Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[shernren]

For creationists, like me, the dividing line between micro/macro evolution is not necessarily speciation, but the change of one "kind" to another. An example would be a domestic dog evolving to the point that it no longer can be classified under the family Canidae.

Actually, changing from one biblical kind to another happens pretty frequently in the Middle East and desert regions:

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Leviticus 11:22
​

But locusts and grasshoppers are two different life stages of the same animal. Now there's change I can believe in!

 

[Assyrian]

I certainly do believe that God performed a physical miracle that gave Israel more daylight to destroy their enemies.

You just don't believe the literal description of how the miracle happened, that the sun stopped and stood still in the heavens and hurried to set again after the miracle. In other words the miracle depends on the sun moving through the heavens to give us the length of our day, not the earth rotating. And because it is the sun that moves, the length of the day can be increased by Joshua commanding the sun to stop. After the miracle the sun began moving again, and hurried to set. You don't believe the sun moves around the earth so you can't take the description of the miracle literally, instead you think God made time stand still. It is not what the bible says or how the bible says the miracle happened. God worked a miracle, we don't know how he worked it, but we cannot take the description of the miracle literally.

This passage, and others describing the earth as unmoving, were a stumbling block for the church when science showed it was the earth that rotated, not the sun going round the earth. Luther describes it in his Table Talk:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
​

The Catholic church went as far as to put Galileo on trial for teaching heliocentrism. But when it became clear science was going with heliocentrism, the church had to go back to scripture and find new ways to interpret the passages they had taken literally up till then. It is no different with evolution and the age of the earth, science has shown the old interpretation is mistaken, we need to go back to scripture and find better ways to interpret Genesis.

I have no problem with the literal six day creation and neither did God.

Where does God interpret the six day literally?

I don't quite understand why you are bent on denying the "six day" creation in Genesis. But it's there to stay.

Because the earth is billions of years old. We can no more take the six days literally than we can the sun literally stopping for Joshua. The passages in scripture don't go away, we just understand them differently.

Another reference:

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

I quoted that one to you myself.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Was God literally refreshed after a day's rest? This is describing someone worn out and exhausted stopping to get their breath back. This is hardly a literal description of the Almighty. It is however a beautiful anthropomorphic description of God's identification with the weary labourers who did need a Sabbath rest to be refreshed, his identification with the weary and downtrodden, child working in the fields, migrant labourers. Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

You just said "six days is still six days", and didn't deal with the problem of God being refreshed after a days rest.

 

[Preecher]

You just don't believe the literal description of how the miracle happened, that the sun stopped and stood still in the heavens and hurried to set again after the miracle. In other words the miracle depends on the sun moving through the heavens to give us the length of our day, not the earth rotating. And because it is the sun that moves, the length of the day can be increased by Joshua commanding the sun to stop. After the miracle the sun began moving again, and hurried to set. You don't believe the sun moves around the earth so you can't take the description of the miracle literally, instead you think God made time stand still. It is not what the bible says or how the bible says the miracle happened. God worked a miracle, we don't know how he worked it, but we cannot take the description of the miracle literally.

God worked a miracle. That's all that matters to me. He still does.

This passage, and others describing the earth as unmoving, were a stumbling block for the church when science showed it was the earth that rotated, not the sun going round the earth. Luther describes it in his Table Talk:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."​

I don't really see that it matters much as long as we believe that God works physical miracles.
​

The Catholic church went as far as to put Galileo on trial for teaching heliocentrism. But when it became clear science was going with heliocentrism, the church had to go back to scripture and find new ways to interpret the passages they had taken literally up till then. It is no different with evolution and the age of the earth, science has shown the old interpretation is mistaken, we need to go back to scripture and find better ways to interpret Genesis.

I'll take the literal.

Where does God interpret the six day literally?

Do you really want me to quote it again?

Because the earth is billions of years old.

That's called faith.

We can no more take the six days literally than we can the sun literally stopping for Joshua.

Why? Too difficult for God?

The passages in scripture don't go away, we just understand them differently.

I quoted that one to you myself.

You just said "six days is still six days", and didn't deal with the problem of God being refreshed after a days rest.

It's not a problem, unless you want it to be.

 

[Jig]

Actually, changing from one biblical kind to another happens pretty frequently in the Middle East and desert regions:

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Leviticus 11:22
​

But locusts and grasshoppers are two different life stages of the same animal. Now there's change I can believe in!

This is a direct quote from a very respected Hebrew lexicon:

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999). 503-04.

In light of the distinctions made in Gen 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn [kind] may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22 (four times), 29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus.

However, Lev 11:4 “the falcon after its kind,” and 11:16 “the hawk after its kind,” refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise...the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (genus?).

God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical [macro] evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.


The Hebrew word mîn is multifaceted - as is with many words in many languages. This is why there is some confusion of how to define it. I specifically used the term "created kind" in my comment to associate my definition with the mîn of Genesis. Original pre-fall pre-flood created kind.

 

[Assyrian]

It fails because it is a gross oversimplification that ignores how much of what you call operational science is supported by only very indirect experiment and observation while what you classify as historical sciences is based on observation, experiment, testing and confirmation from multiple sources. <snip>Most of what science studies cannot be directly observed or test, and whether you classify it as historical or operational, they all are based on finding other methods of testing the hypotheses that cannot be observed directly. </snip>

The distinction between operational and historical science does not fail simply because some operation events are observed indirectly.Historical science readily admits that not all operational events are observed directly. However, there is an important difference between indirect observation of operational laws and no direct observation of an origin/historical event. These historical events are unobserved because there were no observers there to observe them.

By contrast, operation events (like subatomic patterns) are "unobserved" directly in an entirely different sense. They are not unobserved because they are unrepeated - like with origin science. These patterns are in fact repeated. However, the historical events are unobserved directly because there is no known regular pattern of observed events associated with them. In this sense subatomic events are unlike origin events. The difference is that, unlike historical science, operation science always has a known recurring pattern of observable phenomena associated with the unobserved events. Hence, the distinction between origin science and operation science is based on an objective difference in the real world of nature.

Unobserved is still unobserved. I doesn't matter the reason, unless you are looking for excuses to ignore vast fields of science that do not suit you. It did not matter how long astronomers observed the regular pattern of planetary movement, they were unable to observe elliptical movement around the sun or test the effect of gravity (if any) in space. Heliocentrism was accepted on the basis of inference. You could repeat Millikan's oil drop experiment as many time as you like and get the same results, you are still not observing an electron and only determining the charge on the electron by inference, and by assuming the electron exists. You could repeat Rutherford's gold leaf experiment as often as you like, all it will tell you is that the experiment was not a fluke and alpha particles do bounce back from gold leaf very occasionally. But that is not observing the nucleus, the existence of a nucleus, its size and charge are simply inferences from the experiment.

The fossil record shows a recurring pattern of nested hierarchy. Fossil hominids show a consistent pattern of gradual change from more apelike to human characteristics and larger cranial capacity through time. Unlike the gold leaf or oil drop experiments, new fossil hominids supply more and more information. Comparative genetics show recurring patterns of closer similarity between species we know are more closely related from comparative anatomy and the fossil record. These patterns of similarity keep reoccurring whether the DNA or proteins being examined have any functional difference.

I never doubted that change (evolution) occurs. I doubt that macroevolution occurs - it appears though that we define this term differently.

But as I said, and you ignored, you would need to provide evidence for creationism if you want to support the creationist use of macroevolution.

Speciation is of course macroevolution. <snip>If you want to claim it is variation within a kind, you first have to come up with some evidence for the existence of discrete kinds. But the experimental evidence I showed you was not simply speciation. I showed the origin of completely new genes. How can that be variation within a kind when the genes did not exist before? There were unicellular organisms evolving in to multicellular, which is a massive change in the structure of the organism.

This is were our terms get confused. Evolutionists and creationists have similar terms, but use/define them differently. Though speciation could be macroevolution, I believer the speciation we observe is actually microevolution. This problem is formed because "created kind" does not fit neatly in the evolutionist taxonomic grouping. A created kind may be identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and even the "family".

You are still ignoring the rest of the experiment evidence I showed you for evolution. How do new genes and new bodily structures fit variation in a created kind?

For creationists, like me, the dividing line between micro/macro evolution is not necessarily speciation, but the change of one "kind" to another. An example would be a domestic dog evolving to the point that it no longer can be classified under the family Canidae.

A number of problems with that, firstly, evolution does not say dogs or their descendants will ever cease to be canidae, they are still carnivora, mammalia, chordata, animalia and eukaria. Secondly, if it were to occur creationists would simply broaden their definition of 'kind'.

The biggest problem is the creationist idea of 'kind' is as you would say, historical rather than observational. Kinds are the varieties of animal that existed 6000 years ago. Life may continue to evolve but no matter how far it evolves apart, they are still descended from varieties alive 6,000 years ago, and by definition, still that kind. So we can look at species living today and trace different species to common ancestors, dogs and wolves foxes and jackals back to a common canid ancestor, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] cats, lynx, leopards pumas, lions tigers back to a common feline ancestor. The date of this ancestor is a lot further back than 6000 years ago, but never mind that. The thing is, Creationists say there is a cut off point kinds are based from. You can trace animal ancestry back as far as kind, but no further, The problem is, there is no evidence for this cut off point. You can trace dogs and foxes back to the canid ancestor, but it doesn't stop there, trace the the canids back and they join up with ursids, the bears, and the pinnepedia, seal and walruses, trace it back further and you join the felines in the order carnivora.

Where is the evidence this 'kind' barrier exists in the past, that common ancestry can only be trace back so far and no further?

I've already discussed this. I didn't avoid it. It is you that denied the distinctions of operational and historical science.

I have denied the relevance of the distinction, and each time I discussed it you cut out most of my reply and ignored it.

As long as you don't take it literally.
That if you take the plain meaning literally it is geocentric?

<snip>Peoples individual interpretation may be subjective, but there is a clear difference in how easy it is to arrive at a figurative interpretation from reading the text. People did not realise the geocentric passages shouldn't be taken literally until Copernicus showed us the earth went round the sun. Yet during the same time there were scholars and theologians who realised from the text of Genesis that it shouldn't be taken literally. </snip>

You do realize that creationists do not take every word of the Bible literally. Right? You're not the only one who understands that literary devices exist.

Of course. The difference is there is a stronger basis for taking Joshua commanding the sun to stand still literally than there is the creation account in Genesis. It is slap in the middle of a historical account, with no indication of any sort of metaphor, nor are there any passages in scripture interpreting it figuratively. If the church was right to change their literal interpretation of the geocentric passages when science said the sun did not go round the earth, then we should do the same with Genesis when science shows us the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

Operational science has NOT proven a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

But science has.

Science as a term by itself is ambiguous and generic. This comment makes no true sense. Somehow I think you're talking about the "science" that's done on the foundation of philosophical assumptions and not the "science" that gave us medicine.

OK I'll rephrase it it.

Science has shown the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
​

Your hiding behind 'operational science' is simply an excuse to deny the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for the age of the earth and evolution is much stronger than the evidence supporting heliocentrism when the church abandoned its traditional literal interpretation and looked for interpretations that were not contradicted by the latest sceience of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton.

The whole book.

No, you can't take a historical interpretation of both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Their literal meanings contradict each other, you either have to ignore the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. As we have seen, it is the literal meaning of Genesis 2 and its order of events that you ignore.

If you want to be technical it only links Joseph directly to Adam biologically. Either way Adam is presented as a real historical person.

Not if the genealogy was what people supposed. Your other problem is it portrays Adam and the Son of God the same way it portrays Joseph as the son of Eli and eli as the son of Matthat. That can't be literal.

<snip>You would also need to show where the genealogy goes from supposed to not supposed. You mean people did not suppose Jesus was the grandson of Eli and the great grandson of Matthat? The problem is, Luke only gives one verb in the whole genealogy "being the son of Joseph the son of Eli..." and Luke attaches the 'supposed' to that single verb. He does not restart after the supposition 'being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who really was the son of Eli, son of Matthat...'. </snip>The whole genealogy is what people supposed Jesus genealogy was.

Is this what you believe? Are you saying believe the genealogy is falsified?What about Matthews genealogy, what about all the OT genealogies that go back to Adam.

It is Luke who tells us the genealogy was supposed. Matthew does not say his genealogy was supposed and only goes back as far as Abraham. And aren't we told to avoid genealogies 1Tim 1:4 & Titus 3:9?

Is there anything in the NT references to Genesis that demand the earlier parts are literal?

Is there anything in the NT references to creation that demands it not be literal? No.

So, No.

So you agree...

Hold on, how do you make the jump from NT interpretation of Genesis to the author's intention?

...that it is possible that the creation account was intended by the author to be understood literally?

Possible but unlikely. Are you talking about a single author or two different authors and possibly an editor? If it is a single author then I doubt he wrote two contradictory accounts. Two authors not knowing about the other's work might have written two contradictory accounts, but the editor could hardly have taken them both literally. Two authors with the second knowing the first's work could not have taken the first account literally if he gives a contradictory version. You also have the problem of reading your modern understanding of literal history into a very different context and oral tradition. But even if the author(s) thought their work was literal, these account of creation are revelations from God, revelations from God are frequently symbolic and prophets do not always understand the nature of their prophecy.

I am pretty sure the author of Joshua thought his description of the miracle of the sun standing still was literal. Doesn't mean we should take it literally. There is more evidence in Genesis and the way Genesis is interpreted throughout the rest of scripture to support its figurative interpretation too.

When do the NASB, ESV and BHS say animals and birds were created?

How can you even ask this question? You don't even believe that animals and birds were supernaturally "created", don't you believe they evolved?

Yes, but it is your interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent. Just because I don't take Genesis 2 literally doesn't mean I cannot read the plain meaning of the text and see what it says.

 

[shernren]

This is a direct quote from a very respected Hebrew lexicon:

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999). 503-04.

In light of the distinctions made in Gen 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn [kind] may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22 (four times), 29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus.

However, Lev 11:4 “the falcon after its kind,” and 11:16 “the hawk after its kind,” refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise...the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (genus?).

God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical [macro] evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

With all due respect to the linguists, they don't seem to know their biology. Locusts and grasshoppers aren't just from different genera; locusts develop from grasshoppers as they swarm.

The Hebrew word mîn is multifaceted - as is with many words in many languages. This is why there is some confusion of how to define it. I specifically used the term "created kind" in my comment to associate my definition with the mîn of Genesis. Original pre-fall pre-flood created kind.

Oh, so the way the word "day" is used in the rest of the Bible determines its use in Genesis 1, but the way the word "kind" is used in the rest of the Bible doesn't determine its use in Genesis 1. Totally coherent. Gotcha.

 

[gluadys]

For creationists, like me, the dividing line between micro/macro evolution is not necessarily speciation, but the change of one "kind" to another. An example would be a domestic dog evolving to the point that it no longer can be classified under the family Canidae.

An example that shows again how neo-creationists misunderstand evolution. Because evolution produces a nested hierarchy of descent, it wouldn't matter how much domestic dogs deviated from their present form. They would still be classified under the family Canidae, because that is the family of their ancestors. Descent with modification can't take a species out of its historical roots.

 

[Jig]

An example that shows again how neo-creationists misunderstand evolution. Because evolution produces a nested hierarchy of descent, it wouldn't matter how much domestic dogs deviated from their present form. They would still be classified under the family Canidae, because that is the family of their ancestors. Descent with modification can't take a species out of its historical roots.

You bring up a great point. Would it be safe to say that if God did create original "kinds" of organisms, evolutionary progress could not modify that organism enough to take it out of its historical/original "kind" root?

 

[Jig]

With all due respect to the linguists, they don't seem to know their biology. Locusts and grasshoppers aren't just from different genera; locusts develop from grasshoppers as they swarm.

You do realize that the definition of locusts and grasshoppers is a "best guess" translation of the original language into English. The text may have completely different insects in mind. Either way, I took this from

Grasshoppers vs. Locusts: What Makes a Swarm? | LiveScience

Green grasshoppers and brown locusts are close cousins, both in the grasshopper family. But while grasshoppers hop like mad and can be abundant and pesky, locusts can fly.

Weren't you trying to say that locusts and grasshoppers are one in the same?

Oh, so the way the word "day" is used in the rest of the Bible determines its use in Genesis 1, but the way the word "kind" is used in the rest of the Bible doesn't determine its use in Genesis 1. Totally coherent. Gotcha.

Context determines.

 

[Jig]

Unobserved is still unobserved. I doesn't matter the reason, unless you are looking for excuses to ignore vast fields of science that do not suit you. It did not matter how long astronomers observed the regular pattern of planetary movement, they were unable to observe elliptical movement around the sun or test the effect of gravity (if any) in space. Heliocentrism was accepted on the basis of inference.

My point still stands: The distinction between operational and historical science does not fail simply because some operation events are observed indirectly. And this is what you originally argued for.

In a past post, I made mention that the farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception. This is also still a valid point.

Events in the vast past must be indirectly observed because no recorded direct observation took place. This is not the case with my example within operational science: atomic patterns. Direct observation is impossible, even though the event is occurring in the present. These unobservable events produce direct observable effects, that can be studied concurrently as the events happen. This lessens the potential for distorted perception. Also, a historical event cannot be recreated - it is not repeatable. This is not the case for operational science examples.

Your comment also failed to address one of my biggest concerns with historical science. In historical science, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in natural history. These consequences could be important when naturalist trying to develop an accurate historical science that finds the truth of what actually happened in history. Methodological naturalism might not ignore this possibility but it requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Any science that uses methodological naturalism to gain knowledge of the vast past may not be able to garnish the full truth. Of course this is assuming supernatural events happened in the past.

Do you believe supernatural events happened in the past?

Fossil hominids show a consistent pattern of gradual change from more apelike to human characteristics and larger cranial capacity through time.

Common descent is an abductive and historical inference. The main assumption behind evolutionary trees is that functional genetic similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor.

Where is the evidence this 'kind' barrier exists in the past, that common ancestry can only be trace back so far and no further?

For the most part it is an assumption. Whatever evidence that can be interpreted to demonstrate that this barrier exists is just that - an interpretation. The same goes for your position though.

My main objective has not been to prove creationism. My main objective is to demonstrating the theistic evolution position is just as philosophical as creationism. Creationists and TEs for the most part agree with the observational sciences. It is the assumptive origin sciences that we disagree on.

I have denied the relevance of the distinction, and each time I discussed it you cut out most of my reply and ignored it.

This is what it has boiled down to: I agree with the distinctions, you disagree with them. It has everything to do with our philosophical positions.

I also don't have time to discuss every assertion. I pick and choose the ones I feel are most important for me to answer.

science shows us the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

You're going to hate my answer. But again...historical science assumes this. You may not agree on the distinctions, but I do. If you want to lump all of science into one distinction - I can't stop you.

Your hiding behind 'operational science' is simply an excuse to deny the scientific evidence.

It is you that is hiding behind the scientific assumptions. I make no excuse, I have stated several times now that my position is based on philosophical ideas.

The scientific evidence

You mean the scientific interpretation of the evidence.

for the age of the earth and evolution is much stronger than the evidence supporting heliocentrism

First off, you can't compare these two ideas, they don't contrast. They both use different evidences.

Helicentrism has been disproved by operational science.
The age of the Earth an assumption of origin science.

No, you can't take a historical interpretation of both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Their literal meanings contradict each other, you either have to ignore the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. As we have seen, it is the literal meaning of Genesis 2 and its order of events that you ignore.

In Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb &#8216;formed&#8217; in Genesis 2:19 to mean &#8216;had formed&#8217; or &#8216;having formed&#8217;. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as the NIV does), &#8216;Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field &#8230;&#8217;, the apparent literal disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

Even if you disagree with this explanation. It still proves that there are explanations that allow Gen. 1 and 2 to be read literally without contradiction.

It is Luke who tells us the genealogy was supposed. Matthew does not say his genealogy was supposed and only goes back as far as Abraham. And aren't we told to avoid genealogies 1Tim 1:4 & Titus 3:9?

We are not told to avoid genealogies in general. NT genealogies are an important aspect of confirming Jesus' Davidic linage. Specific types of "endless" genealogies associated with myths and false teachings are discussed here in 1 Timothy and Titus.

Do you really associate Luke's genealogy with this kind of rebuttal given by Paul?

Hold on, how do you make the jump from NT interpretation of Genesis to the author's intention?

It appears I made a mistake and forgot the original question.

I am pretty sure the author of Joshua thought his description of the miracle of the sun standing still was literal. Doesn't mean we should take it literally.

The event happened exactly how it was stated. The sun literally stopped in the sky. The text does not get into how or what is occurring for this to happen.

 

[Preecher]

Yes, because not adhering to an approved curriculum in education is illegal in the United States.

Are you actually saying that children should be taken from parents who believe in the literal six day creation account?

 

[Assyrian]

This is a direct quote from a very respected Hebrew lexicon:

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,(Chicago: Moody Press, 1999). 503-04.

Some have argued that when God created min, he thereby fixed the 'species.' This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word min with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists.

In light of the distinctions made in Gen 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn [kind] may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22 (four times), 29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus.

However, Lev 11:4 &#8220;the falcon after its kind,&#8221; and 11:16 &#8220;the hawk after its kind,&#8221; refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise...the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (genus?).

God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical [macro] evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.
​

The Hebrew word mîn is multifaceted - as is with many words in many languages. This is why there is some confusion of how to define it. I specifically used the term "created kind" in my comment to associate my definition with the mîn of Genesis. Original pre-fall pre-flood created kind.

I have add the paragraph before your quotation (in blue) to help understand the argument the TWOT is addressing. It is actually a very old creationist doctrine called fixity of species, which said the kinds God created are species and that these do not change. Clearly this raises problems when science show new species being formed. TWOT's answer is that creationists got it wrong and kind is much broader than species. The description agrees with what shernren was saying about kind.

 

[Jig]

I have add the paragraph before your quotation (in blue) to help understand the argument the TWOT is addressing. It is actually a very old creationist doctrine called fixity of species, which said the kinds God created are species and that these do not change. Clearly this raises problems when science show new species being formed. TWOT's answer is that creationists got it wrong and kind is much broader than species. The description agrees with what shernren was saying about kind.

I don't know what your trying to say about my position here. I agree with the TWOT. I do not believe in the fixity of species. I have never stated that "kind" always equals species. My arguments have portrayed "kinds" as something that can not be formally identified with any one specific evolutionary taxonomic level.

 

[Papias]

Jig Wrote:

A created kind may be identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and even the "family".

For creationists, like me, the dividing line between micro/macro evolution is not necessarily speciation, but the change of one "kind" to another.

*Sigh* Why do creationists continue to ignore the Bible?

We see time and again that creationists have no clue what they mean by "kind", and simply stretch the term to mean whatever they need it to mean in any discussion. When saying that evolution is impossible, they say "kind" is lower, closer to species (it wasn't that long ago that they claimed it was species). Then, as more evidence showing evolution shows up, they expand it as needed. Even to the point of phyla (which is like saying a fish evolving into a human isn't a change, because that's just a vertebrate staying a vertebrate!


In addition to the point Shenren made, Lev. makes it clear that Kind is not a higher taxon, but a lower one, near or even below species.

Lev. 19:
" 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
" 'If a man sleeps with .......

Obviously, "kinds" is low enough that they still can be mated, or this law would be silly. Since the Bible states that "kind" is below the level where animals can be mated, it can't be far from "species".

You know, we do have plenty of examples of animals evolving beyond the point of being able to mate. For instance, worms, mosquitos, drosophila, monkeyflowers, and so on.

The sad thing is that this point in Leviticus is brought up again and again, and creationists will often say "oh, ok" and drop the conversation, only to come to another time or place where it seems it won't be remembered, and again claim that kind is way above species. It looks like they hope that people are forgetting about Lev. Don't they care about all of scripture?

Papias.

P. S. Also, if Jig is going to go by Jewish commentary on the Bible, there are Jewish, Rabbinical sources that conclude that the Exodus never happened, and that Moses never existed.

 

[Jig]

*Sigh* Why do creationists continue to ignore the Bible?

It is my opinion that it is you who ignores the Bible.

We see time and again that creationists have no clue what they mean by "kind", and simply stretch the term to mean whatever they need it to mean in any discussion.

Defining "created kind" is difficult. In a sense this mimics the situation with the term "species".

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When saying that evolution is impossible

I do not doubt that evolution occurs. To what extent is another issue all together.

Then, as more evidence showing evolution shows up, they expand it as needed. Even to the point of phyla (which is like saying a fish evolving into a human isn't a change, because that's just a vertebrate staying a vertebrate!

In my previous post, I showed how the word for "kind" is multifaceted and dependent on context. Much like many other simple words - this is no surprise. I have been employing extensions to the term "kind" to provide more depth to its meaning; such as "created kind". I've seen some creationists label this term "Genesis kind".

In addition to the point Shenren made, Lev. makes it clear that Kind is not a higher taxon, but a lower one, near or even below species.

One word: context. As stated above defining the term "kind" without knowing the context brings about a somewhat generic and wide scope of meaning.

Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals. Genesis contains history. Would you compare terms in a legal briefing to a historians account? Most certainly not.

Since the Bible states that "kind" is below the level where animals can be mated, it can't be far from "species".

This may actually be true for some kinds. I agree. But certainly not all. However, I dislike having to define "created kind" with the evolutionary taxonomic levels in mind.

The real problem here is that the taxonomic levels themselves. They were created using completely different assumptions than those creationists apply. It doesn't make any sense to find a definitive spot for kinds within these levels.

You know, we do have plenty of examples of animals evolving beyond the point of being able to mate. For instance, worms, mosquitos, drosophila, monkeyflowers, and so on.

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind.


On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind &#8212; whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other.



Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. Following one of your examples, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species. That is, they were a new biological &#8216;species&#8217;. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new &#8216;species&#8217; was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.

The sad thing is that this point in Leviticus is brought up again and again, and creationists will often say "oh, ok" and drop the conversation, only to come to another time or place where it seems it won't be remembered, and again claim that kind is way above species. It looks like they hope that people are forgetting about Lev. Don't they care about all of scripture?

oh, ok

P. S. Also, if Jig is going to go by Jewish commentary on the Bible, there are Jewish, Rabbinical sources that conclude that the Exodus never happened, and that Moses never existed.

Unorthodox fringe theology.

 

[shernren]

You do realize that the definition of locusts and grasshoppers is a "best guess" translation of the original language into English. The text may have completely different insects in mind. Either way, I took this from

Grasshoppers vs. Locusts: What Makes a Swarm? | LiveScience

Green grasshoppers and brown locusts are close cousins, both in the grasshopper family. But while grasshoppers hop like mad and can be abundant and pesky, locusts can fly.

Weren't you trying to say that locusts and grasshoppers are one in the same?

From Wikipedia:

The grasshopper is an insect of the suborder Caelifera in the order Orthoptera. To distinguish it from bush crickets or katydids, it is sometimes referred to as the short-horned grasshopper. Species that change colour and behaviour at high population densities are called locusts.
​

That is, not all grasshoppers are locusts, but all locusts are grasshoppers. And the text is fairly specific:

Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. (Lev 11:21, ESV)
​

It's hard to see what else these critters could be.

Context determines.

So I could use context to argue that the days of Genesis 1 are not 24-hour days? Cool.

My point still stands: The distinction between operational and historical science does not fail simply because some operation events are observed indirectly. And this is what you originally argued for.

In a past post, I made mention that the farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception. This is also still a valid point.

Events in the vast past must be indirectly observed because no recorded direct observation took place. This is not the case with my example within operational science: atomic patterns. Direct observation is impossible, even though the event is occurring in the present. These unobservable events produce direct observable effects, that can be studied concurrently as the events happen. This lessens the potential for distorted perception. Also, a historical event cannot be recreated - it is not repeatable. This is not the case for operational science examples.

If the atomic scientist's observation is indirect, then how do you know that it is being caused by a present, repeatable event?

After all, you've never seen atoms before, and you can't be bothered to learn why atomic scientists believe their evidence proves the existence of atoms. (Neither can I, sometimes.) They keep churning out data, but they can't photograph an atom, and even if they could photograph an atom they could never prove that their camera doesn't have some flaw in it that makes those images simply imaginary.

Your comment also failed to address one of my biggest concerns with historical science. In historical science, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in natural history. These consequences could be important when naturalist trying to develop an accurate historical science that finds the truth of what actually happened in history. Methodological naturalism might not ignore this possibility but it requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Any science that uses methodological naturalism to gain knowledge of the vast past may not be able to garnish the full truth. Of course this is assuming supernatural events happened in the past.

Do you believe supernatural events happened in the past?

Sure I do, and so does Assyrian no doubt. Thing is, we believe that miracles are given to be seen. When the widow's dead son was resurrected, it wasn't the case that some observers believed he was alive and some believed he was dead; when Jesus healed the blind man on the Sabbath, the Pharisees had to admit that he could see, even though they refused to believe in Jesus the healer. When Jesus fed the five thousand, the bread and the fish did not flicker in and out of existence when they passed from the hands of a firm believer to someone who may have been having doubts about His Messiahship.

Let's say the Bible gave us the coordinates of Sodom and Gomorrah. Wouldn't we expect to find, if we dug deep enough, the remnants of fire and brimstone and a charred city? Here's the problem with your invisible miracles: even though miracles are supernatural, they leave physical remains, which interact naturally with the rest of the natural world. Even you creationists believe that, which is why you try to concoct disciplines like flood geology and baraminology.

So why can't we find any evidence, say, that the whole earth was recently covered with water? It doesn't matter for our purposes that all the water was miraculously supplied: for the water itself was normal water (if you interpret the passages literally, at least), and once it had been miraculously poofed into existence, it would just do all the things normal water does. Like drown people and animals, and float boats, and get dried up by large winds, and recede to the lowest point. And this didn't happen far in the distant past either: it happened, by your reckoning, anywhere from four to five thousand years ago. That's only just over twice as long ago as Jesus' death and resurrection, and you're not about to question that despite the immense uncertainty you accede to historical science. Indeed, according to your views, it was observed by Noah in an account which was passed down to Moses, and so finding out about the Flood today really shouldn't be historical science, it should more be delayed observational science of the kind I can do when I ask my grandmother about World War 2 in Malaysia.

You see, it's not enough for you to prove that science stops working a few million years in the past. The "operational / historical science" argument only comes up when creationists have no more empirical evidence for their particular view. (If evolutionism was abandoned by the scientific community tomorrow, which creationist would still say that evolutionism was an equally valid interpretation of historical science as creationism?)

The problem for creationism is that there is little to no physical evidence for what are, according to them, numerous physically significant miracles occurring under ten thousand years ago. As such, your arguments need to show that science stops working as soon as ten thousand years ago - but if it doesn't work then, then it need not work for when the Bible was being written, or when the Israelites were being exiled, or when Jesus was crucified, or when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door, and we might as well believe that the universe could have been created five minutes ago - because that is an equally valid interpretation of the evidence we have.

The event happened exactly how it was stated. The sun literally stopped in the sky. The text does not get into how or what is occurring for this to happen.

The sun isn't even literally in the sky, for one.

 

[shernren]

One word: context. As stated above defining the term "kind" without knowing the context brings about a somewhat generic and wide scope of meaning.

Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals. Genesis contains history. Would you compare terms in a legal briefing to a historians account? Most certainly not.

The next time I see a lawyer, I shall pay him in Monopoly money, and when he complains I shall ask him if he regrets not being a historian now, and then keep saying "context" over and over again until he gives up on claiming his legal fee. If it works on the Internet, I bet it works in real life too!

 

[gluadys]

You bring up a great point. Would it be safe to say that if God did create original "kinds" of organisms, evolutionary progress could not modify that organism enough to take it out of its historical/original "kind" root?

Exactly! So the real issue here is "How many 'kinds' did God create and how do you know?"

Biology currently distinguishes four "kinds": archea, bacteria, eukarya and viruses. But it doesn't hold that any of these are originally created kinds.

Neo-creationists would probably agree that archea, bacteria and viruses are each a single 'kind' even though bacteria, at least, are just as varied and diverse as eukarya. But they would hold that eukarya is not a single kind, but that many sub-divisions of eukarya are separately created kinds. Yet the biological evidence of a single origin (monophyly) of eukaryotes, is stronger than for bacteria.

 

[Assyrian]

My point still stands: The distinction between operational and historical science does not fail simply because some operation events are observed indirectly. And this is what you originally argued for.

No it is just the relevance of you distinction that fails. Like I said there are many different sciences and many categories you can divide them up in. All you have shown is that historical is a handy category for the sciences creationist don't like, you have not shown that the science you label as 'historical' are any less reliable than any other science.

In a past post, I made mention that the farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception. This is also still a valid point.

If it was a valid point you would have been able to answer my reply.

Events in the vast past must be indirectly observed because no recorded direct observation took place. This is not the case with my example within operational science: atomic patterns. Direct observation is impossible, even though the event is occurring in the present. These unobservable events produce direct observable effects, that can be studied concurrently as the events happen. This lessens the potential for distorted perception. Also, a historical event cannot be recreated - it is not repeatable. This is not the case for operational science examples.

What effect was produced by solar gravity that scientists in the 16th century could study concurrently as observed the orbit of the planets? What effect was produced by the gold leaf experiment that Rutherford could study concurrently with observing alpha particle bounce back? And if there was one, how was it anything more than another indirect observation? How would these concurrent effects be any different from the multiples lines of research comparative physiology, genetics, proteins that back up the fossil record? Why is a repeatable experiment like the gold leaf experiment that simply gives the same results every time you repeat it, more reliable that a comparison of ERVs or pseudo genes in the genomes of chimps an humans, which can also be repeated with the same chimp and human, different chimps and humans, or different species?

Your comment also failed to address one of my biggest concerns with historical science. In historical science, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in natural history. These consequences could be important when naturalist trying to develop an accurate historical science that finds the truth of what actually happened in history. Methodological naturalism might not ignore this possibility but it requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Any science that uses methodological naturalism to gain knowledge of the vast past may not be able to garnish the full truth. Of course this is assuming supernatural events happened in the past.

My comment didn't address it because you didn't ask. But anyway. The bible view of a miracle as I understand it, is that it makes changes in the real world. The bible is of comments like God did this wonder, and you can see the results to this day. That is why Peter and John ran to the tomb, the expected to see evidence if Jesus rose from the dead, or even clearer evidence if he hadn't. Creationists don't just claim God worked miracles science can't explain, they also claim he worked more miracles to clean up all the evidence. That is not the biblical view of miracles. So if God had created separate kinds, the the evidence should life on earth falling into these discrete groups, while science would not be able to explain the gaps, the gaps should be there if life was created as separate kinds, it should not look as if all life descended from a common ancestor and be confirmed by comparative anatomy DNA and the fossil record. If the earth was 6000 years old, then that is the age science should find when it dates the rocks. Creationists should not have to propose that God also slowed down the rate of decay adn it was much faster in the past, with not evidence for this miracle, other tan as an ad hoc explanation for why the evidence does not support a young earth. If the earth was covered with a global flood a few thousand years ago, science should be able to find evidence of it, rather than creationist having to claim God miraculously cleaned up after it too.

Historically in the church, people realised God could work providentially through nature as well as by miraculous interventions, and the way they told them apart, was very simple. If there was a natural explanation, then that is probably how God did it, a natural explanation means there is no evidence of a miracle. Now we are being told to reverse that, to believe in claims of a miracle when there is a perfectly clear natural explanation, just one that contradicts your interpretation of scripture. Of course they also taught that is science contradicts you interpretation of scripture, then the problem is you interpretation not science.

Do you believe supernatural events happened in the past?

Yes.

Common descent is an abductive and historical inference. The main assumption behind evolutionary trees is that functional genetic similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor.

No it is not an assumption, it is a theory that explains the evidence. It only implies common ancestry because there isn't another theory that gives a better explanation, it is not just functional genetic similarities, it is the pattern formed by both genetics and functions falling in a nested hierarchies. It is differences unrelated to function such as variations in the amino acid composition of a protein that do not affect its function but still falling in the nested hierarchy of species we consider from physiology being more closely related also having more similar protein composition. It is not functional genetics following the same pattern, you could construct the phylogenetic tree of the great apes from retroviral insertions, junk left over from virus infections, and get the same pattern as we get from comparative anatomy. The great apes also share a gene which in other mammal produces Vitamin C, but ours is broken. All of us have the same break in the same place. Guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C gene, but for some odd reason that can only be explained by evolution, it is not broken in the same place as the apes. Now given that the gene in the great apes is non functional, broken, it is an ideal place to look for further evidence for evolution, random mutations can build up in the gene without having any further affect on the organism. And if you look at the the changes, who share which single point mutation with whom, it follows the same pattern of common ancestry.

For the most part it is an assumption. Whatever evidence that can be interpreted to demonstrate that this barrier exists is just that - an interpretation. The same goes for your position though.

So if there is no evidence for 'kinds' or for a barrier to common ancestry. I already discussed your claim about creating having the same evidence, but you didn't reply.

My main objective has not been to prove creationism. My main objective is to demonstrating the theistic evolution position is just as philosophical as creationism. Creationists and TEs for the most part agree with the observational sciences. It is the assumptive origin sciences that we disagree on.

The only philosophy I can think of is to follow the evidence, it is based on an assumption the universe is real not illusory, but that is certainly consistent with Christianity. Even that assumption is not foundational to science which only need the universe to be consistent, and could tell if it wasn't.

This is what it has boiled down to: I agree with the distinctions, you disagree with them. It has everything to do with our philosophical positions.

I also don't have time to discuss every assertion. I pick and choose the ones I feel are most important for me to answer.

No you ignore all the problems and simply keep repeating your claim.

You're going to hate my answer. But again...historical science assumes this. You may not agree on the distinctions, but I do. If you want to lump all of science into one distinction - I can't stop you.

Where is the assumption? Why do multiple independent dating methods give the same answers if it is wrong. Science does not assume it, it tests it and follows the evidence.

It is you that is hiding behind the scientific assumptions. I make no excuse, I have stated several times now that my position is based on philosophical ideas.

You mean the scientific interpretation of the evidence.

I mean the evidence fits the theory, without the special pleading, fiddling the figures, relying on other claims there is no evidence for to make the evidence fit, or simply claiming it is how you interpret the evidence without showing how the evidence actually can be interpreted to fit creationism.

First off, you can't compare these two ideas, they don't contrast. They both use different evidences.

Helicentrism has been disproved by operational science.
The age of the Earth an assumption of origin science.

Obviously they use different evidence, all science does, but that doesn't mean you cannot compare them. I just did. All you have been able to do is label the one you believe operational science and the one you don't like historical, but you have not been able to deal with the my comparison of the level of evidence they both had. Heliocentrism had much less evidence and was completely untestable, unlike evolution. Instead of being able to answer this by claiming one was operation and historical, this show your distinction between operation and historical is without any basis. Heliocentrism though operational by you definition was accepted with much less evidence than evolution which is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and unlike evolution was completely untestable.

In Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as the NIV does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent literal disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

If you want context, look at the sentence the verb is in and the sentences around it in the text. Don't go looking in a completely different chapter and changing the meaning of a verb in Genesis 2 simply because it doesn't suit you.

Even if you disagree with this explanation. It still proves that there are explanations that allow Gen. 1 and 2 to be read literally without contradiction.

Only if you change the meaning of Genesis 2 to make it fit Genesis 1.

We are not told to avoid genealogies in general. NT genealogies are an important aspect of confirming Jesus' Davidic linage. Specific types of "endless" genealogies associated with myths and false teachings are discussed here in 1 Timothy and Titus.

Do you really associate Luke's genealogy with this kind of rebuttal given by Paul?

No just with the myths and false teachings of creationism which is endlessly bringing up these genealogies

It appears I made a mistake and forgot the original question.

No problem.

The event happened exactly how it was stated. The sun literally stopped in the sky. The text does not get into how or what is occurring for this to happen.

No you mean the sun appeared to stop in the sky, that is very different from it actually stopping as the text literally says. If the sun was not moving but only appeared to move because of the rotation of the earth, then the sun stopping or rather remaining stopped would not affect the length of the day. If the reason for the length of the day is the earth's rotation, then commanding the sun to stop, is not going to change how long the day lasts. Yet that is how the text literally describes the miracle, Joshua commanded the sun to stop, the sun stood still, and only started moving again after the miracle when it hurried to the place it sets. The literal description of the miracle could only taking place in a geocentric cosmos.

Joshua and the author both assumed the sun went round the earth for Joshua to speak this way commanding the sun to stand still, and for the author to write the description. The text was meant to be taken as a literal description of the sun stopping its motion at Joshua's command and that is how the passage was interpreted until we learned it is actually the earth that moves, and we stopped taking the passage literally. It does tell us of a miracle, but not the way it was literally described.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't know what your trying to say about my position here. I agree with the TWOT. I do not believe in the fixity of species. I have never stated that "kind" always equals species. My arguments have portrayed "kinds" as something that can not be formally identified with any one specific evolutionary taxonomic level.

Basically I am say the TWOT does not address the argument shernren is making but a much older argument based on a mistaken creationist assumption kinds were species.