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.
Because in the verse you list, it is plainly stated that God created every creature that lives in water on Day 5. There is no mention of any water-dwelling creature being created on Day 6.So, according to your understanding, what does the Gen 1:21 mean? How can you tell God does not make more fishes on the Day 6?
You are qualifying the statement by taking us to the pen. So the statement "every sheep is female" means exactly the same thing as "all sheep are female".All right. I will argue with you. Let's change an example:
I have a farm of 50 male sheep and 50 female sheep. I pick 25 female and put them in a pan. Then I take you to the pan and write down the following on a piece of paper:
"Every sheep is female".
Would you understand what do I mean?
According to you, this would be equal to "all sheep are female", which is obviously wrong.
Or, should I wrote "all sheep are female" on the paper? Of course, both are not clear enough. But which one is less ambiguous?
There most certainly is a qualifier in Genesis 1:21. That qualifier is this "living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it." That qualifies the set.No problem on what you said.
The fact is that there is no qualifier used in Genesis 1.
And you've created one for yourself be redefining standard English words. We don't have to agree with you however.So, how would one understand it? In deed it could go either way. But that is all I want, which is: there could be another way to see it. I just want the possibility.
What article? You didn't post anything.
If you're talking about this article...
DNA study: Man's best friend may be European in origin
No, it doesn't say that. It suggest that as a possibility, but doesn't state it definitely. You'll also note that there's no question that they came from wolves, even if the sort of wolf they came from is no longer extant. Wolves are still around. Dogs are still around.
So?
They know quite a few things. They're learning more things and gathering more evidence, refining conclusions. Like you were chattering on about before, that's how the method works.
Because in the verse you list, it is plainly stated that God created every creature that lives in water on Day 5. There is no mention of any water-dwelling creature being created on Day 6.
There are many problems with this claim. If fossils are due to the flood then we would find all life mixed together. A year long flood does not have enough time to sort the animals, nor for thousands of feet of coral reefs to grow. Nor for shales that are very slowly deposited and show seasonal variation to be laid down.
Anyone who seriously studies geology sooner or later realizes that there was no flood.
dogs can't just appear, and if not then we would have more fossils to show gradual change.
No one is saying dogs 'just appeared'. And we do have fossils. And even if we didn't, we'd have DNA evidence.
would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first.
Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants.
Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground.
Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure
"The first dogs evolved by associating with hunter-gatherers rather than farmers, since dogs evidently appeared before agriculture did, they said."
"Over a very long time in this human environment, wolves gradually turned into the first dogs."
Dogs originated from wolves domesticated in Europe, 19,000-32,000 years ago: researchers | National Post
Yes of course there are fossils of dogs and of wolves.
They are not the words creationists would use, creationism is so very very sad.What about the word choice is so perplexing to you?
In spite of evolutionists assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The fountains of the great deep (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.
Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution
The fountains of the great deep (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first
Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants.
Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface,
Some do lie or make up stories. I don't make fun of YOU, that is the difference. But whatever, foo
Very very few. I can think of only two examples.
Meanwhile there have been thousands of fraudulent Christians. Form small scale grifters to David Koresh and Bob Jones. If you want to use frauds as evidence of a false belief then Christianity loses big time. It is not a wise course to take.
David koresh and bod Jones and any other nutter like that are not Christians. Just because they say they believe in God doesn't mean they are Christians. In fact didn't koresh think he was Christ. Anyone can claim to be anything but it doesn't mean they are. Frank Abagnale Jr from the famous movie catch me if you can pretended to be a doctor and a Air line pilot and got away with it for a while but he was no more a pilot then you or I. A christian is exactly what it says Christ - ian. Christ like.
I was waiting for you to try this. Oh Anya, it's almost cute the way you present these well-worn creationist PRATTS with such naive confidence as if we hadn't seen and refuted them dozens of times before.
Your vague ideas about differential escape abilities isn't born out by the fossil record either. Let's examine a few examples.
So we should only be finding small, seafloor (benthic) animals in the lower layers like the Cambrian? What about anamolocarids? Some species were 2 metres long! Then in the Silurian (still near the bottom of the Paleozoic) you have giant scorpions like Brontoscorpio and giant 2 metre long eurypterids. In other words, there are very large, mobile animals appearing at the bottom of the fossil record and not only the small benthic creatures you say should be there.
So why do flowering plants only show up long after lycopods and ferns and conifers? Flowering plants live in the water, in the coastal lowlands and in mountains, yet they don't appear until about halfway through the fossil record. Again the pattern you claim exists doesn't actually appear in the fossil record.
So turtles, being rather slow, show up right at the bottom of the fossil record, right? Wrong. They show up about halfway through. And slow moving animals like sauropod dinosaurs also show up relatively high in section. And why do fast, agile little dinosaurs like Coelophysis appear in the record before sauropods? Would they not have been better able to escape as well? And what else do we find with sauropods? Birds and pterosaurs. These flying animals were as incapable of escaping the flood as lumbering sauropods? Unlikely.
I could go on and on and on. The differential escape hypothesis is pleasing to the uninformed, but it only works if one makes sweeping generalizations with no real knowledge of the fossil record. Even minor familiarity with the fossil record shows that the pattern you claim should have been produced by the Flood doesn't actually exist. This is a big problem for you.
Then you get the free swimming ones like the fish and other sea creatures.
. Then the mammals as they were land creatures and then the birds that would have been affected last as they were in the air.
Makes just as much sense as evolutions fossil record.
. Consider to that they have found creatures that they say should not be in certain layers and also small lighter shell creatures on top of the highest mountains and well in land.
Makes sense to me.
Generally though if you look at the fossil record you have the bottom dwellers at the lower parts of the record.
I was waiting for you to try this. Oh Anya, it's almost cute the way you present these well-worn creationist PRATTS with such naive confidence as if we hadn't seen and refuted them dozens of times before.
Your vague ideas about differential escape abilities isn't born out by the fossil record either. Let's examine a few examples.
So we should only be finding small, seafloor (benthic) animals in the lower layers like the Cambrian? What about anamolocarids? Some species were 2 metres long! Then in the Silurian (still near the bottom of the Paleozoic) you have giant scorpions like Brontoscorpio and giant 2 metre long eurypterids. In other words, there are very large, mobile animals appearing at the bottom of the fossil record and not only the small benthic creatures you say should be there.
So why do flowering plants only show up long after lycopods and ferns and conifers? Flowering plants live in the water, in the coastal lowlands and in mountains, yet they don't appear until about halfway through the fossil record. Again the pattern you claim exists doesn't actually appear in the fossil record.
So turtles, being rather slow, show up right at the bottom of the fossil record, right? Wrong. They show up about halfway through. And slow moving animals like sauropod dinosaurs also show up relatively high in section. And why do fast, agile little dinosaurs like Coelophysis appear in the record before sauropods? Would they not have been better able to escape as well? And what else do we find with sauropods? Birds and pterosaurs. These flying animals were as incapable of escaping the flood as lumbering sauropods? Unlikely.
I could go on and on and on. The differential escape hypothesis is pleasing to the uninformed, but it only works if one makes sweeping generalizations with no real knowledge of the fossil record. Even minor familiarity with the fossil record shows that the pattern you claim should have been produced by the Flood doesn't actually exist. This is a big problem for you.
If the flood makes sense to you then you are in desperate need of help, if you thought about it without your religious blinkers on for two minutes you would soon realise it.Makes sense to me.
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?