Since you know I can’t get into your domain … NAME some NAMES.
Find us a journal article…
There is only one thing that links birds and fish on day five…
the waters.
But the text doesn’t say birds can reproduce or sleep in the air. It describes birds habitat (after creation) as the Earth…
Perhaps it is awkward… and I would agree… but it is at least something that can be traced in Biblical logic.
Your “reptiles in the water” is pure fantasy.
There might be something here. I get emails like this all the time. Don’t know if it’s legitimate or not because I haven’t ponied up the money to subscribe.
Do you have an account?
Yes, I have an account (a FREE account), and I get the same emails. All you have to do is pay them real money, and you can find out who mentions Jeremy Christian… you can even find out if this Jeremy Christian is you, or someone who lived in the Victorian era…
and whether he is mentioned because he is brilliant… or because it is easy to pick his ideas to pieces…
There is no such sequence, neither in the text nor in earth history. In the text, the same day includes two separate and unconnected creation events: of sea life and of birds. In earth history, there is no sequence from sea life to dinosaurs to birds that’s separate from the process that resulted in mammals.
Yes, it’s apparent that it refers to increase in numbers of individuals, nothing more. Note that humans are given the same instructions. Do you see humans diversifying into lots of species?
And yet your comparisons are forced and distorted, both for the text and science.
1 Like
@Jeremy_Christian (cc: @swamidass )
You elaborate construction of Free Will here, and NO Free Will there… ends up with a minimally helpful conclusion.
By ignoring Free Will as some sort of divining rod for Genesis 1, Genealogical Adam scenarios accomplish more with fewer controversies.
HAHAHAHAH…
this is awesome… didn’t you just send me at least two posts about how flexible and open to opinions you are?
And when the very craftsman of “Genealogical Adam” (i.e., @swamidass ) agrees that your views are “diametrically opposed” to his, you have the chutzpah to write:
“No, actually it isn’t.”
@swamidass, PLEASE let me take over the moderation of Jeremy. I promise not to expel him and I also promise to let him post … after his posts have been vetted.
Maybe not today? But soon???
1 Like
No.
He linked free will to genetics in the past. Apparently he changed his view. That is good news. Major progress. That was the part that was diametrically opposed.
Now he might evade scientific problmes, but he has to find a way to communicate his theological details in a way that seems sensible to others.
2 Likes
Okay… not soon.
1 Like
That is the key. I’m trying to build the account that accommodates the rest as variants. @Jeremy_Christian is putting forward one version of the GAE, but it is just one version among many. That is okay, and perhaps it has some merits. He has to make his case for this, and the diversity is great. The GAE, however, is bigger than just one account.
Unless I misunderstood, he was referring to CS Lewis and speaking in those terms.
http://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-and-rocketry-by-cs-lewis.html
1 Like
I disagree. There’s context in the story that gets highlighted and takes on new meaning when put into this context. A new narrative theme emerges that clarifies the story.
Most who have dismissed this idea, like you, have done so based on single statements out of context of the whole picture. Maybe it’s just me, but I find dropping years of research and study over a single objection difficult. Call me stubborn.
I am sure you are right about that. MOST who have dismissed the idea…
But I am not MOST and I have certainly not relied on a single sentence or single phrase… or single anything.
We have been disputing the granularities of your viewpoint for more than a week now… and yet you have the gall to say that I simply haven’t understood the “bigger picture” of your viewpoint?
Jeremy, L.E.A.V.E. ME OUT OF THIS!
Okay, can you lay out my “bigger picture” viewpoint? To show that your considerations on the granular level have been in the correct context?
Or, just ignore this and don’t respond and I won’t either. I want you to have the peace you desire.
You are just going to say that i’m missing something… and we’ll be off to the races again.
I would dare say I have given you your chance to speak out far more than most of your correspondents anywhere else in the English speaking internet.
If there is someone who has been more generous with their time, then I will bow to your assessment. But that won’t change my feeling that I have wasted my time with you … and I’m not going to compound that feeling by repeating the process.
See ya.
1 Like
That’s a bit mean.
I am supposed to stifle my feelings as Jeremy tries to bully me into staying in the discussion?
I have asked for him to leave me alone a couple of times… and yet here I am, still embroiled in his incredibly stubborn onslaught against anything biologists tell him, folks with experience in Hebrew tell him, or even Evolutionists tell him.
He’s all yours, @swamidass.
2 Likes
I’m going to miss you, George.
1 Like
I know you said this tree is not a temporal sequence, but from my understanding the way this is ordered is consistent with the sequence of which types of animals appeared in what order.
This is the sequence I’m speaking of. And in that sequence, if dinosaurs were to have been mentioned, it’s in the right place…
Do you not agree that’s accurate?
Yes. That’s because you don’t know how to read a tree. Picture this: find the place where the green bits (reptiles) join with the brownish bits (synapsids); now rotate that part so that mammals end up between amphibians and reptiles/birds in this sequence you are imagining. See how easy that was? You can make whatever linear sequence you like from left to right without changing the tree. The left-right sequence is arbitrary, imaginary, and nothing to do with the actual message being communicated by the tree.
You probably have a great many other misconceptions about phylogenetic trees. I recommend a book called Tree Thinking if you want to discover and correct your misconceptions.
1 Like