[GourmetDan]

"A reason I can see is the earth might’ve had to cool from a molten state and adsorb a number of meteor hits like the moon has before the earth reached the condition of Gen.!:2."

But then you are assuming the naturalist's POV that the earth was formed in a molten state. Add another assumption to your model.

"If you’ll do that then we can take our discussion a bit further. Agreed?"

Looks like you are in line with what I said in my initial post, so go ahead and get to your point.

[count-your-change]

I'm not assuming a naturalist view if I see the formation of the earth taking place in steps anymore so than the progressive steps of the creative days.

But I will assume that you haven't found what create, set, or form mean as used in Genesis and that rather prevents us going further to my point. In your previous post you mistook one term for another and as long as you do we're talking about two different things.

As for my assuming that the earth was formed in a molten staten state, do you assume it wasn't? Are you keeping score by tallying assumptions? Two for you and three for me, the lessor wins something?

If you are not going to do what I asked as a favor to aid our discussion, O.K., but if you don't understand the terms used in Genesis, it going to make it very difficult to continue.

[TXnMA]

"But then you are assuming the naturalist's POV that the earth was formed in a molten state. Add another assumption to your model."

~~~~~~~~

And does your assumption about Genesis 2

"And the Earth was without form..."

Lead you to believe otherwise?

(Take care; you are dealing with believing Christians who also just happen to be scientists...)