1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 May '12 08:282 edits
    I have no real interest in getting involved in another futile creation v evolution
    debate, i will simply provide the main arguments as to the discontinuity between the
    different kinds, which represents one of the theists main objections to the
    evolutionary theory, that and the question of origin.

    The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God
    created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end
    of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic
    created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed
    with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed,
    orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

    The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division
    allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is
    to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

    In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause
    confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species”
    is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of
    interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive
    characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single
    division of the Genesis “kinds.”

    Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things
    by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no
    support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the
    creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic
    principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern
    laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides,
    the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation
    between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of
    living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent
    between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from
    other “kinds.”

    From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs,
    cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants.
    Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This
    phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the
    boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of
    fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and
    plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the
    animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion.
    Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of
    muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape
    family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created
    “kind.”

    Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a
    new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily
    identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the
    donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances,
    the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural
    way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of
    specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links,
    is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still
    remains true.

    Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many
    more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated
    that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family.
    Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging
    to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs,
    allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter
    how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle
    genetically.

    Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the
    earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive
    today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually
    identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges” between “kinds” are totally lacking.
    Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within
    the same “kinds” without evolving into other “kinds.” The testimony of the fossils is
    in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created
    the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds” during
    the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

    From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary
    animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that
    he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the
    flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to
    their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each
    will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God
    knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,”
    since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.

    Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds”
    emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually
    producing many variations of their “kinds.” Although many new varieties have come
    into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds” have remained fixed and
    unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.

    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86373
    04 May '12 08:40
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
    Could you provide the link please?
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 May '12 08:48
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Could you provide the link please?
    there is no link, it was taken from my private library.
  4. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51459
    04 May '12 08:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have no real interest in getting involved in another futile creation v evolution
    debate, i will simply provide the main arguments as to the discontinuity between the
    different kinds, which represents one of the theists main objections to the
    evolutionary theory, that and the question of origin.

    The creation record found in the first chapter o ...[text shortened]... harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.

    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
    I would love to pick that apart, but alas i'm leaving for a family wedding shortly and will be gone all weekend.

    The reason why the debate is futile, from your point of view, is because you have zero interest in actually learning anything, something you have admitted to. How can you enter into a debate on a topic you openly state to being 'closed minded' and 'ignorant' about?? It would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragic.

    Here's how these 'deabtes' go -

    PK - That section of your article is wrong because of x, y and z.

    Robbie - Pure speculation, nothing more than fact masquerading as opinion.

    PK - Okay, here's some links to the scientific papers that back up what i'm saying.

    Rob - I have no interest in looking at those.

    That's the way it always goes, like i said in the other thread, a grown man too afraid to read science books.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 May '12 08:543 edits
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    I would love to pick that apart, but alas i'm leaving for a family wedding shortly and will be gone all weekend.

    The reason why the debate is futile, from your point of view, is because you have zero interest in actually learning anything, something you have admitted to. How can you enter into a debate on a topic you openly state to being 'closed min goes, like i said in the other thread, a grown man too afraid to read science books.
    Two things PK that you have failed to comprehend, im not interested in debate, i said
    that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
    content of the post. Have a great time and watch the whiskey and dancing, naturally
    for one as well endowed as yourself you'll be wearing a kilt? and its

    pure speculation and utter conjecture, mere opinion masquerading as truth 🙂
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86373
    04 May '12 09:001 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    there is no link, it was taken from my private library.
    ok; it's just that I found it in two parts, in 2 non-JW blogs, so I was interested in how you got it.

    Part is here: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091113044900AA0DsaG

    But this one looks like a JW blogg which contains 75% of it.

    http://letthebiblespeakforitselftoday.blogspot.co.uk/2012_01_01_archive.html

    Here to help.
  7. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51459
    04 May '12 09:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Two things PK that you have failed to comprehend, im not interested in debate, i said
    that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
    content of the post. Have a great time and watch the whiskey and dancing 🙂
    I love it, you dump a big copy and paste job with the statement, i'm not debating it. Hilarious.

    Explain this to me then, how did all of life come about? I understand the YEC viewpoint, God created all life at one particular point and the countless animals identified in the fossil record are there as a result of the flood. The scientific consensus is that life evolved from single organisms through to more complex animals and those animals found in the fossil record are those that didn't survive.

    You must obviously believe that life was created in different stages throughout the eons right? Tell me more about them. How do you reconcile the over 250,000 different fossil species that have been found?
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 May '12 09:11
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    I love it, you dump a big copy and paste job with the statement, i'm not debating it. Hilarious.

    Explain this to me then, how did all of life come about? I understand the YEC viewpoint, God created all life at one particular point and the countless animals identified in the fossil record are there as a result of the flood. The scientific consensus is ...[text shortened]... out them. How do you reconcile the over 250,000 different fossil species that have been found?
    I am merely providing one of the theists main arguments against acceptance of the
    evolutionary theory, for it seems to me there is some confusion not only among theists
    but materialists as well, if others wish to debate the merits or otherwise then they are
    free to do so. The thread is not about the origin of life, its about the discontinuity
    between the different kinds. The creative days are unspecified in length, in fact, we
    are still in Gods rest day, the seventh day! some thousands of years later, but again,
    this is not what the post was about.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 May '12 09:142 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    ok; it's just that I found it in two parts, in 2 non-JW blogs, so I was interested in how you got it.
    Its taken from insight on the scriptures, volume 2, page 152 under the heading, Kind.
    The publication is not available to the general public, although anyone who starts a
    Bible study will probably be given a copy freely.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    04 May '12 09:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Two things PK that you have failed to comprehend, im not interested in debate, i said
    that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
    content of the post. Have a great time and watch the whiskey and dancing, naturally
    for one as well endowed as yourself you'll be wearing a kilt? and its

    pure speculation and utter conjecture, mere opinion masquerading as truth 🙂
    im not interested in debate, i said
    that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
    content of the post.


    we comprehend those two point just fine -THAT'S part of the problem we see with your post. You make our points for us: If you are not interested in debate and not interested in the possibility of learning something then why should we bother with this futile pointless thread?
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 May '12 09:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i will simply provide the main arguments as to the discontinuity between the
    different kinds, which represents one of the theists main objections to the
    evolutionary theory, that and the question of origin.
    Theists have one, and only one, objection to evolutionary theory - they believe it contradicts their beliefs. Anything else is made up 'arguments/ objections' in an attempt to protect their beliefs.
    That you don't want to discuss this 'objection' clearly shows that you know it will not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

    The biggest problem with the 'objection' in the OP is it is making a claim by definition. It essentially defines a 'kind' as 'those organisms that can interbreed', the claims that organisms of different 'kinds' cannot interbreed. Yet the claim follows from the definition, not from any actual facts about nature.

    Take this claim for example:
    No atheist has ever been proven to believe in God. Isn't that amazing? Not one, ever!
  12. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51459
    04 May '12 09:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I am merely providing one of the theists main arguments against acceptance of the
    evolutionary theory, for it seems to me there is some confusion not only among theists
    but materialists as well, if others wish to debate the merits or otherwise then they are
    free to do so. The thread is not about the origin of life, its about the discontinuity ...[text shortened]... he seventh day! some thousands of years later, but again,
    this is not what the post was about.
    I just want a more detailed explanation of how life came about on this planet according to you. Not the origin of life, but all the life forms. For example take the dinosaurs. I view them as having evolved, you obviously don't. So at some point according to you there were no dinosaurs on this planet and then there were lots. What would i have seen if i was on the planet that day? Did they just magically appear out of nowhere Star Trek style?
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 May '12 09:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Even with the aid of modern
    laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed.
    So when scientists crossed the tobacco plant with a firefly, the result was not a new 'kind' this suggests that all life is actually one single 'kind'.
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86373
    04 May '12 09:57
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its taken from insight on the scriptures, volume 2, page 152 under the heading, Kind.
    The publication is not available to the general public, although anyone who starts a
    Bible study will probably be given a copy freely.
    Thx for clarifying.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    04 May '12 10:18
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    I would love to pick that apart, but alas i'm leaving for a family wedding shortly and will be gone all weekend.

    The reason why the debate is futile, from your point of view, is because you have zero interest in actually learning anything, something you have admitted to. How can you enter into a debate on a topic you openly state to being 'closed min ...[text shortened]... goes, like i said in the other thread, a grown man too afraid to read science books.
    He does not need to learn the lies you wish to teach. He gets enough of that from the Watchtower. However, they seem to have done a decent job on the theory of evolution for him.
Back to Top