Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Oncedeceived]

You are just twisting your interpretation to line up with the facts. That is not a prediction. Grasses and trees came well after life in the sea began. The creation model is wrong. The creation account also has whales before land mammals, birds before dinosaurs, and on and on it goes. It is wrong.

That is your opinion. I added just a few moments ago a new study that confirms that plant life was on earth precambrian.

Earth Had Oxygen Much Earlier Than Thought | LiveScience

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.

Whales are a translation which is not accurate. The Hebrew is what I have in my quote.

How do you know it had birds before dino's?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is your opinion. I added just a few moments ago a new study that confirms that plant life was on earth precambrian.

Grasses, trees, and herbs were not. Nothing bearing seed or fruit existed before life in the sea. The creation model is wrong.

Whales are a translation which is not accurate.

Then what day were they created? The only day that fits is when the creatures of the sea were created. Once again, the creation model is wrong.

How do you know it had birds before dino's?

It says so in the creation myth. Birds came about before the beasts of the land. I thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Grasses, trees, and herbs were not. Nothing bearing seed or fruit existed before life in the sea. The creation model is wrong.

The verse says: And God said: '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.' And it was so.

So we see that in the verse it speaks of these things being after others that came before of the same kind. So we see this exactly happening on earth. The earliest earth has the first kind of plant life that comes before those listed in the verse.

Then what day were they created? The only day that fits is when the creatures of the sea were created. Once again, the creation model is wrong.

It doesn't comment on whales at all.

It says so in the creation myth. Birds came about before the beasts of the land. I thought it was pretty obvious.

The land kinds listed again are later animal forms that come after their kind, which points to some of their kind came before. Same for the bird.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The verse says: And God said: '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.' And it was so.

So we see that in the verse it speaks of these things being after others that came before of the same kind. So we see this exactly happening on earth. The earliest earth has the first kind of plant life that comes before those listed in the verse.
...

If we are allowed to interpret, Twas the Night Before Christmas tells of Santa creating life:

"Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse".

Clearly Santa was saying the "house", or earth, had no creatures, not even a mouse, until he created them on Christmas Eve.

The bible is supposed to be God's word. If it is, then surely God can ensure that it actually says what it means. If it is not, then there is no point believing it, because it is simply a story created by man.

Is the bible God's word, or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The verse says: And God said: '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.' And it was so.


So we see that in the verse it speaks of these things being after others that came before of the same kind. So we see this exactly happening on earth. The earliest earth has the first kind of plant life that comes before those listed in the verse.

If you are going to extend "kind" to this ridiculous length then you are admitting that all animal life came from a single cell organism. Cyanobacteria and the simplest of algae are not "plant kind". They are not in the plant kingdom.

It doesn't comment on whales at all.

You are lucky, since they would have gotten it wrong.

The land kinds listed again are later animal forms that come after their kind, which points to some of their kind came before. Same for the bird.

Please define "kind". If you cannot define a term it cannot be used in a debate.

It has to be a working definition. For example are man and ape of the same kind? Why or why not?

 

[Shemjaza]

Ok, if you understood evolution you would realize that chimps are not direct ancestors of humans. These skulls could not be chimp. They are apes after the linage broke off to form the branch that led to the Homo Sapien. If you were in a court of law right now, you would lose the case. So the most convincing evidence for you is not even what you think it is.

Lay off the impolite tone. No where did I say chimps were ancestral to humans or afarensis.

Most of these critters aren't direct ancestors of each other, but they are related and the time line of the non chimp skulls show the family that produced humans changing from something that is a lot more like a chimp to something a lot more like a human.

And I said the skulls were not what i would use for a the court of law type argument.

As a side note, no they don't look all that similar. You will notice that the forehead is substantially higher on B than on A, the brow bone on B is much farther from the top of the crown with a pronounced structure and the eye sockets are more round than oblong, the nasal cavity is more round in appearance as well in B, the cheek bones are considerably higher on B too. So all in all, I repeat, they don't seem that similar.

Wow. Okay, I suspect you stand alone among creationists who are happy to label Lucy as "a chimp", or "just an ordinary ape".

I can see more human like traits then we see in chimps, but looking at that muzzle, those brow ridges, the lack of a hint of a protruding nose, make me thing this little guy would have look like a weird upright chimp to lay eyes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lay off the impolite tone. No where did I say chimps were ancestral to humans or afarensis.

You are completely right, I fear I get so weary of unbelievers on here mocking and being so disrespectful that I think I fall into a defensive mode. I hope you will accept my deepest apology. You were not using that tone with me and I should have not with you.

Most of these critters aren't direct ancestors of each other, but they are related and the time line of the non chimp skulls show the family that produced humans changing from something that is a lot more like a chimp to something a lot more like a human.

And you were just being honest and telling me what you felt was convincing and I belittled that. Sorry again.

And I said the skulls were not what i would use for a the court of law type argument.

I guess I should have taken more time to read that as well considering I read it wrong. Wow, sorry again.

Wow. Okay, I suspect you stand alone among creationists who are happy to label Lucy as "a chimp", or "just an ordinary ape".

Creationists are not all the same in any case. I am sure most think I am standing with one leg in the world and one in heaven. Which is not a good thing. I might disagree with some of my fellow creationists on their views and they on mine but ultimately what unites is the view that God Created the universe. We just interpret it differently. I know that many of them are told that if you believe that evolution is true that you are wrong and going against the Bible. I don't think that is scripturally sound. I think that scripture supports evolution.

I can see more human like traits then we see in chimps, but looking at that muzzle, those brow ridges, the lack of a hint of a protruding nose, make me thing this little guy would have look like a weird upright chimp to lay eyes.

Why upright?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are going to extend "kind" to this ridiculous length then you are admitting that all animal life came from a single cell organism. Cyanobacteria and the simplest of algae are not "plant kind". They are not in the plant kingdom.

The article claims that plants akin to modern plants. I was not making a false claim.

You are lucky, since they would have gotten it wrong.

That is why it is important to use the original language as much as possible.





Please define "kind". If you cannot define a term it cannot be used in a debate.

It has to be a working definition. For example are man and ape of the same kind? Why or why not?

I would say for debate purposes to define kind as the three domains of life.

 

[Skaloop]

I would say for debate purposes to define kind as the three domains of life.

What three domains would that be?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What three domains would that be?

Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota.

 

[Skaloop]

Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota.

Which makes humans and mushrooms the same kind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which makes humans and mushrooms the same kind.

Possibly.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Which makes humans and mushrooms the same kind.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have a problem with that?

Not necessarily.

 

[Skaloop]

Possibly.

No, not possibly. Definitely. Humans and mushrooms are both eukaryotes, by definition. As is every multi-cellular organism.

If "kind" is a domain, then Noah took six things on the ark. Although how he ensured that there were only two bacteria or prokaryotes on the ark is still a mystery.

 

[Skaloop]

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't, no, but it does pose a problem for people who talk about "kind" as some sort of useful category for life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't, no, but it does pose a problem for people who talk about "kind" as some sort of useful category for life.

You don't think that a kind is not a useful category for life? How do you make that determination?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not possibly. Definitely. Humans and mushrooms are both eukaryotes, by definition. As is every multi-cellular organism.

If "kind" is a domain, then Noah took six things on the ark. Although how he ensured that there were only two bacteria or prokaryotes on the ark is still a mystery.

IF we define kind as the three domains of life then yes this is the case. So if I use that in this debate that is true if we work only with the definition that we are using.

 

[pgp_protector]

IF we define kind as the three domains of life then yes this is the case. So if I use that in this debate that is true if we work only with the definition that we are using.

In with using "Kind" in the discussion of Noah? what Definition would you use?
If you are able to change the Definition for every discussion, it's not really a valid definition is it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In with using "Kind" in the discussion of Noah? what Definition would you use?
If you are able to change the Definition for every discussion, it's not really a valid definition is it?

Is Zebra a kind with this definition?