Creation of plants BEFORE our sun

juvenissun · #31 29th June 2008, 08:05 AM

[quote=Assyrian;47636929]

Why when everything else in the text is up for grabs in your interpretation, do you cling on to six literal days? There is no basis in scripture for changing full grown trees into seeds, but there is a very strong basis for reading the days figuratively. Moses tells us himself in Psalm 90 where he talks about God's creation and goes on to tell us God's days are not always seen literally.

I need to find a ground that can take care of literalism and science at the same time. If God said: Cabbage. Then literally, it could mean a fully grown cabbabe, or a cabbage seed, or a cabbage cell. And all of them are equally "good"

Panspermia?

YEC Panspermia?

Yes, but only to plants, not to animals. This will give a whole new meaning to plant in theology. It also suggests to us on what kind of life we could expect outside the earth in this universe. SETI people are going to be disappointed. And I am exciting about it. People (include me) always take both plant and animal equal in the meaning of life. Now, to me, they are different. Could you imagine that a planet exists somewhere in the universe, which has lavish plants but no animals?

Assyrian · #32 29th June 2008, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I need to find a ground that can take care of literalism and science at the same time. If God said: Cabbage. Then literally, it could mean a fully grown cabbabe, or a cabbage seed, or a cabbage cell. And all of them are equally "good"

Trees bearing fruit with seeds in them are not the same as seeds for fruit trees. Heads of cabbage are not the same as a pack of cabbage seeds. Only one goes with bacon and boiled potatoes. They may be equally "good" (though not very good for bacon and cabbage), but that does not mean you can take one good thing that the bible describes and substitute it for something else that is good.

Just because a head of cabbage is good and a cabbage seed is good, it does not mean a head of cabbage is a cabbage seed.

Yes, but only to plants, not to animals. This will give a whole new meaning to plant in theology. It also suggests to us on what kind of life we could expect outside the earth in this universe. SETI people are going to be disappointed. And I am exciting about it. People (include me) always take both plant and animal equal in the meaning of life. Now, to me, they are different. Could you imagine that a planet exists somewhere in the universe, which has lavish plants but no animals?

I have heard a lot of YECs saying there was no death before the fall argue that plants aren't alive.

You know, if you are going for extraterrestrial plants, why stop there?
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Don't forget the waters God separated with the firmament back in day two. Genesis does not specify which waters are to swarm with life. Why not have sea creatures in space as well as plants. It would explain the bowl of petunias and the whale

oldwiseguy · #33 29th June 2008, 12:55 PM

I'll bet that God can fashion a tree that can actually live without sunlight for ONE LOUSY DAY. I have two such trees in my yard. They actually live overnight. When I get up in the morning I check to see if they are still alive. I have done this for over thirty years, and they are not dead yet, in fact they are getting bigger (gasp!) in spite of being without sunlight for many hours at a time.

But seriously, on Day One God removed the "darkness" that shrouded the face of the water covered earth, which allowed the sun to shine on it. Day Four finds God "appointing" certain tasks and meanings to the preexisting sun and moon, and perhaps fine tuning their orbits.

The first three chapters of Genesis have many summary, or recapitulation statements that seem to change the order of creation. But a careful reading will reveal and dispel this.

owg

zon3d · #34 30th June 2008, 10:24 PM

You realise that plants can survive longer than a day without sunlight. Nevertheless, light was created before that anyway.

juvenissun · #35 1st July 2008, 11:11 AM

A brand new article talked about the clock gene of plants.

I do not know all the details about the gene argument. What I can read is that plants can develop their internal clock to adapt to a planet which may have a different timing cycle in related to its sun.

I assume this article use plants for the study because this character of gene does not exist in animal gene. So if we live on a planet which has 12 hours or 45 hours a day, we might not be able to adapt and would probably die.

So, it makes sense that plants are created before the solar system. They can survive anywhere in the universe as long as T-P-X conditions fit. It may also implies that gene of animals on earth are made specifically to our solar system.

juvenissun · #36 4th July 2008, 10:24 AM

There is another piece of scientific speculation related to the topic.

It is new to me that there are diamond dust embedded in zircon. As this article pointed out, zircon approximates the earth's age is not a reasonable fact according to the current understanding in petrology (i.e. zircon is only found in granitic rocks). And zircon should neither exist in meteorite or in comet. Biological carbon found in diamond is rare, needless to say in diamond embedded in a zircon.

Something is strange there. And I believe the message in Gen 1 is the answer. Unfortunately the current scientific community refuses to explore the science of origin from the Biblical point of view. The result would simply be walking a big circle and coming back to what the Bible says thousands of years ago.

Tinker Grey · #37 4th July 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Biological carbon found in diamond is rare

I am not a scientist ... but, is it just me, or is this statement worthy of FSTDT?

Mallon · #38 4th July 2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tinker Grey

I am not a scientist ... but, is it just me, or is this statement worthy of FSTDT?

Everything juvie says is worthy of FSTDT.

juvenissun · #39 4th July 2008, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tinker Grey

Originally Posted by juvenissun
Biological carbon found in diamond is rare

I am not a scientist ... but, is it just me, or is this statement worthy of FSTDT?

I am not sure how much you know about the problem on this sentence. But as a non-scientist you are pretty good to single this one out. Yes, it has problem. I tried to say too much with too few words so it starts to sound weird.

Want try to correct it? I do not mean the carbon of the diamond itself. I mean carbon inclusion in diamond.

Tinker Grey · #40 4th July 2008, 07:05 PM

Well, at first blush, all the carbon in any diamond is the same carbon found in biology.

I wondered if you meant something else; but with you I never know -- sorry.