Moving the goal posts again with your artificial man made classification system? You don't get to define for God what constitutes a created kind.
Upvote
0
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.
Since you have been repeatedly not bothering to define "kind" in taxonomy, I'm going to say that "dog" Canis lupus familiaris is a kind. "Kind" is therefore synonymous with subspecies. We have already shown numerous examples of development at that level, so we have observed evolution at the level of "kind".
Was there anything else?
Moving the goal posts again with your artificial man made classification system?
You don't get to define for God what constitutes a created kind.
Plants may not have souls, but they are living things and therefore capable of dying. Ergo, there must have been death before the Fall.mathetes123 said:Plants are not moral creatures with souls.
God allowed the eating of meat after the flood:
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Incariol: "Kinds" probably means species if we base it on this passage:
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.
This suggests two "kinds" of animals an capable of interbreeding but probably shouldn't. Different species, horses and donkeys for example, can interbreed but their offspring are rare and sterile. Not very useful from a genetic point of view.
Sorry about butting in.
The idea that God used the millions (or billions) of years in a process of the development of earth and life in this world is both unbiblical and impossible. Here are many of the reasons why:
(1) God inspired Moses to write of an instantaneous creation of both heaven AND earth. The earth was created at the same time as the rest of the universe.
"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." vs 1 as compared to Psalm 33:6-9.
(2) Each day of creation was assigned both a 'morning' & an 'evening'. This is done six times. The TE objection that this is not literal because the sun was not created until the fourth day is illegitimate. Why? Because God provided light on earth by what was indicated in vs 3. Whatever that light was provided the natural time divisions that was eventually assigned to the sun on the 4th day.
If the above point is somehow incorrect then what meaning does the 'morning and the evening were the first day...second day...third day', etc. have as it relates to millions or billions of yrs? Answer: none. There can be no relation, even poetically. Therefore the 'evening and the morning were the....day" is to be taken literally.
(3) the natural divisions of time are given by God in the first chapter: vs 14.
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
signs = constellations that can provide the exact date and time depending on ones location in viewing the position of the stars.
seasons = spring, summer, fall, winter which God said would continue indefinitely in Gen. 8:22. Those are natural time divisions marked by the change in weather since then until now. It's still a legitimate operation of nature.
days: the circuit of the sun on ancient sundials in approx. 24 hrs still stands as a 'day' until this period of history. The fact that the word 'day' (Hebrew 'yom') sometimes refers to longer period of times does not affect the necessity of a one 24 hr day in Genesis, as we shall continue to see.
years: The Hebrew year of 360 days per year and one 'leap month' was observed and later the now recognized 365 1/4 days occur in one orbit of the earth around the sun...again observed from ancient times until now.
God's Word is final on this point and not human opinion to the contrary. The fact is that history bears up the fact that ancient man used those natural divisions to establish the measurement of the passing of time...unto this very day.
(4) the literal six days of creation are referred to in three places, one we have already covered: Genesis one. The others are in Exodus 20:11 & 31:17. That makes three direct references to the six day creation of the world by Almighty God. Did anyone in Moses time believe the world evolved? Let the compromising theistic evolutionists name him/her.
(5) The chronologies of Genesis 5, I Chronicles 1, and Luke 3 give exactly the same names of the antediluvian forefathers which gives us excellent reason to respect the ages mentioned in Gen. 5
The Chronologies compared
Genesis: I Chronicles: Luke:
Adam Adam Adam
Seth Sheth Seth
Enos Enosh Enos
Cainan Kenan Cainan
Mahalaleel Mahalaleel Maleleel
Jared Jared Jared
Enoch Henoch Enoch
Methuselah Methuselah Mathusala
Lamech Lamech Lamech
Noah Noah Noe
Shem Shem Sem
Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the writers of three different books of the Bible about the people who were the earliest inhabitants of our world if they were not real, literal, historical people who did exactly what scripture tells us they did?
(6) There isn't a single passage of the New Testament that mentions the creation week, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, or his family members, or even Abraham, Lot, and his wife that places in question the literal historical events and occurrences of their lives and acts. Yet the TE's do so with most of them.
(7) The entrance of sin and the subsequent ruin of our world and the human race in particular is mentioned in Genesis 3 and it is treated as a literal, historical matter in Romans 5:12
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Not only so but it is clear that this ruin of death in the world began with Adam and continued throughout history:
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,..." vs. 14.
The theistic evolution position must deny that sin began literally with the fall of man in rebellion to God in the garden of Eden in order to maintain the concept of death for millions of years of evolution. But even if that were true, none of those who defend such an idea have any clue as to when sin acutally began...or when death actually orginated. Some are so far removed from the truth they don't even connect death with man's sin in the first place, nor do they think such a connection is necessary. But that being so they have no idea where physical death originated...or why.
Finally, the theistic evolution position (which is neither biblical nor scientific) is therefore refuted and there are even more reasons I have not posted here. The theistic evolution position is a shame and disgrace to the Christian world and a tool of Satan to lead weak-minded believers into unbelief about God's creation.
Pure gold
- You provide Biblical scripture but not actual evidence.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Take it and frame it, brother.
They will never get it until judgment day.
- You provide Biblical scripture but not actual evidence. If we disproved evolution everything else we know - such germ theory, geographic evidence and genetic evidence - would fall apart too.
- The Bible frequently uses allegories, poems and metaphores...
OK, you reject the man made phylogenetic classification system of species, genus, family, and think God's classification is better than any man made one, which is fair enough, the problem here is you are assuming God's classification is simply a better phylogenetic classification, in fact the best phylogentic classification, but if you reject man made classification why think God's classification is a phylogenetic classification at all?God created all the animals according to their kind. I did not invent the word. Species, on the other hand, is an artificial man made classification system which does not necessarily correspond with God's created kinds.
I wonder why Creationist opt for canidae and include foxes and jackals, and not the next classification up caniforma when you can throw in badgers, bears and extinct bear dogs.1. You are moving the goalposts again. First it was "an example of macroevolution", then "change in kind", now it is specifically canids? You really are desperate.Kirkwhisper said:Of the family canadae. Find a dog that will produce a non-dog of any type over any time frame you choose and under any natural circumstances.'
2. It is spelled "Canidae".
3. Canids /= dogs.
4. And this isn't particularly difficult. The evolution of primeval canids into subsequent clades. Do you understand nested cladistics?
Where is the definition of created kinds?I didn't personally make it up. Read Genesis one. God defines the created kinds:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
1)
2) The Bible says he was the first man.
2) Surprisingly it doesn't. It merely says that He created man and later placed him in the Garden of Eden.
You are quite right mathetes, Notedstrangeperson missed it because he was just thinking of Genesis. The problem is Paul goes on to describe Jesus as the second man 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Kind of suggests Paul might not have been speaking very literally here, it certainly means you cannot claim Adam had to be the first man ever from this passage unless you also say Jesus was the second man ever.2) 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Since you have been repeatedly not bothering to define "kind" in taxonomy, I'm going to say that "dog" Canis lupus familiaris is a kind. "Kind" is therefore synonymous with subspecies. We have already shown numerous examples of development at that level, so we have observed evolution at the level of "kind".
Was there anything else?
If you taught biology why do you keep trying to argue against evolution by attacking ideas evolution doesn't teach? It isn't that dogs will ever be anything other than dogs, it is that they are also canis and their ancestors were wolves, but dogs will still always be canis as well as dogs. But they have ancestors further back too whom they share with foxes and jackals. Dogs and foxes and jackals will always be canidea too. Canideae will never be anything other than canidae. But dogs foxes and jackals are caniforma too and will always be caniforma as will seals and bears and badgers. The caniforma are carnivora too and will always be carnivora, but the cats are carnivora too.I've defined it more than once. Try looking...just like I did.
The fact is that canis Lupis will never be anything other than Canidae.
Here is just one genetic reason why:
But if you wish to prove this wrong then just go find a scientist that has caused ANY type of dog to become a non-dog. Just one will do.
But I will tell you now that you won't be any more successful doing that then you would in doing what these folks attempted to do...over 50,000 generations:
Can you find anything that was reproduced genetically that is not classifiably, or is not identifiably a fly?
This is Mendelian genetics. More importantly, "After his kind' according to scripture still stands.
Toss Darwinian evolution. It is worthless theory.
My mistake.Assyrian said:You are quite right mathetes, Notedstrangeperson missed it because he was just thinking of Genesis.
Yes, this would fit in with the interpretation that Adam was first human to receive a soul ... and possibly the human to commit sin?Assyrian said:The problem is Paul goes on to describe Jesus as the second man 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Kind of suggests Paul might not have been speaking very literally here, it certainly means you cannot claim Adam had to be the first man ever from this passage unless you also say Jesus was the second man ever.
You mean anyone willing to blindly accept what you say and never challenge you? I doubt it. We're not your "students".Kirkwhisper said:Anyone else? I won't give him 2 seconds.
Possibly, I lean more toward Adam being an apocalyptic figure symbolising the whole human race. Christ is not only the beginning of the new humanity, the new humanity is summed up 'in Christ' we the church are the body of Christ.Yes, this would fit in with the interpretation that Adam was first human to receive a soul ... and possibly the human to commit sin?
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?