I struggle with...

[Jimmy D]

Technically, yes.
Any feline, no matter what kind of feline it is, would be under the feline category.
But you've gotta also understand how we define the feline, and the family all together.

Versus how we did back then.

For instance, bats was under the bird category. We didn't classify birds the same way back then, as we do now. To be under the bird category, it had to be winged, and fly.
now we classify it much differently, bats are mammals, not birds.
Whales would have been called fish, I would presume.
Very simplistic classing system, if it looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it was a duck.
See what I mean?

Kind isn't defined in Genesis, it can mean whatever the creationist needs it to mean for whatever particular argument they're trying to contrive against evolution.

But wait...... Leviticus 19:19 throws a bit of light on the issue, as Papias pointed out.....

"Lev. 19:19 'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

To be able to mate them together, they must at least be the same species. Thus "kind" must be below species. Hence, "Kind" means "sub-species". There are many sub-species of cattle. So your "canine" example shows that evolution is possible beyond the "kind" level - that one kind can evolve into another. Thus, common descent is a possible way that God created."

 

[Wolfe]

You don't know what a kind is but you're claiming that there's no evolution between kinds?

Well I just defined a kind, so either you got a reading disorder, or your pulling at straws to try and get stuff on me.

And then you come up with this stuff?

Nah, of course not, don't refute, just make a statement.

Sorry Wolfey this is just nonsense.

I seem to see a trend with atheist, never refuting anything, ever at all.
I'm sad to say, I've never been proved wrong.

True!

We can atleast agree on something.

No one's forcing you to accept anything, if you won't examine the evidence though it's a bit rich to make all these pronouncements about it.

So, evidence, that can be taken either way pretty much, there's evidence against it, and evidence for it.
But you're obviously right, right? You've gotta be, it's your take on the evidence at hand, and you're oh so super special smart.

Neither interpretation of the evidence can be claimed as wholly wrong, there's arguments for, and against each position, as I said.
But as an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to be that honest.

You're just a narcissist to think you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Do I think you're wrong? Yes, but I can say that, because I present my case for why I see it as wrong, as where you just say, it's right.

 

[Jimmy D]

The bible isn't as complex as people would like to think.

It isn't hard to study the scripture, and find out what it actually means, and there in lies the true doctrine.
Anyone who has differing views of the true doctrine, would be wrong.

And it isn't true, because I see it as true, it's true because it's true.
The bible says what it says, there's no real personal interpretation, it either is this, or is not this, and I feel the bible makes it clear, if you honestly investigate it.

However, many are blinded by personal bias, such as with liberals, a typical liberal would support, and encourage homosexuality, as where the bible does not.
And in their bias, they fool themselves into thinking the bible actually promotes it, and it doesn't.
Anybody who reads it knows it, it isn't even in a particularly cryptic verse.

Even as an atheist, you must be able to discern what the bible teaches, and what it doesn't, so I mean, take it as you go.

I wouldn't disagree with the majority of that Wolfey. Please don't think that I've got anything whatsoever against the Christian faith.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The bible isn't as complex as people would like to think.

It isn't hard to study the scripture, and find out what it actually means, and there in lies the true doctrine.
Anyone who has differing views of the true doctrine, would be wrong.

And it isn't true, because I see it as true, it's true because it's true.
The bible says what it says, there's no real personal interpretation, it either is this, or is not this, and I feel the bible makes it clear, if you honestly investigate it.

However, many are blinded by personal bias, such as with liberals, a typical liberal would support, and encourage homosexuality, as where the bible does not.
And in their bias, they fool themselves into thinking the bible actually promotes it, and it doesn't.
Anybody who reads it knows it, it isn't even in a particularly cryptic verse.

Even as an atheist, you must be able to discern what the bible teaches, and what it doesn't, so I mean, take it as you go.

Words have a meaning and even the word: "evolution" means something. Hopefully we can find common ground and agree on what the word evolution means. Unless you want to claim that Darwin hijacked the dictionary to change the meaning of the words. Even then we have science and the scientific method to establish what is true and what is not. I maintain there is total agreement between the Bible and True Science. Just like we have a left and a right hand. Also Science is based on evidence and our study of and evaluation of that evidence.

 

[Wolfe]

Kind isn't defined in Genesis, it can mean whatever the creationist needs it to mean for whatever particular argument they're trying to contrive against evolution.

But wait...... Leviticus 19:19 throws a bit of light on the issue, as Papias pointed out.....

"Lev. 19:19 'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

To be able to mate them together, they must at least be the same species. Thus "kind" must be below species. Hence, "Kind" means "sub-species". There are many sub-species of cattle. So your "canine" example shows that evolution is possible beyond the "kind" level - that one kind can evolve into another. Thus, common descent is a possible way that God created."

I don't deny anyway that the world came about, as long as it would have a God in it.

But, that's nice to take a verse out of a particular context, and try to use an instance of a word, in a different context, to push on your point.

I'm reminded of a quote...

if you won't examine the evidence though it's a bit rich to make all these pronouncements about it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Would it matter?

After all, every single Christian ever born, ever will be born, and alive today believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD; yet you're still an atheist.

So telling us we can't all be right is just an attempt at making some kind of point; and a lame attempt at that.

How about you state your point clearly, please?

I was merely implying that interpretation of the bible is subjective.

 

[Wolfe]

Yes. As time goes on we get much better at classifying types of animals. I suppose I'd wonder what would warrant a lion and a tiger, or a pigeon and a hawk, to be of the same kind but not humans and chimps or bonobos.

If you're looking at a strictly biblical interpretation, as I would assume you are, a human is wholly distinct, Gods special creation, they wouldn't be in the same kind as a chimp, or a bonobo.

Animals are animals, but humans are humans, they are not the same thing.

 

[Wolfe]

I was merely implying that interpretation of the bible is subjective.

But there's only one objective truth to the bible.

 

[Wolfe]

I wouldn't disagree with the majority of that Wolfey. Please don't think that I've got anything whatsoever against the Christian faith.

I didn't think you would, if you did, I would call you an intolerant ass.

Though I suppose the same can be said about me, with my distaste of atheist, but atheism doesn't adhere to a specific book, or set of rules, so it's a bit different.
Generally, I would say that, atheism seems to breed this, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], better than you, condescending attitude.
I do understand that there are christians like that, but I would say per capita, at least from what I've ever seen, on these forums, around the internet, and in real life, atheist are generally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s.

Not saying you are, just saying I think my distaste would be a lil bit more justified, allbeit, still wrong.

The reply had no real weight to what you said, I'm just speaking what I think.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If you're looking at a strictly biblical interpretation, as I would assume you are, a human is wholly distinct, Gods special creation, they wouldn't be in the same kind as a chimp, or a bonobo.

Animals are animals, but humans are humans, they are not the same thing.

Well when constructing things like phylogenetic trees or any type of scientific classification, obviously they aren't going to appeal to any religious texts to do so. If that's the only reason, would you then concede that it makes scientific sense to include humans among apes? Maybe suggesting that we are set apart because of a soul or something like that?

 

[Wolfe]

Well when constructing things like phylogenetic trees or any type of scientific classification, obviously they aren't going to appeal to any religious texts to do so. If that's the only reason, would you then concede that it makes scientific sense to include humans among apes? Maybe suggesting that we are set apart because of a soul or something like that?

I would concede that we are very similar to certain types of apes, sometimes some of us are more similar, but that's for another day eh?

Bonobos, are the ones that I know, and they're quite intelligent, and can appear extremely human like, but yes, from a bare bones religious view, humans are set apart because of our soul, our conscious.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I would concede that we are very similar to certain types of apes, sometimes some of us are more similar, but that's for another day eh?

Bonobos, are the ones that I know, and they're quite intelligent, and can appear extremely human like, but yes, from a bare bones religious view, humans are set apart because of our soul, our conscious.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Wolfe]

Thank you for your honesty.

I never understood the beef between science and God, it's science that's kept my faith in God so strong.

And the denial of natural fact is loony, it does nothing against God, it only helps his case.
I take everything in a skeptic view, and I make my judgements based on what I see, my religion has nothing to do with how I interpret natural data, and it shouldn't anyone.
So it's really sad you would have to thank me, implying you don't find this kind of honesty common.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I never understood the beef between science and God, it's science that's kept my faith in God so strong.

And the denial of natural fact is loony, it does nothing against God, it only helps his case.
I take everything in a skeptic view, and I make my judgements based on what I see, my religion has nothing to do with how I interpret natural data, and it shouldn't anyone.
So it's really sad you would have to thank me, implying you don't find this kind of honesty common.

People in an online debate setting, on both sides, tend to avoid concessions fearing it makes their stance appear weak. Clearly not everyone, but it seems to be typical.

There are some great scientists, just as their always have been, that have held personal religious views while furthering our scientific understanding. It just so happens that those people do not appeal to their religion in order to do so. Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Graeme Finlay, etc.

 

[Jimmy D]

So, evidence, that can be taken either way pretty much, there's evidence against it, and evidence for it.
But you're obviously right, right? You've gotta be, it's your take on the evidence at hand, and you're oh so super special smart.

I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else.

I'm curious as to what specific evidence can be "taken either way" though? What did you have in mind?

I don't remember seeing any scientific evidence against the idea of speciation either, perhaps you could provide a citation?

Neither interpretation of the evidence can be claimed as wholly wrong, there's arguments for, and against each position, as I said.
But as an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to be that honest.

There are arguments for and against a flat Earth, that doesn't mean that the shape of the Earth is in doubt.

And please don't make unjustified and baseless comments about my honesty.

You're just a narcissist to think you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Do I think you're wrong? Yes, but I can say that, because I present my case for why I see it as wrong, as where you just say, it's right.

Name calling? Nice.

You have yet to present a case. Increduilty does not trump specific evidence.

 

[Wolfe]

You have yet to present a case. Increduilty does not trump specific evidence.

You've yet to present evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

You've yet to present evidence.

I'm not the one trying to overturn a scientific theory, but ok. Where would you like to start?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I was merely implying that interpretation of the bible is subjective.

We are to have the mind of Christ and think the divine thoughts of God. This is what it means to be born again. We learn as we grow. This is a process we go through. We help each other along the way. Last Sunday the Pastor mentioned facets. We are diamonds in the rough and God is polishing us like a precious stone is cut and polished.

 

[joshua 1 9]

People in an online debate setting, on both sides, tend to avoid concessions fearing it makes their stance appear weak. Clearly not everyone, but it seems to be typical.

There are some great scientists, just as their always have been, that have held personal religious views while furthering our scientific understanding. It just so happens that those people do not appeal to their religion in order to do so. Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Graeme Finlay, etc.

There is no conflict between the Bible and true Science. They agree because God created Science and God gives us our Bible.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm not the one trying to overturn a scientific theory, but ok. Where would you like to start?

But you are the one defending it.
Make a case, 5 years debating, and only a handful of cases have actually been presented by the counter arguer.
Join the few, the proud, present your argument.

If you need me to tell you where to begin, then I'm afraid you've already lost.