- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
'Threatened' makes it sound like a problem, but meh; it's not a distinguishing prediction of the Creation hypothesis.
Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen.This is why Creationism is useless. If you had bought that same bunch of hens and a rooster and they laid eggs that hatched into snakes, or puppies, or even a broadway dancing troupe, you would equally say this supports your creationist worldview and we would all be none the wiser.
3. There will be an extreme shortage of mistakes in any fossils, and in living forms, due to excellent engineering on the front end.
If that happened, it wouldn't be evolution.Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen.
This is why Creationism is useless. If you had bought that same bunch of hens and a rooster and they laid eggs that hatched into snakes, or puppies, or even a broadway dancing troupe, you would equally say this supports your creationist worldview and we would all be none the wiser.
What would it be?If that happened, it wouldn't be evolution.
Change by some other mechanism than biological evolution by random variation and selection. Perhaps that's what the Bible Christians' idea of Special Creation is like.What would it be?
I wondered if that was what you meant. I was just seeing it as an "amazing" mutation.Change by some other mechanism than biological evolution by random variation and selection. Perhaps that's what the Bible Christians' idea of Special Creation is like.
It certainly would be amazing, and the most amazed (and disconcerted) of all would be the evolutionary biologists.I wondered if that was what you meant. I was just seeing it as an "amazing" mutation.
Oh, still on with these fanciful reinterpretations of the KJV?
-_-
If that happened, it wouldn't be evolution.
Ironically, this shows a complete failure of your understanding of Evolution and why this would falsify it, yet this is exactly something that your God could do (and in fact has done) anytime he wanted to. Creation week comes to mind, and he didn't even require any eggs to start with.Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen.
Or it'll show yours. "His" and "Their" could be used to explain the colloquialism of hearding/schooling life - i.e. fish are generally schooling, cattle are generally hearding, etc. Or, it could even just be an interchangeable reference used by those who translated the bible at the time, not knowing how someone four centuries later would horrendously misinterpret it to mean something it doesn't. No matter whether either of these, or any other explanation is used, what isn't used is your nonsense term of "his kind" and "their kind" referring to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit since firstly, the Jews who wrote and kept the old testament only recognise God as the sole creator of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to be the euphoric motivation one feels/personifies in the pursuit of divine enlightenment (i.e. not part of a trinity per-se). The next blatantly obvious point is how the Old Testament Hebrew speaks of these creatures reproducing after his, her and their kinds to mean kinds of life, not of God/Trinity kind:I challenge you to explain the "their" and "his" words in this verse. Doing so will expose your Scriptural illiteracy, so be careful:
Gen 1:25 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.
Go ahead and show us your interpretation. Amen?
Or it'll show yours. "His" and "Their" could be used to explain the colloquialism of hearding/schooling life - i.e. fish are generally schooling, cattle are generally hearding, etc. Or, it could even just be an interchangeable reference used by those who translated the bible at the time, not knowing how someone four centuries later would horrendously misinterpret it to mean something it doesn't. No matter whether either of these, or any other explanation is used, what isn't used is your nonsense term of "his kind" and "their kind" referring to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit since firstly, the Jews who wrote and kept the old testament only recognise God as the sole creator of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to be the euphoric motivation one feels/personifies in the pursuit of divine enlightenment (i.e. not part of a trinity per-se). The next blatantly obvious point is how the Old Testament Hebrew speaks of these creatures reproducing after his, her and their kinds to mean kinds of life, not of God/Trinity kind:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf
So, there's a few more plausible explanations than yours - You on the other hand have to justify how you know of this mortal/immortal title (which still hasn't been properly explained btw) that you arbitrarially assign to these words without justification. What biblical reference do you have for any of this given every other translation of the Bible, and biblical study speaks of creature kinds, not God/Trinity kinds?
The challenge is that creation all around us already supports pretty much any prediction you can think of. I bought a bunch of hens and a rooster. My prediction, based on my creationist worldview, is that they are designed to procreate, so I left some eggs to hatch and they did.
I notice you didn't contradict the argument: if all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time; e.g. my parents were obviously not created at the same time as my grandparents."Obvious" is about as far from data, evidence, and logic as you can get.
You must be working hard to say nothing.
It can't be a distinguishing feature of Creation if it's also a feature of evolution. I know that much.It's not as if you would know.
It can't be a distinguishing feature of Creation if it's also a feature of evolution. I know that much.
I notice you didn't contradict the argument: if all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time; e.g. my parents were obviously not created at the same time as my grandparents.
Rigft. It works with the theory of evolution, too. Reproducing couples create offspring which are similar to their parents."Kinds" means that offspring come from parents. A derivative word is "Kin" like Kin-folk.
"After their kind" means that reproducing couples create offspring that are similar to the parents.
It is basically all we know about DNA being passed to offspring but limited to visual observation.
Blond parents result in blond children, most of the time. Dark birds produce more dark birds.
The most obvious statement is that "25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."
There really is nothing confusing.
You may use "Species" if you wish. Or "after their Kin" might work.
Yup, that's standard in TOE. But again, if a 'kind' is a reproducing couple that creates offspring similar to the parents, the idea that 'all "kinds" were created at one time' doesn't seem to make sense."Kinds" means that offspring come from parents. A derivative word is "Kin" like Kin-folk.
"After their kind" means that reproducing couples create offspring that are similar to the parents.
It is basically all we know about DNA being passed to offspring but limited to visual observation.
Blond parents result in blond children, most of the time. Dark birds produce more dark birds.
A 'species' is something different - for sexually reproducing creatures it's (broadly) a group or population of similar individuals that can and do interbreed.You may use "Species" if you wish.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?