-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...
- Thread starter jennimatts
- Start date
Montalban
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen.
I said I am suspicious of a theory that requires fraudulent explanations.
My suspicions don't have to be based on 'fact' of evolution at all. They're based on the arguments presented to me.
There might be very good arguments that could be presented.
The fact that people react like fanatics with further selective use of evidence and argument in a discussion about the frauds is also bothersome.
People should just acknowledge the mistakes (the best that happens here is a hedged admission - in effect saying "Science changes its theory, how dare you bring these mistakes up!")
To put it simply
If you act suspiciously, I will be suspicious of you. This does not mean you've done anything wrong. If you continued to excuse your behaviour though with double-talk this would only deepen the suspicions.
Not that difficult
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
In fact one can't (in some instances) even discuss whether evolution happened because of the suspicious use of evidence.
For example, I mentioned on earlier on this thread the issue of defining species. In my High School biology lessons species was defined as animals that could have viable young were of the same species.
We were told that Neanderthal Man had a common ancestor with us, but was a different species. Now people are saying they bred with modern man.
How can one examine whether something happened when the definitions are changed so that in effect all that one gets is the argument "We don't know how it happened, BUT we do know that it happened by natural selection!"
That's leaving out the howls of rabid derision against anyone who questions this sacred-cow
For example, I mentioned on earlier on this thread the issue of defining species. In my High School biology lessons species was defined as animals that could have viable young were of the same species.
We were told that Neanderthal Man had a common ancestor with us, but was a different species. Now people are saying they bred with modern man.
How can one examine whether something happened when the definitions are changed so that in effect all that one gets is the argument "We don't know how it happened, BUT we do know that it happened by natural selection!"
That's leaving out the howls of rabid derision against anyone who questions this sacred-cow
Upvote
0
I've noticed that Kirkwhisper has posted several times on this thread and on other threads after being asked by Assyrian (in post #235) about his Mendel quote (which Kirkwhisper had reposted at least 4 times demanding a response to).
Like others on this thread who are waiting for Kirkwhisper's response, I too am curious as to why he won't respond. Kirkwhisper? Here is what I wrote back in post #234:
Papias wrote:
************************
Montalban-
Of course "species" is difficult to define - that's exactly what evolution predicts, that because species evolve from one to the other, the gradual transition will often make it hard to define exactly where one ends and the other begins. You are familiar with ring species, area species, and such, right?
On the other hand, if evolution didn't happen (and didn't keep happening today), the species would be easy to define - different species would be as obvious as the difference between elephants and jellyfish in all cases, and no populations would speciate (as they have been observed to do). By focusing on the "species problem", you seem to be making a strong case in favor of evolution.
Papias
As far as hoaxes go, humans make hoaxes. Science has built in mechanisms to detect and reject them, as you show yourself by pointed out rejected hoaxes (piltdown man haeckel, and others were found and rejected by evolution supporters). On the other hand, creationism takes hoaxes and continues to try to use them, generating more hoaxes all the time. It would be hard to list all the creationist hoaxes that are still used, such as Noah's anchor, the hammer in coal, the trilobite in a foot print, the paluxy tracks, Wyatt's ark, and on and on. That's very different from a list of exposed and rejected hoaxes, as you are attempting to use to deny the evidence for evolution.
Like others on this thread who are waiting for Kirkwhisper's response, I too am curious as to why he won't respond. Kirkwhisper? Here is what I wrote back in post #234:
Papias wrote:
************************
Montalban-
Of course "species" is difficult to define - that's exactly what evolution predicts, that because species evolve from one to the other, the gradual transition will often make it hard to define exactly where one ends and the other begins. You are familiar with ring species, area species, and such, right?
On the other hand, if evolution didn't happen (and didn't keep happening today), the species would be easy to define - different species would be as obvious as the difference between elephants and jellyfish in all cases, and no populations would speciate (as they have been observed to do). By focusing on the "species problem", you seem to be making a strong case in favor of evolution.
Papias
As far as hoaxes go, humans make hoaxes. Science has built in mechanisms to detect and reject them, as you show yourself by pointed out rejected hoaxes (piltdown man haeckel, and others were found and rejected by evolution supporters). On the other hand, creationism takes hoaxes and continues to try to use them, generating more hoaxes all the time. It would be hard to list all the creationist hoaxes that are still used, such as Noah's anchor, the hammer in coal, the trilobite in a foot print, the paluxy tracks, Wyatt's ark, and on and on. That's very different from a list of exposed and rejected hoaxes, as you are attempting to use to deny the evidence for evolution.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Kirkwhisper did respond back in post 238, well sort of. He claimed we knew Mendel was a creationst and he said a whole load of ugly things about us. I find it a really sad post, though the first line a kind of tragic irony to it.
But they don't deal with the evidence, not honestly. They deal in lies. They believe lies and spout them as lies; take for instance the denial of Mendel's quotes I posted from several different sources. They nit-pick, twist, mangle, and otherwise play semantics to get around the force of Mendel's position. Not accepting their utter failure to meet the challenge of providing observed/observable evidence for the transformation of one type of organism into another organism (over ANY length of time) they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject. But you see, our critics have sold their souls to the devil....er, uh, Darwin in place of Moses as led by the Holy Spirit in Genesis and as supported by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the gospels. Even in that they don't care what Jesus said in support of the history that Genesis brings us & they even twist his words to justify their unbelief.
Not only so my friend, but (quote) " Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occurred within species, it only occurred within limits. In documented lectures, he refuted thetheory of evolution, stating that the laws of inheritance did not permit limitless change, but only permitted change within definite parameters." Creation Wiki.
Best wishes to you and happy new year.
Upvote
0
Montalban
He actually said this to you? Look at this, isn't it pathetic?
Ha, ha, ha, ha. The enemy team was was not challenged to produce observed evidence that one type of organism visibly transformed into a classifiably different type of organism over any time frame. This they totally failed in doing. Furthermore, they can't even demonstrate that such a thing is possible!
By comparison though; what is interesting is that we can trace the history of automobiles from all the way back to, say, Model-T Fords up to Lamborghini's in a neat, orderly, observed way. We can find them in textbooks and even in auto-salvage yards and all the step-by-step changes in between the old and the new. It's easy to do. But does that prove that the model-T Ford evolved into a Lamborghini...or even a Ford Bronco? Of course not. We know that they were all intelligently engineered. But what should be just as easy concerning living organisms with even more examples of evolution in the fossil record cannot be done. I only know of two questionable exceptions and even those exceptions have serious problems.
They utterly failed and yet don't have the humility to bow out gracefully and admit the failure. Pride does strange things...even to professing believers.
At your discretion, my dear friend down under.
He actually said this to you? Look at this, isn't it pathetic?
Originally Posted by Kirkwhisper
They can't give what was asked for [...]The reply? "Does it only matter when it's the 'enemy team' that is doing this? Are creationists exempt, because they're doing it for a good cause?"
Ha, ha, ha, ha. The enemy team was was not challenged to produce observed evidence that one type of organism visibly transformed into a classifiably different type of organism over any time frame. This they totally failed in doing. Furthermore, they can't even demonstrate that such a thing is possible!
By comparison though; what is interesting is that we can trace the history of automobiles from all the way back to, say, Model-T Fords up to Lamborghini's in a neat, orderly, observed way. We can find them in textbooks and even in auto-salvage yards and all the step-by-step changes in between the old and the new. It's easy to do. But does that prove that the model-T Ford evolved into a Lamborghini...or even a Ford Bronco? Of course not. We know that they were all intelligently engineered. But what should be just as easy concerning living organisms with even more examples of evolution in the fossil record cannot be done. I only know of two questionable exceptions and even those exceptions have serious problems.
They utterly failed and yet don't have the humility to bow out gracefully and admit the failure. Pride does strange things...even to professing believers.
At your discretion, my dear friend down under.
Upvote
0
D
dbcsf
Guest
Good answer. I see the bible similarly. For me, the bible is filled with truth about he relationship of God and His people. I do not believe the bible contains all truth. I believe it is filled with relationship specific truth.
What does the creation story say about the relationship of the people of God with God? It says to me that we need to think of God as our creator. We do not necessarily have to know how he did it, we just have to respect him as the almighty creator.
There is more truth to be found in the creation story if you view it from the point of view of the people who originally wrote it. What was their purpose in writing it? It says something about how they handled their problem (their reason for writing it), and that could be a teaching point for us.
Why do you read your bible? Do you read to learn about creation? Ancient history? Most Christians I know read because they are trying to get a better relationship with God in the here and now.
We all want to know about Jesus, about how to love our neighbor, how to deal with conflict in our church, how to pray, how to treat our spouses and kids...Mostly we want to know things which help us today, in the present. Mostly we want to know how to follow Jesus. Stories do not have to be true to contain a lot of truth.
Upvote
0
So we are to never mind about the facts and details he gave as to HOW He created the world as given in Genesis. Hmm. I see. I think.:o
Upvote
0
Assyrian -
Thanks for pointing that out. It sounds like we both consider that a non-answer. Here is the part about the mendel quote:
Kirkwhisper wrote:'
So Kirkwhisper - are you saying that if we surmise that a given person held a given general view, based on "the preponderance of information available on the subject" (even though Assyrian showed that the basis for thinking he held that extreme view was based on quote-mining in the first place), that we can then make up quotes that we would have liked him to say, and then claim that he said them?
I'm still trying to figure out your position on that quote, and your approach in what is allowed in quoting people, based on that example.
Papias
Thanks for pointing that out. It sounds like we both consider that a non-answer. Here is the part about the mendel quote:
Kirkwhisper wrote:'
So Kirkwhisper - are you saying that if we surmise that a given person held a given general view, based on "the preponderance of information available on the subject" (even though Assyrian showed that the basis for thinking he held that extreme view was based on quote-mining in the first place), that we can then make up quotes that we would have liked him to say, and then claim that he said them?
I'm still trying to figure out your position on that quote, and your approach in what is allowed in quoting people, based on that example.
Papias
Upvote
0
I asked you whether you yourself believed that was an accurate descriptor of evolution because I didn't really care to debate ancient history, whether Darwin actually thought that or not (from what I understand, Darwin had said "survival of the fitter"). In any case, the basis of Darwin's argument wasn't that phrase but rather the excellent match of the fossil and still living evidence to his theory.
Regardless, it's interesting to see you argue that a descriptor for evolution is "that which logically must necessarily be true", ie a tautology, as if doing so scored you some points against evolution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
