Why are we here?

juvenissun said:

Good, that is exactly what I want you to say. That makes some dinosaurs more likely to be birds.

Click to expand...

And?

juvenissun said:

OK, then could birds also be other types of animals before dinosaurs?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.
What do you mean "other types" and "before dinosaurs"?

Sounds like "could thumbs have been other types of body parts before fingers"?

There were no thumbs before fingers....

Speedwell said:

And?

Click to expand...

So, Genesis 1:22 is not necessarily wrong.

DogmaHunter said:

I don't understand your question.
What do you mean "other types" and "before dinosaurs"?

Sounds like "could thumbs have been other types of body parts before fingers"?

There were no thumbs before fingers....

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:22

pitabread said:

Not "why are we here" in a metaphysical sense. But rather why are each of us here on this forum?

I'm here for fake internet points. Why is everyone else here?

(Also, Merry Christmas 'all!)

Click to expand...

I've been lurking here for many years (15?) because it's the only place I've seen creationists learn enough science to reject YEC. It doesn't happen anywhere near often enough but that's still pretty good for a discussion forum.

The only reason I finally registered was to put AV and dad on ignore.

juvenissun said:

Genesis 1:22

Click to expand...

Cool.

How is that relevant?

juvenissun said:

So, Genesis 1:22 is not necessarily wrong.

Click to expand...

Nothing in Gen 1:22 contradicts the theory of evolution but it is not relevant to the discussion.

Speedwell said:

Nothing in Gen 1:22 contradicts the theory of evolution but it is not relevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

All I want from you is this statement. You may have chance to argue with your comrades on this issue in the future.

Mostly, because I enjoy observing human psychology and how certain beliefs manifest from the same.

Highly entertaining stuff!

juvenissun said:

All I want from you is this statement. You may have chance to argue with your comrades on this issue in the future.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. They know that I'm a Christian. I have explained my views in some detail and have had no argument from any of them yet.

I also note, that verse from Genesis is often quoted by theistic evolutionists in argument against creationists.

What would the argument be about?

Speedwell said:

I don't think so. They know that I'm a Christian. I have explained my views in some detail and have had no argument from any of them yet.

I also note, that verse from Genesis is often quoted by theistic evolutionists in argument against creationists.

What would the argument be about?

Click to expand...

God creates birds before land animals.

juvenissun said:

God creates birds before land animals.

Click to expand...

Not in that passage, He doesn't; He just creates sea creatures and birds. There is nothing said in Gen 1:22 about the order of creation.

Speedwell said:

Not in that passage, He doesn't; He just creates sea creatures and birds. There is nothing said in Gen 1:22 about the order of creation.

Click to expand...

I just don't know why do you still want to argue. Could you just read on? This sequence is not deniable in Genesis 1.

juvenissun said:

I just don't know why do you still want to argue. Could you just read on? This sequence is not deniable in Genesis 1.

Click to expand...

OK, I thought you were just talking about Gen 1:22 from a literary standpoint.

If you want to talk about the whole chapter, that's a different thing. I don't see any point in trying to reconcile Gen 1 to science. Gen 1 has a theological message of great importance to convey, much more important than a mere scientific account of our origins. Nothing in it requires that I deny the scientific findings that land animals evolved before birds. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not its conformity with science. It wasn't written to convey or be coherent with science.

Speedwell said:

I don't see any point in trying to reconcile Gen 1 to science. Gen 1 has a theological message of great importance to convey, much more important than a mere scientific account of our origins. Nothing in it requires that I deny the scientific findings that land animals evolved before birds. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not its conformity with science. It wasn't written to convey or be coherent with science.

Click to expand...

Scientifically, Gen 1 is literally correct. This is very critical. If one compromised there, one may compromise at any other verse in the whole Bible.

juvenissun said:

I just don't know why do you still want to argue. Could you just read on? This sequence is not deniable in Genesis 1.

Click to expand...

If Genesis has birds existing before land animals, then Genesis is just wrong.

Plain and simple.
Stories in books don't trump the evidence of reality.

juvenissun said:

Scientifically, Gen 1 is literally correct.

Click to expand...

No.

If one compromised there, one may compromise at any other verse in the whole Bible.

Click to expand...

Accepting the evidence of reality in favor of a certain interpretation of a mere story is not a "compromise". It's just being rational.

DogmaHunter said:

No.

Accepting the evidence of reality in favor of a certain interpretation of a mere story is not a "compromise". It's just being rational.

Click to expand...

What about the bird argument? What can you say? Or, the only thing you know is to deny?

juvenissun said:

What about the bird argument? What can you say? Or, the only thing you know is to deny?

Click to expand...

I didn't see an argument.
I only saw a religious assertion.

An assertion, that I can dissmiss at face value, for two reasons:

1. it is contradicted by the evidence of reality (biology, paleontology, genetics...)

2. what is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

DogmaHunter said:

I didn't see an argument.
I only saw a religious assertion.

An assertion, that I can dissmiss at face value, for two reasons:

1. it is contradicted by the evidence of reality (biology, paleontology, genetics...)

2. what is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

Click to expand...

You do not even know what is a bird. The definition you gave does not work on dinosaurs.