Take a look at Genesis 1. Throughout that chapter, we read the phrase "each according to its kind." The plants produced seeds which produced more plants "each according to its kind." God created the animals "each according to its kind." That phrase is repeated so often in Genesis 1 that it's as though the author (or "Author," if you will) is intentionally trying to point out that it was through this specific creation of species, and not through a process of "evolution," that he brought plants and animals into being.
Variation within species, of course. But not between "kinds," according to Genesis.
Scripture is not compatible with evolution. That's one reason we Christians resist the theory of evolution -- not only does evidence support creationism, but the theory of evolution is just not compatible with Scripture.
Another odd point -- if you're not familiar with Scripture, you may not realize that Genesis has plants created on the 3rd day and the sun and moon and stars created on the 4th day. That *definitely* is not compatible with evolutionary thinking.
I challenge you to read Scripture -- there's some bewildering stuff in there. Consider the "firmament," for example: that antedeluvian layer of water hovering in the atmophere that later fell during the Great Flood....
> That's one reason we Christians resist the theory of evolution
"We Christians." What an interesting phrase. Meaning those Christians who accept the fact of evolution aren't Christians?
> Genesis has plants created on the 3rd day and the sun and moon and stars created on the 4th day. That *definitely* is not compatible with evolutionary thinking.
Nor is it compatible with reason. it is, however, compatible with poor authoring, which speaks to the factual accuracy of the account.
> that antedeluvian layer of water hovering in the atmophere that later fell during the Great Flood....
I LOVE that bit! Yes, we've all seen miles-thick layers of water hovering in the sky, blocking all sunlight...
So then where are the living dinosaurs, wooley mammoths, and saber tooth tigers? Why haven't we found fossils of modern cows, horses, and people? Reproduction according to "kind" is certainly consistent with evolution. In fact, if we observed, for example, a cow giving birth to a dog, this would be an observation that REFUTES evolution. Evolution states that variations among species are small, but that over a long time small variations accumulate into large ones. Evolution is only inconsistent with literal interpretation of the Bible. BTW, I have read the scripture and am familiar with it. I just stated the truth that I am not an expert on it; I can't quote Biblical references from memory, for example. I also am a Christian and I disagree with you that Christians in general resist evolution. Also, the creation of plants before the sun is just inconsitent with the basic facts of plant physiology, ie plants need light to survive, but is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution, in a very simplified nutshell, simply states that life changes.
What is your definition of a "kind"? What are the testable criteria for entities to be of different kinds?
How was the day measured? By a sundial?
How did this layer of water not develop a Raleigh-Taylor instability? Did the layer obscure the Moon? Was it above or below the Moon?