You make a terrible mistake. miyn does means 'sort' but it does NOT mean
'species'. Species is a concept developed by Linne in the 1700's. Genesis
1:24 talks about creeping things which some believe are insects and
reptiles and they are not one species. They are of various kinds.
>
>And after this event came the creation of man. In other words no more
>animal species were produced by the earth after the fifth day of
>creation.
So please explain to me the fact that NO living mammalian species is found
in rocks older than the Miocene. And only two species of fossilized living
mammals are found in Miocene rocks. In all rocks lying underneath the
Miocence there is no living mammal found as a fossil If those animals
lived in the original pre-flood world, why are they not found earlier in
the flood rocks? Don't give me the ecological zonation view of Whitcomb
and Morris because there are lots of mammals found earlier, just not living
mammals. Thus it would seem that the world did create animals after the
5th day, or maybe you should consider my views.
>
>Your position on a 'Animals begat animals after their kind.' statement
>is like saying since The Bible doesn't explicity forbid engaging in
>erotic arousal with an intern, then is ok. I mean it must say 'Thou
>shalt not engage in inappropiate relationships with 21 year old
>interns'. It really isn't a serious proposition.
Well yes the bible does specifically forbid such activities. I see that it
has been a long time since you have read Exodus.
Exodus 20:14 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
So now that I have shown you that the Bible does rule out Clinton's
behavior, please tell me where the Bible rules out evolution. It is quite
a telling point that you can't show that to be a Biblical doctrine from a
clear statement in scripture. What has happened is that Christians have
read anti-evolutionism INTO the Scripture. They are adding to Scripture.
>
>> If I send you to the store to get vegetables 'after their kind' you
>> don't understand me to have spoken about the reproductive capacities
>> of vegetables. You know I want an assortment. If God creates or the
>> land produces animals 'after their kind' why do we insist on
>> understanding this different than the above?
>>
>
>But in this scenario I understand that you want completed developed
>veggies. I mean what good is to bring a corn husk without kernels?
>(Unless of course you want to make a pipe :->) Or an artichoke heart
>without the artichokes leaves?
The above is silly. God didn't command the land to produce legs, and He
didn't command the earth to produce spleens. He commanded it to produce
animals (completed animals) of various kinds.
>
>I insist that when Genesis says that God made 'livestock according to
>their kinds' it means that the bovines were bovines, equines were
>equines and porcines were porcines. No in between mix. As I stated
>before the hebrew word meaning is something like 'sorted order by
>species'.
I notice that it is YOUR authority which makes this claim. Since I don't
believe that you are divinely inspired please show this to me from
Scripture! I only recognize the authority of Scripture not Dario.
Show me where the Bible says, "Morphological form is immutable" or "Animals
can only give rise to animals exactly like themselves." If that were true,
then I am not my parent's child.
>
>Now, before a frog can become a dog and then a cow and then an ape and
>then a human we talking crossing species. This is contrary to the
>Biblical narrative of Genesis. There isn't room in here to insert your
>postulation.
Please show me from scripture where it says that species boundaries can't
be crossed. I think you are addint a tradition of man to the Bible, just
as the Pharisees added their traditions, YECs are insistent on making the
Bible say what it doesn't say. Show me from Scripture. Show me the
statement where GOD says 'evolution is impossible.'
>
>And moreover, God Himself creates man out of dirt. He doesn't just let
>the evolutionary path continue until an humanlike ape becomes a man and
>then He intervenes and gives Adam a soul.
See my web page "Theory for Creationist. I accept that God created man
from dust. I don't accept the insertion of soul theory that most
evolutonists accept.
I would also point out that the word 'dust' in Genesis 2:7 may not mean dirt.
6083. 'aphar, aw-fawr'; from H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay,
earth, mud:--ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish.
It might mean ashes, or rubbish. A corpse is rubbish.
>
>>
>> >> Who brought forth the grass? The EARTH did--at God's command. God
was not
>> >> the subject ofthe above sentence so you can't say that God directly
created
>> >> the grass, He INDIRECTLY created the grass.
>
>The earth have all of the ingredients to produce plant life. It didn't
>need any more intervention from the Creator at this point other than an
>order to do what it was designed to do.
That is exactly what the Theistic evolutionist believes. God put into
nature the ability to produce life. Why can you make this claim and then
say that God COULDN"T have imparted to the universe the ability to evolve
the life forms God wanted? Do you have a double standard?
>
>I have been to your site several times and it is impossible to reconcile
>your propositions and theories with clean and solid biblical
>hermeneutics. I have told you this before.
so show me the clear and straightforward verse in the Bible that says that
evolution is imposible.
>
>But this last point doesn't prevent me from reading and understanding
>what you are saying.
>
>However, I did notice that you excepted and never answered the spot
>where I wrote how Genesis details God creating man Himself, how He made
>Adam a living soul and how God placed this exact human He had been
>working with in a garden with fruit trees planted by God.
God was directly involved in creating man
>>>Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His image".
During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of man a very rare
mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was almost always fatal.
God took one of these reatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew his
breath into him. Why do I have God make Adam in this fashion? Because of
what God said when Adam sinned. If you remember the verse Genesis 3:19 God
said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall return." A dead body is
"dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now will return.
Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this.
If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the living Adam
'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust you will
return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being and so the dust
does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that when Adam died he
would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust).
Thus Adam was created from the product of a chromosomal fusion. This allows
us to explain the existence of the pseudogene; something no other Biblical
interpretation which believes in a specially created Adam can explain. But
Adam was alone. He had not evolved in the normal fashion and so there was
no population of creatures like him with whom he could mate. He also could
not talk. Adam's physical parent could not talk and so he could not learn
from them. God taught Adam to speak. That is what God was doing when he
brought all the animals to Adam. <<<
>
>It isn't that The Bible shows no evolution took place, it is evolution
>apologists who ignore Biblical passages describing no evolution taking
>place.
I have asked you several times to show me that verse and you continually
refuse to show me the simple verse which clearly rules out evolution and
you fail to do it. I am beginning to think you can't find it.
>
>And to the question what came first the apple or the tree Genesis gives
>the answer: the tree and it was planted by God Himself (Gen. 2:8-9)
>
>>
>> Now why don't you go find me that statement that says "Animals can
>> only give birth to animals exactly like them"
>>
>
>This was answered above.
I didn't see a single verse referenced. I saw that YOU insisted, but I
don't recognize Dario as being divinely inspired. You will have to do
better than that.
>
>Will you please find a Biblical statement where it says that 'God made
>man from a pre-existing ape'.
I can't. And since you can't show me where evolution is ruled out, the
only real option is to go to the scientific data and determine what that
says. The scripture doesn't rule out an ape as an ancestor nor does it
rule it in. The Scripture doesn't rule evolution out, but may rule it in.
The only place we can go to be sure is to the scientific data. Scripture is
almost silent.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm