- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Since when do 'science types' know about common sense... I thought everything had to be according to the scientific method?
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.
Since when do 'science types' know about common sense... I thought everything had to be according to the scientific method?Insofar as claiming lack of evidence, even if that were true (it's not) that doesn't mean it's logical to believe something else. Especially since the perceived lack of evidence on your part seems to be little more than personal incredulity. And that's an emotional argument at its core.
Doesn't seem like your choice is based on logic.
In what way?
Since when do 'science types' know about common sense...
Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.
Av and AiG could both be wrong; there's no way of telling. Interpreting the "kinds" of the Bible as an immutable divine taxonomy is merely an ad hoc argument against the theory of evolution.Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.
Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.
No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds." I have said this over and over in my comments.Point is you can't adhere to two contradictory definitions.
Some of the problems with the word "kind". First off it is never properly defined. At least not that I have seen. There is no working definition of the word. To be a working definition there would have to be a way to tell if two different populations were the same "kind" or not.No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds." I have said this over and over in my comments.
Generally speaking, the same kinds can breed. I understand there are exceptions to this, and I don’t pretend to have an answer in that regard. I get your point, and, yes, the word “species” has problems, fuzzy or not.Some of the problems with the word "kind". First off it is never properly defined. At least not that I have seen. There is no working definition of the word. To be a working definition there would have to be a way to tell if two different populations were the same "kind" or not.
The change of kind (imo) is referring to division, different types you could say, the result of migration and selection, at the microevolution level, but still the same kind.Another problem with the word "kind" is that creationists seem to think that there is a "change of kind" in evolution.
Generally speaking, the same kinds can breed. I understand there are exceptions to this, and I don’t pretend to have an answer in that regard. I get your point, and, yes, the word “species” has problems, fuzzy or not.
The change of kind (imo) is referring to division, different types you could say, the result of migration and selection, at the microevolution level, but still the same kind.
I believe in an old earth creation, possibly including gap... who can define God’s physics? All kinds appeared at varying points in time according to God’s determining, not transforming gradually through macroevolution, but rapidly and fully formed, with no universal descent. From those points forward microevolution happens. If I can believe in Creation, I can also believe the flood and ark story. I don’t know how it was done, but because I can’t understand it is not grounds for my disbelief.Here's how you do it: Take evolution's phylogenetic tree and draw a line across it at 4004 BC. The species it crosses represent the biblical "kinds."
I believe in an old earth creation, possibly including gap... who can define God’s physics? All kinds appeared at varying points in time according to God’s determining, not transforming gradually through macroevolution, but rapidly and fully formed, with no universal descent. From those points forward microevolution happens. If I can believe in Creation, I can also believe the flood and ark story. I don’t know how it was done, but because I can’t understand it is not grounds for my disbelief.
Little or much education has nothing to do with it… it’s whether you have faith in the Bible, or not.That is a bit of an Ostrich Defense. Keeping oneself uneducated is not a very good reason to believe something. I would rather believe demonstrably true things.
No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds."
Faith is not a pathway to the truth. One could be a Muslim, Hindu, or Christian on faith.Little or much education has nothing to do with it… it’s whether you have faith in the Bible, or not.
Well, it’s probably of no consequence whatsoever to you then.Perhaps you and AV1611VET should discuss it then, since he is the one who keeps saying equating kind with genus.
And regardless, there is still no biological validity to the AiG definition.
But education is?Faith is not a pathway to the truth.
Well, we got something in common with the science community, I guess.Not really, no. It's just fascinating to me that there is so much disparity in creationist beliefs.
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?