The "Days" of Creation

[MarcR]

I didn't cover you whole post as these few points are long enough as it is. The earth was like that at the end of day 1 as the only created thing on it was light from the sun. It had a form then so to be without a form would be at the beginning of day 1 when God spoke the words and the holy spirit manifested it into reality.
A wasteland can still be 'visited'. The 'void' in the Bible seems to be more like the universe if it kept expanding until matter was spread so far apart from each other that on even 1 star was shedding light

This also applies does it not?
[TABLE="class: responsive-table"]
[TR="class: lexiconcData"]
[TD]H922[/TD]
[TD]בֹּהוּ[/TD]
[TD]bohuw[/TD]
[TD]void, emptiness[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Water of the deep is associated with the void as water on earth seems to be a day 2 event rather than it being accomplished in day 1.


All I get is this.
[TABLE="class: responsive-table"]
[TR="class: lexiconcData"]
[TD]H7549[/TD]
[TD]רָקִיעַ[/TD]
[TD]raqiya`[/TD]
[TD]firmament[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

How about if I use a term that simply means something that can be touched. In this case it is liquid water on the surface of the earth (for the first time) and as clouds of water above the surface of the earth. A place for these beings to exist.

Ge:1:20:
And God said,
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Light was spoken into existence at the end of day 1, that would put a crimp in living on earth before that would it not? Even the sun and moon were not given names before day 4 yet they existed when day 1 ended.

OT:922

OT:922 בֹּ֫הוּ) noun [masculine] emptiness (on form see Ges§ 84 a, 1 b Sta§ 95, 198 a, on usage compare LagOr. ii. 60 f.) always with תֹהוּ) q. v.; — תֹהוּ וָבֹּ֫הוּ)
Gen 1:2 of primeval earth; Jer 4:23 of earth under judgment of וְאַבְנֵי בֹהוּ קַן־תֿהוּ Isa 34:11, the line of wasteness and the stones of emptiness, i.e. plummets, employed, not as usual for building, but for destroying walls; compare Di & see below א6אבן (from Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[nddreamer]

Talking about science validating God's word, look at these verses.

"Gen. 2:5-6 ------for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Scientifically, this was in the very early days of earth's history when there were only methane and ammonia gases present. The ultimate greenhouse gases for certain bacterial growth to thrive. Half of the earth's history went by before oxygen was introduced. The presence of oxygen caused cooling which created an atmosphere which caused it to rain. We're talking about the passage of the LORD'S generations (Gen. 2:4) here or billions of years to us.
Modern man didn't show up until 200,000 years ago; and no, we do not share DNA with Neanderthal. We are a separate creation.
God's word is a beautiful thing and full of truth. If you want to remain stuck in that 1 day creation being 24 hours rut, that's your choice. It's limited your outlook but you have a lot of advocates. So there's no need for you to feel threatened in any way if another has a different point of view. The world will continue to spin regardless of our differences.

 

[trofimus]

Modern man didn't show up until 200,000 years ago; and no, we do not share DNA with Neanderthal. We are a separate creation.

How can you be sure?

BTW, could they be "the sons of God" having giants with "homo sapiens" women? Just a thought.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The accepted academic belief now seems to be that Cro-Magnon man developed separately from the Neanderthals. But I remember a time in my youth when this was not taught and the "scientifically" minded would chastise Christians for daring to claim we were not descended by way of Neanderthals. The "scientific" outlook changes over time. One piece of new data or an unexpected discovery can change a thesis.

Thank God, he and his word remain the same throughout the generations.

 

[trofimus]

The accepted academic belief now seems to be that Cro-Magnon man developed separately from the Neanderthals. But I remember a time in my youth when this was not taught and the "scientifically" minded would chastise Christians for daring to claim we were not descended by way of Neanderthals. The "scientific" outlook changes over time. One piece of new data or an unexpected discovery can change a thesis.

Thank God, he and his word remain the same throughout the generations.

It is accepted that homo sapiens and neandhertals interbred and have a common ancestor.

There is a theory, that because of this interbreeding Europeans have so huge variety of looks (green, brown, blue etc eyes, from ginger through blond to black hair) never seen anywhere else.

https://www.nature.com/news/modern-human-genomes-reveal-our-inner-neanderthal-1.14615
Modern humans interbred with Neanderthals on multiple occasions | WIRED UK

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

^ So it's changed again since last time I looked I guess they didn't want to let the Neanderthals go.

 

[Hungry]

Talking about science validating God's word, look at these verses.

"Gen. 2:5-6 ------for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Scientifically, this was in the very early days of earth's history when there were only methane and ammonia gases present. The ultimate greenhouse gases for certain bacterial growth to thrive. Half of the earth's history went by before oxygen was introduced. The presence of oxygen caused cooling which created an atmosphere which caused it to rain. We're talking about the passage of the LORD'S generations (Gen. 2:4) here or billions of years to us.
Modern man didn't show up until 200,000 years ago; and no, we do not share DNA with Neanderthal. We are a separate creation.
God's word is a beautiful thing and full of truth. If you want to remain stuck in that 1 day creation being 24 hours rut, that's your choice. It's limited your outlook but you have a lot of advocates. So there's no need for you to feel threatened in any way if another has a different point of view. The world will continue to spin regardless of our differences.

I hate to be a wet blanket here. I agree that a day of creation was not a 24 hour period however the science you submitted is wrong. The atmosphere was never proven to be methane and ammonia. That tidbit was a hypothesis related to an experiment a scientist performed trying to prove evolution. He basically back engineered a protein molecule. He shot electricity through this in a closed environment until he got the “inescapable” result that man must have evolved from this, so the earth “must” have consisted of this environment. The only thing this experiment concluded was that some scientists have more faith in evolution than Christians have in creationism. The real science however, has concluded that the atmosphere was never these gases. For the record man has a greater DNA connection to Neanderthal than apes and we still share 97% with apes. Comparatively a pastry chef uses primarily flour, eggs, water and sugar to produce breads and cakes. Even though a braided loaf has a different appearance than a crepe, essentially they have the same “DNA”. Most mammals share DNA in the 90% range. Our meat is animal, but our consciousness divine.

 

[Hungry]

Genetics have always played a huge part in human development. God didn’t want the Israelites to take spouses of other nationalities. Royalty inbreeds to the point of mutation. Hitler was responsible for the greatest genocide and Arian genetic manipulation. Those are commonly accepted. Throw in stuff done by the CIA, other political groups and alleged “alien” abductions and experiments and earth seems like one big science lab.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

I hate to be a wet blanket here. I agree that a day of creation was not a 24 hour period however the science you submitted is wrong. The atmosphere was never proven to be methane and ammonia. That tidbit was a hypothesis related to an experiment a scientist performed trying to prove evolution. He basically back engineered a protein molecule. He shot electricity through this in a closed environment until he got the “inescapable” result that man must have evolved from this, so the earth “must” have consisted of this environment.

It's important to note that science builds on past discoveries. Can anyone explain why children are not taught how to recreate this "Life" experiment as part of graduation requirements? It should have been the basis for tens of thousands of follow up experiments. As near as I can research, it was only done once with such results in 1952. No one has come to similar conclusions since then.
[h=3]Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia[/h]

 

[Hungry]

It's important to note that science builds on past discoveries. Can anyone explain why children are not taught how to recreate this "Life" experiment as part of graduation requirements? It should have been the basis for tens of thousands of follow up experiments. As near as I can research, it was only done once with such results in 1952. No one has come to similar conclusions since then.
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

It didn’t create anything but an amino acid. It’s not even a complete protein. It was most likely expensive and it just pointed out that even with all we know and can accomplish technologically we can barely make an amino acid. This validates intelligent design if anything. Proving the existence of a Creator isn’t a goal of academia.

 

[trofimus]

"Have Scientists Ever Created Life in a Laboratory?

As of the time of this writing, no, scientists have never created cellular life in a laboratory from scratch. The technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell, built one atom at a time.

However, many of the important building blocks of life have indeed been created in a laboratory, including amino acids, self-replicating RNA molecules, and self-sealing and self-replicating lipid bubbles (ie, cell membranes) which are profound steps toward the goal of one day creating fully-synthetic life."

Have Scientists Ever Created Life in a Laboratory? | Evolution FAQ

 

[trofimus]

"Scientists have taken a major step forward in developing complex artificial life, by successfully synthesising six out of 16 yeast chromosomes – the molecular structures that carry genes.

This means they're more than one-third of the way to being able to build their own custom-made yeast genomes from scratch, which would be a huge moment in the field of developing lab-made lifeforms."

https://www.sciencealert.com/yeast-...other-step-closer-to-creating-artificial-life

 

[Hungry]

"Scientists have taken a major step forward in developing complex artificial life, by successfully synthesising six out of 16 yeast chromosomes – the molecular structures that carry genes.

This means they're more than one-third of the way to being able to build their own custom-made yeast genomes from scratch, which would be a huge moment in the field of developing lab-made lifeforms."

https://www.sciencealert.com/yeast-...other-step-closer-to-creating-artificial-life

Regardless they haven’t started from nothing. Nor did they find anything appearing out of the air. Randomness and chaos do not produce organization. Anything resembling a pattern is evidence of design. The complexity of the design, speaks of the designer. We serve a masterful Creator and trying to dismiss His workmanship as reproducible, natural occurrences is not only unintelligible, believing such is insanity.

 

[Hungry]

"Scientists have taken a major step forward in developing complex artificial life, by successfully synthesising six out of 16 yeast chromosomes – the molecular structures that carry genes.

This means they're more than one-third of the way to being able to build their own custom-made yeast genomes from scratch, which would be a huge moment in the field of developing lab-made lifeforms."

https://www.sciencealert.com/yeast-...other-step-closer-to-creating-artificial-life

Regardless they haven’t started from nothing. Nor did they find anything appearing out of the air. Randomness and chaos do not produce organization. Anything resembling a pattern is evidence of design. The complexity of the design, speaks of the designer. We serve a masterful Creator and trying to dismiss His workmanship as reproducible, natural occurrences is not only unintelligible, believing such is insanity.

 

[trofimus]

Regardless they haven’t started from nothing.

Well, you cant start from nothing, if you are not God, right?

Scientists must use what exists...

 

[Joseppi]

Talking about science validating God's word, look at these verses.

"Gen. 2:5-6 ------for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Scientifically, this was in the very early days of earth's history when there were only methane and ammonia gases present. The ultimate greenhouse gases for certain bacterial growth to thrive. Half of the earth's history went by before oxygen was introduced. The presence of oxygen caused cooling which created an atmosphere which caused it to rain. We're talking about the passage of the LORD'S generations (Gen. 2:4) here or billions of years to us.
Modern man didn't show up until 200,000 years ago; and no, we do not share DNA with Neanderthal. We are a separate creation.
God's word is a beautiful thing and full of truth. If you want to remain stuck in that 1 day creation being 24 hours rut, that's your choice. It's limited your outlook but you have a lot of advocates. So there's no need for you to feel threatened in any way if another has a different point of view. The world will continue to spin regardless of our differences.

You’re not presenting science or history, but a lie.
Why would a silly story be a threat?
The atmosphere of the earth is a fine balance not some accident in a ape man story heathens made up to hide the truth of scripture.
A few heathens make up a story in which whatever thing they want to appear just pops into existence up out of nowhere and they throw in some science terms and you believe that nonsense instead of believing God’s written word?

 

[Joseppi]

^ So it's changed again since last time I looked I guess they didn't want to let the Neanderthals go.

The dna of man proves the Genesis narrative.
The heathen story is based on chance not science.

 

[gotime]

Science has not the first clue about how the earth started. Science has not and can not test it or observe it.

Science models the earths origins and beginnings of of data and an assumption. The Assumption is there was no intelligent design.

So no science when dealing with the origin of the earth does not concur with the bible and if it seems it does then its simply a coincidence etc.

Creation is a miraculous supernatural event according to the bible and can not be explained by science.

Stop trying to make them come together they simply don't as far as origins go.

They are apposed to each other. One natural one supernatural.

Science says old earth because it can not and does not accept that God created.

Don't get me wrong. Science has much to offer us. But concerning origins it is a fools errand to try and bring them together.

 

[Joseppi]

I hate to be a wet blanket here. I agree that a day of creation was not a 24 hour period however the science you submitted is wrong. The atmosphere was never proven to be methane and ammonia. That tidbit was a hypothesis related to an experiment a scientist performed trying to prove evolution. He basically back engineered a protein molecule. He shot electricity through this in a closed environment until he got the “inescapable” result that man must have evolved from this, so the earth “must” have consisted of this environment. The only thing this experiment concluded was that some scientists have more faith in evolution than Christians have in creationism. The real science however, has concluded that the atmosphere was never these gases. For the record man has a greater DNA connection to Neanderthal than apes and we still share 97% with apes. Comparatively a pastry chef uses primarily flour, eggs, water and sugar to produce breads and cakes. Even though a braided loaf has a different appearance than a crepe, essentially they have the same “DNA”. Most mammals share DNA in the 90% range. Our meat is animal, but our consciousness divine.

Saying man is genetically like apes is a trick.
It’s like saying the architecture of one library is like another library while ignoring that the books aren’t the same.
Flour, eggs, water and sugar don’t compare to the most most complex technical language known.

 

[Joseppi]

It's important to note that science builds on past discoveries. Can anyone explain why children are not taught how to recreate this "Life" experiment as part of graduation requirements? It should have been the basis for tens of thousands of follow up experiments. As near as I can research, it was only done once with such results in 1952. No one has come to similar conclusions since then.
[h=3]Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia[/h]

Science isn’t built on false premises.