Like i said before, different varieties of cichlid are still cichlids etc etc. They don’t become something else entirely which would constitute another KIND. There is as much difference between male and female of the same species of some creatures as there are between most cichlid species. Speciation does not move past variation. There – i coined a new phrase. Eat your heart out, Haeckel! You can’t prove otherwise but you simply BELIEVE it to be true. Evolution thrives on grandiose assumptions living under the guise of logic. My racism? How do different traits found among humans not qualify as “variety”? How does noting variety constitute “racism”? Did i impute that one is superior to the other? No. You heard that in your own head. Your Fox News variety of argumentation here is surprising. You really are getting desperate to stoop so low. Apologize for that comment or i’ll have to cease communicating with you. I really hadn’t taken you for a fool but perhaps i was mistaken. You remind me of a certain woman. I was bragging about an arborist crew of Mexicans that did some work on my trees around the power lines (this was on a FB group page). They really did great work, as opposed to the butcher job the usual gang of white meth-heads always did in the past. So this woman replies to me, ” “Mexicans”?! You just had to throw in your racism didn’t you?” Last i looked on a map, Mexico was still a country.
"I think this argument precludes any reasonable person from regarding SIN as a trivial matter." Why was God Astonished? Its important to note that there is a difference between the creation of Adam, and creation of Man, in Genesis 1:26. We have seen that the bible records that when God created mankind, he declared; “let us make man, in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves,” That means that mankind thus created, assumed the image God, and his creation partners, God included. What could have been this image? What were these attributes of these heavenly hosts that this man assumed? That, we shall explore further. What we are made to understand, is that when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God calls out , “ See, man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil” This exclamation, indicates Gods astonishment. God is warning the heavenly hosts “look out! Man has become like one of us!” The intriguing question is this; if Adam was the first man to be created, and is indeed as it is argued by creationists that he is the father of all human beings, is it not peculiar, that God is astonished when Adam assumed the image of God, and his creation partners, yet, this is the very image he desire man to have when he enthusiastically suggested to the heavenly hosts; “‘let us make man, in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves”, unless, there were two kinds of human beings, that God was talking about”? What we can deduce from Gods reaction, is that whatever image Adam was created in, was not the same image, like that of the Man created in, in Genesis 1:26. When Adam assumed this image, God was very angry. There were altercations, blames and curses. Instead of “be fruitful” being a blessing, it becomes a curse. Instead of “subduing the earth” being an adventure, it becomes a toil. “Accursed be the soil because of you. With suffering shall you get your food from it” Genesis 3:16-17 The inference we can draw from here, is that the Man, referred to in Genesis 1:26, could not have been the same as Adam. The man, in the first Genesis story, was different from Adam. He was the image of God, and His partners in creation. Of what image then, was Adam created? We are told, that God personally fashioned him, and breathed in him, the breath of life. So, Adam was of the image of God alone, and not of the image of God together with other hosts of heaven.
Note your last word: "species". Those taxons - kinds, in your lexicon - of close resemblance that are unable to breed. Male-female differences exist largely in parallel across various species, and are unavoidable. However, different species exhibit their own characters, which are identifiable and observable. I will astound you with my indifference here. I, personally, have cited numerous examples of in-lab and natural speciation, none of which, I think, you have addressed. At all. Why is that? Perhaps your guise of logic is on too tight. They are above, should you ever wish to put your assertions to the test.
I wonder how Garbonzo explains the phenomenon of new "kinds" of life forms, to use his expression, arising.
Witchcraft. Also going to hell. So there'll be chicks there. Too bad for you it'll be all goths. But seriously, the 'creation' of new kinds is just skipped in his universe. I've thrown it in his face half a dozen times now. He's immune.
