Is the Bible acceptable?

It is just as ignorant to say, "well Darwin says". To believe the Bible is an act of faith, to believe Darwin is also an act of faith. It is the job of both faiths to interpret science.To take the Bible away is to take away your faith, to take your faith is to take your interpretation, and without your interpretation you have nothing to say about science. It is the same with Darwin.How strong is your faith in Darwin? Darwin was not even sure what he believed was true.

By "faith of Darwin" I mean evolution, which in its basic theory remains pretty much the same as in its original form. Darwin questioned the whole theory... to build upon that is to build on shaky ground. It is evolution that competes with creationism, not science. Science presents obsticals that have to be addressed by both. The Bible is the backbone of creation, and Darwin the backbone of evolution. Doubt = reliability? hmmm. Is doubt in evolution what drives people to pursue it?

Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science. Well Darwin didn't really start to doubt until after he took the time to check. Things are not necessarily wrong because they are not checked (I'm not advocating not checking things). But for the creationist, their faith is not in their own ideas, but God. They recognize that faith in God is far superior to their own ability to make sense of the world around them. That shows humility. They doubt in their own ideas just as much as evolutionists do theirs. The difference being that creationists do not pursue their doubts, but have faith in God.You doubt in evolution... You also doubt in creation... but for some reason you choose to only pursue evolution.Back to my original point, the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory, as Darwin is to explaining evolutionary theory.

Being confronted by a satanic looking dude and the barrel of a gun, I will most certainly retract my foolishness.Seriously though. Within the Bible there are both supernatural and natural elements. Creation in itself is supernatural, so science which studies only the natural can have nothing to say about it. But other elements within the creation model are natural, such as "kind after kind" which can be proven through science.Any time you make an observation or statement about the natural world, it can be looked at scientifically. The natural elements within the creation model are studied as creation science.

The definition for kind is very simple. Here is how Blue Letter Bible defines it:

quote:

---

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved”not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

---

In other words, a parent and their offspring are the same kind. This is what I have always thought of species as, but species does not make that distinction about ancestrial gene pool, just if they can produce furtile offspring.So It depends on your evolutionary view. If you believe everything evolved from the same single celled organism, then all life is the same kind. If you believe in creation though, then kind is the same as species.

I think you will enjoy this thread: http://EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day -->EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd dayToward the end we kind of reach an impass, not much more to add, but I'd be interested in any fresh thoughts.

To anybody really. I replied to you because your responses are short, sweet and generally pick up the feel of what other people are saying. I can't reply to everyone or I'd be repeating myself, and I have limited time. Anyone can respond, and if I missed an important point please let me know.

LOL. Well defining ancestrial gene pools would take alot more research than defining a species. Its a question for science, from the Bible (might I add) that science already tries to answer.This shows the Bible as a good source for doing scientific research.

The only kind that started out immortal was Adam and Eve until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Other kinds were not instructed, not said to be immortal. You can't have them multiply without death or things would run amuck.

From the Bible you can predict, and I believe science has found that a species (humans for example) can be traced back only so far and then can find no other trace of it. There are other species (homo erectus for example) that might be similar in structure and different ones trancend throughout time, but there is no proof that one is the ancestor of the other. There are broken links. I think this point at the end of the line is the likely point of creation. I'm not a data junkie, so only speak in theory.

a "nephesh" corresponds with creature, and "chay" indicates that it is living. There is nothing in the definition that indicates that it has to be mortal. Adam eventually became mortal but not to start out.Adam was not instructed to be fruitful and multiply until after he became mortal. Genesis 2 came before Genesis 1 in part. Check that thread I refered you to.

Well that includes everyone inbetween the two extremes. I lean toward the "no new information" extreme. I do agree with natural selection, but not to a point that one cannot reproduce within their own kind.I believe in a localized flood and an ark that took on indigioous species that were later to continue within that same region. I believe the Bible supports this view when looking at the word translated as "earth" it can mean a particular land or region."no new information" means no new genetic mutation that is beneficial to the organism.

Can you document that? And could it be because as of now all "nepesh chayah" are mortal creatures. When he ate from the tree. He said that in Gen 1, but the timing of it was after they left the garden.Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Enjoy.

Darn. I was really counting on that. Can I try again? I hypothesize that these distinct ancestrial gene pools are what we call species today. Now how far back can we trace them?

I don't believe so, but maybe you could point me at some other threads where there is discussion on that.