How much is too much evolution?

You want a definition of different kinds of lifeforms, will that make you happy if I gave you one without being able to say this is where I got this information?

No thanks.  My focus has shifted slightly to the added problems for YECs that I raised in post #159, such as what is the nature of the purported 'barrier' to evolution if YECs can no longer appeal to reproductive barriers between different species, and the great amount of evolution *between* and *above* 'kinds'--not just within kinds--that YECs actually recognize as legitimate.  If you have solutions for these problems then that would be great.

Well, look at what is said in scripture, what kinds of creatures were named. They were made in the beginning, are they still here in that form?

Your repeated reference to the Biblical 'kind' which neither tbwp10 nor I understood is what I had in mind. Neither species nor genus (apparently), kind can mean almost anything you want.

I'm not sure if it's a waste of time pointing this out but where in Genesis (I imagine you mean the creation?) are dinosaurs mentioned?

And we know from the fossil record that any creature referred to in scripture did not exist much before 50 to 100 million years ago.

You'll have to read my post #159.  One of the problems is that current YEC views contradict the Bible they claim to go to in support of said views.

The Biblical text doesn’t give specific information differentiating one kind from another; Instead, God gives an overview as He created life on mass. If you want to dismiss that because more detail wasn’t given, feel free. Just remember with abiogenesis, you promote as accurate has even fewer details supporting it.

So what did God mention specifically, plants and vegetation, creatures that live in water, birds that fly, livestock, creeping things, and beasts.  These types of creature names are an overview of the kinds of creatures scripture refers to, so that doesn’t allow for life springing up and evolving from dead dirt into a living cell then evolving for X amount of years.

Please stick to my assertions I'm not comfortable defending someone else view I might not even hold.

So you're saying that scripturally, 'plants and vegetation' form a kind while 'creatures that live in water' are another and 'birds that fly', 'livestock', 'creeping things', and 'beasts' are others?

Then it's fair to say that one of those kinds does not transform or evolve into another but then no biologist has ever claimed such a thing either.

As for abiogenesis, I'm not aware of any claims that are made for it. And I don't exactly promote it as anything. Rather, as a non-expert, I can only wait for those with specialist knowledge to inform me of progress being made in the field. I think it's going to be a long wait!

My post that you quote above wasn't directed towards you specifically, but a general statement of problems that YECs still need to come up with solutions for.  If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you.

Close, there are closely related plants and animals, tbwp10 has come up with ways these through natural selection multiplied and split into different types of the something. There are groups within each that also have nothing to do with another kind, for example, a bear and a tiger would not be closely enough related to be of the same kind.

You give me too much credit.  I've come up with nothing.  I also think concordism--trying to make science and the Bible accord with one another--is a grave mistake.  Besides being a fundamental error in interpretation which should always begin with interpreting in the proper context and literary genre, concordism invariably leads to either twisting the Bible to fit science or science to fit the Bible.  A lose-lose situation all the way around. 

The Bible is not a scientific textbook and Genesis 1 is poetic prose, not historical narrative (and even ancient Hebrew narrative does not adhere to the conventions of modern historiography).  

It seems a little insane to me that people (not you @TruthMuse) would consult Genesis for biosystematics and taxonomic classification.  The only animal 'classifications' given in Genesis 1 are the standard ancient Hebrew tripartite classification of animals into wild, domestic, and small.  It simply follows standard conventions of the time.  It's not meant to communicate a scientific understanding of the biological world.

But one of my points above is that *even if* we erroneously tried to extract such information Genesis 1 says nothing about what happens to the biological order afterwards.  It doesn't say the created 'kinds' can't subsequently change and diversify by evolution.  It doesn't say one way or another.

Of course, we shouldn't be consulting the poetic prose of Genesis 1 in the first place for scientific information when it's concerned with presenting theology, not biosystematics.

How many different truths do you think can be true at once on any given topic?

Depends on what the question(s) is/are and how narrow or expansive the 'given topic'.

Truth is truth, but it's also true there are different types of truth.  You can't get theological truth from science, nor scientific truth from theology.

The same topic will have the same truth attached to it, they should never contradict one another. They may cover different pieces of the topic but they should never contradict one another. An example would be one answer to why is the water boiling covering the science of thermal reactions, another an agency where someone said they wanted a cup of tea so they started it. Both true but different, (example from Dr. Lenox)

Sure, but the issue here is that science and Genesis aren't dealing with the same topic.  Not directly anyway, only obliquely.  Genesis is concerned with refuting pagan cosmologies on a theological level.  Modern science is not.  For example, if the poetic prose of Genesis 1 is using a 7-day week as a didactic device--which seems likely by the stylized way the creation account itself is structured--then the sequence of days is not meant to be taken as a temporal sequence of materialistic events, and thus is not intended to communicate scientific information about the age of the earth.

If instead Genesis 1 is intended as a scientific account, then now there's a direct conflict.

Or we can state it more simply and directly in truth categories if you prefer: the cosmology presented in Genesis 1 is not a true representation of reality.  For instance, we know for a fact that the sun, moon, and stars are not below the rain 'waters above' the firmament. 

In passing, can anyone tell me how much time and effort religious leaders and theologians of the Abrahamic religions spend explaining to congregations and students, that the early books of the OT, especially Genesis, are to be approached as works of poetry and under no circumstances to be read literally?

That certainly isn't my own experience and I can't ever remember hearing anyone say such a thing. Rather, isn't it the case that many people of faith do read those books as if they describe matters of fact and isn't it the case that Genesis does appear to be making a number of propositional statements?

As a matter of interest, are there any footnotes included in copies of the Bible that draw the reader's attention to the poetical style of Genesis? I can't remember seeing any and that would seem pretty important, wouldn't you say?

Many Study Bibles do include such explanatory notes.  It is becoming a more common feature.

Many 'Study Bibles'? Why not all? I can't ever remember seeing what you call a study bible.

Even copies of Genesis online omit to mention that much of that book should be read as poetry rather than as assertions of fact. Can you point to a generally available online copy that cautions the reader against reading it literally?

A second point which is quite important I think - at what point in history did (any) theologians start to take the view that Genesis was intended to be read as poetry and not taken literally?