Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Wick Stick]

The context of the verse (Ex. 20:11) *is not about creation.

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"

You don't seem to understand context. Context is not the verse cited. It is the verses before (pre-text) and after (post-text) the verse cited, and especially, it is the answer to the question, "what is this passage about?"

For Exodus 20:11, the verses in both the pre- and post-text are part of the 10 commandments. The passage is about the giving of the Law.

Creating a doctrine about the creation of the universe from this passage is a misuse of the verse, since you are using it for a purpose that is something other than what the context of the verse demands.

It is allowable to apply a verse to your own life and circumstances out of context (aka inspiration). It is not allowable to turn it into an abstract, and build your whole theology on it.

You need a book on hermeneutics and textual criticism in the worst way.

Stripe is correct. Common ancestry beliefs destroy the gospel.

1 Cor. 15 explains the need of a literal Last Adam suffering and defeating physical death, *as a result of sin by the literal first Adam. Evolutionism places physical death as part of the creation God calls very good, and not a result of sin. If "the final enemy" death, was part of what God calls "very good"..... then Christ went to Calvary for nothing. Evolutionism DOES destroy the gospel.*

I think I see the problem here. You have misidentified the gospel. The gospel is not physical resurrection and eternal life. Those are just the perks. Neither is it original sin, and deliverance from it.

The gospel is about reconciliation to God, unity with Him, and His presence in the world expressed through the symbiosis of that relationship. Evolution does nothing to harm the gospel.

Now, it does eviscerate St. Augustine's formulation of the doctrine of Original Sin. But, Augustine's explanation was always at one extreme end of the spectrum. His interpretation of Paul needs revision. Original Sin is a thing. It just isn't quite what Augustine said.

There is nature, and there is nurture. Augustine makes Original Sin a problem of nature. This is precisely wrong. Heredity of sin, and the tendency to sin, is a problem of nurture and environs.

I guess I'll leave off there, as this is starting to turn into some sort of sermon. And nobody likes long sermons. Nobody.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

If it plainly means that ..... then that is the end of the argument. Or, do you think God contradicts Himself throughout scripture?

I think that verse is a gloss which was incorporated into the text in error.

Jarrod

 

[Greg Jennings]

No previous creation.... so alongside.

The short eared owl, fisher owl, and little owl are all listed as their own kinds. Why is there so much specificity in regards to owls and yet no mention of a dinosaur kind or kinds?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Quote by Richard Dawkins:

"The refutation, of course, is simple: a lack of professional training in an area doesn’t mean that your statements about that area can be completely disregarded."

That's sometimes true. But I'll pose it to you this way: if you need open heart surgery, would you go to a surgeon without a medical license?

 

[6days]

*"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"

You don't seem to understand context. Context is not the verse cited. It is the verses before (pre-text) and after (post-text) the verse cited, and especially, it is the answer to the question, "what is this passage about?"

Yes. ..I agree.

And throughout scripture we see various authors and even Jesus seeming to accept The creation account as true history and not allegorical.

Also, from the creation account itself, the context does not allow for long periods of time. In six days, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

For Exodus 20:11, the verses in both the pre- and post-text are part of the 10 commandments. The passage is about the giving of the Law.

Of course. God explains that He set the pattern for our work week. He created in six days...not in an instant, nor in six eras.

Stripe is correct. Common ancestry beliefs destroy the gospel.
1 Cor. 15 explains the need of a literal Last Adam suffering and defeating physical death, *as a result of sin by the literal first Adam. Evolutionism places physical death as part of the creation God calls very good, and not a result of sin. If "the final enemy" death, was part of what God calls "very good"..... then Christ went to Calvary for nothing. Evolutionism DOES destroy the gospel.

I think I see the problem here. You have misidentified the gospel. The gospel is not physical resurrection and eternal life. Those are just the perks. Neither is it original sin, and deliverance from it.

Christ's death on Calvary was a waste according to your beliefs it seems. He needed to defeat physical death...not just spiritual death. 1 Cor. 15 is about physical resurrection made possible through the physical death and resurrection of Christ.

Evolution does nothing to harm the gospel.

Evolutionism / Darwinism is an atheist maker. It teaches young people that The Bible is like a buffet where you pick and choose what to believe. I like the way pastor Joe Boot explains it. "The creation account is foundational to Christian theology. The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is supported by the rest of the Bible, linguistic analysis, the testimony of historic Christian orthodoxy, and science itself."

 

[6days]

The short eared owl, fisher owl, and little owl are all listed as their own kinds. Why is there so much specificity in regards to owls and yet no mention of a dinosaur kind or kinds?

Sorry.... are you saying there are 3 separate created kinds of owls listed in the Bible? Or 3 separate species?
You may not realize but the Biblical creation model (and supported by observation) is rapid adaptation (or rapid speciation) based on pre-existing info and mechanisms programmed into the genome

 

[Jose Fly]

the Biblical creation model (and supported by observation) is rapid adaptation (or rapid speciation)

Stripe says speciation never happens. Is he wrong?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sorry.... are you saying there are 3 separate created kinds of owls listed in the Bible? Or 3 separate species?
You may not realize but the Biblical creation model (and supported by observation) is rapid adaptation (or rapid speciation) based on pre-existing info and mechanisms programmed into the genome

I'm going according to your article by Bodie. I'm assuming you did read it?

'Furthermore, is the assumption that common design points toward common ancestry biblical? Obviously, Genesis 1 refutes this idea. But consider also Leviticus 11:13–19:

‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short–eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.''

 

[6days]

Stripe says speciation never happens. Is he wrong?

He is correct

 

[Jose Fly]

He is correct

Then given your statement that the "Biblical model" is rapid speciation, the "Biblical model" is wrong.

 

[6days]

'Furthermore, is the assumption that common design points toward common ancestry biblical? Obviously, Genesis 1 refutes this idea.

I agree that Genesis 1 refutes common ancestry. Common design points to our common Designer.

But consider also Leviticus 11:13–19:

‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short–eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.''

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point.*

Are you saying these are all different kinds? Different species?

 

[6days]

Then given your statement that the "Biblical model" is rapid speciation, the "Biblical model" is wrong.

Nope... as told to you many times...we define 'speciation' differently. It is a flexible rubbery word which Stripe does not use.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope... as told to you many times...we define 'speciation' differently.

How do you define it?

It is a flexible rubbery word which Stripe does not use.

Why are you using it?

 

[6days]

How do you define it?

It's a group isolated from the parent population, ..... adapted to a different environment because of info God programmed into the genome...or possibly isolated from parent population because of mutations and a loss of pre-existing info. These isolated groups are still members of the same kind.
Darwin's finches are a good example. Evolutionists call them separate species because of very small changes such as beak length. But, as you know... the word 'species' is rubbery without a clear definition.

 

[Alate_One]

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point.*

Are you saying these are all different kinds? Different species?

He's showing a listing that mentions kinds are all what we would call species today. It's an excellent example from Biblical text of exactly what I have been saying through this entire thread.

 

[George Affleck]

That's sometimes true. But I'll pose it to you this way: if you need open heart surgery, would you go to a surgeon without a medical license?

If I was totally convinced that the surgeon was likely to do me more good than any other.

Our family drinks raw, unpasteurized milk from grass fed, organic cows. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom and formal education yet I am convinced, if done properly, it is safer and healthier than store-bought milk; regardless of the "experts" that say otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's a group isolated from the parent population

Reproductively isolated?

 

[6days]

He's showing a listing that mentions kinds are all what we would call species today. It's an excellent example from Biblical text of exactly what I have been saying through this entire thread.

Not even close....

He is explaining the exact opposite of what you have been saying.... 'Kind' and 'species' arw 2 different things.*

The article says "Some commentators use the word species, which was developed in the mid 1500s and meant “sort” or “kind.” Linnaeus also tried sticking with this terminology. Since then the term species has been redefined in scientific terms over the years and no longer means “kind,” as represented in the Bible. Species still lacks a solid definition in today’s scientific culture

 

[6days]

Reproductively isolated?

Rubbery.....
Sometimes they might be. Pygmies are mostly reproductively isolated from us but not a separate species. Some of Darwin's finches are said to be a separate species but still can and do breed with each other.

 

[OCTOBER23]

GOD CAN MAKE ANY KIND OF ANIMAL THAT HE WANTS LIKE A

DUCKBILL PLATYPUS or HYENA.

Therefore, Animals are individually created and NO Animals are Related.