21 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsGetting back to the topic, your response was to this question:
However, evil-lution goes farther than that, because according to Darwin's hypothesis, all living things came from ONE common ancestor. The Holy BiBle says that God created different kinds and then they multiplied according to their kind. In many cases of creationism, God created male and female of each kind and the reproduction process involves the sexual ...[text shortened]... k is to a video that shows how Evil-lution works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
So from where do you get your definition of a 'kind'? You accept that the bible is imprecise. It does not define what a 'kind' is. It could simply mean "very similar to its parents", which is exactly in line with evolution by natural selection.
I accept that the bible seems to indicate separate creation for various subsets of life. I think these are the verses you are thinking of (from here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/)?:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So it seems that we have the following kinds:
1) great whales
2) every living creature that moveth
3) every winged fowl
4) beast of the earth
5) cattle
6) every thing that creepeth upon the earth
I have to say it is a very strange classification system!
If these are the 'kinds' then Evolution has a lot to play with since one of the kinds is "every living creature that moveth". That 'kind' would seem to encompass all the other kinds, and does not prohibit a dog giving birth to a cat / alligator or penguin (though presumably not whales or cows since they seem to have been specifically singled out as special cases). Do we see this in the real world? I think not.
If on the other hand, we go to the other extreme and say that a 'kind' just means 'like its parents', then that is far more like what we really see: a cat will only ever give birth to an animal extremely similar to itself. This also happens to be exactly what evolution demands.
I see no reason, based on the bible verses, to define a 'kind' as anything other than one of these two extremes and given what we see in the real world, the second definition seems much more consistent and likely to be what was intended.
So why do you choose a definition somewhere in between those two?
--- Penguin.
21 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by PenguinAs I have said before, God did not intend the Holy Bible to be a science book. It is for our correction and to keep us in the truth. So you should not expect a detailed list of each kind. Using the common sense God gave us, which many don't use, we can get a pretty good idea that there are a variety of creeping things upon the earth and therefore a variety of kinds that will reproduce only after their kind. But there is no fraud with God like there are with the evil-lutionists.
Getting back to the topic, your response was to this question:
So from where do you get your definition of a 'kind'? You accept that the bible is imprecise. It does not define what a 'kind' is. It could simply mean "very similar to its parents", which is exactly in line with evolution by natural selection.
I accept that the bible seems to indica why do you choose a definition somewhere in between those two?
--- Penguin.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation
Examples of evil-lution fraud:
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Textbook Fraud:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
21 Feb 13
3 edits
I used to wonder why the bible is so indifferent to science. To Muslims anything scientific is understanding god, Algebra is named after a Muslim called Al, thats true 🙂 one of Islams early leads over Christianity was a good understanding of science. The bible has none and it is frankly superstitious in places, sacrificing a pidgeon to treat mildew for example.
But I think now the bible has a valid point that science is not whats needed to improve the lot of people. If you read about the civilizations the bible describes, shortage is not really a problem, famines happen by incompetence, not storing enough grain, or gods vengeance, on the whole there is more then enough to go round. You don't need any invention to improve people lives you just need to share out whats there already. And I think this is still true now. You see all the debates about population vs resources but this is really a rich mans trick, there is more then enough to go round even today...
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by e4chrisPerhaps it is not what is in the Holy Bible, but your lack of understanding of it.
I used to wonder why the bible is so indifferent to science. To Muslims anything scientific is understanding god, Algebra is named after a Muslim called Al, thats true 🙂 one of Islams early leads over Christianity was a good understanding of science. The bible has none and it is frankly superstitious in places, sacrificing a pidgeon to treat mildew for exam ...[text shortened]... urces but this is really a rich mans trick, there is more then enough to go round even today...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsperhaps, but you yourself have said many times it is not a science book, but you have set up this thread like it is...
Perhaps it is not what is in the Holy Bible, but your lack of understanding of it.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KeplerMaybe you should read it again. I think the cleansing is much more involved than just killing birds.
Now that I like. We have vast numbers of flying vermin here so maybe we should sacrifice a load and see if all the mildew vanishes. Two birds, one stone. Yes, technically many birds, but you get my meaning.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWho cares? If it cures mildew and removes a significant number of winged vermin then we have achieved something. Even if it only leads to a reduction in bird crap on head then I am for it. God says kill pigeons! That shall be my slogan in the forthcoming local elections.
Maybe you should read it again. I think the cleansing is much more involved than just killing birds.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KeplerDo you know what to do with the pigeons after you kill them?
Who cares? If it cures mildew and removes a significant number of winged vermin then we have achieved something. Even if it only leads to a reduction in bird crap on head then I am for it. God says kill pigeons! That shall be my slogan in the forthcoming local elections.
21 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell if it is not a science book (I agree with you on this), you shouldn't try to use it to dispute science. It doesn't say that a 'kind' can't change over time and does not specify what a 'kind' is. Evolution makes predictions. The way to prove it wrong is to demonstrate that those predictions are wrong. For example, it predicts that a lynx will not give birth to a jaguar. Such an event would instantly turn evolution on its head but saying evolution is wrong because the bible says so does not. The bible doesn't say so and would not be proof, even if it did.
As I have said before, God did not intend the Holy Bible to be a science book. It is for our correction and to keep us in the truth. So you should not expect a detailed list of each kind. Using the common sense God gave us, which many don't use, we can get a pretty good idea that there are a variety of creeping things upon the earth and therefore a variet ...[text shortened]... n.net/evolutionfraud.html
Textbook Fraud:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
Common sense is notoriously unreliable and simply an excuse not to think or question. Here's a christian viewpoint on common sense (from http://vox-nova.com/2010/04/28/common-sense/):
All societies, where they fail to meet justice, socialize so as to justify their injustice. All societies will have their forms of common sense which will run counter to the cross. In this way, Christianity will always appear as foolishness to those who judge things by the dictates of common sense. The cross, which is seen as foolishness to the world, is my hermeneutic to the world. Cool me foolish, if you wish. I would be blessed if I were Christ’s fool, because “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor 1:27 RSV). But don’t try to justify yourself based upon some notion of “common sense” — if you do, you just are asking me to deconstruct that common sense to see the unjust political reality behind it.
--- Penguin.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by PenguinI've always appreciated your input on various topics.
Well if it is not a science book (I agree with you on this), you shouldn't try to use it to dispute science. It doesn't say that a 'kind' can't change over time and does not specify what a 'kind' is. Evolution makes predictions. The way to prove it wrong is to demonstrate that those predictions are wrong. For example, it predicts that a lynx will not give bi ...[text shortened]... ct that common sense to see the unjust political reality behind it.[/i]
--- Penguin.
This is a great example of why.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by PenguinAfter the creation was complete, God brought some of His creation to man to see what He would call them. God did not bring all of the creatures in the seas or all the creepy crawly things on land to the first man. So the job of naming them all still rests with mankind and we still have not completed it. So why should we expect something to be written about a Lynx and a Jaguar?
Well if it is not a science book (I agree with you on this), you shouldn't try to use it to dispute science. It doesn't say that a 'kind' can't change over time and does not specify what a 'kind' is. Evolution makes predictions. The way to prove it wrong is to demonstrate that those predictions are wrong. For example, it predicts that a lynx will not give bi ...[text shortened]... ct that common sense to see the unjust political reality behind it.[/i]
--- Penguin.
Evil-lution makes wrong predictions about one kind of creature turning into another kind, if we wait long enough. That is the kind of prediction that many scientist object to because we do not have enough time to falsify it. Please don't confuse the issue by referring to changes by adaptation or selective breeding as evil-lution. All creationists accept that those type changes happen.
My definition of "common sense" is reasonable, logical, and rational sense that God gave us. The definition of those you quoted seem to be that it is the commomly accepted beliefs of the time, like the "common sense " of the evil-lutionists of today. 😏