fnci@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.0402041715.29f4652c@posting.google.com>...
> branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message news:<b9b3de8.0402040649.74b8c25d@posting.google.com>...
> > fnci@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.0402011336.2c578ce3@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bvibda$adi$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>...
<snippage>
> > > > Well, since many Creationists, including myself, are comfortable with the
> > > > idea of speciation by natural selection since Creation within a kind,
> > >
> > > Do you mean "independent abiogenesis" of a "kind?" If not, "kindly"
> > > tell us exactly how a "kind" is created.
> > >
> >
> > For me, the Kinds are those which were created in the Beginning, as
> > set out in Genesis.
>
> IOW, you say that many organisms arose by independent abiogenesis at
> some time in the past. But you didn't specify when that "beginning"
> was, or propose a mechanism to answer thw "how" question?
>
I would put the Beginning, for the sake of argument, at nearly ten
thousand years ago. It's a nice round number.
> >
> > I don't believe that things that speciate can cross these kinds, and
> > that becomes then the definition of the Kind.
>
> It doesn't matter what you believe.
I don't know why you ask me then, if it doesn't matter.
> Anyone can say that they believe
> that the universe began last Thursday, and that would be impossible to
> falsify.
There we are then. You admit you can't disprove my faith.
> What matters is what you think that the testable evidence
> shows. And while you are at it, will you address what you find wrong
> with the creationist claims that differ from yours?
>
The testable evidence is not important. It is part of the heaven and
earth that shall pass away, but the word of God endureth forever.
I cannot address creationist claims that differ from mine, as there is
more than one way to envisage even a literal interpretation of
Genesis. It is conceivable that you could put a hundred Creationists
in a room and get a hundred slightly different understandings of
exactly what happened, and each could be as valid as mine.
The important aspects of what they should believe are, I think, as
follows:
1. The Creation was a great display of the power and the glory of God
2. The pre-incarnate Christ was personally involved in Creation
3. It took six days, and God rested the seventh day.
4. The flora and fauna were individually created after their kinds
5. Man was made after the image of God, and created male and female.
6. The breath of life came immediately from God.
7. At the moment of creation, the world was perfect and sinless.
Now I happen to believe a lot of additional things that I infer from
that which don't contradict it, but which could actually be a lot of
rubbish. I kindle the fond idea, for instance, based on nothing
whatsoever but an idea in my own head which could be utter nonsense -
I cannot even call it a vision, that Adam was created 33 years old,
and that he had a navel, and that the moment the rib was removed from
his side to make Eve, his Bride, leaving a wound in his side, was
precisely the same age of his life (had he had those years) as Christ
was in physical years, to the second, when the Roman spear pierced my
Saviour's side, in exactly the same place, and blood and water came
out to wash the church and make His Holy Bride. I further happen
believe that Christ looked identical to Adam, as if they had been born
twin brothers. I believe that if they had met in Eden, and we could
look on, we would have had difficulty telling them apart, except that
Christ also has blessed woundprints in His hands and feet.
That's an example of somthing I can surmise which is just an idea of
mine not backed up by either scientific nor biblical evidence it is
just an image which strengthens me and maybe no other creationist
ascribes to it, I wouldn't dream of binding their consciences to it,
and the chances are in eternity it will be laid aside as the fond
fancy of someone with an overactive imagination. But the seven truths
I gave above it I feel pretty sure we will all believe in eternity.
> >
> > The differences observable in phene space within two species that are
> > in the same kind can exceed the differences observable in phene space
> > between two separate but similar Kinds, I daresay, since I do observe
> > that the differences between two races of a single species observable
> > in phene space can exceed the differences between to separate but
> > similar species. For example, a Pommeranian and an Arctic fox look
> > more like each other than a Pommeranian and a Riesenschnauzer, but the
> > Arctic fox is a different species and maybe even a different Kind.
> >
> > People get upset with me that I cannot give them a working definition
> > of a Kind, but there are similar problems with the word species, and
> > people live with it.
>
> But scientists are open about their differences, and more importantly,
> try to learn more about how to better define "species."
> Anti-evolutionists prefer to hide their differences, which are
> magnitudes greater than the differences in science.
I don't think so. There is plenty of leeway for different ways to
understand Genesis.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
|