Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[iouae]

I don't believe anyone can define what a "biblical kind" is.

Usual definitions go something like this...

A Biblical kind includes all those who can breed with each other, or came from those who can breed with each other.

So, if one kind turns into another, Christians will just say they were the same kind to begin with.
Evolutionists will say "See, we have a new kind".

I don't think God ever intended it to be a LAW that things bring forth according to their kind, as many assume.

There is a difference between a PRINCIPLE and a LAW. It is a PRINCIPLE that most organisms produce after their kind, but if, after isolation, they become a separate "kind" that's fine with God. I am thinking of chiclids or those thousands of "kinds" of fish found in African lakes.

To give another example of a PRINCIPLE vs a LAW. David said he had never seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging for bread. Ps 37:25. This is a PRINCIPLE not a law. It is entirely possible that a Christian ends up begging bread. Look at the beggar Lazarus in Luke's parable.

Both Christians and evolutionists have been suckered into demanding a strict definition of a Biblical "kind".

 

[Stripe]

Exactly the opposite is the case. You agree with my understanding.

I don't agree with you; you agree with me — seriously? That's your argument?

except that you define "kind" in a way to make this understanding meaningless.

Nope.

A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

Nothing meaningless about it.

When I say that God created the different types of animals, and they reproduced to produce more of the same animals, I mean exactly what I said. Tigers have birth to tigers. Lions gave birth to lions. Leopards gave birth to leopards.

And lions and tigers share a common ancestor population.

You say "they reproduced to produce more of the same animals". You explain that this means that a generic cat-kind animal produced lions, tigers, and leopards. Those are not the "same animals".

You sneaked "leopard" in.

Lions and tigers are undoubtedly of the same kind.

What you gain from this non-Biblical theory is a way of explaining how all the animal types fit on Noah's ark. You also claim to have an alternate mechanism for the change in animals over time, however, the mechanism of the Theory of Evolution isn't the challenge to Creationism. The challenge is the very occurrence of evolution over time, especially a long time. You are saying that animals (and plants, for that matter) did change over time- just the mechanism is different.

And as luck would have it, the evidence is on my side.

So your position is non-Biblical.

Nope. You agreed with my assessment, remember?

In order to make any sense scientifically, you need to show that until about 5,000 years ago there was only one cat kind, one dog kind, one cow kind etc.

Nope.

To be scientific, my ideas just need to be open to scrutiny. Fulfilling your demands has nothing to do with the scientific validity of an idea.

You can't seriously say things like, "you hate the discussion focusing on the evidence," when you yourself are famous for ignoring questions and making assertions without any corroborating evidence. Plus your pathetic and heavily edited scientific studies that you post here from time to time. Do you think it's honest to quote mine?

Darwinists hate discussing evidence. They will rant about anything to avoid it.

I don't believe anyone can define what a "biblical kind" is.

Reality hates you.

 

[Stripe]

Christians and evolutionists have been suckered into demanding a strict definition of a Biblical "kind".

Words have meaning. Without meaning, why would we use a word?

The definition of kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

The definition of species is vague and malleable. It is next to useless in a scientific context.

 

[iouae]

Words have meaning. Without meaning, why would we use a word?

The definition of kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

The definition of species is vague and malleable. It is next to useless in a scientific context.

Stripe, you know that there is no scripture in the Bible giving your definition of kind as being all organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

Evolutionists who believe in common ancestry would then just say we all came from one kind.

What I am suggesting is a whole new paradigm shift. Instead of arguing over what God meant by "let each bring forth after their kind", meaning let wolves bring forth wolves (and possibly dogs and coyotes), lets see this as a PRINCIPLE, not a definition.

The real question which would get us somewhere is looking at what in DNA keeps species apart, and how far DNA can be pushed to create new "kinds".

I personally have argued what a kind is in the past, but feel now that this is ASSUMING that God is making some kind of promise, instead of just stating the obvious. If we could cross humans with some animal and create a fertile chimera such as a centaur, this would ruin some folks faith. I would not be shaken by one hair, because I do not believe God is forbidding a change in kind, or is saying its impossible for genetic engineering to produce a new "kind".

 

[chair]

...

And lions and tigers share a common ancestor population.

...

You are an "evolutionist" . You just call it something else.

 

[chair]

... If physical death existed before first Adam sinned, then physical death was part of what God called very good...

It is rather obvious from the text that physical death existed before the "sin".
When God tells Adam that they will die if they eat of the tree- how did Adam know what "death" is? I suppose you will say that Adam knew this was "spiritual death"- but there is no basis for that in the Old Testament, just in Christian literature that was written 1,000+ years later.

Death in the OT is physical death.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, you know that there is no scripture in the Bible giving your definition of kind as being all organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

And yet the definition fits with scripture, is useful and sensible.

So your objection is meaningless.

Evolutionists who believe in common ancestry would then just say we all came from one kind.

That's right. :up:

What I am suggesting is a whole new paradigm shift. Instead of arguing over what God meant by "let each bring forth after their kind", meaning let wolves bring forth wolves (and possibly dogs and coyotes), lets see this as a PRINCIPLE, not a definition.

That would mean you reject the plain meaning of the Bible, allowing birds to come from dinosaurs.

The real question which would get us somewhere is looking at what in DNA keeps species apart, and how far DNA can be pushed to create new "kinds".

We simply do not have the understanding to tackle that question.

I personally have argued what a kind is in the past, but feel now that this is ASSUMING that God is making some kind of promise, instead of just stating the obvious.

The "obvious" is that the created kinds only ever produce more like themselves.

If we could cross humans with some animal and create a fertile chimera such as a centaur, this would ruin some folks faith. I would not be shaken by one hair, because I do not believe God is forbidding a change in kind, or is saying its impossible for genetic engineering to produce a new "kind".

Arguments from consequence aren't scary at all. They're irrational and get ignored.

You are an "evolutionist" . You just call it something else.

Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended by means of random mutation and natural selection from a universal common ancestor. This never happened.

Evolutionists like to call everything evolution and everyone an evolutionist, so they equivocate on their theory and redefine it as "change."

We do not reject change. We reject evolution.

 

[iouae]

And yet the definition fits with scripture, is useful and sensible.

So your objection is meaningless.

That's right. :up:

That would mean you reject the plain meaning of the Bible, allowing birds to come from dinosaurs.

We simply do not have the understanding to tackle that question.

The "obvious" is that the created kinds only ever produce more like themselves.

Arguments from consequence aren't scary at all. They're irrational and get ignored.

... We reject evolution.

I reject evolution too, as an old earth creationist.

Arguing about "kinds" is pointless, but please don't let me stop you doing it.

 

[Stripe]

Arguing about "kinds" is pointless.

When you believe a word can mean anything, I guess you would say that. However, to be a rational part of this discussion, you need to adopt the terminology as it has been presented, or else tell us why the definition should not apply and offer a better one.

Either way, your suggestion that we not define our terms is a waste of time.

 

[iouae]

When you believe a word can mean anything, I guess you would say that. However, to be a rational part of this discussion, you need to adopt the terminology as it has been presented, or else tell us why the definition should not apply and offer a better one.

Either way, your suggestion that we not define our terms is a waste of time.

Try to find where God defines the term "kind". I have read the Book and have not found the definition, but look forward to you pointing me to the verse I missed.

 

[chair]

When you believe a word can mean anything, I guess you would say that. However, to be a rational part of this discussion, you need to adopt the terminology as it has been presented, or else tell us why the definition should not apply and offer a better one.

Stripe, you are the one who has invented a new meaning to the word "kinds". You have offered no Biblical proof that your definition is correct- you like it since it "solves" some problems you have with scientific issues. But it is a made-up idea.

 

[Stripe]

Try to find where God defines the term "kind". I have read the Book and have not found the definition, but look forward to you pointing me to the verse I missed.

I created the definition using His word as a foundation.

If you don't like my definition, feel free to offer some suggestions on how it could be better.

However, your suggestion that we should not define our terms is an invitation to nonsense.

Stripe, you are the one who has invented a new meaning to the word "kinds". You have offered no Biblical proof that your definition is correct- you like it since it "solves" some problems you have with scientific issues. But it is a made-up idea.

But you're not going to offer any specifics on how anything I have said is wrong. You're just going to emote.

 

[chair]

I created the definition using His word as a foundation.

If you don't like my definition, feel free to offer some suggestions on how it could be better.

However, your suggestion that we should not define our terms is an invitation to nonsense.
But you're not going to offer any specifics on how anything I have said is wrong. You're just going to emote.

I'll repeat: The whole message of the Creation story is that God created everything. You have changed it to God "sort of" created everything. But so be it. I have yet seen you concede a point, so I don't expect you to now.

Let's try this on the scientific side. According to your Theory of Kinds (TOK), the fossil record, and even the historical record should show that there were very few different species of animals around just a few thousand years ago. Is that the case? Even the Bible speaks of an olive tree in the time of Noah- not some generic fruit-kind tree.

Can you suggest a time-line? When did lions and tigers diverge from cat-kind? Can you show a time in history where they weren't different?

 

[Stripe]

You have changed it to God "sort of" created everything.

Nope.

God created everything. It just did not look like you might imagine. That things can change does not mean God did not create everything. That would be silly. You think things have changed. Does that mean you "sort of" think God created everything. :AMR:

Let's try this on the scientific side. According to your Theory of Kinds (TOK), the fossil record, and even the historical record should show that there were very few different species of animals around just a few thousand years ago. Is that the case?

Now you're talking!

From fossils laid down during the flood, there should probably only be the greater cat model — the forebears of today's lions and tigers.

Even the Bible speaks of an olive tree in the time of Noah- not some generic fruit-kind tree.

Nobody said there was a "generic fruit-kind tree."

 

[iouae]

I created the definition using His word as a foundation.

If you don't like my definition, feel free to offer some suggestions on how it could be better.

However, your suggestion that we should not define our terms is an invitation to nonsense.

KIND
a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"
synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre;

 

[Stripe]

KIND
a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"
synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre;

Oh. So now you do think it's worthwhile defining kind. lain:

I don't believe anyone can define what a "biblical kind" is.

 

[iouae]

Oh. So now you do think it's worthwhile defining kind. lain:

I only did it to oblige you, because you asked so nicely. My definition is as detailed as I feel the Bible intended. It was also the first one I found on Google.

 

[Stripe]

I only did it to oblige you, because you asked so nicely. My definition is as detailed as I feel the Bible intended. It was also the first one I found on Google.

I think we'll stick with what we've got. :up:

 

[6days]

It is rather obvious from the text that physical death existed before the "sin".*

If so... the curse becomes meaningless as does the death and resurrection of Christ. There would have been no need of Jesus going to the cross, if physical death was not the result of sin.*

When God tells Adam that they will die if they eat of the tree- how did Adam know what "death" is?

Your question is silly. How did Adam know anything after God created Him? God didn't create a blank slate. Adam was made in the image of God as an intelligent being who communicated with his Maker. *

 

[chair]

If so... the curse becomes meaningless as does the death and resurrection of Christ. There would have been no need of Jesus going to the cross, if physical death was not the result of sin.*

Exactly my point. These Christian doctrines are projected onto a text that doesn't support them.

Your question is silly. How did Adam know anything after God created Him? God didn't create a blank slate. Adam was made in the image of God as an intelligent being who communicated with his Maker. *

So Adam didn't see animals die? And when God said "you'll die" Adam knew that it meant "spiritual death"? And when other people in the Old Testament use the word for "death"- it suddenly meant "physical death", while the word meant "spiritual death" earlier?