Posted on 06/16/2005 7:09:41 PM PDT by curiosity
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."(Genesis 1:30)
What was given for meat? Vegetation. This was to every beast of the earth.
So? Where is it written that animal death is evil? If animal death is evil, why is it that hunting is not a sin?
Because after the flood, God gave this new commandment:
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3)
It's also wrong from a botanistic standpoint, a cosmological standpoint, a meteorological standpoint, as in addition to contradicting basic astronomy.
Then you have to choose whether you believe God or man's account. Given how man's knowledge is limitted and God's isn't, and how God was there and we were not, I'm going to rely on His account. Now, if you don't believe that scripture is true, then why are you bothering defending your view of evolution from a scriptural standpoint?
Plus, if taken literally, the sequence in Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2.
In what way? There is nothing I've seen people offer as contradictions which are truly so.
No, but it's more compatible with evolution than it is with special creation.
By what twisted logic do you come up with the idea that evolutionary speciation are more compatible with Biblical kinds than Biblical kinds?
Please show me where God says he was not talking figuratively.
You think that the 10 commandments are figurative? That's a very odd interpretation indeed.
No, and yet you still choose to believe in a worldwide catastrophe, despite the fact there is no evidence for it.
Only (quoting Ken Ham) billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth. Plus the fact that there is evidence of continental-wide waterflows on each of the continents, and secularly well-published geologists who have developed a model to show how it happened and how it better explains modern geology than other theories. Plus there is the ubiquitous presence of C14 in all rock layers of the earth.
Please show me where in the Bible it says the catastrophe was world-wide.
I don't see why you want Biblical proof as you've mentioned previously that it doesn't matter to you what the Bible says if modern science thinks differently (despite the fact that modern science -- quite apart from the Bible -- rejected the heliocentric model of planetary motions because of the evidence at the time -- just to show that man's ideas are limitted and easily shown to be false by later evidence). But, anyway, here it is - Genesis 7:19-24.
Tell me, if it were a local flood, why load up the animals? How did the boat stay afloat for a whole year before finding land? How did it cover all known mountains, but only for a local region? How did all land animals die out? Why the need for an ark at all? Why not just tell Noah -- hey, go move over here where there won't be a flood? Anyway, Genesis 7:19-24 clearly say several times and in several ways that it is worldwide, including "and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.", "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark."
"The issue is whether the creaton was mediated."
I don't even see how this is relevant. The Bible speaks very clearly in what manner they were brought forth -- after their kind. Whether mediated or not, the method of bringing forth clearly indicates a non-evolutionary path.
Now that's unique. Using the bible, which is faith-based literature, to try and prove a non-historical secular point. This just goes to highlight my point that evo is every bit as much a faith-based belief system as creationism is.
Thanks. Another interesting twist on evolution is my favorite book by Thomas Sowell which shows step by step how conservatives see how society grows by evolution, not by central deliberate planning as liberals do. It's a bit off the path of the scientific argument but maybe it's my conservative vision getting in the way. More:
Dr. Thomas Sowells book, "A Conflict of Visions" is an attempt to explore the primary, if unarticulated, philosophy of historical conservatism and liberalism. His thesis is that conservatism has a tradition of operating by a vision of humans that sees them as constrained. Some characteristics of this view are: lt;br /> lt;br />(1) Humans have generally selfish natures. lt;br />(2) Human reason, while valuable, is quite limited. lt;br />(3) Because of this, society grows by evolution, not central deliberate planning. lt;br />(4) Social decisions generally involve not solutions but trade-offs (how much good for how much downside?) lt;br />(5) Procedural fairness, rather than results-based fairness, is the key to a just society. lt;br /> lt;br />Conversely, Sowell writes that the liberal tradition operates on a vision of humankind that is unconstrained. Features include: lt;br /> lt;br />(1)Human selfishness is a quality that can be overcome by reason and education. lt;br />(2) Human reason, when used properly, can trump human impulses, emotions, and feelings. lt;br />(3)The planned society is best. Non-planned societies = chaos. lt;br />(4) While policy trade-offs might be a good short term solution, reason can discover true solutions that are equitable to all. lt;br />(5)Procedural fairness is not fair so long as disperate outcomes result. lt;br /> lt;br />Sowell backs up his thesis with impressive research, citations, and quotes. This is refreshing becuase it makes sure he is not simply creating strawmen. From the conservative side, his quites tend to come from Edmunde Burke, Adam Smith, Freidrich Hayek, and Oliver Wendell Holmes
http://www.history-us.com/A_Conflict_of_Visions_Ideological_Origins_of_Political_Struggles_0465081428.html
No, because I never saw Jesus' dead body.
Same goes for all the other mircales. They don't contradict observation. They are at variance with what ordinarily happens, but no observation rules out the possibility that God can from time to time do something supernatural and out of the ordinary.
Science can explain none of these miracles, but I am sure you, as a Christian, have no problem with that, so what makes the miracle of creation so special that a scientific explanation is required?
I do not need a scientific explanation to beleive a miracle. A miracle is by definition something that has no possible scientific explanation.
I also do not reject creation. I do believe God is the ultimate creator of the universe.
I reject creationism (as defined in this article) because I can observe things in God's creation that directly contradict it. That is, I see direct evidence that things happened another way.
In contrast, there is no physical evidence contradicting my belief that Jesus rose from the dead, that the Red Sea parted, etc, etc, etc.
I see, animals and plants were cursed for something they didn't do. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
For the author's argument to make sense, we would have had to have sinned when we were microbial
Huh?
Nowhere does God prohibit any animal from carnivorous activity. Allowing the eating of vegetation is not the same thing as disallowing the eating of other animals.
Because after the flood, God gave this new commandment
I see, so something that was evil suddenly becomes good.
Are you a nominalist?
Then you have to choose whether you believe God or man's account.
What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation? Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!
Now, if you don't believe that scripture is true
I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.
then why are you bothering defending your view of evolution from a scriptural standpoint?
I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.
In what way? There is nothing I've seen people offer as contradictions which are truly so.
The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.
The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2. This is a clear indication that the author was not concerned about the details of ordering.
By what twisted logic do you come up with the idea that evolutionary speciation are more compatible with Biblical kinds than Biblical kinds?
No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.
And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?
BTW, speciation is one of those things we can observe directly with our own eyes.
You think that the 10 commandments are figurative?
Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.
If I live in the city, I will command my child not to play in the frontyard without an adult. If I move to the country I would probably remove that rule. God, being the rule-maker, can also change the rules. What makes something sin is that you are going against the Lord's rules. What was evil is still evil -- disobedience.
Are you a nominalist?
On some issues. I think choosing only one side is more problematic than being one or the other. What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation?
You're own observations are very useful. However, as God pointed out to Job, you weren't there but He was. We do not have a complete understanding of the world. Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources. If we do trust the sources, then it is not unreasonable to think that something contradictory to our current understanding of the world could take place, since we do not know everything. Using our own observations would have made you a geocentrist for many, many years after it became the main theory. As for biblical theories, creationists were long derided for believing in a single supercontinent based on then-current geology, but now it turns out the creationists were right all along.
We don't know everything, but God does. Assuming that our limitted knowledge is better than God's unlimited knowledge and first-hand experience with the event is highly presumptuous.
Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!
It would be wrong to _ignore_ your own observations. However, historical science is not the same as observational science -- it is one of interpretation. Likewise, we should not ignore our own thoughts and observations, but they should always be subservient to the authority of scripture. A Christian should always bow their physical and mental knee to the Lord. Being right in ones own eyes is the downfall of numerous people in the Bible. To say that our own observations should be placed on equal weight of the Bible is self-idolatry.
I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.
Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do? If not, are you saying that God led everyone before the 1700's in a lie? There were evolutionary theologies and creation stories during the time of Moses (Enuma Elish for one), and the Egyptians had expressions for long-age concepts. These types of concepts were fully available for use in Genesis, if that is what God was trying to convey. It was not beyond the mental grasp of the Israelites. But the Biblical creation story is specifically against that.
On what basis, except that you are aware of the theory of evolution, would you interpret Genesis as being evolution?
I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.
It is foolish to believe that all apparent contradictions are resolvable, simply because we do not have all information available. To attempt this too rashly is to certainly come to incorrect conclusions and to teach them as fact based on our limitted understanding of the universe. However, in this case, it is fairly obvious that putting in evolution has created a huge number more contradictions than it supposedly solves (and I would say that it solves 0).
The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.
You still haven't pointed out the contradictions for the literalist. There are none.
No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.
The first part is true, the second is false. The second implies that from death came Adam, while scripture says that from Adam came death. Likewise, evolution is completely out-of-sequence with scripture, and there would be no concept of "after one's kind" with evolution, as everything would ultimately be of the same kind. Also, when you propose evolution as being the cause of the geologic column, you remove any room for the deluge to occur.
And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?
Kinds do change over time. No creationist disagrees. Speciation happens. No creationist disagrees. However, God specifically said that he produced multiple distinct kinds. These are fairly easy to spot using biology. In vertebrates, the created kinds generally occur at the family level (in which case these species are usually still breedable). Likewise, ANOPA and BDIST statistical methods can show the continuities and discontinuities between organsisms. Anyway, for a good introduction to this, you should read the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.
The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2.
I think you are thinking of animals, not plants. Anyway, this is because the language in chapter 2 does not necessarily indicate sequence, and in fact many translations leave out the sequence implications because they are not necessarily indicated by the Hebrew. vav-consecutives do not necessarily imply consecutiveness, and "had formed" is an accurate rendering.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513
Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.
From the 10 commandments:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.(Exodus 20:11)
bump for later read
When a ruler falls, his kingdom falls. Man was made lord of all the earth. What he does reflects on his subject. He falls, and the world falls.
The point here is that you don't NEED theistic evolution to explain why the world fell when man fell. If you don't NEED it, then it's not a superior or more correct explanation; it's just a different explanation.
Physical death is not terrible unless it is accompanied with spiritual death.
Then why weep at funerals, or upon hearing of the death of friends like Lazarus?
Why was there a need for a tree of life before the Fall if there was no physical death before?
I haven't read much exegesis on Genesis in some time, but the Tree of Life could more easily be interpreted to be a sacramental conduit for the supernatural grace of God, and indeed a foreshadowing of the Cross. Incorporating Darwinian cosmology into it seems like an ad hoc interpretation to me.
Regarding randomness and chaos, I think the big question here is the relationship between chance and Providence. Providential actions aren't always obvious. When I hear somebody saying how God has worked in their life, I'm usually pretty unconvinced. I suspect many others, even devout Christians, would find my own description of God's providential work in my life a bit hard to swallow. In Darwinian thought evolutionary change occurs entirely by chance. The fittest animal gets its great genes from its parents by chance, and any beneficial mutations are by chance, and even then this Great Specimen could trip and break its neck as a youth rather than pass on its genes.
Perhaps you could argue that because we are evolving. However, I don't think it is true. Our intelligence has allowed us to transcend evolution. Or at least has slowed it down to such a pace that we are never going to change into beings that have a fundamentally differet nature.
For one thing, in Darwinian theory the human species is itself a transitional species, as were all its predecessors. For another, Darwin himself held that our intelligence is not a qualitative but a quantitative difference.
But every one who admits the principle of evolution, must see that the mental powers of the higher animals, which are the same in kind with those of man, though so different in degree, are capable of advancement.Haven't you heard of the Transhumanist movement? They're all about redesigning human nature. And wouldn't it also be imaginable, biologically speaking, for reason to become a superfluous and even hindering faculty given the right environment, as legs became redundant and detrimental for the ancestors of snakes?
-Descent of Man, Chapter 21
What about our souls? Don't they form the basis for human rights? You may object that Darwinism does not claim anything about souls, but it is equally true that Darwinism does not rule out a soul.
I don't think human rights are properly attached to human souls specifically, firstly because the human body is also a good thing to which we have duties, even after that body has died. Granting for the moment that rights are derived from duties, even a corpse has certain rights, though not as absolute as the complete human person does.
Also, certain human rights are supposed to be either "self-evident," as the Declaration of Independence holds, or a fact capable of universal recognition, a "science" capable of being worked out by every intelligent person. Unless we grant that the soul is also similarly philosophically provable, it might not be possible to come up with a coherent rights-theory based on the soul.
By the way, I think Darwin has sprinkled his own ideas of natural rights throughout his works. There are some passages justifying a "Manifest Destiny" for the "higher" civilized European races over the lower races of the rest of the world. And in that same Chapter 21 of the Descent of Man, he states: "There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring." That's a justification for the natural right to adultery, polygamy, Free Love, and so much other wackiness. Contemporary Darwinism has been domesticated because our World War II enemies' ideologies based much of their thought upon Darwin's epigones. Neo-Darwinism now scrupulosly makes a distinction between biology and ethics, between the descriptive and the prescriptive, and it completely shuns Darwin's talk of "higher" and "lower" organisms. But I think this school of thought will completely revert to its wild state shortly, especially with all the money pouring into the biotech industry.
Does Sowell make any argument against the extreme denial of any social planning whatsoever, namely Social Darwinism?
Regarding physical death and the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22 makes pretty clear that the tree of life is the source of immortality. As someone else on this thread also posted, it appears to be the source of immortality for the elect after the second coming.
I believe this conclusively proves that immortality requires supernatural grace, and the tree of life symbolizes that grace. It follows, therefore, that naturally, life is mortal.
BTW, I don't necessarily think the tree of life is literally a tree. I agree with you that it is a symbol for the supernatural grace of immortality.
There is no indication anywhere in Genesis that animals had access to the tree of life before the Fall. It was only in the Garden, and most animals were not in the Garden. So I think it is pretty clear that animals were not given the supernatural grace of immortality before the Fall, or ever.
I don't think there's any reason to believe animal death is evil, or the presence of animal death negates the intrinsic goodness of creation. I stand by my statement that physical death without spiritual death is not evil. Humans cry when someone dies not for the sake of the dead, but for ours. We will miss the person who has passed on.
Regarding randomness and Providence:
I'm not sure what your point is about providence and chaos. If anything, what you say supports the notion that God could have created through evoluton. As you rightly point out, mutations would not be the only way God influences our lives through events that to us seem random.
Regarding the transitional nature of man:
I don't think the assertion that man is "transitional" is scientific, or supported by the evidence. We have, through our intelligence, eliminated nearly all selective pressure on our species. Technology ensures that nearly no one starves before childbearing years. Medical science ensures very few people die of disease before such time. And monogamous marriage virtually insures nearly everyone who reaches reproductive age gets to reproduce. Being good looking helps in getting a good looking mate, but even the ugly usually end up finding someone.
The result is that our species is not likely to change very much, if at all, for a very long time.
I think you're right that more than human rights are grounded in more than just our soul. Our rationality has much to do with it as well. I don't see how the fact that we are biologically related to other creatures negates any of this.
Thanks for pointing out the relevant chapter of Descent of Man. I actually haven't read this book. I am only familiar with the Origin. While it is disturbing that Darwin had some musings that eerily forshadow the ideas of the social Darwinists, it really isn't relevant to whether biological Darwinism is true or not.
Darwinism was a scientist, not a prophet, and his books are not sacred scripture. We are perfectly free to accept from them what is valid and throw out what is erroneous, just as we do with the works of other scientists like Newton, Einstein, and Oppenheimer.
I agree that there is a danger of biology "breaking down the barriers of descriptive and prescriptive." We're already starting to see it in the human cloning and stem cell debate.
However, I don't think that denying the findings of modern science is the best way of fighting those who would attempt to draw erroneous ethical conclusions from it. That just makes you look ignorant and backward.
Rather, the best way of fighting such things is by embracing the descriptive findings of science and then emphsizing that science cannot be prescriptive. There are plenty of principled scientists, like Stephen J. Gould, who strongly support this view and will fight for it as vigorously as any clergyman.
Science and religion need to be united in order to defeat the forces of nihilism.
Funny. England didn't fall when King Richard II fell. Poland did not fall when King Boleslaw fell. China did not Fall when the Quin dynasty, or any other dynasty for tha matter, fell. There are plenty more where that came from. You don't know your history very well, I see.
The point here is that you don't NEED theistic evolution to explain why the world fell when man fell.
You don't need it, perhaps, but it makes a lot more sense. Otherwise, you have God cursing a bunch of animals for something they didn't do. That's pretty hard to reconcile with the way we know God operates in the rest of the Bible. Perhaps no impossible, but difficult, and awkward. Evolution elinimates this difficulty.
The rude remark aside, we are discussing biblical symbolism, not historical events.
The fall is a spiritual event with a temporal consequence.
The idea of a ruler's decisions affecting the spiritual status of what he rules is a pretty clear pattern in the Old Testament.
Since theistic evolution has the animals cursed already, I fail to see your objection to a Fall moving animals from a state that theistic evolution has them in from the beginning.
I think theistic evolution has to make too many compromises to scripture. You have to make too many things symbolic that are plainer to read as literal.
Like I said before, my biggest argument with theistic evolution is that it makes the learning of man the yardstick by which the Bible must be measured.
I think the fact that no one came up with a reading of the Bible that supports theistic evolution until after Darwin's theory gained acceptance pretty much proves that men who preach theistic evolution are actually worshipping science and modifying scripture to fit their new god's teachings.
Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good"
Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources.
Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence.
Ignoring physical evidence and accepting a literalist interpretation is what led many Christians to accept geocentrism, contrary to what you posted earlier. It is true, Greek and medieval (not modern) astronomers also were geocentrists. But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change. And they based their obejctions solely on scripture.
Here's a good article on The Galileo Affair.
Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do?
Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature.
The article mentions St. Athanasius, who believed that physical death existed prior to the Fall, which brought on spiritual death. St Gregory of Nyssa believed that man passed through lower states before becoming fully human.
And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts.
Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?
Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?
Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local. That is a scientific fact that is true independent of evolution. The standard AiG scriptural objections to a local delluge are pretty well answered here
I think you are thinking of animals, not plants. Anyway, this is because the language in chapter 2 does not necessarily indicate sequence, and in fact many translations leave out the sequence implications because they are not necessarily indicated by the Hebrew.
I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense.
That asside, even in the Bible, a rulers fall does not necessarily bring about a nation's fall. Israel did not fall with Saul, for example.
The nation falls only when the people follow the ruler in doing evil. And even then, the faithful remnant who remain loyal to God despite the corruption of their King are spared.
Thus the creationist hypothesis of creation being cursed by man's sin makes little sense, and is not consistent with the rest of the Bible. The ruled are NOT automatically cursed for the rulers actions if they themselves are innoncent.
And no, theistic evolutoin does not hold that creatoin was cursed before the fall. Animal death is not evil, and it is a not a curse.
The Fall curses creation by thwarting it's goal and purpose. Man is the pinnalce of creation. The whole purpose of creation is for it to bring for a being who is made in the image of God and who is capable of a relationship with God. By destroying his relationship with God, Adam destroyed the whole purpose of creation. That is why creation groans.
God is not punishing animals and plants for the sins of Adam.
The elect are immortal because they are granted the tree of life that was taken from Adam.
Now you answer my question. If there was no physical death before the Fall, what is the purpose of the tree of life?
"Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good""
You are implying that not being very good means evil. There is no reason to think that. We get cancer. It's not evil, but it's not "very good" either. Likewise, when creation was very good, animals and man were commanded to eat a vegetarian diet. After it had degenerated, man was given everything to eat. Why would you postulate that man was not allowed to eat meat until after the flood?
"Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence."
But can you trust your interpretation of that evidence? Bones don't come with dates listed. That has to be interpretted by circumstancial evidence. I should hope our court system would not put the same value on circumstantial evidence that you seem to. There is a reason why circumstantial evidence is of a secondary quality -- it requires interpretation, which can be faulty and is based on our preconceptions of what is possible or likely.
Sources is based on eyewitnesses. When given the choice between circumstantial evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I usually go with the eyewitnesses.
"But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change."
That is simply incorrect, especially as the evidence establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt did not occur until Newton.
From your link:
"It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive"
He did not prove it, as there was still considerable evidence against it.
"Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature."
Mediation does not imply evolution. As I pointed out, there have always been evolutive theories, and that the one in Genesis is decidedly not of this nature.
"And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts."
Actually, Augustine believes quite firmly that the Genesis account is factual, though some words may have different meanings than normal. This would still preclude evolution as (a) the order of things is wrong, and (b) the distinct kinds are fairly explicit. Also, most of the people who attest to Augustine's "figurative interpretation" are greatly exaggerating the extent to which Augustine is allowing figurative language. Many of his quotes supporting this are taken out of their context in which he establishes the extent to which he thinks that their figurativeness can be believed.
"Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?"
Several problems:
1) if kinds are just species, then Adam would have had trouble naming them after millions of years of diversification. If they diversified afterwards, there would have been no problem.
2) if the kinds are just species, then Noah would have had trouble fitting them on the ark.
"Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?"
If you are specifically talking about diversification -- all creationists believe in diversification. The difference is the additive component that makes something an individual creation -- information. Science has not given us any mechanism for adding information to cells. Yet that information is there.
Think of it this way: when we modify bacteria to make insulin-producing bacteria, what are we doing? We are taking existing bacteria, adding in information, and getting out a new organism. Is what we are doing mediated by nature? Yes. Is what we are doing evolution? No.
"Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local."
That link is humorous. For it's reason why birds were on the ark is that they don't fly well in the rain. Well guess what -- they didn't have to fly in the rain! God brought them to moses WEEKS before the flood. This is plenty of time even for poor flyers to have made it out.
Likewise, if you look at the carrying capacity of the ark, you can see that this is for much more than just one regions animals, especially if there are only two of most kinds.
Likewise, the flood lasted a whole year, and, as mentioned in the text, the flood was 8 meters about the mountains (or hills as your link wants to call them). If it were a local flood, would it really take Noah a whole year to find dry land? Would it really take a whole year for any amount of water to dissipate if it were only covering hills?
"I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense."
I do take it literally. That is part of the language. It's not something I'm making up -- it's actually a part of Hebrew. vav-consecutives can indicate consecutive action, but don't necessarily do so. If I say, "yesterday I ate lunch, and I also ate breakfast", am I indicating a definite sequence? Or am I organizing them by importance instead? Understanding the language as a whole, and not individual piecemeal statements, is _required_ for a literal reading of _anything_.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.