Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gen 1:21 doers not say every living creature was created and brought forth from water.
Did these brilliant scientist explain the origin of the water and how a substance that does not have all of the element need for life, prdoduce life?
Sure it does:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
If our "advanced" Science is so advanced, then WHY did it take them more than 3k years to discover what God told us in Genesis One? What is indicated is that God HID His Truth, which will be discovered by Science, in the last days.
Sure, and it agrees in every way with Genesis 1:21 since the last universal common ancestor of all life on Planet Earth began as a single cell from WATER exactly as God told us in Gen. 1:21. It's empirical testable evidence of the literal God since NO man of the time could have possibly known this. Amen?
@omega2xx
I have devoted the last ten years of my professional life in paleontology to constructing an unorthodox theory for explaining the lack of expected patterns during normal times -- the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Niles Eldredge and I, the perpetrators of this particularly uneuphonious name, argue that the pattern of normal times is not a tale of continuous adaptive improvement within lineages. Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. Evolutionary success must be assessed among species themselves, not at the traditional Darwinian level of struggling organisms within populations. The reasons that species succeed are many and varied -- high rates of speciation and strong resistance to extinction, for example -- and often involve no reference to traditional expectations for improvement in morphological design. If punctuated equilibrium dominates the pattern of normal times, then we have come a long way toward understanding the curiously fluctuating directions of life's history. Until recently, I suspected that punctuated equilibrium might resolve the dilemma of progress all by itself.
now realize that the fluctuating pattern must be constructed by a complex and fascinating interaction of two distinct tiers of explanation -- punctuated equilibrium for normal times, and the different effects produced by separate processes of mass extinction. Whatever accumulates by punctuated equilibrium (or by other processes) in normal times can be broken up, dismantled, reset, and dispersed by mass extinction. If punctuated equilibrium upset traditional expectations (and did it ever!), mass extinction is far worse. Organisms cannot track or anticipate the environmental triggers of mass extinction. No matter how well they adapt to environmental ranges of normal times, they must take their chances in catastrophic moments. And if extinctions can demolish more than 90 percent of all species, then we must be losing groups forever by pure bad luck among a few clinging survivors designed for another world.
~Gould
Only young earth creationists would be so deceptive, as to state that Gould rejects the fossil succession.
For that, i could,
Have you actually read any of Goulds books or publications? He very much supports common descent as identified by the fossil succession.
I have a few of his books and, his publications are readily available online. Anyone who has actually read his books knows that he is utterly infatuated with the fossil succession, and is goes out of his way in his own books, to talk about how people misconstrue and take his words out of context.
Come to think of it, I actually own the book where that Gould quote came from. I'll crack it open when I have some free time to give more insight into his thoughts.
Please include any scientific evidence he used to support what he says.
And only a old earth evolutionist would be so deceptive to say he didn't reject the fossil succession, when he said "appeared suddenly, not connected with their ancestor.
FYI, I am no a young earth creationist. You need to get your facts straight before you lable someone.
You need a better translation: God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, which the waters swarmed. after their kind, and God saw that it was good--NASB
Your ALTERED version leaves out "His" kinds and the fact that winged fowl also were created and came forth from WATER after His kinds.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
This reveals that your version is willingly ignorant of the difference between His and Their kinds. This means that their understanding of Genesis One is totally FALSE. I use the KJV because it is the one which God chose to reveal His Truth to most people. It's less altered than your's. God Bless you
Apparently you don't know what the fossil succession is if you think Gould rejects it. Either you do not know what the succession is, or you are mistaken about Gould's position.
So you have essentially lied, stating that Gould rejects the fossil succession. When you are informed that he doesn't, all of a sudden it doesn't matter if you lied or not, you are more concerned about the science in his research.
Did you take even a moment to ponder how you became misinformed to begin with?
It's possible they were originally amphibians.Did Whales come from land creatures or did they come from water creatures?
The Bible is fully compatible with evolution, even more than it is with the idea of a spherical earth. The creation account is clearly speaking to the people of the ancient world, and not meant to be taken literally. After all, it describes a flat earth, under a hard dome, under water, and the fact that it was not literal was recognized by many early Christians, including St. Augustine and Origen.
More importantly, it's blasphemy to deny the evolution of the whale, because to claim it was designed that way says that God is a really stupid designer. First of all, what kind of designer would make a fully aquatic creature unable to breathe water? That's like driving a car into the lake. Why would a god put so many transitional fossils showing a clear and obvious transition from a land creature into a whale into the earth?
Why have whales grow teeth in the womb before re-absorbing them before birth? Why have genes for making hair that are then turned off? Why have DNA that shows a nested hierarchy, and ancestry from land animals, in nearly every cell of the whale? Why have whales form legs before birth, which also are reabsorbed before birth?
And it goes on and on. To suggest that whales didn't descend from land animals seems to be calling God a liar for making so many different lines of clear evidence of that, in addition to the brain-dead design.
scientists have helped us see more and more of God's creation, and most scientists are believers in God.
I don't see why you have such distrust of the many Christians who give God the glory. After all, the biggest institution teaching evolution is explicitly Christian, and most who accept the reality of evolution in the United States are Christians.
In Christ-
It's possible they were originally amphibians.
Fossil succession" is not rocket surgery. Even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it. Gould tries to justify "punctuated equililbra" because it is obvious that the age old standard of "gradualismcan't support evolution. I give him credit for having the courage to go against the grain. The succession he accepts, is more absurd than than one he replaced it with. It has a new species evolving over night, geologically so to speak, with no intermediates With no intermediates. NO fossil record can support evolution without intermediates. If evolution was true, the great number fossils would be intermediates, and you have NON.
As usual, a Darwinian zealot is an instant expert, feigning moral indignation on a matter that is as obscure as ghosts in the fog. You have absolutely no interest in the actual facts but you have a caps lock so it's a FACT. Notice, you have nothing to say about the alleged fact, just that its is a FACT. Do you have any idea how many times I've seen this performance, the melodrama doesn't impress me.It is more than possible, it is a FACT.
Whales don't have scales. They are mammals and have rubbery-feeling skin.That is laughable and void of any scientific evidence. To preach that a dog-like land animal surviving on land needed to become a sea creature is one of evolution's most absurd guesses. However it is necessary or the TOE is exposed as the unscientific fraud it is.
Maye you can explain, genetically of course, how a furry leg can become a scaly fin and how something in the front of the animal, its nose, can move back and become a blowhole.
Their morphological differences come from how they were created, not from evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?