice Bill, the sentence you just wrote does NOT, repeat NOT say "Let
> the animals reproduce animals after their kind..." Animals is not both
> subject and object. You are misreading a simple english sentence which
> does not say that morphological change is ruled out. The Land is what did
> the producing, not the animals. Evolution in one real sense does say that
> the Land produced the animals.
Help me here, Glenn. In what sense does dirt produce animals? Do you
have a modern analog?
Since you believe evolution is true, then what do you believe "according
to their *kinds*" means? It strikes me as contradictory to say that
people and flies came from the same stuff, and at the same time to say
that living creatures were produced according to their kinds. If our
ancestry is a blur of transitionals, then where are the *kinds* of which
the Bible speaks?
Bill