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

This does not take away from it being conserved in the original text. Call me ignorant, but I am not sure where you are going with this. 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]

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.

The phrase is malformed and nonsensical. Being malformed and nonsensical, it has no relevance to the existence of agnostic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, or atheist evolutionists. This lack of relevance should not be construed as license to further butcher the language. An evolutionist who is an agnostic is, by definition, a person who acknowledges the fact of evolution, presumably adheres to one of the theories about evolution, but is undecided about God(s) and/or is of the opinion that the existence of God(s) is unknowable. To call such a person "a theistic evolutionist" is simply confused. I presume the accounts to be intended as literal descriptions of creation. These accounts contradict our current scientific understanding. 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. How did birds evolve?

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. 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. 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]

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. No. Genesis claims to have created every fowl of the air, yes, but it does not say that these fowls could not evolve or change. 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]

Do you claim that current scientific understanding is that fowl evolved before land-based insects? 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. Do you claim that birds evolved prior to land-based insects?

No. 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. 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]

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]

This is your strawman. not mine. It is also a silly diversion. That "after its kind" does not preclude evolution simply demonstrates that the language was primitive and imprecise. It does not suggest that the Bible embraced the mechanism of evolution. In fact, the Biblical account stands in contradiction with accepted science. Unfortunately, your problem was evidently not one of misunderstanding but one of ignorance. You're actually not very good at this stuff.