There is nothing detrimental to how the article explained the "kinds" in the Bible. It was a very simple explanation - that's all it needs!
No, it is simplistic - overly simplified. "Kinds" has no specific meaning, and therefore claims made about them refer to nothing in particular. Define the term simply and specifically - not simplistically - and we can then begin to debate about kinds.
some folks seem to think that something has to be complicated for it to sound right.
Some people think that writing should be clear and thorough to be helpful. You are drawn to verbal caricatures, the verbal equivalent of a stick man drawing serving as a composite police drawing. If it's over-simple to the point that it is no longer effective at its intended purpose, it's simplistic.
And.........we're not talking about abstinence-only sex education!
We were talking about the difference between simple and simplistic. Abstinence-only sex education was an apt example of simplistic. It's too simplified, so much so that it routinely fails.
You can't say life just suddenly began evolving and then you tell me I can't bring up where the starting point is!
Yes, once life was present, it immediately began evolving. That was the starting point.
Do you understand why i say they're connected in a way - even though they're separate subjects?
Yes, I think I know why you might say that. They are chemical and biological evolution respectively, preceded my material evolution and followed by psychological and cultural evolution. They can all be discussed separately
Science isn't the only authority!
It's the only authority on the workings of reality, which is why it has been your authority on such matters on this thread. I've seen you present biblical scripture that can remotely be used to falsely imply that the Bible writers were prescient or were channeling a divine presence, and then say that the Bible is right in a handful of places because science says so.
So why go to the Bible at all? Just go to science, indifferent to where scripture agrees or does not.
And where the two part ways, as you have tacitly agreed, it it is science and not scripture that is authoritative
Also, you conceded this point by failing to address this same comment earlier - my comments stating that if you considered scripture the authority, then where science and scripture parted ways, you would be telling us how much science got wrong. Where's God's day of rest in science? The scientists got that wrong.
But you don't do that, and that is all anyone needs to know about which resource you consider the arbiter of truth where they contradict one another.
Science is quite limited to what is observed and analyze.
No. There is nothing known to exist that is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Think about why that must be true if we have a way to know that something exists. It means that it has already touched us, revealing a causal connection between it and us. That's the part science investigates.
outright automatical dismissal of the supernatural as "myth," is just simply based on......... ignorance
Nope. It's based on the well-founded principles that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that claims presented without sufficient support can be dismissed out of hand without refutation.
your explanation isn't just good enough
You're a faith-based thinker encased in a confirmation bias that limits what you are able to understand. I have nothing to offer such a person but reason applied to evidence, and that is not how you decide what is true about the world. You use faith.
If you didn't come to your present position via reason applied to evidence, you can't be budged from it by those, either.
Like I've said, the Bible is filled with poetry, parables, analogies, figures of speech....therefore, we can't be certain which can be taken literally or not.
Sounds like a good reason not to turn to the Bible for advice or learning. Science can tell you what you need to know with no vague language like "kinds," and it will be information that can be put to use
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?
Yes, unless you decide to change your interpretation of Genesis every time science finds another departure of scripture from its own findings. For example, Christianity says that man was created in God's image, and with a soul that survives death. Evolution says that natural selection is a blind and undirected process with no purpose or intent (it is dysteleogical).
I'm talking about evolutionist scientists that do interpret Genesis with the Day-Age theories
Why would they? They have a better theory already that is independent of Genesis, and therefore have no reason to even think about Genesis at work, even the Christian ones.