|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
NoBody Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the "toe"? | |||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
paulk writes: The whole idea of "information" being conserved is a standard creationist argument This does not take away from it being conserved in the original text.
paulk writes: It is also not something I would expect to occur to an Ancient Hebrew. Call me ignorant, but I am not sure where you are going with this.
paulk writes: So the definition itself contains evidence that it is based on creationist thinking rather than a straightfoward translation of the Bible. It is really not just a definition, but more of a reason why "kind" can extend too speciation from the original species. ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Look I've shown good reason to suppsoe that the "definition" is form creationist belief rather than the Hebrew language. What evidence do you have to the contrary ?
Because the question of this topic is whether the Bible contradicts evolution - not whether cretionists are against evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Observation: The bible claims to be the begining of all things according to the creation account, and ...
The phrase is malformed and nonsensical.
as such I believe that also alot of evolutionists are agnostic, ...
Being malformed and nonsensical, it has no relevance to the existence of agnostic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, or atheist evolutionists.
... I believe these are called thiestic evolutionist.
This lack of relevance should not be construed as license to further butcher the language. An evolutionist who is an agnostic is, by definition, a person who acknowledges the fact of evolution, presumably adheres to one of the theories about evolution, but is undecided about God(s) and/or is of the opinion that the existence of God(s) is unknowable. To call such a person "a theistic evolutionist" is simply confused.
Recent debates of the creation account show that the creation account could be literal, and has no contridiction.
I presume the accounts to be intended as literal descriptions of creation. These accounts contradict our current scientific understanding.
If you take the creation account literal you will see that evolution is allowed from that point.
The observation is entirely worthless. Genesis proclaims the creation of all winged lifeforms prior to the creation all land-based crawling lifeforms. It is clearly ignorant of the evolution of wings. What the language can be twisted to allow is irrelevant.
So you can see that creation according to the Bible does allow the theory of evolution or does it?
How did birds evolve?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
paulk writes: Look I've shown good reason to suppsoe that the "definition" is form creationist belief rather than the Hebrew language. Yes you have shown good reason, but the reason is built around a assertion, you dont like those as I have pointed out, I dont like those too much eather, so, if you are going to accuse "strongs" work for changing the definition of "KIND" to fit the "toe" then you better have evidence rather then just mere assertions.
paulk writes: What evidence do you have to the contrary ? I dont need evidence because I trust his works, you are the one who made the assertion so you be the one to back it up.
paulk writes: Because the question of this topic is whether the Bible contradicts evolution - not whether cretionists are against evolution. Correct. Note: if you look at the definition in the first post, or at the links provided throughout the thread, you will see that their is a "++++" dividing the actual definition from a reason as to why it is ok for the word "kind" to be used and also allow evolution. It is nothing more then a explanation below the defintion. Very simple. ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
I will skip the first few bits of garbage and move to the importent stuff as your criticism is a waste of time, and comes from a sophomoric opinion.
ConsequentAtheist writes: I presume the accounts to be intended as literal descriptions of creation. These accounts contradict our current scientific understanding. No.
ConsequentAtheist writes: The observation is entirely worthless. Genesis proclaims the creation of all winged lifeforms prior to the creation all land-based crawling lifeforms. It is clearly ignorant of the evolution of wings. What the language can be twisted to allow is irrelevant. Genesis claims to have created every fowl of the air, yes, but it does not say that these fowls could not evolve or change.
ConsquentAtheist writes: How did birds evolve? The waters brought them forth. This means that they came forth out of the waters. ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
quote:No. Genesis claims to have created every fowl of the air, yes, but it does not say that these fowls could not evolve or change.
Nor does it say that the Marlins could not win the World Series. In fact, there is much that Genesis does not say, none of which validates what it does say.
quote:The waters brought them forth. This means that they came forth out of the waters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
Do you claim that current scientific understanding is that fowl evolved before land-based insects? No.
Nor does it say that the Marlins could not win the World Series. In fact, there is much that Genesis does not say, none of which validates what it does say. You must also recognise these values, dont try to make Genesis say things that it does not. Just because Genesis "uses" the words "after its kind" does not mean that it removes the idea of evolution.
Do you claim that birds evolved prior to land-based insects? No. For now, I will accept the default and say that the Bible, even if the idea of evolution is allowed, that the way evolution would have accrued from a biblical standpoint, is different then the TOE. So Yes, The Bible contradicts the TOE, sorry for the misunderstanding. ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
And how do you know that the entirity of the definition comes fron Strongs ? The definition you provided has been called into question - and evidence has been provided to call it into doubt. So the ball is in your court. Support the definition. Or you are the one relying on assertions.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Just because Genesis "uses" the words "after its kind" does not mean that it removes the idea of evolution.
This is your strawman. not mine. It is also a silly diversion. That "after its kind" does not preclude evolution simply demonstrates that the language was primitive and imprecise. It does not suggest that the Bible embraced the mechanism of evolution. In fact, the Biblical account stands in contradiction with accepted science.
So Yes, The Bible contradicts the TOE, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, your problem was evidently not one of misunderstanding but one of ignorance. You're actually not very good at this stuff.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024