Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[chris4243]

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.

You've said this before, and I've answered it before. Where's your phylogenetic tree of car evolution, so that you can compare it to the phylogenetic tree from the theory of common descent? First make a comparison, then we'll discuss the comparison. If you don't make a comparison how can we discuss it as though it were a comparison?

When I look at the technological progress in the automotive industry, I don't see a phylogenetic tree. I see multiple components changing independently and then being incorporated into very different looking cars. Ie, car design looks like design, and the evolution of life looks like evolution from a common ancestor. Can you give an example of distantly related species having the same exact component (not similar, but exactly the same as occurs in certain car parts)?

Either I know very little about cars, or you make extremely poor comparison to them.

Just to clarify, how is:

Ford Model T
|
|
car
|
|
other car
|
|
Lamborghini

similar to something like

Name a few groupings of automobiles and what ancestral traits distinguish them from other groupings. This is the comparison you're trying to make, no? Cause I don't see how it is similar.

 

[chris4243]

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!

Suppose I challenge you with "ahpdji sjioasd msdew opwsasjop aojsdio asjiodpj!!!" Wouldn't you not respond to such a challenge? I don't know what you, or other creationists for that matter, consider to be "classifiably different type of organism" nor what you mean by "visibly transformed". My guess is you're asking for an example of something the theory of evolution says cannot happen.

So, I've asked you repeatedly to give an example of what you think the theory of evolution predicts we should see, and you have yet to respond other than to repeat once more your gibberish of a challenge. I've debated other creationists before -- like them, you will undoubtedly modify your meaning of "classifiably different type of organism" each time your challenge seems to be answered. Rather than get into an endless debate about semantics, I asked for a specific example.

 

[dbcsf]

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

Originally Jenni asked:

I don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe the biblical account of creation would want to be a christian.

If you don't believe the biblical account of creation, what do you believe, why, and how is it logical to believe as you do

I am only giving her my point of view. Pappias gave a nice summary in response, which I liked. I am not trying to convert anybody to believing anything they would prefer not to believe. I am just trying to answer the question posed.

I am one of those Christians who does not believe that the creation story is factual. I believe it is a story, or a poem, or a literary genre of some type that is not intended to be read by modern Christians as fact.

I believe Jenni's worry is that if I do not accept the bible as completely factual about all possible subject matter, then God lied about something. And if God lied about something, then why should I believe God about anything else, especially my salvation?

My answer is that God did not lie about anything. God chose to reveal spiritual relationship truth, not factual, historical, scientific, physical truth.

My argument was, essentially, that God created man to search after Him in a non-factual manner.

I supported this argument by pointing out that most Christians do not read the bible to obtain facts about Nature, Physics, Political Science, proper grammar, History, Biology, Medicine, etc.

My argument is that if most people are reading the bible to find out how to relate to God properly, how to solve conflicts in their church, how to deal with a world hostile to Christianity, how to love your wife in a godly manner, etc. then,

the bible was never written to provide eternal truth about Nature, Physics, Political Science, proper grammar, History, Biology, Medicine, etc.

Consequently, if I do not believe the bible was written for the above, then I am free to read it for the truth I believe it does contain. I believe that truth is spiritual truth. Primarily, this truth concerns how God and mankind relate to one another.

I hope this answers the question as to how someone might believe in personal salvation while not believing in factual creation.

 

[Papias]

dbcsf wrote:

I am only giving her my point of view. Pappias gave a nice summary in response, which I liked. I am not trying to convert anybody to believing anything they would prefer not to believe. I am just trying to answer the question posed.

Thanks!

Yes, a poem on creation, I agree. That type of communication (symbolic, metaphorical, type parables) are common in the Word of God. In fact, can we be surprised that the same God, who when on earth spoke only in symbolic parables, and uses symbolic speech commonly in both the old and new Testaments, chose to use symbolic language at the very start of His commication with us?

As you'll see, however, some Christians disagree strongly, to the point that they even sometimes question our salvation.

Blessings-

Papias


P. S. -
Chris, another way to say what you are saying is to point out that descent with modification naturally gives a nested hierarchy of classification - something that won't work with cars. I bet even Kirkwhisper knows that cars don't form a nested hierarchy.........

 

[TasManOfGod]

You've said this before, and I've answered it before. Where's your phylogenetic tree of car evolution, so that you can compare it to the phylogenetic tree from the theory of common descent? First make a comparison, then we'll discuss the comparison. If you don't make a comparison how can we discuss it as though it were a comparison?

When I look at the technological progress in the automotive industry, I don't see a phylogenetic tree. I see multiple components changing independently and then being incorporated into very different looking cars. Ie, car design looks like design, and the evolution of life looks like evolution from a common ancestor. Can you give an example of distantly related species having the same exact component (not similar, but exactly the same as occurs in certain car parts)?

Either I know very little about cars, or you make extremely poor comparison to them.

Just to clarify, how is:

Ford Model T
|
|
car
|
|
other car
|
|
Lamborghini

similar to something like

Name a few groupings of automobiles and what ancestral traits distinguish them from other groupings. This is the comparison you're trying to make, no? Cause I don't see how it is similar.

Cars can only vary within their own species depending on their enviroment. Left hand drive Fords in certain countries change to right hand drive Fords in others. Researchers at wrecking yards have not come up with half Ford half Toyota transitionals suggesting that they can only evolve within their species.

 

[Papias]

Tasmanofgod:

Descent with modification naturally gives what we see in the natural world - a nested hierarchy of classification. Are you saying that you can classify cars to form a nested hierarchy, based on their features?

Papias

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Cars can only vary within their own species depending on their enviroment.

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I made the point that we know that all motor vehicles were intelligently engineered and yet you come back with that?

Left hand drive Fords in certain countries change to right hand drive Fords

in others.

By natural processes? On what planet? Man, if I were one of the other theistic evo's on this thread then I would be telling you to please BE QUIET! NOW! You many get a few PM's from your allies shortly, friend.

Researchers at wrecking yards have not come up with half Ford half Toyota transitionals suggesting that they can only evolve within their species.

Gee, I wonder why? (scratch, scratch)

Nice graph, fella, but it has no more basis in reality than does the artwork of Haeckel.

You can post all the graphs and pretty pictures you wish but you will never depict any organism that can be linked to any other classifiably different organism. God's law of 'after his kind' stands.

Either you are (1) playing games by being facetious, or (2) you need to hit the books again, (hint: not Darwinist flavored nonsense).

 

[Montalban]

Either I know very little about cars, or you make extremely poor comparison to them.

Just to clarify, how is:

Ford Model T
|
|
car
|
|
other car
|
|
Lamborghini

similar to something like

Name a few groupings of automobiles and what ancestral traits distinguish them from other groupings. This is the comparison you're trying to make, no? Cause I don't see how it is similar.

Firstly the are similar, you seem to think that they are not because your pic has more details of other branches.

One could have branches for Ford including 'extinctions' such as the Edsel.

 

[Montalban]

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").

And it's irrelevant what I think is the best descriptor. I prefer to look to what the people involved in the issue say.

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.

Actually the argument is the phrase - he said it was the best phrase to describe 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.

A tautology is ultimately a meaingless phrase.

If you're happy with that, so be it.

What it actually means is 'that which survives survives' or 'survival of the surviviest'.

'Fitness' to survive is simply whatever traits that allow something to survive. And you can only know that retrospectively

 

[Assyrian]

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I made the point that we know that all motor vehicles were intelligently engineered and yet you come back with that?

By natural processes? On what planet? Man, if I were one of the other theistic evo's on this thread then I would be telling you to please BE QUIET! NOW! You many get a few PM's from your allies shortly, friend.

Gee, I wonder why? (scratch, scratch)

Nice graph, fella, but it has no more basis in reality than does the artwork of Haeckel.

You can post all the graphs and pretty pictures you wish but you will never depict any organism that can be linked to any other classifiably different organism. God's law of 'after his kind' stands.

Either you are (1) playing games by being facetious, or (2) you need to hit the books again, (hint: not Darwinist flavored nonsense).

You realise TasManOfGod is a Creationist?

 

[Assyrian]

And it's irrelevant what I think is the best descriptor. I prefer to look to what the people involved in the issue say.

Actually the argument is the phrase - he said it was the best phrase to describe his theory

A tautology is ultimately a meaingless phrase.

If you're happy with that, so be it.

What it actually means is 'that which survives survives' or 'survival of the surviviest'.

'Fitness' to survive is simply whatever traits that allow something to survive. And you can only know that retrospectively

So fitness does not simply mean survive, it means there were traits that allowed it to survive. Then your tautology is gone. But all this was explained to you before, why do you cling onto your misunderstanding?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

dbcsf;

I am one of those Christians who does not believe that the creation story is factual.

Wouldn't it be just as easy to say you don't believe the death of Christ and His resurrection from the dead were factual? Same Bible, friend. Why deny the historicity of the one and not the other?

I believe it is a story, or a poem, or a literary genre of some type that is not intended to be read by modern Christians as fact.

No, it was not a poem, prose, nor a symbolical story. Jesus said so. He affirmed the historical truth of Adam & Eve, (Mark 10:6), confirmed all that Moses said in Genesis; (Luke 24:25-27), Cain & Abel (Luke 11:51), Lot & his wife (Luke 17:32), Noah & the flood, (Matt. 24:35-37) etc. There isn't a single hint that any of those events or occurrences were anything less than literal. Just read them for yourself.

I believe Jenni's worry is that if I do not accept the bible as completely factual about all possible subject matter, then God lied about something. And if God lied about something, then why should I believe God about anything else, especially my salvation?

Why should you doubt what He told you about the creation week to begin with? You are right; God did not lie. Now just believe Him and not the heretcial evolutionists who defy His Word.

My answer is that God did not lie about anything. God chose to reveal spiritual relationship truth, not factual, historical, scientific, physical truth & insult His integrity as if He did not give us the accurate account of the creation & development of the world.

God meant what He said and said what meant in Genesis and you have no scriptural nor scientific reason to doubt what He said in the plainest meaning of the words He gave us. Please read the verses I quoted above and see if you can find any notion of a non-literal past for Genesis. Remember that those are all the words of Jesus Himself.

Think with me: Jesus family lineage goes back to Genesis (Luke 3) and Adam was the first in His family line which MUST be legitimate in order to be legal.................................................otherwise, Jesus has no right to claim to be heir to the throne of David. Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us He is that heir. Now what does that tell you? Are you thinking? Unless you have blinders over your eyes then the truth of it should click.

My argument was, essentially, that God created man to search after Him in a non-factual manner.

You mean sort of like Jesus dying on the 'cross' like this?

Notice that in Dali's depiction Christ's body is not even touching the cross and there is no shed blood. BUT....if we interpret this in the same way you have chosen to interpret Genesis, then why should we believe His death to be literal or that His shed blood is essential? What compelling reason is there to believe it was a real, literal, or historical act? Do you get where I am going with this?

I supported this argument by pointing out that most Christians do not read the bible to obtain facts about Nature, Physics, Political Science, proper grammar, History, Biology, Medicine, etc.

Those facts, wherever and whenever they touch on or are in connection with Genesis give evidence to creation and not evolution. Evolution, in fact, does not exist. The world is degenerating, not evolving. The Bible is clear about that.

My argument is that if most people are reading the bible to find out how to relate to God properly, how to solve conflicts in their church, how to deal with a world hostile to Christianity, how to love your wife in a godly manner, etc. then,

But why should you take those things any more literal than Genesis? Do you realize that virtually all of the great doctrines of the Christian faith are found in Genesis? It is foundational. However, if 'the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" the scriptures tell us. If I reject Adam as a real, literal person who acted in time and space, then why not reject JESUS(!) for the same reason? Most atheists do, and think they have good reasons to reject both.

the bible was never written to provide eternal truth about Nature, Physics, Political Science, proper grammar, History, Biology, Medicine, etc.

You've got a lot to learn. I will pray for you.

I will not judge your eternal soul. That is for God to do. But when I was a young man confronted with the real truth about creation as opposed to evolution, I saw the truth of it very quickly and I converted. If you are led by the Holy Spirit then so will you in time.

I am not trying to convert anybody to believing anything they would prefer not to believe.

But if you are a real Christian you are supposed to be trying to convert the lost to Christ, (Matt. 28:19), strengthen the faith of your brethren (I Thess. 5:11) in the faith, and contending for the faith against heretics(Jude 1:3). These are all commands and not left up to personal opinion or feelings. So if you feel this is not your calling then what is your purpose here?

Best wishes.

 

[chris4243]

Firstly the are similar, you seem to think that they are not because your pic has more details of other branches.

One could have branches for Ford including 'extinctions' such as the Edsel.

I just don't see it. I've seen plenty of creationists bring up the "car evolution" "analogy". I've never seen a creationist describe the relationship of cars to each other in any way similar to the evolutionary description of the relationship of living things to each other. I'm guessing that this is because the two don't match, although it could also be because creationists are lazy. Prove me wrong -- create the branched graph you claim exists in car model designs -- or prove me right, make excuses.

 

[Smidlee]

So fitness does not simply mean survive, it means there were traits that allowed it to survive. Then your tautology is gone. But all this was explained to you before, why do you cling onto your misunderstanding?

How do we know the traits that allowed survival? By looking at the survivors. if something didn't survive then we know it didn't have traits that survives.
It's the same how do we know eyeballs evolve? duh! because animals have eyeballs. Plants doesn't have eyeballs so we know they didn't evolve eyeballs.

 

[Montalban]

So fitness does not simply mean survive, it means there were traits that allowed it to survive. Then your tautology is gone. But all this was explained to you before, why do you cling onto your misunderstanding?

The tautology isn't gone. Whatever surives survies is a tautology!

Survival is the determiner of what is fit.

Take a look at two people, one is tall and one is short. Which 'trait' is the trait that allows them to survive? Maybe neither however whatever traits they have something is helping them survive therefore they're fit to survive.

Because we don't know the trait (unless we judge this retrospectively) we don't know what leads to survival.

In the future being tall might help people survive. OR being short might. At present we can't say "Being tall gives one an 'advantage' because short people also exist.

 

[Montalban]

How do we know the traits that allowed survival? By looking at the survivors. if something didn't survive then we know it didn't have traits that survives.
It's the same how do we know eyeballs evolve? duh! because animals have eyeballs. Plants doesn't have eyeballs so we know they didn't evolve eyeballs.

Absolutely! Someone might say that being a muscular stag is an 'advantage' over being a thin stag. But if there's three stags, the two big ones might challenge each other, lock horns (which can happen) and die. Then the meek stag gets all the doe that he can want.

Therefore we can't know that being a weak stag is a disadvantage till we apply the test retrospectively.

 

[Smidlee]

The tautology isn't gone. Whatever surives survies is a tautology!

you don't get it. it's the survival of the survival traits.
For example, We know a survival trait for birds is flight . We also know another survival trait for birds is non-flight.
Fly or not to fly? that's the question for the birds.

 

[Montalban]

I just don't see it. I've seen plenty of creationists bring up the "car evolution" "analogy". I've never seen a creationist describe the relationship of cars to each other in any way similar to the evolutionary description of the relationship of living things to each other. I'm guessing that this is because the two don't match, although it could also be because creationists are lazy. Prove me wrong -- create the branched graph you claim exists in car model designs -- or prove me right, make excuses.

Well certainly designers often go off previous models - for economy of sharing the same parts.

I'd tend to go with 'lazy' as I personally can't be bothered coming up with a more complex chart that means exactly the same thing anyway - only that it has more branches.

 

[Montalban]

you don't get it. it's the survival of the survival traits.
For example, We know a survival trait for birds is flight . We also know another survival trait for birds is non-flight.
fly or not to fly? that's the question for the birds.

It's the same with insect colouring.

If an insect is green then they say "It's evolved to blend in with the environment"

If it's red they say "It's evolved to give a warning to potential predators"

 

[Assyrian]

The tautology isn't gone. Whatever surives survies is a tautology!

Yes but that isn't what Darwin said. Notice how you have to rearrange the statement to make it a tautology? You said it was about traits, not just survival. Could it be you want it to be a tautology to give you an excuse to dismiss evolution?