Theistic Evolution

[Sparks]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

So when are we going to see that testable definition of "kind?"

So no testable definition?    We all understand why.

kind /kīnd/

noun

1. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.
   "different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."
2. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category.
   "fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color."
3. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.

Plain English doesn't seem to fit your new definition.

Genesis 1:25 (KJV) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Concentrate!  Even a Kindergartner can tell you about kinds of animals. 

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

Once you figure out kinds, you will have this evolution theory licked.

Once you come up with a testable definition for your new definition of "kinds" you'll have it licked. 

But as you have demonstrated, you can't do that.   Because there is no such definition.

And much more knowledgeable  people have tried.

You might want to look up "Barminology", which is an attempt by serious YE creationist biologists and others to get a consistent meaning of "kind."    To avoid the problems with the plain English use of "kind", they use "baramin" ("created kind").

There are still a lot of problems, but YE people like Dr. Wise are hopeful it can eventually be a consistent and useful concept.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Concentrate!  Even a Kindergartner can tell you about kinds of animals. 

I once had a young kid tell me that there were "kinds" of horses.    "Black ones, white ones, spotted ones...."

Which isn't all that far off from YE beliefs.

 

[Sparks]

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Once you come up with a testable definition for your new definition of "kinds" you'll have it licked. 

But as you have demonstrated, you can't do that.   Because there is no such definition.

And much more knowledgeable  people have tried.

You might want to look up "Barminology", which is an attempt by serious YE creationist biologists and others to get a consistent meaning of "kind."    To avoid the problems with the plain English use of "kind", they use "baramin" ("created kind").

There are still a lot of problems, but YE people like Dr. Wise are hopeful it can eventually be a consistent and useful concept.

 

This passage already tells you evolution theory is garbage.  It says He is making the animals, right there.  He is not waiting for them to show up from primordial soup, He is making them.   And, the kinds (according to Kindergartners everywhere) are simply kinds, like the bat kind, and the cat kind, and the lizard kind. 

Genesis 1:25 (KJV) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[The Barbarian]

57 minutes ago, Sparks said:

This passage already tells you evolution theory is garbage.  It says He is making the animals, right there.  He is not waiting for them to show up from primordial soup, He is making them.  

The point is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

57 minutes ago, Sparks said:

And, the kinds (according to Kindergartners everywhere) are simply kinds, like the bat kind, and the cat kind, and the lizard kind. 

And as we determined, you can't even give us a testable definition of "kind."    For reasons we've already discussed here.

A literal reading of the passage you quoted puts rodents, lizards, insects, and other animals into a single "kind."    Which refutes your beliefs about the nature of kinds.    It seems that God was using the plain English understanding of what "kind" means, not the creationist revision.

 

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

A literal reading of the passage you quoted puts rodents, lizards, insects, and other animals into a single "kind."    Which refutes your beliefs about the nature of kinds.    It seems that God was using the plain English understanding of what "kind" means, not the creationist revision.

Like I have said a few times, I still wonder if English is your native language.  With respect, maybe it is the English from the year 1611 that is causing you to stumble?

Here are two modern English translations, with the NLT being thought-for-thought (helps with understanding and readability), and the NKJV which is word-for-word, and uses modern wording and grammar:

Genesis 1:25 (NKJV) And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

This means that all animals will reproduce after their own kind, named and unnamed, in this passage.  When cats mate, they will produce cats.  When dogs mate, they will produce dogs.  It's exactly what we witness today, every time, without exception.

Genesis 1:25 (NLT) God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

Same idea, here, but with very modern English that is difficult to mistake.  You will never see a goose produce anything but a goose because a goose is a kind of animal.  And kinds reproduce after their own kind, not as other kinds as macro-evolution would suggest, by theory.  We don't ever see one kind produce another kind. 

[JohnD]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you see, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there is lots of evidence for evolution...

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

Microevolution is indeed evolution within a species.   Macroevolution is speciation.  But even YE creationists admit that it's a fact:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected  macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Answers in Genesis - Speciation

As you see, it's directly observed to happen; many YE creationists now admit that it's a fact.    They just don't think it can account for common descent.

As you probably know, common descent is not part of evolutionary theory.   Even Darwin suggested that God might have created any number of first organisms.   Common descent was shown by genetics, not evolutionary theory.

 

If you look hard enough you can find YEC that support TE. And you can find evolutionists who believe the world is flat.

So?

If what others think or believe is your basis for faith in a thing... good luck with that.

Dogs don't beget cats.

Transitional forms outside of a species do not exist.

The speed of light is slowing down.

The sun is burning down toward its core (meaning billions of years ago the earth would have been inside the sun).

Evolution is not science but a fairy tale made to sound scientific. 

And I conclude with reiterating you can believe whatever you jolly well wish. It simply isn't true.

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, JohnD said:

If you look hard enough you can find YEC that support TE. And you can find evolutionists who believe the world is flat.

The point is, YEs who understand the evidence, agree that the evidence supports evolution.  

28 minutes ago, JohnD said:

So?

Knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage.

28 minutes ago, JohnD said:

If what others think or believe is your basis for faith in a thing...

If the question is  "should I have a medical procedure done?", I put more confidence in my physician than I do in my plumber.   Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.

31 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Dogs don't beget cats.

If they did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.   No wonder you think you don't like it.

31 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Transitional forms outside of a species do not exist.

"Living things outside of a species do not exist."   All transitional forms are species.   Think about it.

32 minutes ago, JohnD said:

The speed of light is slowing down.

It can be slowed down...

Scientists Slowed Down Light by 10,000 Times in an Experiment

But evolution continued on just as it always has.

34 minutes ago, JohnD said:

The sun is burning down toward its core (meaning billions of years ago the earth would have been inside the sun).

No.   In fact, main sequence stars get bigger as they burn out.  It will start maybe 2.4 billion years from now.  

36 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Evolution is not science

Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon.  Change in allele frequency in a population.   Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.

36 minutes ago, JohnD said:

It simply isn't true.

That's the funny thing about reality.   It doesn't care if you approve or not.

 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

Here are two modern English translations, with the NLT being thought-for-thought (helps with understanding and readability), and the NKJV which is word-for-word, and uses modern wording and grammar:

Genesis 1:25 (NKJV) And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So it says that everything that creeps on the earth is one kind.   That would include lizards, rodents, insects, snails, etc. all in one kind.   Plain English.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

You will never see a goose produce anything but a goose because a goose is a kind of animal.

Actually, a literal reading of the Bible wouldn't allow that.   The Bible divides birds into two kinds; clean and unclean.    And it includes bats in the unclean kind.   So some mammals and some birds, according to Leviticus, are a kind

So again, your belief is refuted by scripture.   The key is that the Bible puts kinds of animals into functional categories, not taxonomic groups.    So your attempt to make them otherwise will constantly run into contradictions like this.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

And kinds reproduce after their own kind,

That's not scriptural.    The Bible does not say that living things reproduce after their own kind.   That's a YE addition to make scripture acceptable to them.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

We don't ever see one kind produce another kind. 

We have no way to test your belief, since you are unable to come up with a testable definition of what you mean by "kind."

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

So it says that everything that creeps on the earth is one kind.   That would include lizards, rodents, insects, snails, etc. all in one kind.   Plain English.

Actually, a literal reading of the Bible wouldn't allow that.   The Bible divides birds into two kinds; clean and unclean.    And it includes bats in the unclean kind.   So some mammals and some birds, according to Leviticus, are a kind

So again, your belief is refuted by scripture.   The key is that the Bible puts kinds of animals into functional categories, not taxonomic groups.    So your attempt to make them otherwise will constantly run into contradictions like this.

That's not scriptural.    The Bible does not say that living things reproduce after their own kind.   That's a YE addition to make scripture acceptable to them.

We have no way to test your belief, since you are unable to come up with a testable definition of what you mean by "kind."

I think your struggle to read the Bible is deliberate, and who has time for that?  Not me.  But now you know what a kind is, just like all the kindergartners do.  

Genesis 1:25 (NLT) God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.