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.
The Creation Account, Another Look
Moderator: Moderators
- dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #162
Moderator Comment101G wrote:I been doing this all the time, it's you who is avoiding the evidence.Neatras wrote: [Replying to post 152 by 101G]
You have made the claim, many times, that there is no scientific consensus about the theory of evolution. It's about time you support your case with evidence.
If someone claims that you are not supporting your own position/claim, it would be far better, and less tiresome for other readers, if you would simply support your contention rather than accusing the poster of avoiding the evidence. If you, as you claim, have been 'doing this all the time,' then provide a link to a post in which you have done that. It is against the rules to make claims and then refuse to support them.
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.
Post #164
[Replying to post 160 by Bust Nak]
An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. there are three area for adaptation, behavior, structural, and environment.
but those don't change the fact of the species. only a diversity is produce, this is natural.
but no adaption changes a bear into a dog, or vice versa. nor a ape into a man.
An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. there are three area for adaptation, behavior, structural, and environment.
but those don't change the fact of the species. only a diversity is produce, this is natural.
but no adaption changes a bear into a dog, or vice versa. nor a ape into a man.
Post #165
example a newWillum wrote: [Replying to post 156 by 101G]
WRONG.
Just wrong.
It is a new species, not adaptation. Didn't you read the article?
nope, did you read the article. if a bird grow teeth, is it a bird? yes.
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #166
[Replying to post 162 by 101G]
Oh, that is quite funny.
Feathers define birds, not teeth, AND there are many species of birds.
You being incorrect is a double one, you are trying to evade the subject with a strawman: Of a bird without teeth, and not understanding that evolution into a new species, is evolution.
Or will you continue to ignore what evolution is so you can demean what it is not?
I am afraid evolution is a fact. One you must accept just like every other fact that has destroyed religious claims.
Oh, that is quite funny.
Feathers define birds, not teeth, AND there are many species of birds.
You being incorrect is a double one, you are trying to evade the subject with a strawman: Of a bird without teeth, and not understanding that evolution into a new species, is evolution.
Or will you continue to ignore what evolution is so you can demean what it is not?
I am afraid evolution is a fact. One you must accept just like every other fact that has destroyed religious claims.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #167
That much is fine.101G wrote: An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. there are three area for adaptation, behavior, structural, and environment.
What does "the fact of the species" even mean? If you mean it does not change the species then you need to expand on your thinking.but those don't change the fact of the species.
What do you mean "only," when a population is diverse enough in either behavior, structure or environment, you have a new species.only a diversity is produce, this is natural.
That much is fine. But adaption can change one species of bears into another species of bears; it can change one species of dogs into another species of dogs; it can change one species of ape into another species of ape; and it can it can change one species of man into another species of man.but no adaption changes a bear into a dog, or vice versa. nor a ape into a man.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #169
Are you aware that "bird" is merely a label? You can call your girlfriend a bird if you want.101G wrote:example a newWillum wrote: [Replying to post 156 by 101G]
WRONG.
Just wrong.
It is a new species, not adaptation. Didn't you read the article?
nope, did you read the article. if a bird grow teeth, is it a bird? yes.
What you should be asking is, if a species of animal that is currently called a bird grows teeth, do we still call it a bird?
The answer is...if you want to. If the scientists who spend their time identifying and labeling species say it is a bird.
What I myself think you are asking, what you mean by your question, is that if a species of bird changes, is it still the same species?
The answer is no. It is not.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #170
"but those don't change the fact of the species. only a diversity is produce, this is natural." This is incomprehensible. With many of your posts it is difficult to tell what you are talking about; whether your logic has failed or whether it is just a language problem.101G wrote: [Replying to post 160 by Bust Nak]
An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. there are three area for adaptation, behavior, structural, and environment.
but those don't change the fact of the species. only a diversity is produce, this is natural.
but no adaption changes a bear into a dog, or vice versa. nor a ape into a man.
In any event, your reference to bears not changing into dogs demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. The changes within each generation are almost infinitely small, with zero significant change per generation. This is a process that takes millions of years. The other blatant error you make is the assumption that TOE contends that bears change into dogs. They do not. No one claims they do. TOE simply states that over a great span of time small changes occur. Sometimes the changes are eventually great enough that a new species emerges, distinct from its ancestors thousands of generations earlier.
Another HUGE error you make that is present in many of your posts is your assumption that when a new species emerges, the old species must have died out. That is NOT what TOE claims. The earlier species may or may not survive along with the newer one. As Charles Darwin explained in On the Origin of Species:
Natural selection may have vastly modified other branches in the tree of life over time, but, among organisms like the lungfish, the quirks and contingencies of their habitats and lifestyles remained so stable that there was little evolutionary pressure to change.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... cg5EkfH.99