Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[shernren]

God sent them two by two after their kind to the ark. Sounds to me like that was the intent. Are you aware of animals today that reproduce with animals not of their kind?

Gen 7:13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
Gen 7:14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.
Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
Gen 7:16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.

"On the day of the school trip, the teacher and his assistants entered the bus,
they and every 4th grader, according to his or her class;
and every 5th grader, according to his or her class;
and every 6th grader, according to his or her class, every last brat of them."

Just because the Bible tries to classify the animals by their different "kind"s doesn't mean that the animals necessarily reproduce in their own kinds, any more than the schoolkids in my parallel example are forced to talk to only their classmates simply because that is the classification used.

I say "tries to" because of a verse Kirkwhisper himself quotes:

[Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. (Lev 11:22, KJV)

What you may not realize is that locusts are grasshoppers in a different stage of life, which just goes to show that even the same species can be divided into two different "kinds", if one wishes to be rigorous, as long as two separate forms are shown.

 

[Smidlee]

Because cats totally descended from dogs.

Did you missed the point? Of course it's ridiculous yet according to ToE cats and dogs did have a common ancestor somewhere down the line.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

For someone who has just accused shernren of mockery and refused to read any more of his posts, you really need to try to cut down on the abuse you come out with in yours.


Do any of the verses say 'reproduce after its kind'? Are Leviticus and Deuteronomy saying what kinds of animals the Israelites and and can't reproduce with? Or what kinds they can and can't eat? You see your problem is you think 'according to their kind' means 'reproduce according to their kind' and you read the idea of reproduction into the text every time you read the phrase. But it's not there. According to their kind means animals come in different varieties and it is telling us the verse is talking about all the different varieties. God told the earth to produce living creatures, in all their different varieties, according to their different kinds.

You would do well to go back to shernren's posts and try to reply to him because he put a lot of work into trying to clear up your misunderstandings.

He didn't clear up anything and he doesn't deserve a reply.

For a person with a problem with lies you certainly do talk loudly. What I did with Shenren (who like you, is in deep error on creation/evolution) is none of your concern.

Your dishonesty in this matter is appalling. What, pray tell do you think 'after its kind' means? It can mean none other than offspring which is next in the line of sexual reproduction!

I quoted Adam Clarke (200 yrs ago) revealing the classic Christian position on this issue but you wish to mince words (as all theistic evolutionists do on these issues).

I have read enough of your posts to see how you play mental semantics with words in order to escape the truth that you do not believe in: that God created the world in six literal days (as Moses said in the ten commandments) and that the events and occurences of Genesis are historial and literal. That is because you compromised with evil (evolution) on the matter and have accepted an unbiblical and unscientific premise.

But forgetting all I just said above, for a moment, let me quote you again:

"You see your problem is you think 'according to their kind' means 'reproduce according to their kind' and you read the idea of reproduction into the text every time you read the phrase. But it's not there. According to their kind means animals come in different varieties and it is telling us the verse is talking about all the different varieties."

Oh? Who says? You? Shall I take you literally on that?

Observe: "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

And further observe: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

These verses alone destroy your premise of 'animals come in different varieties' as you think in evolutionary terms. The verses discriminate, define, and determine one kind from another and that their seed will ALWAYS bring forth after the manner in which God created them to begin with.

In other words the Holy Spirit inspired these verses to bring that great truth to us. But if you disagree then show us how nature brings forth the change I have twice alluded to above:

Fossils of bats and fossils of rodents have been discovered in the fossil record but no intermediary stages have ever been found. That problem exists in virtually all organisms on earth.

Give me the name(s) of any scientist who has genetically changed any organism into an identifiably and classifiably different organism? For instance: rodents to bats; bacteria to perhaps aphids or gnats; or how about rodents to dogs, dogs to horses...take your pick. Give that evidence & that such a change is even possible by observed evidence. Either that or admit you have no case...and indeed you do not.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

yet even Onychonycteris were already fully able to fly.

If anyone predicted response #1 for Smidlee, they get a point!

Still waiting to see which one Kirkwhisper takes.

Kirkwhisper wrote:

Fossils of bats and fossils of rodents have been discovered in the fossil record but no intermediary stages have ever been found. That problem exists in virtually all organisms on earth.

Kirkwhisper, just a couple posts ago I posted a transitional "rat"/bat - didn't you see that?

And I also posted links to some of the literally hundreds of other transitional fossils you similarly are denying the existence of.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

God sent them two by two after their kind to the ark. Sounds to me like that was the intent.

Gen 7:13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
Gen 7:14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.
Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
Gen 7:16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.

It certainly was the intention of bring all the animals according to their kinds. Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. But that doesn't mean the phrase itself "according to their kinds" means reproduce. Like I said, the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to tell the Israelites what kinds of animals they could and couldn't eat. But according to their kind doesn't mean 'eat them' any more than it means 'reproduce'. It simply means in all their different varieties. The Israelites were allowed eat all the different varieties of locust, they weren't allowed eat any variety of raven. Noah was to bring all the varieties of animals on the ark, and God made Gen 1:25, or commanded the earth to produce Gen 1:24, all the different varieties of living creatures.

Are you aware of animals today that reproduce with animals not of their kind?

Horses and donkeys? Leviticus 19:19 You must keep my statutes. You must not allow two different kinds of your animals to breed, There wouldn't be a law against it if it wasn't possible.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

EDIT: Sorry, responding to a post a few pages back that I didn't realize had already been answered.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Papias; Kirkwhisper wrote:

First of all, bats evolved from insectivorous mammals, not rodents.

Prove it. Show the stage by stage development as it is supposedly revealed in the fossil record and then prove how it changed genetically.

Let me show you something in this regard: Moses classifies bats as a bird. Why is Moses wrong and the modern evolutionist classification right?

From Deuteronomy 14,

11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14 And every raven after his kind,

15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Tell the readers why God is wrong on this point?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

It certainly was the intention of bring all the animals according to their kinds. Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. But that doesn't mean the phrase itself "according to their kinds" means reproduce. Like I said, the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to tell the Israelites what kinds of animals they could and couldn't eat. But according to their kind doesn't mean 'eat them' any more than it means 'reproduce'. It simply means in all their different varieties. The Israelites were allowed eat all the different varieties of locust, they weren't allowed eat any variety of raven. Noah was to bring all the varieties of animals on the ark, and God made Gen 1:25, or commanded the earth to produce Gen 1:24, all the different varieties of living creatures.

Horses and donkeys? Leviticus 19:19 You must keep my statutes. You must not allow two different kinds of your animals to breed, There wouldn't be a law against it if it wasn't possible.

You continue to play the semantic game to escape the truth but you will not get away with it.

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind." Hello?

Because such a co-mingling with a resultant sexual union would produce only (a) a hybrid, or (b) a mutation which would die and not reproduce normally and naturally. How does one get evolution of one type of organism to another type out of that?

If you disagree then do what I challenged you on my other post and prove to the world that such sexual unions can reproduce viable, healthy organisms which can likewise bring forth successful, reproductive offspring.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee wrote:


If anyone predicted response #1 for Smidlee, they get a point!

It shouldn't be hard to predict since the scientist made that claim.

By the way, was there some genetic research done on bats a few years ago that suggest bat echolocation has to evolved multiply times? (thus convergent evolution)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Let me show you something in this regard: Moses classifies bats as a bird. Why is Moses wrong and the modern evolutionist classification right?

Bats are mammals because they feed their young using their mammary glands. Birds don't have these glands, and they lay eggs rather than give bird to live young.

The Hebrew word for "bird" came from the term "to fly". Obviously they didn't use the same specific classifications we do.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Papias: "First of all, bats evolved from insectivorous mammals, not rodents."

Prove it. Use any available evidence that such a change has taken place, whether from rodents or insectivorous mammals & reveal the stage-by-stage process in the fossil record and then prove they changed genetically. It should be as easy as...



this clever piece of imagination. But your imagination is about as close as you will ever get on this point. And there isn't any other organism that reveals such a step-by-step change over time.

Be my guest.

Now post the observed evidence from the fossil record or even that living organisms can physically, sexually change from one type to another outside the boundaries that Mendel told us about.

But before I finish with you let me give you the FACTS about genetic change, from the experts who gave us the scientific field of genetics to begin with:

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.

“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Case closed. And if you are honest you would come to the same conclusion.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You continue to play the semantic game to escape the truth but you will not get away with it.

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind." Hello?

Because such a co-mingling with a resultant sexual union would produce only (a) a hybrid, or (b) a mutation which would die and not reproduce normally and naturally. How does one get evolution of one type of organism to another type out of that?

Hybrids are not new species. Indeed, they're the opposite.

New species are thought to come about through genetic variety - the more different their genes are, the less likely they are to reproduce. Eventually they become so different they're incapable of breeding.

Hybrids are the offspring of two animals which are already different species. They are rare and often sterile, which in evolutionary terms makes them rather useless. That's probably why Leviticus forbade them.

 

[chris4243]

Is this a joke? Are you for real?

This....

should not exist in the fossil record? So we have found fossils of bats and fossils of rats(rodents) but NO BAT/RATS anywhere in the world? Now multiply that by virtually every other organism on earth and maybe, just maybe you might realize the magnitude of your problem.

Why should there be a living bat/rat hybrid? Do you also think there should be a living bat/whale hybrid? Last I checked the lineages, whales are more closely related to bats than are rats. (Bats and whales share Eutheria > Boreoeutheria > Laurasiatheria, whereas rats and bats share only up to Eutheria > Boreoeutheria) As I said before, it is merely indicative that you have not studied the theory that you so disparage. Don't feel bad -- the same used to be true of myself, back when I argued against evolution while having studied it only superficially.

Now, I would kindly suggest you go study 'after its kind' as found in Genesis and then come back and tell us just how you mentally squeezed that clear-cut phrase into mingling human beings genetically with animal and plant life as 'after its kind'. You see, 'after its kind' is a phrase that discriminates human from animals, and animals from plants, it does not conjoin them. But you haven't figure that out.

Quote: "Every thing both in the animal and vegetable world was made so according to its kind, both in genus and species, as to produce its own kind through endless generations. Thus the several races of animals and plants have been kept distinct from the foundation of the world to the present day." Adam Clarke Commentary on the Bible, 200 yrs ago.

This is the classic, biblical position as held by faithful Christians since the time of Christ.

I'll invite you to give any example of any organism whatsoever that an evolutionist says ever ceased to belong to any monophyletic classification at any of the levels of classification. You won't find any such example, and I will repeat: evolution demands that creatures reproduce after their kind.

 

[mathetes123]

It certainly was the intention of bring all the animals according to their kinds. Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. But that doesn't mean the phrase itself "according to their kinds" means reproduce. Like I said, the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to tell the Israelites what kinds of animals they could and couldn't eat. But according to their kind doesn't mean 'eat them' any more than it means 'reproduce'. It simply means in all their different varieties. The Israelites were allowed eat all the different varieties of locust, they weren't allowed eat any variety of raven. Noah was to bring all the varieties of animals on the ark, and God made Gen 1:25, or commanded the earth to produce Gen 1:24, all the different varieties of living creatures.

Horses and donkeys? Leviticus 19:19 You must keep my statutes. You must not allow two different kinds of your animals to breed, There wouldn't be a law against it if it wasn't possible.

Why would God have created animals according to their kind if it did not also include reproduction. If different kinds were able to interbreed, it would remove the distinctions between the created kinds of animals, thus defeating the purpose for creating the animals according to their kind?

The gyrations theistic evolutionists go through to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible is astounding.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Hybrids are not new species. Indeed, they're the opposite.

New species are thought to come about through genetic variety - the more different their genes are, the less likely they are to reproduce. Eventually they become so different they're incapable of breeding.

Hybrids are the offspring of two animals which are already different species. They are rare and often sterile, which in evolutionary terms makes them rather useless. That's probably why Leviticus forbade them.

I didn't say there were new species. And they are not opposites. Things related are not opposites.

BUt...a different species is not the same as a different kind. Kind, as most creationists understand it, is somewhere on the family/order level of the Linneaus classification system.

So far, none of our detractors has shown us that such a biological/genetic change from one kind to another is even possible, either from the fossil record or from direct observation. And no one has done so experimentally.

Like the father of modern genetics said:"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.

Assyrian, Shenren, Papias, among others here are not listening...how about you?

 

[chris4243]

The point is that if nature can do it so easily (blindly!) then intelligent experts in the world of science should be able to reproduce such things even more easily by following natures pattern and speed up the process. It should be easy. But the fact is...they cannot.

What if you're totally full of yourself, and humans are not as clever nor as powerful as you'd like to imagine? Go make me a star, or even a lightning bolt or an earthquake -- if nature* can do it, surely you can too!

*set in motion by God, of course, but even now we see these happening by what appears to be natural processes.

Now, do you begin to see the scope & magnitude of your problem?

Do you?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Why would God have created animals according to their kind if it did not also include reproduction. If different kinds were able to interbreed, it would remove the distinctions between the created kinds of animals, thus defeating the purpose for creating the animals according to their kind?

The gyrations theistic evolutionists go through to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible is astounding.

You're absolutely right on that.

That individual is not telling us the truth.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

BUt...a different species is not the same as a different kind. Kind, as most creationists understand it, is somewhere on the family/order level of the Linneaus classification system.

Where'd you get that idea from? (Sorry if you've answered this question already, I've been skimming through the thread.)

Speaking of which ...

Why would God have created animals according to their kind if it did not also include reproduction. If different kinds were able to interbreed, it would remove the distinctions between the created kinds of animals, thus defeating the purpose for creating the animals according to their kind?

Assyrian quoted Leviticus 19:19: You must keep my statutes. You must not allow two different kinds of your animals to breed.

Obviously the writers of Leviticus knew two different "kinds" of animals were capable of interbreeding, but did not want them to. Your criticism lies with the Bible, not Assyrian.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

What if you're totally full of yourself, and humans are not as clever nor as powerful as you'd like to imagine? Go make me a star, or even a lightning bolt or an earthquake -- if nature* can do it, surely you can too!

Stop with the snotty, condescending remarks and stay with the facts. Where is your evidence that nature changed the organisms from one type to another? I am still waiting. in fact I am still waiting for you to give evidence that modern science can affect such changes, per (example) the photos I provided you above.

So where is it?

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.

Answer this one too. Where is Mendel wrong?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Papias: "Here is just what Kirkwhisper was saying didn't exist, a transitional "rat/bat, called Onychonycteris."

Ha, ha, ha,ha, ha. Onychonycteris is a bat fully formed features and is classified as
"oldest known monospecific genera of bat." Wikipedia.

But compare Onychonycteris:




with: a modern bat. Is there any essential difference between them that would force us to conclude that the elder creature is classifiably different? They are both bats.

Furthermore, there has never been another fossil (supposedly 52 mya) older than Onychonycteris. It appears abruptly in the fossil record with no predecessor. So it can't possibly be a transitional except in terms of the only thing we can compare it with: bats.