Jump to content


Photo

Defining Kinds


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 March 2018 - 07:35 AM

Originally Darwin posited a monophyletic beginning to life if you like, where on the phylogenetic, evolutionary tree, the trunk lead down to the bottom where there was one original common ancestor.

 

Creationists believe the opposite, that when God created life on earth it began as a polyphyletic beginning, so to speak, with many phyla existing from the beginning of time.

 

With that in mind, if created kinds exist as opposed to Darwins evolution of phyla, we expect the fossil record if it is to fit with created kinds or baramins, to show evidence of abrupt appearance of fully formed phyla with no trunk, with no intermediates or connections showing how it evolved.

 

We see a lawn, the true evidence doesn't fit with Darwinism but in fact shows abrupt appearance and stasis. This is what we would expect with created kinds.

 

So now as to the issue of DEFINING KINDS. What I wanted to show firstly in this thread is that there is strong confirmation that phyla appear in the record and their species will remain unchanged, which means that genetically speaking, it is factual that life is reproducing what it is. (Law Of Identity).

 

That is to say, even if creationists really did struggle to define kind, it would not follow that they therefore don't exist because animals are still reproducing the same body plans, certain types of animal can be shown to have reproduced the same types of animal, and even if you accept long ages, starfish or jellyfish in the Cambrian are identical to todays apart from size, the same for millipedes at 400 myo, and dragon-flies.

 

So the first point is, if we do genuinely struggle to define kinds, if they did originally exist, gene pools are still reproducing the same things. We know that genetically, we can certainly recognise types of animals which don't change even long-term. We know there is a limit generally but to then say we should know a limit specifically, would be to commit a sweeping-generalisation.

 

In other words, we can't define kinds as a classification, because the limits for specific cases, and all the issues surrounding those limits or even non-limits, make it impossible. That is to say, for one type of animal it's kind may be at the level of genera but for another type it could be at the level of family. 

 

So then to define kind the best way of defining it, is that it is the original gene pools from a polyphyletic beginning to life, from the existing species that have descended from them. Or a better way of saying this might be that todays species reproduce according to their genetic identity. We know a human won't give birth to a chicken and that humans will only reproduce things within the homo genus. (for humans, there is a human kind and we pretty much know it is at the genus-level, with various species within it such as Neanderthal, Erectus, Sapien, etc..) The only reason we know the human is a kind is because the bible tells us that was the original kind, a man and woman. It doesn't say this for other creatures as it doesn't give their numbers and types. Logically we only know of one kind, technically speaking, and we only have that knowledge because the bible tells us the kind started with a man and woman. 

 

THE STRUGGLE TO CLASSIFY KINDS

 

Evolutionists take advantage of creationists struggling to place kinds, but this isn't the same as defining them. For the definition, we only have to argue what we see in nature, that animals reproduce according to what they are. Certainly this is the case even if we can't know what they originally are. 

 

THE PROBLEMS

 

The problem isn't that kinds don't exist. The problem is we don't know the original traits in the original gene pools because what they would consist of would be both extant and extinct species. I hope you can see the problem, if there used to be a cat with horns, but we don't know of it's existence as it has not been preserved in the rock record, then how can we say, "all cats consist of three kinds, and here is what they are". That's impossible because, 1. We don't have knowledge of all of the species and don't know which ones have gone extinct if any. 2. If there was genetic information for horns in a cat species, how can we define three kinds and not include that potential anatomy?

 

There are also two very genuine problem with kinds, and that is some organisms appear identical in nature but are not the same kind of creature but have totally different, unrelated genetics. That is one problem. Another problem is that we can find amazing similarities in nature and we know this doesn't mean there is necessarily a relation even though it may seem like it's possible. For example even evolutionists accept that tortoises and turtles are not at all related, however the fact remains they certainly look anatomically similar to the point where it might be tempting to say they are of the same kind. This is a genuine problem because it may seem for example that we can say, "there is a bat kind" but in fact there is a very strong possibility that God made creatures like cats or bats, but that he made them into separate kinds like He did with turtles and tortoises. It seems very clear that there is no evolutionary reason why turtles should look so similar to tortoises, so the obvious reason they exist is that God wanted a water version as well as a land version. In that regard, it is almost impossible to know for example, if bats or cats or dogs are a kind, or whether some of them are their own kind.

 

BY ANALOGY

 

By analogy imagine if the world became post-apocalyptic and all names on the remaining cars, all logos, badges, were not present any more, but cars were shells so to speak. If we could not define which cars were of the Ferrari kind, any more but we could perhaps guess that 60% of them were probably of the Ferrari type, would it logically follow that if we couldn't properly define the kinds/types of car, that originally they therefore did not exist? No, because if they started to reproduce the same cars, they would still be reproducing according to their identity, by replication. (analogous to reproduction).

 

In other words, Ferraris would still only lead to Ferraris even if we did not know they were Ferraris, if reproduction of those types of cars continued. Proving our confusion about kinds, is irrelevant, logically.

 

So then animal kinds still reproduce animal kinds of the same type according to gene pools, even if we don't know the defining parameters for specific cases, for this won't change reality being reality, our level of knowledge won't change history, so it is a non-sequitur to conclude that because creationists might struggle to nail down specific kinds that therefore they don't exist. Certainly we see in breeding that there are limits to what we can get, with dogs, pigeons, etc..so we know an obedience-to-type is occurring in nature, which I believe is all we need because we aren't seeing any evidence of macro evolution, but what we tend to see in nature, is something referred to as reversion to the mean. (You can hear about this in the following video between 7.50 and 9 minutes; breeders already know this is factual;

 


  • KillurBluff likes this

#2 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 31 March 2018 - 09:06 AM

Creationists believe the opposite, that when God created life on earth it began as a polyphyletic beginning, so to speak, with many phyla existing from the beginning of time.

that might be pretty close to reality.
it's quite possible for the various phyla and species within those phylas to have been "created" within a very short period of time.

now might be a good time to mention this.
i was reading a NASA probe launch chronology, and on one of those launchings NASA was concerned about one of the onboard experiments.
i can't remember the exact details nor can i remember the publication number but NASA was worried that the background radiation might have been "reset".
the publication is on my hard drive and it consisted of something like 900 pages, but it's there.

i dunno man, you cannot possibly call NASA brainless, stupid, inept, creationist, etc.

#3 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 April 2018 - 01:52 AM

Originally Darwin posited a monophyletic beginning to life if you like, where on the phylogenetic, evolutionary tree, the trunk lead down to the bottom where there was one original common ancestor.

Creationists believe the opposite, that when God created life on earth it began as a polyphyletic beginning, so to speak, with many phyla existing from the beginning of time.

With that in mind, if created kinds exist as opposed to Darwins evolution of phyla, we expect the fossil record if it is to fit with created kinds or baramins, to show evidence of abrupt appearance of fully formed phyla with no trunk, with no intermediates or connections showing how it evolved.

We see a lawn, the true evidence doesn't fit with Darwinism but in fact shows abrupt appearance and stasis. This is what we would expect with created kinds.

So now as to the issue of DEFINING KINDS. What I wanted to show firstly in this thread is that there is strong confirmation that phyla appear in the record and their species will remain unchanged, which means that genetically speaking, it is factual that life is reproducing what it is. (Law Of Identity).

That is to say, even if creationists really did struggle to define kind, it would not follow that they therefore don't exist because animals are still reproducing the same body plans, certain types of animal can be shown to have reproduced the same types of animal, and even if you accept long ages, starfish or jellyfish in the Cambrian are identical to todays apart from size, the same for millipedes at 400 myo, and dragon-flies.

So the first point is, if we do genuinely struggle to define kinds, if they did originally exist, gene pools are still reproducing the same things. We know that genetically, we can certainly recognise types of animals which don't change even long-term. We know there is a limit generally but to then say we should know a limit specifically, would be to commit a sweeping-generalisation.

In other words, we can't define kinds as a classification, because the limits for specific cases, and all the issues surrounding those limits or even non-limits, make it impossible. That is to say, for one type of animal it's kind may be at the level of genera but for another type it could be at the level of family.

So then to define kind the best way of defining it, is that it is the original gene pools from a polyphyletic beginning to life, from the existing species that have descended from them. Or a better way of saying this might be that todays species reproduce according to their genetic identity. We know a human won't give birth to a chicken and that humans will only reproduce things within the homo genus. (for humans, there is a human kind and we pretty much know it is at the genus-level, with various species within it such as Neanderthal, Erectus, Sapien, etc..) The only reason we know the human is a kind is because the bible tells us that was the original kind, a man and woman. It doesn't say this for other creatures as it doesn't give their numbers and types. Logically we only know of one kind, technically speaking, and we only have that knowledge because the bible tells us the kind started with a man and woman.

THE STRUGGLE TO CLASSIFY KINDS

Evolutionists take advantage of creationists struggling to place kinds, but this isn't the same as defining them. For the definition, we only have to argue what we see in nature, that animals reproduce according to what they are. Certainly this is the case even if we can't know what they originally are.

THE PROBLEMS

The problem isn't that kinds don't exist. The problem is we don't know the original traits in the original gene pools because what they would consist of would be both extant and extinct species. I hope you can see the problem, if there used to be a cat with horns, but we don't know of it's existence as it has not been preserved in the rock record, then how can we say, "all cats consist of three kinds, and here is what they are". That's impossible because, 1. We don't have knowledge of all of the species and don't know which ones have gone extinct if any. 2. If there was genetic information for horns in a cat species, how can we define three kinds and not include that potential anatomy?

There are also two very genuine problem with kinds, and that is some organisms appear identical in nature but are not the same kind of creature but have totally different, unrelated genetics. That is one problem. Another problem is that we can find amazing similarities in nature and we know this doesn't mean there is necessarily a relation even though it may seem like it's possible. For example even evolutionists accept that tortoises and turtles are not at all related, however the fact remains they certainly look anatomically similar to the point where it might be tempting to say they are of the same kind. This is a genuine problem because it may seem for example that we can say, "there is a bat kind" but in fact there is a very strong possibility that God made creatures like cats or bats, but that he made them into separate kinds like He did with turtles and tortoises. It seems very clear that there is no evolutionary reason why turtles should look so similar to tortoises, so the obvious reason they exist is that God wanted a water version as well as a land version. In that regard, it is almost impossible to know for example, if bats or cats or dogs are a kind, or whether some of them are their own kind.

BY ANALOGY

By analogy imagine if the world became post-apocalyptic and all names on the remaining cars, all logos, badges, were not present any more, but cars were shells so to speak. If we could not define which cars were of the Ferrari kind, any more but we could perhaps guess that 60% of them were probably of the Ferrari type, would it logically follow that if we couldn't properly define the kinds/types of car, that originally they therefore did not exist? No, because if they started to reproduce the same cars, they would still be reproducing according to their identity, by replication. (analogous to reproduction).

In other words, Ferraris would still only lead to Ferraris even if we did not know they were Ferraris, if reproduction of those types of cars continued. Proving our confusion about kinds, is irrelevant, logically.

So then animal kinds still reproduce animal kinds of the same type according to gene pools, even if we don't know the defining parameters for specific cases, for this won't change reality being reality, our level of knowledge won't change history, so it is a non-sequitur to conclude that because creationists might struggle to nail down specific kinds that therefore they don't exist. Certainly we see in breeding that there are limits to what we can get, with dogs, pigeons, etc..so we know an obedience-to-type is occurring in nature, which I believe is all we need because we aren't seeing any evidence of macro evolution, but what we tend to see in nature, is something referred to as reversion to the mean. (You can hear about this in the following video between 7.50 and 9 minutes; breeders already know this is factual;



"it is factual that life is reproducing what it is."

Indeed.. This is the very essence of what is implied with the word "Kind" as in "After their kind" which is probabaly repeated in Genesis a dozen times or so for emphasis.. Ask an evolutionist what a species is and you will not get a well defined answer either...

The main difference is that creationists believe that life does, always has, and always will reproduce what itself happens to be... Dogs do, always have, and always will produce dogs.. But in the evolutionist worldview, there had to be a point in the past where a NON DOG, gave birth to a DOG.. The math is INESCAPABLE.. Also, in the future, if they are being true to their beliefs, there MUST be a time in the future where a DOG will eventually give birth to a NON DOG.. Unless they try to tell us that evolution has suddenly stopped after "3 billion years" Quite convenient of "Evolution" to do so right at this moment in time..


Obviously Evolutionists must believe that a microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist and SOME Jellyfish became a man while OTHERS stayed jellyfish so they have to resort to a lot of special pleading.. Or the tried and true... Prove it CANT happen...
  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 April 2018 - 06:44 AM

Obviously Evolutionists must believe that a microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist and SOME Jellyfish became a man while OTHERS stayed jellyfish so they have to resort to a lot of special pleading.. Or the tried and true... Prove it CANT happen...

i can easily see how a genome of a specific phyla can give rise to ALL the species within it, with no darwinian evolution at all.

you need to get away from the darwinian worldview blitz.

either way we go, we are still stuck with trying to explain how life got here.
heck, science doesn't even know what life is, all it can do is point to a living cell and say "that's life".
  • Sleepy House and KillurBluff like this

#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:41 PM

Obviously Evolutionists must believe that a microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist and SOME Jellyfish became a man while OTHERS stayed jellyfish so they have to resort to a lot of special pleading.. Or the tried and true... Prove it CANT happen...

i can easily see how a genome of a specific phyla can give rise to ALL the species within it, with no darwinian evolution at all.you need to get away from the darwinian worldview blitz.either way we go, we are still stuck with trying to explain how life got here.heck, science doesn't even know what life is, all it can do is point to a living cell and say "that's life".

"you need to get away from the darwinian worldview blitz."

Oh, I'm sorry, Do my posts give you the impression that I am an adherent of the "Darwinian Worldview"? Sorry for the confusion, I will try to make my position regarding Darwinism more clear in the future...

Now.. In the meantime, How about you agree with me and admit that our public SCHOOLS need to STOP teaching Darwin's poisonous worldview to our nation's kids as if it has any truth to it and continuing to LIE to them by claiming it is a "Scientific Fact"....

Does that sound like a good start?

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 April 2018 - 07:26 AM

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:39

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
 
Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

  • Bmaxdlux and KillurBluff like this

#7 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 April 2018 - 08:52 AM

Oh, I'm sorry, Do my posts give you the impression that I am an adherent of the "Darwinian Worldview"?

yes, because your arguments against evolution is mostly objections to darwinism.

Now.. In the meantime, How about you agree with me and admit that our public SCHOOLS need to STOP teaching Darwin's poisonous worldview to our nation's kids as if it has any truth to it and continuing to LIE to them by claiming it is a "Scientific Fact"....

yes, i'll agree with that.
our children should also be made aware of the fact that allusions to ID will be edited out of science papers.
  • KillurBluff likes this

#8 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 April 2018 - 08:55 AM

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
 
Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

i disagree.
flesh is flesh, unless you want to prove that humans (for example) are made of special elements.
the only possible difference would be that of a soul, and souls aren't made of atoms.

comments?
  • piasan likes this

#9 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 04 April 2018 - 10:31 AM

Paul wasn't a biologist by any stretch of the word.

 

1 Cor 15:36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies

 

He didn't know that seeds are alive before they germinate.

 

The word "kind" makes things tricky, at least in English, because we use it in a lot of different ways. "A lion is a kind of cat." It isn't very precise. We also use it in ways like, "Stay with your own kind," in reference to humans, and usually to divide racially, economically, politically, etc. Also, back then they didn't have words for specific classification. Lions gave birth to lions and bears gave birth to bears, and that hasn't changed.  

 

I'm with What If. Flesh is flesh.



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 April 2018 - 10:53 AM

 

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:39

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

 

The prophet Moses said, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

 

Leviticus 11:

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. .... 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

 

So, in those few verses we find:

Nineteen kinds of birds including 3 kinds of owl, 2 kinds of hawk and 2 kinds of eagle.  There are also 4 kinds of insect including 2 kinds of locust.

 

(Note:  Bonedigger has advised me this list of "kinds" was simply "cobbled together" by the translators.)

 

The bottom line .... we have no way to tell what is meant by a Biblical "kind."

 

IMO, "kind" is much closer to the modern term "species" which has its own set of definition problems.



#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 April 2018 - 02:32 PM

 

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
 
Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

i disagree.
flesh is flesh, unless you want to prove that humans (for example) are made of special elements.
the only possible difference would be that of a soul, and souls aren't made of atoms.

comments?

 

So you disagree with Almighty God. I see. That error is noted...by Him.

 

Men don't need to be made of special elements....to be special. 'Special' is what He determines it is and not subject to human opinion.

 

Hebrews 2 5-7 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

 

P.S. Adam is in the family lineage of Jesus Christ and he was not an ape. Luke 3. Neither apes nor 'common ancestors'  qualify for the throne of David. 


  • KillurBluff likes this

#12 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 04 April 2018 - 03:07 PM

So you disagree with Almighty God. I see. That error is noted...by Him.

 

The disagreement is with Paul, not God. Paul isn't God, Paul is Paul.

 

If God said that seeds need to die before they can sprout, then there would be a bone to pick, but as it is I can't see where God said that.



#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 April 2018 - 05:35 PM

 

 

So you disagree with Almighty God. I see. That error is noted...by Him.

 

The disagreement is with Paul, not God. Paul isn't God, Paul is Paul.

 

If God said that seeds need to die before they can sprout, then there would be a bone to pick, but as it is I can't see where God said that.

 

Wrong: it's both. God inspired Paul to write what he did in I Corinthians 15. In fact, there isn't a word of scripture from the Bible that is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and with divine authority. 

 

II Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

Seeds do die before they sprout according to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself: 

 

John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.


#14 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 April 2018 - 05:40 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul wasn't a biologist by any stretch of the word.

 

1 Cor 15:36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies

 

He didn't know that seeds are alive before they germinate.

 

The word "kind" makes things tricky, at least in English, because we use it in a lot of different ways. "A lion is a kind of cat." It isn't very precise. We also use it in ways like, "Stay with your own kind," in reference to humans, and usually to divide racially, economically, politically, etc. Also, back then they didn't have words for specific classification. Lions gave birth to lions and bears gave birth to bears, and that hasn't changed.  

 

I'm with What If. Flesh is flesh.

 

Not so. He got it right. And more than that Jesus said that unless a seed dies first it will not bring forth life. John 12:24. Jesus Christ was/is God's Son and is omniscient ('all knowledge). He should know for He was/is Co-Creator with the Father. 

 

The truth is that seeds only come to life when certain conditions regarding soil and moisture are met.

 

Check it outhttps://www.nytimes....ea-sprouts.html



#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 April 2018 - 08:21 PM

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:1 Corinthians 15:39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.  Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

i disagree.flesh is flesh, unless you want to prove that humans (for example) are made of special elements.the only possible difference would be that of a soul, and souls aren't made of atoms.comments?


"i disagree.flesh is flesh, unless you want to prove that humans (for example"


I don't know... Paul is pretty clear in what he wrote.. When in Doubt, I ALWAYS go with God's word.. Up until now, it has a good track record
Like a PERFECT track record.. Imagine if people just believed the Bible, they would have EXPECTED (Like I did) that soft tissue and carbon 14 would be found in Dinosaur remains.. And Voila!! Yup.. Just like the Bible said... Dinosaurs were created the same week as man was.. These are what are called CORRABORATING HARD DATA by the way..

HOWEVER

"Scientists" CONTINUE to call it a "Shocker" and "Stunning" .. Just think, without the Darwinian idiocy holding back science all these years, man would have probably cured cancer long ago...

https://www.smithson...cker-115306469/

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html


"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#16 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 April 2018 - 09:27 PM

 

The apostle Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:39

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
 
Paul was a six day creationist, not a theistic-evolutionist. He had no trouble defining 'kind'.

 

 

Just to point out the obvious, Paul is talking about "kinds of flesh" in the context of the Resurrection. Paul then goes on to talk about heavenly bodies versus earthly bodies and the glory of the stars. To me, it seems misplaced to conclude that Paul is talking about baraminology (the creationist study of biological kinds) in this passage. 

 

Also, if we are to take this passage as one of baraminology, then it would seem that Paul is saying all beasts have a common biological ancestor. I don't know the details of what exactly is meant by "beast", but I assume a conservative definition would be something along the lines of any land vertebrate (excluding humans). IOW, a lizard changing into a horse would not be considered evolution in this context, and I think every creationist here would say that a lizard becoming a horse would be macro evolution. A less conservative definition of "beast" could have animals such as spiders. Would a spider changing into a lion be enough of a change to be considered macro evolution? Maybe not, depending on how one interprets the above scripture.



#17 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 05 April 2018 - 02:40 AM

Were plants, mushrooms, bacteria etc each created with a range of kinds? Don't recall hearing/reading too much about them.
  • KillurBluff likes this

#18 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 05 April 2018 - 11:34 AM

Wrong: it's both. God inspired Paul to write what he did in I Corinthians 15. In fact, there isn't a word of scripture from the Bible that is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and with divine authority.  

 

II Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

You're defending Paul's perfection by citing a verse that Paul himself wrote?

 

I do understand that Christians see the words of Paul as completely equal with the words of Jesus and also God in the OT, otherwise it wouldn't be part of the Bible. But then...

 

Paul: 1 Cor 4:14 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father

 

Jesus: Matt 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

 

Paul said, "I please all men in all things" which can't really be true because the Church of Ephesus rejected him, actually all of the seven churches in Asia rejected him—he said that himself in II Timothy. 

 

I also know that Jesus gave the Revelation to John, not Paul, and in the first book of it we see Jesus telling John to send a message to all seven churches in Asia, Ephesus being the first. In any case, that's way off topic.

 

I'm no biologist, but I know that if you plant a boiled bean or a roasted sunflower seed it isn't going to germinate—that kills the embryo, which is dormant but very much alive. It's correct that right soil conditions and other such things are needed for a seed to sprout, but it could not sprout unless it was alive in the first place. 



#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 01:28 PM

 

 

 

Wrong: it's both. God inspired Paul to write what he did in I Corinthians 15. In fact, there isn't a word of scripture from the Bible that is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and with divine authority.  

 

II Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

You're defending Paul's perfection by citing a verse that Paul himself wrote?

 

I do understand that Christians see the words of Paul as completely equal with the words of Jesus and also God in the OT, otherwise it wouldn't be part of the Bible. But then...

 

Paul: 1 Cor 4:14 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father

 

Jesus: Matt 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

 

Paul said, "I please all men in all things" which can't really be true because the Church of Ephesus rejected him, actually all of the seven churches in Asia rejected him—he said that himself in II Timothy. 

 

I also know that Jesus gave the Revelation to John, not Paul, and in the first book of it we see Jesus telling John to send a message to all seven churches in Asia, Ephesus being the first. In any case, that's way off topic.

 

I'm no biologist, but I know that if you plant a boiled bean or a roasted sunflower seed it isn't going to germinate—that kills the embryo, which is dormant but very much alive. It's correct that right soil conditions and other such things are needed for a seed to sprout, but it could not sprout unless it was alive in the first place.  

 

(Note: not true. Jesus Christ, lay as a dead seed in the grave for three days and nights, but He 'sprouted', that is, came to life by the resurrection from the dead that we might live with God in heaven some day. You have missed the entire point of his words) 

 

 

Should we believe you instead of the apostle Paul who met with Jesus on the road to Damascus? Say it plainly please.  Did he lie or did he tell the truth?  Furthermore, did Luke lie about Paul's life and ministry for the Lord Jesus Christ as he revealed it in the book of Acts? All of the Bible is God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. 

 

Quote "that kills the embryo, which is dormant but very much alive".  

 

I taught biology for many years. The embryo does not activate ('come alive'; as I've already said it) until the conditions are right as far as soil, water, and timing are concerned. However, that germination will be different for different kinds of seeds.  Please do not contradict what the Lord Jesus said about this because you will always be in error on such matters. Again, I said, He was Co-Creator with the Father. He knew/knows all things about everything including the seeds that He created.

 

Colossians 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

Are you born again Christian who has been saved by God's grace by your faith in Jesus who died upon the cross? Have you repented of your sins before Him? Just curious.


  • mike the wiz and KillurBluff like this

#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:02 AM

Were plants, mushrooms, bacteria etc each created with a range of kinds? Don't recall hearing/reading too much about them.

 

A very good question and a good topic for study!

 

The plants would have definitely been different "kinds" as the tree that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of

would have definitely been a different "kind" then the others, As well as "fig leaves" were mentioned, instead of

just "leaves"


  • KillurBluff likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users