Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:42 pm**

joecoolfrog wrote:Creationism within the framework of evolution is a reasonable faith orientated argument, but a literal interpretation of Genesis is simply laughable.

QFT.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:44 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:So all christians are fundamentalists?

Which definition are you using? The non-Christian definition of Christian or the true Christian definition?

Don't you know, jay_a2j?
There isn't a true christian.
There's the original and then there's whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-be-christian.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:09 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Danger Boy: How about you give us your definition of what a Christian is?
We spend a lot of time in this thread throwing words back and forth. It'd help if people knew what the words mean, especially when they mean different things to different posters.

See my former post.

I was asking Danger Boy.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:11 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:So all christians are fundamentalists?

Which definition are you using? The non-Christian definition of Christian or the true Christian definition?

I was merely noting that your definition of the one was merely the same as the other, with some offhand remark about going to church not mattering.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:41 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:So all christians are fundamentalists?

Which definition are you using? The non-Christian definition of Christian or the true Christian definition?

You saying that people who believe in Christ are not christians because they also believe in evolution. :lol:

It has to be awesome constructing the world the way you have done for yourself, though I suppose to believe in such delusions, one must not leave out any little aspect, else sanity might at some point slip and and the delusions come crashing down.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:34 pm**

bradleybadly wrote: Player I seriously don't understand why you just don't become an atheist. It's more logically consistent with evolution.

Why? A God that creates all the systems we see, including evolution makes a lot more sense to me. And, it is consistant with the Bible. What jay, etc are putting forward is really not a true, scholarly translation. In fact, the exact view that the Earth was created in 6 revolutions of the earth, while not unkown, was historically the minority position. This is one reason why this is not an issue for Jews, who very much adhere to the old Testament as much as Christians. I gave a couple of not too scholarly (that is, not too bogged down in minutia, not too long, but still evidence-based)

bradleybadly wrote: Yes, you do come across as somewhat of a crusader.

Charge accepted! I started out just wanting to find out more about young earth creationism, but what I found has made me very worried.

As I say over and over and over. Varied ideas are wonderful. I won't say that folks who have vested their lives in a particular idea are going to welcome with open arms a disputing idea. However, science works through challenge. This is different, becasue it really is not a challenge. They get around all that by simply denying that evidence exists and painting an utterly false picture of what scientists say. It is no mistake that jay has such a misguided impression of what evolution is about.

bradleybadly wrote:Remember when you emailed me about evolution. I'm an atheist so of course I already believe. There's no reason to send me a message and try to convince me of it.

I was not trying to convince you of evolution. I was saying "watch out, this is coming your way... and it represents a real and true threat in the education of all our children".

See, if this really were about faith, then it actually would not be that big a deal. That is, freedom of religion is one of our most fundamental values. It certainly is for me. The fact that this is put forward as a religious debate is why it has not been more closely examined in a widespread fashion.

However, if you look at both what all those creationist websites really say, the impact of all this and how it is functioning, how it is managing to spread so quickly and you find it really is not so much about building up this idea of creationism, not really. Most of what they put forward is not even real evidence. (its a lot of supposition and "this just isn't logical", plus plain denial of real evidence) Instead, it is mostly a calculated attack on virtually any aspect of evolution, and therefore science, possible.

bradleybadly wrote:Now look, if you're trying to hold on to some elements of the Christian faith because that's what you were raised in then I respect that. But seriously, you don't have to have one foot in the church and one in evolution. Your parents are probably really wonderful people and raised you to believe in the Christian faith. That's wonderful! Christianity has probably given many people who are looking for positive things a lot of good answers. But it's obvious you don't believe in the story of Genesis. You should just make the choice to leave that faith once and for all. It will be difficult but I think you'll be more contented in the long run. You'll be miserable as long as you try to have a little bit of both sides and reconcile them.

Again, this is actually not true. The only part I have a real issue with is the "sons of God" and "daughters of man" bit. However, I hold out that there is likely an answer that I just don't, yet, understand. It might well be something like the creation story. People more or less assume it means one thing, but that is just an assumption based on limited knowledge.
The problem here is that a few people have gone from that being an assumption to saying it is what is the only truth. Yet, in reality, Biblical scholars have always seen the timelines in Genesis as referring broad segments of time.
In fact,t his happens at other point in the Bible, but I don't think I should get into that in this thread.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:25 pm**

Lionz wrote: Folks?,

Who claims mainstream evolutionary theory doesn't hold that humans descend from apes? Humans even are apes according to mainstream evolutionary theory maybe.

We are most likely part of a broader group that includes apes. They are our nearest living relative. However, they are very distant relatives. Not as distant as, say a clam. However, here is where you have to be careful about what is known, what is suspected based on some evidence, what is suspected with not a lot of evidence and what is just guessed at.

We know we are more like the apes than any other group of species on Earth. Cladistically/phylogenetically therefore it is logical that we will share an ancestor with them at some point earlier than an ancestor we might share with, say a dog or a giraffe. Evidence has been found of some progression within human evolution. However, whereas it was once thought to be a single, linear line of descent (that old drawing jay trotted out, the one you may have seen in textbooks), it looks as if our line is branched, much like any other area of evolution, with some branches dying off and others giving rise to one or more "successor" species. Neanderthal, for example was once thought to be a human ancestor, but now is considered more a "close cousin". They and our true ancestor are both thought to have descended from one prior species.

Recently, a new fossil has been discovered that seems to indicate we began to "become human", to show biological features that distinguished us from the true apes even further back than has been previously thought.

So, we know we are here. We know there were species known as Neanderthals (they are most definitely not simply "arthritic men" or any of the other young earth explanations!), as well as Cro Magnon man, which was essentially a modern human. (talk to a paleontologist for the exact specifics). We also know there were earlier species that seem to share progressively more "human" features, though again, it is not all a "straight line". There were species that "branched" off at various stages and then disappeared from the fossil record.

Based on this evidence, it is thought very likely that if we go back far enough in time, we are joined to the apes by a very, very, very distant ancestor. (again, its really not one theory, but a set of individual theories.. each idea about each fossil is really a seperate theory, which is why you can disprove one piece without in any way impinging upon the other ideas).

Lionz wrote:
Player,

What specifically do you claim I ignored?

In the other thread you asked essentially the same question over and over and over, even posted the exact same pictures over and over and over. You also continued with the same assertions about "what I believed" even though I corrected you repeatedly. AND, then, when I pointed that out, came back with "oh.. must have missed it, please show me where". When I did go back and bring up the section again, you would ask me that several times, then go back to the original question.

Lionz wrote:
You ironically sent evidence against certain fossils yourself in response to Jay maybe.

All you seem to do is post pictures and ask questions. I am far from the only one who doesn't consider answering you a worthy endeavor any longer. I think I gave you a lot more benefit of the doubt than most, though. I am even answering you now. Jay actually presented something new, and even though he ignores the evidence I provide, actually continues the debate. So, I took it up.

Lionz wrote:
What do you claim actually is an example of a fossil of a human and chimp ancestor?

I don't make a specific claim, because to do so would mean spending the time to research the answer. For the reasons I described above, I am not going to do that in response to your questions.

Also, its not like the information is hidden. If you really want an answer, even wikki can likely give you one.

Lionz wrote:
Want to discuss Lucy and move on from there? Maybe this is missing one or more image and has messed up formatting and is misquoted, but...

yes, we know you are always "missing one or more image" and "misquoted". At least you left off the "perhaps" and "maybe" this time.

Lionz wrote:
Lucy
Parts from All Over

cut it short. Here is the critical part creationist sites ignore:
Further discoveries of A. afarensis specimens occurred during the 1970s, giving anthropologists a much better appreciation of the range of variability and sexual dimorphism of the species
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(fossil) )

As for the "criticism" of the analysis... been over things you have posted before, you never even acknowledged them, so I am not going to bother this time.

Lionz wrote: What suggests there was a neanderthal or a Heiderlburg man who was not simply a human descendant of Adam? Both are known for large brow ridges maybe. Remember something said about brow ridges earlier? Is there a neanderthal bone or a Heiderlburg man bone that has been found farther than a few hundred miles from Mt. Ararat or Europe?

Again not going to bother.

Lionz wrote:Also, did vegetation exist millions of years before the sun even if yom can refer to millions of years? And did He cause it to rain on earth only after plants?

No.

Lionz wrote:And if earth and stars were created automatically out of nothing, then what about rocks or stars say something is billions of years old? Is there a way He could have created a diamond filled earth instantly out of nothing without you feeling as though it looked millions of years old? Maybe you don't look at earth as if there actually was an earthwide flood on it less than 5,000 years ago and there was one that helps explain fossils and geology.

[/quote]
I talked about these as much as I am going to. Once again, you ask about this worldwide flood, which I already addressed, and then, after I addressed it, you came back with "oh, did I really say there was evidence for a flood" or some such.

That is exactly why I have been ignoring your posts.... so, don't bother asking again. You know the answer. If you ever decide to engage in a real exchange of information and I happen to bother to read it, then, maybe... perhaps.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:36 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:So all christians are fundamentalists?

Which definition are you using? The non-Christian definition of Christian or the true Christian definition?

You mean the one that is used by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I thought not.

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

"And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:48 pm**

Well player, you argue against the Bible and people who believe in the Bible more often than any atheist I've seen on this site. That's why I think you don't have to play it halfway between the 2 views. It's more logical to just come all the way over to our side instead of dabbling with a few elements of Christianity.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:57 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:Well player, you argue against the Bible and people who believe in the Bible more often than any atheist I've seen on this site. That's why I think you don't have to play it halfway between the 2 views. It's more logical to just come all the way over to our side instead of dabbling with a few elements of Christianity.

Actually, as I said above, I don't argue "against the Bible". I argue against some human interpretations of the Bible.

While I am not Roman Catholic (think I have made that clear more than once

), both the Roman Catholic Church AND mainline Protestant churches all, universally accept evolution and the Bible.

Ironically, it is probably because I do hold to my faith that I wind up arguing with/debating those who claim other views. When someone puts forward a false picture of Christianity, then I feel it is encumbant upon others of us who also believe to offer the corrections. In most cases, I simply say "well, there is more than one way to look at this", or "I believe...". In this case, I go beyond that because the impact spreads so far beyond the church.

And, while the past few posts have regarded only evolution, I would say the same about any of my views. They may disagree with what some people feel the Bible says, but they do not disagree with what the Bible says.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:14 pm**

In my view if you're a Christian then you either believe the Bible or you don't. If you're Muslim, you either believe in the Koran or you don't. Same with Judaism, Hinduism or whatever religion.

I mean is there really any place in the Bible where it says that God created species to evolve from a single common ancestor? If not, then I think you're creating your own cultish version of Christianity. It's one where you can say you're right and others are wrong because they don't have the "proper" interpretation.

Please show me where it actually says in the Bible that God caused organisms to evolve. If you can't then I say you come over to atheism.

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:18 pm**

Well, the Bible doesn't specifically mention kangaroos, but their existence isn't sufficient to make the Bible nonsense.

Oh dear, Bradley, you've trolled me into arguing for the opposition. Well done.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:33 am**

Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:47 am**

john9blue wrote:Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Well, that's some good news there. I'm going to have to kill my wife and her african kid and get me some hookers and blow tomorow. I got me a ticket to heaven because I'm a Christian.

I need a few locations here so I can perform some twitacide.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:53 am**

john9blue wrote:Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Jesus is a Savior from what?

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:22 am**

2dimes wrote:
john9blue wrote:Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Well, that's some good news there. I'm going to have to kill my wife and her african kid and get me some hookers and blow tomorow. I got me a ticket to heaven because I'm a Christian.

I need a few locations here so I can perform some twitacide.

Jesus said love your neighbor. You fail.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:34 am**

john9blue wrote:
2dimes wrote:
john9blue wrote:Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Well, that's some good news there. I'm going to have to kill my wife and her african kid and get me some hookers and blow tomorow. I got me a ticket to heaven because I'm a Christian.

I need a few locations here so I can perform some twitacide.

Jesus said love your neighbor. You fail.

So do you need to accept him as your savior or do everything he said? First is really easy, second is impossible, so that might be a problem.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:59 am**

AAFitz,

What's a simple matter of volume? A cup of water can theoretically cover a perfectly smooth sphere larger than earth maybe. And is there not even evidence that suggests earth has increased in volume?

Player,

The word pithecus is derived from Greek meaning ape perhaps. And even humans are apes according to wikipedia maybe.

What makes Adam different from his mom and dad if he has a mom and dad and something makes him different than them? And what suggests to you that there are neanderthal remains or cro magnon remains or Heiderlburg man remains that are remains of someone who is not a descendant of Adam?

Do you have an example of a question re-asked by me that you had already answered? And when did you go back and bring up a section again in response to me requesting that you show me something? I might seriously have some posts from you not showing up for me.

You claimed I left maybe off of something that it was not left off of if Maybe counts perhaps... maybe I use odd language that can be used against me as a strawman as a result of a fear of lying.

Lucy is a joke that deserves to be poked at perhaps. And what suggests A. afarensis in general is an ancestor of man regardless of what was found in the 1970s?

Making man out of apes
Many apemen are merely apes that evolutionists have attempted to upscale to fill the gap between apes and men. These include all the australopithecines, as well as a host of other extinct apes such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Kenyanthropus. All have obviously ape skulls, ape pelvises and ape hands and feet. Nevertheless, australopithecines (especially Australopithecus afarensis) are often portrayed as having hands and feet identical to modern man, a ramrod-straight, upright posture and a human gait.

The best-known specimen of A. afarensis is the fossil commonly known as “Lucy.” A life-like mannequin of “Lucy” in the Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo shows a hairy humanlike female body with human hands and feet but with an obviously apelike head. The three-foot-tall Lucy stands erect in a deeply pensive pose with her right forefinger curled under her chin, her eyes gazing off into the distance as if she were contemplating the mind of Newton.

Few visitors are aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the fossil ape Australopithecus afarensis. These apes are known to be long-armed knuckle-walkers with locking wrists. Both the hands and feet of this creature are clearly apelike. Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman2 have reported that the hands of this species are “surprisingly similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee-common chimpanzee range.” They report that the feet, like the hands, are “long, curved and heavily muscled” much like those of living tree-dwelling primates. The authors conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, evolutionists and museums continue to portray Lucy (A. Afarensis) with virtually human feet (though some are finally showing the hands with long curved fingers).

Note: That is missing one or more hyperlink and contains one or more number that should be smaller and raised up higher and it's a misquote maybe. Stuff derived from here perhaps... http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lly-evolve

Vegetation did not exist millions of years before the sun and He did not cause it to rain on earth only after plants? Can you help me understand where you stand in regards to Genesis 1:11-19 and Genesis 2:5?

Are you trying to suggest that you successfully refuted stuff said by me about the flood and trying to suggest I responded to a successful refutation by you by saying something like oh, did I really say there was evidence for a flood?

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:31 am**

In 1984, Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology and a leading expert on australopithecine fossils, concluded, “The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage. All this should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications” (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p. 332.)

In 1987, Oxnard did an extensive computer analysis of the existing bones of the Australopithecus and concluded that it walked like an ape, not a man.

In 1984, Oxnard stated in his book The Order of Man, “... the australopithecines known over the last few decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdrai, and Makapans-gat, are now IRREVOCABLY REMOVED FROM A PLACE IN THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN BIPEDALISM, possibly from a place in a group of any closer to humans than the African apes and certainly from a place in the direct human lineage” (The Order of Man, p. 332).

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:08 am**

AAFitz wrote:You saying that people who believe in Christ are not christians because they also believe in evolution.

NEVER said that.

AAFitz wrote:It has to be awesome constructing the world the way you have done for yourself, though I suppose to believe in such delusions, one must not leave out any little aspect, else sanity might at some point slip and and the delusions come crashing down.

What have I said that is delusional?

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:13 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
While I am not Roman Catholic (think I have made that clear more than once ), both the Roman Catholic Church AND mainline Protestant churches all, universally accept evolution and the Bible.

Documentation please. I think this is a LOAD of bs. Of course if "mainline" = your church, it's quite possible. :roll:

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:14 am**

bradleybadly wrote:In my view if you're a Christian then you either believe the Bible or you don't. If you're Muslim, you either believe in the Koran or you don't. Same with Judaism, Hinduism or whatever religion.

I mean is there really any place in the Bible where it says that God created species to evolve from a single common ancestor? If not, then I think you're creating your own cultish version of Christianity. It's one where you can say you're right and others are wrong because they don't have the "proper" interpretation.

Please show me where it actually says in the Bible that God caused organisms to evolve. If you can't then I say you come over to atheism.

2010 post of the year! =D>

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:17 am**

john9blue wrote:Pretty sure all you need to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your savior. Why don't you show us how that directly implies that evolution is false?

Correct. Evolution has NOTHING to due with salvation its just that the majority of the "saved" don't buy it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:36 am**

bradleybadly wrote:In my view if you're a Christian then you either believe the Bible or you don't. If you're Muslim, you either believe in the Koran or you don't. Same with Judaism, Hinduism or whatever religion.

Of course! However, Judaism absolutely follows the old Testament. Muslims actually claim to as well, though they do look more to the "K'ran" (B.K. would be the one who could give a better answer on that).

Except very, very few of them accept this young earth nonsense.

bradleybadly wrote:I mean is there really any place in the Bible where it says that God created species to evolve from a single common ancestor?

It does not specify how he did it at all. The order that is laid out in Genesis is the same as for evolution, with, I believe one possible exception (whales).

Here, From David Breem: (cited this earlier, but here is an excerpt) http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html
Introduction "The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time. The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.

The proper interpretation - from GenesisA simple way to determine if the days are 12 hours, 24 hours or an indefinite period of time is to examine each of the days and see what the Bible says about the time it took for those days to happen. We will examine each day and see if Genesis indicates which interpretation is correct. In this page, we will consider the text of Genesis only and not rely upon any scientific information, about which we can not be absolutely sure of its accuracy.

12-hour days?Let's look at the first definition of yom - the 12-hour period (from sunrise to sunset). A very casual glance at the text shows that yom could not be referring to daylight only. On the first day, Genesis 1:5 states that there was both daylight and night.2 We can eliminate the "daylight" definition of yom as being consistent with the Genesis text. The days of Genesis must have been longer than 12 hours.

24-hours days - Day 1Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.3 The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day.

24-hours days - Day 2On the second day, God separated the waters above the earth from those on the surface of the earth.4 Since there is no timetable listed for this period of time, it could be 24 hours in length. The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the second day.

24-hours days - Day 3On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants:

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,5 Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.

bradleybadly wrote:If not, then I think you're creating your own cultish version of Christianity. It's one where you can say you're right and others are wrong because they don't have the "proper" interpretation.

If everyone thought the same we would not have so many churches that say they follow the Bible.

As for the "cultish" claim, I would say that when I have all of the largest Christian churches on my side, (Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and the rest of the Protestant churches, even a few Baptist and a very few "evangelical" type churches) the "cult" label is best applied to the young earthers.

bradleybadly wrote:Please show me where it actually says in the Bible that God caused organisms to evolve. If you can't then I say you come over to atheism.

Genesis says that God created all. It gives a very rough, but unscientific view of how all that happened. To the extent it specifies, science agrees. Too many people, though, like to claim it is much more specific than it actually is on this.

If you (or anyone else) wishes to look into this more, here is a website that lists a bunch of articles on various aspects of the specific question of Genesis and the definition of "yom"/"day"

http://www.answersincreation.org/yom_hebrew.htm

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:45 am**

It does say something about "each after their own kind" which kind of implies a fish will beget a fish and not a frog. :-k

Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re:

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!