KIND = GENUS

[Kylie]

Actually, in the Bible. Producing seed according to its kind (or likeness) has a deeper meaning than what they outwardly look like

Care to elaborate, and provide a method by which we can determine if two different individual animals are the same kind that you are proposing?

 

[miknik5]

Care to elaborate, and provide a method by which we can determine if two different individual animals are the same kind that you are proposing?

No. Because I told you it has nothing to do with outward appearance but inward “appearance” before The Lord

In the end, there is only going to be two like/kind groups

He’ll know the difference between the seeds

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No. Because I told you it has nothing to do with outward appearance but inward “appearance” before The Lord

In the end, there is only going to be two like/kind groups

He’ll know the difference between the seeds

Honest scientists (very rare to find an honest one)
know,
but are hindered by the world's politic, world's corporations, world church, and world's scientists.
Is someone cares to know, really searches for truth, and keeps searching,
they will find the truth, and the truth is AMAZING ! The truth will set them free from their previous bondage and from the utter deception the world is under fully.

 

[Kylie]

No. Because I told you it has nothing to do with outward appearance but inward “appearance” before The Lord

In the end, there is only going to be two like/kind groups

He’ll know the difference between the seeds

So you claim there are kinds but can give absolutely no way of telling the difference between kinds?

Then the "kind" concept you are presenting seems to be rather worthless.

 

[miknik5]

So you claim there are kinds but can give absolutely no way of telling the difference between kinds?

Then the "kind" concept you are presenting seems to be rather worthless.

Does it seem worthless to you?
That is okay.
Because there is only One who looks inwardly and knows which kind belong to The Seed

 

[Brightmoon]

.

 

[Brightmoon]

Does it seem worthless to you?
That is okay.
Because there is only One who looks inwardly and knows which kind belong to The Seed

Yes, kind is worthless as a description of genus . About as useless as a description for natural phenomena as the explanations of people who claim that the earth is in a geocentric planetary system because it’s in the bible or your bible thumping flat earthers who claim that for the same reason.

 

[miknik5]

Yes, kind is worthless as a description of genus . About as useless as a description for natural phenomena as the explanations of people who claim that the earth is in a geocentric planetary system because it’s in the bible or your flat earthers who claim that for the same reason.

You’re not understanding
I added my input with regards to what is truly written in genesis regarding kind and gave the spiritual understanding of what that means

It has nothing to do with what the outside looks like

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re not understanding
I added my input with regards to what is truly written in genesis regarding kind and gave the spiritual understanding of what that means

It has nothing to do with what the outside looks like

it’s still an inaccurate description of natural phenomena. Which is why scientists have discarded all of them . Flat earth , separate creation, geocentric orbits. Creationists never seem to get it . IF SCIENTISTS CANT CONFIRM BY EVIDENCE THEN ITS NOT SCIENCE. Period !! They don’t care that any pseudoscience description is in any holy book .
Creationists have moved the goalposts on this so much that it’s pointless. First it was, “atoms from a plant cannot be of the same substance as those of a human.” in the 1700s . (yes they started by denying Atomic Theory) This graduated into “the Devil put them fossils there” . Then it was “ micro not macro” . Now it’s using newspeak to change established scientific definitions among other pseudoscience based fabrications. Those of us who don’t accept creationist explanations look at this as some serious denial and/or delusional thinking. Personally I have a hard time taking you people seriously.

Since the ideas from creationism are an inaccurate description of natural phenomena , I simply see them as pointless and useless. Added to a real problem that the pseudoscience descriptions of nature are harmful. Global warming denial affects the whole planet not just some coal miner in Hicktown. Natural selection and common descent have been deliberately used in medical research for almost a century now. Random mutation and a process that mimics Natural selection is used in engineering

 

[Kylie]

Does it seem worthless to you?
That is okay.
Because there is only One who looks inwardly and knows which kind belong to The Seed

Cool story. You haven't told me anything useful about it. All you've given me is a story, and no reason to believe that it is anything more than fantasy. You haven't clarified what you're talking about, and you haven't given the slightest bit of support. What you've given me seems to have the authority of a fanfiction.

 

[miknik5]

it’s still an inaccurate description of natural phenomena. Which is why scientists have discarded all of them . Flat earth , separate creation, geocentric orbits. Creationists never seem to get it . IF SCIENTISTS CANT CONFIRM BY EVIDENCE THEN ITS NOT SCIENCE. Period !! They don’t care that any pseudoscience description is in any holy book .
Creationists have moved the goalposts on this so much that it’s pointless. First it was, “atoms from a plant cannot be of the same substance as those of a human.” in the 1700s . (yes they started by denying Atomic Theory) This graduated into “the Devil put them fossils there” . Then it was “ micro not macro” . Now it’s using newspeak to change established scientific definitions among other pseudoscience based fabrications. Those of us who don’t accept creationist explanations look at this as some serious denial and/or delusional thinking. Personally I have a hard time taking you people seriously.

Since the ideas from creationism are an inaccurate description of natural phenomena , I simply see them as pointless and useless. Added to a real problem that the pseudoscience descriptions of nature are harmful. Global warming denial affects the whole planet not just some coal miner in Hicktown. Natural selection and common descent have been deliberately used in medical research for almost a century now. Random mutation and a process that mimics Natural selection is used in engineering

I don’t know that I care about this:
“If the scientist can’t confirm by (physical) evidence then it’s not science?”

All this, measured against the ultimate truth and God as sovereign over all things created means simply that scientists do not have the last say and aren’t the leading expert in creation

God is

And I don’t think the scientist cares about that

 

[miknik5]

Cool story. You haven't told me anything useful about it. All you've given me is a story, and no reason to believe that it is anything more than fantasy. You haven't clarified what you're talking about, and you haven't given the slightest bit of support. What you've given me seems to have the authority of a fanfiction.

You know the story and you consider it “cool”

I don’t have to give you anything
And I can’t give you anything

If you want more of what I have, you’ll have to go and get it for yourself.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Anyone know where AV is?

off counting somewhere I'm sure.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don’t know that I care about this:
“If the scientist can’t confirm by (physical) evidence then it’s not science?”

All this, measured against the ultimate truth and God as sovereign over all things created means simply that scientists do not have the last say and aren’t the leading expert in creation

God is

And I don’t think the scientist cares about that

Science does not deal with magic.

Scienctist may or may not care about god(s) but that does not affect their science one way or the other.

 

[pitabread]

All this, measured against the ultimate truth

Part of the problem here is that the "ultimate truth" is highly subjective.

 

[miknik5]

Part of the problem here is that the "ultimate truth" is highly subjective.

To some men it might be subjective and flexible

To others it isn’t

God’s Truth is God’s Truth
If men can not accept this it has no bearing on God’s absolute, unchanging, eternal Truth which will remain

 

[miknik5]

Science does not deal with magic.

Scienctist may or may not care about god(s) but that does not affect their science one way or the other.

Man can only go back as far as the physical evidence present for him to study

He can back into these things
But there comes. Point where he can’t go any further and provides his theories and speculations on the possibilities of what might be true and truth

However, in the end, God is sovereign and has the final day on what is true and truth


Regardless if man did not accept or believe

 

[miknik5]

Man not acknowledging the sovereignty of God does not change the truth of God’s sovereignty over all things created

Man would like to believe he has everything figured out

However as 2 Thessalonians clearly points out, man doesn’t even understand the magnitude of God’s Grace in holding all things together so that we aren’t totally consumed by the confusion that will come upon the earth when He who holds all things back.. no longer holds all things back

 

[pitabread]

Man not acknowledging the sovereignty of God does not change the truth of God’s sovereignty over all things created

The flip side is that belief in "the truth of God’s sovereignty over all things created" doesn't make it so if it isn't true in the first place.

You can adopt whatever philosophical baseline you wish, but you're going to have a darned difficult time proving it as absolute.

Man would like to believe he has everything figured out

Ironically the people I find who most profess figuring everything out are religious fundamentalists.

 

[VirOptimus]

Man can only go back as far as the physical evidence present for him to study

He can back into these things
But there comes. Point where he can’t go any further and provides his theories and speculations on the possibilities of what might be true and truth

However, in the end, God is sovereign and has the final day on what is true and truth


Regardless if man did not accept or believe

If you want to preach there are sub-forums for that. This is not one of them.

Your blathering has nothing to do with science and does in no way impress.

Support your views with facts, otherwise they are irrelevant to the discussion.