Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[JacksBratt]

Bread wheat is a hexallopolyploid species and has 3 Times the normal chromosomes of its ancestor . When this happens they cannot produce fertile offspring with the ancestor species. So they are a separate species. Hybrid speciation like this is common

But, it's still ........wheat.

You want to impress me... show me where two dogs were bred and bred and bred until they were a cow... or a ground hog....

From what I see.. you can breed and cross breed all you want.. you still just end up with a funny looking dog that rich people will pay thousands of dollars for.

 

[JacksBratt]

Because nobody has seen wheat grow legs, evolution must be false!

Well that would be something... a plant turning into an animal.. growing legs..

Say.... good point.... just when did this miraculous little single celled being decide to morph into plant and animal?

 

[Job 33:6]

Well that would be something... a plant turning into an animal.. growing legs..

Say.... good point.... just when did this miraculous little single celled being decide to morph into plant and animal?

exactly! If evolution were true, we should see the wheat sprouting legs. Otherwise, it has never been observed.

 

[misput]

[QUOTE="JacksBratt, post: 73494912, member: 355371"H]ere is what you said:
So if this "day" is thousands of years long, why not the others?[/QUOTE]Finally. you got it right.



[QUOTE="JacksBratt, post: 73494912, member: 355371"So, if your a young baby Christian, it's OK to believe that God made the earth in six literal days and that He died and rose again, after living a miraculous life...

BUT.. if you are a old wise and well wizzend grandpa of a Christian.. you can toss out all that six day and world flood stuff and just hold tight, with white knuckles and a death grip.. to the gospel part.[/QUOTE]This is called using straw man techniques, surely you can do better : ) you guys would be funny if you were not so serious.

 

[Brightmoon]

But, it's still ........wheat.

You want to impress me... show me where two dogs were bred and bred and bred until they were a cow... or a ground hog....

From what I see.. you can breed and cross breed all you want.. you still just end up with a funny looking dog that rich people will pay thousands of dollars for.

Two of the ancestors of bread wheat are goat grasses not wheat

 

[PaulCyp1]

Adam could not have evolved, because He was a human being, with a biological body and a spiritual nature and immortal soul. However, Adam's biological body could have evolved. God however had to directly provide Adam's soul and spirituality. This what the Bible says. First God formed the biological man from inorganic matter (the dust of the Earth). The Bible doesn't describe the process God used to accomplish this, or the length of time involved. However, once the biological man had been brought into existence, God then "breathed into him" an immortal soul and spiritual nature. At that moment the first human being came in to existence by a direct act of God.

 

[Brightmoon]

I guess Adam had syndactyly then . Your fingers form from a paddle shaped hand because some cells between the fingers don’t die. If the cells don’t die , this picture is the result . It’s not always just skin or muscle the bones are sometimes fused too

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Quite right! The commandments version in Deuteronomy did not offer as the reason the Sabbath must be observed the fact that God rested on the Sabbath, for the version of that seven day creation story had not yet been written. So this author states that the Sabbath is to be observed because the people of Israel must remember that they were once slaves in Egypt and even slaves must have a day of rest. It is worthwhile noting that there are three versions of the ten commandments(Exodus 34:1-28, Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:1-21) written by several different authors over a time period of over 300 years.

So, if you don't believe the Scriptures, what exactly do you base your faith on?

And as Myst asked me, were you there? Do you know that "version of the creation account" didn't exist before it was written or that it was written after the ten commandments were given? Is there somewhere in Scripture where Moses announces that he just got a new understanding of the beginning? Why couldn't Moses appeal to "remember what God did for them" as part of why they should honor the commandment, not as an alternative reasoning? After all, according to Jesus, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

The Genesis statement: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." (Gen 2:3)

Exodus 34:21: "Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest: in earing time and in harvest you shall rest." But, those were instructions, not necessarily just the commandments that God had given Moses on the first two tablets, nor is there a claim they were, according to the Scriptures.

I think what confuses you is that for 40 days and 40 nights Moses was there with God. God told him to "write these words; for after the tenor of these words; I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he didn't eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:27-28) So, do you really believe that God had Moses write set of "Ten Commandments" that was different than the ones He gave when He Himself wrote them on the two tablets that Moses broke? Why do you believe that God would do that? But that there are other things that they were to keep, called "judgments" is evident even after the original time they were given in Exodus 20. He announces "the judgments you shall set before them." (Exodus 21:1)

Exodus 31:13-18: In here, God states to Moses that "in six days, The LORD made the heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed" and here God says they are to keep the sabbath as a sign between the individual and God.

Exodus 20: 11: Also declares "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Did you notice that there are many judgements and other things God says, other than what we call the Ten Commandments that God gave in the same discussion with Moses.

Deuteronomy: "These are the words, which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea...." (Deut 1:1) "And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh months, on the first day of the month that Moses spake unto the children of Israel according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them." (Deut 1:3)--interestingly, this happened exactly six months after Aaron died (Num 33:38).

So, when Moses is addressing them as recorded in Deuteronomy 5, he isn't declaring another reason for the sabbath. He tells them to "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God has commanded thee. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God...." (Deut 5:12-4) In Deuteronomy5:15, he says: "And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: Therefore, the LORD thy God commanded you to keep the sabbath day." Moses is saying that God told us to keep the HIS sabbath day. To help them remember who GOD is and what GOD is capable of, Moses told the people--remember what HE did for you! Now remember that SAME GOD commanded you to keep the sabbath. He is trying to help them see why they need to honor God, not providing a new God-given reason for the sabbath.

What exactly is inconsistent in your understanding?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Adam could not have evolved, because He was a human being, with a biological body and a spiritual nature and immortal soul. However, Adam's biological body could have evolved. God however had to directly provide Adam's soul and spirituality. This what the Bible says. First God formed the biological man from inorganic matter (the dust of the Earth). The Bible doesn't describe the process God used to accomplish this, or the length of time involved. However, once the biological man had been brought into existence, God then "breathed into him" an immortal soul and spiritual nature. At that moment the first human being came in to existence by a direct act of God.

So you are talking minor changes not major--like ape to human--adaptations, correct?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Truth is not darkness. There are spiritual truths and truths about the world we live in.

God woke you up to spiritual truths. He is not your biology teacher.

I am afraid you were woke up to spiritual truths, but put to sleep regarding the physical world.

I disagree. I just think you believe man too much and God too little (if at all). The same One who created the Spiritual Truth also created the physical Truths and can violate those things you think you know whenever He wants to. In the only True and Living God's reality, there is only One Truth and everything contained in Him is under Him. It doesn't change anything that you don't like that or agree with that. The Truth is the Truth, even if you don't believe it is and even when (in the past) I didn't believe it was. The real Truth doesn't change. Only our perceptions based either on God-dictated knowledge or man-dictated knowledge.

And, if your biology teacher could start with "God created", then your biology teacher would be onto something. But, as long as your biology teacher believes you descended from an ape, go ahead and believe that lie, if you want. But, you won't pull those with their eyes opened into that web of deceit and call it science and biology.

 

[JackRT]

So, if you don't believe the Scriptures, what exactly do you base your faith on?

And as Myst asked me, were you there? Do you know that "version of the creation account" didn't exist before it was written or that it was written after the ten commandments were given? Is there somewhere in Scripture where Moses announces that he just got a new understanding of the beginning? Why couldn't Moses appeal to "remember what God did for them" as part of why they should honor the commandment, not as an alternative reasoning? After all, according to Jesus, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

The Genesis statement: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." (Gen 2:3)

Exodus 34:21: "Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest: in earing time and in harvest you shall rest." But, those were instructions, not necessarily just the commandments that God had given Moses on the first two tablets, nor is there a claim they were, according to the Scriptures.

I think what confuses you is that for 40 days and 40 nights Moses was there with God. God told him to "write these words; for after the tenor of these words; I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he didn't eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:27-28) So, do you really believe that God had Moses write set of "Ten Commandments" that was different than the ones He gave when He Himself wrote them on the two tablets that Moses broke? Why do you believe that God would do that? But that there are other things that they were to keep, called "judgments" is evident even after the original time they were given in Exodus 20. He announces "the judgments you shall set before them." (Exodus 21:1)

Exodus 31:13-18: In here, God states to Moses that "in six days, The LORD made the heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed" and here God says they are to keep the sabbath as a sign between the individual and God.

Exodus 20: 11: Also declares "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Did you notice that there are many judgements and other things God says, other than what we call the Ten Commandments that God gave in the same discussion with Moses.

Deuteronomy: "These are the words, which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea...." (Deut 1:1) "And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh months, on the first day of the month that Moses spake unto the children of Israel according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them." (Deut 1:3)--interestingly, this happened exactly six months after Aaron died (Num 33:38).

So, when Moses is addressing them as recorded in Deuteronomy 5, he isn't declaring another reason for the sabbath. He tells them to "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God has commanded thee. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God...." (Deut 5:12-4) In Deuteronomy5:15, he says: "And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: Therefore, the LORD thy God commanded you to keep the sabbath day." Moses is saying that God told us to keep the HIS sabbath day. To help them remember who GOD is and what GOD is capable of, Moses told the people--remember what HE did for you! Now remember that SAME GOD commanded you to keep the sabbath. He is trying to help them see why they need to honor God, not providing a new God-given reason for the sabbath.

What exactly is inconsistent in your understanding?

There is nothing inconsistent in my understanding. You suggested I don't believe scripture. This is untrue. However, our interpretations differ.

 

[Hawkins]

Interested to hear you ideas.

I read something differently. The key words are "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." (Heavens is a plural)

To me it represents how our universe should be modeled correctly. I am sure but it seems to me that our science has assumed that our universe is a simple 3D space + time. How possible that our universe (or some parts of it) actually is made of multiple spaces interacting with each other. I'd leave this to whoever specialized in cosmo science, or quantum physics or relativity to comment on.

The theory of evolution is a joke, and a deception. Common ancestry is based off a ridiculous assumption that species don't interbreed. For an example, we all know that tiger mating with lion gives liger. Now 1 millions later when humans apply today's theory of evolution, is liger evolved or not? Of course by applying the theory, liger is evolved from a cell, instead of resulted from interbreeding.

Evolution is an deception. By speculating how lower form organisms replicate themselves, they try to draw the conclusion from that as "humans are evolved". Trying to projecting cell level behavior to the formation of complicated organs such as a human brain is never the way how science works. Science never claim that "because 1+1=2, such that E=MC^2". There's huge gap between the 2. The same gap exists between the cell level behavior and how a human brain can be formed. However deceptively it's common understanding, due to the theory of evolution, that all lives including humans are a result of evolution (which science itself can never come close to such a conclusion). This is the work of deception.

In science, if you try to draw a conclusion that "humans are a result of evolution", you need predictably describe how it is so starting from a single cell. The deceptive part of evolution is that it never specifies that where is the starting point of such a "evolution". If you claim that "humans are evolved from a single cell organism" then you need predictably describe how it is so. If you claim that "humans are evolved from monkeys" then you need to predictably describe how it is so. However, evolution just strongly and never explicitly mention the starting point (whether it's a cell or a monkey), to get to the conclusion that "humans are evolved". Again, this is the work of deception!

 

[JacksBratt]

Two of the ancestors of bread wheat are goat grasses not wheat

So... still grass then? Corn is grass. Wheat is grass. Oats is grass. Timothy hay is grass. All.... grass.

 

[The Barbarian]

The amount of disagreement, discourse and ambiguity raised by scripture is very disconcerting.
No wonder we suffer from so many denominations.
If only God had sent a clear and concise word where there was no doubt of interpretation, literal vs literalism, allegory vs parable, poem vs history.
Why oh why... sigh...

He is perfectly clear about the things that matter to Him. The details of how He made the diversity of living things isn't one of those.

 

[NobleMouse]

So... still grass then? Corn is grass. Wheat is grass. Oats is grass. Timothy hay is grass. All.... grass.

Well said. i Grassias !

 

[The Barbarian]

So... still grass then? Corn is grass. Wheat is grass. Oats is grass. Timothy hay is grass. All.... grass.

Chimpanzees are hominins. Orangutans are hominins. Humans are hominins. Gorillas are hominins.

All...hominins. So still hominin, then?

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

I read something differently. The key words are "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." (Heavens is a plural)

To me it represents how our universe should be modeled correctly. I am sure but it seems to me that our science has assumed that our universe is a simple 3D space + time.

No, it's a bit more complicated than that. You see, mass distorts space, so it curves, making a 4-d universe plus time. And lately the evidence shows that there are a lot more dimensions. None of this has anything significant to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution is a joke, and a deception.

If you think so, you have been badly deceived yourself. It makes many predictions, many of which have been tested and experimentally or observationally confirmed. Would you like to learn about some more of them?

Common ancestry is based off a ridiculous assumption that species don't interbreed.

In nature. In captivity, we can induce all sorts of species to interbreed.

For an example, we all know that tiger mating with lion gives liger.

Yep. But in Asia where lions and tigers had overlapping ranges, we never saw a liger.

Now 1 millions later when humans apply today's theory of evolution, is liger evolved or not?

It's just an artificially-produced hybrid. We don't see mules in nature, either.

By speculating how lower form organisms replicate themselves, they try to draw the conclusion from that as "humans are evolved".

For example, we have numerous transitional forms between other apes and humans. One YE creationist calls the hominin series "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Trying to projecting cell level behavior to the formation of complicated organs such as a human brain is never the way how science works.

Right. The human brain is, except for size and proportion, nearly identical to the chimpanzee brain. But if you go back farther, you can find transitional brains in a chain of transitionals all the way back to a chordate with a simple tubular nerve cord, to organisms with primitive cephalic ganglia, to very simple brains, and so on. No cell-to brain assumptions needed.

Science never claim that "because 1+1=2, such that E=MC^2".

Right. In this case, as you're now learning, it was by incremental steps, documented by (as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits) a long series of transitional forms. Don't your creationists leaders know this? Of course they do. But they don't tell you about it.

In science, if you try to draw a conclusion that "humans are a result of evolution", you need predictably describe how it is so starting from a single cell.

Nope. All you need is transitional forms between humans and other primates. And as you just discovered, there are many of them.

If you claim that "humans are evolved from monkeys"

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. That's just a story creationistleaders tell their followers. Deception is their general practice, as you now see. There are honest creationists, but they are less common than you would expect for people claiming to be Christians.

 

[JackRT]

Yep. But in Asia where lions and tigers had overlapping ranges, we never saw a liger.

There have been recent reports from the Canadian Arctic of polar bear and grizzly bear hybrids. WE don't know with any certainty that there were not ligers or tigons or mules in nature.

 

[The Barbarian]

There have been recent reports from the Canadian Arctic of polar bear and grizzly bear hybrids.

Yep. Polar bears diverged from brown bears during the last glacial. With pack ice declining, many polar bears are coming ashore during brown bear mating season. Apparently, they get along pretty well.

WE don't know with any certainty that there were not ligers or tigons or mules in nature.

There just isn't any evidence of it ever happening, even when these species live in the same areas. Could happen, but it just doesn't. Might something weird cause such a mating? Sure.

 

[Brightmoon]

So... still grass then? Corn is grass. Wheat is grass. Oats is grass. Timothy hay is grass. All.... grass.

do you think corn is a close relative to wheat within the grasses . There are about 780 genera in the grasses . Maybe you need to look up information about grasses before you make such silly statements . 780genera not Species