OK, then could birds also be other types of animals before dinosaurs?
So, Genesis 1:22 is not necessarily wrong.And?
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....
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.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!)
Nothing in Gen 1:22 contradicts the theory of evolution but it is not relevant to the discussion.
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.All I want from you is this statement. You may have chance to argue with your comrades on this issue in the future.
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?
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.God creates birds before land animals.
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.
OK, I thought you were just talking about Gen 1:22 from a literary standpoint.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.
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.
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.
Scientifically, Gen 1 is literally correct.
If one compromised there, one may compromise at any other verse in the whole Bible.
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.
What about the bird argument? What can you say? Or, the only thing you know is to deny?
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.