He didn't clear up anything and he doesn't deserve a reply.
An odd attitude for someone saved by grace. Nevertheless shernren put time an effort into replying to you, replying is only common courtesy. If he didn't clear anything up, either you didn't understand what he was saying, or he got it totally wrong and explaining all his mistakes can only make creationism more obvious to every one here. In the meantime, the fact you don't want to answer him makes it look like you can't.
For a person with a problem with lies you certainly do talk loudly. What I did with Shenren (who like you, is in deep error on creation/evolution) is none of your concern.
If you are going to be rude to both of us on an open discussion forum, why shouldn't I point it out? You aren't making creationism any more credible by being rude and abusive.
Your dishonesty in this matter is appalling.
Why would you even think I was being dishonest? I mean, I can understand since you disagree with me you think I have got it wrong, but lying and dishonest? Don't you even stop to think before you make accusations like that?
What, pray tell do you think 'after its kind' means? It can mean none other than offspring which is next in the line of sexual reproduction!
It think 'after its kinds' means 'according to the different varieties, the different sorts of those animals'.
The Hebrew is
למינהם lemiynehem
le the letter lamed is a preposition with a variety of meanings: to or towards, at, on account of, according to...
miyn which according to Strong's means:
From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind.
Then you have a variety of different pronouns at the end of the construction, in our example here it is
ehem meaning 'their',
It simply means are different sorts of animals and they were created according to their sorts, species or different varieties. There is nothing in the Hebrew that says 'reproduce'.
I quoted Adam Clarke (200 yrs ago) revealing the classic Christian position on this issue but you wish to mince words (as all theistic evolutionists do on these issues).
From very early on the church adopted the Aristotle's philosophical concept of fixety of species and read it into the bible, especially into the idea of kinds. But it isn't in the text. The church bought into Aristotle's science and philosophy and assumed that is what the bible is saying. I am not sure Clark actually thinks 'according to their kind' means they produce their kind through the generations so much as simply thinking that kinds do this. But it doesn't matter. Just because it is traditional doesn't mean we shouldn't go back and see what the bible actually says.
I have read enough of your posts to see how you play mental semantics with words in order to escape the truth that you do not believe in: that God created the world in six literal days (as Moses said in the ten commandments) and that the events and occurences of Genesis are historial and literal. That is because you compromised with evil (evolution) on the matter and have accepted an unbiblical and unscientific premise.
I prefer to look at at what the bible actually says and the different ways God speaks to us in it, but if you can't address serious points like that, I suppose you can always resort to name calling and slurs.
If you really want to discuss what Moses says in the the commandments, try bringing it up without a load of insults.
But forgetting all I just said above, for a moment, let me quote you again:
"You see your problem is you think 'according to their kind' means 'reproduce according to their kind' and you read the idea of reproduction into the text every time you read the phrase. But it's not there. According to their kind means animals come in different varieties and it is telling us the verse is talking about all the different varieties."
Oh? Who says? You? Shall I take you literally on that?
You could try addressing what I said.
Observe: "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."
And further observe: "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."
These verses alone destroy your premise of 'animals come in different varieties' as you think in evolutionary terms.
The existence of different types or varieties of animals was recognise long before Darwin. You are hardly saying there
aren't different varieties of animals are you?
The verses discriminate, define, and determine one kind from another and that their seed will ALWAYS bring forth after the manner in which God created them to begin with.
No it simply says that different kinds were created, not that they are fixed and never change over the generations.
In other words the Holy Spirit inspired these verses to bring that great truth to us. But if you disagree then show us how
nature brings forth the change I have twice alluded to above:
Fossils of bats and fossils of rodents have been discovered in the fossil record but no intermediary stages have ever been found. That problem exists in virtually all organisms on earth.
This has already been addressed, why do I need to address it again?
Give me the name(s) of any scientist who has genetically changed any organism into an identifiably and classifiably different organism? For instance: rodents to bats; bacteria to perhaps aphids or gnats; or how about rodents to dogs, dogs to horses...take your pick. Give that evidence & that such a change is even possible by observed evidence. Either that or admit you have no case...and indeed you do not.
Shernren was discussing your misconception on this, perhaps you should clear you misunderstanding with him.
