Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Jose Fly
New member
So now you're saying speciation (evolution above the species level) isn't part of the "Biblical model of creation" (whatever that is)?
Jose Fly
New member
Where?
6days
New member
chair said:
Uh...... no.
Evolutionists like to use rubbery words so they can equivocate.
God's Word tells us common ancestry is false. Science helps to confirm common ancestry beliefs are impossible.
Mechanism? We know that organisms adapt to various environments through pre-existing information and mechanisms. There is no mechanism to tweak the genome of a carrot to turn it into a carpenter...that is pseudoscience....and anti-Biblical.*
Hi how are you? Having a fine day?
Jose Fly
New member
Exactly what science are you relying on for that empty claim?
So macroevolution (evolution above the species level) is part of the "Biblical model of creation" (whatever that is)?
What did I fabricate? Be specific.
Reshuffling of the genes. Not new genes.
Broader specification; not every species of a genus; types.
Jose Fly
New member
According to what 6days has posted here previously, during the flood there was a single breeding pair for each "unclean kind" that would later rapidly give rise to all the species within that "kind".
And now since you're saying no new genes arose, that means the breeding pair also had all the genes necessary for all the subsequent species that would arise post-flood.
Correct so far?
Jose Fly
New member
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes perfect sense, because that is the context in which the word 'kind' is being used.
~kind: a particular type or variety of person or thing~
Jose Fly
New member
It is "being used" in the context of biological classification. The definition you posted does nothing in that context.
It's like if you and a biologist went to Africa and you said "Let's classify everything by kinds". He'd naturally ask what a "kind" is. If you answered "a particular type or variety", that wouldn't help at all.
That's what we're asking for. Creationists like to claim that God created everything by "kinds" and as a result everything can be grouped according to their "kinds". If that's true, it should be trivially easy to post a useful definition and/or criteria for such a grouping.
You say this, then have the nerve to point a finger at "evolutionists" and say "Evolutionists love creating strawmen."
Take a look in the mirror.
exminister
Well-known member
:doh:
Kinds:
Dogs/wolves
Cats
Goats
Snakes
Are all birds a kind?
Are all fish a kind except those that are mammals?
Are whales and dolphins the same kind or two different kinds?
6days
New member
I was being generous giving you a carrot to start with. Perhaps I could have argued that atheist believe dentists are descendants of dust... and, that the dust magically popped into existence. If that isn't an accurate portrayal of atheist beliefs (apart from the word 'magical').... please enlighten us where dentists came from.
6days
New member
JoseFly said:
Wow... pretty good, Jose!
Not necessarily the genes, but the pre-existing genetic information allows adaptation and speciation.
It would be impossible for natural processes to assembke even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.*
You are pretending that "evolutionists" said that men can be descended from carrots. No scientist says that. it is a straw man.
The theory of evolution does not say anything about where matter comes from, or where life comes from. Another straw man.
And "evolutionists are all atheists"- simply not true.