Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Kirkwhisper]

Shall we agree to consider each other heretics then, and mutually ignore each other? To my eyes you're a heretic because you're calling God a liar by saying that God's Creation falsely suggests evolution, to your eyes I'm a heretic because I'm calling God a liar by saying the Creation account in Genesis isn't literally true. You disagree with the previous statement because you in fact think that Creation doesn't suggest evolution, and I disagree with the previous statement because I think Genesis was never intended to be literal.

No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Name it and then demonstrate an observed change from one type into another type over any length of time. No artwork or chart work, please.

So you want me to go back in time and and show you some kind of living, breathing trasitional creature?

Sorry, my time machine's in the shop.

No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.

I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.

You're not saying Christian evolutions are actually closet satanists are you Kirkwhisper ... ?

 

[TasManOfGod]

If one is not God fearing -who do they serve

 

[Kirkwhisper]

It's hard to take your word for it when you write silly things like this:

That tells me you aren't reading carefully nor thinking carefully. Of course it's silly. But the fact is that scientists can't do that nor can they perform any experiment to demonstrate the stages in between organisms to ANY degree of change between one type and another type. You name it, they can't do it. Every change will be 'within his kind', a la Genesis one.

So scientists CAN'T do it and nature WON'T do it for you. Man you guys are in big trouble when the general public finally catches on. And we will help them catch on.

Tell me something: at what age did you switch off?

What most Creationists fail to realise is that if a dog mated with a chimp and created some kind of pan-canis hybrid, it wouldn't prove evolution. It would completely and utterly disprove it.

Did I suggest a dog mating with a chimp? Not even close. The picture I posted suggests perhaps a union with humans. But no matter; how about a chimp that mates with a gorilla that could give us perhaps (gasp!) a neanderthal-like creature?

uh, oh. Guess you can't use that one either:

Neanderthal not different than humans

Neanderthal DNA Almost Identical to Modern Human

2010 December 16 by wemustknow.koen

A few weeks ago South African scientists reported finding a supposedly 360 million year old fossil lamphrey. The most interesting thing about it is; the fossil lamprey is virtually identical to “present day” lampreys. The scientists noted that though the fossil had surprisingly not evolved much, it appeared that the lampreys had “gotten slightly longer”. Not much change at all considering 360 million years went by.

That brings us to the subject of this article, “Neanderthal Man”. The more we learn about Neanderthal, the less primitive he becomes, the less different from “us” he becomes. Recent scientific articles have admitted that early European man (Cro-magnon) and Neanderthal met, interacted and even interbred. Another recent article suggests that modern day Europeans, and even Asians, are up to 5% Neanderthal genetically. No neanderthal DNA has been found in Africans and no Neanderthal fossils have been ever found in Africa.

Despite the genetic evidence, some ruling paradigm scientists are still insisting that Neaderthals couldn’t speak and that there certainly was no interbreeding. So, what would happen when scientists were able to isolate Neanderthal DNA, as they have recently actually done with material found in a Croation cave?

Neanderthal DNA is 99.9% identical to “human” DNA!

Blockbuster! All over the news, right? 99.9% identical is certainly startling, all right but it’s not 100% identical, seemingly preserving something for militant Darwinian scientists to hang their hats on. Like saying it looks like lamphreys got slightly longer over 360 million years.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

So you want me to go back in time and and show you some kind of living, breathing trasitional creature?

Sorry, my time machine's in the shop.

Wouldn't it be easier just to submit some observed step-by-step change in the fossil record? But you can't do that either.

I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.

That shows how far from reality you are. I have heard that spoken or preached from pulpits since I was a child. I am by no means the first.

You're not saying Christian evolutions are actually closet satanists are you Kirkwhisper ... ?

No, just self-deceived.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That tells me you aren't reading carefully nor thinking carefully. Of course it's silly. But the fact is that scientists can't do that nor can they perform any experiment to demonstrate the stages in between organisms to ANY degree

It's silly because you seem to think that if evolution was true, dogs would be able to mate with chimps. Like I said - that wouldn't prove evolution, that would disprove it.

Speaking of which ...

how about a chimp that mates with a gorilla that could give us perhaps (gasp!) a neanderthal-like creature?

uh, oh. Guess you can't use that one either

No I can't use that example, since neanderthals aren't gorilla-chimps hybrids. The fact that they had DNA almost identical to us is not a surprise either, as they were one of the last members of the Homo genus. If that didn't have DNA like us? Now that would be a surprise.

If you want us to believe that you really know anything about evolution, you'll have to stop using such silly examples.

Despite the genetic evidence, some ruling paradigm scientists are still insisting that Neaderthals couldn’t speak and that there certainly was no interbreeding.

Actually today (post 2010) most scientists believe neanderthals could speak and frequently interbred with modern humans. In fact every ethnic group outside of Africa has neanderthal DNA.

Every change will be 'within his kind', a la Genesis one.

Since we've already established "kind" probably meant "species", this is hardly a surprise. Inter-species hybrids are rare, and as far as I know animals are not able to breed above this taxonomy.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Wouldn't it be easier just to submit some observed step-by-step change in the fossil record? But you can't do that either.

You said "No charts". But if you want an example: Evolution of the horse (I hate using Wikipedia but this had good pictures of the fossils)

I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.

That shows how far from reality you are. I have heard that spoken or preached from pulpits since I was a child. I am by no means the first.

That would explain a lot.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You said "No charts". But if you want an example: Evolution of the horse (I hate using Wikipedia but this had good pictures of the fossils)

That would explain a lot.

Why don't you try giving us something accurate rather than something I/we have refuted many times?

Hyracotherium
(Eohippus)
(55 million years)

Hyracotherium is as "horse-like" as it is "rhinoceros-like" or "tapir-like" and could equally qualify (given the same evolutionary assumptions) as the ancestor of all three!

Hyracotherium ("dawn horse" eohippus)

• Totally unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat. Some scientists believe that Hyracotherium is simply an extinct subspecies of Hyrax. Robert Owen named the first specimen "Hyracotherium" because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). When the error margin is taken into account for fleshing out the skeleton of Hyracotherium (left top) into a fleshed out photo (left middle), it becomes almost identical to the modern Hyrax

I can shoot down the rest of them just as easy? Shall I go on?

Better yet, you check this out for yourself at: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#test

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Kirkwhisper: Somewhat ironically, when not using ridiculous examples (like saying Neanderthals were gorilla-chimp hybrids) you use examples which confirm evolution is true.

Elephants, rhinos, horses and hyraxes all belong to the order Perissodactyle or "odd-toed ungulates". It makes sense that they all had a common ancestor. Hyracotherium looks like a very good candidate.

The only thing you shot was yourself - in the foot.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Smidlee: I did say genetic differences varied depending on what you measure. Besides:

ABSTRACT: The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.
​

How exactly does this show that humans and chimpanzees aren't closely related?

 

[Montalban]

Where'd you get the idea that they don't use maths in science?

Where'd you get the idea that's what I said. It's someone in YOUR camp who says that maths can't be used to make predictions.

 

[Montalban]

Except you have already admitted fitness isn't simply that which survives it is the traits that enable it to survive.

That which survives survives

 

[Montalban]

Not sure anyone has a random car name generator, though it would explain some of the names. But that has nothing to do with the simple fact you cannot create a phylogenetic tree for cars.

Yes, you can. Start off with the first car developed.

 

[Montalban]

I tough fur was out of fashion now, they still carry out the cull to stop the competition for fish stocks, nothing to do with the colour of their fur. Does Greenpeace still dye the seals green, or was it just in the 70s and 80s? Isn't that kind of a short time for them to evolve a completely different fur colour?

I don't know if they stopped. The point was that having white fur was NOT an advantage to a change in circumstances

Again all you are doing is showing a complete lack of understanding about evolution.

So you may think. But you're examples such as whitness in fur seal pups is faulty.

Wouldn't they need a mutation that produces a green pigment before it could be selected?

Why? If Darwin could example pigeon breeders doing the selecting?

If Richard Dawkins can use the average programmer doing the selecting in biomorphs?

Not sure green would be a terribly good colour for a seal anyway.

Based on what?

And have pups of their own who have white fur when white is an advantage.

That's not a meaningful sentence

No it is a conclusion from what we know about evolution and natural selection. Nor is it circular reasoning to realise a white seal pup is harder for a polar bear to spot than a brown one.

Of course it's circular. You just supposed white fur is an advantage because pups have white fur.

 

[Montalban]

I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.

Like the dodo?

 

[chris4243]

...

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee: I did say genetic differences varied depending on what you measure. Besides:

ABSTRACT: The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.
​

How exactly does this show that humans and chimpanzees aren't closely related?

We are 98% similar to chimps but at the same time 80% difference as well. This is like a movie star "look-a-like" but for a total different family. The last sentence tries to make some sense why the proteins are so different. Scientist has known for a longer time the big differences are not due to genes.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.

Like the dodo?

Dodos died out because they couldn't compete with invasive wildlife - that, and desperate sailors will eat anything. Not because they were unsuccessful breeders.

We are 98% similar to chimps but at the same time 80% difference as well. This is like a movie star "look-a-like" but for a total different family. The last sentence tries to make some sense why the proteins are so different. Scientist has known for a longer time the big differences are not due to genes.

No, not all differences are due to genes. This particular study was looking at particular types of genes - to put it simply, phenotypic genes are responsible for our appearance. Chimps and humans obviously look very different.

But again, I don't see how this proves humans and chimps aren't closely related.

 

[rockytopva]

On the creation of the universe question I believe that originally there were three groups of angels...

Archangel Michael - Strong angels
Archangel Gabriel - Wise angels
Archange Lucifer - Worshiping angels

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High - Isaiah 14:12-14

So Lucifer, being made a beautiful angel, began to wax proud, and in that arrogance fell with a third of the angels with him...

"there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth" -Revelation 12:3-4

I believe that those angels were cast down unto the void of space. In that void of space God spoke these words...

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.- Genesis 1:3

I believe that with these words came the big boom. As in Einstiens theory m = E/c2 so with light and energy came the universe. With the big boom all the galaxies began to flee from the point of origin where they would cool into planets and solar systems. I believe that billions of years would pass until God separated the light and the darkness by creating planets within the solar systems.

All of this required a great deal of time - As we humans are mortal we cannot understand.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.- Genesis 1:1-4


I believe that billions of years past between Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5


And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.- Genesis 1:5


The Power of I Am and E/c2 - Joel Osteen - YouTube

 

[Assyrian]

That which survives survives

Pity you can only keep repeating your tautology, not justifying it.

Yes, you can. Start off with the first car developed.

Away you go then, show us how.