Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Subduction Zone]

Last I checked we have never once observed anything but a horse produce another horse. Yes - we have many people making claims something else became a horse, but have never once observed anything of the sort.

Actually I didn't include those cases - because no such cases exist But I understood your point.

And I see that you still don't understand that the theory of evolution does not predict a "change of kind". You are willing to call different species the same "kind". Evolution could be said to be just a series of speciation events. You would call each single event "the same kind". But eventually the differences add up. At some arbitrary point, and without justification, creationists will call something "a different kind" but there is no consistency in their claims from creationist to creationist.

That illustrates the fact that creationists cannot come up with a working definition of "kind".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And one other point, the actual biological definition of species is going to be a bit "fuzzy" due to the fact of evolution. You have as yet to show that all of Darwin's finches can interbreed. That last I saw your articles only said that some of them could. Once again, some is not all. Second, why the heavy emphasis on Darwin's finches? They are simply one obvious example of speciation in action. We have others. The Liger that was mentioned in your copied and pasted definition of species shows that tigers and lions are different species. It has greatly reduced fertility. Its offspring so far have been sterile. In other words the two groups can no longer mate successfully.

 

[BobRyan]

Last I checked we have never once observed anything but a horse produce another horse.

Yes but those are "observations in nature". Have you considered tossing that out the window in favor of "blind faith evolutionism"?? Think of the pluses!

[/quote]
Yes - we have many people making claims something else became a horse, but have never once observed anything of the sort.[/quote]

Well then you are in line with actual 'science'.

In the OP the problem is brought up regarding the apparent clash between the doctrine on origins that true believers in evolutionism find in blind-faith-evolutionism... vs the doctrine on origins that you find in the Bible.

One solution suggested so far is that we "simply not notice" what the Bible says on this topic or at the very least we agree to subject the Bible text to imaginations full of hopeful thoughts favoring evolutionism.

================= the other alternative

given so far is simply utter disdain for what God says on the subject entirely.

The problem I have with your comments on Scripture, Bob, is that they are pure propaganda

This - from someone who denies the virgin birth, the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood?

Please be serious.

In point of actual historical fact, Bible is the product of an ancient, semi-barbaric, racist, sexist, prescientific culture. Much of it has to be taken with a grain of salt

That atheist POV has already been stated here. The "gospel" you preach is not from the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Horses also make mule crossbreds. By classical genetics mules are infertile. However, there are many examples of mutant mules giving birth to mule foal. Something that would be impossible without evolutionary processes.

false.

Both the horses and the donkeys had the original genetic information for each and had the ability to "breed".

The cross breeding takes two sets of fully functioning features - and comes up with a limp-along non-breeding semi-broken version that combines some aspects of both original sets. No evolutionism at all in that mix of pre-existing features.

You wont get dirt turning into horses by "mixing the dirt" to get a cross-breeding ... nor will you get the amoeba turning into the horse by "mixing the amoeba".

The example given above already had the fully functioning genetic code to start with.

Blind faith evolutionism is about inventing the genetic code for the horse - starting with bacteria.

 

[BobRyan]

And I see that you still don't understand that the theory of evolution does not predict a "change of kind". ".

Here is the wonderful case of an evolutionist claiming that bacteria will always be bacteria.

Hard to find that these days.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, your remark about bacteria is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Of course, bacteria will remain bacteria . However, lab studies have shown it is possible to evolve new species of bacteria.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I see that you still don't understand that the theory of evolution does not predict a "change of kind". You are willing to call different species the same "kind". Evolution could be said to be just a series of speciation events. You would call each single event "the same kind". But eventually the differences add up. At some arbitrary point, and without justification, creationists will call something "a different kind" but there is no consistency in their claims from creationist to creationist.

That illustrates the fact that creationists cannot come up with a working definition of "kind".

That is your error. Not once have I called a different species the same Kind. The problem lies with you and you alone in classifying those species incorrectly - as cited with Darwin's Finches. It is YOU that incorrectly calls them separate species despite the fact that they are interbreeding before your very eyes and producing fertile offspring. It is YOU that incorrectly accepts the false classification even though all DNA tests could tell no difference between them. It is YOU that will now attempt to double-talk your way out of those incorrect classifications.

Name one example where I have claimed separate species belong to the same Kind except those that belong to YOUR incorrect classification system??? In every example you try to list it is clear they are not separate species but merely infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong.

It's not my fault you refuse to accept the truth about Darwin's Finches out of fear it will harm evolutionary beliefs. It's not my fault you are more concerned about propaganda then the actual science, or you would simply accept the DNA and observational evidence and move on. But you can't let yourself do that out of the irrational fear your belief system will be destroyed.

 

[Hoghead1]

The propaganda mill called creation science generated a rumor about Darwin's finches, saying he really goofed, that it has been shown he was not observing different species, that this was proven by modern DNA research, and so Darwin blew the whole thing, as this was his central argument. I say this is just another example of the creation-science propaganda mill presenting deliberately falsified information. In the first place, there is absolutely no hard historical evidence that Darwin ever considered the finches central in the development of his theory. Furthermore, Darwin did not have the final word on the classification of the finch species. He made only a tentative classification and then turned the final call over to a major, world-class ornithologist, who concluded there were more species than Darwin had anticipated. The Grants, a husband-and-wife term, did the DNA research and stated that among some of the species the DNA was more similar than what one might expect. They concluded this meant that separate species can interbreed and that this had happened in the past with the finches. This is just another case in the old debate as to whether the breeding situation is a clear indicator or marker for a separate species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the wonderful case of an evolutionist claiming that bacteria will always be bacteria.

Hard to find that these days.

Sorry but you too are simply wrong. Just about everyone that understands evolution will say that. It is always a good idea to learn what you are actually arguing against. Of course with evolution that is a terrible risk. I can't think of anyone that opposes the theory of evolution that actually understands it. Or is an obvious liar. I have seen one or two creation advocating biologists that obviously knew better and were obviously lying. Over 99% of creationists that oppose the theory of evolution do not have a proper understanding of the theory at all. That is why almost all of their arguments against it are easily debunked.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Bob, your remark about bacteria is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Of course, bacteria will remain bacteria . However, lab studies have shown it is possible to evolve new species of bacteria.

Complete misrepresentation - provide that experiment that showed new bacterial species are possible????? You can't produce it so why do you make such claims? They were classified as new strains not new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_(biology)

"In biology, a strain is a low-level taxonomic rank used in three related ways, usually at the infraspecific level (within a species)."

Stop with the propaganda and present the facts.

It is quite relevant. If bacteria remain bacteria then how did we get here, because the first life must have been bacterial in nature - i.e. simple organisms that reproduced by binary fission????? You basically just admitted evolution is false but you promote it anyways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is your error. Not once have I called a different species the same Kind. The problem lies with you and you alone in classifying those species incorrectly - as cited with Darwin's Finches. It is YOU that incorrectly calls them separate species despite the fact that they are interbreeding before your very eyes and producing fertile offspring. It is YOU that incorrectly accepts the false classification even though all DNA tests could tell no difference between them. It is YOU that will now attempt to double-talk your way out of those incorrect classifications.

And yet you have never been able to support this claim of yours.

Name one example where I have claimed separate species belong to the same Kind except those that belong to YOUR incorrect classification system??? In every example you try to list it is clear they are not separate species but merely infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong.

Try asking that question properly. I don't have an incorrect classification system. As asked your question has no answer.

It's not my fault you refuse to accept the truth about Darwin's Finches out of fear it will harm evolutionary beliefs. It's not my fault you are more concerned about propaganda then the actual science, or you would simply accept the DNA and observational evidence and move on. But you can't let yourself do that out of the irrational fear your belief system will be destroyed.

And again, I have asked multiple times for articles that support your claims. At best they only say that some of them can interbreed. You have yet to show all of them can. I am waiting for you to support your claim. By the way, even if you do there are cases of observed speciation besides Darwin's finches. It does not matte if you can support your claim, you still lost long ago.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, your remark about bacteria is totally irrelevant

Until you notice that all the evol stories claim that eukaryotes came from prokaryotes.

You know... "the obvious".

Of course, bacteria will remain bacteria .

That is pretty amazing that an evolutionist would not argue for prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes. Did you guys simply 'give up' on fiction and decide to cross over to some actual Science - on this one???

However, lab studies have shown it is possible to evolve new species of bacteria.

"Making more bacteria" is not going to get you a horse... or an amoeba ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Complete misrepresentation - provide that experiment that showed new bacterial species are possible????? You can't produce it so why do you make such claims? They were classified as new strains not new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_(biology)

"In biology, a strain is a low-level taxonomic rank used in three related ways, usually at the infraspecific level (within a species)."

Stop with the propaganda and present the facts.

It is quite relevant. If bacteria remain bacteria then how did we get here, because the first life must have been bacterial in nature - i.e. simple organisms that reproduced by binary fission????? You basically just admitted evolution is false but you promote it anyways.

"Bacterial in nature" is not the same as "bacteria". Bacteria are not the only example of single celled life. Perhaps a little education would be in order.

Also "species" in bacteria has a quite different definition than species for eukaryotes. Take E. coli. Early on the whole group was given one species name, but scientists recognize that that is not an accurate portrayal today. By the way, the problems with defining "species" is what one would expect if evolution was correct. If creationism was correct it should be relatively easy to have a working definition of "kinds" but we still do not see that.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure, although I view it as mostly allegory anyways. That is my defense of it, even though I nevertheless don't believe the bible is accurate in any regard, I do view a nonliteral interpretation as more valid than a literal one. While I don't know if I will ever attain belief or not, I strongly doubt that I would ever become a biblical literalist. .

Is this because you simply don't understand that there are different kinds of literature and you can't simply "invent" them into any form that suits your fancy?

Literature that is written to be taken as a real historic account as per the intent of the author - is not also intended by the author as mythology and symbolism. The author's intent is clear once you understand "the kind of literature that it is".

for an example of the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

(I just love it that these are not just Christian sources affirming this obvious point - but even the atheist and agnostic sources "see the point")

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

That's your perspective.

You have "re-imagined" that history well when it comes to the statements of your own atheist and agnostic professors in all world class universities -- as "just Bob's perspective"!

That is a pretty small corner that you have isolated your argument to in an "anything but the obvious" approach to inconvenient details.

That's your perspective.

The original intents of the biblical authors has long since been lost to time. [/quote]

No study of literature reveals that it is impossible to know "The kind of literature that it is" or that the 'kind of literature" lets you know something about the intent of the author and the way that his/her contemporary readers would have accepted the text.

Again - that is a pretty small corner that you have isolated your argument to in an "anything but the obvious" approach to inconvenient details.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fact is, Jusata, you are dealing with a major rumor about the finches that is pure creation-science propaganda. In point of fact, there is no historical evidence that Darwin considered the finch example central in his thinking. Darwin did not have the final world in the species classification. He turned the final call over to a world-class ornithologist, who said there were more species here than Darwin had thought. The DNA researchers stated that among some of the species there was a greater similarity in the DNA than one might expect. They concluded this meant that separate species can inbreed and that this had happened with the finches in the past. Please try and get your facts straight.

 

[BobRyan]

"Bacterial in nature" is not the same as "bacteria". Bacteria are not the only example of single celled life. Perhaps a little education would be in order.

Also "species" in bacteria has a quite different definition than species for eukaryotes.

another rabbit trail.

The point is that for blind faith evolutionism to "get off the dime" prokayrotes would have needed to turn themselves into eukaryotes OR ELSE you have to imagine that the dirt,dust-and-gas did not just turn itself into bacteria , but also went straight from dust to amoeba, to eukaryotes. I think that bit of storytelling what be a tall order even for blind faith evolutionists.

 

[BobRyan]

let's talk about the actual OP

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

I think you have been given some marvelous help from your fellow evolutionist-atheists as of late as they try to demonstrate just where this is going.

===========================

Ever notice how much "runnin' away from the OP" there is among evolutionist devotees on this thread?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The propaganda mill called creation science generated a rumor about Darwin's finches, saying he really goofed, that it has been shown he was not observing different species, that this was proven by modern DNA research, and so Darwin blew the whole thing, as this was his central argument. I say this is just another example of the creation-science propaganda mill presenting deliberately falsified information. In the first place, there is absolutely no hard historical evidence that Darwin ever considered the finches central in the development of his theory. Furthermore, Darwin did not have the final word on the classification of the finch species. He made only a tentative classification and then turned the final call over to a major, world-class ornithologist, who concluded there were more species than Darwin had anticipated. The Grants, a husband-and-wife term, did the DNA research and stated that among some of the species the DNA was more similar than what one might expect. They concluded this meant that separate species can interbreed and that this had happened in the past with the finches. This is just another case in the old debate as to whether the breeding situation is a clear indicator or marker for a separate species.

That's not what they said at all, you are quoting propaganda from evolutionary double-talk websites. This is what they said:

"As well, it has been demonstrated that even at the molecular level, the various "species" of Geospiza are indistinguishable. Studies involving both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA were unable to separate finches of this "genus" into their six "species." This result is "uncharacteristic of nearly all other avian species and genera. . . . there is little evidence for clear species limits within Geospiza . . . irrespective of whether one uses biological, phylogenetic, genealogical, or evolutionary species concepts. . . . [It might be that] each genus is [just] a polymorphic species" (Zink, pp. 867-868).

What this is is a case of the evolutionists trying to double-talk their way out of a clear error in classification because they don't want to admit to any errors at all out of fear it will harm their cause.

Just own up to the mistake and move on.

Even the Grants - staunch supporters of evolution called it into question.

"The discovery of superior hybrid fitness over several years suggests that the three study populations of Darwin's finches are fusing into a single panmictic population, and calls into question their designation as species." (Grant and Grant, 1992, p. 196)

But instead of just saying yah, Darwin made a mistake 100 some years ago - instead you continue to try to double-talk your way out of it. They were instrumental in helping him devise his theory. Apparently you have never read Darwin's books on the origin of species to make such blatant misrepresentations about what Darwin said. Please stop with the double-talk to avoid admitting to what in reality is a simple mistake that you yourselves have caused to be blown out of proportion by refusing to admit to such a simple little mistake. Although he let Gould convince him of their being separate species when at first Darwin rejected te idea of transmutation of species, but later came to accept it and after developed the concept of origin of species.

Because if you can't be trusted to admit the truth in this tiny little mistake - you certainly can't be trusted with the larger truths. And so by refusing to admit to this mistake - you are only destroying any credibility that might remain among evolutionists.

 

[46AND2]

Is this because you simply don't understand that there are different kinds of literature and you can't simply "invent" them into any form that suits your fancy?

Literature that is written to be taken as a real historic account as per the intent of the author - is not also intended by the author as mythology and symbolism. The author's intent is clear once you understand "the kind of literature that it is".

for an example of the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

(I just love it that these are not just Christian sources affirming this obvious point - but even the atheist and agnostic sources "see the point")

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience



You have "re-imagined" that history well when it comes to the statements of your own atheist and agnostic professors in all world class universities -- as "just Bob's perspective"!

That is a pretty small corner that you have isolated your argument to in an "anything but the obvious" approach to inconvenient details.


The original intents of the biblical authors has long since been lost to time.

I've corrected you twice before about Barr, and you ignored me both times.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

another rabbit trail.

The point is that for blind faith evolutionism to "get off the dime" prokayrotes would have needed to turn themselves into eukaryotes OR ELSE you have to imagine that the dirt,dust-and-gas did not just turn itself into bacteria , but also went straight from dust to amoeba, to eukaryotes. I think that bit of storytelling what be a tall order even for blind faith evolutionists.

Perhaps a little education would be.

Since all single cell organisms reproduce the same way bacteria do. Binary Fission. So whether bacteria or a simple single cell organism, your problem remains the same.