|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A Logical account of creation | |||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3448 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Could it have been the plants God made in Genesis 2:9 produced the seed that God refered to in Genesis 1:11.
That would solve the problem as the only thing created on earth before those plants was one man.
Yea I know that makes things be out of order. But hey man has been arranging things in the wrong order since the beginning of time. But to the title of the topic 'A Logical account of creation'. If things were created by God. I believe they were. The plants had to be created before they could produce seed. Therefore the seed in Genesis 1:11 had to come from the plants created in Genesis 2:9. I am not tackling Gen 1. Gen 2 is a different matter. The only plants missing and created after Adam are plants of the field. The term "of the field" is used in contrast to the term wild as in wild beasts and beasts of the field. This would mean non-wild, or domestic. Even scientists say domestic plants appeared after man appeared. Gen 2 is an accurate depiction of the domestication of plants, even to the very mountain. Gen 1? well, you have a strong case there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Peg writes: it only says 'earth' as far as i'm aware, the land under the sea is still part of the earth unless scientists have decided otherwise there are many diffferent types of plants that yield seed and a fruit tree isnt confined to apples and oranges. greentwiga writes: Could it have been the plants God made in Genesis 2:9 produced the seed that God refered to in Genesis 1:11. That would solve the problem as the only thing created on earth before those plants was one man. This brings up the point I referenced over a year ago, trying to read the Bible with 21st century eyes rather than through the eyes of the writers. When reading the scripture using the eyes of the writers one can see that what they were writing about was what they observed. To understand what is being said, one must understand that the writers had no basic knowledge of what the earth was. To them plants would have to precede animals, but the fact that the land plants listed in Gen1:11 are of the type that they would have seen in Mesopotamia, Canaan & Egypt which is the only areas that these compilers knew of that is the animals and plants of the area. For example, they knew nothing of Carboniferous plants, such as club mosses & seed ferns, which did precede all of the modern fauna of the period of Genesis compilation, but existed contemporary with primitive amphibians & reptiles whereas the angiosperms, listed in Gen1:11 came after even the primitive mammals existed. ref:The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins pg 509 & No webpage found at provided URL: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/map2.html Edited by bluescat48, : missing line Edited by bluescat48, : clarity Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix second quote box (was no "/" in closer). There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Who says ICR or Mr Morris is correct in what they believe? I don't know what they believe. I only know what they say.
Especially when they disagree with what the Bible says. I 'd say agreeing with the Bible is a surer indicator of err the disagreeing with it.
Everything was created in the first light period,(as recorded in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24) that ended with the evening found in Genesis 1:2 as darkness had come. In verse 5 God declares that evening and the end of that darkness the following morning as the first day. I've read your Two Geneses Theory on a few dozen other threads. If the literature has to be warped that much to make it fit the facts I don't understand why you don't do a word morph of Genesis right into Origin of Species and be done with it. I'm sure there's a secret number code in there somewhere if you find the key diagonal. Gen 1:1 In the beginning OoS When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. There, I got it started. Ok! So I spelled begining without one of the ens, but I'm sure a good linguistic excuse can be found for that if we pass it through enough languages. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It actually does:
quote: Two kinds of plants are specifically mentioned: seed-bearing and fruit-bearing. Not all plants have seeds. For instance, ferns do not produce seeds: they reproduce with spores. Liverworts, horsetail rushes, mosses, quillworts and clubmosses also do not reproduce with seeds. In the Carboniferous period, these spore plants dominated the forests and swamps: the trees of the time were giant clubmosses and horsetail rushes. The first seed-bearing plants do not appear until the Devonian (the period directly before the Carboniferous), by which time sea creatures are already very diverse, and some groups of animals have already left the water. Fruiting plants (which are technically called "flowering plants" by botanists) are specialized type of seed-bearing plant. Conifers, cycads and the ginkgo tree are seed-bearing plants that do not produce fruit (unless you want to count the ginkgo seed as a fruit---it is, however, very distinct from true fruits). Fruit-bearing plants do not appear until the Cretaceous period, which means that dinosaurs and mammals were already very diverse before we find any evidence of fruit. In fact, birds were around before fruit-bearing plants, too. So, here is your list from Message 65 (message #65), highlighting all the steps that are contradicted by the available fossil evidence about plants alone:
Peg writes: 1 a beginning to the universe2 a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water 3 light 4 an expanse or atmosphere 5 large areas of dry land 6 land plants of all sorts 7 sun, moon and stars discernible, and seasons begin 8 sea creatures and flying creatures 9 wild and tame beasts, mammals 10 mankind ----- If we accept the KJV, then we have grass also created on the third day. Grass is a specialized form of flowering plant, and it doesn't appear until the late Cretaceous, near the end of the time of the dinosaurs. In addition, I'm pretty sure tame animals didn't appear until after mankind domesticated them (but, the Bible says "cattle" or "livestock"---depending on version---and not "tame animals," so this probably isn't a real problem for the biblical account). Edited by Bluejay, : Fixed reference to include both verses, and added subtitle Edited by Bluejay, : Changed highlighting to red instead of bold -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
i think its logical that God made fully formed plants, with seed production being the means for their duplication, rather then him producing seeds first and scattering them about. Its like a chicken and egg senario... most logically he created a formed chicken that was capable of laying eggs rather then making eggs that hatched little chickens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Peg,
Peg writes: i think its logical that God made fully formed plants, with seed production being the means for their duplication, rather then him producing seeds first and scattering them about. Its like a chicken and egg senario... most logically he created a formed chicken that was capable of laying eggs rather then making eggs that hatched little chickens. I would agree that God would create full grown plants and trees as they would just appear out of the ground. There is one huge problem with the standard understanding of Genesis creation for that to happen.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. The seed was upon the earth so the seed come first. But in:
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is no seed involved. God caused the ground to bring forth. The two can not be talking about the same thing. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes: If we accept the KJV, then we have grass also created on the third day. That really depends on what you believe Genesis says about creation. 1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. 2. Man was formed from the dust of the earth. 3. A garden was planted. 4. God placed man in the garden. 5. Out of the ground God made fruit bearing trees and plants to grow. 5. The only water mentioned was a river that flowed from Eden to water the garden which then divided into 4 rivers. 6. Out of the ground God formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. 7. Then God took a rib from the man and made a woman. 8. In Genesis 2:5 Every plant and herb of the land is mentioned but it is not stated when God brought them from the ground. I think science confirms that at one time there was no oceans or seas on the planet earth. I think science confirms that at one time the mountains were covered with water as there are all kind of water critters on top of the mountains as well as in them. If I am in trouble by my thinking I am sure someone will point it out to me. Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 2:25 does not have fish or any water creatures created only land and air. Conclusion a dry earth. Genesis 1:9 tells me there was no dry land. Conclusion the earth was covered with water. Conclusion something happened to cause all the dry land to be covered by water. (But there is no explanation given.) God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
herb yielding seed herb yielding seed herb yielding seed It is possible that the phrase can be read with the gold being the modifier and the brown being the noun; however, " the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind" clearly indicates that the latter is the proper reading: Herb is being modified. There is no need for any seed to exist at this point, but they will come. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Hello everybody Im,back its fun time again.
Parasomnium wrote:
According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection. Oh, I know that. But today the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"
It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size So do you mean that mutation was responsible for bringing up those "complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins which fill the cell". That is interesting because mutation is a process that break genes so easily. A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life. In fact research show that out of 1000 mutation only 1 did it hit their proper target. But here you are talking of multiple mutations, so if reconsider the history of life evolution take a very path than Darwin provide. In fact it had been show that if life requires multiple mutation the problem become" exponentially worse"
The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve. The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.
You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so? Oh, I did not acknowledged that. My point is there is no primative fish as what Darwin desribe them, and I did not believe that there is another form of evolution that governed the transition,but I believe that fish were " specially created" . There is no transformation of organism and that is what the law of recurrent variation states.
Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
The typesetter at that publisher should be sacked Well, I guess you just dont want to read things that are inconflict with your beliefs,and dont worry you are not alone some proponents of evolution omit evidence that arte inconflict with their beliefs. In other words guilty of omission. And there dishonesty is extraordinary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
No you are not! Actually the fact that some proponents of evolution(i.e. Gould, Eldridge, propose punctuated equlibrium to "explain the lack of transitional link") are saying that there are no transitional forms are good proof that I was able to asked excellent question .
You asked for a fossil that was an intermediate form between fish and amphibians, you asked that question in a reply to a post that gave you the intermediate fossils that you were requesting Let me give you some scientific reference that are saying there is no transitional forms. A book a view of life written by three evolutionist Salvador LuRIA ,Stephen jay Gould and Sam Singer, states that "fossil records are full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explained" what confounded them is the fact that organism suddenly appeared and "remained virtually unchanged" Also the New evolutionary time table states "that the fossil record reveales surprising things about our biological origins."So, if you keep on sticking to your unwarranted presumption you are now againts to those scientist of your same psychological status.
Now, either you don't actually care to see the fossils or you don't think it represents an intermediate form. If you don't think it does represent an intermediate form, then explain why, and be specific Actually I care. The simple reason is that some scientist say that there is and some say scientist they dont exist is a good proof that I do really care,the only differnce between us is that Im not as faithful as you.
What is it about that fossil that I linked for you that you feel does not represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibian? Simple the fact that many things that has been considered as evidence for evolution has been disproven.I.e. lung fish.
Here is the fossil THAT YOU REQUESTED...again: Tiktaali Here's the quote...again Yeah,you have the quote and Miller have the picture of macro evolution. The question therfore we should raise is (Are they really happening?).The NAS brochure say that there are many intermediate "forms between fish and amphibians", but they dont find any support from the fossil record.
I'm not going to reply to your ridiculous questions, however, are you saying that humans are not mammals? On the ground only that they used mammary glands.
Perhaps, but you have failed to show how and where I'm being ignorant After reading my criticism I hope that you will realized that you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Peq wrote:
havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers
Exactly. Edited by traste, : wrong format of db codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Well, I guess you just dont want to read things that are inconflict with your beliefs, That quote certainly is against my belief that a published book should at least have good grammar.
And there dishonesty is extraordinary Is English not your first language? Edited by Brian, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
traste writes: [T]oday the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest" This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed.
quote: It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste.
mutation is a process that break genes so easily Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations.
A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life. "Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".
The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now. This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.
traste, quoting me writes:
Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism. You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5163 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Brian wrote:
That quote certainly is against my belief that a published book should at least have good grammar . Well, I just memorized it, if the grammar is not good it is due to my carelessness,not incompetence on the part of the author.
Is English not your first language? Exactly.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024