What mammals seen by the people writing Genesis predated birds?
Are these the same people that saw an ocean covered magma world? Or saw the creation of the moon? Or saw Eden?
What mammals seen by the people writing Genesis predated birds?
The article I linked shows 'modern' birds and mammals appeared around the time of the KT extinction
What mammals seen by the people writing Genesis predated birds?
@Plotinus You forget that the Enuma Elish is the original creation document and he will fall back to that story to explain away Genesis errors.
Si if it was taken from Enuma Elish, who authored that and what was their source?
@Plotinus You forget that the Enuma Elish is the original creation document and he will fall back to that story to explain away Genesis errors.
Today I learned Adam and Eve co-authored Genesis.
You're equivocating about "modern". The article is about orders, not species. It's not saying that the animals that we see around us go back 65 million years. Obviously that isn't true. It's saying that the orders to which they belong go back that far. That is not the same thing. You said before that the authors of Genesis weren't talking about long-extinct species. But the earliest members of the modern orders are long-extinct species.
None. And none of the birds they saw predated mammals either. So if you're claiming that all the living things described in the opening chapters of Genesis refer exclusively to modern species then those chapters are all false, because they state that fish predated land animals and so on. Which isn't true if they're referring only to modern species.
Your claims aren't consistent. You can't say on the one hand that the creation myths of Genesis are accurate accounts of the formation of the Earth and evolution of life and say on the other that they're exclusively about modern species. These are incompatible claims. You need to choose between them.
Did I now?and you recently learned water can cover magma before it becomes land
This was the original disputed post:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillow_lava
Pillow lavas are lavas that contain characteristic pillow-shaped structures that are attributed to the extrusion of the lava underwater
the link was already posted
It is not that lava cannot be extruded under water, but that is cannot exist as a ball of liquid lava covered in water. It can be a ball of lava covered in a layer of crust covered by water, with some of the lava leaking out now and again, 'cos that is what we have now.Question, why are you guys arguing with a guy who believes that a planet that cools down from it's molten lava state is covered with water before land appears?
This was the original disputed post:
It is not that lava cannot be extruded under water, but that is cannot exist as a ball of liquid lava covered in water. It can be a ball of lava covered in a layer of crust covered by water, with some of the lava leaking out now and again, 'cos that is what we have now.
Pillow lava forms when magma erupts under water. It does not speak to a magma covered world covered in water.
I hope you realize that Norse myths are not geology texts, nor are they astrophysics texts, nor chemistry texts. They're stories, and you can try from 20 years ago until the cows come home to force science to conform to your stories, but it isn't going to work.At what point would you call that crust under the water land? That was the dispute. And why cant the Earth's surface be molten and covered by water? I'm talking about the proto-Earth which was covered by water as far back as we can tell. What would happen if that ball of lava was forming in a vast reservoir of water vapor and ice like the Norse myth of creation? Our models are based on Earth forming here and we keep trying to import our water. The Norse said the proto-Earth (Ymir) formed where heat melts ice, thats the asteroid belt - the solar system's frost line where gas blown by the solar wind started freezing.
Earth is not twice as big as itself. That is not logical.Why not? I understand I'm scaling up from the magma currently erupting under water, but I'm also scaling up Earth and its supply of water. The myth describes Tiamat as twice the size of Earth. If Europa can acquire a layer of water/ice dozens of miles deep, a super Earth at the frost line could have had an ocean over a hundred. At what point in the cooling process of that water world would you call magma erupting under a super ocean land?
At what point would you call that crust under the water land? That was the dispute. And why cant the Earth's surface be molten and covered by water? I'm talking about the proto-Earth which was covered by water as far back as we can tell. What would happen if that ball of lava was forming in a vast reservoir of water vapor and ice like the Norse myth of creation? Our models are based on Earth forming here and we keep trying to import our water. The Norse said the proto-Earth (Ymir) formed where heat melts ice, thats the asteroid belt - the solar system's frost line where gas blown by the solar wind started freezing.
Why not? I understand I'm scaling up from the magma currently erupting under water, but I'm also scaling up Earth and its supply of water. The myth describes Tiamat as twice the size of Earth. If Europa can acquire a layer of water/ice dozens of miles deep, a super Earth at the frost line could have had an ocean over a hundred. At what point in the cooling process of that water world would you call magma erupting under a super ocean land?
Every simulation I've seen of the growing Earth shows a red hot ball pelted by rocks with a developing crust. Why couldn't that happen under a 200 mile deep ocean? If thats how the Earth formed (with no ocean), why does the oldest evidence we see show rock was forming in water? If the ocean came later what happened to all the magma that cooled to form land?
My understanding is that @Berzerker isn't approaching the myths as geology texts, astrophysics texts, or chemistry texts but rather more akin to historical textsI hope you realize that Norse myths are not geology texts, nor are they astrophysics texts, nor chemistry texts.
That's because the idea is Earth was formed from the remains of Tiamat. He's not at all saying Earth is twice as big as itselfEarth is not twice as big as itself. That is not logical.