Mammals were a new ‘kind’. A live-birthing kind. Where birds were a continuation of the same kind.
Common fallacy. First off, there are all sorts of groups that have live birth: lots of fish, some frogs, snakes, ichthyosaurs, many insects. Second, some mammals don’t have live birth. Third, you have chosen an arbitrary characteristic to set mammals (some mammals) apart as a separate “kind”, when you could easily have done the same for any group at all. Birds are no more or less a continuation than mammals are. Fourth, “creeping things” are probably reptiles and/or insects, and the 6th day is about all land animals, not just mammals. You’re distorting both the science and the bible to fit your notions.
2 Likes
Wow wow wow!
It IS their version of a water cycle… its where the rain comes from.
You know… you dabble in so much of the Bible for pointless discussions.
You dont know enough to be right half the time. And you just make up stuff for the other half.
I presume you mean that the doors in the firmament open up occasionally and water falls out. Of course that isn’t a cycle.
1 Like
Maybe the better characteristic is that this is the species that soon after became the dominant ‘kind’ of the animal kingdom.
I actually added the words “It is their version of a water cycle…” just for you.
Firstly, to have a water cycle even acknowledged, one might need to know
there is a need for a cycle. What constitutes such knowledge is beyond the
scope of this thread I would think.
Secondly, the Bible does refer to clouds forming over the ocean. But the
Bible also refers to clouds with the Hebrew term for leather water skins
(some translations use the awkward term “water bottles”) - - which are
refilled high in the sky, not necessarily over water, from the windows
in the firmament.
Thirdly, It seems likely that even the scribe(s) referring to windows in
the heavens probably didn’t think these windows were the only sources
of rain.
One last note: About half of the English translations of the term “firmament”
intentionally present it as an “empty expanse” - - as another word for “sky”.
The other half presents the term “firmament” with the context related to the
Hebrew word being used: something solid, and fixed, i.e., something firm.
Soon after what? And what do you mean by “dominant”? It’s true that most large land animals are now mammals, as are the largest animals in the sea. But Genesis isn’t even talking about mammals; it’s talking about all land animals.
Does it? I’m not sure. I don’t know when the water cycle was first figured out. Water comes out of the heavens and drains into the sea, but does it ever go back to the heavens? If so, it must happen somewhere at the edge of the world where we don’t see it. Perhaps there are drains where the ocean meets the dome, and pumps to take the water back up to the top. Now that would be a water cycle. But Genesis seems to know only about a one-way flow.
And then speaks specifically of types like “cattle” and “beasts”. Mammals.
And creeping things, which are different from cattle and beasts. Not Mammals.
1 Like
If you say so
Wait … you are starting to sound like a scientist who thinks the Genesis depictions have to be REAL or REALISTIC. What got you going down that line of thinking?
What’s next? The firmament as something FIRM only makes sense if you see the engineering drawings for the firmament’s support?
You do relish the role of “spoiler”, dontcha…
Let’s just say this anecdote is gonna be famous…
1) Firmament dividing the waters is discussed…
2) Scientist says that makes no sense **
** [he’s correct … because there ain’t no firmament, right?]
3) “Because Genesis 1 doesn’t provide for a Water Cycle…”
[What the … you’re not serious are ya? … ]
4)"Perhaps there are drains where the ocean meets the dome, and
pumps to take the water back up to the top. Now that would be a
water cycle. But Genesis seems to know only about a one-way flow.
[Yeah… he’s serious…]
Because he is just as fast and loose about religious ideas as he is about scientific ones…
As you have mentioned before, he nullifies sections of the Bible for being corrupted and fictional… while he champions other parts for matching his scenarios perfectly … even when they don’t match his scenarios at all.
When he needs a fit … he either sees one, explains one or INVENTS one.
Rather, let’s say that you are good at misreading a lot of what goes on here.
Right … it’s my imagination … you were going to over-throw two thousand years of conservative interpretation of the firmament … because it didn’t provide for a water cycle… and I’m the one who is misinterpreting things…
Let’s examine these clauses one at a time.
There’s a very good reason you have never seen or read this.
This is 100% erroneous. In the first tens of millions of years of the earth’s existence–if not hundreds of millions–the earth had minuscule amounts of water. There are 2 hypotheses to explain the arrival of the earth’s water:
- A collision with Theia (that also dislodged the moon)
- The Late Heavy Bombardment
I am not sure which of these explanations holds more water (hehe); perhaps both are partially true. In any case, there is zero support – zilch, nada, zippo, squatch – for the speculation that earth was covered in water at birth.
If you want to read up on this, I can supply some links.
Best,
Chris Falter
I wasn’t doing anything of the sort. Where did you get such an idea?
Posted this in another thread. Copying here to be included in this thread…
Can it really be said with any degree of certainty that mammals came before birds?
Aurornis xui was a feathered dinosaur that lived during the Middle Jurassic period about 150 million years ago, analysis shows. - World’s first bird? New fossil bumps Archaeopteryx off its perch. - CSMonitor.com
A shrew-like animal that snagged insects from ferns lining the shores of freshwater lakes 160 million years ago, might be one of the first “true” mammals to walk the Earth, back when the dinosaurs roamed, a new fossil suggests. - Skinny ‘Shrew’ Is Oldest True Mammal
These dates change with every new fossil discovery. At this point they’re both right in the same era, here only 10 million years apart. Another discovery and those dates could easily flip. Then what?
This seems to be the primary argument against my claim about the creation account and even it is by a very small margin, currently…
Considering we’re talking about the entirety of the Earth’s geological and biological history, with a dozen or so specifically given creations in an ancient text that shouldn’t have gotten anything even close to right, you’d think it wouldn’t take such granular levels of arguments to dismiss it. Yet, here we are.
1 Like
That paper seems pretty solid to me. 
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I believe that the dominant “kind” is far and away the Arthropoda.
1 Like