Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Kirkwhisper]

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

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

That's wrong. The Hebrew word is tsippowr, tsip-pore'
or tsippor {tsip-pore'}; from 6852; a little bird (as hopping):--bird, fowl, sparrow.

We're talking about God's designation in His law. So God was wrong & neo-Darwinians are correct in the classification?

Well, we can certainly see whose side of the issue you are on.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You say this while sticking your tongue out at me. How old are you?

None of yer business - nyah!

Thanks for establishing my case. That bold faced statement is exactly our position on the issue, per Mendel.

Earlier you said "kinds" meant family or order - but yes, species makes much more sense.

Why are you, like the other neo-Darwinists on this thread avoiding Mendel? I have quoted him about five times.

The general response would be that most animals living today simply have not had the time to diverse into different species. This process takes many thousands, if not millions of years. The domestic dog, for example, split from wolves (or a wolf-like ancestor) roughly 100,000 years ago - and some estimate it may have been as long as 400,000 years ago. Today they're still capable of interbreeding.

--------------------------------

That's wrong. The Hebrew word is tsippowr, tsip-pore'
or tsippor {tsip-pore'}; from 6852; a little bird (as hopping):--bird, fowl, sparrow.

We're talking about God's designation in His law. So God was wrong & neo-Darwinians are correct in the classification?

Well, we can certainly see whose side of the issue you are on.

I'm not an expert in ancient Hewbrew, obviously, but they seemed to have several words. In Leviticus, they use the term "Owph", which roughly means "to fly" or "posses a wing". Deuteronomy uses the word "Tsippowr", which comes from the term "to hop about" - admittedly not something bats are known for.

Even though they didn't have the same classifications we do, even the ancient Hebrews knew full well a bat is not the same as a bird.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

However the common ancestor of cats and dogs is neither a cat nor a dog and both of them being descendants of a common ancestor does not include your scenario.



From an evolutionary point of view a cat giving birth to a dog is as ridiculous as your cousin Sadie being your daughter. But a cat and a dog having a common ancestor is as reasonable as you and your cousin having the same grandparent.

That doesn't compute nor even make a reasonable comparison. The truth is that a cat cannot give birth to not only a dog, it cannot give birth to ANY non-feline. The genetic limitations are there according to Mendel.

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

Now, prove Mendel was wrong. Give observed evidence.

 

[gluadys]

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

However, this definition of "kind" is comparatively recent (dating from about 1940 when it was first introduced).

Prior to that time all Christians, whatever their belief about evolution understood "kind" to be equivalent to "species". Linnaeus himself intended "species" to have this meaning. This is one of the terms (along with "genus") used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Hebrew term "min" which the KJV translates into English as "kind".

So the original equivalence was

Hebrew 'min' = Latin 'species' = English 'kind'.

Most modern anti-evolutionists are unaware of this linguistic history and that their own leaders have changed the meaning of scripture by detaching 'kind' from its original equivalence with 'species'/'min'.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

None of yer business - nyah!

Guess what, kid? You just joined the ranks of the non-existent in the oobliant. Bye.

 

[chris4243]

I made a direct, clearly defined challenge and you come back at me with another (ridiculous) challenge. You did not answer the question nor provide the evidence that I asked for. That is because you cannot.

My understanding is that you're the one who posed the ridiculous challenge to begin with. Are we not in agreement that wolves/chihuahuas/poodles/dogs etc are a monophyletic group, that lions/tigers/kittens/cats are another monophyletic group, and that none of the dogs could possibly have produced one of the cats, nor one of the cats possibly have produced one of the dogs? My understanding is that you're trying to challenge my to disprove what I believe in, and don't understand why I refuse to do so.

Furthermore, your answers are frivolous. Example "Evolution says minnows are still Eukaryotes. Feel free to check whether minnows do indeed have a true nucleus in their cells."

You could have been honest enough to the other readers to say, "One- celled eukaryotes eventually evolved into minnow sized eukaryotes" which, though it is still wrong, would have completed the idea I was asking about.

As I was saying, it is reproduction after their kind. Once a Eukaryote, always an Eukaryote. Sure, a minnow looks different from an amoeba. But a chihuahua looks different from a wolf too, and you don't see any problem with that. So we each believe in reproduction after their kind, I just believe in bigger kind groupings than you do, with the consequent greater variation.

But you have avoided the truth of this issue throughout this debate just like you avoided the statements of the founders, movers & shakers of the field of genetics.

Statements like:

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

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

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

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

Bye.

Are you now parading your ignorance of the scientific method now? Evidence for a theory never proves it, a limited test of a theory cannot be considered proof valid for all possible cases even beyond the scope of what was tested, nor do authoritarian statements constitute proof of anything. When you tell me about how Mendel conducted experiments for millions of years and saw no changes, then I'll consider his experiments to have a scope of millions of years. Did you expect Mendel to disprove evolution, by showing it happens a million times faster than the theory of evolution predicts, or what?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

However, this definition of "kind" is comparatively recent (dating from about 1940 when it was first introduced).

Prior to that time all Christians, whatever their belief about evolution understood "kind" to be equivalent to "species". Linnaeus himself intended "species" to have this meaning. This is one of the terms (along with "genus") used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Hebrew term "min" which the KJV translates into English as "kind".

So the original equivalence was

Hebrew 'min' = Latin 'species' = English 'kind'.

Most modern anti-evolutionists are unaware of this linguistic history and that their own leaders have changed the meaning of scripture by detaching 'kind' from its original equivalence with 'species'/'min'.

What you failed to tell the readers is that the word 'species' has changed over the years. Proof:

"It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists." Wikipedia.

Your argument therefore is a non-sequitur.

 

[Montalban]

About Saint Basil....

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
The Age of the Earth

I must say that after reading your quote and doing a bit more research on the subject, I stand corrected. Firstly, yes, Origen's views are quite (what we would call) liberal, though as a historical source concerning the views that were in circulation at the time he needs to be checked out, no?

And I think your characterization of St. Basil the Great's views is accurate. Indeed, in his homily on the first day, he does go so far as to say that the length of a day in Genesis 1 is indeed the length of an ordinary day.

These links were really helpful for me:
Note to Orthodox Evolutionists: Stop Trying to Retroactively Recruit / Shanghai the Fathers to Your Camp!
What Makes Me Uneasy About Fr. Seraphim (Rose) and His Followers

In the first link he takes Orthodox evolutionists to task for misusing the Fathers (which also covers me, by extension!), and in the second he takes Orthodox YECs under Fr. Seraphim Rose to task for being inconsistent in using Protestant science (!!) while claiming to uphold Orthodox Patristic views. The following paragraph (from the second link) is instructive, with the second half of the comment being greatly expanded on in the first link:

On the issue of "Creation Science"-style creationism, I would like to make a couple of comments. First, the Fathers usually believed that the days in Genesis 1 were literal days and not something more elastic. I believe I've read at least one exception, but St. Basil, for instance, insists both that one day was one day, and that we should believe that matter is composed of earth, air, fire, water, and ether. The choice of a young earth and not any other point of the Fathers is not the fruit of the Fathers at all; it is something Protestant brought into the Orthodox Church, and at every point I've seen it, Orthodox who defend a young earth also use Protestant Creation Science, which is entirely without precedent in the Fathers.​

I think I shall use this position from now on.

Fr. Seraphim writes specifically about the Protestant view...




Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?”
Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69
However
“We believe that the created world itself is a 'mystery' originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the NiceneConstantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the "Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible", the Son "He through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit, the "Creator of life" (zoopion). Thus, the three persons created together the world, which is the fruit of the common action of the Holy Trinity issuing out of the one essence.”
Orthodox Perspectives on Creation — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

 

[gluadys]

That doesn't compute nor even make a reasonable comparison. The truth is that a cat cannot give birth to not only a dog, it cannot give birth to ANY non-feline. The genetic limitations are there according to Mendel.

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

Now, prove Mendel was wrong. Give observed evidence.

You just agreed with me and the theory of evolution. Right. A cat, being a feline, cannot give birth to a non-feline.

It can, however, share an ancestor with a non-feline.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

My understanding is that you're the one who posed the ridiculous challenge to begin with. Are we not in agreement that wolves/chihuahuas/poodles/dogs etc are a monophyletic group, that lions/tigers/kittens/cats are another monophyletic group, and that none of the dogs could possibly have produced one of the cats, nor one of the cats possibly have produced one of the dogs? My understanding is that you're trying to challenge my to disprove what I believe in, and don't understand why I refuse to do so.

As I was saying, it is reproduction after their kind. Once a Eukaryote, always an Eukaryote. Sure, a minnow looks different from an amoeba. But a chihuahua looks different from a wolf too, and you don't see any problem with that. So we each believe in reproduction after their kind, I just believe in bigger kind groupings than you do, with the consequent greater variation.

Are you now parading your ignorance of the scientific method now? Evidence for a theory never proves it, a limited test of a theory cannot be considered proof valid for all possible cases even beyond the scope of what was tested, nor do authoritarian statements constitute proof of anything. When you tell me about how Mendel conducted experiments for millions of years and saw no changes, then I'll consider his experiments to have a scope of millions of years. Did you expect Mendel to disprove evolution, by showing it happens a million times faster than the theory of evolution predicts, or what?

It wasn't just Darwin! You ignored all the other geneticists I quoted as well. That tells me that YOU JUST DON'T CARE about the evidence. You certainly haven't given me any in this entire debate. Like Assyrian, you play a semantic game and then sit there with your finger pointing in the air as if there is substance to what you say. There is none. You have none.

Had you posted observed evidence of the stage-by-stage, step-by-step evidence of evolutionary change of one type of organism into a clearly different type of organism you could have easily won this conflict and I would have to abdicate my position. But you didn't. You can't.

My debate with you is come to an end on this issue.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You just agreed with me and the theory of evolution. Right. A cat, being a feline, cannot give birth to a non-feline.

It can, however, share an ancestor with a non-feline.

Is it your habit to lie to yourself like this often?

Give the evidence that any feline has ever come from or given birth to a non-feline...over ANY amount of time you would need to prove the point. That includes any of the stages in between felines and non-felines.

Do it, please.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

You may begin any time.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Guess what, kid? You just joined the ranks of the non-existent in the oobliant. Bye.

You must be overusing the exfoliant. Your skin seems a bit thin.

A good reason never to put anyone on your ignore list: you can't see what I'm saying about you ... but everyone else can.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

None of yer business - nyah!


Earlier you said "kinds" meant family or order - but yes, species makes much more sense.


The general response would be that most animals living today simply have the time to diverse into different species. This process takes many thousands, if not millions of years. The domestic dog, for example, split from wolves (or a wolf-like ancestor) roughly 100,000 years ago - and some estimate it may have been as long as 400,000 years ago. Today they're still capable of interbreeding.

--------------------------------


I'm not an expert in ancient Hewbrew, obviously, but they seemed to have several words. In Leviticus, they use the term "Owph", which roughly means "to fly" or "posses a wing". Deuteronomy uses the word "Tsippowr", which comes from the term "to hop about" - admittedly not something bats are known for.

Even though they didn't have the same classifications we do, even the ancient Hebrews knew full well a bat is not the same as a bird.

Never mind.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Spelling mistake - I meant to say "most animals living today simply have not had the time to diverse into different species."

 

[chris4243]

It wasn't just Darwin! You ignored all the other geneticists I quoted as well. That tells me that YOU JUST DON'T CARE about the evidence. You certainly haven't given me any in this entire debate. Like Assyrian, you play a semantic game and then sit there with your finger pointing in the air as if there is substance to what you say. There is none. You have none.

Had you posted observed evidence of the stage-by-stage, step-by-step evidence of evolutionary change of one type of organism into a clearly different type of organism you could have easily won this conflict and I would have to abdicate my position. But you didn't. You can't.

My debate with you is come to an end on this issue.

Then perhaps we can converse some more later, when you understand the theory of evolution. How do you expect me to give a substantiate answer when all your questions are about some theory that you imagined up yourself and never shared with anyone? Tell me what this theory of yours is, and then I can tell you how it is wrong. Or, learn something about the theory of evolution and ask me about that.

In the meantime, enjoy shutting your ears and saying "la la la la la" and generally being rude to members who are trying to help you.

 

[miamited]

hi guys,

You know, one very important issue that we need to understand is that our animal classifications i.e. phylum, genis and so forth are not necessarily based on God's definition of 'kind'. We don't honestly have any idea what God's definition of 'kind' is. There is no instruction regarding this classification and what animals are a part of each kind.

We have in the last few hundred years created a classification system for animals based on several shared traits that we, WE consider to be 'kind'. So, when we say that a tiger mated with a lion and this therefore proves that cross kinds do mate. That can't be proven according to God's definition of 'kind'. It can only be proven according to man's definition of kind. God may very well have intended that lions, tigers, jaguars, lynx and many other creatures that carry much of the same external features as 'kind', while we believe in our science that various animals based on how they live or how they feed their young are a 'kind'. We just don't know.

Secondly, in researching many of the various 'anomalies' of animal births that seem to cross genetic lines, not all of course, but many are claimed to only be possible in some manmade controlled environment. Some must actually be joined in a laboratory setting. Clearly not what one would consider God's idea of a 'kind' mating with its own 'kind'. Similarly, many of these matings are also only found when these various animals are confined together and so I don't think that would necessarily be God's idea of a 'kind' mating with its own 'kind' under normal circumstance.

I mean goodness, and I don't say this to shock anyone, but I know dogs that will make love to my leg if I let them and so I'm not completely sure that if we take two similar animals that wouldn't naturally mate and put them in a controlled environment where, when the time of heat comes, they have no choice but to mate with each other, then maybe they will. Possibly some offspring might be produced if they are close enough to be considered a 'kind' as God, not you or I or science, defines 'kind' but as God defines 'kind'.

Just something to consider when the claim is made that some animal mating with some other animal that is not considered of the same 'kind' in man's understanding mates. Before one uses that as proof positive that God's word is once again wrong.

God bless and carry on.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Montalban]

I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.

Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school

Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.

 

[3rdHeaven]

You are correct! if Genesis is not true? Toss the rest out. The same God of Genesis rules the new testament.

Genesis is true and 6 days should be true too. Although the earth could be older due to the fact we do not know how long it sped around the universe before God began working with it.

I'm not so quick to throw the rest out entirely on genesis.

First you must consider it has to be figurative or do you really believe God needed to "rest" on the 7th day. If God ever had to rest for even one second, he would not be God. Clearly it is figurative.

Second there are actually 2 creation stories thrown together in genesis, one is almost entirely taken from older religions!

Third I would not toss the rest of the Bible out over genesis account and for young earth creationists this is a desperate attempt to gain any momentum in a losing battle over the young earth.

So whether genesis is a story taken from older religions, to be taken figuratively or literally, makes no difference to me. I will keep the rest of the Bible thank you

 

[Keachian]

I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.

Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school

Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.

LOL Haeckel.

And abiogenesis is not evolution

 

[Assyrian]

Don't bring up Shenren again. Is that clear?

Try not to be rude to everyone you disagree with.

The one being rude is that mocking fellow with the condescending attitude. But since he agrees with you he gets a pass, right?

Perhaps if you could address his points you would be able to expose the terrible mockery you have been subject to.

If you have read comments on this thread carefully then you should have observed that i am not the only one who thinks your statements are appalling.

People disagree with me and are taken aback when I point out that the bible doesn't actually say what they think it does. However all the other have managed to disagree with me courteously, you are the only one calling me a dishonest and a liar.

Because you were and are. I am disenchanted with the way you treat God's holy Word.

So you know I am a liar because I am one. Wow. How is you heart so full of bitterness that you want to believe the worst about those who disagree with you? Did it never enter you mind that someone could disagree with you and simply be wrong? That I might actually believe 'according to their kind' doesn't mean 'reproduce according to their kind' and that I don't actually need to be a liar to say what I think is true. Never mind the fact I might actually be right about what the text says, you need to have a look at the anger and bitterness in your heart.

Why don't you stop complaining and stick to the subject, O persecuted one.

Sorry to disappoint you, I don't feel persecuted at all, I just think it is sad when Christians to talk to their fellow believers like that. But it would be so much easier for all of us to have a discussion once you drop the insults, so by all means lets stick to the subject.

It think 'after its kinds' means 'according to the different varieties, the different sorts of those animals'.

The Hebrew is למינהם lemiynehem

le the letter lamed is a preposition with a variety of meanings: to or towards, at, on account of, according to...

miyn which according to Strong's means:

From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind.
​

Then you have a variety of different pronouns at the end of the construction, in our example here it is
ehem meaning 'their',

It simply means are different sorts of animals and they were created according to their sorts, species or different varieties. There is nothing in the Hebrew that says 'reproduce'.

You've done it yet again; you take a the correction definiton and then give the wrong application as to its meaning. Are you a Jehovah's Witness? But the truth is that I have seen this in you repeatedly including the last confrontation I had with you months ago.

No I'm not a JW, but instead of simply claiming I have given the wrong application perhaps you could show where I went wrong. Glad you think I have the correct definition though, why not take the Hebrew I have analysed and show where reproducing after their kinds makes its way into the text.

So the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write those words (after his kind, after its kind,) 17 times in the first seven chapters of Genesis so that people like you can be justified to make it fit evolutionary change? You've got to be kidding me. You deal with the truth like its a rubber band to be played with, Assyrian.

Not sure how Moses repeating the phrase 17 times make your argument any better. If 'reproducing after their kind' isn't in the text repeating the phrase 17 times isn't going to help. Of course, I am not trying to fit evolutionary change into Genesis, Genesis isn't teaching evolution. What I am doing is showing that a Creationist argument against evolution, that 'the bible says animals reproduce according to their kind' is simply not scriptural.

Our ancient forefathers had NO inclination as to 'after its kind' being anything but a differentiation between non-related organisms which brought forth offspring that can only successfully reproduce one of like kind. If you can prove that wrong then do so. The Jews didn't believe that.

Actually I don't know what their concept of kind was, I very much doubt their shared the creationist idea family or order you mentioned, which owes more to trying to make creation science work than any study of Hebrew or the bible. Creationists assume kind is the equivalent of a modern scientific definition, rather than a word that describes all the different categories you can sort animals into, which could include categories and sub categories we see in the way the bible describes animals, that ravens are a kind of bird, but there are also different kinds raven. I seriously doubt they would have considered donkeys and horses the same kind the way creationists do, though they would have considered them both livestock. If kind means a sort or portioning out, then if you can put given horses and donkeys different names then they are different kinds. So the Israelites recognised different varieties of animals and would have realised that most of the time they produced the same variety, at the same time then understood something of breeding sheep and goat as well as the forbidden hybridisation. So there is no reason to think they had the Aristotle's concept of fixity of species, or even thought about the idea, regardless of whether you can fit what they would have know into an Aristotelian framework. But the real issue isn't whether the ancient Jews believed in fixity of species, but whether it is taught in the bible, and it isn't.

So tell me, sir, have you ever seen a wheat seed produce anything but wheat (of the several different varieties of....guess what; wheat)? How about corn seed? How about daisies? Have you ever observed or come across evidence that the DNA of a pig can produce non-pigs? How about bears? How about giraffes? Show the readers that you actually do know what you're talking about and demonstrate observable evidence that living organisms do in fact co-mingle with and change into identifiably, classifiably different kinds/families.

Have you missed all the posts where people told you you completely misunderstand how evolution works?

Lastly, I ask you to comment on the founders, movers & shakers of the genetic world and what they said about this matter. So far I haven't seen a reply:

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

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

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

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

Comment on these statements and tell the readers why they are all wrong.

Do you have a source in Mendel's quote?

Not that it matters. He studied how genetics works with a simple trait where there were no mutations affecting the expression of the trait. How that would make him qualified to comment on forms of variation he hadn't studied, I don't know. Besides we have learned an awful lot about genetics and mutation since then. You need to realise science works by evidence not by snippet quotes from hallowed authorities, especially long out of date ones. Not sure who Francis Hitching and William R. Fix are. Are they mainstream scientists? Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin seem to be creationists or Intelligent Design.