God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I did answer the question - just as I have done in multiple other posts. I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly than I have already, but I will try. If "eretz" refers to a regional area, and not the entire globe, then only the land IN THAT AREA would have been covered in water. Mt. Everest was not in that area.

If all life not on the Ark were destroyed, then a miracle unmentioned in the Bible would have been required to restore stable ecosystems. This claim is also inconsistent with the evidence God has made available to us.

It is evidence-based opinion. Let's look specifically at a particular case of biogeography - the mammal life on Australia. Virtually all mammals (except those that have been recently introduced) on the continent are marsupials. Why would placental mammals, which are far more numerous on the rest of the planet, be absent from Australia? Did they simply run faster off the ark than the placental mammals, and put up a "do not enter" sign after they arrived? A better explanation, that is consistent with the fossil record and geological record, is that the Australian continent separated from the rest of the land masses on earth millions of years ago and mammalian life developed there differently than the rest of the planet.

You know that a single opinion is insufficient evidence. There are many opinions that the moon landing was a hoax. A vast majority of experts in the field believe differently from what Morris did. If you want to produce evidence, I'll be happy to look at it.

Why do you think you have the only opinion that matters on what is "conservative"?

You say "if eretz" refers to a regional area, but  the word  is not limited to a regional area.   Eretz can also mean earth---In the beginning God created the heavens and he earth.  That means the hole ball of wax. Th Bible doesn't say the "land" was covered, it says the water prevailed up the earth, and the mountains were covered.  Mountains are made of earth, not land.

All of the arguments you present4d, I have address many times over the years and I don't care to to it again. If you believe the flood was local,  not global, that is fine with me.

Love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

19 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

All of the arguments you present4d, I have address many times over the years and I don't care to to it again. If you believe the flood was local,  not global, that is fine with me.

Alright, if you don't want to hear my response, then you can certainly feel free to stop asking.

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It is a very modern revision of scripture, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.

Creationists revised it to read "reproduce after their kind", which the Bible does not.   And no, evolutionary theory does not say what you imagine.   Genetics has shown that all life on Earth is of one kind.

Let it be God's way, instead of yours.

 

 

Wrong.  The SDA use the KJB exclusive, and they have not revised it to read reproduced after their kind.  All  of the good translations use "after their  kind."  That's what it says and no revision is needed.

Evolution says exactly what I said, not what I imagined.  Genetics does no say all  life on  earth is one kind, because obviously it is not. Genetics says, "after their kind." God created  7 different classes of  life plants, birds, sea life,cattle, creeping things beasts and man.  These are the same classes we see today.

God's way is what the Bible says, not what Darwin says

Love, peace, joy

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Wrong.  The SDA use the KJB exclusive, and they have not revised it to read reproduced after their kind. 

They claim it says that living things reproduce after their kind.  

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Evolution says exactly what I said, not what I imagined.

Sorry, you're just wrong.  Evolution doesn't use "kinds" at all.  "Kinds" is a religous idea, not a scientific term.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Genetics does no say all  life on  earth is one kind, because obviously it is not.

Genetics shows that we are all closely related.  The vast array of genes are common in all living things.    And we know this shows common descent, because we can check that with the genes of organisms of known descent.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

God created  7 different classes of  life plants, birds, sea life,cattle, creeping things beasts and man.  These are the same classes we see today.

That was an attempt to convert the allegory of creation into a scientific taxonomy. But it won't work.   The Bible, for example classifies bats as birds, and whales as fish.  It does so because it uses a functional classification, not a taxonomic one.  You're trying to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended.

God's way is what God says, not what creationists say.

Edited November 20, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I     do not have a new interpretation, it is the one I always use.

I read your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive.   Let it be God's way, not your way.

 

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

"They claim it says that living things reproduce after their kind. "

They do not.  They say exactly what the Bible says. "after their kind.

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

That's right and evolution says at some point they will reproduce not after their kind.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

"Sorry, you're just wrong.  Evolution doesn't use "kinds" at all.  "Kinds" is a religous idea, not a scientific term."

Whatdo you think kinds means?

"Genetics shows that we are all closely related.  The vast array of genes are common in all living things.    And we know this shows common descent, because we can check that with the genes of organisms of known descent."

You don't even know what the basic function of a gene is.  What genes did the first life form have?

"That was an attempt to convert the allegory of creation into a scientific taxonomy. But it won't work.   The Bible, for example classifies bats as birds, and whales as fish.  It does so because it uses a functional classification, not a taxonomic one.  You're trying to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended."

You need to read more carefully.  Genesis does no mention bats or whales.  The Genesis classification is not a functional classification.  I am using it literally. 

"God's way is what God says, not what creationists say."

Tell me what "after their kind" means.  You say God's way is what God says.  Let's see if you understand what God's ssys.

 

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Whatdo you think kinds means?

kind²

[ kahynd ]

 

---

noun

a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.

a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.

Archaic.

1. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
2. manner; form.

Obsolete. gender; sex.

 

Various stuff.  But not taxonomy.  

 

20 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You don't even know what the basic function of a gene is. 

We know precisely what the basic function of a gene is.  It's information that codes for protein synthesis.   I thought you knew.

21 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What genes did the first life form have?

Most likely, it didn't even have DNA; RNA seems to have preceded DNA in that function.  Some viruses still use RNA that way.

(Barbarian notes that the Bible classifies bats as birds)

23 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You need to read more carefully.  Genesis does no mention bats or whales.

But the Bible does, which is what I told you.   You need to read more carefully.

Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

¹³ “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,^[a] the vulture, the black vulture, ¹⁴ the red kite, any kind of black kite, ¹⁵ any kind of raven, ¹⁶ the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, ¹⁷ the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, ¹⁸ the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, ¹⁹ the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Genesis says that each creature was created according to its kind.   But it doesn't say whether the air, earth, and water just magically poofed them into place, or if God used nature to produce them as it does today.    The YE creationist revision of "reproduce according to kind" is man's attempt to revise God's word to make it more acceptable to them.

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

52 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

kind²

[ kahynd ]

 

---

noun

a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.

a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.

Archaic.

1. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
2. manner; form.

Obsolete. gender; sex."

 

How is that different than "species?

 

"Various stuff.  But not taxonomy. "

 

A group of  ---of the same nature  or character is taxonomy.

 

"We know precisely what the basic function of a gene is.  It's information that codes for protein synthesis.   I thought you knew."

I know you didn't know the basic function of genes is.  The basic function of genes is to provide the traits the parents will pass on to its offspring.  that is what makes evolution impossible.The absurd guess evolution makes about the first life form(a single celled something) did not have the gene for bones.  Therefore it could never have a kid with bones.

"Most likely, it didn't even have DNA; RNA seems to have preceded DNA in that function.  Some viruses still use RNA that way."

That is a possibly  true, but it is irrelevant.  A life form with no gene for bones, can't have a kid with bones.  Your bigger problem is trying o explain what the first life form was and what it became,

(Barbarian notes that the Bible classifies bats as birds)

"But the Bible does, which is what I told you.   You need to read more carefully."

That's why I limited my remsrk to Genesis.

"Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

¹³ “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,^[a] the vulture, the black vulture, ¹⁴ the red kite, any kind of black kite, ¹⁵ any kind of raven, ¹⁶ the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, ¹⁷ the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, ¹⁸ the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, ¹⁹ the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

That verse does not say a bat is a bird.  It is simply listing flying kinds that Jews should not eat.

"Genesis says that each creature was created according to its kind. "

It says no such thing.  It says each kind was created and its offspring would

 " But it doesn't say whether the air, earth, and water just magically poofed them into place, or if God used nature to produce them as it does today."

"created" means something is created ex nihlo, out of nothing,  Nature does not do that today.

  "  The YE creationist revision of "reproduce according to kind" is man's attempt to revise God's word to make it more acceptable to them."

I don't know where you keep getting "reproduced" according to kind.  No good translation has that  wording.  All the good translation have "after their kind" because that is what the mss have.  No creationist has revised any of the Bible.  We don't need to revise what it literally says.  "After their kind" reinforces creationism and refutes evolution.

FYI, I am not a YE creationists. The Bible doesn't give the age of the earth, so it is irrelevant.  The main important thing tthe universe, is how did it get here.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I don't know where you keep getting "reproduced" according to kind.  No good translation has that  wording.

I just showed you.   When the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century, they revised scripture, arguing that it said that organisms reproduce according to kind.

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

That's right and evolution says at some point they will reproduce not after their kind.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

Of course, "kind" does not have any relationship to taxonomy.    As you learned, the Bible classifies bats as birds, because it used functional definitions, not biological ones.

 

 

[omega2xx]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"I just showed you.   When the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century, they revised scripture, arguing that it said that organisms reproduce according to kind."

You didn't show me anything.  You made a statement for which you offered no evidence and I showed you why your statement was wrong.

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

That's right and evolution says at some point they will reproduce not after their kind.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

"Of course, "kind" does not have any relationship to taxonomy. "

Yes it does and I told you why. 

"As you learned, the Bible classifies bats as birds, because it used functional definitions, not biological ones."

Not true.  The verse you quoted only listed some life forms with wings that were considered unclean to eat.  It does not say a bat is a bird

Even if what you said was true, it still does not support evolution. You must show how an A can become a B and you can't do that, because it is genetically impossible. You are just grasping at straws because you are willing to accept by faith alone, whatever  some evolutionist  preaches.

Love. peace, joy,