|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A Logical account of creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: Well, as one data point in the argument against such a creation there are these facts of the first appearance of these "kinds": amoeba "kind" - Achaean periodplant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period amphibian "kind" - Devonian period reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period mammal "kind" - Triassic period ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic period Seems to me that if these "kinds" were created at the beginning then we should see all of them in the Achaean period. your list above has no conflict with the bible account. the Genesis account merely covers the major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or 'day,' in which each first appeared. it was the 1st and 2nd creative periods or 'days' that speak of the atmosphere being created and the dry land being brought together into one place then it was the in the 3rd creative period that three broad categories of land plants appeared. "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds..." in the 5th creative period or 'day' came first the sea creatures, then the flying creatures. "Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens" finally it was the 6th creative period or 'day' that land animals began to appear...the last of them being 'mankind'"Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind." so isnt this order of creation is in line with scientific fact...if not whats missing ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
lyx2no writes: Birds do not come before land animals. have you got any references I can go to that explains this? genesis lists 10 major stages in this order: 1a beginning to the universe2a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water 3light 4an expanse or atmosphere 5large areas of dry land 6land plants of all sorts 7sun, moon and stars discernible, and seasons begin 8sea creatures and flying creatures 9wild and tame beasts, mammals 10mankind what's illogical or impossible about this order? Its seems like it could work. Light would need to come before plants. Plants would need to come before animals
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Except for the fact that the "Vendian" plants were not land plants.The land plants first appear no earlier than the Devonian but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It simply presents the order of the major groups as they appeared. it says only they appeared on 'earth' and does not specify whether is they appeared on the land under the seas or land above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
lyx2no writes: You've go to be pulling my leg. havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat writes: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so It would seem that this would mean plants on land. it only says 'earth' as far as i'm aware, the land under the sea is still part of the earth unless scientists have decided otherwise there are many diffferent types of plants that yield seed and a fruit tree isnt confined to apples and oranges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
i think its logical that God made fully formed plants, with seed production being the means for their duplication, rather then him producing seeds first and scattering them about. Its like a chicken and egg senario... most logically he created a formed chicken that was capable of laying eggs rather then making eggs that hatched little chickens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law. thats what people believed about rotting meat meat is fresh, it begins to rot then suddenly life appears (bugs n maggots and flies) therefore rotting meat produces life I thought they had worked that one out???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes: You do know there is no scientific law called [Recurrent Variation] this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it. look here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all??? the quote comes from the British 'New Scientist' journal in an article entitled "Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science" June 25th 1981 by Michael Ruse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? im not sure but im sure a copy could be got from New Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: Peg, one guy from a plant institute publishing in what must be the most obscure journal unknown to man, and declaring that he has a "law" is not really how 'laws' come in to being in science... i dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: I wonder how much Jesus loves the limitless lying and deception perpetrated by his followers... What do you think, Peg? well you know what they say... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" but seriously, i think creationists are looking very closely at what evolutionists say and when they say something that appears to express some amount of doubt, creationists use it. YOu cant blame them can you? I mean the idea that life evolved and was not created is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system. most of us are not scientists...and those who are seem to be branded as 'not real scientists' if they believe in creation. So its no wonder we pounce on anything that appears to discredit evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: Please, if you can find the original, provide it. I would love to read it. i only have the reference in the bibliography in my 'evolution or creation' book. I did a google but didnt come up with anything either... Perhaps someone would need to ask New Scientist or the author for a copy of the original article.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024