RE: Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔
November 22, 2016 at 2:46 pm
(This post was last modified: November 22, 2016 at 2:47 pm by The Joker.)
(November 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(November 22, 2016 at 2:26 pm)The Joker Wrote: A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.
Okay, what does 'type' mean in that sentence? Can you relate a 'kind' to any sort of taxonomic labels or is it just its own new definition? I've heard a dozen different definitions of 'kind' from as many theists, so what makes your definition of 'kind' correct?
I always interpret things from the Creationist perspective, so I don't primarily use the evolutionary scale. Kinds also known as Baraminology(from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”). Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)!
Quote:Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(November 22, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Tonus Wrote:(November 22, 2016 at 1:31 pm)The Joker Wrote: “The Creator is clearly seen,” Paul explained to the Romans 1:20.
Yes, but he says that after what he said in Romans 1:11-13: "I long to see you so that I may...come[.]" Are you sure you want to accept evidence for god from such a filthy little douchebag?
It depends on what you mean.
