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.

[rikuoamero]

101G, I'm not going to continue in this debate unless you can stay on topic. I'm reading the same annoyance from my compatriots.

[101G]

[Replying to post 125 by 101G]

conclusion: the bible is a truthful book who words and finding can be backed up by scientific laws

This is your false conclusion, and the rambling in this latest post is nothing but more preaching and unsupported opinions, redefinitions that make no sense, etc. You are just talking to yourself at this point, but here is another numbered list to consider:

1) Adam and Eve never existed as real human beings. They are mythical characters so any children related to these figures would also be mythical. This negates essentially everything you stated in post 125.

2) Stating "one cannot multiply, or increase something, if it hasn't already happened" is not a scientific law. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

3) Stating "one cannot increase or multiply their speed unless they are already in motion" is not a scientific law, nor is it true. An object at rest ("speed" = 0) can be put into motion with a force ("speed" > 0), thereby increasing the speed.

The rest of the rambling is mostly nonsensical, and in no way leads to a conclusion that the bible is a "truthful book", or that any of your other conclusions are valid. This isn't an audience of 3rd grade, uneducated kids, so you'll need to do a lot better than you have done so far to convince anyone that your points are worthy of debate or discussion. Can't you relate any of this to actual science ... and not the version you are simply making up as you go along?

LOL, LOL, LOL, well, well, well. don't know do you.

acceleration: a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time. that word gain means, increase the amount or rate of (something, typically weight or speed).

velocity: the speed of something in a given direction.

speed: the rate at which someone or something is able to move or operate. synonyms: momentum, "the speed of their progress". sitting still is no progress.


Boy oh boy, have to make it simple.

now if you didn't understand from those simple definitions, here's a site that makes is very, very simple for you.

"What is acceleration?"
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/phy ... on-article

this is things one learn in High School.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 125 by 101G]

conclusion: the bible is a truthful book who words and finding can be backed up by scientific laws

This is your false conclusion, and the rambling in this latest post is nothing but more preaching and unsupported opinions, redefinitions that make no sense, etc. You are just talking to yourself at this point, but here is another numbered list to consider:

1) Adam and Eve never existed as real human beings. They are mythical characters so any children related to these figures would also be mythical. This negates essentially everything you stated in post 125.

2) Stating "one cannot multiply, or increase something, if it hasn't already happened" is not a scientific law. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

3) Stating "one cannot increase or multiply their speed unless they are already in motion" is not a scientific law, nor is it true. An object at rest ("speed" = 0) can be put into motion with a force ("speed" > 0), thereby increasing the speed.

The rest of the rambling is mostly nonsensical, and in no way leads to a conclusion that the bible is a "truthful book", or that any of your other conclusions are valid. This isn't an audience of 3rd grade, uneducated kids, so you'll need to do a lot better than you have done so far to convince anyone that your points are worthy of debate or discussion. Can't you relate any of this to actual science ... and not the version you are simply making up as you go along?

LOL, LOL, LOL, well, well, well. don't know do you.

acceleration: a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time. that word gain means, increase the amount or rate of (something, typically weight or speed).

velocity: the speed of something in a given direction.

speed: the rate at which someone or something is able to move or operate. synonyms: momentum, "the speed of their progress". sitting still is no progress.


Boy oh boy, have to make it simple.

now if you didn't understand from those simple definitions, here's a site that makes is very, very simple for you.

"What is acceleration?"
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/phy ... on-article

this is things one learn in High School.

Perhaps you skipped straight to High School and missed the lessons about the number 0? LOL indeed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 129 by 101G]

now if you didn't understand from those simple definitions, here's a site that makes is very, very simple for you.

You're making the same mistake here as you did with precession, and obviously don't know the difference between velocity and acceleration. You used "speed" in the earlier post, which is like velocity (eg. miles per hour, meters per second, etc.), then you post links to acceleration which is a completely different thing (acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time, ie. the first derivative of velocity), and claim that you have to simplify things for us idiots.

This approach is just showing, conclusively, that you have no understanding of even basic, high school level physics. Showing links that only confirm your ignorance of these subjects, and doing this repeatedly, is not convincing anyone of anything. Go read up the difference between velocity and acceleration, and then reconsider your statements.

[101G]

[Replying to post 130 by benchwarmer]

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, gotta have something if you want to be with me"

those words are in a song, and how true.

but I would like make an observation. many who post links to me seem like they are not understanding what's in the links they post. this is no put down of anyone, ok. but only an observation.

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

and I notice on some post the first thing said, "that's not true". if you're not a bible reader, nor believer, how do you know?. just asking.

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.

just a reality check.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 132 by 101G]

I never claim to be a scientist but I use science. and I understand it working.

This is the problem. You clearly do not understand science at any level, and are trying to piece together things you find on websites to form responses but you're using the information incorrectly, which shows that you don't actually understand it. It appears English is not your first language so that may be part of it, but jumping from one topic to another without addressing anyone's posts is making the whole thread completely incoherent.

Why don't you stick to one topic and flesh that out, then go to another one, if you actually have any issue to debate that is appropriate for this section of the website. So far all you are doing is preaching, and failing miserably at trying to bring science into the discussion to help your case.

[Neatras]

#1. you said, "Moreover, that "feather" you talk about in your pop science news article is more like an elongated scale than a feather as discussed in the scholarly article"

see, you are only in considerations to feathers, listen to the scriptures. Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good".

you only see "feather", which is good, but not all flying creatures have "feathers".

winged creatures in the bible, the wings was and was not a covering for the "WING" of each KIND. the Hebrew word for "winged" creatures is
H5775 עוֹף `owph (ofe) n-m.
a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively.
[from H5774]
KJV: bird, that flieth, flying, fowl.


see, the wings don't have to have feathers, but only wings.

Are you trying to say that this is a winged fowl?



Are you trying to say that bats are fowl?

If you redefine every word in the English language favorably to your religion, you wind up with a lexicon of words that make your religion seem smarter than it really is.

[Youtube][/Youtube]

#2. I don't think it's news to anyone here that birds evolved from reptiles, just like dinosaurs did. I'm not sure what point you think you are making".

WELL BREAKING NEWS. if birds was already flying when dinosaurs roamed the earth common sense will tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs. just put you common sense thinking cap on for a minute. if flying birds was here when the first dinosaurs, that means they did not evolved from dinosaurs, because "THEY WAS ALREADY HERE

"if flying birds was here when the first dinosaurs"

Hold your horses mate, have you demonstrated that flying birds were here before the first dinosaurs? The answer is no. You have not demonstrated this at all.

Let's have a quick quiz on grammatical structure.

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, which is what the article you quoted stuck into the title. In other words, you have misrepresented what the article actually says. However, I am not going to allow you to make unsubstantiated claims and insist you got them from scholarly sources. You need to substantiate this claim that birds existed before the first dinosaurs well before you get to gloat.

It's time we actually look at... What the scientists claim!

The earliest and most primitive unambiguous theropods (or alternatively, "Eutheropoda" – 'True Theropods') are the Coelophysoidea. The Coelophysoidea were a group of widely distributed, lightly built and potentially gregarious animals. They included small hunters like Coelophysis and (possibly) larger predators like Dilophosaurus. These successful animals continued from the Late Carnian (early Late Triassic) through to the Toarcian (late Early Jurassic). Although in the early cladistic classifications they were included under the Ceratosauria and considered a side-branch of more advanced theropods,[41] they may have been ancestral to all other theropods (which would make them a paraphyletic group).
..
The somewhat more advanced ceratosaurs (including Ceratosaurus and Carnotaurus) appeared during the Early Jurassic and continued through to the Late Jurassic in Laurasia. They competed alongside their more anatomically advanced tetanuran relatives and—in the form of the abelisaur lineage—lasted to the end of the Cretaceous in Gondwana.
...
The Tetanurae are more specialised again than the ceratosaurs. They are subdivided into the basal Megalosauroidea (alternately Spinosauroidea) and the more derived Avetheropoda. Megalosauridae were primarily Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous predators, and their spinosaurid relatives' remains are mostly from Early and Middle Cretaceous rocks. Avetheropoda, as their name indicates, were more closely related to birds and are again divided into the Allosauroidea (the diverse carcharodontosaurs) and the Coelurosauria (a very large and diverse dinosaur group including the birds).

So no, 101G, the first birds appeared before the last dinosaurs, something that science and the article you posted both agree on. But it does not give you the authority to declare that the first birds appeared before the first dinosaurs.

#3. one said, "This doesn't in any way refute that birds evolved from dinosaurs".
I believe it do.

Fortunately, now you'll have to do a little more work.

#4. one said, "The above outlines a very simple evolutionary pathway that leads to the development of feathers in scaled species. There is nothing preventing reptiles from developing this mutation, except for selection pressures. That birds obtained it is only notable because feathers are very useful in the development of flight, and therefore flight-based animals would benefit heavily from further variation of the "feather."

Well ask the BAT for example, he don't have feathers?.

Time for another quiz on sentence structure!

"That birds obtained it is only notable because feathers are very useful in the development of flight, and therefore flight-based animals would benefit heavily from further variation of the "feather."

Which of the following is claimed by the above sentence?

A. Flying creatures must evolve feathers, because feathers are required for flight.
B. Flying creatures don't evolve feathers, because feathers are detrimental for flight.
C. Flying creatures may evolve feathers, because feathers are useful for flight.
D. None of the above

Once again, the correct answer is C! Your tangent discussing bats is based off a misunderstanding of my post. Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer.

I do not, nor have I ever, claimed that feathers are required for flight, or that every species that flies is required to evolve feathers. The evolutionary history of bats is still a problem for you because bats evolved from land-walking mammals; they are not fowl.

see, all these arguments are fruitless, and baseless. as said, there is some research that is going on and I'll wait for it to be complete. and as always, science is always finding NEW DISCOVERIES all the time. so what the them today might not be tommorrow. so I'll say with what the bible say an not rely on science totally for and answers yet.

You're making quite the series of posts about it now, why not keep going? With a little trial and effort, we can really make some progress on the topic of bird evolution from dinosaurs.

You made the claim that:

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

But I've met you blow for blow, and shown a level of comprehension of the material suitable for someone debating on the topic of bird evolution. So you don't get to talk about me that way. My knowledge of science has only accelerated as we've had this discussion, a result of earnest research and an awareness of critical thinking and willingness to be shown wrong.

Any one of your four links could have been the killing blow, but none of them had any actual power behind them to support your argument because either the scholarly, scientific articles do not say what you want them to say, or you use biased creationist propaganda.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 130 by benchwarmer]

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, gotta have something if you want to be with me"

those words are in a song, and how true.

but I would like make an observation. many who post links to me seem like they are not understanding what's in the links they post. this is no put down of anyone, ok. but only an observation.

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

and I notice on some post the first thing said, "that's not true". if you're not a bible reader, nor believer, how do you know?. just asking.

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.

just a reality check.

The irony here is palpable. You use words incorrectly then call out others for 'lack of personal knowledge'? Really?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your song. Do you understand what the number 0 means? Do you realize that 0 km/h is a speed? i.e. when you are sitting in front of your computer, what speed is your body moving at relative to your floor? Unless you walk around with a wireless keyboard, I'm gonna guess 0 km/h. Now, what was your argument again?

As to others understanding of the Bible, I've seen time and time again current atheists and agnostics absolutely putting to shame the knowledge of the Bible of some theists. You do realize that some of us deconverted because we studied the Bible very closely right? The average Christian seems to rarely actually read the entire Bible much less actually look at it with a critical eye and discover it's actual historical make up. Some of us were trying to become better Christians and actually understand the entire tome of documents. Sadly, the more you read and study, the more it falls apart. I always say, if you want to be a good Christian, don't read your Bible too closely or question its origins. Just keep reading the cherry picked parts from sermons and Bible studies and don't question anything to closely.

As for your comments about understanding science, you may, but you have shown no such understanding in your comments so far. Based solely on your comments, I would conclude you do not actually understand science, but hope it can be used to prove your beliefs based on what other people say (i.e. websites like answersingenesis). Simply using answersingenesis as a foundation for any argument in a scientific discussion immediately disqualifies you as understanding science. Science does not involve statements of faith, but relies on verifiable evidence.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 125 by 101G]

God said, "Unto the woman, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. the key word here is "multiply".

We do not observe women giving birth to litters of babies, which would be consistent with your fanciful interpretation of the text. Nor do most women give birth to more than two or three children. Greatly multiply? Too funny.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 127 by 101G]

now I would like to ask my scientific community a question. if I would increase or multiply "pain", would not I first have to have "pain" in order to increase or multiply it? yes, or no.

Not necessarily. You may have been given an initial capacity to experience pain, then when a vengeful and vindictive God got offended he decided to increase that capacity.
Not that it matters. The story is fiction and there was no Adam or Eve. The search for the truth of our origins has put this to bed already.