Re: evolution-digest V1 #930

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Mon, 25 May 1998 21:13:08 -0500

At 01:04 PM 5/24/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>24 May 1998 08:22:23 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>
>> But notice Bill, the sentence you just wrote does NOT, repeat NOT say "Let
>> the animals reproduce animals after their kind..." Animals is not both
>> subject and object. You are misreading a simple english sentence which
>> does not say that morphological change is ruled out. The Land is what did
>> the producing, not the animals. Evolution in one real sense does say that
>> the Land produced the animals.
>
>Help me here, Glenn. In what sense does dirt produce animals? Do you
>have a modern analog?

Are you saying that if God commanded the land to produce life, He couldn't
do it because Bill said He couldn't?

How about a Biblical example? Matthew 3:9,

"9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our
father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for
Abraham." NIV

Maybe Jesus knew that God had done it once before?

>
>Since you believe evolution is true, then what do you believe "according
>to their *kinds*" means?

it means "of various kinds". You simply can't find a single verse in
Scritpure that has 'animal' as subject, reproduce or its equivalent as
verb, and 'animal as object followed by after their kind. If the sentence
said,

"Animals give rise to animals after their kind" I would grant you your
point.

But it doesn't say that, It says,

"Let the LAND produce animals after their kind." Entirely different
meaning. REad the sentence!

It strikes me as contradictory to say that
>people and flies came from the same stuff, and at the same time to say
>that living creatures were produced according to their kinds. If our
>ancestry is a blur of transitionals, then where are the *kinds* of which
>the Bible speaks?

You are using a form of Platonic typology. Plato believed that there were
ideal forms or types and each thing in this world was a mimic of the actual
'ideal' type. But that is a greek pagan concept grafted onto the Scripture
by Medieval monks. The bible doesn't have such a typological view of
objects. It merely states that the LAND gave rise to animals after or
according to their kind.

I just looked at the Hebrew. Genesis 1:21 says literally " Water swarm
swarm swarm kind every winged fowl kind."

Genesis 1:24 literally has the following words in this order:

'God said land bring forth bring forth living creature kind beast reptile
living land kind.'

This doesn't sound like a statement about reproductive abilities.

Now can you find me a single statement with animals as subject and animals
as object which talks about reproductive abilities? I bet you can't.
>
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm