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.
TeddyKGB said:What's amazing is that you can claim this without being able to provide a working definition of "kind."
llDayo said:Fixed this part.
Typological, morphological, biological, phylogenetic, or other?LittleNipper said:Can you provide a working definition of specie?
What.A kind is something that is. Something that is did not originate from something that is not.
Brilliant.Adam and Eve were HUMAN KIND. They were created as such. Their origin is the starting point of human life. They did not develope from a previous kind.
LittleNipper said:Can you provide a working definition of specie?
LittleNipper said:The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of the Bible to me because I 'm a saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I follow GOD's WORD and I do not follow people. The Bible is GOD manuel and love letter to me.
[pet peeve] Specie refers to coins.LittleNipper said:Can you provide a working definition of specie?
The YEC definition of kinds is of course inexact but has two key crtitera. It must be:z3ro said:An exact definition is quite hard, but a working one is actually easy. A species is a biologically simillar group of animals that generally cannot breed with other species.
Now of course this definition is not exact, and does not cover all animals, but it is certainly workable, allowing science and biology to progress. Now, how about that working definition of kinds?
TeddyKGB said:Typological, morphological, biological, phylogenetic, or other?
Frumious Bandersnatch said:The YEC definition of kinds is of course inexact but has two key crtitera. It must be:
1. Broad enough so that the ark is not too crowded.
2. Narrow enough that humans can't possibly be the same "kind" as any other animal.
The fact that these two criteria are mutually exclusive bothers YEC not at all. They are used to having their explanation of overvation A directly contradict their explanation of observaton B so this is just another example of something they deal without care or thought.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Sooo...you don't understand the terms, therefore the scientists are "full of themselves"?LittleNipper said:Sounds like it is already far too complicated for anyone to prove that the authorities on the subject are not full of themselves.....
Care to inform us about what it is, instead of what it isn't?Well, Kinds are not "breeds" and Kinds are not "race."
llDayo said:The Bible was written by men, whether it was God influenced or not. So yes, you DO follow people. Say hello to Manuel and his love letter for me, would you?
z3ro said:An exact definition is quite hard, but a working one is actually easy. A species is a biologically simillar group of animals that generally cannot breed with other species.
Now of course this definition is not exact, and does not cover all animals, but it is certainly workable, allowing science and biology to progress. Now, how about that working definition of kinds?
So much for what they are not. Now what are they?LittleNipper said:Well, Kinds are not "breeds" and Kinds are not "race." This is where evolutionists begin to take exception. They see races or breeds as the divergence of a specie The Creationist would see race & breed as the specialization of a Kind founded in unique/variety.
Frumious Bandersnatch said:So much for what they are not. Now what are they?
I'm sure this is just going to get me more bible quotes, but:LittleNipper said:The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of the Bible to me because I 'm a saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I follow GOD's WORD and I do not follow people. The Bible is GOD manuel and love letter to me.
LittleNipper said:A kind is something that is.
Something that is did not originate from something that is not.
Adam and Eve were HUMAN KIND.
They were created as such.
Their origin is the starting point of human life.
They did not develope from a previous kind.
As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.
...
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
...
The information we have considered throughout this book has shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind it there is another influence at work.
This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.
This relationship between materialism and the theory of evolution is accepted by "authorities" on these concepts. For example, the discovery of Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law.
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?