Tristen

If you say so. Ummm - yep. I just said so. In fact, your response was to me saying so. So when you said, "Remember, the reason this is done is because the ark will not hold all the current species. So they create arbitrary groups of animals as sort of "master" kinds which then speciate in a couple thousand years to what we see today." what you really meant was - this is how they simply, rationally answer the question as to how representatives of all "kinds" of land creatures could fit on the Ark? In no way were you trying to undermine confidence in their arguments by insinuating something disingenuous underlying their arguments. Basically, they had a question, they examined the facts and came up with a plausible answer that fits both the facts and their understanding of the Bible. That is "the reason" creationists started using the Biblical "kinds" argument. How dare they presume to generate answers to their questions - I guess? I don't see this as an issue at all. Speciation can occur in a generation or two - especially when there would be rapid expansion into varied, uninhabited territories. The sheer variety of environmental pressures each group would be exposed to could drive speciation very quickly - especially in isolated and/or bottlenecked and/or founder groups. You'll have to expand on this before I can offer a comment.

Firstly - kudos for finding a definition of "species" containing the word "kind". Unlike the second definition which defines "species" in terms of "living things", first definition is not referring to biological "species", nor referencing the Biblical concept of "kinds". When creationists use the word "kinds", they are referring to separate, independently-created groups of living creatures. When everyone, including creationists, use the term "species", we are all generally referring to a group with the capacity to interbreed (or, as your definition says, the ability to "produce fertile offspring"). These are very different concepts. It is therefore unhelpful and confusing to treat them as "the same thing". I think using precise terminology will serve you better. Not really. There is a general definition of "species" that is broadly agreed-upon. The problem is, when we dig a little deeper, we find that nature - as created to glorify God - almost never fits neatly into human-defined categories. When we refer specifically to the Biblical use of "kind", we simply mean a created set of ancestors, and all of their descendants. That could include sub-groups of descendants that are so different from each other, they no longer interbreed with each other (i.e. multiple extant "species" representing a single "kind"). Humans would be an example of 'one-"kind", one-"species"' (Homo sapiens). Although, different "species" designations have been given to groups that were arguably, equally human (e.g. Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus etc.) According to creationism, these are all descendants of Adam/Noah. And given the evidence that Neanderthals interbred with so-called "modern" humans, they were evidently (by general definition) the same "species" as us. My statement this refers to- My attempted clarification- One kind of animal only produces the same kind of animal. I think this exposes the problem with trying to apply the concept of "kinds" to the secular narrative. By definition, no descendant of any creature can ever belong to a different "kind" than its ancestors - even if it was 100% genetically different to the ancestor. Again - I know what you mean. But I don't think you can use "kind" to make that point. You're essentially making the micro vs macro evolution argument (which terminology I also despise - as it falsely indicates that one is just the same as the other, but only on a different scale). I'd say that's wise - though we all rely somewhat on imagination to interpret the facts. Facts are rationally objective. But the facts themselves can not be fit into any historical narrative without the subjective process of interpretation.

The evidence that is required to characterize a "kind" can be nebulous, but the definition itself is very straight forward. It is very clear, and everyone knows what we mean when we say "kind". "Species" however - much less so. There is no overarching "bird kind" in the creationist position. There are considered to be many different "kinds" of birds. That is to say, God created several types of birds - each now reflected in diverse groups of descendants (including multiple "species" per kind). The logic fallacy you apply here is called an Appeal to Motive. You are presuming to know he motives of those presenting an opposing position - as a strategy to dismiss what they have to say. Motives aside, all that matters is that the provided argument is logically consistent with both the evidence, and the Biblical narrative. Rational rebuttals deal with arguments, regardless of the motives of those providing the arguments. It would furthermore be highly Anachronistic to apply the relatively modern concept of "species" to the ancient Biblical narrative. The Bible uses "kinds" consistently - to refer to the created groups. Only a single-pair representative of each created group was permitted on the Ark - regardless of how many "species" of each "kind" might have existed at the time. The fact that this argument makes the Ark narrative more plausible adds credence to the Ark narrative. Yet your Appeal to Motive here illogically insinuates the opposite.

I think it unwise to try and "associate" any level of the Linnaean classification system with Biblical "kinds". They are different classification systems that group creatures according to different criteria - and are therefore not designed to be compatible. The terms can therefore not be used interchangeably - without things becoming messy. The creationist position is that differing groups of creatures can be related within a created "kind" - back to their created ancestors. Whether or not that "kind" now consists of different "species", as determined by a different classification system, is irrelevant to the creationist argument - and a way for the opposing side to muddy the conversation. I think I know what you mean, but what you stated here would not be logically possible - because any offspring of a "kind" is necessarily part of that "kind". Both sides of the debate recognize that there is a close relationships between certain groups of creatures. Creationism teaches that these groups are related to each other, independent to other groups. The secular story claims all groups are ultimately related to each other. Relationships within these recognized groups is generally better-evidenced. But putative relationships between the groups requires a lot more imagination. Since "evidence" just means facts that have been interpreted to support a position, I would presumptively advise avoiding "zero evidence" claims. Asians readily, and commonly, interbreed with Caucasians. They would therefore be considered, by any "definition", to be the same "species".

"Species" is too malleable, and ambiguous, a term to be useful in conversations such as this. There is no all-inclusive, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "species". Some consider "species" to only be those creatures that are observed to interbreed in nature. Others consider a population to be "species" if they can theoretically interbreed (whether they actually do interbreed or not), and still others consider mere molecular compatibility to be the marker of "species". Therefore, they can call their "finches" a new "species" if they want. It doesn't actually speak to how they are related (or even if they are related) to other living organisms - beyond what is already recognized by all sides of the debate - i.e. "finches" are related to other "finches". As was suggested, two related "finches" from diverse backgrounds can interbreed to produce a unique subtype of what? ... You guessed it - "finches". All that means is that "finches" are still reproducing according to their own "kinds". Thus, the notable Biblical category is "kinds" - meaning those creatures that are related to each other, being descended from creatures that God created independently from each other (some of which were subsequently bottlenecked through Noah's Ark). A Biblical "kind" can therefore be represented by multiple subjectively designated "species". The terminology of "species" is therefore far too arbitrary to have any consequence for the debate. The fact that one subjectively designated "species" can change into another subjectively designated "species", within their boarder "kind", is of no logical significance. That is, since both sides of the debate agree that this happens, the fact that it happens doesn't support one side over the other.

This is certainly true for many topics. However, with regards to the origins debate, I think it is more the case that most people have only ever been exposed to one side of the argument (or at-least, overwhelmingly been exposed to only one side) - giving many the false impression that only one side of the argument is valid. The onus of "proof" is thus incorrectly placed on anyone daring to hold a different position. As such, this self-superior posture becomes their default position - alongside an insinuated obligation to accept this position, or else be subjected (justly - in their minds) to the false, unsupported accusation of intellectual compromise.

To be fair, we all suffer from "confirmation bias" to some degree. My problem is with those promoting the secular narrative that refuse to consider the influence of such biases - but rather think they have simply followed the evidence to its natural conclusion. Such people therefore (and ironically) assume that everyone who disagrees with them is suffering some form of intellectual compromise.

I don't think this is the argument being presented. The point, at least from my perspective, is that there is such a strong ideological bias towards the secular narrative that some "scientists who study this stuff" are compelled to present false evidence in favor of their position, and other "scientists who study this stuff" have been operating under the same confirmation bias - by which they neglected to do their due diligence in properly scrutinizing the evidence that agrees with their existing ideology. The examples provided by @Starise are famous because they have been so heavily promoted throughout society - to advance the secular narrative. Many of these still are promoted in uninformed (and/or disingenuous) circles. As such, much of the historical, ideological confidence in the secular narrative can be attributed to these false evidences. Given the common story-arc, that everyone who disagrees with the secular narrative is, in some sense, scientifically ignorant, it is reasonable to remind people that the "scientists who study this stuff" should not be trusted, but rather heavily scrutinized (in accordance with the tenets of Critical Reasoning).

Hey Teddyv, I think the bigger "problem", and the main implication of the Piltdown man hoax, is that "the scientists who study this stuff" didn't realize "there was a problem" for 40 years - despite the fact that most of the evidence used to discredit the hoax was available to these "scientists" from the time of discovery. This demonstrates that the "the scientists who study this stuff" were operating under the influence of a confirmation bias - which had them accept this evidence without the requisite due diligence - because it agreed with their worldview and narrative. This, in turn, demonstrates methodologically that facts are not simply followed to their natural conclusion (as is commonly, erroneously claimed), but rather interpreted according to the interpreter's worldview and presuppositions. Such implications are important when it comes to giving objective consideration of opposing positions. Hi Marathoner, These are largely semantic issues. The original definition of "ape" was a non-human, higher primate. Going by the secular description of the shared ancestor between humans and higher primates, the candidate would certainly qualify as an "ape". Since no-one is really characterizing the position as claiming humans evolved from modern "apes", this is an empty non-issue. This is inaccurate. The "fact" is that humans share more in common (genetically and morphologically) with apes than we do with any other creatures. However, the necessary association of 'similarity' with 'relatedness' is a matter of worldview; namely, the presupposition that all life is "related" - back to a common ancestor. That is, the interpretation that 'more similar' means 'more related' is founded in bias - presupposing the conclusion that all life is "related", and subsequently bringing that conclusion to the interpretation process.

Hey Farouk, The main "subject" in this thread is hermeneutics - specifically, the proper way to interpret Genesis 1:2. But to answer your question, I did do some geology courses as an undergraduate. I've also looked informally into specific elements of geology and geophysics when I've found topics that interested me.

Yes - you re-repeated the same thing once "again" - and "again", lacking any engagement with my provided argument. When one refuses to engage with the opposing argument, and instead keeps repeating their own position over-and-over "again", One is utilizing Circular reasoning: i.e. 'If anyone disagrees with you, their argument cannot be correct, and is therefore dismissed as automatically wrong - and therefore does not require thoughtful consideration - because it disagrees with you and is therefore wrong - and is therefore not worthy of consideration - because, in disagreeing with you, it must be wrong - and you will therefore not even recognize the existence of such an argument - etc., etc..' And now, to your Circular argument, you add a Tu Quoque logic fallacy - because you also, apparently, lack originality. I have neither attempted, nor claimed, to have "proven otherwise". This is something you would know if you engaged with my provided argument. You would also know this to be untrue if you had considered my provided arguments. But as you are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of your own arguments (at-least on this issue), your position has to rest on this false conclusion. Lol. That ole chestnut. Apparently, you are incapable of considering my provided arguments about this as well. Your default, when you have no answer, is to simply ignore the question and continue repeating yourself, over-and-over "again". No, I've repeated the whole issue of the meaning of "tohu wabohu" in all 3 passages. Your argument isn't reasonable or rational at all. As used in Gen 1:2, since it means the same thing as in the other 2 passages, we KNOW that the earth BECAME tohu wabohu. Obviously. To quote myself, "Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.".

Lol. So, if I don't arbitrarily disregard all arguments that disagree with you (as you have done), then, "there is nothing more to discuss". That is some twisted, ironic logic. Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever. I provided a path of reasoning that easily reconciled these two conditions being described by a single phrase. Your repeated claim that such an argument cannot exist, does not address my provided argument - it simply dismisses/ignores it. Once again, there is no indication here that you have considered (or even seen) my argument whatsoever. You are effectively sticking your thumbs in your ears and crying, "Lalalalalala it's "impossible" lalalalala "There is NO WAY" lalalalal "irrational" lalalalala ... " See above. Yep - you are determined to ignore my position, and I am determined to not repeat my position until I have some indication that your brain permits you to recognize (and consider) the existence of my argument. Considered and refuted. There is no "supposede contradiction" and since you admit you can't see the contradiction, there is no reason for more discussion. You have not "refuted" anything. Your mind is trapped. You appear incapable of seeing past your own claim that disagreement with you is "impossible" - i.e. to consider the possibility that you might be wrong; that there might be other ways to look at the issue. According to you, it's a "contradiction". And if anyone claims otherwise, their arguments are unworthy of any time or consideration. Until you can unlock yourself from this intractable mindset, "more discussion" is unlikely to yield any fruit.

Rather, you have claimed so. Yes - I claim to have provided an answer to your challenge a handful of times in this thread, and even more times in a different thread on the same topic. For whatever reason, rather than tell me where my answer went wrong, you are acting like my answer doesn't exist - and simply repeating your supposed challenge. Agreed. This is, a) because you are determined to treat my arguments like they don't exist, and b) I have come to a point where I am determined to not repeat my arguments - at least until there is some acknowledgement from you that you have the capacity to recognize the existence my arguments. I just did. Again. This is not you addressing my argument. This is simply you repeating your position. I'm not ridiculing you. An Appeal to Ridicule is a logic fallacy whereby, instead of logically interacting with an opposing argument, one simply characterizes the opposing argument as ridiculous, "laughable" etc. And until you are prepared to consider my provided explanation - where I reconcile your claim of a supposed contradiction - The discussion can not move forward in any meaningful way.

I think God includes difficult passages to test one's sincerity (whether supposed believers or non-believers). Examples include; - Forcing a woman to marry her rapist for 30 pieces of silver or - It being permissible to beat a slave if the slave survives for two days before dying or - Letting Israelites take sex slaves from the children of conquered peoples or - Jesus encouraging believers to self-amputate The Bible seems to say all of these - but actually says none of these. But one has to look a little deeper to find the true meanings. By contrast, those who are not sincere in their search for God will happily accept the apparent meanings at face value - and use these misunderstandings as excuses to walk away from God; feeding into their own anti-God confirmation biases. They are pretenders - wasting time and Christian resources. I think the inclusion of these is intentional - to get such people out of the way of those who might be sincerely open to receiving the Gospel.

And yet, I have done so. You telling me, "it is absurd" is not a rational rebuttal of anything I've said. There is no indication in this statement that you have considered my argument. You are simply repeating your position. I look forward to your argument(s) articulating how my stated position is outside of the realm of logical possibility. An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) does not constitute a rational response to my stated position. Rather, the contrary. I have "explained" this very thing. You have elected to skip over my explanation - and act as though it doesn't exist - and just repeated your same challenge as though I hadn't already rebutted your claim. You mean - do I think there was an early stage of creation where the Earth was unordered and empty? - yes. I'm not blinded at all. I actually see through them. Big difference. Well, let me know when you decide to provide a rational rebuttal of my supposedly transparent arguments. Until such a time, you are merely engaging in empty posturing. This is just the second time you've given an answer. I have given a direct answer a handful of times in this thread, and more in a previous thread. I have no indication from your responses that your brain has even registered these answers. I look forward to you addressing the supposedly "irrational" aspect of my argument - demonstrating how it allegedly defies logic. You are free to your opinion. I have my "opinion". I also have the pattern of your engagement in the discussion prior to you realizing that your arguments were based on bad information. Read it again. Or you could show me where I said the thing you are claiming I said. Then we can compare what I actually said, to what you are claiming I said. Well - whenever you get a chance to go back and examine my response to this challenge, we will be able to ascertain whether or not my position falls outside of the bounds of logic. Until then, your above statement amounts to, '"How can there even be a rational conversation" when I still dare to disagree with you?'. You have thus far failed to demonstrate any flaw of logic in my position (nor even attempted to do so). That's clearly what you communicated. Yup. Only when your brain permits you to register my response to this claim, will we be able to properly scrutinize the rationality of my position.

I'm not sure what you think this means. Many birds have scales on their feet. Some birds also have feathers on their feet. This study investigates the molecular pathways that promote some cells differentiating into scales, but sometimes promotes these same undifferentiated cells into becoming feathers. The researchers were able to manipulate the undifferentiated cells that would normally become scales, to become feathers instead. The genes for scales are still completely distinct from the genes for feathers. This study simply revealed the switch that determines which gene is ultimately expressed for each cell.

Who is this post addressed to? It would be dishonest to characterize anything I have written as a "want to do sinful things" or to say I "enjoy getting your sinful lifestyle on". Such dishonestly would be a "sin". Did you not realize that prior to posting lies? If so, best not do it again - now you know. If you persist on being in league with my "accuser" (Rev 12:10), and not my Savior, then you'll have to take that up with God.

Beyond the "facts", "Substance" can also refer to whatever else is contained in an argument. That includes any "facts", but also the application of logic and reasoning. Case-in-point. I have several times now answered your challenge to explain how 'tohu vabohu' can apply to both the early creation conditions, and the post war conditions. You have, 1) ignored my explanation (except for the one case where you mocked my argument with a simple "Lol"), then 2) repeated your claim that it can't be explained. How can we have a conversation about that if you are so thoroughly blinded to my arguments? How many times must I repeat my answer before your brain allows you to properly consider it? As far as I am concerned, it is now on-you to go back and provide a rational rebuttal to my presented arguments. It is not on-me to continue to repeat myself until it gets through. Yes, my point. Lol. It was "my point" first. It is necessary to focus on "technique" - because allowing irrational "technique" to pass invalidates the whole conversation - and therefore wastes the time of everyone involved. My case-in-point (above) demonstrates this. How can we have a debate on an issue if you ignore my responses, and continue to repeat the same, rebutted, claims? If the debate is allowed to depart from rational convention (or "technique"), then nothing is achieved. It's as useful as sticking out your tongue and thinking yourself clever. I have done. I await your response to my provided argument. Both issues are "real" issues. And I have engaged on both issues. In our conversation(s), there was no suggestion that one "issue" was more important than the other until you realized your argument for the first was based on bad information. There is no objective reason to consider one "issue" to be more "real" than the other. It's purely a matter of you not wanting to talk about one any more - since you realized your argument for that one "issue" has been rendered much weaker than you initially thought. I have no idea what you mean here. You claimed I "don't want to discuss substance". That is a lie - and a mischaracterization of what I said. I am more-than happy to discuss "substance" - but only in the context of a fair-minded, rational conversation. Otherwise, we are wasting each other's time. Presumptuous claims about "substance" mean nothing outside the bounds of logic. Ask yourself, 'Why would a sincere person be so thoroughly determined to avoid holding their arguments accountable to the standard of logic?'. I'm here saying, 'Let's be fair-minded, and reasonable, and rational', and you're complaining that I'm being "overly focused on technique". You yourself admitted that. No, not obvious. Maybe preview before posting, in order to ensure what you mean is just what you have typed. This is a lie - and subsequently, an attempt to posture based on a lie. Actually, my focus has been on your lack of fair-mindedness, and your inability to take any rational account for your stated position. As you claimed earlier, my current "focus" in this conversation is about argument "technique". And so here we are again - a post ending with Innuendo (fallacy) based on a lie. To quote my previous post, "It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.".

A Christian is someone who has sincerely surrendered ownership of their life to Jesus (i.e. confesses Jesus as their Lord) as a faith response to His Gospel. That Gospel includes His sacrifice for our sins, and resurrection - i.e. the fact that He permanently conquered death for us. There were many people named "Jesus" (Yeshua) in ancient Israel, and many who were "crucified" by Romans, but only one "Jesus" was permanently resurrected from the dead - paving the way for us into eternal life with God.

"Science" is a subset of "logic". "Science" works because it follows logical tenets; namely, those associated with Critical Reasoning. If all parties in a disagreement both understand and apply "logic" to the debate, then such discussions have a very high chance of an amicable resolution. By contrast, when one or more of the conversationalists decides to breach the rules of logic (for example, by insinuating something personal about their opponent which is not relevant to the topic being discussed), then the probability of an amicable outcome reduces significantly.

I can't speak to the intent of others. The Bible tells me the following: 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; I'd rather test and refine the quality of my arguments before Christians first. I want to know firstly if I'm wrong, and secondly if there is a better argument to be made (for both my benefit, and the benefit of those I'm speaking with). That is because the people involved depart from the conventions of basic logic. At its core, that is an active choice to move the conversation away from the topic being discussed. Lol. For example, the departure from logic when, instead of dealing with what the opponent has actually said, one tries to insinuate a nefarious motivation on their opponent.

Presumably, the reason we had debates in "school" was to teach us that there is a proper way to reason through a disagreement. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Why "debate" if we have no interest in "truth"? When I engage in discussion with someone I disagree with, I assume we are both trying to find the "truth" - by presenting our arguments for consideration by the opposing perspective. I have zero interest in trying to win some non-existent trophy - simply because I was able to out-clever an opponent by whatever means necessary. Such a discussion is a massive waste of everyone's time. Moreso, as Christians, whose primary goal in "debate" should be to seek and establish God's "truth", we (of all people) should be able to have a disagreement without forsaking the conventions of rational and mannerly conversation. The fleshly instinct to 'need to be right' can (and too often does) get in the way of appropriate disagreement conduct.

I disagree. Quite often people I agree with will make their point in an obstinate, unreasonable or irrational manner. I've yet to see this convince anyone of anything or have any positive outcome. Being right in a debate is a waste of time if one is right, but in the wrong way. Most commonly, such conversations stall, or worse, descend into vindictive antagonism. In a debate context, where both parties presumably have an interest in finding the truth, how a point is argued is at-least as important being right. Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with". Again, I think this is disingenuous. I happily discussed "substance" - until you decided to employ improper and technically irrational argument strategies. At that point, the conversation became about how you were arguing your case - since there was little rational substance in your arguments for me to respond to. It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me. For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

You are fluffing around the edges of a conversation using ambiguous, religious terminology. This is why I earlier asked you, "to be more specific about what it means to be "willingly and knowingly living in sin"." You did not respond. Here, I would ask you what you mean when you say, "FORSAKE their sin"? Do you mean to make a decision to turn from sin and follow after the Spirit, or are you advocating the hardline position that, if a Christian ever sins after knowing the action to be sin, they have lost their salvation? If you mean the latter, then we have all lost our salvation - including you - and the sacrifice of Jesus was a waste. Again, "Knowingly living in sin" is a vague phrase. In some instances, I would agree with you, but in many instances using the same phraseology, I would disagree. I am happy for you if you have lived a life that has been so free from the entanglements between flesh and sin, that you don't understand that some (most) sins require a process to outwardly overcome them. If all you've ever had to do to be free from sin is be given knowledge of that sin, then I am glad for you. The downside of such a life is that you lack enough life experience to understand what it means to be in the struggle against sin. Your perspective is limited, and therefore comes across as judgmental and condemning. Those sincerely in the fight against sin do not need another "accuser" (Revelation 12:10), they need the grace, love and mercy found at the cross. You have Decontextualized this verse - and thus failed to comprehend its true intent. Hebrews 10:26 is not talking about any "sin" in general. There is nothing in the context about general sins of the flesh. This verse is speaking to the specific "sin" of reverting back to the system of animal sacrifices required under Jewish Law - and thereby rejecting the only sacrifice that can wash our sins away. That is the context (topic and purpose) of Hebrews 10. Paul expresses a similar idea in his letter to the Galatians: Galatians 2:17-19 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. More specifically, "because" they were "trusting" in their own efforts to not sin according to the standard of Law, rather than being freely perfected by the grace of Christ.

Sometimes the topic is less important than the manner in which the topic is being argued. How can someone learn to argue rationally if no-one ever holds them to account for arguing improperly.