I have not seen any evidence suggesting species within any kingdom can produce a new kind.
Here is a quote from the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon regarding kind at blueletterbible.org.
quote:Outline of Biblical Usage: kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconserved—not gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind".
1st: I do not believe you can tell the difference. It is almost like you knew Moses and can read my mind.
2nd: If you don't accept the definition of kind within the written word that is a moot point.
quote: 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I think it is important to realize Science is a tool that does provide a way to interpret data. I also think there are more tools in the tool box that provide a better way to interpret the same data and/or data of a different type. Sometimes coupling the tools used to interpret data is best for the job. And there are issues today that Science is unable to resolve even a little bit when you would think it should be able to provde the best answers. The error correction within the Scientific method also exists within other methods of interpretation. People see issues, research, imagine, draw ideas, repeat. And of course it's important to note i'm refering to interpreting the origin of all things.
Ok. In DNA there is plenty of room for information to be stored, no need to think it was lost. And most of the time mutations lead to death, or the mutation is destroyed within the creature causing abortion. This idea that mutations lead to new species and then to new kinds so to speak, over billions of years is hypothetical with exception to simple life forms such as plants. Which is writtin in scipture to have been produced by the earth. IT IS absolutely astonishing Moses was aware of plant evolution. You don't need to break up the evolutionary idea into micro and macro. You can explain it away reasonably with the above info.
You meant books. The bible is filled with several books.
Books actually do change reality though. A reality with books or 1 without books. Very big difference. Further what is real is being interpreted. You can't know what you think is truth, instead you believe it, you interpret it. Which does lead to a type of knowledge and this knowledge can and will be debated, corrected, and etc.
I'm not arguing that it is unhealthy to change your mind persay, quite the opposite. I'm arguing 1 it can be unhealthy and 2 Science changes like the wind. That should help you draw a better conclusion (i.e to change your mind) about the process of Science and the related flaws.
Science is a tool. Not a religon. Millions use it supporting creation such as the reasons to believe entity. And others use it to suggest evolution such as hawking.
You need to point out where "religon" is incorrect in order for your point to be valuable. And I'm sure you have a list of issues and in all likelyhood you are anchoring to someone else. It is extremely typical to see a mainstream point being re-argued repeatedly. In anycase, please reference 1 or 2 issues if you want to be productive in this conversation. :-)
If you write a book as you wrote, it would be entertainment and also it would be something written. Much different than if it was not written and if there were 0 books existing. Your point that if you write a book with written material that is false based on interpreration is moot. Further whether or not a interpretation is popular doesnt make it true, even if we agree on the point.
The theory of evolution is accepted and it is being corrected. The name has changed a few times.
Big bang, big crunch, multiverse, string theory, electrical universe theory, evolution, darwinian evolution, theory of evolution, general relativity, quantum theory, abiogenesis, etc.. There are hundreds of theories and in many cases anchoring is popular.
Umm... ok... 🙄 It's unhealthy to change your mind frequently = i.e. not unhealthy persay/can be unhealthy. You didn't catch that point? Sorry, I will do my best to be clear.
If you study you learn. And what you learn is equal to a belief. The knowledge gained from studying is ultimately a belief. Nothing is absolute.
Science is a method of studying the things it can be used to study. That is it. Yes you can study nature with Science. 😁 And yes, Science, overtime, if the theory is comprehensive may be the ultimate truth of nature to human beings. Hope you understood that last part. 🤔
I don't disagree with your first point regarding Science. I do think it is important to point out, people using Science have been wrong many times and in many cases death has been the result. So while Science is finding corrections it is also making errors that cause death in worse case scenarios.
Regarding religon, you test them to find out which one is correct.
1 example, gen 1 has the sequence of creation in the exact same order as our science of today. That is amazing. 🤔
I will trust the translation of strongs lexicon. 😉
I would ask God not people about scripture. I'm merely posting my point of view . 😁
I'm not sure what other option you have, either everything came into existence from nothing existing at all (even within the multiverse model this is true) or some being that has always existed created everything. I suppose you could be a idealist but you do not seem to communicate like one. 🤔