Creation / TOE

[Sparkey]

Could we get totopic please? The OP was stimulating discussions on the similarities and differences between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. I don't believe Dora was asking for a scientific debate on Creationism VS Evolution.

Also note that personal problems with another member can be discussed in PMs, not the public forums. Further off-topic posts or posts that should be dealt with privately will be deleted.

Thankyou

Hi, Nick - good to see you again. I sent you a PM about my part of this confusion but seem to have answered my own question. Trying to get back to topic (when it spans two different threads) is easier said than done, right?

Here then is a link to the original, original --called 4004 BC where I mis-posted a response to handy: Post #35, posted today in the wrong thread

Please note that the response there was in compliance to the spirit of her post and that I was trying to point out that her quote (also in that thread) helped me to understand part of a mystery that I've considered for about a decade, maybe more.

Do you have a magic moderator way of combining threads into a single one that retains some sense continuity perhaps?

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[Nick]

Hi, Nick - good to see you again. I sent you a PM about my part of this confusion but seem to have answered my own question. Trying to get back to topic (when it spans two different threads) is easier said than done, right?

Here then is a link to the original, original --called 4004 BC where I mis-posted a response to handy: Post #35, posted today in the wrong thread

Please note that the response there was in compliance to the spirit of her post and that I was trying to point out that her quote (also in that thread) helped me to understand part of a mystery that I've considered for about a decade, maybe more.

Do you have a magic moderator way of combining threads into a single one that retains some sense continuity perhaps?

Cordially,
~Sparrow

Hi Sparrow!

I have already replied to your PM, but for the purposes of your public question and so that everyone else knows, the simplest thing to do is not to confuse the two topics. Consider them isolated. Discuss what the OP stimulated in the 4004 BC topic in that topic, and what the OP did in this topic, here. Then it should be fine.

What happened (from what I see, as I am not familiar at all with the 4004 BC topic) in the 4004 BC topic was minor and seems to be corrected, if I understand correctly. Yes, moderators can merge topics but given the length and complexity of both of these topics I think it would be confusing, as the merge would impair the flow of the combined threads a lot.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay then I'll just repost what I said to handy there (deleting the scientific sounding stuff from my first post) as i was interested in her reply.

...
As per the plants though, to me, there is still some mystery about Genesis. Genesis 2:5 states, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

We then see that God planted the Garden of Eden specifically for man and the beasts.

This seems to suggest to me that, while the Garden of Eden flourished for Adam, Eve and the beasts, at least for awhile, the rest of the earth was fairly barren. We know that God created plants and trees and such on the 3rd day, not after Adam and Eve.

Some like to point to Genesis 1 and 2 as being contradictory, but really, Genesis 2 is just a far more detailed account of the same story.

But, when we consider those details, we see that there was perhaps far more of a process than our old Sunday School coloring pages would suggest.

...

I think about these things, and I think I begin to understand why our earth seems so geologically old, and yet all agree, scientists and creationists alike, that mammals and man are relative newcomers, even if there is disagreement as to what constitutes "new".

Somebody pointed out (or I have read somewhere) their observations during our discussions comparing the bible stated order of creation regarding plants, insects and birds. They basically contrasted what was taught in elementary school with what was taught in Sunday School.

The thrust was that insects, without their major natural predator (birds), could be expected to have eaten the plants (or those plants that didn't have natural defenses built in) much faster than the fauna could have "evolved" and thereby survived. The fossil evidence of the rapid growth of plants in what is called the Cambrian period shows that this didn't happen but until now, I've not been able to think about an exact 'why' of it all. Of course we know that God created, but looking closely at how is always amazing.

Handy, you've just now pointed to what the Lord said about plants and that had escaped my notice. Thanks, it does help me.

"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

_______________________________

DISCLAIMER:
Please note that although I am familiar with scientific terms and have enjoyed thousands of discussions with others who share similar interests, in no way does my use of these terms or quotes suggest nor imply that I think that God is a liar. He simply can not lie. [/COLOR]