It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resolving "Birds Before Land Animals"

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

INteresting idea.

Genesis is a relic of an older story. Genesis, as we see it today, is actually far more condensed than some of the other versions floating around in the first and second centuries.

Religious texts are esoteric in nature. Reading the words in a mundane manner will give you a mundane understanding.
But I am sure you have noticed the similaries in imagery and symbolism amongst the 6 religions you have studied. If not, look again. Its all there. Especially in numerology.
edit on 8/14/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Howdy,

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, but are you saying that insects are not land animals? I mean, I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure insects don't usually live in the ocean... Some live in marshes and watery areas on land, but the majority of them are land animals, right?

In essence, you wish to translate this passage as land creatures being created before land creatures were created, yes?

Now, you say that you subscribe to most solid theories in (science). By this, do you mean that you discount biology, paleontology, and geology? Let me clarify, do you discount some of the theories in biology, paleontology, and geology while choosing to keep some?

I ask these questions sincerely and out of curiosity and a willingness to listen and learn from what you have to say. Please clarify.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

What you are doing is rationalizing to try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It's like watching sci fi fans rationalizing how in the hell Zefram Cochrane can be from Earth in Star Trek: First Contact and Enterprise whilst in the original show he was explicitly stated to be from Alpha Centauri.

It's a silly and pointless. The Bible as fan-fiction.

edit on 15/8/2014 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: ..


(post by SuperFrog removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
Trying to reconcile Genesis with reality will always prove to be problematic.


But not impossible, the only real hitch is if those on either side stick doggedly to their own opposing perceived paradigms.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

No, I accept pretty much every standard theory...Why would I need to discount any? And yes, I am saying insects. The verse makes it seem that the waters teemed with life. Our early earth was covered in ocean and large seas, so it is plausible that water borne insects are being described here.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
As noted by others trying to fit Genesis with reality will always be difficulty because the people who wrote it didn't have a scientific clue about the world- they were just making up stuff to try and explain the world around them.

Don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.
edit on 15/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Exactly, which seems to be what posts like this infer:

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

That person appears to think I have to stick with religious dogma or nothing it seems. Sure, if I do that it is a mismatch, however if you strip away dogma you are left with a very generic text that gives no specifics really other than the supposed order of creation.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I agree with you. The writer of the book was not a scientist. However, if 1:20 has indeed been characterized incorrectly by mans religions, and that is in fact referring to insects, chapter 1 appears to line up with the evolutionary timeline of life. All the way back to the big bang.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Hanslune
chapter 1 appears to line up with the evolutionary timeline of life. All the way back to the big bang.


Sorry to be nit-picky, but this statement doesn't make sense. We don't know what the evolutionary time line of life is before it showed up on earth. We also don't know the evolutionary time line of life on other planets.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

...and that would be of what value? That some gentleman or lady made a lucky guess thousands of years ago?



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SLAYER69

Exactly, which seems to be what posts like this infer:

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

That person appears to think I have to stick with religious dogma or nothing it seems. Sure, if I do that it is a mismatch, however if you strip away dogma you are left with a very generic text that gives no specifics really other than the supposed order of creation.


(snipped)

This is your opening statement:


I have found I can resolve with science the entire creation account in genesis if the days of creation are not literal days. Plenty of evidence points to the fact that this is the case and I have outlined that in previous posts/threads.


There is no single shred of evidence that points to above statement, and when asked about it, from begining of Genesis you call for some 'derailing discussion'. Genesis first chapter can be only taken as whole, not pick parts you like as you wish... and day still means day, like it meant millenniums ago... they had also different words for longer timeframe, and they used it through Bible, bot not in Genesis.

And speaking of this approach, fundamental as I said, that tries to tie Bible to science, Father George Coyne has best cover in his interview with Bill Maher:






edit on 15-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


Mod note: Snipped out off topic ad hominem and public gloating about complaints to staff.
edit on Fri 15 Aug 2014 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The problem with choosing to interpret "day" in Genesis as an epoch of years of that Genesis also states "years," in 1:14 - “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” Here, days are days, and years are years. No word plays or metaphors. So the word "day" used in Genesis is established by passages like this as a literal day.

Regarding "insects":
It's highly doubtful the original Hebrew Genesis ever meant 1:20 to refer to insects. It means aquatic life in the oceans and birds in the sky. "Every winged bird" would also seem to refer to avian life. Not all insects fly. Why would Genesis mention only flying insects and not the non-flying insects at this point? (and what about land insects that metamorphosis into flying insects...?)

Using the Bible as a determinant for the 'evolutionary timeline' of life on Earth might seem like a non-sequitur, but if one did it would be in the following order: vegetation, sea life, birds, land animals/creatures, man. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics to shoehorn the biblical Genesis into scientific reality.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

a reply to: SuperFrog

I already answered your question about my "plenty of evidence" statement. That refers only to the use of the word day as an extended period of time. Psalm 90:4 is a good example to show that what a creator views as a day and what humans view as a day are completely different. This thread isn't about that though, if you want to start a discussion on the definition of the word day in Genesis you can start another thread. This is specifically about Gen 1:20 and how it relates to 2:19.

Clearly there are two separate creations of "wing creatures". One from water, and one from earth.

a reply to: hydeman11

To elaborate more on your question:

en.wikipedia.org...

I posit that the first half of 1:20 refers to all life which may originate from water. This includes water borne insects that may end up land dwellers. I think the key here is where their source is. I think the latter half refers to insects which fly, again from the waters. An early earth had so many shallow seas and swamps that even land dwelling insects may have been self restricted to shallow waters.

icb.oxfordjournals.org...


insects are the most successful life form in the 450 million-year history of terrestrial living. They had appeared at least by the early Devonian, and by the Carboniferous some 80 million years later had evolved into a diverse array of winged forms.


2:19 then refers to winged creatures from the earth. This is on the following "day", and they are listed as coming after land animals.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

It does not say "every winged bird". That is the point I'm trying to make. It *could* be translated to say "Every Bird", but it could also be translated "every winged insect".

www.blueletterbible.org...=t_conc_1020
www.blueletterbible.org...


flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects


I am not stretching words here nor am I playing mental gymnastics. This is the actual definition of the word take from the original language. I posted a theologians view that this should have always been read as insect, but modern translations (Think King James) used bird instead because insects suck...

The fact that another creation of winged creatures comes on the following day lends credence to this idea.
edit on 15-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Howdy,

You say that you can reconcile birds as insects, despite the overwhelming majority of insects being land organisms. In some sense, I suppose all life came from the seas.

But you also made the claim that the days of the bible are not literal days and the claim that (you have reaffirmed here) that you accept standard theories of science.

Genesis 1:11 (KJV) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

So god created seeding plants on the third day, before he created the sun...

Genesis 1:16-17 (KJV) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

Plants need carbon dioxide, sunlight, fresh water, and soil (and a little oxygen) to photosynthesize and grow. How could they live for a prolonged period of time without sunlight? I mean, I suppose you could argue that god magicked them alive for however long you imagine it was, but why wouldn't he have just created the sun first, like standard models of the solar system suggest?

Furthermore, seeding plants are quite a bit younger than other kinds of "plants," and all manner of oceanic life lived before any plants, so you obviously cannot accept the timeline of evolution if you believe the literal Genesis.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

You said you have reconciled this, could you please clarify how? I would love for the bible to make more sense in a scientific light, so if you have any reasoning that would make it work, I certainly thank you.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Sure, I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for someone to get such information correct on the first guess. That would be an extremely lucky guess, possibly even a mathematically improbable guess, but not impossible.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Again, I discussed the light and sun/moon issue in another thread. I will start another one if I need to but that is off topic for this thread. And so you are aware, seeds have been around much longer than you think. You are referring specifically to certain types of seeds.

en.wikipedia.org...


By late Devonian times, seeds had evolved


And from your link, which I also posted in my op:


for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds


This post is meant to discuss if 1:20 refers to insects or birds. I believe 1:20 refers to insects, and 2:19 refers to birds.

Edit: I don't want to get in depth in this thread about the creation of the sun/moon. However, I believe the Sun was created with all other lights or during the process of creation of light, and the moon formed with the earth. I do not believe the sun or the moon could be seen through the thick atmosphere of the earth and once the atmosphere thinned significantly diffused light could be seen allowing plant life. It is commonly accepted that most early plants evolved in a low light environment and may not have had direct sunlight due to cloud cover. I think when the sun and moon are mentioned it means the atmosphere was thinned enough that they were then visible from the surface of the planet.
edit on 15-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Howdy,

Oh, I see. If you wish to use that which originated from the water, then why not say that birds also have their origins in the water? Humans do to. In fact, all life does.

If you wish to use the first flying insects, it was some 310-300 mya, which is quite after land animals colonized the terrestrial areas available to them. Really, the requirement of winged insects pushes this much later than land animals...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, for your other post in reply to me (thanks very much for the reply.
)...

I was aware of your posting that source in the OP, I was referring specifically to a section of it titled the "Paleozoic."
Seeds are a very specific biological "unit," for lack of better word. The bible makes mention of a fruit-bearing tree and seeds specifically. Seeds being a late Devonian adaptation... Now, for perspective, the Devonian was from about 420-360 mya, right? So middle of that is about 390. If we are talking a late Devonian (towards the end of the Devonian) we must be some time earlier than 390 mya, yes?

Even if you want to use 390 mya as the "late Devonian" (which I would clearly consider middle Devonian, having most of my dealings in middle Devonian rock...) creatures (not flying insects) had been living on land for quite some time before.
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, I must ask how you can make sense of this, and I fully understand if you wish to make a new thread to discuss this, but you made the claim in your OP, so do please forgive my asking about it.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
I already answered your question about my "plenty of evidence" statement. That refers only to the use of the word day as an extended period of time. Psalm 90:4 is a good example to show that what a creator views as a day and what humans view as a day are completely different. This thread isn't about that though, if you want to start a discussion on the definition of the word day in Genesis you can start another thread. This is specifically about Gen 1:20 and how it relates to 2:19.


Where, please state where already have you answered ANY questions.

And yet another statement, without proof - how can Psalm 90:4 show what creator did - here is is KJV


For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


And this explains what?



originally posted by: raymundoko
Clearly there are two separate creations of "wing creatures". One from water, and one from earth.

I thought, from starting post that you support evidence for Evolution, not creation. Scientist, remember?



originally posted by: raymundoko
I am not stretching words here nor am I playing mental gymnastics. This is the actual definition of the word take from the original language. I posted a theologians view that this should have always been read as insect, but modern translations (Think King James) used bird instead because insects suck...

I had no idea King James is consider 'recent' translation...

Here is old testament...


For a thousand years in your sight
are like yesterday when it is past,
or like a watch in the night.



originally posted by: raymundoko
The fact that another creation of winged creatures comes on the following day lends credence to this idea.


Major word is 'creation' - there is no single shred of evidence for creation, while we have tons of supporting evidence for evolution of life. True, abiogenesis is not yet proven theory, but what will happen if we can create life out of nothing by providing pre-life earth conditions?



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

To your first point: Humans are born on land. Aquatic insects are born in the water. That is the difference. I believe these events are separate in that one is describing life which originates from water, and the latter those which originate from land.

Wings were well before then. You are referring to a specific type and the earliest known fossil of wings. From your link:


The higher-level phylogeny of the arthropods continues to be a matter of debate and research. In 2008, researchers at Tufts University uncovered what they believe is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period.[47] The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, from the 396 million year old Rhynie chert. It may have superficially resembled a modern-day silverfish insect. This species already possessed dicondylic mandibles (two articulations in the mandible), a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings may already have evolved at this time. Thus, the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period


Edit: I may eventually create another thread to discuss seeds/trees etc. However; nothing in my OP referenced seeds with the exception of the quote of the timeline of evolution, and only then because that same line referenced insects.
edit on 15-8-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join