Genesis 1:24a
NIV: “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds …”
KJV: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind …”
God commanded but who produced / brought forth?
1 Like
That is where ToE fails.
ToE claims humanity came from something else that was not of their kind.
RIchard
What is a ‘kind’?
YEC-type interpretations, including ‘baraminology’, do not equate the ‘kind’ with ‘species’ because there are too many species to fit into the ark. That would mean that ‘kind’ is a wider taxonomical group, perhaps comparable to ‘family’(?). That interpretation assumes that many species have evolved rapidly from the ‘basic types’ after the Noah’s flood.
My understanding is that ‘according to their kinds’ just tells an observation about heredity: individuals tend to get offspring that resemble their parents. It does not mean that offspring are copies of the parent and even YEC/baraminology assumes that there happens ‘microevolution’, offspring develop through generations to something that differs from their ancestors.
So, what is the ‘kind’ of humans? If it is not the species (Homo sapiens), is it the genus (Homo) or some higher taxonomical group?
2 Likes
It woud seem that the taxonomy I was taught at school and beyond has been replacd
I would take a "kind! to be cats, flies, frogs, toad, worms etc. Generally similar but different groups of crearues. Maybe Species? Evolution has proven adept at alterning enough to make a sub speices but I have always challenged its capabiility of transcending amphibians to reptile and so on. How much further back the changes need to be to be calle “kind” is very debatable and the scientific answer may not match the theological one.
I think you know my answer.
except that there comes a little problem in defining ancestry. If God indeed inserted the differences then the strict answer (scientifically) stands but the theological answer is homo only. (does that make sense?)
Richard
First time I have heard of “Scriptural theory.” so I looked it up…
“Scriptural theory” broadly refers to the study and interpretation of sacred texts, encompassing various approaches to understanding their meaning, history, and influence, including biblical criticism, biblical theology, and hermeneutics.
So is this somehow in the same category as science? No. It might if science was just a matter of the interpretation of measurable evidence. But no, while that plays a role, science is a great deal more than this. There is a much more defined methodology to science than that. Religion and its various categories like theology do not have a well defined methodology and the methods people use are quite varied. Interpretation is a matter of finding the meaning of something for something else. And science doesn’t do that. It is not the work of science to find the meaning of evidence for theology for example.
But anyway… is your demand (regarding argument for “scripture theory”) reasonable? It is only reasonable if you limit your “Scripture theory” to scripture alone and don’t claim it has any meaning for anything outside of scripture. But in that case, your “scripture theory” loses all interest and value for me.
How about… “If you want to argue against a Scientific theory you must use science.” Is that reasonable. Yes… absolutely. If you would argue something in baseball then you certainly need to stick to the rules of baseball. Otherwise your comments wouldn’t apply to the scientific theory but only what you think it means for other things like theology. But what about the above criticism regarding “scripture theory”? If we claim the conclusions of science has meaning for things outside science then wouldn’t other considerations apply? Absolutely. It just doesn’t change the science.
I think you have just made this up and nobody said any such thing – especially not here. There are all kind of foolish people in the world, but this still sounds like a total exaggeration. It fits best with naturalism, but I never heard even a naturalist say anything like that.
To be sure, however, science has a definite methodology and if you don’t follow it then it just isn’t science. That is true. Same applies to most things in life, even games. “Rook to queens four has no meaning for baseball.” The only thing this principle doesn’t really apply to is the things of religion because nobody agrees upon a fix set of rules for that… except the rules of a free society whereby freedom of religion is logically limited things which do not trespass on the religious liberties of other people. The closest you can get to this is if you restrict yourself to Christianity and say that isn’t Christian theology because doesn’t use the Bible.
So this is basically your justification for calling in thought police of your own, isn’t it?
Forgive me but there is at least one person here who has said it in so many words. It is todo with thinking empiracally or philosophically as much as anything.
forgive me again but you have taken this statement out of context from the whole.
Perhaps you have misunderstood the irony behind the whole OP?
And perhas I am not the person to “explain” it for fear of being dictatorial about how somethng is understood.
Suffice it to say, the impression I get is that the meaning of
Science not conflicting with theology is similar to the Pope’s view of ecumenacalism.
For him, ecumenacalism is everyine becoming Catholic,
For this forum at leas,t Scientific accpetance means everyone thinking like a scientist.
IOW Christians have to acccept the views of science but science can ignore the existence of God.and therfore run roughshod over theology.
Richard
But I didn’t say anything of the kind. I only said that seeing a conflict with theology isn’t a work of science. That would be an issue of theology not science.
Nonsense. People should be accurate as to what is science and what is Christianity just like anything else. And people should follow the rules of the activity if you don’t want to be nonsensical. It makes no sense to criticize baseball with the rules of basketball. The thing about religion, however, is that everyone makes up their own rules, and can just say they are not interested in that particular brand of religion. There are certainly many brands of Christianity which I have no interest in whatsoever.
1 Like
I said that was the general view her, not you specific view.
Hmm
whether I agree or not is accadeic. What is, is.
That one is a little more problematic.
Despite you examples that demonstrate your views.
It is a question of thought processes and what we, as individuals, prioritise as “data”. And “conclusion”. If you only allow a certain typeof data you will only reach a certain tpye of conclusion. If you introduce a type of data that is not normally included (by scientists) then you will almost certainly reach a differing conclusion.
Because scienc relies on empiracal data there is a limit to the conclusios it is able to draw. Because non scientists have a broader view of relevent data they may well draw conclusions that scientist will claim as “making it up” or just “not scentific”
Not Scientific? Why should scince have the last word! Or the ultimate sanction.
Perhaps you cannot see this as you are too close to one viewpoint.
From the “outside” scientists ar arrogant, stubborn, assetive, dictatorial, and a few other descriptions I would rather not write.
Let us just say that humilty is not an obvious trait in the scientific community here.
Richard
Does the Earth move about the Sun because scientists dictate that behavior? If scientists dictated that the Sun move about the Earth would it do so?
What we are asking is that you accept observable facts.
We observe mutations occurring right in front of us. By observing how mutations occur we can predict what we should see when we compare genomes if the differences between those genomes was caused by mutations. Those predictions are born out in our observations.
Where are the assumptions?
A process that you accept for thousands and thousands of scientific conclusions, such as the cause of weather.
No, you don’t understand how science works. You are on record as saying hypothesis and statistics are unscientific. That demonstrates a near absolute ignorance of how science is done.
Yes, it does.
Why would this produce an excess of transition mutations? This is what needs to be explained.
1 Like
Are you prepared to accept my answer?
I will try.
If you increase the nuber of variable you will increase the number of “correct” or advantagious changes.
What you see as a"Mutationn" may be the intorduction of a new genome or element. These introductions will automatically increase the nume of new possibilties and subsequent “improvements”
I did say that i was not keen on expounding or defending my idea.
(I have no desire for it to become “Richard;s theory of evolution”)
Please feel free to discuss and “play” with the idea without judgement or even notions of Truth or Evidence. it is just an idea to be tossed about.
RIchard
Increase the number of variable? What does that even mean?
Biologists already do view mutations as introducing new genetic variation. You claimed we just assume they happen. We observe them happening. We don’t assume.
You claimed scientists are just assuming mutations happen. What are you basing this on? What about all of the papers that observe mutations happening? What about all of the experiments which demonstrate mutations are random with respect to fitness? In what way are these assumed?
2 Likes
how can you claim to be a scientist and not understand a basic concept?
i asked you not to contest or “judge”.
Perhaps that is impossibe for you?
Instead of defending your science, or trying to impose your science, just play with the hypothesis. You can do that?
Richard
You don’t understand your own concepts. Otherwise, you could explain what it means with reference to genetics.
You get to dictate to me what I can or can’t do?
How am I imposing science?
1 Like
typical esponse. Attack, attack, attack.
Perhaps you do not know what a concept is? I have seen little evidence that you do.
Asking is not dictating. Obliging is being polite.
Your answer?
Forget it!
Perhaps your dumb innocent questions really are that dumb and inocent.
Find someone else to explain it.
Someone you respect and trust.
Richard
Still no explanation what variables you are talking about nor what they look like at the genetic level.
I will ask again. How am I imposing science? By merely talking about it?
1 Like
Or more percisey, someone who can see what you cannot/, but you still trust them.
I do not wish to “teach” you. If you understood me, you would know why.
Richard
If you can’t demonstrate how I am imposing science then why should I believe you when you make that claim?
1 Like
Because you neither accept or understand my answers… What you are asking for I cannot give. It is as if we spole a different language/ There is no comunication nor understanding.
Richard
What answers am I not accepting or not understanding? How do those answers demonstrate my imposition of science?
1 Like
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Richard