Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

Stop the nonsense. There is no place for a literal Genesis in reality due to FACTS.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

If you cannot prove there was a global flood which would be very easy to do IF it had taken place, then it NEVER happened.


So either produce credible evidence for a global floood or admit it is ancient mans mythology

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

God created plants and animals, and people, with the marvelous ability for great variation within the limits God defined as a "kind". We see those limits today, as in the past.

I think evolutionists misleadingly label "evolution" as synonymous with "change".

But that is what evolution is. Evolution is change in genetic variation and information over time either through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, or otherwise.

I think the issue is that people think that evolution is taking away the idea of "kind" the people who wrote the books of the Bible were not idiots, though they were ignorant of many things, just as we are today ignorant of many things. What science has done is taken the idea of kinds and explain how those kinds have come to be and how those kinds have changed throughout their history. It's gone even further be redefining through genetics that things that we assumed were of the same "kind" are not.

Are you a young-earth believer Rusra?

If so, how do you explain dinosaurs that had feathers? Were they bird kind or reptile kind?

How about fungi? Are they plant kind or animal kind?

How about bacteria which they did not know existed at the time the writers of the bible were writing their books do they not exist? If so what kind do they fall under?

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps new "species", but not new "kinds".

The term "speciation" is a term used in evolutionary theory to refer to what creationists call "macroevolution". Speciation is when a new species evolves. A species is usually defined based on several phenotypical differences but also cross-species reproductive limitations. In other words, you "kinds" doesn't do anything to explain anything. You are admitting to "speciation" which is ... tada!!! EVOLUTION!!!

Evolutionists claim one family of animals changed into a different family.

Family, species, genus, are only rough estimates based on a larger number of differences. Species have fewer differences, and up you go on the taxonomic ladder, the more differences. It's only the amount of differences, not that they're different. You are admitting to evolution when you admit to speciation. Simple as that. Speciation is your loved "macroevolution". New species come through speciation.

There is no evidence for this. A wolf is not the same species as a Dog, but they can interbreed.

So Noah had a dog or a wolf on the ark, and then it evolved to dog or wolf after. Evolved through genetic mutations and selection.

That is variety within kinds, not evolution. W refers to Watchtower, 95 is year and 1/15 is issue.

They're well known for complete ignorance of science and misunderstanding simple concepts. It's one of the worst references for anything relating to science. You will get better source material from a cartoon.

Humans, with their tremendous variations in size, shape, color, and features all all of the same kind, humankind.

And some of the gene loci have more than 100 different alleles. That is genetic differences that cannot, I repeat cannot mathematically or biologically, have been represented on the ark since it was only a handful of people.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here is a quote from Wikipedia about "species". "It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,[14] and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[15]" Thus, no one knows how many species are on earth. A Google search turned up these numbers:
Vertebrates
Amphibians 6,199
Birds 9,956
Fish 30,000
Mammals 5,416
Reptiles 8,240
Subtotal 59,811
Invertebrates
Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Subtotal 1,203,375

1,203,373 species that have come into existence through mutations of the genes. You can't deny evolution anymore. And worse, you have to admit to a super rapid evolutionary leap for the last few thousand years. Find some scientific evidence for this explosion (100 times faster than the cambrian).

You have to accept evolution if you accept "kinds" on an ark. Simple as that.

 

[Ouroboros]

God created plants and animals, and people, with the marvelous ability for great variation within the limits God defined as a "kind". We see those limits today, as in the past.

Uhm... you don't even know how these variations work, do you?

They are genetic variations. You don't have genetic variations implanted beforehand. They didn't exist before.

I think evolutionists misleadingly label "evolution" as synonymous with "change".

OMG!!! This is hurtful.

The first thing we learned in anthropology was that "evolution" does mean "change." That's what it means. It's not misleading or mislabeled. It was picked for the reason of arguing "change". It always meant change.

When Darwin used it for his book, it was meant to mean "change".

 

[rusra02]

But that is what evolution is. Evolution is change in genetic variation and information over time either through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, or otherwise.

I think the issue is that people think that evolution is taking away the idea of "kind" the people who wrote the books of the Bible were not idiots, though they were ignorant of many things, just as we are today ignorant of many things. What science has done is taken the idea of kinds and explain how those kinds have come to be and how those kinds have changed throughout their history. It's gone even further be redefining through genetics that things that we assumed were of the same "kind" are not.

Are you a young-earth believer Rusra?

If so, how do you explain dinosaurs that had feathers? Were they bird kind or reptile kind?

How about fungi? Are they plant kind or animal kind?

How about bacteria which they did not know existed at the time the writers of the bible were writing their books do they not exist? If so what kind do they fall under?

No, I disagree with YECs

Here is an interesting quote:" Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found."

The Bible does not mention fungi, bacteria, or other microscopic life, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I disagree with YECs

Here is an interesting quote:" Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found."

In fact: paleontologists were the ones who proved it to be fake.

In fact: paleontologists have found thousands of fossils that are not fake the last 10-15 years.

The Bible does not mention fungi, bacteria, or other microscopic life, to the best of my knowledge.

So where was it stored during the flood? Where did it come from? Did God create it before or after the flood? What kind of yeast did Noah use to make wine? (it usually only stay alive for 3-6 months if refrigerated. It do it for beer making. And too many generations creates mutations. Off-flavors and such.)

 

[outhouse]

No, I disagree with YECs

Here is an interesting quote:" Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found."

The Bible does not mention fungi, bacteria, or other microscopic life, to the best of my knowledge.

There is no place for a literal Genesis in reality due to FACTS.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

Do we need to post the defintion of FACTS for you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, I disagree with YECs

Here is an interesting quote:" Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found."

The Bible does not mention fungi, bacteria, or other microscopic life, to the best of my knowledge.

It also doesn't differentiate between multicellular or single celled and fungi can be both.

As for that quote can you show me where you got it from please? As well what do you think of this creature?

File:Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As well the fossil record is not the only one, do you think that the genetic information we have also gathered is false?

 

[metis]

Here is a quote from Wikipedia about "species". "It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,[14] and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[15]" Thus, no one knows how many species are on earth. A Google search turned up these numbers:
Vertebrates
Amphibians 6,199
Birds 9,956
Fish 30,000
Mammals 5,416
Reptiles 8,240
Subtotal 59,811
Invertebrates
Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Subtotal 1,203,375

With the vast majority of organisms, "species" means that two can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, and this has been the general definition for probably around two centuries.

 

[metis]

God created plants and animals, and people, with the marvelous ability for great variation within the limits God defined as a "kind". We see those limits today, as in the past.

The only breal limit likely is time. All organisms' genetic data changes over time, therefore if there's enough time, almost anything could eventually emerge-- and has. There simply is not one iota of evidence to suggest that there's a magical stop between "kinds" whereas evolution stops. Matter of fact, what you say above actually defeats your own position because the minute you admit there's genetic change taking place, then the only other thing that's a variable is time.

I think evolutionists misleadingly label "evolution" as synonymous with "change".

Actually "evolution" means "change". But talk about "misleading" is your word "evolutionist". Try "scientist" instead. One does not "believe" in evolution-- either one realizes it or they don't. Either you're aware of something or you're not. For example, the moon doesn't somehow disappear just because Joe Schmoe doesn't "believe" in it.

 

[rusra02]

Uhm... you don't even know how these variations work, do you?

They are genetic variations. You don't have genetic variations implanted beforehand. They didn't exist before.




OMG!!! This is hurtful.

The first thing we learned in anthropology was that "evolution" does mean "change." That's what it means. It's not misleading or mislabeled. It was picked for the reason of arguing "change". It always meant change.

When Darwin used it for his book, it was meant to mean "change".

You obviously did not check the definition in common usage. From the Free Dictionary:"
evolution - definition of evolution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
ev·o·lu·tion ( v -l sh n, v -). n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at ...
‎Evolution in sociology - ‎Evolutionary - ‎Evolutionary psychology - ‎Organic evolution."
Thus the word does not define simply change, but change from simple to complex, from single-celled organisms to more advanced life forms. As posited by the ToE. Is bread becoming moldy evolution? It certainly is changing.

 

[rusra02]

The only breal limit likely is time. All organisms' genetic data changes over time, therefore if there's enough time, almost anything could eventually emerge-- and has. There simply is not one iota of evidence to suggest that there's a magical stop between "kinds" whereas evolution stops. Matter of fact, what you say above actually defeats your own position because the minute you admit there's genetic change taking place, then the only other thing that's a variable is time.



Actually "evolution" means "change". But talk about "misleading" is your word "evolutionist". Try "scientist" instead. One does not "believe" in evolution-- either one realizes it or they don't. Either you're aware of something or you're not. For example, the moon doesn't somehow disappear just because Joe Schmoe doesn't "believe" in it.

Many scientists reject evolution as a viable explanation for life's diversity, and not all who believe in evolution are scientists. And there is evidence for the moon. Not so for macro-evolution. It is pseudo-science, IMO.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You obviously did not check the definition in common usage. From the Free Dictionary:"
evolution - definition of evolution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
ev·o·lu·tion ( v -l sh n, v -). n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at ...
‎Evolution in sociology - ‎Evolutionary - ‎Evolutionary psychology - ‎Organic evolution."
Thus the word does not define simply change, but change from simple to complex, from single-celled organisms to more advanced life forms. As posited by the ToE. Is bread becoming moldy evolution? It certainly is changing.

Evolution itself as a word does mean change, it's actually the unrolling of events, stars for instance evolve.

Mind you though it says complex OR better form. A from does not need to be complex to be better. It can actually be better for something to be simple. Sexual reproduction for instance is complex and it use to be thought that it was better for things when under extreme pressure to turn to sexual reproduction, but rather asexual reproduction which is not as complex is still a viable option for organisms under extreme pressure.

That definition however is extremely simplistic. A better definition would be:

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. --This is from Wikipedia.

 

[rusra02]

The term "speciation" is a term used in evolutionary theory to refer to what creationists call "macroevolution". Speciation is when a new species evolves. A species is usually defined based on several phenotypical differences but also cross-species reproductive limitations. In other words, you "kinds" doesn't do anything to explain anything. You are admitting to "speciation" which is ... tada!!! EVOLUTION!!!


Family, species, genus, are only rough estimates based on a larger number of differences. Species have fewer differences, and up you go on the taxonomic ladder, the more differences. It's only the amount of differences, not that they're different. You are admitting to evolution when you admit to speciation. Simple as that. Speciation is your loved "macroevolution". New species come through speciation.


So Noah had a dog or a wolf on the ark, and then it evolved to dog or wolf after. Evolved through genetic mutations and selection.


They're well known for complete ignorance of science and misunderstanding simple concepts. It's one of the worst references for anything relating to science. You will get better source material from a cartoon.


And some of the gene loci have more than 100 different alleles. That is genetic differences that cannot, I repeat cannot mathematically or biologically, have been represented on the ark since it was only a handful of people.

No, a wolf doesn't evolve into a dog or vice-versa. Rather, such ability for variety within kinds has always been present. There is a biological line that neither can cross and reproduce.
As to your sneer about the Watchtower, you sing the common refrain of evolutionist propagandists everywhere. You ridicule and denigrate any who dare challenge or question the evolutionary propaganda, be they scientists or well-researched publications. I think it bespeaks the desperation some evolutionists feel about the weaknesses of their theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

You obviously did not check the definition in common usage. From the Free Dictionary:"
evolution - definition of evolution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
ev·o·lu·tion ( v -l sh n, v -). n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at ...
‎Evolution in sociology - ‎Evolutionary - ‎Evolutionary psychology - ‎Organic evolution."
Thus the word does not define simply change, but change from simple to complex, from single-celled organisms to more advanced life forms. As posited by the ToE. Is bread becoming moldy evolution? It certainly is changing.

Common usage? Free dictionary?

I see. Anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, chemical biologists, genetisics, etc, they have no clue what they mean when they learn and teach evolution... but free dictionary giving you some "common usage" is the proper definition.

Evolution means "Change over time". That's how all my professors used it.

And change from simple to complex is still... change.

 

[rusra02]

Evolution itself as a word does mean change, it's actually the unrolling of events, stars for instance evolve.

Mind you though it says complex OR better form. A from does not need to be complex to be better. It can actually be better for something to be simple. Sexual reproduction for instance is complex and it use to be thought that it was better for things when under extreme pressure to turn to sexual reproduction, but rather asexual reproduction which is not as complex is still a viable option for organisms under extreme pressure.

That definition however is extremely simplistic. A better definition would be:

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. --This is from Wikipedia.

The point is, evolution is not synonymous simply with change.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, a wolf doesn't evolve into a dog or vice-versa.

So then Noah had both dogs and wolfs on the ark.

What about dogs evolving into dalmatians, poodles, etc?

Or wolf evolving into dingo or coyote?

Rather, such ability for variety within kinds has always been present.

No. It hasn't.

There is a biological line that neither can cross and reproduce.

And how is it defined? What genetic code makes it so? Do you have the locus?

As to your sneer about the Watchtower, you sing the common refrain of evolutionist propagandists everywhere.

I sing the evolutionist facts based on the studies I've done. Also, based on scientific books, journals, and teachers I talked to. Have you done your studies yet?

You ridicule and denigrate any who dare challenge or question the evolutionary propaganda, be they scientists or well-researched publications.

Watch tower is NOT well-researched or scientific. It's not a science journal. It's a religious magazine.

I think it bespeaks the desperation some evolutionists feel about the weaknesses of their theory.

I think you're deflecting because you're afraid of actually pick up a proper book about the subject and read it.

I took you off my ignore list to see if you had made any sensible progress of regaining some intellectual integrity, but I was sorely mistaken. You're back on my ignore.