Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How so? "Just look" is not a valid argument. The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. But first you probably need to learn what evidence is in the first place.
-
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!
Question for all of the atheists on here
- Thread starter Frank Goad
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you think that makes it not science?
We Never Know
No Slack
We got off track. Back on point. What did they call them 2000, 3000, 4000 years ago? The term specie didn't even exist as of then. Did they refer to them as kind?
We Never Know
No Slack
It offends you because you take the bible literally. You think it isn't even possible for us to be decendants of apes, yet you accept you were made of dust by a God.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but they were also very scientifically illiterate. That was of course because the work had not been done yet. That is no longer a valid excuse.
We Never Know
No Slack
Sure it is. You are implying because we use taxonomic names now that kind isn't valid back then. If I had to guess, which I am, being the word species didn't even exist then, they probably used kind. Which by the way is a definition of specie.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Back then hate were "birds", whales were "fish". They were wrong then and now.
Well that’s a loaded question. Which God are you talking about specifically? And why ask a philosophical question in science? Science is for science, not lofty abstract concepts.
And why do you need an answer for us being alive? We are alive, there’s your answer. As for our position in reference for God, well you’re a choice millionaire in that regard. Since there are millions of different religious/spiritual philosophies and hundreds of our best minds in human history from all over the globe have been asking and pontificating about such concepts since goddamned Plato, at the very least.
So is the Bible to be fair.
And considering you have demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of biology (I’m not trying to insult you, just being honest) why should I take your word over that of an actual trained scientist?
We Never Know
No Slack
Now we are getting some where. You claim they were wrong based on current knowledge yet ignore the fact that in their time is was correct calling something kind.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But it clearly was not correct. It was an understandable error. They had a valid excuse for their error. Those arguing against evolution today do not have that luxury.
We Never Know
No Slack
It was correct in the time. Those arguing today are correctly referring to kind as the bible they follow does.
You cannot call a model T one of the best transportations today but yet in its time it was.
We Never Know
No Slack
Hate? It was correct back then to call a whale a fish, a specie a kind, a horse and carriage luxury travel. It was right in their time, not right under current knowledge.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do not accept that sort of relativism. That is the same as saying slavery was correct in the old south, or in Bible times.
The problem with "kind" is that there never was a working definition of the term. At least it one wants to use the term to oppose evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, I was using my tablet with its amazing Autowrong feature. Somehow "bats" became "hate".
Monkeys. Only creationists say that humans came from monkeys.
Not only are humans descended from apes; we are apes.
We Never Know
No Slack
You have to keep in mind words such as species, genus, tribe, family, referring to animals didn't exist in those days.
Kind; a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
Specie; kind, type, form of. Origin mid 16th century: from Latin, ablative of species ‘form, kind’, in the phrase in specie 'in the actual form'.
In my opinion back then it was referred to as a horse was of its kind, a camel was of its kind, a bird was of its kind.
That's how I understand it. It's not right today but it was right then. We can't say they were wrong because they didn't have knowledge of species, genus, tribe, etc.
I agree by today's standards referring to animals as "kind" is silly but it's all they had then and it's how it was written.
We Never Know
No Slack
Slavery? You are using slavery as a comparison to the word "kind" used thousands of years ago. That's a joke right?
Slavery wasn't right then or now. Slavery wasn't every where and people knew better while others chose to have slaves as a matter/show of status. There have been wars fought over slavery. I doubt there were or ever will be wars fought over "kind" and kind is what they knew, they didn't know specie, genus, tribe etc.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
in the same way their classification was not right then or now. At least you seem to know that the Bible was wrong when it supported slavery.
Well to be fair I have also heard “came from apes” from a few creationists as well. Perhaps their understanding is finally starting to evolve somewhat. In a few generations maybe they will have finally grasped the distinction.