Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God wasn't finshed... He continued in verses 24 & 25.
No. That would be magic, like in the bible storyMacroevolution would be like a fish turning into a bird spontaneously and laying eggs that give birth to mammals and so on and so forth.
"
Again, how does 'and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind' not cover the water part? And He said every winged fowl after his kind. I don't understand your confusion here.Except that's only for 'creatures' and 'beasts' of the Earth. Nothing about extensions for whales, 'water kinds' and 'winged fowl'.
Again, how does 'and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind' not cover the water part?
And He said every winged fowl after his kind. I don't understand your confusion here.
Well, I don't think His purpose here was to give everything taxonomy classification.I never said it didn't. But notice how it says nothing else about what it includes. Are turtles, animals that are at home in both the sea and on land, kinds of the water or are they not? Are otters a kind of the water or a kind of the land? Are hippos? Are seals?
Because, as I said before, it explains nothing. 'Winged fowl' refers to virtually any bird, so did the ostrich come from the water? Did the emu? The dodo? The cassowary? The kiwi?
Anything that tries to explain everything explains nothing. And that is the problem with Kind as a definition. You want it to explain everything but you can't use it to explain anything.
Well, I don't think His purpose here was to give everything taxonomy classification.
I didn't say anything about His job, I just don't think it was His purpose there. We can do anything we want, but its not God we do dirty.So it's not God's job to give humans taxonomy, instead letting us do that, but by letting us do that, somehow we're doing God dirty.
That's really what I get from your comments.
I didn't say anything about His job, I just don't think it was His purpose there. We can do anything we want, but its not God we do dirty.
How can you expect to debate in a Creation & Evolution Forum and not recognize 'belief' as being part of the conversation? And, you're not the only one.
You seem to treat the Bible as if it is God himself, even though His own creation says very differently to a book
I believe it's His inspired word to us, yes. I don't try to make it a science book, I just don't like to see it discredited in the name of science.Some have "belief" in this debate, some have knowledge. In reality there is no debate. There are only corrections. You should have a rough idea of what is and what is not evidence by now. Do you think that you can find any scientific evidence for your beliefs?
I would say that the only ones that are discrediting the Bible are those that insist that Genesis be read at all literally. It can still be made to work as allegory and morality tales.I believe it's His inspired word to us, yes. I don't try to make it a science book, I just don't like to see it discredited in the name of science.
Nope.That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21
No band is involved.The problem with changing species (to something else), is that you need an equal partnering between the sexes of a given species to produce the young.
Without the equal partnering, you cannot syncopate the young (with the genetics of the parents).
Syncopating the young with multiple histories, on either side of the parents, creates a choice, but not one they can recognise (syncopatedly - in the sense of a rhythm).
No you don't need that.The problem with changing species (to something else), is that you need an equal partnering between the sexes of a given species to produce the young.
Without the equal partnering, you cannot syncopate the young (with the genetics of the parents).
Syncopating the young with multiple histories, on either side of the parents, creates a choice, but not one they can recognise (syncopatedly - in the sense of a rhythm).
[...]
A change in species is a long term classification. Unless it's a hybrid of two separate species, a child is never s different species to its parents.
Evolution is a long term process over populations over multiple generations.
It is not only a member of a specific species, it retains a rhythm that is unique to that species.
Evolution is not a singular possession, so "an evolution" doesn't make sense.You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?
The standard is "designed" or above, not half measures until enough.
This doesn't seem to make any sense.
What is a rhythm in the context of a species?
Evolution is not a singular possession, so "an evolution" doesn't make sense.
It's just a very gradual process that isn't particularly obvious or relevant across individuals over one family.
A rhythm is a pattern of instinct or essence, in principle.
But you are not answering the question:You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?