Originally posted by Conspiriology
I find it difficult to believe you are having such a problem understanding this single word in the context it is given.
it's insanely vague, so it's quite hard to understand exactly what it means
it seems that you believe in whatever science that supports your views and disbelieve any science that does not support your views.
incorrect. i just accept whatever science is provable. i used to hold tight that string theory was insubstantial and that something else was required
that would make such a ridiculous notion obsolete...i was proven wrong
I have heard astyatax say "the wonderful thing about the theory of evolution is that it keeps evolving"
Not sure what that means but I think a similar reasoning is used whenever Christians have to answer why the dooms day date was wrong.
...but the christians say that it's with absolute certainty (odd that they can predict what will come unexpectedly...), while science is changing
what it says based on new evidence.
the end times predictions all come from the exact same evidence.
I hope Science can accept the same excuses for errors in judgement and interpretation as we have to accept new changes to cover mistakes brought about
by everything from fraudulent evidence to lack of observable data by Darwinists.
fraudulent evidence? darwinists are the ones that point out the fakes...
and there are only about 3-4 examples you can put forth that are outright frauds. the rest (like the embryo charts or the horse charts) were simply
mistakes that are taught as an explanation to how evolutionary theory developed (much like how we teach how copernicus, though wrong in many ways, eg
his belief that orbits weren't elliptical, was instrumental in the formation of heliocentric astronomy)
there have been boatloads of observable data...much of which has been posted in other threads.
and why must you make a false comparison?
I have a funny feeling however, that the teflon will be covering that double standard too around 2012.
....except that it won't. the 2012 predictions are void of evidence, they're completely based in supposition and imagination
evolutionary science, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence (which you tend to ignore)
God is always the same and so is life itself.
really? have you seen the massive mood swing that occurs between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT?
Those who tend to use the Bibles age as a reason to discount it is an excuse for what is written in it applies to today as much as it did when it was
being compiled when it comes to the human condition.
...except that part where it doesn't. it has no way of dealing with complex moral issues, only very simple ones.
and very few use it's mere age, it's age + context. it is in no way applicable to a modern society full of highly complex moral decisions.
if a siamese twin had been born in that time it would have been cast aside as demonic...now we have the complex decision that might come from having
to choose between letting both die or saving one and killing the other...
That is why we argue against Science that tries to prove it wrong
...science doesn't try to prove
it wrong, just your interpretation.
science is entirely apathetic to what's in the bible.
...what does any of this have to do with what a "kind" is?
because as Christians, we know how God intended it to be
...so you know the exact interpretation god wanted?
it/s/he never really spelled that out
and anything we see contrary to the way the Bible says it and it being the word of God, then naturally we are looking in the wrong direction.
or maybe the bible is wrong...
or maybe you've got the interpretation horribly skewed..
It is the same with Science too. Anything evolutionists see as evidence of a creator is bad evidence or it is given words to pre-face it like "The
illusion" of a creator etc.
...it's called an "illusion" because there's nothing to casually relate it to a creator.
does god make clouds look like horses?
They know that anything that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method is junk science however one of the components of that method are
what has been seen and obeserved.
*facepalm*
if you're going to throw evolution out on this point, you'll have to throw out forensics.
the concept of "observed" means that there is evidence. it doesn't need to be seen directly.
Like much of the intermediaries fossils that we are told will never be observed I can easily dismiss it then as just too bad. This leaves much to be
imagined then doesn't it.
not really. you don't need 100% of the evidence...you just need enough to prove the point.
odd...creationism really has no explanation for why certain types of animals are grouped in the same strata...
or that whole "we have precise measurements that date the world as 600,000 older than what the bible says" thing...
It leaves much of what has been imagined already to faith in it doesn't it.
not really. you don't need a complete record of every living thing that ever existed to prove the theory
in fact, you're just moving the goal posts back. if we had 90% of the fossils, you'd say we don't have enough.
If evolution were to be strictly held to the Scientific method it so gallantly supports and is used to fault creationist with, it would surely fail
for under the strict rules of its own criteria, it must break one of its own rules of observable data to conform.
...nope, not at all. i've actually explained why this point is false (repeatedly), even to you.....why is it still being used?
Herein lies the rub of Science and Religion but we get your answer to the word "Kind" as further reading in the scripture lays out in the form of an
analogy or example.
took you long enough to get there.
This means you won't find any sperm in an apple and you won't find apple seed in the reproductive system of man.
...unless someone's doing something really dirty with apples, i'd agree there.
You won't find Apple seed in an Orange and you won't find Human seed in a monkey. The proof the Bible was right as rain back then when all the
idiots that wrote the 4000 year old data is that to this day, man has never had sex with his female counterpart where appleman was born. Or any other
KIND of thing.
"Kinds" Madness, get it now?
not really, you're being entirely vague. i was looking for some concrete standard
you gave me both apple is not the same "kind" as human and apple is not the same "kind" as orange" and human isn't the same "kind" as
monkey.
By the way, if you want to know what is meant by the word "thing" you can add species to that too as what is meant by that and what is observable
according to your scientific method and according to God.
ah, but we've observed instance of speciation, so the bible has fallen flat on its face if it says that one species cannot become another...
See, Religion really DOES back up Science when we are drop dead honest about it.
except those parts where it says the earth goes round the sun, is flat, and only 6000 or so years old...
It is pretty simple to understand if you WANT to understand it but if you want to NOT understand it
...no, it's a question of whether or not you want to distort your perception of reality to the point where your religion pushes out established
science to replace it with false science...
