Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Kirkwhisper]

Quote: "For that matter, why not also argue that the creation story in Genesis 1 has things happening in a different order than Genesis 2, ergo it is a lie?"

Why would that be necessary?

If God listed things in an a. b. c. d. e. f. g. manner in the first chapter then what rule of grammar (created by God) would keep Him from expressing the same things in an b. d. e. a. c. manner in the second?

Nothing. He makes the rules and He can express historical fact in any manner/order that pleases Him and for reasons that He is not obligated to tell us about.

 

[chris4243]

You mean the peer-reviewed 'scientific papers' that are governed by the peer pressure establishment bigots against creationism?

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Most of them would like nothing more than to find a gaping hole in any of each others' theories, and a superior (that is, more predictive not just a nice story) theory to replace it with. If the group is as rotten as you pretend, why don't the majority of people (Christians outnumber atheists in the general population) just ignore them all and make their own scientific group?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Most of them would like nothing more than to find a gaping hole in any of each others' theories, and a superior (that is, more predictive not just a nice story) theory to replace it with. If the group is as rotten as you pretend, why don't the majority of people (Christians outnumber atheists in the general population) just ignore them all and make their own scientific group?

Ignore them? We refute them!

P.S. there is a Christian peer review establishment that you obviously are not aware of.

 

[chris4243]

I didn't start seeing the 'change in allele frequency' idea until the evolutionists had gotten embarrassed in the creation/evolution debates of the 1970-1990's so often and so badly that they started changing the meanings of not only things like 'spontaneous generation' (now abiogenesis) and entropy from 'a measure of disorder in a system' to 'dissipation'...and now even evolution itself has a changed definition.

How odd, that you didn't see the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency until the time when we could easily see alleles. Similar to how the definition of meter has changed repeatedly, it never before was defined in terms of light and time until our ability to measure time became so good that light was comparatively slow. Evolution has always meant change, even before Darwin. When applied to Darwin's theory, evolution has always meant a change in allele frequency -- though Darwin didn't know about alleles, alleles are the hereditary component that Darwin mentioned in his theory, and also what prevented the infinite dilution of hereditary changes that would have been so problematic to his theory. Darwin worked with what he could see, which was the visible phenotypic changes resulting from the at the time invisible genotypic changes.

As it turns out, scientists like to measure stuff. Rate of allele frequency is simple enough to measure, and corresponds to the genetic changes in Darwin's theory. Since creationists believe in evolution (actually, most creationists believe evolution happens faster than any evolutionist would think possible*), perhaps you should try an unambiguous term -- Common Descent. I mean, unless you want to take issue at the fact that mutations occur and genetically inferior individuals are more likely to die and less likely to breed, why not focus on what you actually take issue with -- the idea that all creatures are descended from a common ancestor, or that two sufficiently different species share a common ancestor.

*this is implicit from the assumption that God didn't go on a creation spree after the Flood

 

[chris4243]

Ignore them? We refute them!

P.S. there is a Christian peer review establishment that you obviously are not aware of.

So why isn't that more popular than the uniformitarian establishment among other scientists, government funding agencies, etc? How big is this conspiracy you believe in?

 

[Hentenza]

That only tells you how they get the data. But, as you said, it is a matter of interpretation. How do they interpret that data? As young-earth creationists or according to standard geological interpretations?

If I find oil in my backyard, I neither interpret it by the data by creationism or by geological interpretation. I merely found the oil. When Shell or any other oil company finds oil they interpret the data as what it is. I am not seeing a relevance to your question.

 

[Smidlee]

Ignore them? We refute them!

P.S. there is a Christian peer review establishment that you obviously are not aware of.

I still think evolutionists themselves makes the best case against ToE. If all you can come up is stories like "the little eyeball that could" which exactly the same Darwin wrote then ToE is in serious trouble.

Scientist may have to dance with the current theory to get paper publish but as far as facts they seem straight forward.
Here's a good example: Mark Leakey was clearly an evolutionist yet admitted "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."
Here is a recent example:
"Anomalocaris had remarkable vision, rivalling or exceeding that of most living insects and crustaceans," Paterson says.

Of course he also paid lip service to Darwinian evolution as well:

"Paterson says the threat of Anomalocaris would have forced other species,both prey and other predators, to evolve rapidly. Hard shells were an obvious way to go, and evolved soon after. Anomalocaris itself was not well armoured: it probably had a soft exoskeleton made of chitin, rather like a prawn."

Of course that statement is a butch of nonsense.

 

[Hismessenger]

There is only needed two verses from Genesis which fulfills all the truth of the scripture. Those two verses are fulfilled in your sight every time you get in the tub or dust your house.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Anyone who wants to see the truth of Genesis only need look at the dirt ring around the tub when you finish washing yourself. What is it that you see. Deny the scripture if you want but it doesn't change the truth of what it says. Believe it or not. You can collect enough of yourself to plant a peanut crop if you did it for a few years. It is to your harm to not believe it for God will repay.

hismessenger

 

[mathetes123]

So why isn't that more popular than the uniformitarian establishment among other scientists, government funding agencies, etc? How big is this conspiracy you believe in?

Most of our public universities are liberal. You would expect their research would support liberal causes. Science is tainted by politics. Just look at global warming for example.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

How odd, that you didn't see the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency until the time when we could easily see alleles. Similar to how the definition of meter has changed repeatedly, it never before was defined in terms of light and time until our ability to measure time became so good that light was comparatively slow. Evolution has always meant change, even before Darwin. When applied to Darwin's theory, evolution has always meant a change in allele frequency -- though Darwin didn't know about alleles, alleles are the hereditary component that Darwin mentioned in his theory, and also what prevented the infinite dilution of hereditary changes that would have been so problematic to his theory. Darwin worked with what he could see, which was the visible phenotypic changes resulting from the at the time invisible genotypic changes.

As it turns out, scientists like to measure stuff. Rate of allele frequency is simple enough to measure, and corresponds to the genetic changes in Darwin's theory. Since creationists believe in evolution (actually, most creationists believe evolution happens faster than any evolutionist would think possible*), perhaps you should try an unambiguous term -- Common Descent. I mean, unless you want to take issue at the fact that mutations occur and genetically inferior individuals are more likely to die and less likely to breed, why not focus on what you actually take issue with -- the idea that all creatures are descended from a common ancestor, or that two sufficiently different species share a common ancestor.

*this is implicit from the assumption that God didn't go on a creation spree after the Flood

Not so. Show us even one observable change in allele frequency that produced an entirely different organism in ANY amount of time. NOTE: I said, 'observable'. NOTE: Not a change in one species to another of the same species but a completely different familial change from one type of organism to another. Good luck, you'll need it.

God's law of kind is still intact and there is really nothing in nature that will change that no matter how much modern science observes genetic changes.

The truth is that the allelic change in population is a joke...except that is that natural conditions in environment, habitation, etc. cause certain latent genes that lay unexpressed may come forth in the phenotypes.

So one may see the genetic differences between (by way of example) a North American Grey wolf and an Alaskan Tundra wolf. There is a wide variance in the gene pool but one will never see a wolf evolve into (or from as may be the case) a Tasmanian devil or a such a canine evolve into (or from as may be the case) a thylacine. Pardon the grammar but it ain't gonna happen folks.

But I fully recognize that God's Words "...after its kind" in Genesis means nothing to those who hold your position. Apparently you think that God just wasted His time informing us of that great truth, never mind the fact that the Lord inspired Moses to mention it 16 times in Genesis chapters one through seven alone!

 

[Kirkwhisper]

So why isn't that more popular than the uniformitarian establishment among other scientists, government funding agencies, etc? How big is this conspiracy you believe in?

Conspiracy? Did I even say one word about 'conspiracy'?

It's a movement led by God hating atheists...and naive Christians listen to them rather than believe what their Bibles plainly tell them about origins.

 

[chris4243]

Not so. Show us even one observable change in allele frequency that produced an entirely different organism in ANY amount of time.

Compare the alleles of a whale and a maggot. They don't have the same alleles. They are different organisms. My guess is that they are different organisms because they have different alleles, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

 

[chris4243]

Conspiracy? Did I even say one word about 'conspiracy'?

It's a movement led by God hating atheists...and naive Christians listen to them rather than believe what their Bibles plainly tell them about origins.

Oh, so you're saying that scientists are hiding the truth, but being open about doing so? I thought the point of hiding and lying about the truth was so people believe the lies instead of the truth, which would require that they not be told it is lies. This would require an agreement among the group to not let on that it is lies, hence a conspiracy. But you don't think it's a conspiracy, or are you lying about that because you realize the absurdity of a conspiracy of that magnitude being carried out?

 

[mark kennedy]

Compare the alleles of a whale and a maggot. They don't have the same alleles. They are different organisms. My guess is that they are different organisms because they have different alleles, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Alleles change from parent to child, unless they did the child would be a clone. I am just curious, are you aware that for the animals on the Ark in fill the earth with the diversity of life we have now would require the change of alleles on a macro scale?

 

[mathetes123]

Oh, so you're saying that scientists are hiding the truth, but being open about doing so? I thought the point of hiding and lying about the truth was so people believe the lies instead of the truth, which would require that they not be told it is lies. This would require an agreement among the group to not let on that it is lies, hence a conspiracy. But you don't think it's a conspiracy, or are you lying about that because you realize the absurdity of a conspiracy of that magnitude being carried out?

Is your belief in evolution based on the evidence or because a scientist told you so? You do understand, don't you, that there are many scientists who believe in creationism.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Compare the alleles of a whale and a maggot. They don't have the same alleles. They are different organisms. My guess is that they are different organisms because they have different alleles, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

I specifically asked you to produce evidence that any organism has changed into an identifiably different (familial!) organism and you give me this? You failed to do so. The challenge stands.

Worms have 8 chromosomes. Whales (some) have 42 & others 44 chromosomes. Are you kidding me?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Oh, so you're saying that scientists are hiding the truth, but being open about doing so? I thought the point of hiding and lying about the truth was so people believe the lies instead of the truth, which would require that they not be told it is lies. This would require an agreement among the group to not let on that it is lies, hence a conspiracy. But you don't think it's a conspiracy, or are you lying about that because you realize the absurdity of a conspiracy of that magnitude being carried out?

Do you know what the word 'movement' means? Do you know how to differentiate 'movement' from 'conspiracy'? Both can involve lies but a movement can involve lies without a deliberate conspiratorial motive.

But they've been known to do this, yes. At times they just deliberately ignore evidence that is legitimately known to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution.

Ex: Tracking Ancient Man - the Pennsylvania Bones

The Smithsonian was shown this evidence directly and personally and they deliberately ignored it.

 

[Smidlee]

Compare the alleles of a whale and a maggot. They don't have the same alleles. They are different organisms. My guess is that they are different organisms because they have different , but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

There is also the different body plans which are different from genes. One geneticist wrote a book a few year ago question "Why a fly is not a horse?" and the most honest answer was we don't know. They know body plans has something to do with the egg itself. Jurassic Park movie got it wrong. If you put a dinosaur DNA into an ostrich egg it will still try to form an ostrich.

 

[shernren]

Maybe if you were not using such a corrupt translation of the Bible it might help you.

... It is only a problem with a Darwinian tainted mind who cannot grasp how He does it.

You haven't made any point except that you cannnot grasp the power, mind, no ability of the Creator God you claim to believe in.

This is your problem, not mine. You don't know what you're talking about.

The irony is that my post #64 is essentially condensed from DA Carson's sermon delivered at the Gospel Coalition LA Regional Conference about a year ago: What is the Gospel, and how does it work?

I'm sure you'd love to tell Carson, a noted critic of liberals and author of books such as "The Gagging of God", that his mind is tainted by Darwinianism and that he cannot grasp the power, mind or ability of the Creator God he claims to believe him. I think there's something in the Bible about not bearing false testimony, but I can't quite seem to remember it - can you?

Oh wait, I'm working from a "corrupt" translation of the Bible. I guess if I read this:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Rev 5:5-6, KJV)​

instead of this:

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:5-6, ESV2011)​

I'd get it right. And in fact I do. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the KJV, because it in fact strengthens my argument. You see, the original Greek text does not state that John saw a lamb. It states, as the KJV diction makes clear: "I beheld ... and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb ... " In other words, the text doesn't say that John saw a Lamb. The text says that John looked and there was a Lamb.

This is important. Your entire thesis was that God was in some way shapeshifting Jesus - "a God who can cause people to see two things at once...or that He can cause some people to see one thing and others to see quite another", in your own words. I can reconcile that in a passage which says that John saw a Lamb, for sure. But in a passage which says that John looked and there actually was a Lamb? No dice. Similarly, the elder does not say that he sees a Lion; what he says is "behold, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah ... " which means to say that there actually is a Lion to be looked at, and not just some strange thing which looks like a lion if you squint at it the right way (and clearly John didn't). And that is not a translation problem.

Now, if you want to introduce me to a third translation which alleviates your problem, you're more than welcome. But I think not. I've never seen anyone call any modern translation of the Bible "corrupt" unless they were pledging their allegiance to the 1611 KJV. Which makes it all the more ironic that, considering you think it's the only proper translation of Scripture, I took the trouble to refer to it and you didn't.

Evolution says that the account of Adam and Eve is nothing but a story. If we can't accept the account of Adam and Eve as literal, why should we accept anything else in the Bible as literal. ...

Evolution says that the first Adam wasn't a literal person. Why should they believe the last Adam was?

calmly explains all the reasons

Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?

Firstly, that's just plain rude. You asked questions, I answered them. Or were you also - shock, horror! - lying? People who ask questions normally want to know the answers; it appears you didn't, as my answers come across to you as "gyrations" (the use of which, by the way, shows that English comprehension shouldn't be your problem) unworthy of any discussion besides what is essentially "noob, you don't accept the Bible!" I could try to answer you argumentatively, but I want to see if you can perhaps empathize with me, by drawing you a similar situation.

Imagine (as has happened to me) that some non-believer, say a Muslim, asks you what it means for you to think that Jesus is the Son of God. You're excited. Someone who disagrees with you actually cares what you think! So you arrange your thoughts and reply firstly that the Gospels are excellent historical sources, and then that Jesus did and said many things which could only be considered divine, and then that the Church has through the ages worshiped Jesus, and finally that all this can only be put together if one believes that Jesus is God - and yet not God the Father, since they are clearly distinct persons, the Father loving the Son and the Son glorifying the Father, so we eventually arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity.

(By the way, this is the actual argument I have articulated - with full conviction - to both Christians and non-Christians when asked. I hope that tells you what my essential doctrinal stances are.)

You wait for a while, and eventually the Muslim says, "Such gyrations. Why not just accept that you believe that God raped Mary to produce baby Jesus?"

Wouldn't that be painful? If nothing else, you have wasted both your time and your questioner's.

Now, I really care very little whether you, Kirkwhisper, or anyone else here comes to accept evolution. But learn at least to actually read the translation you claim is sacrosanct, listen to the answers you receive to the questions you ask, and grant your fellow Christians the kind of respect you would yourself hope to receive.

 

[shernren]

"The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time..."

Does anyone else see how this Darwinian devotee has been brainwashed by the modern evolutionary community to accept such nonsense? That's like defining a Lamborghini as 'an engine with four wheels and a steering wheel'. Real smart.

When I was in school the definitions of evolution went like this:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development.
3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.


I didn't start seeing the 'change in allele frequency' idea until the evolutionists had gotten embarrassed in the creation/evolution debates of the 1970-1990's so often and so badly that they started changing the meanings of not only things like 'spontaneous generation' (now abiogenesis) and entropy from 'a measure of disorder in a system' to 'dissipation'...and now even evolution itself has a changed definition.

Through the years they have not only changed the defintions but they have moved the goalposts in many different categories to avoid the stigma of exposure for what evolution really is: a huge, monstrous hoax.

Actually, the idea of evolution as change in allele frequency was already present (though in slightly different terms) as early as 1931:

The conclusion nevertheless seems warranted by the present status of genetics that any theory of evolution must be based
on the properties of Mendelian factors, and beyond this, must be concerned largely with the statistical situation in the species.​

Evolution in Mendelian populations, Sewall Wright, 1931 (PDF available for free)

"The properties of Mendelian factors" - that is, alleles, the term not having being coined until later - and "the statistical situation in the species" - that is, how commonly or how rarely these alleles occur in the species as a whole, instead of just which allele is in any one individual. Thus, any theory of evolution must be based on change in the frequencies of alleles, and this in 1931.

As to the question of speciation from a single allele, you may want to try these:
Sunday Spinelessness – Speciation by magic | The Atavism
Single gene creates snake-resistant mirror-image snails, and maybe some new species | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Discover Magazine

You will no doubt protest that the slugs are still slugs, but you never defined what amount of speciation would satisfy you. And when you do, I will no doubt have to spend a lot of time patiently explaining to you why that kind of speciation is just as forbidden by evolutionary theory as it is by your particular view on biology.