My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Aman777]

No, no it's not. It may come as a surprise to you, but the biological sciences are not based on interpretations of a 2000+ year old religious text.

It will probably come as a surprise to you, but men did not author Genesis, provably. Would you like to take the test which proves God is the literal Author of Genesis? Or is the Truth which agrees with God, science and history, too high a standard for you?

 

[pitabread]

Someone needs a course in Etymology:

*sigh*

First, the creationist version of "kinds" tends not to be directly analogous with genus-level taxonomy. In fact, the creationist version of "kinds" is often ill-defined and all over the map depending on who you ask.

Second, taxanomic classifications are strictly artificial. It's for convenience of identifying and cataloging species, but in nature those classifications don't exist.

Third, when a creationist says "descent with modification with kinds" they are typically implying some sort of biological barrier preventing diversification of biological forms (both genetic and phenotypic) beyond certain 'limits'. However, said limits have never been demonstrated in nature.

So to wind back to the original comment which was "In order to be a good biological scientist you have to accept evolution for example" to which the response was "Why not descent with modification within kinds?", the full answer is that there are no demonstrable biological barriers that limit the evolution of species on Earth beyond naturally occurring limits of basic physics. Ergo, if one is trying to explicitly reject shared ancestry of species beyond certain limits, then they're going to have a tough time with that and still be a component biological scientist.

Capiche?

 

[pitabread]

It will probably come as a surprise to you, but men did not author Genesis, provably. Would you like to take the test which proves God is the literal Author of Genesis? Or is the Truth which agrees with God, science and history, too high a standard for you?

You need to understand, I don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Quoting the Bible and making baseless assertions is not going to change that fact. In fact, I would wager there is likely nothing you could present to argue your case that would change my mind in that regard, because if there was such an argument possible I would have already seen it and thus changed my mind.

Therefore, you can save yourself the time.

 

[Skreeper]

Why not descent with modification within kinds?

Because "kinds" is not a scientific taxonomic rank.

 

[AV1611VET]

First, the creationist version of "kinds" tends not to be directly analogous with genus-level taxonomy.

Really?

In fact, the creationist version of "kinds" is often ill-defined and all over the map depending on who you ask.

Then check the Documentation for yourself.

Or is research not a part of science anymore?

Here ... I'll do it for you:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1. Notice grass is mentioned as a kind? [grass]

2. This "kind" yields seed. [yielding seed]

3. The "kind's" offspring is in the same category. [fruit after his kind]

4. It has seed in itself. [whose seed is in itself]

Sounds like a genus to me.

Second, taxanomic classifications are strictly artificial. It's for convenience of identifying and cataloging species, but in nature those classifications don't exist.

Well when Linnaeus-worshipping, educated, demon-influenced, scholars "conveniently" identify and catalog against the Bible, these Linnaeus-worshipping, educated, demon-influenced, scholars can take a hike.

Third, when a creationist says "descent with modification with kinds" they are typically implying some sort of biological barrier preventing diversification of biological forms (both genetic and phenotypic) beyond certain 'limits'. However, said limits have never been demonstrated in nature.

And how many times have I mentioned here that God is a God of boundaries ...

Psalm 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

... and He has set a boundary that evolution cannot pass.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because "kinds" is not a scientific taxonomic rank.

What are the two parts of the binomial naming system?

(Are you willing to answer this?)

 

[Skreeper]

Well when Linnaeus-worshipping, educated, demon-influenced, scholars "conveniently" identify and catalog against the Bible, these Linnaeus-worshipping, educated, demon-influenced, scholars can take a hike.

Did you have a stroke or is this a joke?

 

[Skreeper]

(Are you willing to answer this?)

From my time here I have noticed that having a serious discussion with you is a huge waste of my time.

 

[AV1611VET]

From my time here I have noticed that having a serious discussion with you is a huge waste of my time.

You sly fox, you.

 

[Skreeper]

You sly fox, you.

You dumb bunny...(You know what I mean)

 

[lesliedellow]

From my time here I have noticed that having a serious discussion with you is a huge waste of my time.

Oh come, AV is no match for Dad.

 

[AV1611VET]

You dumb bunny...(You know what I mean)

I do.

 

[HitchSlap]

It will probably come as a surprise to you, but men did not author Genesis, provably. Would you like to take the test which proves God is the literal Author of Genesis? Or is the Truth which agrees with God, science and history, too high a standard for you?

Then it will come as a shock for you if you were to find out that G1 & G2 were written by different authors about 300 years apart.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it will come as a shock for you if you were to find out that G1 & G2 were written by different authors about 300 years apart.

Adam wrote G1 and Eve wrote G2 then?

 

[HitchSlap]

Adam wrote G1 and Eve wrote G2 then?

Laurel, then Hardy.

 

[Skreeper]

Oh come, AV is no match for Dad.

That I can agree with. At least AV occasionally admits that he doesn't know something, but Dad is apparently the arbiter on what is true or not.

 

[pitabread]

Then check the Documentation for yourself.

If all you're going to do is post Bible quotes, then I'm afraid there isn't anything to discuss.

Regardless, I've seen creationists claim everything from individual species all the way to entire kingdoms of life as a "kind".

Here's an example where AiG claims that penguins are an entire "kind", modern penguins which comprise numerous species in six individually described genera. So evidently AiG doesn't think it's a "genus" level classification.

Suffice to say if there's one thing I haven't seen from creationists it's consistency when it comes to categorizing "kinds".

 

[Aman777]

Because "kinds" is not a scientific taxonomic rank.

Are you telling us that the current classification system is better than God's? Or do scientists wish to avoid God's Truth at all cost? Knowing the difference between His and Their kinds is fundamental to any understanding of True Science. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Then it will come as a shock for you if you were to find out that G1 & G2 were written by different authors about 300 years apart.

Thanks for confessing that you have NO idea of the difference between Genesis one and two. The Author (Holy Spirit) "moved" the men who penned the words, from inside them, to write the Truth which can only be understood by the people of the last days. Since the Spirit of Truth is always the Truth, and nothing but the Truth, and is your Judge at the Judgment, it's better to give Him proper respect today. Amen?

 

[pitabread]

Then it will come as a shock for you if you were to find out that G1 & G2 were written by different authors about 300 years apart.

Y'know, I've often wondered what Biblical literalists think of Biblical scholarship.

When I first started researching the Bible, I naively used a lot of literalist material as sources. Then when I started looking at more academic material I quickly discovered that what a lot of literalists believe about their own Bible appears to be, well, wrong.