Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is also the different body plans which are different from genes. One geneticist wrote a book a few year ago question "Why a fly is not a horse?" and the most honest answer was we don't know. They know body plans has something to do with the egg itself. Jurassic Park movie got it wrong. If you put a dinosaur DNA into an ostrich egg it will still try to form an ostrich.

Yeah, because ostrich eggs are totally not themselves the product of ostrich genes.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the idea of evolution as change in allele frequency was already present (though in slightly different terms) as early as 1931:
The conclusion nevertheless seems warranted by the present status of genetics that any theory of evolution must be based
on the properties of Mendelian factors, and beyond this, must be concerned largely with the statistical situation in the species.
... (PDF available for free)

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

As to the question of speciation from a single allele, you may want to try these:

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

Gasp, he found one! Congratulations Mr. Darwinist. But the fact remains that I did not come across that definition in ANY of the many creation evolution debates I viewed nor in any of the articles or scholarly journals I have read up until the 1990's. What I provided in the definition of evolution is the classic understanding. The 'change in allele frequency in a population' def. is like defining a Lamborghini as (in case you missed it) ' an engine with four wheels and a steering mechanism '; woefully inadequate as a working defintion.

Quote: "You will no doubt protest that the slugs are still slugs, but you never defined what amount of speciation would satisfy you."

You are either dishonest or just a poor reader. I said it plainly:

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

Do you know what the word 'familial' means?

Hint: Kingdom, phylum, class, order,__________, genus species. You fill in the blank. Does that help?

The fact is that no one in the Darwinian world can reveal a observed change from one type of organism into an identifiably different, genetically different organism. All that happens in nature falls under that law of God which has never changed and never failed...you know...that law that you don't believe in; 'after its kind'?:thumbsup: And you aren't going to see nature violate that law because it is God's law that is final and not Darwins theory.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
shernren;

The irony is that my post #64 is essentially condensed from DA Carson's sermon delivered at the Gospel Coalition LA Regional Conference about a year ago.

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

Who, pray tell, is D.A. Carson?

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

That's correct. You are using a corrupt version of scripture. Perhaps you would prefer to go to the thread that covers translations so I can show you how corrupt it is. Almost all professing Christian's who believe in evolution prefer corrupt translations. Maybe later, Mr. Shenren.
I'd get it right. And in fact I do. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the KJV, because it in fact strengthens my argument. You see, the original Greek text does not state that John saw a lamb. It states, as the KJV diction makes clear: "I beheld ... and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb ... " In other words, the text doesn't say that John saw a Lamb. The text says that John looked and there was a Lamb.
Good grief! What in the world is the matter with you? You cannot grasp that God Almighty can appear in more than one way at a time? WHO IS THIS LIMITED GOD that you claim to believe in?

God can appear as a man on the throne of heaven and yet appear as the shekinah glory (light) between the cherubims. Can you grasp even that much? I mentioned that he appeared as three men to Abraham. Which of them was God? All of them! Check out the context of Genesis 18 & compare what the two men who went to Sodom did in Genesis 19:24. One could not distinguish which of the three was God in that story but the fact is He was all three. In Jesus, all three were seen in Him. (John 10:30, 14:9, 14:18)

Now, if you want to introduce me to a third translation which alleviates your problem...

This is your problem, fella. You are the one who chose the corrupt translation. I have in my files the documentation of dozens of horrible changes, alterations, deletions, and mistranslated words in that publication.

... you're more than welcome. But I think not. I've never seen anyone call any modern translation of the Bible "corrupt" unless they were pledging their allegiance to the 1611 KJV.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, O sheltered one. You obviously don't even know what's going on in the Christian world. I love the KJV but I do not think it is the only good translation. But again, if you wish to go to the section on translations then perhaps we can discuss it there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Is your belief in evolution based on the evidence or because a scientist told you so?

Thanks for asking, my belief in evolution is based on the fact that I can't honestly doubt it anymore due to the mountain of evidence I've seen while trying to prove it wrong over the past 15 years.

You do understand, don't you, that there are many scientists who believe in creationism.

You do understand, don't you, that knowledge of a theory from biology is totally irrelevant to most scientists, and that it would make no difference to their work if they believed that life on Earth was created by one of the aliens from the Twilight Zone?
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I specifically asked you to produce evidence that any organism has changed into an identifiably different (familial!) organism and you give me this? You failed to do so. The challenge stands.

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

You asked for "even one observable change in allele frequency that produced an entirely different organism in ANY amount of time." Again, do you doubt that whales and maggots (incidentally, insects are not worms) have different alleles? Per the theory of common descent, at one time they both shared a common ancestor and their genes have changed since then.

The fact that you don't seem to understand genetics (per your complaint about number of chromosomes when we were discussing alleles), implies to me that you probably have never studied the evidence beyond the superficial study needed to pretend to have an open mind.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Do you know what the word 'movement' means? Do you know how to differentiate 'movement' from 'conspiracy'? Both can involve lies but a movement can involve lies without a deliberate conspiratorial motive.

Ah. Then might I ask why creationists are so focused on trying to convince laymen when they could be trying to convince biologists and geologists instead, which would add a pile of much-needed credibility to their cause. I mean, shouldn't it be easier and more useful to convince a few people who actually study the subject, rather than a bundle of people who will likely make no contribution to the field?

But they've been known to do this, yes. At times they just deliberately ignore evidence that is legitimately known to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution.
What of it? If someone told you they disproved gravity, perhaps you wouldn't be bothered to check out their story either? Especially if that person had a long history of ignoring any evidence that goes against his view? But I'll bite ... let's start with where's the evidence that these are bones, or that they were embedded in Carboniferous age rocks, where/when exactly it was discovered?
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You asked for "even one observable change in allele frequency that produced an entirely different organism in ANY amount of time." Again, do you doubt that whales and maggots (incidentally, insects are not worms) have different alleles? Per the theory of common descent, at one time they both shared a common ancestor and their genes have changed since then.

The fact that you don't seem to understand genetics (per your complaint about number of chromosomes when we were discussing alleles), implies to me that you probably have never studied the evidence beyond the superficial study needed to pretend to have an open mind.

An open mind? Well, you certainly have left me with an open mouth...incredulous that you can't get what I asked of you.

Twice I explicity stated my question and challenged you both times to produce an example of an organism that has clearly changed from one type to another (familial, 'family', i.e.) type of organism and yet you still fail to grasp what is being asked.

Yet, you dumbfoundedly reply with a straight face (presumbably) "Per the theory of common descent, at one time they both shared a common ancestor and their genes have changed since then."

So let me put it in a way that maybe you can get it: I don't care about your 'theory'.........of worms or whales or even stool pigeons for that matter. I am asking for an observation of the step-by-step, stage-by-stage evidence that any living organism has changed into another identifiably, classifiably different organism. That's OBSERVABLE/OBSERVED evidence...not theory!

Are you actually trying to feed me the line that the theory of evolution concerning worms, whales, (whatever) is EVIDENCE for evolution? On what planet?

The fact that worms and whales have different alleles is NOT EVEN in consideration here. Of course they are different. Now where is the genetic connection between them...or any other organisms for that matter. Stop avoiding the subject.

"...implies to me that you probably have never studied the evidence."

Hint: I taught biology for nearly three decades. Now please either give the observed evidence (a link?) or be honest enough to admit that you have no such evidence. At bottom line that evidence must be genetic.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Ah. Then might I ask why creationists are so focused on trying to convince laymen when they could be trying to convince biologists and geologists instead, which would add a pile of much-needed credibility to their cause. I mean, shouldn't it be easier and more useful to convince a few people who actually study the subject, rather than a bundle of people who will likely make no contribution to the field?

Ask someone else. I am not even interested in talking about conspiracies here.

What of it? If someone told you they disproved gravity, perhaps you wouldn't be bothered to check out their story either? Especially if that person had a long history of ignoring any evidence that goes against his view? But I'll bite ... let's start with where's the evidence that these are bones, or that they were embedded in Carboniferous age rocks, where/when exactly it was discovered?

What do you mean, 'What of it'? You therefore approve of the dishonesty? Is that what you're saying?

Gravity is a long established fact. So is electromagetism. So is Relativity. Evolution is NOT.

Read the evidence about Ed Conrads discovery for yourself. There is quite a bit of it on the web. I cannot post the link because I don't have the 50 post requirement that Christian Forums requires.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
If I find oil in my backyard, I neither interpret it by the data by creationism or by geological interpretation. I merely found the oil. When Shell or any other oil company finds oil they interpret the data as what it is. I am not seeing a relevance to your question.

If you find oil in your backyard, that would be a lucky chance. Of course, once the oil is found, it is found.

But oil companies don't trust to luck to find oil. They explore for oil. And they use geological information to decide where to explore for oil. Geological indicators (including index fossils) tell them where they are most likely to find oil.

They typically use the geological principles of standard science (which includes uniformitarianism and hence an old earth, and the evolution of species) in interpreting those indicators.

Do the young-earth creationists in the oil industry you know of use a different interpretation of the indicators--one more in line with their theological beliefs? Or do they use the same interpretation as the rest of the oil industry? Are they able to find oil successfully if they interpret the indicators differently?

The relevance is this: if they have to use standard, geological, uniformitarian principles to interpret the data of rock types and fossil types in order to be successful in the oil industry, then they are admitting that in practice, their young-earth creationist views do not tally with the actualities of creation.

Creation itself does not support a young-earth perspective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
An open mind? Well, you certainly have left me with an open mouth...incredulous that you can't get what I asked of you.

Twice I explicity stated my question and challenged you both times to produce an example of an organism that has clearly changed from one type to another (familial, 'family', i.e.) type of organism and yet you still fail to grasp what is being asked.

Yet, you dumbfoundedly reply with a straight face (presumbably) "Per the theory of common descent, at one time they both shared a common ancestor and their genes have changed since then."

I'm not understanding. Do you want the example to be of a change between organisms which are classified in the same family? I understood it that you wanted an example of a change where the organisms changed their family designations.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I am asking for an observation of the step-by-step, stage-by-stage evidence that any living organism has changed into another identifiably, classifiably different organism. That's OBSERVABLE/OBSERVED evidence...not theory!

And here is the crux of the problem. The evidence for large-scale evolutionary changes are predicted to be found not in a laboratory experiment or observation of living things over a few years, but in the similarities of living creatures to each other, and of fossil bones to each other (with gaps in the fossil record). You can either observe evidence of the large scale changes having happened, or observe small scale changes happening right now.

Most creationists demand evidence that would, if found, disprove the theory of evolution, before they will believe in it. It's like if an atheist demanded to see Christ's corpse before they'd believe He rose from the dead. And then not seeing anything wrong with their demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Most of our public universities are liberal. You would expect their research would support liberal causes. Science is tainted by politics. Just look at global warming for example.

Or General Relativity. Liberal agenda, the lot of it.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not understanding. Do you want the example to be of a change between organisms which are classified in the same family? I understood it that you wanted an example of a change where the organisms changed their family designations.

Read my next post for your answer.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And here is the crux of the problem. The evidence for large-scale evolutionary changes are predicted to be found not in a laboratory experiment or observation of living things over a few years, but in the similarities of living creatures to each other, and of fossil bones to each other (with gaps in the fossil record). You can either observe evidence of the large scale changes having happened, or observe small scale changes happening right now.


Which means you have none. The very best you and those of your ilk can do is point to small scale changes on the species level that are well within the range of Moses inspired words, "after its kind". The thing that truly bothers me is that you know you cannot fill in the gaps... (as seen below in just one example)

Sep26253.jpg




...between Any known organism in a step-by-step, stage-by-stage manner and yet you continue to promote a theory that depends upon proof of that very thing. It's a myth.

Most creationists demand evidence that would, if found, disprove the theory of evolution, before they will believe in it. It's like if an atheist demanded to see Christ's corpse before they'd believe He rose from the dead. And then not seeing anything wrong with their demand.

The evidence for Christ's resurrection is in the empty tomb and the fact that multiple witnesses saw Him after his death. Not only so but resurrection from the dead even exists in our day for evidence of that power: (here below is but one of three examples I could post)


Raised from the Dead - Dr. Chauncey Crandall#



I believe we are finished here. You have demonstrated that you cannot produce the evidence I asked for.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I believe we are finished here. You have demonstrated that you cannot produce the evidence I asked for.

I have demonstrated that the evidence you demand makes as much sense as an atheist demanding to see Christ's corpse before he would believe in His resurrection. Why do you demand evidence that the theory of evolution says should not exist, before you will believe the theory of evolution? Are you hiding something, or trying to hide from something?

PS: the theory of evolution says that each creature reproduces after its kind, just like the Bible says.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Gasp, he found one! Congratulations Mr. Darwinist. But the fact remains that I did not come across that definition in ANY of the many creation evolution debates I viewed nor in any of the articles or scholarly journals I have read up until the 1990's.

I'm not sure what that proves besides that you didn't read / Google enough. ;)

Quote: "You will no doubt protest that the slugs are still slugs, but you never defined what amount of speciation would satisfy you."

You are either dishonest or just a poor reader. I said it plainly:

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

Do you know what the word 'familial' means?

Hint: Kingdom, phylum, class, order,__________, genus species. You fill in the blank. Does that help?

Hint: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, ______, genus, and what did you say? "Not a change in one species to another of the same species ... " What I showed you was exactly that, a change in one species to another that was not of the same species but a completely different species.

Now if a creationist gives me two different possible kinds of change that he will accept (possibly not realizing that they are different), one of which evolution itself permits and the other of which evolution itself does not permit, which do you think I will give him?

There is no evolution "between families" for the simple reason that evolution only happens at the tips of a phylogenetic tree. What does evolution predict can happen?

1. One species can split into two different sub-species.
2. One species can evolve into a notably different daughter species.
3. One species can go extinct.

Note that in each case, what is produced is not a new family; it is a new species. Evolution cannot produce new families simply because anything new which evolves already belonged to some particular species before this and hence already belonged to some particular family before this.

But I know that's not really what you're asking. You're simply asking for the generation of novel features - in which case, I hope you would agree with me that a multicellular life-form would be different enough from a unicellular life-form to fit the bill? You ask:

The fact is that no one in the Darwinian world can reveal a observed change from one type of organism into an identifiably different, genetically different organism. All that happens in nature falls under that law of God which has never changed and never failed...you know...that law that you don't believe in; 'after its kind'?:thumbsup: And you aren't going to see nature violate that law because it is God's law that is final and not Darwins theory.

but you seem to be unaware that ... even I am an identifiably different, genetically different organism from you. (That's how paternity tests work.) So please train yourself to write more precisely while you chew on this:

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: a possible origin of multicellularity | Mendeley

Abstract:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (`flagellate'). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.​
Who, pray tell, is D.A. Carson?

Let me google that for you

Good grief! What in the world is the matter with you? You cannot grasp that God Almighty can appear in more than one way at a time? WHO IS THIS LIMITED GOD that you claim to believe in?

God can appear as a man on the throne of heaven and yet appear as the shekinah glory (light) between the cherubims. Can you grasp even that much? I mentioned that he appeared as three men to Abraham. Which of them was God? All of them! Check out the context of Genesis 18 & compare what the two men who went to Sodom did in Genesis 19:24. One could not distinguish which of the three was God in that story but the fact is He was all three. In Jesus, all three were seen in Him. (John 10:30, 14:9, 14:18)

I believe in the omnipotent God of Christianity, but I believe that He has revealed Himself perfectly in Scripture. Again, kirkwhisper, what the KJV actually says is:

"I beheld ... and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb ... "

The Bible does not say that John saw a Lamb. The Bible does not say that John saw something that looked like a Lamb to him (and not to everyone else). The Bible says that there stood a Lamb: not something that looked like a Lamb but actually was not (in case you would be entirely right), but simply "[there] stood a Lamb", without qualification that this was simply what He looked like.

In fact, your exegesis of Genesis 18 and 19 is also fallacious. Let me work from the KJV, beginning with:
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. (Gen 18:9,10)
Verse 14 makes it clear that the promise of "returning unto thee" was made strictly and specifically by Yahweh, the LORD. So why does your translation choose to use the singular in verse 10 to denote the speaker of that promise? Simple: because only one of the men was the LORD. The other two were angels, who could with God ask where Sarah was, but who could not with God promise to return to her (because it was not their job to do so). In verse 22 the conversation finishes:
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. (Gen 18:22)
So the LORD stays behind to discuss with Abraham the fate of Sodom, and how many men make it into Sodom?
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; (Gen 19:1)
The implication is clear as day: the divine personage stays to discuss with Abraham, while the two others make their way to Sodom, where the Biblical narrative describes them as angels. This is important. There is nowhere in Scripture where an appearance of God Himself is called "an angel", with the important exception of "the angel of the LORD" (which this clearly isn't). So the two angels are clearly not God, and this is highlighted in the exchange where Lot pleads with them to let him flee to Zoar:
And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. And he [the angel] said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. (Gen 19:18-22a)
Lot calls the angel "my LORD"? That would utterly ruin my thesis if the word translated LORD was Yahweh - but it's not, it turns out, "LORD" is the KJV's (incorrectly capitalized) translation of the Hebrew adonai (see original text here), which is a deferential term for any authority from God Himself right down to a wife's husband. And why would the LORD Almighty say such as thing as "I cannot do anything till thou be come thither"? Would God be constrained so? No, this is clearly the talk of an angel who, although he certainly had the power to singe Lot along with the rest, cannot because he is acting under authority.

So once again: the LORD visits Abraham to promise him an heir, and two (very much finite, if angelic) personages leave Abraham to visit and punish the city of Sodom, while the LORD stays and allows Abraham to negotiate (!) with Him on the basis of preserving the righteous lives in that city.

Why does this matter? Firstly, because you're being wrong on the internet. But secondly and more importantly, you seem to have a defective theology of representations of the Godhead and of the Trinity. Having the Godhead show up as three identically nondescript men is not the Trinity: it is tritheism.

Jesus, the Son of God, becomes a man. None of the other persons of the Trinity become human. At the baptism of Jesus, the Trinity is present, but Jesus is the only one of them who is a man: the Father presents Himself as a voice from Heaven, and the Spirit presents Himself as a sweet presence taking the form of a dove. In Revelations, Jesus is presented as a glorified man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit are ever given anything like an anthropomorphic appearance.

Yes, the Three are One, but they are also distinct (while never divided), with distinct roles and haecceities; and while there are many hints of a plurality of persons within the Godhead, there are plenty of descriptions of God presenting Himself as a human (that is, pre-Incarnation appearances of Jesus the Son of Man), but none of Him presenting Himself as multiple humans.

I believe in the Trinity, and I believe that when the Bible says "There stood a Lamb" it does not mean "There stood something looking like a Lamb", and I believe in actually reading the translations I use to study the Bible - all of them. And I believe that you have little chance of understanding how we evolutionists understand Genesis if you don't even understand how the Bible uses its own metaphors.
 
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And here is the crux of the problem. The evidence for large-scale evolutionary changes are predicted to be found not in a laboratory experiment or observation of living things over a few years, but in the similarities of living creatures to each other, and of fossil bones to each other (with gaps in the fossil record). You can either observe evidence of the large scale changes having happened, or observe small scale changes happening right now.

Most creationists demand evidence that would, if found, disprove the theory of evolution, before they will believe in it. It's like if an atheist demanded to see Christ's corpse before they'd believe He rose from the dead. And then not seeing anything wrong with their demand.

I can observe similarities in cars, even the same parts in different models from the same manufacturer. It is not evidence that one model evolved into another, but that they had a common designer. Designer is the operative word here because information and design require intelligence and never result from chance.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I can observe similarities in cars, even the same parts in different models from the same manufacturer. It is not evidence that one model evolved into another, but that they had a common designer. Designer is the operative word here because information and design require intelligence and never result from chance.
Would you consider an electronic circuit that can distinguish between a high-sounding note and a low-sounding note to be an example of "design"?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
56
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Look at what Exodus says...

Exodus 19:2-4 (NIV)
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. ...

It says clearly that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on "eagles' wings". If this account is not true, then the book of Exodus is a lie.

If Exodus is a lie, then the origin of the concept of God's deliverance is also a lie, so why believe in a messiah coming to save people from sin?

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of flying on eagles' wings would want to be a christian.
No, I personally don't believe the Jews literally flew out of Egypt on eagles' wings. This is simply poetic speech, and I hope we all realize that the use of poetic speech in the Bible doesn't invalidate the Bible, nor Christianity.

I see little difference between the indented section above and the OP.

Papias


Can you tell me which Church Fathers thought that the creation account in Genesis is poetic speech?

Much obliged
 
Upvote 0