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.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:30 pm

[Replying to post 156 by 101G]

WRONG.
Just wrong.

It is a new species, not adaptation. Didn't you read the article?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:56 pm

101G wrote:
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.

Moderator Comment

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.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:10 am

101G wrote: ERROR, what you calls a New is nothing but an adaptation of an existing species...

Why not both? The adaptation of an existing species is a new species.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... daptation/

You keep posting article that don't support your case, nothing in there says adaptation can't produce a new species.

101G · Post by **101G** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:03 pm

[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.

101G · Post by **101G** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:05 pm

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 156 by 101G]

WRONG.
Just wrong.

It is a new species, not adaptation. Didn't you read the article?

example a new

nope, did you read the article. if a bird grow teeth, is it a bird? yes.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:36 pm

[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.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:52 pm

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.

That much is fine.

but those don't change the fact of the species.

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.

only a diversity is produce, this is natural.

What do you mean "only," when a population is diverse enough in either behavior, structure or environment, you have a new species.

but no adaption changes a bear into a dog, or vice versa. nor a ape into a man.

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.

DeMotts · Post by **DeMotts** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:15 pm

[Replying to Bust Nak]

And if you give it enough time, it will change one species of reptile into a bird.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:23 pm

101G wrote:
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 156 by 101G]

WRONG.
Just wrong.

It is a new species, not adaptation. Didn't you read the article?
example a new

nope, did you read the article. if a bird grow teeth, is it a bird? yes.

Are you aware that "bird" is merely a label? You can call your girlfriend a bird if you want.
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.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:24 pm

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.

"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.

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