Darwinists hate sticking to the topic when it comes to talking about evidence.
Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Darwinists hate sticking to the topic when it comes to talking about evidence.
I am talking about biblical evidence. How about responding to my point?
6days
New member
chair said:
Chair..... I have no idea what you believe, or if you are a Christian. If you aren't a Christian, there is no point in debating theology with you. If you are a Christian, you seem confused. Which doctrine do you think is being projected on the text? Doctrine of sin? Salvation? The doctrine of Jesus Christ? Scripture? Doctrine of man?
I think every Christian doctrine has its foundation in the first few books of Genesis. But doctrine is not determined solely on just a few verses, but on the entirety of scripture.*
chair said:
He would have seen death after sin entered the world. Perhaps the first death he witnessed was when God clothed him and Eve with animal skin. It isn't much of a stretch to see that innocent blood was shed to clothe them in righteousness.*
chair said:
In post 366 you said "Death in the OT is physical death.". *What are you arguing? Are you saying physical death was not the penalty for sin? Or, are you not making a argument, and merely trying to hit your word quota for today?
I am not a Christian. I am Jewish, and it bothers me to see what has been done to our scriptures.
The site used to have people's religious affiliation listed next to each post. It apparently doesn't anymore.
So you thought you'd take it out on the people who think it means what it says — six days means six days — but those who think it means billion of years, they get a pass?
6days
New member
Well, at least I understand where 'Chair' is coming from now, although I disagree with his suggestion that people have changed the meaning of scripture. There have always been a 'remnant' who believed the plain meaning... God created in six days.
"After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England.
After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers?
On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed in the 5th century AD.2
Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.
I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.....
But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, “One day refers to the movement of the sphere.” This shows that the common sceptical objection “how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created” was solved in principle centuries ago. The “sphere” referred to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its followers promoted a “flat earth”.3 But now we would say that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.
The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, “The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet …”.4 This shows that they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day,....."
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/creation-days-and-orthodox-jewish-tradition/
Lots more in the article if you are interested.
I do not take the Genesis creation story literally. Nor do millions of others- and they are not all atheists. You claim to take it literally, but you don't. I am trying to argue this on your own grounds.
Perhaps it should be us challenging you over why you hold scripture in such a flippant manner.
And your challenge has been weird to say the least. I still have no idea what your problem is. Something changed, therefore God didn't create everything — was that it?
The text says that God created everything. All of the types of plants and animals. The text doesn't say that God created prototypes of animal-classes (what you call "kinds". It simply doesn't say that. You made up something, in order to deal with scientific challenges to Creationism, but what you made up is a fantasy- it is not Biblical. There are specific plants and animals mentioned throughout the Bible and in other ancient documents. Where is the mention of your "Kinds"?
God created kinds, which reproduce among themselves.
Since then, the kinds have diversified within themselves.
Evidence, remember?
Where is the evidence for "since then, the kinds have diversified within themselves"
Evidence, remember?
6days
New member
Both atheists and Biblical creationists observe the diversification. But atheists need millions and millions of years. God's Word tells us He created in six days. Adam was created on the sixth day. We have 6,000 years of recorded history since then.
We observe the ability of organisms to change and adapt rapidly because of pre-existing info in their genome. Emperical science is consistent with and helps confirm the Genesis account.
This has already been presented to you. Lions and tigers were once part of a more homogeneous population that contained both "species."
This is just you saying so. You need evidence that they were the same "kind", within the past 6,000 years.
They can interbreed. They are still the same kind today.
You need to show that a few thousand years ago there were no lions and tigers. that there was only "cat-kind".
Why do I need to do that? Is this one of your demands that is meant to make an idea "scientific"?
I've already outlined what we should find in the fossil record.
1. Please remind me when you outlined that
2. The question isn't what we should find. The question is what do we find.