The Creation Account, Another Look

[101G]

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Let's discuss these two verses for starters. let's zero in on verse 2.

#1. Earth was a water ????????? do we really say planet? my question is, was earth a planet, as we define a planet, or not in the beginning. for the scripture stated, "WITHOUT FORM". so do we really identify earth as a planet in this beginning stage of development?

my second question, "was the sun actually shining, or was it even form yet. scripture stated, it was dark, no sunlight?. I have hear some scientist say the sun was formed but not yet shining, others, the sun formed but it was a thick cloud around the earth where no sunlight could penetrate to the surface.

for a general discussion we will start right at the beginning, with EARTH. I would like to hear the scientific side as well if any religious point of view.

thanks for your responses in advance.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 132 by 101G]

Hi 101G,
A while back I asked you for an explanation of signs but you seem to have missed it. May I present it to you again:

"Our galaxy contains about 200 billion stars and we can see some of them in the night sky. There are about 200 billion other galaxies and they require special telescopes to observe. Please explain how any of those were created as signs. Please explain how eclipses acts as signs for anything."

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 132 by 101G]

I never claim to be a scientist but I use science. and I understand it working. but coming from most, not all the science arena, oh it's a fairy tail or not true, or another excuse. that's ok, but have you considered that you might not FULLY understand the bible?. it works both ways.

By that token 101G do you fully understand all the creation stories of all the world's religions? By your logic you should understand each and every one before dismissing anything.

Also this is just an aside, and I mean no disrespect by it but what is your background and language of origin? Were you raised religious or did you come to it later in life?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by 101G]

Well, chopping your whipped cream into definite shapes, I'll start by saying that, under any conditions, the Earth, firmament, whatever would have a shape.

So the Bible is wrong there like it is everywhere else.

Then we can examine the word "creation."
Creation is a word invented to justify a non-existent creator.
According to 18th century physics, matter is neither created nor destroyed.
No creation, no creator needed.

There was no need for a creation, except to conjure into existence an imaginary creator...

Finally, no cloud should be able to exist enough to shroud the Sun completely. So the Bible assumes the Sun was created after. Since this is patently wrong, that is a triune of disproof of God or a creator.

[otseng]

viewing some of the post put forward, I'm amazed of the lack of personal knowledge on some of the subject at habd.

Moderator Comment

As a general comment, please just debate the topic without commenting on the knowledge of other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[101G]

[Replying to post 140 by Willum]

first thanks for the reply, if that's true in what you said, then there is no need for a big bang label either to prove some scientific phenomena.

[101G]

[Replying to post 134 by Neatras]

feathers are not just for flight, they can be for many other things, warmth, display to a mate, ... ect.

but. you asked,
"Suppose an article comes about that says "Birds existed before the dinosaur die-off."
Which of the following did the article claim?"

A. The first birds appeared before the first dinosaurs.
B. The first birds appeared after the dinosaurs.
C. The first birds appeared before the last dinosaurs.
D. None of the above

The correct pick is C,

I disagree, The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, caused the extinction of all dinosaur groups.

well, a 127-million-year-old baby bird fossil sheds light on avian evolution, and the article can be found here, https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/03/1 ... ion/118555
so that put your dates out of order at least 61 millions years.

but as i said, with more discoveries each day the years are getting smaller as to different finds, that's USING the scientific approach. but sooner or later science will catch up to God.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 143 by 101G]

I am having difficulty working out your line of thinking. Why would a species of 127 million year birds, imply birds did not evolved from dinosaurs, given that dinosaurs in general died off 66 million years ago?

[101G]

[Replying to post 143 by 101G]

I am having difficulty working out your line of thinking. Why would a species of 127 million year birds, imply birds did not evolved from dinosaurs, given that dinosaurs in general died off 66 million years ago?

Ok, but thank for the reply, here's my stance. birds did not evolved from dinosaurs, because they was already living with dinosaurs. if I'm living with you then I'm already here and didn't come from you.

but in other, who have look at this, express a different view. a 400 million flying reptile " We Have Probably Been Imagining Pterosaurs All Wrong" https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/w ... their-legs

and I'm also studying this site which have some good articles. http://reptileevolution.com/

and these contradict your finding.

but as said until all scientist get on one accord, then we can have consensus.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 145 by 101G]

That is sooooo great!
Except, crayfish have recently evolved within one generation from requiring two sexes to only requiring one to reproduce.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0467-9

That's right, Procambarus fallax evolved into a brand new species, Procambarus virginalis.

Guess what, they are still cohabiting the Earth. Wow, one came from the other, but are still living with each other.

What were you saying?

[101G]

[Replying to post 146 by Willum]

that's nothing new, "adaption" happens in a generation. there are many papers on that.