"To Think, To Reason, To Judge!" Biblical Apologetics in the Field of Christian Theology and Science.

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 9, 2025

"To Think, To Reason, To Judge!"

Biblical Apologetics in the Field of Christian Theology and Science.

"Biblical apologetics is the field of Christian Theology by which a legitimate and valid defense or justification is made for our beliefs, on a reasoned, biblical, and evidential basis. In it, the faithful Christian seeks to debunk the presuppositions and assumptions behind the faithless positions. In the science of learning, we effectively demonstrate and communicate from the scriptures and creation why humans should believe in God.

"This is a necessary aspect of faithful Christian living, since without a sound defense and hermeneutic, Apologetics is mere inference, supposition, and hypothesis."

Science:

Archaeology and the Bible
By Phillip Climer
Is Humanistic Science a Religion: A Reformed Response
By Jonathan Barlow
Evolution is Religion, Not Science
By Jonathan Barlow
Richard Dawkins Debunked: A Dozen Logical Fallacies in The God Delusion
By Norman J. Lund, Ph. D.

cjab · Sep 11, 2025

Alan Dale Gross said:
Biblical Apologetics in the Field of Christian Theology and Science.

Science:

Evolution is Religion, Not Science

By Jonathan Barlow

I find the above article to be extremist, misrepresentative, unobjective in that it falsifies the meaning of words, and unworthy of a Christian.

"Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology."

Source: Science and evolution Claudia AM Russo Thiago André.

Ben1445 · Sep 12, 2025

cjab said:
I find the above article to be extremist, misrepresentative, unobjective in that it falsifies the meaning of words, and unworthy of a Christian.

Because it disagrees with your beliefs?

cjab said:
"Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

This is an oxymoron.

cjab said:
Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

This is not evolution. We don’t call it evolution when our children have different color hair or are taller or shorter than we are. The only reason to call it that in animals is confirmation bias.

cjab said:
The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution.

“The fact that we need” is an opinionated statement. I know many people who have lived their entire life without flu vaccines and are living their best life.
The fact that you must continue to get them is because of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines and because there are variants of the virus that the vaccine is directed against. Sometimes the annual vaccine is for the wrong dominant variant. The scientist guessed wrong. But these variants are not proof of evolution. You assume that the flu is limited in variants and that any changes must be to the composition of the virus.
The reality is that your body is not interested in the vaccine either and treated the vaccine like a virus. It got rid of it as soon as it could. As with anything, if you don’t use it you lose it. If my “immunity” is to the black Labrador version, I will much more easily be able to resist a yellow lab than a St. Bernard.
But they are all dogs just like they are all flu viruses.
Another big problem with viruses is misdiagnosis. You walk into the doctors office he tells you that you have the flu. He didn’t identify the virus. He saw symptoms that are flu-like symptoms but you could easily have another virus that gives you the same symptoms. Since the majority of treatments are for symptoms and not causes, the treatment works. That doesn’t mean you have a flu.
In short, you have a faulty premise.

cjab said:
At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record.

Through multiple layers of evolutionary strata? I didn’t know trees could keep growing when their roots were petrified. Or is it that the entire tree petrified because of the roots?
A better explanation is that little things with little legs that move slowly are not able to advance themselves from danger of being buried. So the little weaker animals that evolution thinks we come from are just more susceptible to being trapped by sediment in a world wide flood. This also explains trees passing through multiple layers of strata supposedly laid down by millions of years.

cjab said:
Hence,

Every thought prior is s faulty logic. Hence it follows that the conclusions following will also be faulty.

cjab said:
evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology."

Source: Science and evolution Claudia AM Russo Thiago André.

cjab · Sep 12, 2025

I have learnt in my time that petty quibbling over every word posted, that only seeks to distract the reader's train of thought into endless irrelevance, and down blind alleyways, is never worth replying to.

Ben1445 · Sep 12, 2025

cjab said:
I have learnt in my time that petty quibbling over every word posted, that only seeks to distract the reader's train of thought into endless irrelevance, and down blind alleyways, is never worth replying to.

It was not petty quibbling. It was a refutation of what was presented as science.
It didn’t hold up so you call me petty!
That is pettiness at its finest.

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 12, 2025

Ben1445, you are as sharp a guy as I've ever encountered.

Your replies enter into the realm of the imagination of evolutionists and nail them to the wall.
YOU WIPED UP THE FLOOR WITH THIS FELLOW. WOW, Thank you for taking the time to Clean his Clock and knock him into next week. More than SUPURB replies. Since we are dabbling into the realm of imagining things, imagine in your head one big long "WHEEWWWW"* that I am whistling!!!!!

*a whistling sound uttered as an exclamation used interjectionally chiefly to express amazement." COOOL.

cjab said:
Evolution is both a fact

Ben1445 said:
This is an oxymoron.

There is NO PROBLEM WITH 'life comes from death,' is there?

Well, except that IT ROBS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OF HIS GLORY HE OBTAIN BY LIVING A PERFECT LIFE ON EARTH AND THEN BEING CRUCIFIED AND TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED ON THE THIRD DAY....

JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD, AND AN AMEBA FROM A DEAD ROCK (THAT NO EVELUTIONIST CAN EXPLAIN HOW THAT ROCK GOT THERE(???)

LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM DEATH, APART FROM JESUS' RESURRECTION FROM BEING ABSOLUTELY DEAD TO PRODUCE ETERNAL LIFE.

"The utterly rash GUESSWORK from the Spiritually Challenged fake, phony, and false tomfoolery they think that God told them to call themselves "EVOLUTIONISTS....(????????????)

No, God sees "evolutionists" as blasphemous, fraudulent QUACKS.

JESUS CHRIST ACCOMPLISHED THE SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE WHEN THE TRIUNE GODHEAD RAISED OUR SAVIOR AND BROTHER JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.

AND THAT IS EXCLUSIVELY THE ONE AND ONLY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD FROM ITS FIAT CREATION WHEN THE VITAL LIFE OF ANYTHING ON EARTH WAS RAISED AND CAME FROM THE DEAD.

cjab said:
evolutionary theory explains more than observations

Shine on you crazy diamond.

cjab said:
In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology."

For the profitable element Envolved (excuse me there, while I just had to evolve by just changing the spelling of that word; man, that's a good one), and by that I mean the 'scientists' livelihood. You know, THEIR PAYCHECK.

Heck, I was just evolving our mother tongue. Just like that. In my head. WHERE IS MY PAYCHECK??

SHOW ME THE MONEY (AND I'LL TELL YOU SOME BULLPOOP YOU WANT TO HEAR.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts." II Timothy 4:3.

Well, we are there. We're obviously in the Last Time. Jesus is coming very soon, folks.

And the lord god of the universe isn't going to want to hear any of this no, ggooddy, ggoodd garlic balony.

In fact, Jesus will shut their mouth as they bow to Jesus' Eternal Lordship.

It'll be too bad that cjab hasn't evolved to discern common sense*, when He will be looking straight into the eyes of the Author of God's Holy Bible.

Jesus Knows His Bible, man. Get things right for once and for all.

*That link will lead to dozens of verses that must be absorbed into the heart of a man by the Omniscient Power of the Eternal Holy Ghost, to gain any respect from men of God. you?

Because, just like these so-called 'scientists' who have left their profession to enter the evil world of Dark Occult musings that are counter to God Almighty, since you and they all know that they and you are just guessing.

I've genuinely used real scientific observation (which is their only stupid job) scientifically, and I have overestimated the content of your knowledge.

That won't happen again.

You reached for the secret too soon. You cried to the moon.

I command you, by the Authority of the Eternal Word of God, to REPENT.

cjab · Sep 13, 2025

Alan Dale Gross said:
There is NO PROBLEM WITH 'life comes from death,' is there?

Well, except that IT ROBS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OF HIS GLORY HE OBTAIN BY LIVING A PERFECT LIFE ON EARTH AND THEN BEING CRUCIFIED AND TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED ON THE THIRD DAY....

JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD, AND AN AMEBA FROM A DEAD ROCK (THAT NO EVELUTIONIST CAN EXPLAIN HOW THAT ROCK GOT THERE(???)

LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM DEATH, APART FROM JESUS' RESURRECTION FROM BEING ABSOLUTELY DEAD TO PRODUCE ETERNAL LIFE.

"The utterly rash GUESSWORK from the Spiritually Challenged fake, phony, and false tomfoolery they think that God told them to call themselves "EVOLUTIONISTS....(????????????)

No, God sees "evolutionists" as blasphemous, fraudulent QUACKS.

JESUS CHRIST ACCOMPLISHED THE SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE WHEN THE TRIUNE GODHEAD RAISED OUR SAVIOR AND BROTHER JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.

AND THAT IS EXCLUSIVELY THE ONE AND ONLY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD FROM ITS FIAT CREATION WHEN THE VITAL LIFE OF ANYTHING ON EARTH WAS RAISED AND CAME FROM THE DEAD.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

For the profitable element Envolved (excuse me there, while I just had to evolve by just changing the spelling of that word; man, that's a good one), and by that I mean the 'scientists' livelihood. You know, THEIR PAYCHECK.

Heck, I was just evolving our mother tongue. Just like that. In my head. WHERE IS MY PAYCHECK??

SHOW ME THE MONEY (AND I'LL TELL YOU SOME BULLPOOP YOU WANT TO HEAR.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts." II Timothy 4:3.

Well, we are there. We're obviously in the Last Time. Jesus is coming very soon, folks.

And the lord god of the universe isn't going to want to hear any of this no, ggooddy, ggoodd garlic balony.

In fact, Jesus will shut their mouth as they bow to Jesus' Eternal Lordship.

It'll be too bad that cjab hasn't evolved to discern common sense*, when He will be looking straight into the eyes of the Author of God's Holy Bible.

Jesus Knows His Bible, man. Get things right for once and for all.

*That link will lead to dozens of verses that must be absorbed into the heart of a man by the Omniscient Power of the Eternal Holy Ghost, to gain any respect from men of God. you?

Because, just like these so-called 'scientists' who have left their profession to enter the evil world of Dark Occult musings that are counter to God Almighty, since you and they all know that they and you are just guessing.

I've genuinely used real scientific observation (which is their only stupid job) scientifically, and I have overestimated the content of your knowledge.

That won't happen again.

You reached for the secret too soon. You cried to the moon.

I command you, by the Authority of the Eternal Word of God, to REPENT.

Evolution doesn't posit that "life comes from death" as the theory of evolution doesn't posit where life originates, in the very fact of it being limited to being a science. It is related to observable and investigatable biological phenomena. Even if there are some atheist scientists who seek to extrapolate evolution beyond its allowable remit, it doesn't change anything.

That is why to call evolution a religion, or treat it as such, is misrepresentation, and falsification of the meaning of words.

Just as the theory of the big bang doesn't posit why the "big bang" occurred. It isn't a religion, but a working scientific hypothesis.

You are devoted to making evolution a "religion," in order to defame it, and anyone who sees it as credible science.

So I don't see your cult as having anything to do with Christianity. To me, it is just CULT. Bandying about the words of Christ in the context of talking about evolution is fake argumentation, as Christ never mentions science.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion, or the bible, or Christ, or salvation. Science mostly lies outside the biblical remit.

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 13, 2025

Eternally Grateful said:
thats what I thought, You have nothing..

I don't care if you don't read or believe what I have written. However, as you can see, it's there for the taking

cjab said:
"life comes from death"

If they don't ever put Creation on the table for consideration, there is a reason. Obliviousness.

cjab said:
evolution doesn't posit where life originates

They Know.

cjab said:
in the very fact of it being limited to being a science.

What about the All-Science God of the universe?
God Is All-Powerful, everywhere at once, and has Created every morsel of matter as the Omniscient ONE AND ONLY, TRUE AND LIVING GOD OF THE BIBLE, and every scientist there is AND YOU AND YOUR PURLY IMAGINED HOAXES.

cjab said:
It is related to observable and investigatable biological phenomena.

Show me the money.

cjab said:
Even if there are some atheist scientists who seek to extrapolate evolution beyond its allowable remit, it doesn't change anything.

The remit is to show anything on Earth that exhibits change for the better, anywhere, first.

cjab said:
to call evolution a religion

cjab said:
Just as the theory of the big bang doesn't posit why the "big bang" occurred. It isn't a religion, but a working scientific hypothesis.

cjab said:
You are devoted to making evolution a "religion," in order to defame it, and anyone who sees it as credible science.

cjab said:
So I don't see your cult as having anything to do with Christianity.

cjab said:
Bandying about the words of Christ in the context of talking about evolution is fake argumentation, as Christ never mentions science.

"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." John 3:1.
We give credit where credit is due. And Jesus Christ Created everything that there is.

IT'S A DEAD ISSUE AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS OBSERVABLE PROOF "God works in mysterious ways" and in this case, the Triune Godhead they decided to make the Heavens and the earth and you. Be ready to face Him eye to Eye.

cjab said:
Evolution has nothing to do with religion, or the bible, or Christ, or salvation.

Or science. SCIENCE INVOLVES OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. HOLDING ON TO AN UNPROVABLE PHILOSOPHY THAT IS UNPROVABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

THESE SCIENTISTS PURPOSELY AVOID ANYTHING AT ALL THAT INVOLVES THE BIBLE.

SHOW ME WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED GOD AS THE CREATOR FOR ONE OF THEIR VARIOUS "THEORIES

cjab said:
Science mostly lies

I can't tell how I like this wording, so I could lift it out of context and make it say what I actually thought you meant.

cjab · Sep 14, 2025

Alan Dale Gross said:
I don't care if you don't read or believe what I have written. However, as you can see, it's there for the taking

If they don't ever put Creation on the table for consideration, there is a reason. Obliviousness.

They Know.

What about the All-Science God of the universe?
God Is All-Powerful, everywhere at once, and has Created every morsel of matter as the Omniscient ONE AND ONLY, TRUE AND LIVING GOD OF THE BIBLE, and every scientist there is AND YOU AND YOUR PURLY IMAGINED HOAXES.

Show me the money.

The remit is to show anything on Earth that exhibits change for the better, anywhere, first.

"Creation" whatever you mean by that term, is not incompatible with evolution, for even as Christ pointed out "flesh gives birth to flesh" and "spirit gives birth to spirit." If evolution is limited to the biological, the "flesh", it doesn't trespass on God creating the spirits of all men, animals and anything the bible terms as "living," which I see as possessing a supernatual element. So whilst the natural coexists with the supernatural, only the natural is subject to "science" per se.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." John 3:1.
We give credit where credit is due. And Jesus Christ Created everything that there is.

It doesn't rule out scientific inquiry into what has been created.

Alan Dale Gross said:
IT'S A DEAD ISSUE AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS OBSERVABLE PROOF "God works in mysterious ways" and in this case, the Triune Godhead they decided to make the Heavens and the earth and you. Be ready to face Him eye to Eye.

Or science. SCIENCE INVOLVES OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA. HOLDING ON TO AN UNPROVABLE PHILOSOPHY THAT IS UNPROVABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

THESE SCIENTISTS PURPOSELY AVOID ANYTHING AT ALL THAT INVOLVES THE BIBLE.

Well if you're talking about atheist scientists, I don't agree with them and am not condoning their atheism. I see it as vital to credit the "life" aspect as attributable to God, separately from the biology. Deut 32:39 "I bring death and I give life." Again, it doesn't preclude scientific inquiry into what is living.

Alan Dale Gross said:
SHOW ME WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED GOD AS THE CREATOR FOR ONE OF THEIR VARIOUS "THEORIES

Evolution, properly defined and contained, is essentially a part of the wider science of genetics. It shouldn't be regarded as extending to what makes something "alive."

Alan Dale Gross said:
I can't tell how I like this wording, so I could lift it out of context and make it say what I actually thought you meant.

I am not a genetic scientist, and personally, I see science as self-rectifying. Anyone at all, even self-professing Christians, who peddle lies in the name of science, will eventually be found out.

Ben1445 · Sep 14, 2025

cjab said:
"Creation" whatever you mean by that term, is not incompatible with evolution, for even as Christ pointed out "flesh gives birth to flesh" and "spirit gives birth to spirit." If evolution is limited to the biological, the "flesh", it doesn't trespass on God creating the spirits of all men, animals and anything the bible terms as "living," which I see as possessing a supernatual element. So whilst the natural coexists with the supernatural, only the natural is subject to "science" per se.

But God said each reproduces after its own kind. This rules out any kind of evolution in regard to creation of animals.

But you seem to think that God is subject to matter. That God has no authority in the natural world, only the physical world. Correct me if I am mistaken about what you appear to believe.

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 14, 2025

Ben1445 said:
But God said each reproduces after its own kind. This rules out any kind of evolution in regard to creation of animals.

RIGHT AGAIN.

Ben1445 said:
But you seem to think that God is subject to matter. That God has no authority in the natural world, only the physical world. Correct me if I am mistaken about what you appear to believe.

CORRECT.

Ben1445 · Sep 14, 2025

Ben1445 said:
But God said each reproduces after its own kind. This rules out any kind of evolution in regard to creation of animals.

But you seem to think that God is subject to matter. That God has no authority in the natural world, only the physical world. Correct me if I am mistaken about what you appear to believe.

Sorry about the mistake. I did mean to say spiritual, rather than physical.

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 15, 2025

Ben1445 said:
Sorry about the mistake. I did mean to say spiritual, rather than physical.

Either way.

cjab · Sep 15, 2025

Jer 13:23 "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

The answer is: "it all depends on which viewpoint you take."

From the "here and now" viewpoint, which is your viewpoint, and that of Jeremiah, the answer is clearly "no." And yet from another viewpoint, and in conjunction with Lev 19:19, the above is possibly the most important affirmation of evolutionary theory that exists in the bible. For "creationists" must posit that different "kinds" of men arose from a single parent, Adam where the traits of those "kinds" are, ordinarily, to be regarded as immutable, except by process of artificial biological engineering, which is conceded in Lev 19:19.

Similarly, God concedes that the leopard cannot change its spots. Again, this trait can be supervened by a process of biological engineering, but the point is that leopards are seen as different in "kind" from other cat species, like lions which don't have spots.

So, even where the bible concedes different "kinds," the bible still concedes traits associated with "kinds" can mutate in the longer term through imposition of external processes per Lev 19:19. Which is essentially what evolution posits, but in a much larger framework of changing conditions and over a much larger time frame: changing climate, tectonic plate movement, etc.

So I see your argument as basically "short-term impossibilities prohibit long-term possibilities," but I don't find any biblical concession to it - just a statement in Lev 19:19 that experimentation in changing the biological make-up of species is possible but isn't advantageous (or wasn't for the Israelites).

Ben1445 · Sep 15, 2025

cjab said:
Jer 13:23 "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

The answer is: "it all depends on which viewpoint you take."

From the "here and now" viewpoint, which is your viewpoint, and that of Jeremiah, the answer is clearly "no." And yet from another viewpoint, and in conjunction with Lev 19:19, the above is possibly the most important affirmation of evolutionary theory that exists in the bible. For "creationists" must posit that different "kinds" of men arose from a single parent, Adam where the traits of those "kinds" are, ordinarily, to be regarded as immutable, except by process of artificial biological engineering, which is conceded in Lev 19:19.

Similarly, God concedes that the leopard cannot change its spots. Again, this trait can be supervened by a process of biological engineering, but the point is that leopards are seen as different in "kind" from other cat species, like lions which don't have spots.

So, even where the bible concedes different "kinds," the bible still concedes traits associated with "kinds" can mutate in the longer term through imposition of external processes per Lev 19:19. Which is essentially what evolution posits, but in a much larger framework of changing conditions and over a much larger time frame: changing climate, tectonic plate movement, etc.

So I see your argument as basically "short-term impossibilities prohibit long-term possibilities," but I don't find any biblical concession to it - just a statement in Lev 19:19 that experimentation in changing the biological make-up of species is possible but isn't advantageous (or wasn't for the Israelites).

Your definitions of kind and species are quite vague in your uses. As seen in the chart below, leopards and lions are in the same family. This is where I find a good definition of the word kind. A bear is a bear, a cat is a cat, a dog is a dog. Does everything work perfectly within the same family? Not to evolutionary theory. Mules are consistently sterile animals. If evolution had any positive effect, it would stand to reason that a very hardy animal like a mule would fit into the category of the fittest. It doesn’t. Even so, a mule comes about by animals of the same family/ kind and not by crossing a lion with horse.

Ben1445 · Sep 15, 2025

Ben1445 said:
Your definitions of kind and species are quite vague in your uses. As seen in the chart below, leopards and lions are in the same family. This is where I find a good definition of the word kind. A bear is a bear, a cat is a cat, a dog is a dog. Does everything work perfectly within the same family? Not to evolutionary theory. Mules are consistently sterile animals. If evolution had any positive effect, it would stand to reason that a very hardy animal like a mule would fit into the category of the fittest. It doesn’t. Even so, a mule comes about by animals of the same family/ kind and not by crossing a lion with horse.

View attachment 12127

Even this is only a system of classification of what already is. It came after creation and it was not available as a rule book or scientific guidance when God created the heavens and the earth. I am not saying I have the perfect view of it either. But this is a retrospective view and should not be understood as a “law” of relations. I could classify people based upon their knowledge and experience. This classification would not make all plumbers cousins or even be from the same family anymore than saying raccoons and pandas are related. It’s a matter of study, not origin. To use classification as a means of origin is to misunderstand the history of science and to err on the lack of that knowledge.

It is amazing how God said that He made the physical universe and people try to come up with a spiritualization of what was a literal statement of physical truth.

cjab · Sep 16, 2025

To use classification as a means of origin is what evolutionary science is all about. It is to rely on evolutionary science.

Tables classifying animals according to Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species rely on the science of Cladistics, which "identifies and takes account of shared characteristics deduced to have originated in the common ancestor of a group of species during evolution."

Interbreeding will only be limited to the more recent evolutionary divergences. Interbreeding is not limited to different species but can sometimes occur between different genera, AI: "Successful interbreeding between genera requires the animals to be closely related, often within the same family or subfamily. Examples include the Savannah cat (domestic cat and African serval), the wholphin (bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale), and certain colubrid snakes, all of which produce viable (though not always fertile) offspring."

Inter-species breeding can also produce infertile offspring, e.g. Donkey /Horse (both genus Equus).

Alan Dale Gross · Sep 16, 2025

Ben1445 said:
a cat is a cat, a dog is a dog.

And, they don't want anything to do with each other,
or each other's genealogy (no cats ever in the dog family).

Ben1445 said:
Mules are consistently sterile animals.

This 'Exception' to the overall number of Varieties within the Species, 'Proves the Rule'.

And, this resulting sterility is very common among 'mutations',
or even things like a fly 'developing' 4 wings, but then it can't fly.

Great stuff, again, Ben1445!

Ben1445 · Sep 16, 2025

cjab said:
To use classification as a means of origin is what evolutionary science is all about. It is to rely on evolutionary science.

Tables classifying animals according to Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species rely on the science of Cladistics, which "identifies and takes account of shared characteristics deduced to have originated in the common ancestor of a group of species during evolution."

Interbreeding will only be limited to the more recent evolutionary divergences. Interbreeding is not limited to different species but can sometimes occur between different genera, AI: "Successful interbreeding between genera requires the animals to be closely related, often within the same family or subfamily. Examples include the Savannah cat (domestic cat and African serval), the wholphin (bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale), and certain colubrid snakes, all of which produce viable (though not always fertile) offspring."

Inter-species breeding can also produce infertile offspring, e.g. Donkey /Horse (both genus Equus).

I mentioned some of that but you don’t have any idea where the classification system came from. Start by doing a history of science lesson and find out what publication the classification system came from.
Like I said before, kind and species are not the same thing and I don’t know where you determine your definition of kind.

Ben1445 · Sep 16, 2025

cjab said:
To use classification as a means of origin is what evolutionary science is all about. It is to rely on evolutionary science.

And this is the great error.
Classifying anything based upon characteristics doesn’t show origin.
One might assume that all lawyers came from the same scum from the same swamp but closer examination will reveal that each has their own unique family, education, etc. All lawyers don’t come from the same origin. Everyone that carries a briefcase hasn’t come from the same place. Every thing that walks on two legs doesn’t have the same ancestry.
To suggest that everything, the millions upon millions of species have all come about because of random genetic variation is mathematically impossible in trillions of years.
One more reason I don’t have enough faith to believe in your “science” of evolution.

"To Think, To Reason, To Judge!" Biblical Apologetics in the Field of Christian Theology and Science.

Active Member