[fortheDeclaration]

Whale is not an animal, but a fish. Can you show us the gills on a whale?

Why would a whale need gills to be a fish?

Only in a narrow definition.

In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea.

Whale: Any of the larger fish-like marine mammals....(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

By the way, you still haven't gotten around to telling us how many legs a locust has, whether a hare chews its cud, whether bats and birds are the same, and where the evidence for a world-wide flood is.

I guess you haven't been looking to hard.

Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you.

(Rom.1:20-32)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea."

Is a lobster a fish?

" Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you."

We note your retreat.

[monkapotamus]

"Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

[VadeRetro]

Why would a whale need gills to be a fish?

To be a fish. She'll also want to pick up some scales, ditch the milk duds, start laying eggs, and stop generating so much body heat.

[VadeRetro]

In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea.

I must confess that I have been a fish on many occasions but am not now and promise not to do it anymore.

[Gumlegs]

Why would a whale need gills to be a fish?

Because all fish have gills by definition.

Only in a narrow definition.

Only in an accurate one.

In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea.

Only because you've been caught making a ridiculous claim. My son went swimming in the sea last summer. Was he a fish while he was "in the sea"?

Whale: Any of the larger fish-like marine mammals....(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

Thank you for conceding my point. "Fish-like" does not mean "is a fish," and no fish is a mammal.

Gumlegs: By the way, you still haven't gotten around to telling us how many legs a locust has, whether a hare chews its cud, whether bats and birds are the same, and where the evidence for a world-wide flood is.

I guess you haven't been looking to hard.

You are the one who made the claim that everything in the Bible is scientifically correct. Your inability to back up your statements about the scientific inerrancy of the Bible is noted.

[Gumlegs]

Oh, and there's this:

Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you.

I wasn't asking God, I was asking you. You are aware of the difference?

[Youngblood]

In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea

Does this mean that all marine animal lifeforms, in the broad definition, are fish? Fish, molluscs, crustraceans, zooplankton etc?

Does this method of classification extend to terrestrial life? Are humans, dogs, birds, snakes, frogs, bees, slugs, flatworms, mushrooms etc. all in the one group? And where do freshwater fish come in? And diadromous fish, such as salmon and eels that migrate between the sea and freshwater? And seals?

[Dimensio]

Why would a whale need gills to be a fish?

That is a defining characterisitc of fish.

In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea.

This is not a definition used by any biologists. It would appear that you are unfamiliar with common terminology. I am not certain where you have learned definitions for "fish", "mammal" and "animal", but it is clearly an unorthodox source with definitions that are not commonly accepted.

I guess you haven't been looking to hard.

On the contrary. I have also examined your posts, and you have not stated the number of legs of locusts, nor have you stated whether hares chew cud, whether bats are birds and where evidence exists for a world-wide flood.

Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you.

I am sorry, but merely asserting that your claims are "clearly shown" does not demonstrate that they in fact are.