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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects
By late Devonian times, seeds had evolved
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds
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.
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
originally posted by: raymundoko
Clearly there are two separate creations of "wing creatures". One from water, and one from earth.
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...
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.
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