My Personal Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Then you would be wrong.

How would you know?

 

[lesliedellow]

Since they have NO idea what kinds are,

According to AV it is a synonym for species; otherwise creationists have no idea what "kinds" are; it is just a word they use to muddy the waters.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can persons exist sans evolution?

No. I was going to challenge you on your definition of "person" but there are really only 2 possibilities:
1. An individual human being. Humans are a product of evolution.
2. Any other definition. Whatever this is, it is merely a human construct. See 1 above.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to AV it is a synonym for species;

Genus.

 

[lesliedellow]

Genus.

Genus or species, "kinds" is still a word which generally gets used without definition. Mainly because the people who use it have no clear idea what it means - except they are damned sure it somehow argues against evolution.

 

[Aman777]

According to AV it is a synonym for species; otherwise creationists have no idea what "kinds" are; it is just a word they use to muddy the waters.

Species is a man made term while kinds is absolutely necessary in order to understand God's Truth in Genesis. Tell us what this verse is saying:

Gen 1:25 And God (plural word) made the beast of the earth after His (singular word) kind, and cattle after Their (plural word) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (singular word) kind: and God saw that it was good.

Is it just me or do you see TWO kinds (His and Their) in the above verse? There are totally distinct differences between His and Their kinds. Can you explain?

 

[lesliedellow]

Species is a man made term while kinds is absolutely necessary in order to understand God's Truth in Genesis. Tell us what this verse is saying:

Gen 1:25 And God (plural word) made the beast of the earth after His (singular word) kind, and cattle after Their (plural word) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (singular word) kind: and God saw that it was good.

Is it just me or do you see TWO kinds (His and Their) in the above verse? There are totally distinct differences between His and Their kinds. Can you explain?

Their is nobody on the face of the Earth who can explain your absolutely unique way of doing exegesis - or should I say eisegesis.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can persons exist sans evolution?

Hypothetically, we could design a genome that would result in what would physically appear human, yet would have a significantly different genome from other people, utilizing codon redundancy. However, since that design would be based on the one that developed via evolution, one could argue that it still could have only resulted via evolution, in an indirect sense. Well, that and people that resulted from evolution would be the designers, in this case.

So, I'd tentatively answer "yes" to your question, but the only way it wouldn't be a debatable yes would be if the designer itself is not the result of evolutionary processes.

-_- as a comment, though, there would be no reason to design a person as if they had evolved. Heck, even a person constructed to make them as genetically dissimilar to the rest of humanity while retaining gene function would likely be able to breed with a "regularly evolved" person.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genus or species, "kinds" is still a word which generally gets used without definition.

Genus.

 

[Kylie]

How would you know?

Because what you claim is inconsistent with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because what you claim is inconsistent with reality.

Physical reality is myopic.

It's like trying to see the bottom of the ocean with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon.

There's more to reality than meets the eye.

 

[lesliedellow]

Physical reality is myopic.

And creationists are living, breathing, proof of that fact.

 

[Kylie]

Physical reality is myopic.

It's like trying to see the bottom of the ocean with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon.

There's more to reality than meets the eye.

Yes, AV, whatever you need to say in order to justify your own views.

 

[Kylie]

Physical reality is myopic.

It's like trying to see the bottom of the ocean with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon.

There's more to reality than meets the eye.

Ah, but if I was to try to look at the bottom of the ocean with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon, I would not see a single thing that contradicts what the bottom of the ocean actually is, would I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but if I was to try to look at the bottom of the ocean with a pair of binoculars from a hot air balloon, I would not see a single thing that contradicts what the bottom of the ocean actually is, would I?

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Now, let's say that I look out of the balloon and see something that DOES contradict with what the bottom of the sea is actually like. Wouldn't that suggest to you that something was interfering with my binocular observations?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Can persons exist sans evolution?

We do. Always have. What's next ?

 

[AV1611VET]

We do. Always have. What's next ?

Back up a little.

Before we came on the scene.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Can persons exist sans evolution?

Back up a little.

Before we came on the scene.

Hmmm..... make up your mind
Either persons exist, or before they existed (when they don't exist) ?
Either way, it is sans evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmmm..... make up your mind
Either persons exist, or before they existed (when they don't exist) ?
Either way, it is sans evolution.

The answer to my challenge is YES.

Persons can exist without evolution.

They are called "angels."

Evolution is a joke.