Replies

Hey! The Bible gets it (evolution) in the right sequence of events ... It's just off by a few decimal places as far as time appears to go.

Not bad if you consider that decimal places, log's, and powers-of-ten couldn't have been used since they weren't invented yet.

Anyway. Notice that the "birds" (reptiles according to this theory) were created BEFORE the current (domesticated) farm animals that the Hebrews were familar with.

Also: Life (fish - other sea creatures) before land animals, just as evolution now claims.

More evidence? God created the land and the seas, and divided the SINGLE original ocean into its current "seas" by moving the land on tectonic plates ... a theory laughed at by the world's "professors" until the mid-sixties.

"Waters" (the original plasma gasses were present BEFORE "light" (the stars) that came from them. The (firmament) planets after light. Creation did NOT start with "Let there be light!"

And, true to new theories about the moon coming FROM a collision between a solidified earth (after the earliest life!) and a glancing asteroid, the moon is clearly said to be made (by God!) much, much later than the earth!

Not bad for a bunch of "ignorant" sheepherders who were living thousands of years BEFORE tectonic plates were discovered, the moon's craters were found to be from asteroid collisions, and birds were found to be evolving (created/designed!) from their dinosaur ancesters.

Your #17 is a good one. Also, if the text in Genesis means 'every winged creature' rather than just birds, I'd remind our audience that insects were about the first animals on land, and that they have wings from the get-go. The few insects today that do not have wings have almost assuredly lost them. So the words in Genesis that indicate winged critters filled the air even before unwinged critters filled the land surface, improbable as it seems to us, checks out.

I'd have to add to all that the hypothesis presented here does not make much sense. If wings were evlved to help a critter run up a tree in acting like spoilers, they would change so as to continually get better at holding the creature onto the tree, not allowing them to fly up in the opposite direction.

Don't have time to argue this thread today though. A pity, it'd be delicious.

I would hope that not even diehards like my esteemed sparring partners Vade and Junior would give this idea much credence. I realize that discrediting this idea is not the same thing as discrediting the evolution of birds. Still, if evolution is true, if all of those alleged 'transitionals' check out, then it had to happen SOME way. And all ways proposed to date seem very unlikely, as Medved notes.