Does Creationism as reported in the Bible remove the "toe"?

Well I have a question here. What reasons are there to beleive that this really is the intended meaning of the Hebrew word ?

Well it looks like your source is trying to equate the Hebrew term with modern concepts. It looks like an attempt to rule evolution out of the Bible by inventing a definition rather than relying on how the word would have been understood by the original readers.

Yes, but it still looks like an after-the-fact creationist interpretation. Indeed I can't believe that anyone could have gotten that definition in any way other than copying creationist assertions.
There's no way it could have come from simply studying the Bible, or ancient Hebrew.So it looks to me like one more example of forcing the Bible to fit Fundamentalist Christian beliefs, rather than an honest atempt to work out what it actually says.

The whole idea of "information" being conserved is a standard creationist argument - and one that rests on "information" being defined loosely enough to dismiss counter-examples.It is also not something I would expect to occur to an Ancient Hebrew.So the definition itself contains evidence that it is based on creationist thinking rather than a straightfoward translation of the Bible.

Look I've shown good reason to suppsoe that the "definition" is form creationist belief rather than the Hebrew language. What evidence do you have to the contrary ?Because the question of this topic is whether the Bible contradicts evolution - not whether cretionists are against evolution.

And how do you know that the entirity of the definition comes fron Strongs ? The definition you provided has been called into question - and evidence has been provided to call it into doubt. So the ball is in your court. Support the definition. Or you are the one relying on assertions.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-06-2003]