What "kind" is it?

[JohnR7]

3rd April 2003 at 01:21 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #98 While we're living on this planet, we will never know the "absolute" truth no matter how many times we read the Bible or study the world.

So you admit then that you do not know the truth? If you do not know the truth, then you must be in error.

 

[Arikay]

John, you are very entertaining

So John, do you claim to know the absolute truth. Do you claim to be a god? Or do you not know the truth and are in error?

Hehe, its a funny question isnt it.

 

[JohnR7]

3rd April 2003 at 06:22 AM Arikay said this in Post #102

John, you are very entertaining

So John, do you claim to know the absolute truth. Do you claim to be a god? Or do you not know the truth and are in error? 

We know the truth because we have the Holy Spirit of God in us. The evidence is the healings and the miracles. People are rescued, saved, healed and delivered from all forms of bondage.

All true born again believers have the Holy Spirit of Grace at work in them. That is what makes them a christian. Getting splashed with water, shaking a preachers hand and learning a doctorine does not make a person a christian.

John 8:32  And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

John 14:12  "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.

If we do the same works that Jesus did, then believe that we are in the truth, for the sake of the works. But if we do not do the same works that Jesus did, then don't believe. Jesus said that true believers would do greater works than He did.

http://www.ernestangley.org/Testimonies/testimonies.htm

 

[Gracchus]

<CENTER>On <I>2nd April 2003 at 06:46 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #94:&nbsp; </I>What they are being swayed from, most likely is not true Christianity.

To which I replied, "Well, of course not. Anyone who doesn't share your views can't be a TRUE Christian."


JohnR7, you replied,

3rd April 2003 at 03:09 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #100

The only view you need to worry about is God's view. There really is a God and He is the one that has the power to save and the power to destroy, not me. We are just here to be a light to the world and to blow a trumpet of warning.

So, are you saying that your view is not God's view?

I guess, then, you are just blowing your own horn.&nbsp;</CENTER>

 

[Arikay]

Ive read all about Mr. Angley.

John, remember, No One knows if they are right or not except for god, you must take it on faith that you are right. Claiming that you are right, about god, over everyone else sounds like arogance and I believe thats a sin (right?).

Besides, you yourself have said its all about plecebo healing, and that when lucky that only works 1/3rd of the time.

(Sorry Lady for OT your thread again)

 

[euphoric]

So after eleven pages, have we managed to obtain a lucid, informed answer from a creationist to any of the following questions:

What is the scientific definition of the term "kind?"
By what process can we determine the "kind" of any given animal or plant?
To what immutable "kind" do each of the previously posted organisms belong and how did you reach that conclusion?

Can we get a straight answer to any of these or will this thread die with them unanswered once again?

-brett

 

[Pete Harcoff]

3rd April 2003 at 06:24 PM euphoric said this in Post #106

So after eleven pages, have we managed to obtain a lucid, informed answer from a creationist to any of the following questions:

On a certain other forum a person brought up some creationist literature demonstrating a real attempt to lay down the rules as far as "kinds" go (definition and so forth). I'm a little surprised, given the number of creationists on this forum, that no one has brought it up here. Don't creationists read their own literature?

 

[Arikay]

It will die. (well, I hope not, I hope Lady really consideres the idea to turn it into some sort of article, to show how diverse the animal population really is, and that there are more things out there than the generic answer of dog and cat)

However, I dont think creationists really understand what a kind is. All they know is that a kind is whatever evolutions cant show yet (or whatever they *think* evolution cant show yet).

 

[Vinegar]

Three points:

Creationists generally seem to have a problem with a definition that doesn't bend back on itself - you know, the tautological KIND.

There's also a bit of a problem in the descriptions in various parts of the OT of snakes, that implies they slither and nothing else besides, and birds, ditto regarding flight. The authors seemingly had never observed the KIND of snake that glides, or the KIND of bird that can't fly. No problem say the smarter apologists - they're the bits of the OT we're allowed not to take literally. Pity they don't pay the same regard to all the other evidence that's about.

JohnR7. Still at it I see. Don't you get it yet? Truth is a personal matter, accessible only to the believer. Science deals in facts that explain concrete reality and that are accessible to all. There's simply no way for an innocent skeptical bystander to select between your "truth" and that of an equally pious person who believes something different. Your real enemy is your own incapacity to deal with reality, not the unbelief, or different belief, of others.