The Irony of Creationist belief

[Eli G]

Evolutionists live and think from a very small box. They try to present the world with a very limited idea of reality.

Have you ever thought about the number of animals that have been discovered whose existence would not fit within a supposed evolutionary "tree" system of species? I think they even invented a name for that kind of anomalous animal.

The reality is that there are too many of them, to the point of completely destroying that doctrine... but they resort to cognitive dissonance, avoiding not only publicly presenting the seriousness of that matter with respect to evolutionary doctrine, but they are not even capable of think about why those animals really exist.

 

[ChristineM]

Have you ever thought about the number of animals that have been discovered whose existence would not fit within a supposed evolutionary "tree" system of species?

Examples please

I think they even invented a name for that kind of anomalous animal.

And what would that name be?

I actually just think you are making hateful nonsense up because you don't know enough about evolution to follow through with your creationist woo

 

[Eli G]

There is nothing that evolutionary doctrine says that is not subject to sudden change; So there is nothing in that doctrine that I would be interested in learning in details, since being an imaginary construct based on a false premise and developed from such changing speculations, it does not offer anything solid to my wealth of knowledge about reality.

Being a human invention arising from a speculative fantasy, it could "create" any fantastical explanation for any anomaly... but the reliability of such new ideas would remain the same ... but in what has to do with the richness of human imagination, or the stupidity of those who believe themselves wise.

The Australian platypus, for example, is an animal with very special characteristics: it lays eggs instead of giving birth to live babies, sweats milk, has poisonous spurs, has a beak like birds and is even equipped with 10 sex chromosomes.

 

[Pogo]

Evolutionists live and think from a very small box. They try to present the world with a very limited idea of reality.

Have you ever thought about the number of animals that have been discovered whose existence would not fit within a supposed evolutionary "tree" system of species? I think they even invented a name for that kind of anomalous animal.

Yes, things like Ray Comfort's Crocoduck and various other mythical beasts that are the inventions of human minds telling fantastic stories like the bible.
Admittedly our idea of reality is limited unlike your fantasy of world wide floods and talking snakes, but that is because we are limited by reality.

The reality is that there are too many of them, to the point of completely destroying that doctrine... but they resort to cognitive dissonance, avoiding not only publicly presenting the seriousness of that matter with respect to evolutionary doctrine, but they are not even capable of think about why those animals really exist.

Anytime you want to stop talking about this fantasy strawman of yours we can begin a real conversation.

 

[Eli G]

As the Bible says, even plants were created according to their kinds (Gen. 1:11,12).

Although we know that plants also have DNA, no one would confuse a plant with an animal.

In the "evolutionary" system of thought, plants and animals are family ...as incredible as it may seem.

Some evolutionists say that I create "straw men" (as a fallacy), but the truth is that since I am a person outside the little box from which evolutionists think, I can see what happens to them from a more realistic point of view, and I distinguish things about their way of thinking that they themselves cannot realize. Jesus said:

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

 

[sayak83]

The Bible is clear about the creation according to its kind of animals and plants:

Gen. 1:11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good.
(...) 20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The expression "according to its/their kind/s" is very specific.

"This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed." (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010346 )

Did you notice how many times that simple Bible passage repeats that expression and why?

You have forgotten perhaps that the evolution says the same thing. We call it taxa.
No living beings can evolve out of their ancestral taxa.
What you have failed to grasp is that it is true that all living things came from a single common ancestor AND that no living things have ever evolved out of their ancestral taxa.
So once again. There is no conflict.

 

[sayak83]

As the Bible says, even plants were created according to their kinds (Gen. 1:11,12).

Although we know that plants also have DNA, no one would confuse a plant with an animal.

In the "evolutionary" system of thought, plants and animals are family ...as incredible as it may seem.

Some evolutionists say that I create "straw men" (as a fallacy), but the truth is that since I am a person outside the little box from which evolutionists think, I can see what happens to them from a more realistic point of view, and I distinguish things about their way of thinking that they themselves cannot realize. Jesus said:

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Animals never became plants and plants never became animals.
They both evolved out of primitive unicellular creatures (chemi_autotrophs) which were neither plants nor animals.

 

[Eli G]

You have forgotten perhaps that the evolution says the same thing. We call it taxa.
No living beings can evolve out of their ancestral taxa.
What you have failed to grasp is that it is true that all living things came from a single common ancestor AND that no living things have ever evolved out of their ancestral taxa.
So once again. There is no conflict.

The difference is that the Bible says that each "kind" of animal was created separately. In fact, it explains that the creation of each different species was done directly by creating bodies from inorganic material, and then giving them a life from a primary source that had it.

Ecl. 3:19 (...) man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. 21 Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?

As I said before: we can expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. That is a fact: all kinds of animals (and plants) are found TOGETHER in the same oldest layers of the earth.

 

[wellwisher]

Why does everyone still assume the word "day" within Genesis, applies to an earth day, as its measurement of time? The earth was not around in the first day of creation, so why use a none existent earth reference, at that point in time? Does everyone also assume that God sets his watch, by earth days, even before he created the universe and earth? That sounds very human ego-centric and appears to be connected to the old belief that the earth is the center of the universe. The gods told time by the earth.

Science still makes this, earth reference error, in the science of cosmology. For example, the current estimate is that 380,000 years after the BB, elements like hydrogen and helium appear. How can 380,000 earth years pass, so early in the universe, if the earth, also according to science, was not created for another 8 billion years? Is the earth the universal standard of time, even before the universe appears?

Wouldn't the mass density and gravity of the 380,000 year old universe; General Reality, make the local time way more time dilated, than we have on the earth? Why not use the actual average universe reference dilated time, instead of the earth is the center of the universe reference time, that did not yet exist? Why the dumb down cosmology, and the science assumptions for Genesis?

Years back; 1987, I developed what I called the Relativistic Slow Down Model. In essence, I tried not to make same the dumb down mistake, but rather conceptually attempted to use the actual time references of the genuine early expanding universe, based on adding the simultaneous impact of General and Special Relativity, as the BB universe expanded. Does this make sense to anyone, or are the imaginary earth years, that did not yet exist, good enough? I get long winded because you guys in science need remediation. Bottom lines do not teach.

I am not going to go into detail, however, what happens is the early universe will form much faster due to the early extreme time dilation. The inflation period, which supposed to go faster than the speed of light, is definitely not earth reference. It has its own physics. If the laws of physics are the same in all references, as Einstein said, the current standard theories, based on earth time, are way too slow in real universe reference time. We need new physics that can occur faster, within the more abbreviated time scale due to extreme Special and General Relativity. Some recent discoveries have galaxies forming very early, not anticipated by the slow boat black box theories.

If you were sitting on the universe, the first 380,000 years estimate, maintaining actual universe time perspective, that many years could seen like 1 time dilated day in the God reference. One day at the office. Distance potential does not need as much time to shuffle the deck; move more in distance with less time.

The original model also used the six days of creation, and the modern science earth day estimates of the imaginary earth days steps that are parallel in science. This time adjusted model equates to a changing God reference; relativistic slow down to reflect the changing GR and SR of the expanding universe.

 

[Eli G]

The Hebrew word "day" in the Bible is used to express other ideas, such as "age", For example here:

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them. On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man.

... or here:

Gen. 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

The light of a day and its night are relative periods of time. They do not last the same in the different parallels of the earth. Furthermore, when the planet was being adapted for life on it, its condition and relationship with the rest of the bodies in space were most certainly not identical to those today.

In any case, how important can a 24-hour Earth day be from the point of view of an observer in space?

Obviously, biblical terms have to be studied from different points of view. For this, general biblical knowledge is needed.

 

[Pogo]

You are all wrong, a second is 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium 133 atom at ground state and a minute is 60 x that and an hour 60 x that and a day 24 x that and a year 365 x that exactly.
You notice there is nothing here about the rotation of the earth or existence of a sun or anything but counting vibrations.

 

[McBell]

You are all wrong, a second is 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium 133 atom at ground state and a minute is 60 x that and an hour 60 x that and a day 24 x that and a year 365 x that exactly.
You notice there is nothing here about the rotation of the earth or existence of a sun or anything but counting vibrations.

And before 1955?

 

[Pogo]

And before 1955?

Quartz Crystal

and before that I think it was a stick in the mud.

 

[sayak83]

The difference is that the Bible says that each "kind" of animal was created separately. In fact, it explains that the creation of each different species was done directly by creating bodies from inorganic material, and then giving them a life from a primary source that had it.

Ecl. 3:19 (...) man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. 21 Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?

As I said before: we can expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. That is a fact: all kinds of animals (and plants) are found TOGETHER in the same oldest layers of the earth.

Genesis 1 says nothing of the sort. It says the natural world (earth, water, sky) brought forth the living things under God's command who then multiplied in their kinds. Creationists are adding stuff to the Bible that is not there
Your Ecc quote is just a poets way about talking about the mortal nature of all life.

 

[Eli G]

You have a clear statement here:

Gen. 2:7 And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person.

That is not poetic. It is a fact.

Gen. 3:19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.

It is very easy to deduce that if Adam was indeed created from dust, since there are texts that show the same origin of animals, it shows that the statement is literal in both cases.

Job 34:14 If he fixes his attention on them, If he gathers their spirit and breath to himself, 15 All humans would perish together, And mankind would return to the dust.

Psal. 146:3 Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation. 4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.

Eccl. 3:19 for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.
... 12:7 Then the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.

 

[sayak83]

You have a clear statement here:

Gen. 2:7 And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person.

That is not poetic. It is a fact.

Gen. 3:19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.

It is very easy to deduce that if Adam was indeed created from dust, since there are texts that show the same origin of animals, it shows that the statement is literal in both cases.

Job 34:14 If he fixes his attention on them, If he gathers their spirit and breath to himself, 15 All humans would perish together, And mankind would return to the dust.

Psal. 146:3 Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation. 4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.

Eccl. 3:19 for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.
... 12:7 Then the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.

Firstly Gen 1 does not have "according to their kind" terminology at all. NRSV is the best current translation and it does not have it.
20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.


Dust here clearly stands in for the earth element ie matter. As Gen 1 states, earth brings forth the plants and creatures. So read properly, dust simply means matter.

 

[Eli G]

Gen. 2:19 Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name.

That didn't happen in those millions of years that the doctrine of evolution preaches.

 

[Eli G]

Firstly Gen 1 does not have "according to their kind" terminology at all. NRSV is the best current translation and it does not have it.
...

A note about that Hebrew expression in the NET Bible version with Notes, says:

32 sn After their kinds. The Hebrew word translated “kind” (מִין, min) indicates again that God was concerned with defining and dividing time, space, and species. The point is that creation was with order, as opposed to chaos. And what God created and distinguished with boundaries was not to be confused (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11).

The Greek translation made for Jews about 2 centuries BC. (LXX) translates that expression as "κατὰ γένος" (according to genus).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever thought about the number of animals that have been discovered whose existence would not fit within a supposed evolutionary "tree" system of species?

I'm not aware of any.

I think they even invented a name for that kind of anomalous animal.

Give some examples and explain how they don't fit the phylogenetic tree.

The reality is that there are too many of them,

Then surely you won't have any problems naming some of them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Australian platypus, for example, is an animal with very special characteristics: it lays eggs instead of giving birth to live babies, sweats milk, has poisonous spurs, has a beak like birds and is even equipped with 10 sex chromosomes.

Yes, it's a remarkable animal.
Are you under the impression that it doesn't fit the phylogenetic tree?

Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution - Nature

New reference genomes of the two extant monotreme lineages (platypus and echidna) reveal the ancestral and lineage-specific genomic changes that shape both monotreme and mammalian evolution.

www.nature.com