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

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 BibleSo 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]

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?

Crash,I hereby notify you of my intent to steal that question and use it in the future (with credit to you). I like that one a hell of a lot.

By all means.Of course it's a loaded question: without a way to distinguish different kinds, one could simply say that all life are descendants of one basic kind of life...

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]

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]

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.

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.orgThey both quote strongs concordance, it seems.------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]

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.

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

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]

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.

...and I enjoy that implication. It's a catchy way to draw attention to the fact that there's no way to define a kind, other than how many you want to have as a result (since they must all fit in a fantastical wooden boat) or how emotionally dedicated you are to keeping homo separate from the apes. That these two seemingly absolute needs of creationists are so completely at odds is the reason why nobody can pin them down on the definition or identification.