Posted: Mar 28, 2018 2:04 pm
by Wortfish
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. Kind isn't a rigourous term and as such has no relation to biological evolution.
2. God creating kinds constitutes neither speciation nor a flexibility of species. Rather the opposite.


On the contrary, the existence of the "kinds" necessitates speciation in the creationist worldview. This is because there are clearly reproductively separate populations (i.e. species) of the same "kind" of animal. So, there are many species of cats, whales, mice, worms etc.

Except that's exactly what is being described. On god's command the earth produces vegetation ex-nihilo.
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.
Which would be a silly technical minutiae.


On the contrary, the verse implies that the land produces the vegetation. In other words, the plants arise from the earth/soil rather than appearing from nowhere.

Could it be that you left that bit out because it refutes your position?
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Not so. The verse shows that the Lord God made the man from the dust of the ground, a pre-existing material, rather than from nothing. He had to "form/fashion" the man, rather than simply make him appear by fiat.

Utter horseshit. This is not at all analogous to evolution. Evolution works with living organisms, not inamite matter like dust or ribs.


The principle is the same. Evolution works with pre-existing parts to make new ones. Same in this biblical verse.

He needed to create the pre-existing parts Wortfish. How did he do that exactly?


The man was formed from dust (star dust to be precise: http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52).