.
Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.
Thoughts?
.
Evidence For And Against Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #251Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:33 pm It is about questioning, from a science standpoint, these old stories from religious books (being this is the Science and Religion section). God magic can explain virtually anything no matter how unlikely or ridiculous, which ends any reason to debate the validity of the old stories at all. But I still maintain that even if god magic was involved (which it would have to be to cause such a global flood, then completely hide any evicence of it afterwards as there is no evidence of any kind for it today), he/she/it chose a very inefficient, cruel and time consuming method to do the killing.
That approach is inconsistent with god magic don't you think, especially since there is no reason to teach a lesson to the people being killed, and if the intent was mainly to kill all but 8 humans it would have saved a tremendous amount of time and hassle for the imaginary Noah and his gang if god had just made all the other humans vanish into thin air (which he could have done, of course, with more god magic). But that wouldn't make for a very interesting story I suppose. More likely that the writers of Genesis wanted to embellish the much earlier flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh, but they followed it in the same order without much imagination for some reason.
So, from one unlikely and ridiculous "story" to another.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8488
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #252Yes, we all know the value of an argument based on incredulity. Beyond that, you consist of dead matter and yet are alive and are able to type and presumably talk.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:06 pm
Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #253As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:58 pm
Living organisms were all created in 2 days (5th and 6th day). Nothing in there at all about a long, drawn out, 100 million year evolutionary process.
Doesn't say "done."
It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you. Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that.It doesn't say...
Addition. You weren't happy with it as it is, so you changed it.Again, implication.
So then, ostriches aren't birds?
You said birds were flying animals.Who said that? I didn't.
Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.
(note that by your standard for the bird kind, cats and dogs are in the carnivore kind)
Nope. Binomial nomenclature has no "kinds." To vague a word.
Then you can hardly complain if your ideas are rejected.I am free to use words as I see fit, regardless how certain people feel about it.
For example, you think all birds, comprising a huge variety of organisms, are of one kind.
But I suspect that you consider humans and chimpanzees, who are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape, to be two different kinds. So you're stuck behind a rock and a hard place.I do.
According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.Well, I guess I am stuck...because after all, according to your religion (evolution), humans and chimps are related.
No, by your bird classification, canines and felids are one kind, the carnivora. Just one order of the carnivoriformes. There is much less genetic, anatomic and evolutionary distance between dogs and cats then there is between groups of birds.
Which is why Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.That all depends on what is meant by "kind"
And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble., which I stated (imo) is limited to the genus, and not the order, as you suggest here.
Too vague?
See above. No point in denial.
Ah, so scripture was wrong until the NIKJV was published? You sure about that? How do you know this new change isn't wrong?
So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?I don't know,
No electricity, either. Or viruses, or hibernation. Lots of things are true that aren't in the Bible. The point is that evolution is consistent with the Bible, but the text itself rules out literal 24 hour days in the creation story.
Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?I don't see a reptile evolving into a bird anywhere in there.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #254Gotta agree. Particularly the ridiculous part.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:06 pm Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.
Genesis 2:7 & 19
7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man
19 The Lord God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air.
7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man
19 The Lord God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air.
The real clincher here tho is that god couldn't simply wave a wand and *poof* Adam and animals would suddenly appear, but that he had to use dust, which I imagine was magic faerie dust. So much for being all powerful.
.
Last edited by Miles on Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #255[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #252]
So you have to look not at something that could "talk", but the transition from "dead matter" as you put it, to the simplest organism that we'd call "life" today (most likely some sort of single-celled entity that barely qualifies as a living thing that can use energy and reproduce). That is a much less complicated proposition than jumping directly from dead matter to something that can talk, and of course evolution does not suggest that dead matter can come to life and talk since it makes no inferences on how life originated in the first place ... only how it diversified (evolved) once that first step did happen.
Lastly, since the writers of the biblical texts had no knowledge of microorganisms simply because they couldn't see them, they are not described in the Genesis creation myth. What "kind" do these living things belong to? Surely you don't deny that bacteria and archaea are living things (and they can't "talk").
That's a bit of a simplfication, to say the least. The "dead matter came to life" part may have been of the order of a measly few hundred million years if it happened entirely on Earth, or much longer if some kind of panspermia scenario is viable. But let's stick with the former. In that case we have some 3. 5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million, between the first single-celled organisms appearing and something that could "talk" (assuming that means an animal that could make sounds to communicate with others of its "kind", which happened long before humans came along).Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.
So you have to look not at something that could "talk", but the transition from "dead matter" as you put it, to the simplest organism that we'd call "life" today (most likely some sort of single-celled entity that barely qualifies as a living thing that can use energy and reproduce). That is a much less complicated proposition than jumping directly from dead matter to something that can talk, and of course evolution does not suggest that dead matter can come to life and talk since it makes no inferences on how life originated in the first place ... only how it diversified (evolved) once that first step did happen.
Lastly, since the writers of the biblical texts had no knowledge of microorganisms simply because they couldn't see them, they are not described in the Genesis creation myth. What "kind" do these living things belong to? Surely you don't deny that bacteria and archaea are living things (and they can't "talk").
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #2565 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones.
Hmm. Trying to figure out how does one "rule out the days of Genesis being literal 24-hour ones", when the text clearly states a "day" is comprised of 3 parts...."day", "evening" and "night"...wow, fast forward x amount of years later, it is the same thing.
Well in that case, it doesn't say "not finished yet", either...and that hasn't stopped you from believing that things were "not finished yet".The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.
The Bible is clear; God created all "kinds" in a matter of 2 days, and there is no scriptural evidence of any other "kinds" being created after this account.
Now of course, you can believe what you want...but just know that what you are believing is unscientific and more importantly, unscriptural.
Evolutionist: Humans evolved from primatesThe Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that.
Bible: So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Sure, consistency.
Nothing was changed. An implication was made based on an interpretation of the text, which I still say; after it was declared "good" but God, it was considered "done" by God.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
Addition. You weren't happy with it as it is, so you changed it.
You can say "but it doesn't say "done", though".....and then I will say "well, it doesn't say "not quite finished yet so I need to do more", either.
But at the end of the day; where is the 100 million year evolutionary process in Genesis? I don't see it. Dogs produce dogs.
As much rejecting of "ideas" that I am guilty of on here, I can hardly complain.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
Then you can hardly complain if your ideas are rejected.
Big difference between "could be", and "are". You do understand the difference, correct?The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.
I clearly stated that "kinds" are lmited to genus....if you call that vague when "genus" is clearly defined in science (which is something I thought you'd appreciate), then I don't know what to tell ya.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
Which is why Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.
It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....whatever name you want to call them is up to you.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.
And how do you know if the translation you provided was right? I didn't say mines was right...my only point was; not all translations renders it the same way that you provided.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm
So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?
Nothing more, nothing less.
True, those things you mentioned are not in the Bible, but guess what; we are talking about evolution right now and the mentioning of those other things is a red herring.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?
BTW...I will do a couple of more exchanges with you on this subject and give you the last word.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8488
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #257I'm not sure what you may being trying to prove here, but according to the text of the flood myth, birds were not one single kind:We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:53 pm
It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....whatever name you want to call them is up to you.
As can be clearly seen here, birds are considered distinct from "every kind of animal" and there existed more than one kind of bird.Genesis 6:20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1959 times
- Been thanked: 740 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #258I have no issues with you updating your knowledge and commend that, but given your entire argument is based on "kind" it would seem strange that you don't know what all the "kinds" are, nor what actually composes one of the simple ones like 'bird kind'. I have NEVER seen anyone present any solid definition of what a 'kind' is and when pressed on a given one, it always falls apart as shown.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:18 pmIt is one of those good shifts, though. You see, I am not a dinosaur enthusiast (not saying that you guys are), and quite frankly, there are tons of animals that existed in the past that I am just simply unaware of.
So, when you show me an alleged "bird" with no wings, then I have to make adjustments to my beliefs as the evidence pours in.
Evidence was presented, I acknowledged it, and adjusted my belief...isn't that what any genuine truth-seeker is supposed to do??
Ohhh, I get it...when a scientist does it, it is sincerely the most honorable thing in the world...but when anyone else does it, especially an unbeliever in evolution, it is "definition shifting".
Smh.
It has nothing to do with being 'honorable'. Science always follows observation. ALWAYS. Science deniers only seem to follow observation when it suits them and/or when it doesn't threaten their chosen theology.
You can SYH all you want, It doesn't really bring anything to the debate.
Hold on, now you want to mix scientific terms with Biblical ones? I realize you said "I think", but that is not Biblically based or scientifically based, so now you are purely guessing. I'm also curious why you choose genus.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:18 pmThat is where things get tricky. I think "kinds" are limited to genus. Once you leave the genus, you leave the kind.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:04 pm Great, what "kind" was it then? They were pretty big, so if it's one of the original "kinds" the ark is filling up fast. Maybe you could enlighten us heathens as to what all the "kinds" are? Apparently we just found a new one.
See:
http://birding-world.com/bird-classification-works/
It seems class would be more appropriate, but then again once you accept scientific taxonomy, your whole theory goes out the window.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #259As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones. [/quote]
Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that. [/quote]
You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.
Which is the excuse of every person who adds things to the text.
But at the end of the day; where is the 100 million year evolutionary process in Genesis? [/quote]
Right were it mentions protons. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible.
According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.
Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.
Claiming "kind" is limited to genus in one breath, and then claiming it covers an entire class in another breath demonstates that the term is very vague for you.
And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.
(regarding claims that the Bible was wrong before a particular modern version)
So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?
(regarding claim that nothing is true if it's not found in the Bible)
Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?
Before there was a sun to have them. Which is logically absurd. This is how the text tells you that it's not a literal history of a week of 24-hour days.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:53 pm5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The Barbarian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:43 pm It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.
But unlike you, I don't pretend that the Bible says that. The evidence shows it. You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you. Now of course, you can believe what you want...but just know that what you are believing is unscientific and more importantly, unscriptural.Well in that case, it doesn't say "not finished yet", either...and that hasn't stopped you from believing that things were "not finished yet".
Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that. [/quote]
Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever.Evolutionist: Humans evolved from primates
Bible: So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.
See above. "Done" was your additon.Nothing was changed.
An implication was made based on an interpretation of the text,
Which is the excuse of every person who adds things to the text.
The Bible says neither of those things. You just chose one and added it.You can say "but it doesn't say "done", though".....and then I will say "well, it doesn't say "not quite finished yet so I need to do more", either.
But at the end of the day; where is the 100 million year evolutionary process in Genesis? [/quote]
Right were it mentions protons. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible.
But first wolves produced dogs.Dogs produce dogs.
According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.
Yes. The former merely indicates that it's consistent with evolution. The latter would declare that evolution is true. As you learned, the Bible is consistent with evolution.Big difference between "could be", and "are".
Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.
In one place. Then you switched the story and declared that all birds (an entire class) were one "kind." You seem to have made my argument for me.I clearly stated that "kinds" are lmited to genus....
if you call that vague...
Claiming "kind" is limited to genus in one breath, and then claiming it covers an entire class in another breath demonstates that the term is very vague for you.
And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.
Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....
(regarding claims that the Bible was wrong before a particular modern version)
So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?
You made the claim. I'm just asking you to support it.And how do you know if the translation you provided was right?
(regarding claim that nothing is true if it's not found in the Bible)
Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?
So now it's "there can be things that are true, that aren't in the Bible, but evolution can't be true if it's not in the Bible." But you failed to give us any reason to believe that.True, those things you mentioned are not in the Bible, but guess what; we are talking about evolution right now and the mentioning of those other things is a red herring.
I think your major dissatisfaction is that God has the last word.BTW...I will do a couple of more exchanges with you on this subject and give you the last word.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution
Post #260Not if "let there be light" was the commanded manifestation of the sun. That may be how the text tells us that it was a literal 24-hour day.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
Before there was a sun to have them. Which is logically absurd. This is how the text tells you that it's not a literal history of a week of 24-hour days.
Neither did I. And you have no evidence of a Biblical 100 million year evolutionary period that has to do with creation, or ANYTHING.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
But unlike you, I don't pretend that the Bible says that. The evidence shows it.
Says the guy who made up something (a phantom 100 million year timeframe) to fit an unscientific/unbiblical theory regarding a man-made bio-religion (evolution).The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.
Red herring. That has nothing to do with you stating that the Bible is consistent with evolution, yet the Scriptures (particularly the man-ape thing), saying otherwise.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever.
I am happy with the Bible as it...which is that God created all of the animals in 2 days, not in a 100 million years as some people want to believe in order to fit their bio-religion.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.
Um, I did not say that the Bible said "done". Done was my own implication.
And when I quoted what the Bible said, "God saw that it was good", the quote doesn't have "done" in there, does it? No, it doesn't.
Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop.
"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
Which is the excuse of every person who adds things to the text.
Right, so you believe the Bible is compatible with evolution, despite the Bible not saying it. Gotcha.
"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."
Well, we will have that conversation once a debate about whether the Bible is compatible with protons is engaged.
Right, and I stated here plenty times that "canines produce canines", which covers wolves producing dogs, dontcha think?
I understand why you would want it to be consistent with the Bible. But I need you to understand that it isn't consistent with the Bible.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
Yes. The former merely indicates that it's consistent with evolution. The latter would declare that evolution is true. As you learned, the Bible is consistent with evolution.
It is rejected, yet it is in the Bible; the exact word. Wow.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.
Yes. Birds are one "kind" of animal. If there is any solid/valid argument made that is contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
In one place. Then you switched the story and declared that all birds (an entire class) were one "kind." You seem to have made my argument for me.
I guess you will feel that way, if you assume that a mammal can't be a bird (bat)....but then your assessment will be contrary to the Bible (which states that bats are birds)...when you previously stated that the Bible and evolution are compatible.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am Claiming "kind" is limited to genus in one breath, and then claiming it covers an entire class in another breath demonstates that the term is very vague for you.
And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.
SMH.
You mentioned primates here, not I.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.
I don't recall claiming that the NKJV was "right". Do you? Show me.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
You made the claim. I'm just asking you to support it.
Well let me put it to you this way..The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am So now it's "there can be things that are true, that aren't in the Bible, but evolution can't be true if it's not in the Bible."
But you failed to give us any reason to believe that.
1. Theistic evolution is possible and "may" be true, but I have no good reasons in science or in the Bible to believe that it is true, and I have what I believe to be good evidence to the contrary that it is true.
So, theistic evolution is rejected based on #1.
2. Natural evolution (without God) is naturally impossible and cannot be true, as I have good evidence against it and no good evidence for it.
3. Conclusion: Evolution is a false theory.
Huh?The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am
I think your major dissatisfaction is that God has the last word.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!