1. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    30 May '05 19:26
    Originally posted by chinking58
    sniff snifff....

    ....I smell a trap......oh well.

    I do believe you are stating our (my) case well enough bbar.
    I don't know if there is a further necessary condition to define 'kind'.

    What are you getting at?
    Can you tell me more about this criterion of yours? You think that two entities being able to interbreed is sufficient for their being of the same kind. So, by your criterion, lions and tigers are members of the same kind, right?
  2. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    30 May '05 19:361 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    What you are doing with Matthew 25 is called forming a cult. You are taking one piece of scripture out of context and basing your religion on it. Maybe you should call it the 'froggy' cult😉
    God talking about Judgment Day is merely "one piece of scripture"? Interesting theological perspective for a "Christian", dj2becker.
  3. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    30 May '05 23:03
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    What you are doing with Matthew 25 is called forming a cult. You are taking one piece of scripture out of context and basing your religion on it. Maybe you should call it the 'froggy' cult😉
    It already has a name, silly boy, it's called the "Word of the Kingdom"

    named so by Christ Himself, maybe he forgot to ask Paul for permission.

    I thinking you will be spending a lot of time singing a country song entitled " I Fell By The Wayside " or " I Smell Like Burning Goatmeat"

    wise up kiddo
  4. Joined
    09 Mar '05
    Moves
    333
    31 May '05 10:04
    Originally posted by chinking58
    Slow down a bit will ya?
    You're driving faster than your headlights!

    I think your premise is unclear, and your conclusions are biased.

    It doesn't have to be either two beetles, or 800,000. If there is more than one type of beetle and they cannot interbreed with each other (obviously there are many types), then there must have been at least that ...[text shortened]... by whether they can interbreed with each other) have descended from the one pair on the ark.
    Originally posted by chinking58
    It doesn't have to be either two beetles, or 800,000. If there is more than one type of beetle and they cannot interbreed with each other (obviously there are many types), then there must have been at least that many pair on the ark. (Probably more since surely some types have become extinct since.) So how many non-interbreeding types are there? Eight you say? I'd grant you 50 if you can demonstrate that none of the fifty could interbreed.

    But even if there were as many as 50 species of beetle on the Arc you are still requiring those 50 species to diversify into hundreds of thousands of species of beetles today. About 100 new species a year. That is far faster speciation than even evolutionists accept. Creationist sites such as AiG may agree with you on this, but many Creationist sites outright deny new species can evolve.

    For example there is a whole page here http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/11spec03.htm about how evolution is wrong because species cannot change into other species.

    Also more denial of speciation from another Creationist website: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4.php

    Notice that these sites aren't just saying it hasn't been observed, but that it is impossible.

    And of course if you believe hundreds of thousands of different species of beetle can share a common ancestor, you have to explain why you don't accept that the dozens of primates share a common ancestor. Is it because you have a religious bias when it comes to the ancestory of humans, but don't when it comes to the ancestory of bugs?

    The reason why Creationists avoid pinning down what a Kind is in scientific terms is because of these religious-based constraints:

    1) The definition must not produce too many kinds that could fit on the arc
    2) The definition must not allow chimpanzees and humans to be in the same kind

    The problem is that chimps and humans are so genetically similar that to comply with constraint #2 above you almost have to define every species on earth as a seperate kind, therefore breaking condition 1 above. There simply is no way out of this and so Creationists have understandably avoided the issue as much as possible.
  5. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    31 May '05 10:211 edit
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    It already has a name, silly boy, it's called the "Word of the Kingdom"

    named so by Christ Himself, maybe he forgot to ask Paul for permission.

    I thinking you will be spending a lot of time singing a country ...[text shortened]... de " or " I Smell Like Burning Goatmeat"

    wise up kiddo
    Matthew 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Will you just ignore these words that were also spoken by Christ? Besides, will you explain how you can be born again without faith?
  6. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    31 May '05 18:26
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    So basically you're the wise guy and everybody else is stupid?

    Most people are not stupid. I'm sure that Col is not generally stupid either. I think he has extracted a single theory in science about which he is horribly uneducated, and then read up on propaganda so that he can argue his religious viewpoint.

    Even considering this flaw, Col actually writes in his own words the arguments that he reads. This means that he gave at least a little thought to the text. The stupid people are the ones who can only cut n paste.
  7. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    31 May '05 18:32
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    I remember now , before the flood there was no rain,
    Just the sun beating down on naked people thru the thick clouds.
    Nothing like a good glass of saltwater eh?
  8. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    31 May '05 18:34
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    What you are doing with Matthew 25 is called forming a cult. You are taking one piece of scripture out of context and basing your religion on it. Maybe you should call it the 'froggy' cult😉
    You'd know all about cults dj2.
  9. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    01 Jun '05 07:08
    Originally posted by telerion
    You'd know all about cults dj2.
    So would you like to explain to me how anyone can be born again without faith?

    Seems Froggy is just ignoring the question.
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    01 Jun '05 08:10
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    So would you like to explain to me how anyone can be born again without faith?

    Seems Froggy is just ignoring the question.
    since I didnt see it,,,,
    define "faith" try and read how Christ used it before you ask that.
    18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is
    the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said,
    Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little
    children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child,
    the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name
    receiveth me.

    18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in
    me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
    neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    try and keep it in context even if you don't understand it.


  11. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    01 Jun '05 08:52
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    since I didnt see it,,,,
    define "faith" try and read how Christ used it before you ask that.
    18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is
    the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said,
    Verily I say unto you, Except ye be conv ...[text shortened]... e depth of the sea.

    try and keep it in context even if you don't understand it.


    You still have not expained how a man can be "converted" without faith.
  12. Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    29935
    01 Jun '05 22:29
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Can you tell me more about this criterion of yours? You think that two entities being able to interbreed is sufficient for their being of the same kind. So, by your criterion, lions and tigers are members of the same kind, right?
    Let me elaborate, if you will.

    There is a distinction between what we see today, and what was originally created. New critters appear all the time. This is evident in any litter of puppies. The big question is, 'what will we get this time?', because the two parents bring different sets of genes. The question is especially interesting if the parents are much apart in appearance. Experiments are done and new flowers that have never been seen before are frequently produced.

    From the creationist point of view, this is possible because all of the information required to produce the new variants was there, contained in the original 'created kind'.

    As breeding progresses, different characteristics are unveiled, some of which inhibit further breeding, except within those new, more particularly defined groups (call them species if you will). I think we agree that a chihuawa and a great dane are both of the same canine 'kind', but I think that in the natural world, they would have a hard time reproducing! Lions and tiger, and the lynx and my two housecats for that matter, I believe, all arose from the same original 'created kind', but have since diverged to a point where they either can't or simply won't, breed with each other. I am not up on whether lions and tigers can or not. I should think that the original pair of the feline kind looked like something else altogether! Maybe.

    In humans we know that various races can reproduce with each other, but often for psychological reasons (prejudice in particular), they do not. So, separate groups (we call races) develop. (Why don't we separate various animal groups by a term like 'race'. Or why don't we call our various races 'species'? Just wondering.) And even when two desparate humans want to, they sometimes cannot because of the physical differences. I'm thinking of a humongous man and a tiny woman (pelvic size itself might inhibit a succesful birth). In that case the tendency would be for the giants to stick with each other and the tinies with themselves, encouraging and strengthening the separate lines all the more.

    The word kind, used in the Bible, means something right? I think it makes sense to see it as the basic distinguishing unit of the original flora and fauna. And I have no problem with the ensueing development of the plethora of wildlife and plantlife we find today on that basis.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    01 Jun '05 22:41
    Originally posted by chinking58
    Let me elaborate, if you will.

    There is a distinction between what we see today, and what was originally created. New critters appear all the time. This is evident in any litter of puppies. The big question is, 'what will we get this time?', because the two parents bring different sets of genes. The question is especially interesting if the paren ...[text shortened]... the ensueing development of the plethora of wildlife and plantlife we find today on that basis.
    Yes, I understand this view. If lions and tigers can successfully interbreed, then by your criterion they are of the same kind, correct?
  14. Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    29935
    01 Jun '05 22:43
    Originally posted by PotatoError
    Originally posted by chinking58
    [b]It doesn't have to be either two beetles, or 800,000. If there is more than one type of beetle and they cannot interbreed with each other (obviously there are many types), then there must have been at least that many pair on the ark. (Probably more since surely some types have become extinct since.) So how m ...[text shortened]... o way out of this and so Creationists have understandably avoided the issue as much as possible.
    I'm just a little guy, thinking (mostly) on my own here bud! What makes sense to me, is what matters to me.

    I've always had an intuitive problem even with the describing of species. If one sparrow has a crooked beak and another has a longer straight beak someone calls them two different species! It's ridiculous on the face of it. By that thinking my seven siblings and I are all speciated! (And I know I'm not!)

    See my nearby post if you want to see my elaboration on kinds.

    And why don't I accept that the dozens of primates share a common ancestor? I would say they do. But not that they evolved from one to another! They are all descended from the originally created 'primate kind'. (I hope it's understood that I would leave man out of that group.) Yes, that is because I have a bias toward the value of humans, compared to the value of everything else which was placed here for our edification and delight. If any monkeys are reading this, I hope they are not offended.

    I don't believe the idea whatever genetic similarity there is between man and the apes has enough meaning to overcome the more evident psychological, and spiritual differences that an objective observer must note.

    What do you think?
  15. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    01 Jun '05 23:26
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    You still have not expained how a man can be "converted" without faith.
    and you haven't stated what the man is converted form and into, nor have you defines "faith" as used by Christ.

    And have yet to show "faith" being connected to salvation.
    as well you haven't defined "works"

    As far as I know Christ didn't use either " faith", "works" or even "believe "in the Matthew 25 part that tells of judgment day.

    Mark 16 he talks about "saved" and "believe"
    and the signs of those that believe.

    since Matthew 25 tells how He will judge you , don't you think you ought stop playing word games about.
    And ask whatever minister that tells you you're saved and believe with all your mind and soul , but why you can't perform the works in Mark 16 ( Christ last words to the Apostles )

    Ir's incumbent on you to find the meaning of Christ's words for yourself , unless you think Christ incapable of delivering it.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree