"The Bible is clear. The ancestors of every animal that ever lived were created during Creation Week. Each basic animal type was created "after his kind" and all subsequent individual animals, including dinosaurs, descended from these created categories."Here, according to the beliefs of the creationists, all varieties of animal life were descendants of the basic animal types that were created on Days 5 and 6 of creation week. There's no "Bible is clear" to it. It's all made up and shoehorned into the Bible which speaks nothing about such things.
It looks like what Morris is really teaching here is the very same thing they continuously claim to be all a lie – evolution. Creationists teach evolution! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They do teach evolution whether they want to admit it or not. The very same thing they regard as a lie is the very same thing they preached about in their dogma. The difference is evolution according to creationists happened at a rapid pace in a short time just like Poke'mon"
It thought that was rather funny. The person who runs the site is a Christian who actually knows that evolution is a fact. I guess there are some who didn't swallow the Kool-Aid (just a joke people.)
Best,
Brett
11 comments:
There are Christians who believe in the 'Day-Age' and 'Framework' interpretations of Genesis, which basically agree that the Earth is millions of years old and that the book is a story told to a specific group of people of a certain cultural level in order to illustrate a point and not a scientific treatise on the origin of the planet and species. 'Theistic Evolutionists' have been around for a while, too.
Only Fundamentalists believe that it has to be 7 literal days (and that salvation is somehow hinged upon believing that interpretation)... something based more on 'tradition' than anything else.
Believing that the Flood covered the entire earth and that all species arose from the ark animals means these folks have to believe in 'Super Evolution' occurring at a rate that's not even biologically possible. And yes, that's very ironic.
P.S. Pokemon don't even 'evolve' in a literal sense... if you look at most of them, it's more that they 'mature' into adult forms rather than become new species in the Darwinian sense.
Hi Pai,
I know most (although I'm not sure if it's most or not, maybe half) of Christians understand that evolution is a fact. I thought the quote was amusing due to the fact that this is from a Christian.
I'm not sure how Pokemon works but I think they did use evolved, but grow/mature might be the same thing, just depends on how you look at it. I guess since an organism usually doesn't evolve itself, it's offspring do, 'mature' might be a better term.
Best,
Brett
Here's an entertaining video showing how the famous 'Creation Museum' even admits it believes in a form of Super Evolution. I wonder if they even realize the level of cognitive dissonance they have going on.
For the whole Poke'mon thing, I think that it would have to be an 'evolution' thing so that they could sound cool to impressionable fourth-graders (me being one of them, I admit it. XD). Just think of the calamity it would cause if they used the right terminology for a children's cartoon and we actually sounded intelligent like we knew what we were talking about!! XD
I guess it matters a lot on your definition of evolution. There is no one clear accepted definition of evolution. Christians have always accepted micro evolution-it was taught as adaptation and much of the ground work for the theory was done by biologists with religious beliefs. The current definition of evolution is "the change of species over time." Which is about as unscientific and unquantifiable of a definition as you can get. To be clear Christians reject that random chaotic mutations lead to new species. Most mutations make a species weaker or dead and don't transfer from generation to generation.
-Steve
Genesis 6:19 is the key verse you want to study. The word you are looking at is translated as "kind" and sometimes "species." Miyn is the original Hebrew word and its definition is below.
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".
Hope that helps,
Steve
Steve,
This would be the Ken Ham version of Genesis, no one said it was true or real, just what the Creation museum people believe. They just read it differently then you do, does that make it wrong and you right or vise versa? Since you're an ID guy, this should be funny to you as well.
"This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained.'
This is TOTAL BS and you know it, or you ignore it. Anytime things mingle they become more complex, this is a simple fact. Look it up!
Best,
Brett
Creationists,evolutionists,Christians,Atheists can and will argue till we're blue in the face with neither side ever willing to budge an inch.It's a fact,an eternal struggle that will never change.
The biggest problem that I see here is that people are even willing to debate(and therefore give some sort of credence to)a person or group that quotes the bible like it's a factual,scientific text that you can glean useful information from.It's a provable,indisputable fact that the bible is taken from myths and legends much older than itself and rehashed into a form the people of the time could get behind.Trying to quote such a source as valid scientific text is the equivalent of using Dr Seuss
as irrefutable proof that cats do indeed wear hats and speak in rhymes.
For example: "Once upon a time there was a cat with a hat
there's no doubt about that"
Well according to the bible "a day to the lord is like a thousand years"and once upon a time seems to imply a single day that happened a very long time ago so it makes sense that it happened on the sixth day when all the land creatures were created.The text also clearly states that the cat was with a hat.Now there are discrepancies with the translation so scholars aren't sure if it's with a hat,or with hat implying that the cat actually gave birth to the hat.Bit it's the general consensus that the cat was with a hat.Now of course everyone knows that cats today don't wear hats anymore and because it's just ludicrous to think that the cat evolved into having no hat.Then logically there must have been a hat-less subspecies of cat that survived the great flood whereas the hat wearing version either didn't make it on the boat,or died out over time because it was an inferior species.And that ladies and gentlemen brings us to the modern hat-less variety of cat that we know today.The text also states "there's no doubt about that" Now seeing as humans are the only ones that experience doubt as a result of the original sin of Adam and eve this is concrete proof that the statement came from Almighty God himself and must be true,because he is perfect,righteous and with out doubt. And there you have it...indisputable proof that cats at one time wore hats.
Now if any scientist came up with that as proof of anything,they would be laughed out of the "club" by evolutionists and creationists alike but it's the exact same drivel creationists come up with all the time to back up their claims.
So I'm sorry but until creationist/Christians can stop quoting fairy tales as scientific fact,they should not be debated with,but simply ignored.
LOL! I'd love you hear the 'truth' about green eggs;)
In general I agree with not debating, but it's my futile hope that some day, myself or someone far smarter will say something that finally get's them thinking. Why do I keep doing this? Steve used to be a hard line creationist. I'm assuming he finally saw something that made him question that. Unfortunately he switched to ID, but maybe one day I can break him;) I'm not trying to 'turn' him into an Atheist or even an agnostic, just trying to get him to see reason, that evolution is true. about him/it.
Best,
Brett
Maybe I should write "The bible according to Dr Seuss"I think it might sell a few copies.And hey illustrations by Brett Booth would make a sure fire hit ;)and maybe just maybe we could convince Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to write up a foreword for it as well. :D
LOL! I would LOVE to piss off Comfort and Cameron. The banana is shaped to fit perfectly into the human hand... ugh!!! So is a carrot and an apple and an ear of corn (which has been changed drastically due to human farming techniques.) Idiots!
Best,
Brett
Post a Comment