KIND = GENUS

[Subduction Zone]

You have an odd sense of cause-and-effect.

He was merely following your lead.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Greetings, Speedwell.
There is nothing in Genesis, even for a literalist, which justifies the assertion that "kind" represents an impenetrable barrier to evolution.

Define Evolution. If you attempt to define it as Common Descent/Darwinism -- no-one has ever been able to define that, whatever it is -- it you define it as Common Descent, there is no option but to walk away from not only the Bible, but science, history, everything rational.
When you have defined it, I may take the liberty of doing likewise. Before you begin: You have in your entry made time a mechanism in physics. Uh. uh. Ever heard of Einstein? Which is relative? The speed of light, or time? Will time alter the hydrogen bond? How about altering it by scientific method, such as may involve photonics? A real action?

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

What does god say to you?

Lots a stuff. Like,

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Does it ever strike genius such as your own, that if Man made God in his own image, Man would be unlikely to have his home-made deistic creation saying things to Man, such as:
"But the fearful [too cowardly to believe/ take a stand] and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Now you have made me a fool. Witness, verse the first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Greetings, Speedwell.
There is nothing in Genesis, even for a literalist, which justifies the assertion that "kind" represents an impenetrable barrier to evolution.

Define Evolution. If you attempt to define it as Common Descent/Darwinism -- no-one has ever been able to define that, whatever it is -- it you define it as Common Descent, there is no option but to walk away from not only the Bible, but science, history, everything rational.
When you have defined it, I may take the liberty of doing likewise. Before you begin: You have in your entry made time a mechanism in physics. Uh. uh. Ever heard of Einstein? Which is relative? The speed of light, or time? Will time alter the hydrogen bond? How about altering it by scientific method, such as may involve photonics? A real action?

What do you mean? Of course it has been defined. Perhaps you did not understand the definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does god say to you?

Lots a stuff. Like,

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Does it ever strike genius such as your own, that if Man made God in his own image, Man would be unlikely to have his home-made deistic creation saying things to Man, such as:
"But the fearful [too cowardly to believe/ take a stand] and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Now you have made me a fool. Witness, verse the first.

That is actually the Bible. That was written by man. How can you tell if it was written by God or not?

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

S-Z, I was addressing Speedwell. I know you can not define Evolution. Anyone who can narrate the pathway of speciation in terms of hard physics/mathematical language -- science -- would take out the Nobel instantum. Speedwell should have an opportunity to try for the Nobel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S-Z, I was addressing Speedwell. I know you can not define Evolution. Anyone who can narrate the pathway of speciation in terms of hard physics/mathematical language -- science -- would take out the Nobel instantum. Speedwell should have an opportunity to try for the Nobel.

There are several working definitions of evolution. Creationists refuse to understand them. But then most refuse to even understand the scientific method.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

How can you tell if it was written by God or not?

Check yourself. Which is the more real, the enduring item? To be loved, valued, yes, even died for -- or a hamburger? God doesn't deal in hamburgers. He deals in eternal value, the realm of the 'heart'. That's where it all is. I tell myself that every day. And if it is heart stuff, then it might become a case of, "I know because I know." God longs to fellowship with us stricken humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you tell if it was written by God or not?

Check yourself. Which is the more real, the enduring item? To be loved, valued, yes, even died for -- or a hamburger? God doesn't deal in hamburgers. He deals in eternal value, the realm of the 'heart'. That's where it all is. I tell myself that every day. And if it is heart stuff, then it might become a case of, "I know because I know." God longs to fellowship with us stricken humans.

Still not an answer. A dodge is as good as admitting that you can't.

EDIT: As to your demand for a "defintion". That was not what you asked for. You want a step by step explanation and that is not a definition. A definition merely covers the basics and would at least give an idea on how the concept could be tested.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You have an odd sense of cause-and-effect.

That in no way answers my question. Just more ducking and weaving and avoidance. Welcome back, AV.

 

[Speedwell]

Greetings, Speedwell.
There is nothing in Genesis, even for a literalist, which justifies the assertion that "kind" represents an impenetrable barrier to evolution.

Define Evolution. If you attempt to define it as Common Descent/Darwinism -- no-one has ever been able to define that, whatever it is -- it you define it as Common Descent, there is no option but to walk away from not only the Bible, but science, history, everything rational.
When you have defined it, I may take the liberty of doing likewise. Before you begin: You have in your entry made time a mechanism in physics. Uh. uh. Ever heard of Einstein? Which is relative? The speed of light, or time? Will time alter the hydrogen bond? How about altering it by scientific method, such as may involve photonics? A real action?

All I would be walking away from is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation stories which I (and close on two billion other Traditional Christians) would not want anything to do with even if there wasn't a theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

During the Millennial Reign, He may say, "Hey, guys. It was neither. It was [whatever] all along."

So... kind doesn't equal genus then.

Glad we got that straightened out.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

All I would be walking away from is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation stories ..... .
So, you have studied my site -- Creationtheory dot com. Here is the description which comes under the title when googling:
www.creationtheory.com
CreationTheory.com brings evolutionary theory up to date with science of the 21st Century. Concurrently the technical meaning of the biblical book of Genesis is clarified. Pressing modern questions such as those of fossil fuel usage and climate change are addressed. End site leader.
The site alone would take a week to fully investigate.
You have read my latest book, to which the site is ancillary. The Tree of Life and the Origin of the Species. Three hundred pages, fully referenced and illustrated. Definitively ends the Evolution debate, settles the question of global warming-fossil fuels and the future of the planet. Incidentally solving the moon origins conundrum whilst pointing towards the answer to the solar system origins conundrum.

Could you advize where those publications, quoting yourself, are a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation stories ..... . ?

 

[Speedwell]

All I would be walking away from is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation stories ..... .
So, you have studied my site -- Creationtheory dot com. Here is the description which comes under the title when googling:
www.creationtheory.com
CreationTheory.com brings evolutionary theory up to date with science of the 21st Century. Concurrently the technical meaning of the biblical book of Genesis is clarified. Pressing modern questions such as those of fossil fuel usage and climate change are addressed. End site leader.
The site alone would take a week to fully investigate.
You have read my latest book, to which the site is ancillary. The Tree of Life and the Origin of the Species. Three hundred pages, fully referenced and illustrated. Definitively ends the Evolution debate, settles the question of global warming-fossil fuels and the future of the planet. Incidentally solving the moon origins conundrum whilst pointing towards the answer to the solar system origins conundrum.

Could you advize where those publications, quoting yourself, are a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation stories ..... . ?

What for? A literal interpretation of Genesis is what it is.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

What for? A literal interpretation of Genesis is what it is.
A literal interpretation of any almost part any part of the bible or any document anywhere whatsoever, religious or otherwise, means that the sun moves relative to Earth. Most documents and people say that the sun rises and sets. (Which, incidentally, by introducing Relativity, becomes technically a not entirely untrue statement).
Luther accused Galileo etc. of fool nonsense when they suggested the sun is stationary, whilst Earth moves. The bible categorically states that Earth is rock solid immovable.
So you side with Luther and hold that literality is what it is. That means the entire Christian concept is a total fraud. The bit about "With the heart Man believes unto righteousness...." What if you have a heart transplant? What are you doing wasting your time and contradicting yourself ceaselessly on a fool christian site where people have a Word of proposed enlightenment so unenlightened it states that the sun moves and the Earth does not? You have your own word that you are dealing with fools. Why are you here? Don't torment yourself or any potential reader by answering.

 

[Gene2memE]

Define Evolution.

Change in allele frequency over time within a population, primarily via hereditary mechanisms, with selection and conservation resulting from situational and environmental factors.

 

[Speedwell]

What for? A literal interpretation of Genesis is what it is.
A literal interpretation of any almost part any part of the bible or any document anywhere whatsoever, religious or otherwise, means that the sun moves relative to Earth. Most documents and people say that the sun rises and sets. (Which, incidentally, by introducing Relativity, becomes technically a not entirely untrue statement).
Luther accused Galileo etc. of fool nonsense when they suggested the sun is stationary, whilst Earth moves. The bible categorically states that Earth is rock solid immovable.
So you side with Luther and hold that literality is what it is. That means the entire Christian concept is a total fraud. The bit about "With the heart Man believes unto righteousness...." What if you have a heart transplant? What are you doing wasting your time and contradicting yourself ceaselessly on a fool christian site where people have a Word of proposed enlightenment so unenlightened it states that the sun moves and the Earth does not? You have your own word that you are dealing with fools. Why are you here? Don't torment yourself or any potential reader by answering.

If that is typical of your book, I'm glad I'm not going to read it. I need no schooling from you about the Bible. You made a statement that accepting common descent was "walking away from the Bible." That statement can, IMO, be easily mistaken for a malicious falsehood and requires some justification. You are apparently not a biblical literalist in the extreme sense you parody here. What are you?

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

G-M. Thanks for an intelligent response. Change in allele frequency over time within a population, primarily via hereditary mechanisms, with selection and conservation resulting from situational and environmental factors.
I attempt to know something about geology -- probably not much! -- and if you know something about biology -- I am desirous of being advized. Here is a statement lifted direct from my educational site and book(as I recall). You might consider the implications and to save downloading umpteen kilobytes, perhaps if you wished go to the site (Creationtheory dot com) and see if you can improve it. The front page will give a link to speciation and also to various theories.
How did new species arise?
The answer to this question must meet the following requirements:
1. Explains adaption of new species to environment.
2. Explains how new species can arise without being the genetic offspring
of an old species.
3. Explains how species are functional units built from discrete packages of information (the platypus, for example, is obviously the outcome of a selective process acting on a finite number of discrete packages of information -- those discrete packages of information also being available to birds, mammals and reptiles.)

What clues have we been given?......... .

The warning at the outset is the same as that given to Darwin & co. by the top scientists of those times and by almost everyone else to boot: this item: 2. Explains how new species can arise without being the genetic offspring of an old species.

Immediately we face the question: species were obviously transformed (DNA, immune system, the lot) at specific times in the geologic past. Speciation. Yet it is an unavoidable fact that species about us are 'locked'. To go to the most obvious proof: We don't interbreed with chimps. Chimps are chimps, humans are humans. End of story. Almost identical DNA, no way they are going to give birth to us nor we to them. Likewise, throughout the biosphere, although not always as clear cut. To define Evolution, one is obliged to define the biophysics which can explain the observations.

 

[Kylie]

2. Explains how new species can arise without being the genetic offspring of an old species.

Why is this a requirement? Any new species is going to have evolved from a previous species. A new species doesn't pop up out of nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, you are losing the plot. You have diminishing comprehension of rationality or logic. Since you seem to be a rational person, look after yourself, will you? Every second entry at this forum is halfway delusional. Yours becoming increasingly so.
You have just stated in as many words that Evolution is the creator god.
Any new species is going to have evolved from a previous species. A new species doesn't pop up out of nothing. Implication: Species do not arise out of nothing. Evolution creates them. Animism, pure and simple. Religion.

Speciation has been observed; it's not a qualitative change.