Jeremy Christian's claim that Genesis Creation account is Scientifically Accurate

[Jeremy_Christian]

@gbrooks9

Everybody except Calvinists know this. But you seem to have a compulsion to require it be looked at in a special Jeremy-sorta-way.

Just a rational, intelligent, use all of the knowledge and tools at your disposal, real world, informed kind of way. Is that asking too much?

@gbrooks9

I would suggest it is better to leave it to the individual

Sure, for matters of faith or spirituality.

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

It is about mammals. Synapsids. I was mistaken in thinking placental/live-birth was unique to mammals. You corrected me. I listened. Haven’t forgotten, and adjusted accordingly.

Mammals are not the same thing as synapsids. Live birth is not known in non-mammalian synapsids. In fact egg-laying is the original condition in mammals. And changing from mammals to synapsids doesn’t help you; in fact it makes the sequence discrepancy worse. I corrected you, but you didn’t actually listen, and you adjusted nonsensically.

@Jeremy_Christian

Now you’re still bringing it up as an error in my claim.

Because all versions of your claim are nonsense. You just don’t realize what you’re saying.

@Jeremy_Christian

You disagree?

Yes. People without free will (or what we call free will when we experience it) are incapable of being immoral, but they’re also incapable of being moral. You might as well ask if a rock is behaving morally.

@Jeremy_Christian

That means life was given the goal to become birds. Which didn’t happen immediately.

Sorry, but that isn’t what Genesis says. That’s you making it up. Nor does it make any scientific sense. What animal would have been given the goal of becoming birds? Would this have been before some other animal (what animal?) was given the goal of becoming mammals? Again, nonsensical claims.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jeremy_Christian

Just a rational, intelligent, use all of the knowledge and tools at your disposal, real world, informed kind of way. Is that asking too much?

@Jeremy_Christian

How is it that you refuse to acknowledge that the pursuit of too specific details can have a divisive influence on any movement?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Jeremy_Christian

It is referring to birds. What I was trying to make clear is that, same as plants, the end result isn’t immediate.

@Jeremy_Christian

It is about mammals. Synapsids.

@Jeremy_Christian

It’s referring to birds. The author knew them as birds. That doesn’t mean that a fish gave birth to a bird. That means life was given the goal to become birds. Which didn’t happen immediately.

@Jeremy_Christian

@gbrooks9

The Genesis writer clearly had no idea that birds were connected to reptiles… nor did he know anything of dinosaurs.

Yes. True. Exactly. But we do. And we have the benefit of context provided by scientifically gathered knowledge that no one else in the history of humanity has had to truly understand what is being described.

However…

@Not Jeremy_Christian because he picks whatever position is immediately convenient and doesn't care about consistency

It is about birds. Avians.
It is about fruit-bearing trees. Angiosperms.
It is about seed-bearing plants. Spermatophytes.
It is about animals. Amniotes.
It is about animals. Chordates.
It is about animals. Multicellular eukaryotes.

It is referring to mammals. What I was trying to make clear is that, same as birds, the end result isn’t immediate.

It is referring to fishes. What I was trying to make clear is that, same as plants, birds and mammals, the end result isn’t immediate.

It’s referring to animals. The author knew them as animals. That doesn’t mean that a fish gave birth to an animal. That means life was given the goal to become animals. Which didn’t happen immediately.

It’s referring to mammals. The author knew them as mammals. That doesn’t mean that a fish gave birth to a mammal. That means life was given the goal to become mammals. Which didn’t happen immediately.

It’s referring to fish. The author knew them as fish. That doesn’t mean that a unicellular organism gave birth to a bird. That means life was given the goal to become fish. Which didn’t happen immediately.

The Genesis writer clearly had no idea that mammals were connected to fish… nor did he know anything of pelycosaurs.

Yes. True. Exactly. But we do. And we have the benefit of context provided by scientifically gathered knowledge that no one else in the history of humanity has had to truly understand what is being described.

The Genesis writer clearly had no idea that fish, mammals and birds were connected to worms… nor did he know anything of small-shellies.

Yes. True. Exactly. But we do. And we have the benefit of context provided by scientifically gathered knowledge that no one else in the history of humanity has had to truly understand what is being described.

No reason has been given for taking one position for fish and animals, but a totally different position for birds and plants. Because there is no other reason than that it gives Jeremy the sequence he wants.

That varying which position is taken for which type of life can lead to any sequence at all makes matching the actual history of life not only trivial but meaningless.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@gbrooks9

How many times is this going to be explaind to you? @swamidass, perhaps we could
prepare “the Chamber” for this one?.. You know what I mean by the chamber, right?
Where the screaming never stops?

Give Jeremy Christian, Bill Cole and Robert Byers their own area. Together. “No exit”.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@gbrooks9

How is it that you refuse to acknowledge that the pursuit of too specific details can have a divisive influence on any movement?

We’re attempting to reconcile science and religion, and you’re worried about being divisive?

[Jeremy_Christian]

@Roy

No reason has been given for taking one position for fish and animals, but a totally different position for birds and plants. Because there is no other reason than that it gives Jeremy the sequence he wants.

I’m not sure what totally different positions you’re talking about. In every case I’ve maintained that the author is using contemporary titles, but that shouldn’t suggest each type of species came about right away fully realized.

There is an obvious parallel between Genesis 1 and earth’s history.

Plants > fish > land animals > humans. Simple.

I’ve tried to get more specific, unnecessarily, and in doing so have obviously confused things. Does it really require additional explanation or justification?

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

Plants > fish > land animals > humans. Simple.

Nope. Plants don’t come before fish, though you could define plants so that they came before land animals. Try again. Besides, you left out birds.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Nope. Plants don’t come before fish, though you could define plants so that they came before land animals. Try again. Besides, you left out birds.

Land plants (embryophytes), true.

But…

Kingdom plantae - 12-14 hundred million years ago

Kingdom animalia - 530 million years ago

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

Kingdom plantae - 12-14 hundred million years ago

Kingdom animalia - 530 million years ago

That’s you adopting whatever definitions and numbers give you what you want, inconsistently. I don’t know what definition of “Plantae” you’re using to get that date for plants, but there is no definition of “Animalia” that will give you that date for animals. Once more you don’t know what you’re saying.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Jeremy_Christian

@Roy

No reason has been given for taking one position for fish and animals, but a totally different position for birds and plants. Because there is no other reason than that it gives Jeremy the sequence he wants.

I’m not sure what totally different positions you’re talking about. In every case I’ve maintained that the author is using contemporary titles, but that shouldn’t suggest each type of species came about right away fully realized.

False. You haven’t maintained that for sea creatures, wild animals or humans; only for birds and plants.

There is an obvious parallel between Genesis 1 and earth’s history.

Plants > fish > land animals > humans. Simple.

There is not an obvious parallel. You’ve put (land) plants and fish the wrong way round and ignored birds completely.

I’ve tried to get more specific, unnecessarily, and in doing so have obviously confused things. Does it really require additional explanation or justification?

No additional explanation is needed - you’re lying by omission in order to avoid having to deal with birds (and land plants) being out of order. You don’t need to explain why, because we already know.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

That’s you adopting whatever definitions and numbers give you what you want, inconsistently. I don’t know what definition of “Plantae” you’re using to get that date for plants, but there is no definition of “Animalia” that will give you that date for animals. Once more you don’t know what you’re saying.

No, that’s me parroting the response that a Professor of Pathology gave in response to the question “which came first, first or plants?”

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

No, that’s me parroting the response that a Professor of Pathology gave in response to the question “which came first, first or plants?”

Whatever are you talking about?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Jeremy_Christian

No, that’s me parroting the response that a Professor of Pathology gave in response to the question “which came first, first or plants?”

Ask him which came first: animals or birds.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jeremy_Christian

Yes. True. Exactly. But we do. And we have the benefit of context provided by scientifically gathered knowledge that no one else in the history of humanity has had to truly understand what is being described.

My child at 7 made up better stories than you are doing… and you are convinced you are helping…

[Jeremy_Christian]

@Roy

Ask him which came first: animals or birds.

Birds are animals, Roy

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Whatever are you talking about?

This …

Which came first, fish or plants?

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

This …
https://www.quora.com/Which-came-first-fish-or-plants

You are garbling what that says, as usual. It’s about fish, not Animalia, as you claimed. And it gives a definition of “plant” that includes single-celled green algae. Why would you then exclude single-celled opisthokonts from the definition of “animal”? Again, you have no real idea what you’re saying.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@John_Harshman

Im not responding to him anymore. I have flagged 2 of his posts for the @moderators already… will flag this last one now.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

You are garbling what that says, as usual. It’s about fish, not Animalia, as you claimed. And it gives a definition of “plant” that includes single-celled green algae. Why would you then exclude single-celled opisthokonts from the definition of “animal”? Again, you have no real idea what you’re saying.

Which is where you come in. You’re doing great, John.