Gladys wrote:

I am using mainly Internet websites for my readings. On both sides (and there are only two sides in this issue – creation or naturalism), I’ll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ be honest the technical articles are beyong me as I do not have Tertiary qualifications in the various scientific disciplines. My qualifications are in Primary and Special Education with a Diploma in Teaching which probably few of my age have by course work.

Ken:

What you really mean here, Gladys, is that in the minds of creationists there are only two sides – the fundamentalist creationist veiwpoint first put forward, to the best of my knowledge, by Ellen G. White. the “prophetess” of Seventh-day Adventism, in the middle of the 19th century, and atheistic evolution.

This is simply false.

Unless you are willing to admit under the umbrella of “creation” the vast number of stories about the origin of things held by different religious groups throughout the world.

If you do, how do you harmonise things like the story of the god Bumba having an attack of indigestion and vomiting up the sun, moon, stars, etc. ?

You still seem not to be able to appreciate that when science doesn’t take any supernatural entities into account in its explanations, this is simply that – not taking them (if they exist) into account.

It is *not* denying their existence.

As assorted Christians who are scientists have said, we simply assume that God is not malevolent and doesn’t set out to trick us.

G:

The word ‘kind’ is Biblical in this context. (King James Bible 1611, New International Bible – my copy 1993 – I would assume the term was used in the original publication in 1973). The meaning is that created plants and animals would reproduce others like themsleves.

K:

Gladys, can I suggest that you read carefully through Genesis 1? The word “kinds” does *not* occur in connection with reproduction. In fact there are only a few places where the Hebrew word “min” does occur.

It *always* occurs with a suffix indicating the gender and number, and always with a particular preposition attached to the start of the word.

This preposition, the Hebrew letter lamedh, is translated in the King James Bible as “according to”, and the only modern translation I am aware of which follows this is the NIV, which is one of the complaints a number of people have about that version.

The word “min”, with the same prefix and suffices on;t occirs elsewhere in the story of the flood where Noah is told to take on board the various “kinds” of animals; in the dietary rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about which “kinds” of animals can be eaten; and in a single verse in teh prophets (Jeremiah from memory) about different kinds of fish in a river.

In none of these other occurrences is reproduction even remotely hinted at, and if you read Genesis 1 carefully it isn’t hinted at there – apart from a possible twisting of meaning about plants having seeds.

And please don’t cite something from Answers in Genesis – or I’ll be tempted to cite something from another creationist site where the guru of the modern creationist movement, Henry M. Morris, shows that he hasn’t read Genesis 1 carefully, either.

G:

In the modern descriptions of plants and animals the word ‘kind’ could equate with ‘family’, ‘genus’ or ‘species’. I doubt that a more definite match can be made. From my own understandings I tend to favour ‘family ‘ as the most suitable match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ K:

Thanks, Gladys.

So we are of the same “kind” as chimpanzees.

Three cheers that at least one creationist has seen the light about human origins.

Salaam Ken Smith

— Dr Ken Smith – Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, …