• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science In The Bible

tosca1

Member
What is a "kind"?


Here is an explanation:

What Is a “Kind”?

zonkey-zorse.jpg


Figure 1. Zonkey and zorse at the Creation Museum


The first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”


As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand.

What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If that's how you wanna take it - then I suppose, nothing is really determined!
Kindly remind all evolutionists about that! Even with all its holes - they tend to think evolution is a fact!
Tell them!

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to with your post concerning the cosmology of the universe:

Boy, how could I have forgotten about that?
This should've been at the top of the list - the first 3 words of Genesis 1:1

IN THE BEGINNING.......



That's very much confirmed by science that the universe had a beginning!


No, science cannot confirm our physical existence had a beginning or not. Science has not confirmed whether our universe began as a singularity or it is cyclic, or science has reasonable evidence that the universe is part of a greater physical existence possibly a multiverse,
 

tosca1

Member
Cherry picking does not mean that science is in the Bible. If you want to take that stance you have to look at the failures as well.


Lol. There are no failures.
And I'm not cherry-picking.

I say there are no failures because - the Bible is also mixed with poetry, parables, analogies, and it uses so many different kinds of figures of speech.

Unless science confirms something - we won't know if the verse is supposed to be taken literally or simply a poetic way of talking, or if just figures of speech.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me get this clear.
So.....you're saying, when you guys don't want a subject, you try your best to trash the thread?

That, there's a clique of you old members, who purposefully shut down subjects you don't like?

In other words, I'm being graciously given a warning - considering I'm a newbie?

Is that what you're saying here?
You got that all from what he posted? No wonder you are seeing science in Genesis that is not there.

Did you forget to mention some of your many comments about others responding to your posts? You know the ones that were not answers to their questions, but implied there was something wrong with them. You did forget. How convenient.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I think we are afraid of snakes because they are one species that could climb up the trees and eat us.
There may be something to that, but I am not sure how you would test for it. Comparison of response by other primates in the wild? They seem to react as you suggest here.
 

tosca1

Member
This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to with your post concerning the cosmology of the universe:



No, science cannot confirm our physical existence had a beginning or not. Science has not confirmed whether our universe began as a singularity or it is cyclic, or science has reasonable evidence that the universe is part of a greater physical existence possibly a multiverse,


Here, from the faq of NASA:

The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.

New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.


It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.
WMAP Site FAQs


You may be referring to this:


What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!
The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning, After All



The beginning may not have began with the big bang.....but that's not the same as saying there's no beginning.


Until science changes its position and says there is no beginning for the universe - we'll just have to stick to that.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Sorry Skwim....I mistook you for the other one.

Okay, back to your post. You were saying....

the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD blah....blah....blah......


Uhhhhhm.....

What's that got to do with this thread?
Gee. I thought quite a bit. You said


"Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:

Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,

The implication being that those who study evolution should be particularly interested in the Bible's claim that god made the
waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life. But they're not Aside from being a possible curiosity, your little Bible piece is of no more interest to evolutionists than it is to astrophysicists, climatologists, or pharmacists.

Don't conflate the two arenas of science.

.

 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
There is no evidence that formalized science was being conducted during the time of the Bible. That people could observe things and include those observations into a story is not evidence that the story is science or science-based. The inclusion of facts is not consistent with claims and often contradicts what has been determined using science.

Including some facts mixed into the text is not evidence of science or that later science is actually in line with the Bible.

While it may indicate something about person making the claim about specific instances of factual observations in Genesis, I do not see what the point of doing it is other than to lend some sort of support for the belief. This is nothing more than cherry picking and a wild imagination brought to bear to bias specific conclusions.
 

tosca1

Member
It says 2 things that can breed together are a "kind". So an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua are different "kinds" because they can't breed together?


Yes, they're both dogs. Can they breed together? That's the question.
Maybe, "kind" includes their sizes, too - if breeding is possible.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:



Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,


Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water!
salt water.....freshwater pond ........water is water.





https://phys.org/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html


Doesn't that strikes a chord with Darwinists?
A bite like asking a deeply religious person about
Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:



Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,


Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water!
salt water.....freshwater pond ........water is water.





https://phys.org/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html


Doesn't that strikes a chord with Darwinists?
Your question is identical to asking a religious person about the similarities between their story and others. In a sense all denial statements are a reworded versions of invoking the term parallelism. It's actually behavioral response they can't help it.
.
 

tosca1

Member
Gee. I thought quite a bit. You said


"Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:

Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,

The implication being that those who study evolution should be particularly interested in the Bible's claim that god made the
waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life. But they're not Aside from being a possible curiosity, your little Bible piece is of no more interest to evolutionists than it is to astrophysicists, climatologists, or pharmacists.

Don't conflate the two arenas of science.

.

Gimme a break! You don't speak for all evolutionists!

There are evolutionists who wonder if science and religion are compatible. Many scientists say they are.

You don't censor what views can be brought forth in a forum (as long as they're within the forum rules).
You're not the only member, nor the only viewer here! Lol.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Then the link you sent is wrong. So back to my original question... what is a "kind"?

I've given you the answer. Add my last post to it.

It goes without saying when God said , "according to their kinds," that a dog as small as a chihuahua couldn't possibly breed with a Great Dane!

Even the dogs would know that!
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:



Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,


Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water!
salt water.....freshwater pond ........water is water.





https://phys.org/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html


Doesn't that strikes a chord with Darwinists?

Science and the Bible are much much closer than most people realize. It’s people’s beliefs that are far far apart.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Here, from the faq of NASA:


WMAP Site FAQs


You may be referring to this:



The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning, After All



The beginning may not have began with the big bang.....but that's not the same as saying there's no beginning.


Until science changes its position and says there is no beginning for the universe - we'll just have to stick to that.

No, 'we cannot stick to that.' I did not say it is known that there was 'no beginning', and please do not 'misquote me,' nor does science say that.

Isaid, "No, science cannot confirm our physical existence had a beginning or not. Science has not confirmed whether our universe began as a singularity or it is cyclic, or science has reasonable evidence that the universe is part of a greater physical existence possibly a multiverse,"
 
Last edited:

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I've given you the answer. Add my last post to it.

It goes without saying when God said , "according to their kinds," that a dog as small as a chihuahua couldn't possibly breed with a Great Dane!

Even the dogs would know that!

You gave a link that contained a simplistic answer that appears to be wrong. I don't understand your explanation. Are you saying God got it wrong?
 
Top