Yeah, as far as I can tell, if I don’t just say, “Oh, okay” and accept whatever you say then I’m being difficult.
All I know to do is tell you what I think and why. This is the position and viewpoint I’m coming from. I talk to other well educated and informed people so that anything I have wrong can be corrected.
As I try to show, there’s reason I think what I think. Yes, it’ll take some convincing. Yes, I’m going to bring up why I think this and why whatever alternative doesn’t fly in my mind. You’d think that would be expected.
I have been convinced of being wrong on a couple of points in discussions here on this site. And I mean things I’ve had that way for a decade. When convinced, I dropped it.
For example, I used to think free will was spread from Adam and Eve into humanity genetically. But it was made apparent that one mating pair in the population, their genetic code would be diluted into nothing within a handful of generations.That makes sense. I was wrong.
I appreciate the time you’ve invested in dealing with my stubbornness. I don’t think what I’m saying and what Joshua is saying is as different as you think it is. I guess time will tell.
No it doesn’t, but birds are included in the passage when God calls life to come forth from the sea. And somewhere between the sea and birds there was a transition out of the sea.
We now know that between the point when life first came from the sea and the evolution of birds, there’s all manner of big monster dudes that evolved in the interim.
Chronologically, if any of those big monster dudes were to be mentioned, it would be right there. This is the right spot.
Yes, it seems to have trouble with constructing the words into a cohesive English sentence, but I did it word by word, and compared what it said to what Strong’s Hebrew dictionary had for each word. And none of those words mean “creeping things”.
Just being included in a passage is guilt by association, not a valid argument.
No such transition is mentioned. That’s you making up stuff again.
True, and also true of the evolution of anything else that’s alive now, like mammals. But that doesn’t correspond to anything in Genesis, which just mentions the creation of big sea animals, unconnected to birds or except by proximity in the text. And unconnected to dinosaurs too.
Nonsense. And big land dudes would be mentioned on the 6th day. Day 5 is for water and air.
Couldn’t tell you. But the translators got it from somewhere. Are they dumber than Google?
This passage directly ties the creation of birds to the call of life from the sea.
No, not in the text directly. But for it to call life from the sea, then says to become birds, there’s a transition that has to happen. Bottom line, it’s not only talking about sea creatures.
No, chronologically, given what we know now, between life coming from the sea and birds, this is right.
Sure, if by “directly ties” you mean that both happen in the same day.
No, there isn’t. If it were talking about evolution, sure. But it isn’t.
Of course. It’s talking about sea creatures, including some big ones, and birds. There is no connection between them.
It’s also equally true chronologically between life coming from the sea and frogs, and iguanas, and whales, and aardvarks. If you want to play the chronological game, birds are out of order. And none of those terrestrial animals are mentioned on day 5.
Duh. Because they were speaking of sea creatures first, and then birds.
Ah, but it isn’t. As you know, birds evolved after mammals, not before.
Correct, and that’s the only connection. Of course that doesn’t fit the actual history, does it? You have to make the days overlap in order to fit, and there goes your chronology, out the window.
Note that in reality plants came after sea life, doubly so since the plants in question are all angiosperms, which came after land life, including mammals. And no, mammals came before birds, not after. These “waves” exist only in your imagination, neither in the bible nor in earth history.
It’s a process. Like I’ve pointed out, it’s talk about “be fruitful/multiply/fill the earth” makes it apparent this is not something that just “poofed” into existence. Yes, in a process like that, there’s going to be overlap.
You understand that left to right on that tree is not a temporal sequence, right? You understand that the tree could be rotated around any branch to produce a completely different left-to-right sequence, right? And you understand that mammals are older than birds, right?
Like I’ve pointed out, that’s just about the species increasing in population, not about evolution. The cows are instructed to make more cows. They aren’t instructed to turn into whales.
Yes, but the point here is the branch that led to birds branched off before the branch that led to mammals.
Not what I’m saying.
It’s normally assumed it’s saying this all happened in 6 days. “multiply/fill the earth” takes many years and generations. Not during the course of a single day.
That point too is wrong. Whatever do you think “the branch that led to birds” is? What do you think “the branch that led to mammals” is? I suspect you don’t know how to read a phylogenetic tree.
Ah, but what happened on that day was only the instruction, not the event. On the other hand, the creation of the sea life and the birds did happen on that day.
Of course not. “Whale” is an English word. But it’s how the Hebrew is translated, and it’s a credible translation. “Dinosaur” is not a credible translation.
It might be instructive to look at Young’s Literal Translation:
You will note that the birds don’t come from the water; they’re associated with the sky. And you will note the presence of “creeping” twice, once for creeping sea animals, once for creeping land animals.
You’re overcomplicating it. Yes, chronologically birds are after mammals. But like I’ve said, it’s a process. First the command, then the process.
The process that led to birds was already in motion before the process that branched off into mammals. That first process just didn’t reach birds before the other process reached mammals.
Yes, what happened on that day was the instruction. Exactly.
“multiply, fill the seas…” Same applies here. It’s a process that took time to be realized.
There isn’t a Hebrew word for dinosaurs either, and yet that’s what you’re claiming. I have no idea what your little diagram is supposed to mean.
You’ve said it, but you have no justification for that claim. And any correspondence between Genesis and history dissolves if it’s not supposed to be chronological.
That’s a claim, but it’s just word salad. Up until the split between Sauropsida and Synapsida, the “process that led to birds” is the very same lineage as “the process that led to mammals”, and subsequently the “processes” are of exactly the same age. I am confirmed in my belief that you can’t read a phylogenetic tree.
Yes, the instruction to make more of each kind. But the kinds themselves are all produced on the 5th and 6th days, not just instructions to produce them.
The diagram illustrates that your statement “But it’s how the Hebrew is translated, and it’s a credible translation” is innaccurate. The same Hebrew word given for “whale” when translated the other way comes back “Leviathan”.
Not true. I’ve illustrated that whether you accept it or not.
You plant two different species of trees in your yard 6 months apart. The one you planted 6 months later sprouts above ground before the other. Same thing. The seed planted that produced birds was planted before the seed that produced humans.
First the instruction, then the realization. How long the realization of each instruction differs.
And you know this how? We all project our own ideas onto what the text is saying if we’re not careful.
Why, it’s almost as if the same word is sometimes used with different meanings, doubtless a unique feature of Hebrew.
Your understanding of the illustration you used is wrong, as I have tried to explain to you. You don’t understand trees.
Sorry, but that isn’t how it worked. Common descent means it’s just one seed, just one tree. Birds are one branch, mammals are another, and they all come from the same trunk. Why, the branch is the same branch up until the amniotes split into Sauropsida and Synapsida, and both those branches are by definition equally old. Again, it’s clear that you have no real idea how phylogenetic trees work.
Why, because I can read.
sproing (the sound of an irony meter flying apart)
