The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

You are too fast on vindicating. Lets not get too hasty here. Further down the page you say: and then further you say: Now where do you wish to put Neaderthal? Is it a man-kind or an mammal-kind, or a pre-speech prototypes-kind? This last choice sounds much like a beta test done by someone who is not sure of the result!You stated these larger groupings as veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals and humans. Mammal-kind must obviously include apes. I wonder if Neaderthal gets to be its own kind like a human, or does it fit into other much larger groupings like the ape? (you where not clear, I suppose I should ask for clarity on if there was also an ape-kind)ABE: Personally I would be really interested to see much of this fleshed out. Though slightly on topic right now it would drift too much for "accuracy of Genesis" topic. If you are interested in creating a new topic on your interpretation of "kind" in biblical terms I would be glad to get some clarity on the issue.Though my biology knowledge is limited I am sure that in a new thread there are others on the board who could ask more pertinent questions regarding some of the issues. I would be glad to participate if you can forgive my lack of technical terminology.Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

So how would you decide what to believe regarding the results of the scientists? Who was it that proved 50% of the OT narratives? The same people who you reject; believing that their evidence as imagination. I am still trying to figure out how you get proof without science, yet reject any and all science that differs from the biblical interpretations that you insist science has proven. In Baltimore, Maryland, it is not legal to take a lion to the moviesIn Greene, New York, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks*copy/pasted from here*
No webpage found at provided URL: http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.phpEdited by Vacate, : Added Link

*emphasis is mineThis is just a dodge of the issue. You claim that the definition of "Kind" has no impact merely because genesis is minimilist. Yet you use it as a method of disproving evolution? One that you brought up, (nighttrain asked for clarification in message 216) and I requested that you create another thread to specifically address. What is the IamJoseph definition of "kind", in such that it shows the Theory of Evolution to be incorrect? But not from any other. Do you often select what information to include in your beliefs? How do you decide what information to deny/ignore/misrepresent?In message 214 you said: So your position regarding "kind" is that it could mean all of biology, kingdom, class, species or {speaks/does not speak}. Depending on what one you decide to choose at any given moment you can immediatly conclue that Darwin is incorrect. This is hardly a strong case against Evolution, and I ask again if you would be willing to create a new thread to clarify your definition of "kind" so you can once and for all put this silly Theory of Evolution to rest?

You are attempting to use the Biblical text in an effort to show the Theory of Evolution incorrect. You have simply insisted that the text is adequate, but when I have asked for more information about your definition of "kind" you said it had no impact. I call this a dodge. Several reasons. I will select a few quotes from you to show my confusion. Kind seems to imply "anything thats not rock" here.If you do not see a problem with this suggestion, I will remind you that Noah took 2 of every kind on the ark. It also leaves scant time for macro evolution to have produced the millions of species we see today. Here you have decided that a Kind is at the species level. You also include humans at the species level. The only justification for these two at this level seems to be that Neaderthal didnt speak, and Humans do. Without including the possibility of evolution how does the pig become seperate from all the other kinds? Was the pig also its own kind? (species level once again) Equinox pointed out the errors in this classification attempt in message 247Your simple separation of animals/plants is based only on its obvious attributes (flies, swims, speaks, produces milk, or is plant-like). There are many very obvious problems with this method of classification.

• Penguin - Obviously a bird, but does not fly.
• Duck-billed Platapus - Bird, Reptile, or Mammal? How about the Obdurodon, slightly more confusing as this kind had teeth.
• Virus - Its own kind? Its technically not even alive.
• Fungus - Absorbs nutrients after decomposing organic material, do we still place this with the plant kind?
• Bacteria - Do we insert prokaryotic organisms as its own kind?

My point here is that your generalized definitions do not help in being clear why you feel the bible successfully rules out evolution. As I have said already - you have classifications range from all of biology to the species level.If each example of species is a kind they cannot all fit on the ark. If all of biology is one kind then there would be no need for an ark (a canoe would suffice) but you have let macroevolution run rampant. Now do you see what my problem is, and why I am confused? I see no reason for you to immediatly "vindicate" Genesis when there are so many issues that you fail to address first. Genesis is not vindicated until you are able to deal with the obvious contradictions to your claims. Last that I looked neither Darwin nor the Theory of Evolution set out to disprove the bible. I don't believe that either is at odds personally. Its your literal interpretation that is at odds. Edited by Vacate, : Fixed link to wrong post!

So your proposal of all animals being of one kind is retracted or now includes sub-kinds. I am ok with either option really, but if you wish to have sub-kinds it may need clarification to limit confusion. Science has proposed one such option if you care to use it - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Regional flood, I didn't expect that actually. Sorry to have stated the obvious, but one never knows when talking creationism. From the quotes you supplied regarding the categories of kind within the bible I do not see my examples being catered to. I checked again and you did not say "A platapus is not a reptile" or "A whale is not a fish" or "archaeopteryx not a dinosaur". Virus, bacteria, and fungus are all important considerations and the quotes you supplied do not tell me if I should put them in animalkind or plantkind as they are obviously neither. This is exactly the reason that a clear and concise definition of "kind" needs to be proposed before declaring Genesis "vindicated". If you are restricting evolution to being only within its kind - the exceptions to your proposals are indeed important. If there are no contradictions, then perhaps you could address the examples I have stated so far. I imagine it would not be to difficult to dig up a bunch more, hence the reason I suggested taking this to a different thread.

Generalized terminology may be superior for the creational overview, but it is inadequate for disproving a different mechanism altogether. You really don't understand that? Absolutely! There have been many revisions in biology as we learn more. Even the general "biology" has a tough time with the virus. This does not change the fact that such revisions are the result of a better understanding of life on Earth. With a better understanding your proposals become more and more confusing. For example, your latest reply: This does not help anything. I still don't even know if you consider them a plant or an animal. How am I to understand why you consider Evolution to be incorrect when you are comfortable with the "big pic overview" but the big picture tells me nothing? The most I can take from this is that Genesis is right because its author knew that a fish differed from a human, bird, or repitle. Science is also well aware of this fact, so to decide what one is possibly correct more precise terms are needed. I know a fish is a fish, such an observation is another example where it does not take a genius to understand. but not good enough! Hence a mountain of exceptions to the rule that remain undefined as of yet. As I have been saying all along. Its fine to start with general terms, but you will find that science or math does not stop with the big picture and simply declare "all math is numbers" and "all biology is kind".Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

I would somewhat agree with you when you apply the word "kind" to humans, neaderthal, or pig. You have also used the word as a method to describe all things living. I am sure you can agree that the spread you apply to this word is fairly general. Note that one of your definitions,'and every living creature', would do the very same thing. From an observation standpoint I would say that these features would make us very closely related to neaderthal, followed by chimpanzees, gorillas down the line to a single celled organism that shares about the least amount of similar features.Would it also be helpful to add to the list? Eukaryotic/Prokaryotic is likely the best place to start, its the first logical split before we start splitting hairs, bones, and skin. Do you suggest we call these two differences Eukaryotickind and Prokaryotickind, or is there some other term you would prefer? Besides the obvious problem attempting to define fishkind being different from humankind, and funguskind when all are included in the "every-living-creaturekind".