| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
22nd June 2009, 07:51 PM
| | Senior Member
    
 | | Join Date: 14th June 2009 Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 564
Blessings: 1,052,641 My Mood 
Reps: 12,846,086,899,786,404 (power: 0) | | | It was literal
Originally Posted by gluadys  What astonishes me is that some people can present a far-fetched interpretation of the text like this and still insist it is a literal reading and not an interpretation.
I know this particular poster has not made that claim, so I am not trying to put words into her mouth. But I do ask those who claim to adhere to a literal hermeneutic to really look at what they present. If it looks like this, it is NOT a literal reading. I believe in the literal interpretation because Jesus taught it: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6 Paul taught it too: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." I Timothy 2:13. There isn't even a hint about evolution in scripture. Would one think that the All Knowing Holy Spirit would have revealed clearly how the world began if evolution were involved. Oh, He was clear all right, but many of those who profess to know Jesus simply don't believe what He told Moses to write in the Genesis account.. |
22nd June 2009, 07:57 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29   
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Calypsis4 There isn't even a hint about evolution in scripture.
Well... God did tell the earth to bring forth life...
Would one think that the All Knowing Holy Spirit would have revealed clearly how the world began if evolution were involved. Why? There is much about the workings of the world that God left out of Scripture (atomic theory, heliocentrism, germ theory, etc.).
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
22nd June 2009, 08:37 PM
|  | redeemed waste
55   
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Well... God did tell the earth to bring forth life...
You might want to finish the verse....
" ..... according to their kinds". Gen.1:24&25
This might allow various adaptions within "kinds" but it cannot mean one kind evolving into another kind.
peace |
22nd June 2009, 08:52 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by sawdust You might want to finish the verse....
" ..... according to their kinds". Gen.1:24&25
This might allow various adaptions within "kinds" but it cannot mean one kind evolving into another kind.
peace
A "kind" is not an objective biological unit because there are no criteria by which to distinguish one "kind" from another. "Kinds" don't exist in nature. They are a human fabrication, like "genus" or "family" (I would even argue "species").
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
Last edited by Mallon; 22nd June 2009 at 09:01 PM.
|
23rd June 2009, 05:40 AM
| | redeemed waste
55
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Mallon A "kind" is not an objective biological unit because there are no criteria by which to distinguish one "kind" from another. "Kinds" don't exist in nature. They are a human fabrication, like "genus" or "family" (I would even argue "species").
Get real. It's the word of God. The Hebrew word used is "meen". It is translated "kind" because that is what it means.
The criteria is in the kind it is. A parrot is not a horse. 
peace |
23rd June 2009, 10:13 AM
|  | Legend
 
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by sawdust Get real. It's the word of God. The Hebrew word used is "meen". It is translated "kind" because that is what it means.
peace
And when St. Jerome translated 'meen' into Latin, he translated it as 'species'. English borrowed the Latin word and it was considered a synonym of 'kind' until 1940. It was not until then that creationists began to give separate meanings to 'kind' and 'species'.
And actually, they have not given any meaning to 'kind' except to say it is not a taxonomic 'species'.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
23rd June 2009, 10:21 AM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by sawdust There is nothing far fetched about what I said. It is based upon teaching received from those who know the original languages. Unless one knows the original language, one cannot determine what it literally means.
peace
I don't know that much Hebrew--just learning--but I know enough that nothing in Gen. 1:26-27 suggests the 'ha-adam' created there is any less material than the 'ha-adam' created in Gen. 2:7.
One has to depart significantly from the literal meaning of 'ha-adam' to come up with your interpretation. From where I sit, it is very far-fetched indeed. I don't know why I should consider such nonsense.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
23rd June 2009, 10:46 AM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by sawdust Get real. It's the word of God. The Hebrew word used is "meen". It is translated "kind" because that is what it means.
The criteria is in the kind it is. A parrot is not a horse.
peace
You didn't actually address the concerns I brought up. How does one go about defining a "kind"? If such a thing really exists in nature, it should be easy to objectify. Simply saying "it's obvious" doesn't help at all.
Does Eohippus belong to the same kind as Equus? How do you know?
Does Ambulocetus belong to the same kind the blue whale? How do you know?
Does Tiktaalik belong in the same kind as Panderichthys? How do you know?
Does Homo erectus belong in the same kind as Homo sapiens? How do you know?
To answer any of these questions, you first have to impose some limits on the morphological or genetic variation that defines a kind. Yet when we look in the fossil record, we see that those limits disappear as one species fades to another.
I think it's evident that the use of "kind" in Genesis in a phenomenological description, like the description of the movement of the sun through the sky in the Psalms. The term doesn't actually have any biological significance beyond "species" (which we know are not static).
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
23rd June 2009, 07:29 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 14th June 2009 Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 564
Blessings: 1,052,641 My Mood
Reps: 12,846,086,899,786,404 (power: 0) | | | The 'kind' in scripture is revealed in its outworking in the real world by the limitations described in Mendelian genetics. Those that can produce offspring successfully are always within a certain gene pool and never produce successfully outside that genetic pool. For instance; Lions and tigers can reproduce 'ligers' or 'tigons' if you please, but 'ligers' are hybrids. Further, a tiger and a liger can successfully reprodcue but two ligers cannot. It is the same for the horse and the donkey. They can reproduce mules but mules are hybrids and cannot reproduce. That means that they are in the same genetic family (kind) and are governed by those natural limitations that God made upon the various living organisms of the world.
If evolution were true then it should be an easy matter of revealing how organisms can change into other organisms by sexual cross bredding of similar kinds. Alas, man cannot do this with any kind of ape successfully even though evolutionists tell us that apes and man have a common ancestor with them. It's all nonsense. The truth is that they have a common Creator and not a common ancestor. |
23rd June 2009, 07:30 PM
| | redeemed waste
55
| | Join Date: 9th January 2004 Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,806
Blessings: 45,273
Reps: 2,568,795,385,755,541 (power: 2,568,795,385,765) | | Originally Posted by Mallon You didn't actually address the concerns I brought up. How does one go about defining a "kind"? If such a thing really exists in nature, it should be easy to objectify. Simply saying "it's obvious" doesn't help at all.
Does Eohippus belong to the same kind as Equus? How do you know?
Does Ambulocetus belong to the same kind the blue whale? How do you know?
Does Tiktaalik belong in the same kind as Panderichthys? How do you know?
Does Homo erectus belong in the same kind as Homo sapiens? How do you know?
To answer any of these questions, you first have to impose some limits on the morphological or genetic variation that defines a kind. Yet when we look in the fossil record, we see that those limits disappear as one species fades to another.
I think it's evident that the use of "kind" in Genesis in a phenomenological description, like the description of the movement of the sun through the sky in the Psalms. The term doesn't actually have any biological significance beyond "species" (which we know are not static).
You simply missed the point. We don't have to answer any of the questions you asked. We are given enough information in the scripture to recognise there are different kinds and that each of these different kinds were created by God fully formed.
How many kinds there were? What did they look like? What were the differences that separated them? These questions are not answered except at a most basic level ie. there were wild kinds, domesticated kinds and kinds that crept along the ground.
These things are written, not as some biology lesson to tickle your brain, they are written that you might know God is the Creator of each animal that was made. It is written this way because the Lord knew there would be those who would want to try and make it look like He didn't do what His word said He did.
A five year old can read this and realise this is not a "story of evolution".
peace | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
