Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 64 of 173 (516312)
07-24-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peg
07-24-2009 9:27 AM


Peg writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period
then it was the in the 3rd creative period that three broad categories of land plants appeared. "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds..."
Except for the fact that the "Vendian" plants were not land plants.The land plants first appear no earlier than the Devonian
Edited by bluescat48, : typo

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 9:27 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:39 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 69 of 173 (516435)
07-24-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
07-24-2009 7:39 PM


Peg writes:
but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It simply presents the order of the major groups as they appeared.
Gen1:11 writes:
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
It would seem that this would mean plants on land.
Edited by bluescat48, : missing line

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:39 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:18 AM bluescat48 has replied
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 9:57 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 77 of 173 (516476)
07-25-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:18 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024