I Concede

[A Beautiful Truth]

I concede that it is quite possible that God created kinds and those kinds "evolved" into the species of life we see today. I see this as no problem for scripture but that the term "kinds" in scripture allows for this. This is a possibilty both from scripture and science and I am open to it.

I do not, however, see support in scripture or the fossil record for one phylum evolving into another or for a "kind" like reptile evolving into another "kind" like mammal.

This is in agreement with YEC insofar as the liberty the word "kind" may give, but I am not in agreement with the timescale of YEC.

[Abigail]

I do not, however, see support in scripture or the fossil record for one phylum evolving into another or for a "kind" like reptile evolving into another "kind" like mammal.

:thumb:

[Socrates]

:thumb:
Ditto.

[A Beautiful Truth]

This is what I concede:

a quote from Jonathan Wells from The Case for a Creator p.46:

Of course, descent from a common ancestor is true at some levels...Nobody denies that...And it's possible that all the cats--tigers, lions, and so on--descended from a common ancestor. While that is not a fact, it might be a reasonable inference based on interbreeding. So as we go up these different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy--species, genus, family, order, class--common ancestry is certainly true at the species level, but is it true at higher levels? It becomes an increasingly uncertain inference the higher we go in the taxonomic hierarchy. When you get to the level of phyla, the major animal groups, it's a very, very shaky hypothesis. In fact, I would say it's disconfirmed. Th evidence just doesn't support it."

[Socrates]

This is what I concede:

a quote from Jonathan Wells from The Case for a Creator p.46:

Of course, descent from a common ancestor is true at some levels...Nobody denies that...And it's possible that all the cats--tigers, lions, and so on--descended from a common ancestor. While that is not a fact, it might be a reasonable inference based on interbreeding. So as we go up these different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy--species, genus, family, order, class--common ancestry is certainly true at the species level, but is it true at higher levels? It becomes an increasingly uncertain inference the higher we go in the taxonomic hierarchy. When you get to the level of phyla, the major animal groups, it's a very, very shaky hypothesis. In fact, I would say it's disconfirmed. Th evidence just doesn't support it."
Someone needs to inform Hugh Ross that believing in variation within a kind does NOT make one an evolutionist!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Someone needs to inform Hugh Ross that believing in variation within a kind does NOT make one an evolutionist!

So if I accepted Jonathan Well's assesment above, AND I accepted millions of years of this sort of thing going on, would you consider me a Theistic Evolutionist?

~Charleen

[Socrates]

So if I accepted Jonathan Well's assesment above, AND I accepted millions of years of this sort of thing going on, would you consider me a Theistic Evolutionist?
Not if you believed in special creation of distinct kinds of animals. Then you wouldn't be a biological evolutionist anyway -- geological and astronomical one, yes :tongue: but stilll an OEC.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Not if you believed in special creation of distinct kinds of animals. Then you wouldn't be a biological evolutionist anyway -- geological and astronomical one, yes :tongue: but stilll an OEC.

What do you mean by Kind?

Also, if you believe God specially created "kinds" and then let species evolve, why is it so hard for you to believe God created the universe and let stars and planets "evolve" out of it?

[Kristian Joense]

What do you mean by Kind?
The normal criterion is that any two animals that can hybridize then they are of the same kind.