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.
There you go claiming that God is misleading again. That amounts to claiming that God is a liar. When I was still a Christian I did not believe in a dishonest God so I could not read Genesis literally. If God exists he cannot both be a liar and be trusted, so one is forced to believe that he is honest If God is honest then Genesis cannot be read literally.Either that, or it is.God can.
While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind. There are no such “detailed changes,” beyond general “simple to more developed” specific forms of life, which no doubt fuels macroevolution speculation. The Cambrian Explosion shows major life forms bursting onto the scene in a relatively short time, which counters the idea of slow transitions.
Genus.If it is a biological term it will have a definition. What is it?
Online Etymology Dictionary said:genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
I'm against "creationist pseudoscience" as well.Blaming God for human ignorance is what turned me against creationist pseudoscience in the first place
Genus.
I usually do, when talking to unbelievers.Then why not just say "genus" instead?
No one ever calls a child a fetus in my experience.I usually do, when talking to unbelievers.
Some words I have a strong dislike for though.
Such as "fetus" for "child".
No.Do you believe all other creationists define it the same way?
No comment.No one every calls a child a fetus in my experience.
I don't remember what I said exactly, but this is what I was referring to, an excerpt from the AIG article "What are Kinds in Genesis?" 4-16-2013, if you care to read it:Then why not just say "genus" instead?
(Actually I can tell you why: because the actual use of the term "kind" by creationists typically does NOT correspond with taxonomic use of genus in biology. In fact, last time I remember getting into this with inquiring mind, they used multiple different definitions of "kind" with no regard for biology.)
AIG is notorious for incoherent ignorant pseudoscience so I’m not wasting my timeI don't remember what I said exactly, but this is what I was referring to, an excerpt from the AIG article "What are Kinds in Genesis?" 4-16-2013, if you care to read it:
“Fixity of Species” and Changing Definitions
So what is the relationship between the kinds and species anyway? If one were to ask around to see what kind of definitions people have of the word species [or genus], most would respond by saying they have something to do with classification. In today’s society, the words genus and species are synonymous with the Linnaean taxonomy system.
In the early 1700s, if someone said something about a “species” or “genus,” it would have had nothing to do with classification systems. So why is this important today and what can we learn from it? The word species, and its changing definition, were partly responsible for the compromise of the Church in late 1800s. In fact, the Church is still struggling over this change. Let’s do a brief history review.
Species: Origin and Meaning
The English word species comes directly from Latin. For example, the Latin Vulgate (early Latin Bible translation), by Jerome around A.D. 400, says of Genesis 1:21:
creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum [emphasis added].
Species is also found in the Latin version in Genesis 1:24, 25 as well. The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English (and other languages that have some Latin influence). It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:11, 12, and 21. In both cases, these two words (species and genus) were used for the Hebrew word min or kind.
It made sense that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish Christian, began using Latin terms for his new classification system. It was logical to use these common terms, which were a part of the commercial language throughout Europe (much in the way that English, for example, is seen as a universal language in the world today for communication and so on). Linnaeus even wrote his large treatise, Systema Natvrae, and other findings, in Latin in the mid to late 1700s.
Early commentators recognized that species originally meant the biblical kinds, as even John Calvin, prominent reformer in the 1500s, stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24:
I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, (1) that Moses declares animals were created “according to their species”: for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied?
Of course, Calvin originally wrote in Latin, but this early English translation by Thomas Tymme in 1578 still shows the point that the word species was used to mean the biblical kind. Calvin is even pointing out stability or fixity (i.e., biblical kinds). Dr. John Gill, about the same time as Linnaeus, equates species and kinds in his note under Genesis 1:22 by saying:
With a power to procreate their kind, and continue their species, as it is interpreted in the next clause; saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas.
Others, such as Basil, prior to the Latin Vulgate, discussed species as the biblical kind in the fourth century in his Homilies on Genesis 1. Matthew Henry, in the late 1600s and early 1700s, used species as kinds in his notes on Genesis 2:3, saying there would be no new “species” created after creation week had completed. The list could continue. The point is that species originally meant the biblical kind.
Species: A Change
Figure 6. Original definition of species: all dogs were one species.
After Linnaeus, both of these words (species and genus) were commonly used in modern biological classification systems with slightly different definitions. In the mid-to-late 1700s, speciesbegan taking on a new, more specific definition in scientific circles as a biological term (that definition is still being debated even today). But, by and large, the definition had changed so that, instead of there being a dog species (or dog kind), there were many dog species.
In the common and Church sense, the word species was still viewed as the biblical “kind.” But as the scientific term gained popularity, this led to a problem. When theologians and members of the Church said “fixity of species” (meaning fixity of the biblical kinds) people readily saw that there were variations among the species (by the new definition). They thought, But species do change! Of course, no one ever showed something like a dog changing into something like a cat. Dogs were still dogs, cats were still cats, and so on.
However, a bait-and-switch fallacy had taken place. Christians were teaching fixity of species (kinds), but the definition of species changed out from under them. So Christians looked ignorant when people began observing that species—by the new definition—do change. Of course, in reality, this was merely variation within the created kinds. For example, dogs could be observed changing into something different—still dogs, but not looking like other “species” (by the new definition) of dogs. So it appeared that the created kinds were becoming new species (new definition), even though the animals did not change into a different kind of animal. It appeared that the Church was wrong.
Perhaps the most influential critique of fixity of species came from Charles Darwin, whose book On the Origin of Species tackled the misunderstood idea of fixity of species (though it never used the term “fixity”). Mr. Darwin studied many creatures during his travels and realized there was variation and not fixity of species (by the new definition).
To even work at AIG one must swear not to use the scientific method therefore they have no validity as a scientific source.AIG is notorious for incoherent ignorant pseudoscience so I’m not wasting my time
Well, if you did maybe you'd understand the reason for confusion you complained about earlier.AIG is notorious for incoherent ignorant pseudoscience so I’m not wasting my time
It’s because creationists change scientific definitions that they don’t like . Laymen get confused, I’m not a layman.Well, if you did maybe you'd understand the reason for confusion you complained about earlier.
I’m way older than you
Brightmoon said:Geology isn’t one of your strong points I guess
How do you know? Or do you just assume you're older than everyone?
So complimentary. In fact I studied Earth Sciences from the University of Manitoba.
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?