My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

I am not retracting anything simply pointing out that sea vegetation existed before sea life but that land vegetation came after sea lif e had existed. Your point of Genesis is that land plants exited before sea life, which is wrong. My point was that the term vegetation was vague in that it doesn't separate the water borne flora, algae, from the land based flora shrubs, trees, grass etc. Algae existed long before the land plants and all the animal phyla existed before the land plants. All the animal phyla started in the sea.

No it is not a swarm, there is only one hypothesis, a swarm would have to be many hypotheses.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

Actually it is a "swarm of swarms," Numerous different species many not closely related, with billions of individual organisms.

quote:

---

My point was that the term vegetation was vague in that it doesn't separate the water borne flora, algae, from the land based flora shrubs, trees, grass etc.

---

But it does seperate the main groups of vegetation - many groups of vegetation are listed. The waters did have those vegetation groups prior to the emergence of animated life forms in the waters, and the premise of some newly term groups of vegetation does not pose the problem you have invented as vague:

quote:

---

11 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind;

---

quote:

---

Algae existed long before the land plants and all the animal phyla existed before the land plants. All the animal phyla started in the sea.

---

Algae is a plant.

Actually, the issue is Creationists redefining words to mean something they don't in a half assed attempt to lend credence to their claims.As such, we are still right on target.

There were yet no animated [self propelled moving] life forms before vegetation. [Genesis]None of the life forms were animated or living entities when they became initiated; this includes the first human. They did not move even when they were completed constructs.Does anyone agree with this premise of Genesis?

Hey dipshit, you are replying to a quote of YOU saying that my arguments are "thrash".Now you are arguing with yourself over that subject.I've never said that anyone's arguments are "thrash", chiefly because "thrash" is not a word.And, THAT fits very nicely into out topic - words creationists make up or redefine to suit their purposes.

All life forms, on their initiation, were dual-gendered. Namely, the first human was a dual-gendered male/female construct ['Male and female did He make them'].Does anyone agree with this Genesis premise?

Let's be clear.Are you saying that the Bible states that vegetation predates other water borne life?

You have to give an alternate reading of a statement before shouting eureka! You have not done so.

Yes. By millions of years. And this is first recorded in Genesis - which is the earliest known scientific statement in all recorded history.

From Wiki:

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only, it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia

Well, that's factually incorrect.There was waterborne life prior to that life developing the ability to photosynthesize.Vegetation does not predate other water borne life. It can't. It's an impossibility.

Read your own link fully and understand what you are reading. Meiosis is a form of cloning - which forms the duality in the egg, emulating normal repro; this form of emulation can be done in a lab as well. Otherwise [without this duality semblance ability] - no reproduction can occur.

quote:

---

Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.

---

There is no alternative to the duality factor for all actions in the universe - including life and inanimated entities. Genesis wins. [/quote]

The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living. The photsythesis occured when light and darkness were adjusted t the correct ratio for this planet, differing it from other planets [Genesis v14] and the rain cycle was triggered.This premise may well be above this thread's posters' thinking. It begs the question: which came first - the mother's breast milk - or the offspring? Which came first - the car - or the blueprints of a car? Which came first - the life form - or all the trillions of aligning factors necessary for that life form?