The Creation Account, Another Look

101G · Post by **101G** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:00 am

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.

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:25 pm

101G wrote: feathers are not just for flight, they can be for many other things, warmth, display to a mate, ... ect.

So when I say "feathers are useful for flight," you go off on a tangent to say, "But they're not just for flight!"

If I had said "feathers are only useful for flight," what you said would have been noteworthy. But I didn't. Why is it that you have to warp my speech to find any holes, and can't approach my posts as they are written? You've still got a lot of holes in your posts that need to be patched up.

101G wrote: I disagree, The Cretaceousâ€“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.

As I've already said previously, it's possible for a population to evolve from a different population, and for both separate populations to exist at the same time. You refuse to accept this because your understanding of evolution is questionable. And yet you accuse us of not knowing enough about the subject matter. I'm actually kind of angry.

Dinosaurs evolved within a single lineage of archosaurs 232-234 Ma (million years ago) in the Ladinian age, the latter part of the middle Triassic. Dinosauria is a well-supported clade, present in 98% of bootstraps. It is diagnosed by many features including loss of the postfrontal on the skull and an elongate deltopectoral crest on the humerus.

Point 1. Dinosaurs evolved ~230 million years ago.

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.

Point 2. Birds evolved some 127 million years ago.

The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, or the K-T event, is the name given to the die-off of the dinosaurs and other species that took place some 65.5 million years ago.

Point 3. In the time during which dinosaurs evolved (which is a period of dozens of millions of years), birds evolved from the older lineage of dinosaurs. That means they evolved from theropod ancestors between 230 million and 127 million years, and from that point on they lived among other dinosaurs until 65.5 million years ago, when the other dinosaur groups went extinct. The fact that every single scientific source you bring up goes on to support this shows that there is a scientific consensus.

101G wrote: 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.

You make this claim, but every single one of your claims so far fails to hold water. You take quotes from random scientific articles you think supports your case, but in your ambitious struggle you've failed to realize that each one still creates a coherent network of data points that all claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The consensus is here.

My questions for you, and the ones I expect you to answer in your next response:
1. Did you actually read my statement that a species can evolve from another species, and both can exist at the same time? If so, what do you not understand about that?
2. Did you read the AnswersinGenesis article stating flat-out there is a consensus? If so, why do you not accept their statement, if you're willing to use them as a scholarly source?
3. What is your understanding of the theory of evolution, and why haven't you demonstrated a scientifically literate position if you do understand the theory?
4. If you claim to like and enjoy science, why do you not know what the scientists actually claim? Why do you only claim that science supports the biblical account when scientists are more than willing to point out that you are merely going off the rails and posting things that make you feel good, but have no evidence-based support aside from giving the false impression that you have support for your position, when the opposite is clearly true?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:26 pm

101G wrote: [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 Cretaceousâ€“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.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't you a young earth creationist? If so, why are you using something dated to a hundred million years to support yourself?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:29 pm

101G wrote: 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.

A rehortical question then, I am living with my parents (a few years ago in the same house, still in the same town now,) does that mean I did not come from them?

Along the same lines as above, let say you are living with your cousins and granted, you did not come from your cousins, but does that mean you did not come from the same grandparents?

One step backwards, let say you are living with your second cousins and it's obvious that you did not come from your second cousins, but does that mean you did not come from the same grand-grandparents? And one step further, so forth and so on?

I think that more than demonstrates that "birds evolving from dinosaurs" cannot be ruled out by the premise that birds were living with dinosaurs.

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.

I saw nothing in either of these links that challenge the birds from dinosaurs view. Could you be more specific?

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

Consensus to me does not require universal acceptance, just a wide majority. As such we already have a consensus. Granted the consensus can change with new evidence and I acknowledge that there are scientists that are proposing that the bird branch split off earlier than dinosaurs.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:14 pm

[Replying to post 147 by 101G]

No, no, no, adapting is one thing.
This became a NEW SPECIES.
That does not happen all the time.

Just like creation is not proven a myth all the time and definitively.

But what we are experiencing, denial, is nothing new, it happens all the time.

101G · Post by **101G** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:46 pm

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

101G · Post by **101G** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:50 pm

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 147 by 101G]

No, no, no, adapting is one thing.
This became a NEW SPECIES.
That does not happen all the time.

Just like creation is not proven a myth all the time and definitively.

But what we are experiencing, denial, is nothing new, it happens all the time.

YES, YES, YES, for if the genes did not exist there would not be a new creation. the definition of SPECIES: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

so your assessment is incorrect.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:07 pm

[Replying to post 153 by 101G]

It isn't my assessment, it is the observation of a new species.
And there is now a new species.
This is the practical observable of evolution.

What else do you want?

I mean aside evolution doing things creationist want it to do - like men becoming gorilla. But even should a man evolve into a gorilla, evolutionists would be the first to point out SOME OTHER FACTOR, and NOT evolution is at play.

Evolution don't do that.

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:08 pm

[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.

101G · Post by **101G** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:20 pm

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 153 by 101G]

It isn't my assessment, it is the observation of a new species.
And there is now a new species.
This is the practical observable of evolution.

What else do you want?

I mean aside evolution doing things creationist want it to do - like men becoming gorilla. But even should a man evolve into a gorilla, evolutionists would be the first to point out SOME OTHER FACTOR, and NOT evolution is at play.

Evolution don't do that.

ERROR, what you calls a New is nothing but an adaptation of an existing species. An adaptation is a mutation, or genetic change, that helps an organism, such as a plant or animal, survive in its environment. Due to the helpful nature of the mutation, it is passed down from one generation to the next. ... The mutation has become an adaptation.

An adaptation can be structural, meaning it is a physical part of the organism. An adaptation can also be behavioral, affecting the way an organism acts.

I suggest you read, "Adaptation", https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... daptation/

101G · Post by **101G** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:22 pm

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.

I been doing this all the time, it's you who is avoiding the evidence.