Is God a liar?

Aman777 · May 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
The Bible tells us that Dinos and Mankind were made on the same day. But we know from Paleontology that Dinos were extinct millions of years before Man walked the earth.

Amen. That's because each of God's Days/Ages of creation are some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time. A good example is the present 6th Day which began when Jesus made the beasts of the field and Adam named them. The 6th Day will NOT end until AFTER the millennial reign of Jesus, which is in the future. Amen?

Humble Servant of Christ · May 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
The Bible tells us that Dinos and Mankind were made on the same day. But we know from Paleontology that Dinos were extinct millions of years before Man walked the earth.

Open heart, you are obviously a theistic evolution believer. I know there are many variaitions in this group. Do you believe God created only the 1st simple cells and nature did the rest or do you believe God created different animal types tyat do not all have common ancestor? Do you believe in one common simple single cell organism that spawned all life?

Uber Genius · May 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
We call this punctuated evolution. Study it.

Lol. Appears you haven't "studied it." Punctuated

Punctuated equilibrium was discredited in the late 1980s as finding after finding showed sudden appearance of complex life forms without any gradation from simple to complex (Gould and Eldridge's theory) whatsoever!

Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and J. J. Sepkoski A Comparative Study of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic (Evolution 41 1987) pgs. 1177-86
Look it up.

The fact that new body plans arise suddenly without precursors in the fossil record is inexplicable on PE.

Nothing wrong with their hypothesis. Just new methods in rates of phylogenic diversity, genetics, specifically huge fossil finds in China, determined that PE didn't explain how all major phyla could appear without transitional forms in only 10-20million years.

Gould himself estimated 50,000 just for one new species. He and Eldridge also published a tree of life that didn't represent the vertical trunks as staring from scratch 540 million years ago and being parallel (not intersecting) win their neighboring phyla). Doesn't mean it was a bad hypothesis, just proven false with new methods and much more data Gould and Eldridge didn't have.

Perhaps you should have "looked it up," before just tossing it out there as if it were obviously true. Opps.

Uber Genius · May 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific and give an example.

The majority of human beings have always taken myths figuratively. At least when they mature.

Data is only false if one assumes a literal rather than poetic interpretation of Genesis 1. But since there are currently 7 different conservative theories of how an ancient Jew would have understood the text, only one is literal, then why assume the least compelling inference as to the meaning of Gen 1?

If one jettisons that assumption the universe could be ancient as many church fathers thought, and is represented in scripture. A 13.7 billion yr old universe and 4.6 billion yr earth are in no way ruled out by Gen 1.

Uber Genius · May 25, 2017

BobRyan said:
Hebrew scholars and scholars in OT studies in all world class universities agree - this is not written as myth but as historic account. That is the "intended" meaning of the author for his pri

Strong evidence! False, but sounds compelling.

There are a wide range of views on Genesis 1. And they run the gamut from historical account, to poetic account derived from earlier Mesopotamian myths.

BobRyan · May 25, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Strong evidence! False, but sounds compelling.

There are a wide range of views on Genesis 1. And they run the gamut from historical account, to poetic account derived from earlier Mesopotamian myths.

Indeed - same is true for the bodily resurrection of Christ - a lot of people deny it.

So I go with the "easy part" - if even the atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities "can see" what kind of literature Genesis 1-2, and Exodus 20:11 is... well then so can I as a Christian.

BobRyan · May 25, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Data is only false if one assumes a literal rather than poetic interpretation of Genesis 1.

OR if you can actually read the text and see what kind of literature it is -- whether you like the text or not.

For those that missed it

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

BobRyan · May 25, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Lol. Appears you haven't "studied it." Punctuated

Punctuated equilibrium was discredited in the late 1980s as finding after finding showed sudden appearance of complex life forms without any gradation from simple to complex (Gould and Eldridge's theory) whatsoever!

Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and J. J. Sepkoski A Comparative Study of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic (Evolution 41 1987) pgs. 1177-86
Look it up.

The fact that new body plans arise suddenly without precursors in the fossil record is inexplicable on PE.

Nothing wrong with their hypothesis. Just new methods in rates of phylogenic diversity, genetics, specifically huge fossil finds in China, determined that PE didn't explain how all major phyla could appear without transitional forms in only 10-20million years.

Gould himself estimated 50,000 just for one new species. He and Eldridge also published a tree of life that didn't represent the vertical trunks as staring from scratch 540 million years ago and being parallel (not intersecting) win their neighboring phyla). Doesn't mean it was a bad hypothesis, just proven false with new methods and much more data Gould and Eldridge didn't have.

Perhaps you should have "looked it up," before just tossing it out there as if it were obviously true. Opps.

Gould was trying to argue for evolutionism surviving the lack of intermediates by claiming that all the intermediates happened in short bursts of accelerated evolutionism too short to "capture" in the fossil record as a fossil.

Aman777 · May 25, 2017

BobRyan said:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

False, since the future events of Genesis 1:28-31 will NOT take place until AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. IOW, Today remains the 6th Day/Age in the creation of God's perfect 3rd Heaven wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2Pe 3:13

Meowzltov · May 25, 2017

Uber Genius said:
But since there are currently 7 different conservative theories of how an ancient Jew would have understood the text, only one is literal

Right. We are on the same page.

Meowzltov · May 25, 2017

Humble Servant of Christ said:
Open heart, you are obviously a theistic evolution believer. I know there are many variaitions in this group. Do you believe God created only the 1st simple cells and nature did the rest or do you believe God created different animal types tyat do not all have common ancestor? Do you believe in one common simple single cell organism that spawned all life?

I believe that God created the first life form -- I don't know if it could even be called a cell. All I know is that it had the ability to reproduce itself. All life on the earth today is descended from that early life. That's what the evidence supports.

My thing is that I doubt that natural selection is enough to explain life as it is today. I think there is "divine nudging" as to which direction evolution takes. But there is a chance I could be wrong about that. It could simply be that God created that first life and the rules for evolution, and sat back and smiled,saying "It is good!"

Meowzltov · May 25, 2017

Aman777 said:
Doesn't compute since you ignored the darkness or death which was upon the heaven (Air) earth without form (Dust) and water which came forth from the Air, of which ALL things are made.

This is not what science supports.

Humble Servant of Christ · May 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
I believe that God created the first life form -- I don't know if it could even be called a cell. All I know is that it had the ability to reproduce itself. All life on the earth today is descended from that early life. That's what the evidence supports.

My thing is that I doubt that natural selection is enough to explain life as it is today. I think there is "divine nudging" as to which direction evolution takes. But there is a chance I could be wrong about that. It could simply be that God created that first life and the rules for evolution, and sat back and smiled,saying "It is good!"

I am just curious, when did humanity become human as opposed to a humanoid animal according to theistic evolution?

Speedwell · May 25, 2017

Humble Servant of Christ said:
I am just curious, when did humanity become human as opposed to a humanoid animal according to theistic evolution?

Just as Genesis tells us, when they developed the ability to contemplate the moral consequences of their acts and to face the prospect of their own mortality. That is how sin and death entered the world, as Paul says, but it probably happened gradually, rather than abruptly as in Genesis.

Meowzltov · May 25, 2017

Humble Servant of Christ said:
I am just curious, when did humanity become human as opposed to a humanoid animal according to theistic evolution?

About 200,000 years ago.

In my view, what separated homo sapiens sapiens from others of genus homo, was our moral moral sentience. IOW, before we were modern human beings, we were innocent animals, unaware of right and wrong, and thus not responsible, just as a chimpanzee is not morally responsible for stealing a banana from a hungry youngster. With moral sentience, we knew right from wrong, and became responsible. This meant we could sin. Thus, the fall. The fall is very historical, even if not quite the way it happened in Genesis 2.

Aman777 · May 26, 2017

Aman777 said: ↑
Doesn't compute since you ignored the darkness or death which was upon the heaven (Air) earth without form (Dust) and water which came forth from the Air, of which ALL things are made.

Open Heart said:
This is not what science supports.

Sure it is, since Science has discovered that our Cosmos had a beginning and God tells us WHEN. It was at the end of God's 3rd Day Gen 2:4 (13.8 Billion years ago in man's time) since the FIRST Stars of our Universe lit up on the 4th Day Gen 1:16 which was LESS than a Billion years later, according to Science.

When did the first stars form - 750 million years after the Big Bang
www.zmescience.com/space/when-did-the-first-stars-form-750-million-years/

God's Truth is the Truth Scientifically IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?

Aman777 · May 26, 2017

Open Heart said:
About 200,000 years ago.

In my view, what separated homo sapiens sapiens from others of genus homo, was our moral moral sentience. IOW, before we were modern human beings, we were innocent animals, unaware of right and wrong, and thus not responsible, just as a chimpanzee is not morally responsible for stealing a banana from a hungry youngster. With moral sentience, we knew right from wrong, and became responsible. This meant we could sin. Thus, the fall. The fall is very historical, even if not quite the way it happened in Genesis 2.

Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day before the plants, herbs, rain, trees AND BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7 Science has confused the sons of God (prehistoric people) whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 They are Their kinds or the kinds created eternally by The Trinity (God).

Adam was made by Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) Gen 2:7 as a potter molds the clay and squeezed into shape by the Hands of the Lord. Gen 2:7 This means that IF Adam/mankind wants to live in Heaven with God (The Trinity) then mankind MUST be born again Spiritually.

The satanic notion that we evolved our superior intelligence from Mindless Nature is the biggest Lie ever forced upon our children. Humans (descendants of Adam) are the children of the Lord and rank ABOVE the Angels in God's order in Heaven. 1Co 6:3 We will have dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature when Jesus returns Gen 1:28 at Armageddon.

So tell the evolutionists that Humans came to this planet 11k years ago in the Ark and Human civilization on this Earth, can be traced to their arrival. That's God's literal Truth which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Adam/mankind. God Bless you

Uber Genius · May 26, 2017

BobRyan said:
Gould was trying to argue for evolutionism surviving the lack of intermediates by claiming that all the intermediates happened in short bursts of accelerated evolutionism too short to "capture" in the fossil record as a fossil.

Yes. Detailed, well-preserved fossil finds all over the world but most notable China, from 1980s to present wiped out Gould's argument from ignorance.

Uber Genius · May 26, 2017

Aman777 said:
Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day before the plants, herbs, rain, trees AND BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7 Science has confused the sons of God (prehistoric people) whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 They are Their kinds or the kinds created eternally by The Trinity (God).

Adam was made by Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) Gen 2:7 as a potter molds the clay and squeezed into shape by the Hands of the Lord. Gen 2:7 This means that IF Adam/mankind wants to live in Heaven with God (The Trinity) then mankind MUST be born again Spiritually.

The satanic notion that we evolved our superior intelligence from Mindless Nature is the biggest Lie ever forced upon our children. Humans (descendants of Adam) are the children of the Lord and rank ABOVE the Angels in God's order in Heaven. 1Co 6:3 We will have dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature when Jesus returns Gen 1:28 at Armageddon.

So tell the evolutionists that Humans came to this planet 11k years ago in the Ark and Human civilization on this Earth, can be traced to their arrival. That's God's literal Truth which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Adam/mankind. God Bless you[/QUOTE

Not sure of your sources. "Sons of God" had a specific meaning in the Old Testament and it has nothing to do with prehistoric man. Source?

BobRyan · May 26, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Yes. Detailed, well-preserved fossil finds all over the world but most notable China, from 1980s to present wiped out Gould's argument from ignorance.

So then details with no intermediates proved him wrong??? (And of course Gould did not claim absolutely "no" intermediates)

Of course the argument for evolutionism is usually of the form 'well yes we did have all those problems as of day-before-yesterday but no as of yesterday all the problems are solved somehow"

======================= meanwhile

“Abstract: ‘In each major class of biological objects, the principal types emerge ‘ready-made’, and intermediate grades cannot be identified.’ Ouch, that will be up on ID websites faster than one can bat an eye.
Author's response: Here I do not really understand the concern. I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem. I think this is my approach here and elsewhere.” (William Martin (University of Duesseldorf), reviewing article, and response by author Eugene v. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2:21 (August 20, 2007).)

"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"When we view Darwinian gradualism on a geological timescale, we may expect to find in the fossil record a long series of intermediate forms connecting phenotypes of ancestral and descendant populations. This predicted pattern is called phyletic gradualism. Darwin recognized that phyletic gradualism is not often revealed by the fossil record. Studies conducted since Darwin’s time likewise have failed to produce the continuous series of fossils predicted by phyletic gradualism. Is the theory of gradualism therefore refuted? Darwin and others claim that it is not, because the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve transitional series...Others have argued, however, that the abrupt origins and extinctions of species in the fossil record force us to conclude that phyletic gradualism is rare."
"A number of contemporary biologists, however, favor various hypotheses of the punctuated equilibrium theory...They base their hypotheses on fossil records which have large “chains” of missing organisms. Although missing-link fossils are occasionally discovered, the record does little to support Darwin’s concept of gradual, long-term change...Others opposed to hypotheses of evolution through sudden change argue that because such a tiny percentage of organisms becomes fossilized...drawing definite conclusions from fossil evidence about evolution through either gradual or sudden change is not warranted." (Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and A. Larson. 2000. Animal Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 429pp.; (p. 23, 261))

Is God a liar?

Christian

Humble Mustanger

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Christian

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Humble Mustanger

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Christian

Christian

"Super Genius"

"Super Genius"

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency