Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Montalban]

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.

That's a bad analogy.

A Honda and a Ford may look similar - four doors, steering wheel, four wheels, but they don't have the same designer

 

[chris4243]

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.

How about you show a phylogenetic tree showing the relationships of one car to another, and when you're unable to do that/don't even try, we can discuss how that is a poor analogy to evolution.

Designer is the operative word here because information and design require intelligence and never result from chance.

Well that is an entirely different topic, and is pointless to discuss because you cannot even pretend to make that claim since you don't know what you yourself mean by "information". Give me a method to quantitatively measure this "information" you speak of, if you wish me to believe you even understand what you are claiming.

 

[shernren]

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

Much obliged

Origen, at least, as well as Augustine and Basil (though they weren't quite as radical as the first).

 

[Montalban]

Origen, at least, as well as Augustine and Basil (though they weren't quite as radical as the first).

Origen isn't a Church Father (as far as I know - I believe he's a heretic)

Augustine believed in creation. He initially believed it happened all at once, but as far as I know he changed his mind)

St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says "Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written."

 

[Montalban]

“No on should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory” said St Ephraim the Syrian

 

[Greg1234]

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"?

"Would you consider an electronic circuit that can distinguish between a high-sounding note and a low-sounding note to be an example of [intelligent] "design"?"

We woukd test the ability of rain and wind to build the circuit. Then we would go from there.

 

[Assyrian]

*

 

[Montalban]

I'm happy with what the ECFs said on the matter

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Shenren, I am so weary of your mocking, condescending attitude that I have chosen to post others. I won't even read yours now.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

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.

Is this a joke? Are you for real?

This....

should not exist in the fossil record? So we have found fossils of bats and fossils of rats(rodents) but NO BAT/RATS anywhere in the world? Now multiply that by virtually every other organism on earth and maybe, just maybe you might realize the magnitude of your problem.

Now, I would kindly suggest you go study 'after its kind' as found in Genesis and then come back and tell us just how you mentally squeezed that clear-cut phrase into mingling human beings genetically with animal and plant life as 'after its kind'. You see, 'after its kind' is a phrase that discriminates human from animals, and animals from plants, it does not conjoin them. But you haven't figure that out.

Quote: "Every thing both in the animal and vegetable world was made so according to its kind, both in genus and species, as to produce its own kind through endless generations. Thus the several races of animals and plants have been kept distinct from the foundation of the world to the present day." Adam Clarke Commentary on the Bible, 200 yrs ago.

This is the classic, biblical position as held by faithful Christians since the time of Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

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

Worth pointing out there that the bible doesn't tell us that creatures reproduce after their kind.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Furthermore, Chris; if nature can so easily change one type of organism into another as you so clearly believe it can...

Then it should be an easy matter to genetically engineer ape into man or vice/versa by a deliberate, intelligent choice of genes.

So go try it sometime. Better yet, find expert geneticists who are perhaps better qualified and have the resources to do it. See if they can intelligently engineer this:

But not only can this not be done but one cannot even force organisms genetically to surprass what God ordained in 'after its kind'. For instance:

Lions and tigers are both feline but one cannot force the genetics of those organisms to produce anything more than feline creatures:

The above is a liger (or 'tigon' if you prefer) and it represents the limit that the filadae will reach as far as natural genetic expression. THE PROBLEM...they are all hybrids. A giant problem for evolution.

The same with canines. There is quite a bit of differential expression in the genes of dogs but one will never see nature produce this:

But you are welcome to try and find someone who has done this genetically and even much more difficult you are welcome to try to find such an example as done by blind, natural processes.

The point is that if nature can do it so easily (blindly!) then intelligent experts in the world of science should be able to reproduce such things even more easily by following natures pattern and speed up the process. It should be easy. But the fact is...they cannot.

Now, do you begin to see the scope & magnitude of your problem?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Worth pointing out there that the bible doesn't tell us that creatures reproduce after their kind.

This individual just lied to us:

Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Le 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
Le 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
Le 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Le 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
De 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
De 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
De 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

Once one rejects the foundational principle of God's Word as found in Genesis the lies that one accepts become bigger and bigger in time.

P.S. the Jewish translation of the Hebrew uses the phrase 'after its kind' in all the verses mentioned above.

 

[shernren]

Shenren, I am so weary of your mocking, condescending attitude that I have chosen to post others. I won't even read yours now.

My mocking, condescending attitude!

Really?

I never believe individuals espousing non-historical Genesis. Such people are always looking for excuses to not believe in Genesis and yet they have the audacity to call their beliefs 'Christian'. Most of those who do so believe in Darwinian evolution in a compromise with evil.

You mean the peer-reviewed 'scientific papers' that are governed by the peer pressure establishment bigots against creationism?

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Does anyone else see how this Darwinian devotee has been brainwashed by the modern evolutionary community to accept such nonsense?

Your reply is a joke. I don't even take you seriously.

... You don't even understand what you're reading to begin with, fella.

... You haven't made any point except that you cannnot grasp the power, mind, no ability of the Creator God you claim to believe in.

... This is your problem, not mine. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, they are. They are VERY bigoted against creation scientists no matter how legitimate their investigations and supportive evidence is. They are not to be trusted.

Because he is allergic to it [the Bible], that's why. That's what Darwinian indoctrination does to professing Christians who believe the lies.

It's a movement led by God hating atheists...and naive Christians listen to them rather than believe what their Bibles plainly tell them about origins.

By the way, the next one just about double-busts my irony-meter:

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

...

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'm not even throwing in all the extra quotations where you outright call evolutionists liars. What we have left here, in aggregation, is that Kirkwhisper thinks that evolutionists are naive Christians, compromising with evil, allergic to their Bibles, being deceived by a bigoted establishment, not worth taking seriously - which is why, of course, he takes the time to reply to them (in fairly harsh terms) many times daily on a forum that nobody outside our little enclave even reads.

And just a little garnish on the top:

Your ridicule means nothing to me.

Uh-huh.

 

[Assyrian]

For someone who has just accused shernren of mockery and refused to read any more of his posts, you really need to try to cut down on the abuse you come out with in yours.

This individual just lied to us:

Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Le 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
Le 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
Le 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Le 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
De 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
De 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
De 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

Once one rejects the foundational principle of God's Word as found in Genesis the lies that one accepts become bigger and bigger in time.

P.S. the Jewish translation of the Hebrew uses the phrase 'after its kind' in all the verses mentioned above.

Do any of the verses say 'reproduce after its kind'? Are Leviticus and Deuteronomy saying what kinds of animals the Israelites and and can't reproduce with? Or what kinds they can and can't eat? You see your problem is you think 'according to their kind' means 'reproduce according to their kind' and you read the idea of reproduction into the text every time you read the phrase. But it's not there. According to their kind means animals come in different varieties and it is telling us the verse is talking about all the different varieties. God told the earth to produce living creatures, in all their different varieties, according to their different kinds.

You would do well to go back to shernren's posts and try to reply to him because he put a lot of work into trying to clear up your misunderstandings.

 

[shernren]

Origen isn't a Church Father (as far as I know - I believe he's a heretic)

Augustine believed in creation. He initially believed it happened all at once, but as far as I know he changed his mind)

St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says "Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written."

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.

 

[mathetes123]

Worth pointing out there that the bible doesn't tell us that creatures reproduce after their kind.

God sent them two by two after their kind to the ark. Sounds to me like that was the intent. Are you aware of animals today that reproduce with animals not of their kind?

Gen 7:13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
Gen 7:14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.
Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
Gen 7:16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.

 

[Papias]

Kirkwhisper wrote:

So we have found fossils of bats and fossils of rats(rodents) but NO BAT/RATS anywhere in the world?

First of all, bats evolved from insectivorous mammals, not rodents. The shorthand of calling the bat ancestors "rats" is, I think, OK with that in mind, because a small, shrewlike insectivorous mammal is going to look like a "rat" to many non-biologist type people.

More importantly, small arboreal creatures often don't fossilize often, so if there were a lack of transitionals between the "rat" and the bat, then that wouldn't be a huge surprise. Luckily, there isn't such a gap. Here is just what Kirkwhisper was saying didn't exist, a transitional "rat/bat, called Onychonycteris.

(an image can be found here, just page down using the green arrow http://tv.ameba.jp/oldworld/entry-10185021651.html)

More info can be found all over, here is one site:
Hyphoid Logic: Bat Transitional Fossil: Intermediate Form Dated to 52 mya

Typical creationist responses to transitional fossils shown after they claimed there weren't any include:

1. Deny it is transitional by claiming it is "just like" one of the ends. This is done by ignoring the many transitional features, often using the term "mosaic creature", which actually has nothing to do with parting the red sea, but rather with having features from both end creatures, thus helping show that it is transitional after all.
2. Claim the fossil is a hoax, even though they have no evidence to base that on.
3. Admit it's transitional, but then insist that they now want transitionals between that transitional and each of the end creatures. In other words, "moving the goalposts".
4. Insist that it must be proven to be in the exact ancestral line (not a child or descendant of one that was), which is of course impossible to do without a birth certificate. Birth certificates weren't, of course, invented yet.
5. (That's all I can think of, but you may know of other common creationist responses.)

I'm personally betting that Kirkwhisper will try #3. What do you think?

So we have found fossils of bats and fossils of rats(rodents) but NO BAT/RATS anywhere in the world? Now multiply that by virtually every other organism on earth and maybe, just maybe you might realize the magnitude of your problem.

Um, Kirkwhisper, you know that literally hundreds of transitional fossils have been found, right? Even just listing the major transitions bridged by them is too long for a post. Here are some resources where you can learn about them yourself, improving your knowledge and hence your ability to witness.

Category:Transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few of the big transitions, like reptile - mammal, reptile- bird, land mammal-whale, and so on, are described (with plenty of transitional fossils) in more detail here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

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.

Here's an evolutionist who trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur. (chickenosaurus?) At least he think this would be evidence of evolution. So the crazy idea of a cat gave birth to a dog probably wouldn't falsify evolution after all.
-----------------------------------------------------

P.S as far as bats I've read evolutionist claiming they lack fossils how bats are related to other mammals. It seems evolutionist wants these missing fossil more than creationist. None of the other insectivorous mammals have anything to do with flight yet even Onychonycteris were already fully able to fly.

 

[shernren]

Here's an evolutionist who trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur. (chickenosaurus?) At least he think this would be evidence of evolution. So the crazy idea of a cat gave birth to a dog probably wouldn't falsify evolution after all.

Because cats totally descended from dogs.