Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time?

What would we do without 'holy books' to kick against ? No doubt some so-called bible-scholar could come up with some Darwinesque convoluted story involving the meaning of 'kind' with respect to Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek translations perhaps with the inclusion of Gematria/Kabbalistic sub-texts. Who knows....who cares!

"of theiir kind" is such a copout . I care because some dumass HS bioloogy tachers try to insert thir religious bullshit into class as science. This occurs in states where the courst hqve already decreed. School districts , especially rural ones, dont make big waves other than mildly chiding the teachers whenever parent bitch.

I wonder what youd say about and elephants evolution from a Hyracene mammal, or a whale being derived from Paleocene hoofed animals.

Yes, but only if they really want to change.

And only if the grass is greener on the other side of the waterline..

I am different this afternoon than this morning. What you mean is related to species and the difference between development (as in Developmental Biology or Embryology) and creation of a new species.

Genesis has nothing to do with evolution. It is neither a history book, nor a science book.

It's much like Grimm's Fairy Tales.

The bible says that the world decays, then species degenerate.

Yes, the bible talks of degeneration when after the floof man's longevity was reduced hundreds of years.

Only the deluded think that the process is "evolution" when observations in physics and biology, and the bible conclude that the true process at the end of the day, the change is decay and degeneration.

TO EVOLVE IS TO DEVELOP GRADUALLY.

Within a million years of the extinction of the reptilian dinosaurs some 66 million years ago, which was a blessing to mankind, as they would have been the greatest threat to the continued evolution=development of mankind from our ancestors ‘The Mammals,’ of which our oldest known primate-LIKE mammal ancestors, were the Plesiadapis, which came from North America; or the Archicebus, which came from China, or any of the other similar basal primates, which were widespread in Eurasia and Africa during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene geological Epochs. And the evolutionary=developmental history of those primates can be traced back 65 million years, shortly after the time when the dinosaurs became extinct.

Vertebrates, among which humans belong, are animals of a large group distinguished by the possession of a backbone or spinal column, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc. Which first rose up from the waters and moved onshore about 390 million years ago.

Which of those vertebrates do you suppose gradually developed=evolved into human beings, certainly not the early reptilian vertebrates which developed into dinosaurs.

Would you deny that the ancestors of every life form on earth today, were in the oceans before the first vertebrates rose out of the waters to become land animals.

Of course, they have gradually changed dramatically over the millions and millions of years.

Or do you believe that there has been new creations since that event, new creations that have not developed from those pre-existing life forms.

Farmerman hasn't posted here for some time.

Are you desperate for an argument you resurrect long dead posts to pontificate over?