Gen 1:2 tells us, first, that t earth is void of its spherical shape, hence we can reason that it is described as in the form of the accretion disk of rotating rocks which are like murky "waters" of hot magma. This interpretation seems fair and supported by the facts.
Theistic Evolution Bible believers prefer to choose this way of understanding Gen 1:2 because it conforms with the truth.
No, it doesn't tell us what attributes the earth is void of. You cannot say that it tells us it is void of it's spherical shape anymore than I can pinpoint that it may be saying it is void of life, light, void of its moon, void of anything in particular.
You might be able to make a case for "without form" but, as it has already been pointed out, an accretion disk is a particular form. So, no, your interpretation is not fair or supported by the facts.
waters does not mean "magma." That is not an interpretation. It is an interjection.
The facts are that there is enough ambiguity in the language, that on the merits of a single verse alone, your private interpretation may be acceptible to you, but there really is no substance to the interpretation and no valid reason for the interjections.
And I don't know what you mean by "theistic evolution bible believers prefer this interpretation."
Theistic evolutionists do not try to make the bible conform to science. Such confirmation biases are not preferable to theistic evolutionists.
They prefer to claim that these passages are figurative, not literal, and they refuse the idea that the bible is meant to be a science book.
The universe isn't 700,000 years old. You are leaving off a shitload of time in which events occurred to get your number. Why don't you continue reading your source so you can finish your count and arrive at a more accurate number?
My thinking is that science information ordered in has the mnemonic power of that assocation is invaluable to people's cpability for order-out when they explain these concepts.
Since the subjective nature of the choice to do so is often presented, along the innumerable number of such nature sets of seven scientific facts, it makes sense to do so where possible, (which is almost always).
So, you admit that you didn't count seven because of events, but because you want things ordered in sevens because you think it is easier to remember.
Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references.
I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them.
I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas.
These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials.
As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present. They are useful to back me up.
The sources you have provided disprove your claim.
And it is obvious you have done no further research into these matters than looking up charts using google images.
You keep saying "the scientists."
What scientists? What are their names, degrees, papers, peer reviewed works, ect?
You can't point to a blog or present pictures that you have ADDED TO, cropped, left off relevant information in order to give incomplete information that is supposed to confirm your claim, but doesn't.
We have six days of creation, yet most of the charts you present are of at least 8 eras AND the ones that are 7 are NUMBERED WRONG, with the exception of one picture that is from Time magazine showcasing a children's book.
You have given zero accceptible sources that actually agree with your claim, so when others disagree with you, it has no bearing on whether the reject science, because the actual science is not even included in your argument. What you are presenting is clear to be solely your own ideas. You have given no evidence that supports your claim and the appeal to the ever more vague "scientists" with unmentioned credentials has utterly failed you. You have nothing to back you up.
Don't accuse people of being close minded because they can spot errors in logic and doctored data.
Our Paleontologists today have linked 22 predecessors to our ascent to Modern man, pretty much as the genesis story tells us
is an bold faced lie. Don't insult our intelligence or our knowledge base. You might be able to get away with making shit up and telling fourth graders that genesis tells us that there are 22 predeccessors "to our ascent to Modern Man" but I 've read the bible and it doesn't say that.
Neither do paleontologists tell us that. We have 50 something species of hominids accounted for and the ones in our direct tree are about 10.
You dispute the credentals of the cast of paleontolgists who wrote The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.
This was the latest book on the matter, so I am standing behind this sources as at least placing Gnesis genealogy in he ball park of evolution of modern man.
The pictures you provided are not from the book. You have presented no substance from the book, so there is nothing under dispute within the context of the book. What is disputed is what you claim it says or implies rather than what the book actually says and you do yourself no favors by coupling the book with your retarded pictures that have nothing to do with the book.
And no, the book is not the latest on the matter. It was published in 2007 and took a few years to compile and create the images and sculptures featured in the book before it was published.
Here is just a few books that were published on this matter since 2007 that only took a 30 second google search to find: