The Genesis Re-Creation

[Doveaman]

And why wouldn't you also make the same assumption? Actually the Hebrew has "heavens" in Genesis 1:1. That is הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם (ha shamayim plural) So that includes the universe.

The same Hebrew is used in Genesis 1:8.

"And God called the firmament Heaven.” – (Gen 1:8).

This does not include the universe.

The firmament of Heaven is the expanse of the sky.

Heaven in Genesis 1 can also be related to the universe because the expanse of the sky provides us a window on earth through which we can view the universe.

I think the best evidence we have for 'Heaven' in Genesis is Genesis itself:

"In the beginning God created the Heaven (shamayim)" - (Gen 1:1)

"And God called the firmament Heaven (shamayim).” – (Gen 1:8).

"And the windows of heaven (shamayim) were opened ." - (Gen 7:11)

"And the windows of heaven (shamayim) were stopped" - (Gen 8:2)

Heaven is the expanse of the sky composed in part of water clouds, or Hebrew 'sham-mayim' (sky-water).

 

[Haipule]

Yes, I do agree that the earth could have been frozen prior to the creation events in Genesis 1. This would explain the abundance of water on earth at the beginning of the chapter.

It is interesting to note that the last ice age is said to have ended about 12 thousand years ago. Just enough time for the ice to melt producing the watery condition on earth in Genesis 1.

It is also interesting to note that farming is said to have begun by humans about 10 thousand years ago.

All this coincides with around the time Adam is believed to have been created.
Ha .

My theory is that a global catastrophe from some kind of planetary collision with earth occurred in the distant past. This would have shot debris into the air polluting the earth's atmosphere. The pollution would then block out sun-light from reaching the earth, resulting in a global freeze.

This would explain the darkness and water covering the earth in Genesis 1.

I don't know how earth became a snowball but science says it did and the bible doesn't disagree with science there. Yet, it does disagree with young earth enthusiasts in the autographed language independent of bad translation, commentary and tradition.

Many scientists think that no life could have survived the snowball. But, they stupidly say that, "well, we're here so that didn't happen".

I think that someday both science and the bible will agree because God is the cause and science is merely the observer.

However, there are agnostics, atheists and hardcore anti-theists.

At any rate, both science and the bible will ultimately agree unless all, or some, are stupid!

 

[Doveaman]

I don't know how earth became a snowball but science says it did and the bible doesn't disagree with science there. Yet, it does disagree with young earth enthusiasts in the autographed language independent of bad translation, commentary and tradition.

I agree.

I believe that extant life on earth is young, but planet earth is old.

It seems more likely that Genesis 1 is about the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet.

Many scientists think that no life could have survived the snowball.

Cool.

This view is consistent with my re-creation theory.

But, they stupidly say that, "well, we're here so that didn't happen".

They say that because their methods do not include God's ability to re-create new life on an old planet.

I think that someday both science and the bible will agree because God is the cause and science is merely the observer.

However, there are agnostics, atheists and hardcore anti-theists.

At any rate, both science and the bible will ultimately agree unless all, or some, are stupid!

The best theory is one that is consistent with both bible and science.

But when the bible is contradicted by the science, the science can take a hike.

 

[Job 33:6]

You do not need to see the word “re-creation” in Genesis. You just need to see the examples of re-creation occurring in the Bible.

To re-create simply means to create anew. It can be argued that the entire Bible is a book about re-creation since Christians are called to be created anew.

One example of re-creation is the resurrection of the just.

At the resurrection we are re-created from death and our bodies modified from flesh to spirit, from mortal to immortal (Re-Creation with Modification).

Another example is the creation of Eve from Adam.

The bone from a man’s body was re-created into a new body that was modified into a woman (Re-Creation with Modification).

Eve is the re-creation of man modified into a woman – “In the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” – (Gen 1:27)

Eve being a re-creation of man modified into a woman gives biblical support to the idea that the first man (Adam) could have been a re-creation of an extinct hominid modified into a human (Re-Creation with Modification).
I do agree that dinosaurs could have lived much more recently than millions of years ago, but I also believe they became extinct before the creation events in Genesis 1.

If the creation events did occur around 6 to 12 thousand years ago, then dinosaurs could have become extinct just a few thousand years earlier. This time frame would still allow for soft tissue to be found in dinosaur bones.

If we took our succession of elephants. @Doveaman , do you believe these elephants were re-created over and over? Paleomastodon dates back 38 million years.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know how earth became a snowball but science says it did and the bible doesn't disagree with science there. Yet, it does disagree with young earth enthusiasts in the autographed language independent of bad translation, commentary and tradition.

Many scientists think that no life could have survived the snowball. But, they stupidly say that, "well, we're here so that didn't happen".

I think that someday both science and the bible will agree because God is the cause and science is merely the observer.

However, there are agnostics, atheists and hardcore anti-theists.

At any rate, both science and the bible will ultimately agree unless all, or some, are stupid!

Snowball earth actually, in theory, predated the cambrian explosion. So, life as we know it would not have been alive during snowball earth. However, prehistoric, simple life, extremophiles and the like, micro-shellies, would have lived through it. Aside from an evolutionary arms race, snowball earth (the end of it, along with the rifting of rodinia) has also been proposed as a reason behind the cambrian explosions occurrence. The cambrian explosion didnt happen 800 million years ago because in part, the planet was frozen, but when it thawed, life bloomed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I do agree that the earth could have been frozen prior to the creation events in Genesis 1. This would explain the abundance of water on earth at the beginning of the chapter.

It is interesting to note that the last ice age is said to have ended about 12 thousand years ago. Just enough time for the ice to melt producing the watery condition on earth in Genesis 1.

It is also interesting to note that farming is said to have begun by humans about 10 thousand years ago.

All this coincides with around the time Adam is believed to have been created.
Ha .

My theory is that a global catastrophe from some kind of planetary collision with earth occurred in the distant past. This would have shot debris into the air polluting the earth's atmosphere. The pollution would then block out sun-light from reaching the earth, resulting in a global freeze.

This would explain the darkness and water covering the earth in Genesis 1.

On the most widely known bolide impact sites is of cretaceous age. There was no ice age associated with its impact. Ice ages are typically attributed to something called milankovich cycles, as well as the location of continents with respect to the equator. Snowball earth, in theory, occurred along side the presence of rodinia, a supercontinent that was located at the equator. Large bodies of land reflect sunlight, whereas dark oceans absorb it. So, if you put a large piece of land over the equator where the planet receives most of its sunlight, the a greater amount of equatorial sunlight will be reflected back out into space.

However, with the splitting of rodinia, its rifting and motion away from the equator, and the end of the synchronizing affects of the milankovich cycles, the planet thawed. Which, as per my prior post, allowed for the evolution of life, or the explosion of life in the cambrian period, which post dated snowball earth and the rifting of rodinia.

 

[Doveaman]

If we took our succession of elephants. @Doveaman , do you believe these elephants were re-created over and over?

Nope.

Nor do I believe these felines were re-created over and over:

Paleomastodon dates back 38 million years.

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to your dating methods nor to your history books on unknown ages.

 

[Job 33:6]

If they were not re-created over and over again, what do you believe produced the succession from one to another?

 

[Doveaman]

If they were not re-created over and over again, what do you believe produced the succession from one to another?

Micro-evolution from elephant to elephant.

 

[Job 33:6]

Micro-evolution from elephant to elephant.

Are you proposing that micro-evolution can change a paleomastodon into an african elephant?

>>>>

And that micro evolution is responsible for all of the above variation?

 

[Haipule]

Snowball earth actually, in theory, predated the cambrian explosion. So, life as we know it would not have been alive during snowball earth. However, prehistoric, simple life, extremophiles and the like, micro-shellies, would have lived through it. Aside from an evolutionary arms race, snowball earth (the end of it, along with the rifting of rodinia) has also been proposed as a reason behind the cambrian explosions occurrence. The cambrian explosion didnt happen 800 million years ago because in part, the planet was frozen, but when it thawed, life bloomed.

Thank you!

 

[Job 33:6]

If micro-evolution could cause this transition:

]



Could it not also cause this transition?:

One seems to be willfully accepted, while the other, commonly rejected...but the two are not much different from one another.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well if the heavens and earth were made in those six days, it automatically means that there was nothing before that.

See Gap theory.

 

[Doveaman]

If micro-evolution could cause this transition:

Could it not also cause this transition?:

Yes, and it could also cause this transition:

One seems to be willfully accepted, while the other, commonly rejected...but the two are not much different from one another.

Actually, I accept all three.

What I don't accept is the imaginary ages you attach to them.

Scientists are having a hard enough time figuring the natural world today, far less the natural world of millions of years ago.

Anyone who thinks scientists can figure out how animals emerged millions of years ago is either religious or naive, or both.

 

[Doveaman]

On the most widely known bolide impact sites is of cretaceous age. There was no ice age associated with its impact. Ice ages are typically attributed to something called milankovich cycles, as well as the location of continents with respect to the equator. Snowball earth, in theory, occurred along side the presence of rodinia, a supercontinent that was located at the equator. Large bodies of land reflect sunlight, whereas dark oceans absorb it. So, if you put a large piece of land over the equator where the planet receives most of its sunlight, the a greater amount of equatorial sunlight will be reflected back out into space.

However, with the splitting of rodinia, its rifting and motion away from the equator, and the end of the synchronizing affects of the milankovich cycles, the planet thawed. Which, as per my prior post, allowed for the evolution of life, or the explosion of life in the cambrian period, which post dated snowball earth and the rifting of rodinia.

No doubt you have been well indoctrinated about a time that existed before your grandparents were born.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, and it could also cause this transition:

Humans and chimpanzees are much more similar than some of these cats are to each other. That's always been the creationist dilemma.

Anyone who thinks scientists can figure out how animals emerged millions of years ago is either religious or naive, or both.

If you actually believe that, you're religiously naive.

 

[Job 33:6]

No doubt you have been well indoctrinated about a time that existed before your grandparents were born.

Hey, nice silver underwear buddy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, and it could also cause this transition:

Actually, I accept all three.

What I don't accept is the imaginary ages you attach to them.

Scientists are having a hard enough time figuring the natural world today, far less the natural world of millions of years ago.

Anyone who thinks scientists can figure out how animals emerged millions of years ago is either religious or naive, or both.

As barbarian said, there are suggestions that micro evolution can produce things such as the transition from barytherium to a mastodon.

In your post above, it appears that you have suggested that micro evolution can produce the transition from pakicetus to dorudon. "Actually I accept all three".

These transitions encompass a terrestrial to aquatic transformation. They encompass more morphological changes than would even be needed in the proto ape to human transition as well, as noted by barbarian above.