Recommended book on Creation

[AV1611VET]

Much of the natural history of angiosperms, or flowering plants, seems to be missing from the fossil record.

I somehow don't think Mr. Schroeder is qualified to discuss creationism then.

At least, not a literal Genesis 1 creation, anyway.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

I somehow don't think Mr. Schroeder is qualified to discuss creationism then.

At least, not a literal Genesis 1 creation, anyway.

I am having technical difficulties and could not post everything I wanted to.

Just view my post 28 that covers plant life

 

[AV1611VET]

And it says the earth was without form.

That's because it was a mass of water in the hollow of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

Matter came first then light.

Not according to Genesis 1.

This is according to science and the Bible.

Tares and Wheat.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

That's because it was a mass of water in the hollow of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?Not according to Genesis 1.Tares and Wheat.

Genesis 1
dropdown
King James Version
dropdown

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

 

[AV1611VET]

Just view my post 28 that covers plant life

From Post 28:

Resolution of this seeming conflict is found in the use of the word luminaries rather than light in Genesis 1:14.

So the first thing this guy is going to do to resolve this "seeming conflict" is change the wording of the Bible?

Is this going to be another "Yea, hath God said" discussion?

 

[AV1611VET]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

Yes, indeed.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

From Post 28:So the first thing this guy is going to do to resolve this "seeming conflict" is change the wording of the Bible?

Is this going to be another "Yea, hath God said" discussion?

What wording did he change?

Please clarify your objections.

 

[AV1611VET]

What wording did he change?

Once again, here it is:

Resolution of this seeming conflict is found in the use of the word luminaries rather than light in Genesis 1:14.

In reality, Genesis 1:14 says:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;

Genesis 1:14 does not say:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;

Please clarify your objections.

1. I very strongly object to anyone who tries to use science to justify their particular brand of creationism in Genesis 1.

In order to do that, they have to do two things:

• Change the wording of the chapter.
• Change the order of God's creation all around to suit their fancy.

2. Science had nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis 1.

Instead, Genesis 1 is a series of miracles ... not natural processes ... that were performed over a six-day perion in 4004 BC that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Once again, here it is:In reality, Genesis 1:14 says:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;

Genesis 1:14 does not say:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;1. I very strongly object to anyone who tries to use science to justify their particular brand of creationism in Genesis 1.

In order to do that, they have to do two things:

• Change the wording of the chapter.
• Change the order of God's creation all around to suit their fancy.

2. Science had nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis 1.

Instead, Genesis 1 is a series of miracles ... not natural processes ... that were performed over a six-day perion in 4004 BC that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

I will have to reread how he worded things as well as review the Biblical text as well. And I'm having horrible technical difficulties here as well.

Does anyone have their screen freeze and get booted off repeatedly here? I will try to address these later on.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Brightmoon]

Schroeder does not talk about angiosperm

But this is what I found out about it.

Controversy Blooms Over Earliest Flower Fossil | Live Science

Much of the natural history of angiosperms, or flowering plants, seems to be missing from the fossil record. According to fossils, the first plants on land were mosses, which emerged about 425 million years ago. The ferns were next, followed by gymnosperms — a group that includes cycads, gingkoes and pine trees. Then, about 125 million years ago, angiosperms and their flowers sprang forth during the Cretaceous period, as fully formed as Aphrodite. Within 30 million years, angiosperms would dominate the Earth. [Naughty by Nature: Photos of the Most Disgusting and Deadly Flowers]

And it says the earth was without form.

Matter came first then light. This is according to science and the Bible.[/QUOTE]. No that is wrong ! energy started at the Big Bang . That was light , when it cooled then you get subatomic particles “ solidifying” and those eventually formed hydrogen and a little helium and lithium . At that point the universe was dark for many many millennia until the first stars started to coalesce out of the hydrogen gas under the influence of gravity. These first stars didn’t contain any elements above iron . So solid planets weren’t around then . We can see those stars from back then and can do spectrographic analysis on the light coming from them so we know what elements they contained. The other elements didn’t form until those first stars went nova . Our sun is a second or third generation star so it contains all of the natural elements . Only 2nd generation stars can have planets with metals