Is God a liar?

[Uber Genius]

Indeed - same is true for the bodily resurrection of Christ - a lot of people deny it.

So I go with the "easy part" - if even the atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities "can see" what kind of literature Genesis 1-2, and Exodus 20:11 is... well then so can I as a Christian.

Your first point above is a non-sequitur. It is an attempt to poison the wells to my inference by linking it to rejection of a bodily resurrection. This is manipulative and fallacious.

"Atheist and agnostic professors," ad hominem. Attempts to discredit an idea based on defaming the person(s) hold the idea instead of engaging the evidence. Again this approach is manipulative and fallacious. These are philosophy 101 fallacies. Why use them.

WWJM? Who Would Jesus Manipulate? Is that what you get out of the gospels?

BTW not only Evangelical Scholars but Catholic and Orthodox scholars reject a literal reading. And anyone familiar with the writings of the arely church fathers knows that many in the early church rejected literalistic renderings.

 

[BobRyan]

Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day before the plants, herbs, rain, trees AND BEFORE any other living creature

Not according to the Bible. In Genesis 1-2:3 the days are "numbered" so that we can see what day something happened. Instead of Adam being formed 3 days before any food for Adam was created. Adam is made 3 days after plants.

 

[EdyChristian28]

god is not not a liar. men are.

 

[Uber Genius]

Your first point above is a non-sequitur. It is an attempt to poison the wells to my inference by linking it to rejection of a bodily resurrection. This is manipulative and fallacious.

"Atheist and agnostic professors," ad hominem. Attempts to discredit an idea based on defaming the person(s) hold the idea instead of engaging the evidence. Again this approach is manipulative and fallacious. These are philosophy 101 fallacies. Why use them.

WWJM? Who Would Jesus Manipulate? Is that what you get out of the gospels?

So then details with no intermediates proved him wrong??? (And of course Gould did not claim absolutely "no" intermediates)

Of course the argument for evolutionism is usually of the form 'well yes we did have all those problems as of day-before-yesterday but no as of yesterday all the problems are solved somehow"

======================= meanwhile

“Abstract: ‘In each major class of biological objects, the principal types emerge ‘ready-made’, and intermediate grades cannot be identified.’ Ouch, that will be up on ID websites faster than one can bat an eye.
Author's response: Here I do not really understand the concern. I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem. I think this is my approach here and elsewhere.” (William Martin (University of Duesseldorf), reviewing article, and response by author Eugene v. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2:21 (August 20, 2007).)

"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"When we view Darwinian gradualism on a geological timescale, we may expect to find in the fossil record a long series of intermediate forms connecting phenotypes of ancestral and descendant populations. This predicted pattern is called phyletic gradualism. Darwin recognized that phyletic gradualism is not often revealed by the fossil record. Studies conducted since Darwin’s time likewise have failed to produce the continuous series of fossils predicted by phyletic gradualism. Is the theory of gradualism therefore refuted? Darwin and others claim that it is not, because the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve transitional series...Others have argued, however, that the abrupt origins and extinctions of species in the fossil record force us to conclude that phyletic gradualism is rare."
"A number of contemporary biologists, however, favor various hypotheses of the punctuated equilibrium theory...They base their hypotheses on fossil records which have large “chains” of missing organisms. Although missing-link fossils are occasionally discovered, the record does little to support Darwin’s concept of gradual, long-term change...Others opposed to hypotheses of evolution through sudden change argue that because such a tiny percentage of organisms becomes fossilized...drawing definite conclusions from fossil evidence about evolution through either gradual or sudden change is not warranted." (Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and A. Larson. 2000. Animal Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 429pp.; (p. 23, 261))

Not sure what you are going for here. But Gould's Pe was rejected for a number of reasons, not just the doubling of the data in the Cambrian fossil record.

New research into limits of biological change, new research around the requirements of creation of new body plans, and showed that the time-frames for speciation let alone development for new phyla were way too long to support PE.

 

[Aman777]

Not sure of your sources. "Sons of God" had a specific meaning in the Old Testament and it has nothing to do with prehistoric man. Source?

The small "s" sons of God in the Old Testament were men of flesh whose origin was in the WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 The sons of God and Humans (descendants of Adam) could produce children with each other. Gen 6:4 There were some 1 Million sons of God on Earth when the Ark arrived. Noah's grandsons, like Cain on Adam's Earth, had NO other Humans to marry, so they married and produced today's hybrid Humans who have INHERITED Adam's superior intelligence AND the DNA of the sons of God (prehistoric man). Science and History confirm this Truth. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Not according to the Bible. In Genesis 1-2:3 the days are "numbered" so that we can see what day something happened. Instead of Adam being formed 3 days before any food for Adam was created. Adam is made 3 days after plants.

Adam was made the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and rain:

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) made the earth and the heavens, (Plural)

The Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 Notice that the LORD also made other HeavenS to add to what God the Trinity made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The plants herbs and TREES grew on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

On this 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees, YHWH/Jesus made man:

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 (Heb-Adam) became a living soul.

Read the NEXT verses and you will see that Adam was made before the TREES:

Gen 2:8
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

That is God's literal Truth Scripturally. Doesn't agree with the traditional religious story of ancient men....does it?

 

[BobRyan]

Adam was made the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and rain:

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) made the earth and the heavens, (Plural)

Genesis 2 has only one day it in. The day the earth on all life on it was created. It is not a time boxed chronological sequence - but Genesis 1:2-2:3 is. Each time boxed element is evening and morning and is numbered.

The events of Genesis 2:5 and onward are "details" added .

"The Earth was made the 3rd Day." is a great example of what we do not find in Genesis 1 or 2.

Genesis 1 says "The EARTH was formless and void and waters covered its entire surface"

On Day 3 God makes "dry land" and plants - by causing the waters to recede to boundaries.


Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Is a fact about field plants and farming - a man needed to til the ground.

It is not fruit trees or wild plants.

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And so plants were getting watered - via the mist.


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 (Heb-Adam) became a living soul.

Genesis 2 has no "days in it" and does not tell us what Day God did this - Genesis 1 has just told us that information - regarding God making man.

The new detail in Genesis 2 is the details specifically about the garden of Eden. Not the entire Earth.

Gen 2:8
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"Tree of the Garden" --

8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Gen 3
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden

8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

 

[BobRyan]

Yes. Detailed, well-preserved fossil finds all over the world but most notable China, from 1980s to present wiped out Gould's argument from ignorance.

So then details with no intermediates proved him wrong??? (And of course Gould did not claim absolutely "no" intermediates)

Of course the argument for evolutionism is usually of the form 'well yes we did have all those problems as of day-before-yesterday but no as of yesterday all the problems are solved somehow"

======================= meanwhile

“Abstract: ‘In each major class of biological objects, the principal types emerge ‘ready-made’, and intermediate grades cannot be identified.’ Ouch, that will be up on ID websites faster than one can bat an eye.
Author's response: Here I do not really understand the concern. I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem. I think this is my approach here and elsewhere.” (William Martin (University of Duesseldorf), reviewing article, and response by author Eugene v. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2:21 (August 20, 2007).)

"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"When we view Darwinian gradualism on a geological timescale, we may expect to find in the fossil record a long series of intermediate forms connecting phenotypes of ancestral and descendant populations. This predicted pattern is called phyletic gradualism. Darwin recognized that phyletic gradualism is not often revealed by the fossil record. Studies conducted since Darwin’s time likewise have failed to produce the continuous series of fossils predicted by phyletic gradualism. Is the theory of gradualism therefore refuted? Darwin and others claim that it is not, because the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve transitional series...Others have argued, however, that the abrupt origins and extinctions of species in the fossil record force us to conclude that phyletic gradualism is rare."
"A number of contemporary biologists, however, favor various hypotheses of the punctuated equilibrium theory...They base their hypotheses on fossil records which have large “chains” of missing organisms. Although missing-link fossils are occasionally discovered, the record does little to support Darwin’s concept of gradual, long-term change...Others opposed to hypotheses of evolution through sudden change argue that because such a tiny percentage of organisms becomes fossilized...drawing definite conclusions from fossil evidence about evolution through either gradual or sudden change is not warranted." (Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and A. Larson. 2000. Animal Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 429pp.; (p. 23, 261))

Not sure what you are going for here. But Gould's Pe was rejected for a number of reasons,

My argument is not in favor the atheist views of evolutionism held by Gould - just that one of his obsearvations is nearly true - which is his statement that transitional forms are not found as they would be expected to have been found had Darwin's gradualism been remotely true.

New research into limits of biological change, new research around the requirements of creation of new body plans, and showed that the time-frames for speciation let alone development for new phyla were way too long to support PE.

Well that is fine for dismissing Gould's escape hatch invented to spare evolutionism from flaming out on the rocks of "observations in nature". I am not opposed to giving the religion of evolutionism even fewer rabbit trails to try-out before its ultimate demise.

 

[RickG]

Just a few points I wish to make:

1. Citing what Darwin knew with respect to evolution as a means to discredit evolution is not a valid argument. What Darwin knew then, or even speculated, in comparison with today's research and knowledge in the field of evolution, is minuscule.

2. With respect to "sudden or rapid" changes and processes in the geological sciences, one must understand that "rapid or sudden" refers to a period of millions or even tens of millions of years. For example, the sudden appearance of complex and diversified life during the Cambrian Period is talking about 50 to 60 million years.

3. With respect to Punctuated Evolution, it is seen at every extinction period, 5 major, and 20 minor periods. Additionally, gradual evolution is seen as well. It is not one or the other. Environmental changes, especially climate changes, are seen at each extinction.

4. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve, especially when isolated from other populations.

 

[Open Heart]

Sure it is, since Science has discovered that our Cosmos had a beginning

Science also allows us to figure out how long ago that beginning was.

 

[Aman777]

Science also allows us to figure out how long ago that beginning was.

Amen and it was some 13.8 Billion years ago on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 Today, we live at Gen 1:27 at the end of the present 6th Day/Age because God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. Today is the Day of Salvation. 2Co 6:2 Divide 3 Days into 13.8 Billion, round it off, and you will find that EACH of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time. That's God's Truth Scripturally of what Day it is. God Bless you

 

[BobRyan]

Just a few points I wish to make:

1. Citing what Darwin knew with respect to evolution as a means to discredit evolution is not a valid argument.

Darwin demonstrated two much-to-be-avoided inconvenient-details to be fact rather than fiction.

1. That evolutionism is a belief system about origins totally incompatible with the Bible.
2. That 100's of millions of years of fossil producing events on planet earth should have left zillions of fossils demonstrating the much-loved much-expected "progression" that was affirmed by faith alone by Darwin.

What Darwin knew then, or even speculated, in comparison with today's research and knowledge in the field of evolution, is minuscule.

Something a bit more "updated" then??

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

The religion of blind faith evolutionism confidently affirms "the belief" that " a pile of dirt will sure enough produce a rabbit over time , given a large and talented enough pile of dirt AND given a long and talented enough length of time filled with just-so stories all the way to the top of mount improbable, stories easy enough to tell but they are not science, not at all compatible with the Bible doctrine on origins".

Dawkins' "mount improbable"
Darwin's "not at all compatible with the Bible doctrine on origins" (Also James Barr on that point)
Colin Patterson's "just-so stories easy enough to tell, but they are not science"
Asimov's "molecule to human brain" sequence only faintly echoed in the "dirt to human brain" example


An atheist evolutionist with a "more frank" assessment.

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

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians are "'...holding creationist ideas and could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?


I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

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

These are not the much-expected frank confessions one would expect of a chemist, a physicist, a mathematician, a software engineer, an electrical engineer.

No my friends for that sort of "confession" you "need" an evolutionist -- one who firmly "believes in" -- evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

Amen and it was some 13.8 Billion years ago on the 3rd Day.

Not in any Bible printed on earth

 

[BobRyan]

4. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve, especially when isolated from other populations.

If no individual in the population evolves - there is no possibility of evolution ever taking place.

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of population evolution that we can observe in real time with "THE MOST" adaptive genetic architecture known to science - and still NO evolutionism taking place over that period of time to create anything other than a slight change in breakfast menus.

 

[Smidlee]

The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork.

Yeap. And the heavens DO NOT declare the principle of continuity. Prove to me the heaven declare this heresy to be true. This religious belief doesn't come from scripture but pagans who worship the sun, moon and stars.

 

[Smidlee]

We disagree. I don't think God "makes the universe look old" to test or trick us. Everyone uses context in interpreting the bible. In Genesis 1 erets is interpreted as the world but in Genesis 4 it is interpreted as land (unless you believe that Cain was banished from the world). Why does interpreting one word in Genesis one to mean time period (which is a valid interpretation) in light of the science (that God created) and our intelligence (that God created) cause such consternation? Isn't God just as powerful if he created all of time, space and matter in the big bang?

God tricked no one since He made it clear He spoke the universe into existence. Even man can created his created universe with age so you believe God is more limited in His creation than man in his?
Hebrews 11:3 "Through Faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

It's like a truck goes down the highway is clocked by a cop at 649 miles from the coast going 65 mph. Another cop clocks the same truck one mile down the road going 65mph at noon. Both cops get together to compared data and proclaims the truck came out of the ocean at 2am that morning. Of course this assumption is totally based there is no intelligence involved and the truck never changed speed or direction. This is exactly how man comes up with the age of the universe and never questions if the principle of continuity is actually true.

It's like those who lined up dominoes in a huge room years ago which knocking over the first one will cause a chain reaction leading to all the dominoes getting knock over one by one. When someone points out the dominoes are too far apart for these theories to work they will accuse that person of using the "god of the gaps" argument. Of course if the principle of continuity is false there are no gaps for God to filled.

 

[Aman777]

Not in any Bible printed on earth

Then tell us YOUR idea of how long ago the first Day was.

 

[SolomonVII]

Modern science places constraints upon itself. It limits itself to materialistic explanations. That does not mean that materialism is all that a scientist thinks that there is, but only that a scientist agrees to doing science within a set of established parameters.
God, in both science and in religion, is untestable. God falls outside of the parameters which science agrees to limit itself too. It is hubris for a scientist to say that God does not exist.

Science functions to provide ourselves with a set of immutable physical laws that operate on an impersonal level without the scales being weighed in favor of personal favorites. It is the principle that God's rains fall on both the good and the bad that serves as the framework of science.
With the rejection of polytheism and magic, this is a principle that monotheists accept as well. There is no god of thunder, no sun god, no moon goddess. There are no incantations and rain dances effective on winning the favors of this or that god or goddess. It is in fact the monotheistic rejection of polytheism by Moses that has made science possible. Only by rejecting magical thinking does science become possible.

The question that falls before us as thinking, rational Christians is not whether evolutionary principles are valid in this world. They are.

The question before us as thinking, rational Christians is whether it is hubris or not to believe that impersonal, immutable laws define the sum total of our existence.

To rephrase in terms of the question of the OP, has God eliminated himself from every equation to the extent that for all appearances, impersonal immutable laws are sufficient explanation for our very existence? If making the world to only appear to have evolved according to scientific principles makes God a liar, for all appearances has not God himself disappeared from our lives too then?

In a world which for all appearances has evolved according to the immutable and impersonal laws of physics and nature, where is God the Creator? What would even be the purpose for his existence.

Does not God himself, from all appearances, present himself to us as myth and allegory?

 

[Aman777]

God tricked no one since He made it clear He spoke the universe into existence. Even man can created his created universe with age so you believe God is more limited in His creation than man in his?
Hebrews 11:3 "Through Faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Notice the word "Word" that I capitalized to show another understanding of this verse. God spoke and Lord God/Jesus (Word) formed the air, ground without form or dust and water into the worlds (plural). Read Genesis 2:4 and you will see that Lord God/Jesus made other "heavenS" on the 3rd Day to go with the FIRST firmament, which God called Heaven, on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8.

Can you tell us WHEN Jesus came into the physical world to cause the beginning of our Cosmos and the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1?

 

[Aman777]

God, in both science and in religion, is untestable.

False, since the people of the last days, with the increased knowledge available to them WILL understand. This is because the discoveries of Science, in the last days, AGREE in every way with what God told us more than 3k years ago in Genesis. No man of the time could have possibly known the scientific Truths shown in Genesis. Dan 12:4 Jesus tells us the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL Truth. Jhn 16:13