quote:
I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis,
You say that often. Doesn't make it right.
Genesis just says "kind". That's not a definition of species. It doesn't even distinguish between family/genus/species.
Once more with feelings. The word kinds is a most appropriate word here, considering that specie is very recent and thus not understandable by all generations. There is certainly a definition of species and sub-groupings, and this is made by terrain and habitat: what do you call water borne; air borne; land borne - if not definitions of the most fundamental and first observed criteria? Yes it does make absolute distinctions also, declaring each follows only their own kind - that is a clear distinction, referring to separate kinds.
There is also descriptions of how kinds are processed, namey via the host seed containing specific data, which can be transmitted to the offspring to continue the process - thereby ensuring why life continues within each specie - without any assistance from the environment or nature. In contrast, the latter two cannot deliver.
The standout features of Genesis' mode of evolution are two factors totally deficient and absent in Darwin's mode:
1. Pre-actions conducive to the advent of life.
2. That life was initiated in a dual gendered form.
These are great errors in Darwinism which cannot be classified as scientific. The followers of ToE improvised these glitches with novel and fantastic manipulations and inventions - none of which are scientifically based or witnessed before us today. Today, a growing number of scientists are inclining with genesis, some using backdoor methods such as ID, which posits a design without a designer. This is akin to a car whose design we can observe - as proof there is no car maker. The reverse must apply, no? So how can a British school system not mention these factors which are introduced in Genesis and still retain any crediblity?
™ Version 4.2
