Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the "toe"?
NoBody
Guest


Message 1 of 24 (71055)
12-04-2003 7:22 PM


Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
Observation: The bible claims to be the begining of all things according to the creation account, and as such I believe that also alot of evolutionists are agnostic, I believe these are called thiestic evolutionist. My point being that I think theory of evolution can be allowed after the creation showed in the Bible. Recent debates of the creation account show that the creation account could be literal, and has no contridiction. If you take the creation account literal you will see that evolution is allowed from that point. We must understand that alot of creationist claim that this is impossible because of the statments from each creation verse explain that life can only bring forth according to its "kind" which would mean that each species can only change below the species level but this interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. I will paste a excerpt from the Blue Letter Bible "a well known respected webpage among christians" which will explain how the "theory of evolution" can be a part of the biblical creation account.
First we must understand that the word KIND in the creation account was taken from the hebrew word: miyn {meen} which came from unused root meaning to portion out. The definition of "miyn" is below.
quote:
1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)
++++
Groups 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".
You can see this definition at this page:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
So you can see that creation according to the Bible does allow the theory of evolution or does it?
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2003 11:04 PM You replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 2:54 AM You replied
 Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2003 7:12 PM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 5 of 24 (71105)
12-05-2003 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
12-04-2003 11:04 PM


How would you tell the difference between two organisms that are decended from two different kinds and two organisms that were decended from the same kind, a long, long time ago, and have accrued significant genetic differences?
Essentially what you would have is 3 ancestors and 4 different descendents, and of course if you where trying to track their geneology then factualy no one probably could, not unless a theory somebody had was able to stick around, such as the TOE. The point is that God created them to be able to evolve.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2003 11:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 7 of 24 (71132)
12-05-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
12-05-2003 2:54 AM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
paulk writes:
Well I have a question here. What reasons are there to beleive that this really is the intended meaning of the Hebrew word ?
I trust the source. But to see where you are going with this, may I ask why you bring this up?
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 2:54 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 4:22 AM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 9 of 24 (71136)
12-05-2003 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
12-05-2003 4:22 AM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
Good point. But you might find this interesting. A completly different webpage with the same exact definition/transliteration. I went to google, searched for Hebrew translations, came up with another page which led to this page.
Strong's #04327 - ’ - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org
They both quote strongs concordance, it seems.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 4:22 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 6:13 AM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 12 of 24 (71144)
12-05-2003 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
12-05-2003 6:13 AM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
Do we have any foundation for this claim though, seems like a assertion, you dont like those from all of your post, we need to validate this claim. We have plenty of time to do so, no need to hurry. I would like to say that I can assure you it is specifcally from the strongs concordance as I have been looking all morning on google and all sorts of people know about it and quote the strongs concordance for the definition, but the question still stands, is the definition of the hebrew word MIYN true in my post or false. Without a foundation that says this is incorrect then a mere assertion wont due.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 6:13 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 8:00 AM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 13 of 24 (71145)
12-05-2003 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ConsequentAtheist
12-05-2003 6:04 AM


Your attempt at derailing my threads is failing, you are rather entertaining me because that last post was just funny. You are wise athiest, you are wise, may I bow too you oh wise one, "NoBody bows to ConsequentAtheist"
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2003 6:04 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 16 of 24 (71227)
12-05-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
12-05-2003 8:00 AM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
paulk writes:
The whole idea of "information" being conserved is a standard creationist argument
This does not take away from it being conserved in the original text.
paulk writes:
It is also not something I would expect to occur to an Ancient Hebrew.
Call me ignorant, but I am not sure where you are going with this.
paulk writes:
So the definition itself contains evidence that it is based on creationist thinking rather than a straightfoward translation of the Bible.
It is really not just a definition, but more of a reason why "kind" can extend too speciation from the original species.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 8:00 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 1:54 PM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 19 of 24 (71298)
12-05-2003 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
12-05-2003 1:54 PM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
paulk writes:
Look I've shown good reason to suppsoe that the "definition" is form creationist belief rather than the Hebrew language.
Yes you have shown good reason, but the reason is built around a assertion, you dont like those as I have pointed out, I dont like those too much eather, so, if you are going to accuse "strongs" work for changing the definition of "KIND" to fit the "toe" then you better have evidence rather then just mere assertions.
paulk writes:
What evidence do you have to the contrary ?
I dont need evidence because I trust his works, you are the one who made the assertion so you be the one to back it up.
paulk writes:
Because the question of this topic is whether the Bible contradicts evolution - not whether cretionists are against evolution.
Correct.
Note: if you look at the definition in the first post, or at the links provided throughout the thread, you will see that their is a "++++" dividing the actual definition from a reason as to why it is ok for the word "kind" to be used and also allow evolution. It is nothing more then a explanation below the defintion. Very simple.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2003 1:54 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2003 6:18 AM You have not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 20 of 24 (71300)
12-05-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist
12-05-2003 7:12 PM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
I will skip the first few bits of garbage and move to the importent stuff as your criticism is a waste of time, and comes from a sophomoric opinion.
ConsequentAtheist writes:
I presume the accounts to be intended as literal descriptions of creation. These accounts contradict our current scientific understanding.
No.
ConsequentAtheist writes:
The observation is entirely worthless. Genesis proclaims the creation of all winged lifeforms prior to the creation all land-based crawling lifeforms. It is clearly ignorant of the evolution of wings. What the language can be twisted to allow is irrelevant.
Genesis claims to have created every fowl of the air, yes, but it does not say that these fowls could not evolve or change.
ConsquentAtheist writes:
How did birds evolve?
The waters brought them forth. This means that they came forth out of the waters.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2003 7:12 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2003 10:11 PM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 22 of 24 (71323)
12-06-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ConsequentAtheist
12-05-2003 10:11 PM


Re: Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the
Do you claim that current scientific understanding is that fowl evolved before land-based insects?
No.
Nor does it say that the Marlins could not win the World Series. In fact, there is much that Genesis does not say, none of which validates what it does say.
You must also recognise these values, dont try to make Genesis say things that it does not. Just because Genesis "uses" the words "after its kind" does not mean that it removes the idea of evolution.
Do you claim that birds evolved prior to land-based insects?
No.
For now, I will accept the default and say that the Bible, even if the idea of evolution is allowed, that the way evolution would have accrued from a biblical standpoint, is different then the TOE. So Yes, The Bible contradicts the TOE, sorry for the misunderstanding.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2003 10:11 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-06-2003 6:27 AM You have not replied

     
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024