Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Do you notice how the Bible repeats one phrase? It keeps saying "after its kind," as though it is making some kind of important point. Think about nature. Notice that every animal, bird, fish, and insect (but for a few slugs and worms), has both male and female, and they each bring forth after their kind. Cows have baby cows, horses have baby horses, ants have baby ants, spiders have spiders, cats have kittens, and dogs have puppies.
A male dog chases an on-heat female dog, because he wants to mate with the female dog. If a cat is in heat, he’s not interested, no matter how cool a cat it is. He mates only within his kind--dogs. He recognizes a dog, whether it’s a Great Dame or a not-so-great long-haired Chihuahua.
A dog doesn't want to mate with a chicken, a fish, a squirrel, and he's certainly not attracted to a skunk. He stays within his kind because God was kind enough to give him a kind-of instinct to stay within his kind.
Yet evolutionists ignore this uncompromising pattern throughout nature. It's as though the existing creation doesn't exist, and in their imaginative minds, they imagine that all the animals, fish, insects and birds of the past, never had male and female and didn’t stay within their kind. Such is the power of the human imagination. It can go anywhere it wants, and within evolution it knows no logical boundaries.
Again, it's very clear what the Bible means by "after its kind." It means that a dog will never cross into another kind. It will always bring forth a dog. Darwinian evolution has searched for over 200 years for undisputed evidence of one kind of animal evolving into another kind, and it hasn’t found anything that isn't a big bone of contention. The "missing link" between man and ape is still missing.
The following quote is from Steven J. It shows how modern believers in the theory move the goalposts during the game:
Ray, "species" refers to distinctions such as those between, e.g. a lion and a tiger, or a wolf and a coyote, or a chimpanzee and a bonobo. "Kind," in creationist jargon, generally refers these days to groups larger than a species but still thought to be related by common descent, such as entire genera or families (e.g. the "cat kind"). There are "species-to-species" transitions in the fossil record (e.g. Stephen Gould described a sequence of transitional fossils between two species of the snail genus Cerion), but presumably if you bothered to consider that rather than simply regurgitate your standard list of slogans, you dismiss this example as "they're still snails" (which of course is on some other creationist's list of standard slogans). Since "kind" is undefined, it's difficult to find a good example of a "kind-to-kind" transitional series. But the fact that creationists disagree on whether, e.g. the Trinil skullcap (Homo erectus) is just another ape or as much a "fully human" remain as any H. sapiens skeleton, or the fact that there are similar disagreements about KNM-ER1470 (the skull of Homo rudolfensis) ought to indicate that in fact intermediates between obviously nonhuman apes and obvious human beings do exist. There are indeed quite a few such.
The fault isn’t with the definition of the word "kind." It hasn't changed in the slightest. One more time; here’s the definition: dog-kind, cat-kind, horse-kind, snail-kind, human-kind, etc. The atheist's difficulty is with the so-called evidence for evolution. There isn't any. Repetition is the mother of knowledge, so one more time--every animal, bird, fish, and insect brings forth after its own kind. They stay as animals, birds, fish, and insects. Evolution is a farce. It’s bogus science that has no evidence to back its fantastic claims.
Years ago I had an eccentric friend. He could talk on any subject at the drop of a hat. I once said, "The inside of a ping pong ball. Sixty seconds. Go!" and he immediately began a spiel about the nothing of its inside for sixty seconds, without the slightest hesitation. He reminds me of the atheist and the subject of evolution. He has nothing at all, and yet he forever argues about it without the slightest hesitation.
Picture: Golden retriever puppy, three months old. (Daisy Parker)
EDIT: "on" heat, to "in" heat.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 4/26/2011 06:15:00 AM
Genesis on Trial