"Microevolution"

[Jro]

It doesn't make a difference to me- why not just say 'it's an unexplainable miracle' at the beginning? The mechanisms you come up with are only multiplying the number of miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't make a difference to me- why not just say 'it's an unexplainable miracle' at the beginning?

No, thanks -- it being a miracle should speak for itself.

Besides, you keep saying that, and people start whining that you're 'god of the gaps'.

(Which I believe we are somewhat, but I just hate to see adults whining about it -- )

The mechanisms you come up with are only multiplying the number of miracles.

I wasn't aware God was under the quota system.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Tiberius]

You give me the context, I'll give you the definition.

Likewise, in the context of the Flood year, only a few representative animals had to exist and board the Ark.

Let's see if you can do three. What is the definition of "kind" in the context of genesis 1, what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Genesis 2, and what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Noah's Ark (genesis 6 and 7)?

 

[dlamberth]

Correct. Nothing has ever been made in the image of god.

Many spiritual traditions point out that it's our soul which is made in the image of God.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see if you can do three. What is the definition of "kind" in the context of genesis 1, what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Genesis 2, and what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Noah's Ark (genesis 6 and 7)?

1

 

[Tiberius]

Do you have a problem with actually responding, AV? Are you too lazy to cut and paste?

In any case, lets see what you have said...

I want to run this past you guys and see what happens with it.

Here are the specific [land] kinds -- alive in Genesis 1:

1. man
2. satyr
3. unicorn
4. fowled bat
5. four-legged grasshopper
6. one or two miscellaneous unnamed

Thus, only these six 'representatives' had to board the Ark -- (even though more did, because we know there were doves and ravens aboard).

The purpose of this thread is to show that -- even though the details may be in error, you can at least get a mental picture of how 'kinds' are useful in orchestrating events that cannot be done naturally.

Let's see what happens with this.

(Note: I may add to this list as the discussion progresses.)

So out of the first few, we have some that no longer exist. Or perhaps you would care to show me a satyr or a unicorn?

And also, could you give me an example of a "fowled bat", as well as an explanation of what distinguishes it from a regular bat? And can you show me any species of insect (I won't restrict you to grasshoppers) that naturally has only four legs?

The only ones from that list that you have any chance with are Man and your "one or two miscellaneous unnamed", and that only because you, in typical creationist fashion, have kept things so vague they are practically worthless.

Are you really claiming that all life currently on the planet is descended from those different kinds?

BTW, you never actually defined it. You just gave some rather weak examples. How can I, a complete novice when it comes to your rather fanciful idea of kinds, determine that a four-legged grasshopper is a different kind to a "fowled bat"?

 

[MarkT]

Let's see if you can do three. What is the definition of "kind" in the context of genesis 1, what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Genesis 2, and what is the definition of "kind" in the context of Noah's Ark (genesis 6 and 7)?

Mathematically speaking, a kind is like a set. You can group numbers into sets and subsets. Biologically speaking, a kind is like a species. You can group animals into species and subspecies.

It depends on what you are talking about. Genesis is talking about the creatures God formed, so it is primarily talking about form. But it also talks about the environment they will inhabit and the way they will move about and the way they will behave. So there are sets and subsets of fish, and land animals, and birds, and creatures that walk on all fours, and creatures that hop, and creatures that swarm and creatures that fly, etc.

In the context of Noah's ark, there were sets of clean and unclean animals; things we can eat and things we should not eat, and sets and subsets of those things. So we have predator and prey. It depends on what God wanted to accomplish for his purpose.

I'd say God was primarily concerned with food - what was taken aboard the ark was food. He was not concerned with preserving any particular creature except man.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, AV's done a runner and refused to address my previous post again.

But I have another question for him...

Why is it that when science says that birds evolved from dinosaurs and could justifiably be called dinosaurs, you are happy to agree, but when science says that humans evolved from apes and could be justifiably be called apes, you disagree?

 

[Tomatoman]

Many spiritual traditions point out that it's our soul which is made in the image of God.

.

Unfortunately the soul has never been proven to exist. Back to square one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that when science says that birds evolved from dinosaurs and could justifiably be called dinosaurs, you are happy to agree, but when science says that humans evolved from apes and could be justifiably be called apes, you disagree?

Because humans didn't evolve from apes.

Humans came directly from the dust of the earth, not the DNA of Jungle Jim.

I believe 'incipient' is the technical term for humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately the soul has never been proven to exist.

Unfortunate for whom?

 

[Tiberius]

Unfortunate for those who claim it is real.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't actually need evidence, as long as you realy really believe...

 

[Tiberius]

Because humans didn't evolve from apes.

Humans came directly from the dust of the earth, not the DNA of Jungle Jim.

I believe 'incipient' is the technical term for humans.

Fossil AND genetic evidence disagrees with you here, AV.

Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor, which we would refer to as a primitive ape.

And when it comes to going with evidence from reality or a story in an old book, I'm afraid reality is going to win every time...

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunate for those who claim it is real.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't actually need evidence, as long as you realy really believe...

No, sir, I sure don't -- it's called faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossil AND genetic evidence disagrees with you here, AV.

I wonder if that's why all their evidence is going to flee when the unregenerate stand before the Great White Throne Judgment.

Revelation 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Can't you just envision:

God: Where's your evidence of this godless universe?
Unregenerate: Um ... it was right here a minute ago.

 

[Tomatoman]

Can't you just envision:

God: Where's your evidence of this godless universe?
Unregenerate: Um ... it was right here a minute ago.

You might want to ask yourself why you find this daydream so satisfying.

 

[AV1611VET]

You might want to ask yourself why you find this daydream so satisfying.

Don't you get tired of second-guessing people other than yourself?

 

[Delphiki]

I wonder if that's why all their evidence is going to flee when the unregenerate stand before the Great White Throne Judgment.

Regardless of whether you unreasonably believe the evidence will go away someday, it doesn't change the fact that it's evidence right now and it disagrees with you. Consider it.

Wake up and use your brain. There's a much larger universe out there than what's described in your 1611 revision. Man kind can't know everything, but the tiny amount we do know about the universe already trumps the universe described in the bible in both scale and beauty. It's a shame your book prohibits you from looking around you or up to the stars.

 

[Tomatoman]

Don't you get tired of second-guessing people other than yourself?

Most people aren't as transparent as you.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a much larger universe out there than what's described in your 1611 revision.

Please do feel free to tell me how my '1611 revision' describes this universe.

I've been saying for only five years now how there is much more to this universe than meets the eye.

It's a shame your book prohibits you from looking around you or up to the stars.

WOW -- If you only knew how this sentence looks from our perspective.

Until you guys can build a machine that can do this...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... I'll take your accusation of myopia with a grain of calcium chloride.