God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Genetics refutes common descent.

This is not true. Genetics gives a very real explanation to what Darwin had to guess at.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

there are no transitional fossils.

If you rephrased it to "there are no transitional fossils that I accept", then your claim would be true. However, paleontologists have shown numerous transitional fossils. Here is a good example that isn't commonly used as evidence of transitional fossils:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04413

If you don't want to bother with the link, here is the title and abstract:

A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum

It has commonly been thought that snakes underwent progressive loss of their limbs by gradual diminution of their use¹. However, recent developmental and palaeontological discoveries suggest a more complex scenario of limb reduction, still poorly documented in the fossil record^2,3,4,5. Here we report a fossil snake with a sacrum supporting a pelvic girdle and robust, functional legs outside the ribcage. The new fossil, from the Upper Cretaceous period of Patagonia, fills an important gap in the evolutionary progression towards limblessness because other known fossil snakes with developed hindlimbs, the marine Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis, lack a sacral region. Phylogenetic analysis shows that the new fossil is the most primitive (basal) snake known and that all other limbed fossil snakes are closer to the more advanced macrostomatan snakes, a group including boas, pythons and colubroids. The new fossil retains several features associated with a subterranean or surface dwelling life that are also present in primitive extant snake lineages, supporting the hypothesis of a terrestrial rather than marine origin of snakes.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Cletus said:

keep researching. 

The YE creationist ties to the occult are more involved than merely reading visions:

From a creationist website:

What about Cult Tactics

 

     On the homepage of this website is a link to a video series by a retired police detective, who had training in cult issues.  He lists five cult tactics that are commonly used by cults, which he also sees in young earth ministries:

 

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.

2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.

5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

      

     Can you see these five tactics when you think about young earth creationists?  If you have ever argued with a young earth creationist, you know that he/she is convinced that you are wrong, and that your old earth views present a danger to the Christian religion.  How many articles have you seen on young earth sites, warning followers of the dangers of millions of years, or the dangers of evolution?  Too many to count!  Have you ever been successful at getting a YEC to listen to your explanation about an old earth, and have them give it serious thought?  Sure it's happened, but not often.  Most YEC's are trained to ignore any doctrine contrary to a young earth, and they are very good at it.  When you present them with solid scientific evidence, do they accept it?  Usually not.  They are impervious to scientific truth...it rolls off them like water off a duck.

http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Cletus said:

There is zero evidence for evolution.

I'm afraid this statement is just plain wrong. We see evolution (biological change over time) around us every day. Here is a quote from Todd Wood, a PhD scientist that is a Young Earth Creationist:

Quote

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

You can read more from Dr. Wood's post here - http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

nothing has ever changed to something else.

Are you making the claim that speciation does not occur? YEC organizations realize this and admit this. The only reason anyone can claim today that speciation does not occur is that they have not learned anything new about arguments for evolution in the last several decades.

But let's get to the crux of your argument.

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

none of this changes the fact that God did not use evolution to create man

Do you think it is possible that the creation of mankind was not biological? I would argue that it would be very consistent with the rest of scripture that the "image of God" is not physical, since God is Spirit and Truth. Biologically, there is very little that separates us from other animals. Our mental awareness and more intangible features like soul and spirit is what separates us from the rest of creation, not our physical composition.

[omega2xx]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

"This is not true. Genetics gives a very real explanation to what Darwin had to guess at."

It does not.  For a species to change the offspring must receive a trait that is not  in the gene pool of its parents.   That is not possible.  There is no mechanism for a species to develop a new gene.  Darwin guess, he guessed wrong and now evolutionists  continue believing  in a wrong guess.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If you rephrased it to "there are no transitional fossils that I accept", then your claim would be true. However, paleontologists have shown numerous transitional fossils. Here is a good example that isn't commonly used as evidence of transitional fossils:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04413

If you don't want to bother with the link, here is the title and abstract:

A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum

It has commonly been thought that snakes underwent progressive loss of their limbs by gradual diminution of their use¹. However, recent developmental and palaeontological discoveries suggest a more complex scenario of limb reduction, still poorly documented in the fossil record^2,3,4,5. Here we report a fossil snake with a sacrum supporting a pelvic girdle and robust, functional legs outside the ribcage. The new fossil, from the Upper Cretaceous period of Patagonia, fills an important gap in the evolutionary progression towards limblessness because other known fossil snakes with developed hindlimbs, the marine Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis, lack a sacral region. Phylogenetic analysis shows that the new fossil is the most primitive (basal) snake known and that all other limbed fossil snakes are closer to the more advanced macrostomatan snakes, a group including boas, pythons and colubroids. The new fossil retains several features associated with a subterranean or surface dwelling life that are also present in primitive extant snake lineages, supporting the hypothesis of a terrestrial rather than marine origin of snakes."

"Commonly thought" and "suggest" means they don' have any real evidence.

Many well know evolutionists are now questioning the big bang and the fossil record.  Stephen Gould recognized the weakness of he fossil record, so he  invented "punctuated equilbraia" which is even more absurd and not scientific.

Some now consider Ernst Mayr, the dean of the modern evolutionary establishment.  In his book "What Evolution is,"he says on p. 189, "Wherever we look at the living biota,...discontinuities  are overwhelming frequent...the discontinuities  are even more striking in tht   fossil record.  New species  usually appear  in the fossil record suddenly not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.  Gould said basically he same thing.

Then on  page 69 Mayr says "the fossil record remains woefully inadequate".   In spite of what he admits, he remains an evolutionists.  IMO Evolutionists are so wedded to the theory, they lose all perspective and logic.

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

For a species to change the offspring must receive a trait that is not  in the gene pool of its parents.   That is not possible.

That is incorrect. It is entirely possible. New mutations can lead to a new variant of a particular trait.

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

There is no mechanism for a species to develop a new gene.

New genes are not common, but there are certainly mechanisms for the development of new genes. Here is one example:

De Novo Gene Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Codfishes Revealed by Whole Genome Sequence Data

 

Quote

 

Abstract

New genes can arise through duplication of a pre-existing gene or de novo from non-coding DNA, providing raw material for evolution of new functions in response to a changing environment. A prime example is the independent evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein genes (afgps) in the Arctic codfishes and Antarctic notothenioids to prevent freezing. However, the highly repetitive nature of these genes complicates studies of their organization. In notothenioids, afgps evolved from an extant gene, yet the evolutionary origin of afgps in codfishes is unknown. Here, we demonstrate that afgps in codfishes have evolved de novo from non-coding DNA 13–18 Ma, coinciding with the cooling of the Northern Hemisphere. Using whole-genome sequence data from several codfishes and notothenioids, we find higher copy number of afgp in species exposed to more severe freezing suggesting a gene dosage effect. Notably, antifreeze function is lost in one lineage of codfishes analogous to the afgp losses in non-Antarctic notothenioids. This indicates that selection can eliminate the antifreeze function when freezing is no longer imminent. In addition, we show that evolution of afgp-assisting antifreeze potentiating protein genes (afpps) in notothenioids coincides with origin and lineage-specific losses of afgp. The origin of afgps in codfishes is one of the first examples of an essential gene born from non-coding DNA in a non-model species. Our study underlines the power of comparative genomics to uncover past molecular signatures of genome evolution, and further highlights the impact of de novo gene origin in response to a changing selection regime.

 

 

On to transitional fossils - I showed you evidence of a fossil snake that still had hind limbs and a sacrum with a pelvic girdle.

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

"Commonly thought" and "suggest" means they don' have any real evidence.

The hind limbs and sacrum/pelvic girdle is real evidence. Please read with an open mind. You may not change your mind about evolution, but at least you could see real evidence when it is placed directly in front of you.

 

12 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Stephen Gould recognized the weakness of he fossil record, so he  invented "punctuated equilbraia" which is even more absurd and not scientific.

The discovery of punctuated equilibrium is supported by the fossil record. It is scientific. Please present evidence to explain why it is not. I have not seen you post a shred of evidence in this entire thread, despite your constant request for evidence from others. Why is that?

Next, let's follow up on this quote from an ICR page.

20 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Some now consider Ernst Mayr, the dean of the modern evolutionary establishment.  In his book "What Evolution is,"he says on p. 189, "Wherever we look at the living biota,...discontinuities  are overwhelming frequent...the discontinuities  are even more striking in tht   fossil record.  New species  usually appear  in the fossil record suddenly not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

I have not read the book, but I would be very curious to see what has been removed by Mayr's quote and substituted with ellipses. It agree that it is true that the fossil record is incomplete. Fossils with missing ancestors are even the norm, but that does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. There are many examples, and you have been presented with a rather obvious one. Also, consider the source of your quote. The very next paragraph argues against evolution with a fundamental and obvious error.

Quote

We have repeatedly noted also that the scientific reason why this is so is because real evolution to any higher level of complexity is impossible by the law of entropy, which states the proven fact that every system of any kind "tends" to go toward lower complexity, unless constrained otherwise by some pre-designed external program and mechanism.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, that lack energy input. Living systems of course have constant energy input, which obviously and clearly contradicts this argument. If the author misses on such a fundamental level, I'm not sure I would give a great deal of attention to the rest of his arguments - particularly quotes that are stretched well beyond what the author intended.

The evidence for evolution is there for anyone to look at. You don't have to agree with 99% of scientists, but you should at least admit evidence when you see it.

[The Barbarian]

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

none of this changes the fact that God did not use evolution to create man, and to say so is adding to scripture. 

The fact that humans evolved from other primates, like the fact that matter is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons is not adding to scripture, but they are true.  There are many things that are true that are not found in scripture.

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

There is zero evidence for evolution. 

Evolution is just an observed fact.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.    Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification."    We see that happening constantly.

And yes, humans a few hundred thousand years ago, were demonstrably different than modern humans.   Would you like me to show you some of that?

 

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That is incorrect. It is entirely possible. New mutations can lead to a new variant of a particular trait."

A variant in a trait will not cause a new species. It will only alter an existing trait, and you can't show wher it has ever caused a new species.

New genes are not common, but there are certainly mechanisms for the development of new genes. Here is one example:

De Novo Gene Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Codfishes Revealed by Whole Genome Sequence Data

You don't know is that is a new gene.  It could have  been dormant for many years, and hey just said it happened but offered no evidence.

"On to transitional fossils - I showed you evidence of a fossil snake that still had hind limbs and a sacrum with a pelvic girdle.

The hind limbs and sacrum/pelvic girdle is real evidence. Please read with an open mind. You may not change your mind about evolution, but at least you could see real evidence when it is placed directly in front of you."

You didn't show me anything.  You just presented it as a fact. Both were separate, distinct, and different  species.  For some reason you seem to think if you say something, you  believe, it is evidence.  Think again.    WE have a different opinion on whatg is real evidence.

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

 

"The discovery of punctuated equilibrium is supported by the fossil record. It is scientific."

It  is not.  PE is  more absurd and unscientific than just the plain ordinary opinion about the fossil record.  It suggest no intermediate fossils, which is the case and Gould recognized it. Other evolutionists have recognized the weakness of the fossil record so like you they jumped on his unscientific THEORY and made him the hero.This  is another example of you decflaring something is a fact but offer no evidence to support it.

"Please present evidence to explain why it is not. I have not seen you post a shred of evidence in this entire thread, despite your constant request for evidence from others. Why is that?"

I will present my evidence when you present yours.

Next, let's follow up on this quote from an ICR page.

"I have not read the book, but I would be very curious to see what has been removed by Mayr's quote and substituted with ellipses. It agree that it is true that the fossil record is incomplete. Fossils with missing ancestors are even the norm, but that does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. There are many examples, and you have been presented with a rather obvious one. Also, consider the source of your quote. The very next paragraph argues against evolution with a fundamental and obvious error."

I don't blame you.  If something was left out, I would want to know what it was too.  Mayr did not say the fossil record was incomploete, he said it is woefully inadequate.

 

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

"The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, that lack energy input. Living systems of course have constant energy input, which obviously and clearly contradicts this argument. If the author misses on such a fundamental level, I'm not sure I would give a great deal of attention to the rest of his arguments - particularly quotes that are stretched well beyond what the author intended."

The problem with the laws of thermodynamics is that science can't explain he origin of energy.  If I remember right one of the laws says energy can't be increased or decreased.  If that is true, how did  of energy we have now energy come into existence

"The evidence for evolution is there for anyone to look at. You don't have to agree with 99% of scientists, but you should at least admit evidence when you see it."

99% of the scientist, including you, have been taught that evolution is a proven fact since about the 5th grade, before they really understood science, and were never taught about the problems that can't be answered.  When children only hear one side of the debate, they are not truly educated.   When it gets to 100% geet back to me.

Let me give you a clue you need to consider---you saying something is evidence, does not make it evidence.  You believing something is true, does not make it true.

 

[The Barbarian]

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It  is not.  PE is  more absurd and unscientific than just the plain ordinary opinion about the fossil record.  It suggest no intermediate fossils, which is the case and Gould recognized it.

It fits Darwin's theory nicely.   As Darwin noted in his book, a well-fitted population in a constant environment should not evolve much at all.   And of course Gould never denied intermediate fossils.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

 

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

A variant in a trait will not cause a new species.

Let's slow down a minute and actually look at what you said.

You said "For a species to change the offspring must receive a trait that is not  in the gene pool of its parents.   That is not possible."

I said "That is incorrect. It is entirely possible. New mutations can lead to a new variant of a particular trait."

I did not claim a single variant will cause a new species, I simply said that your statement was incorrect. Should I assume that you have admitted the error here and are already moving onward?

[HAZARD]

On 8/23/2019 at 9:06 AM, A Christian 1985 said:

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

 

            Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. ¹⁴²

            As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

 

Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

 

Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.¹⁴⁵

 

                The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. ¹⁴⁶

 

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

 

Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.  Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?

 

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.¹⁴⁹

 

Scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)

 

 Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. ¹⁶²

 

Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?

 

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)

 

In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)

 

But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

 

1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.

 

What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).

 

Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. ¹⁵³

 

The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.

 

It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.¹⁶⁷

 

The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

 It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-­mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?

 

    The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y­-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. ¹⁷⁸

 

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)

 

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.

 

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

            It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!

 

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

                                    

God, created a perfect earth the first time back in the dateless past.

Hundreds of Scriptures prove this beyond doubt, all we need do is read them, let it sink in, and believe what we read.

 

God is not the author of chaos or confusion, God does not create anything inferior, broken, ruined, flooded, and then fixes it as He goes along.

 

Blotting out the sun, and brining on floods are not acts of creation.

 

In Scripture all cases of obscuring the sun and bringing consequent darkness, and all cases of floods are a result of Judgment and never of an acts of creation, unless it be Gen. 1:2; and we have no authority on which to believe that this is an exception. Why could not Gen. 1;2 be a result of a curse, as is clear of all other floods and darkness on the Earth, as revealed in Gen. 6-8; Ex. 10:21-23; Isa. 5:30; 13:10; Jer. 4:23-26; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph. 1:15; Joel 2:30-3: 16; Matt. 8:12; 9:2; 16:10.

 

 Undoubtedly, God created and made the different parts of the material universe and each thing therein, using the same care and time as the six days when He restored the planet Earth to a habitable state and made a new order of Earth creatures. In the work of the six days, it is stated that God formed with His hands each of the living creatures and man out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:20-27; 2:7-25; Job 26:13; Rom. 9:20; 1 Tim. 2:13).

It is not only clear that God created the heavens and the Earth and all things "In the beginning," or each in its own period, but it is also clear that God FORMED all things with His hands. (God FORMED  both light and darkness (Isa. 45:7). He did not do this in the first day of Gen. 1:3-5, for at that time He merely divided them.

Therefore they must have been created and formed before the first day.

It is also stated that God with His hands FORMED the Earth (Ps. 8:3; 6; 90:2; 95:5); the heavens (Ps. 8:3; 19:1; 102:25; Isa. 40:12); the planets (Ps. 8:3; Isa. 40:26; 45:12; 48:13; Heb. 1:10) and all things (Prov. 26:10). From a study of all these Scriptures and those on the creation of all things, it is clear that by the Word of God the materials were brought into existence, and then by His hands He formed the materials into the various parts of the universe. That is, God spoke, the materials came into existence and as fast as they materialized He used them to form all things with His hands (Ps. 8:3; 2 Pet. 3:3-9; Prov. 26:10).

By the creation of the material universe we mean the creation of the heavens and of the Earth, and all things originally created therein. The heavens were created first, then the Earth, as proved in Gen. 1:1; Job 38:4-7. The word "beginning," refers to the dateless past when there was as yet no material universe, or the heavens and the Earth could not be spoken of as being created or brought into existence at that time. There was as yet no day and night, and no time on the Earth or in heaven, fro they were not yet created. Whether there was day and night or times and seasons where God lived before that, is not stated, and all speculation is valueless as to proof of the fact one way or another.

The word created is from the Hebrew bara, meaning to create, to make new or bring into existence without the use of pre-existing material. This latter idea is certainly true of the materials out of which the heavens and the Earth were formed. In Heb. 11:3 we read that the "things which are seen [the visible things] were not made of things that do appear" or that were visible. If the heavens and the Earth were brought into existence, then it is certain that at one time they were not in existence. Bara is found forty nine times in the Hebrew Bible, and is translated create eight times, created thirty-three times, make four times; creator three times; and createth one time. The primary idea is to bring into existence something new, even if the something new is to be made out of already existing material. Perfection is generally implied, and is always implied when anything is a creation of God. Moses said, "His work is perfect" (Deut. 32:4, and David said, "His way is perfect" (2 Sam. 22:31). Solomon said that God "made everything beautiful in His time (Eccl. 3:11. In fact a perfect God would not make or create anything imperfect.

Bara is used only seven times in Gen. 1:1-24, the passage that records all the creative ages. It is correctly translated created in each case. In all the other verses of this passage the word made is used. It is from the Hebrew word asah, meaning to make something out of already existing material.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

God created a perfect Earth, then destroyed it and everything therein,  because of sin.\ and rebellion. Moses’ teaching on the overthrow of the Pre-Adamite world.
In Gen 1:2 we have the fact that the Earth was in existence before the Spirit of God began to move, (brood) upon the face of the waters which covered the Earth. The conjunction “and” is used to connect about 200 separate acts of God in Gen. 1 and 2. These acts are all equally independent and important. Verse 2 is as independent of verse 1 as are all other separate acts of God in these two chapters. In verse 1 we have the original creation of the heavens and the Earth, and in verse 2, we have the original perfect Earth made chaos and flooded with water which destroyed all lifeon the Earth.
The word “was” in verse 2 is from the Hebrew bayah, which is a verb to become, not the verb to be. It is translated became 67 times (Gen. 2:7; 19:26; 20:12; 24:67; Ex. 4:3-4; Num. 12:10; ect.); becamest (1 Chron. 17:22; Ezek. 16:8) ; came and  came to pass 505 times (Gen. 4:3; 6:1, 4; 11:2, 5; etc.) become 66 times (Gen. 3:22; 18:18; 48:19; etc.) come (and come to pass 131 times (Gen. 4:14; 6:13; 18-20; 27:40 etc.); and many times be in the sense of become (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14: 3:5; etc.).
The phrase without form is from the Hebrew tohu, which means waste, desolation, or confusion. It is translated wast (Deut. 32:10); without form (Gen.1:2, Jer.4:23); vain (Isa. 45:18; 1 Sam. 12:21); confusion Isa. 24:10; 34:11; 41:29); empty (Job 26:7); vanity (Isa. 40:17, 23; 44:9; 59:4); nothing (Job. 6:18; Isa. 40:17); and wilderness (Job 12:24; Ps. 107:40).
It can be seen from these passages what the word really means and what the condition of the Earth was in Gen. 1:2. God did not originally create the Earth in such a waste and ruined state. It is definitely stated in Isa. 45:18 that God did not create the Earth tohu (vain, or desolate), yet in Gen 1:2 the Earth was tohu. If the Earth was not originally created desolate, then it must have been created, inhabited, and later became desolate. Even the English verb “was” proves that it had to become desolate before it could be desolate.
The Hebrew word for void is bohu, which means empty, ruin or void. It is translated viod (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23) and emptiness (Isa. 34:11). The Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu (wast and ruin, or desolate and empty) describes the chaotic conditions of the Earth since “the beginning” and before the six days of the reconstruction of Gen. 1:3-2:25. God did not create the Earth a ruin or a wast. It became so because of sin.
We can read Gen. 1:1-2 literally thus:
“In the beginning [by periods, ages] God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth became wast and ruin [desolate and empty]; and darkness was upon the face of the waters.” In these verses we have the whole span of the creative ages taking in all the original creation of the heavens and the Earth and all things therein to the six days of restoration of the Earth to a habitable state. The original creations include the sun, moon, and stars.
In these two verses alone we have the facts that in the dateless past God created the heavens, including the sun, moon, and stars, and then the Earth; that the heavens, were created before the Earth;  the waters; and that the darkness were all created before the spirit began to brood over the waters; and that these things were already in existence before the first of the six days, proving that they were not created in any one of those days.
How long the Earth was a waste and a ruin or desolate and empty since its original habitation is not known. How long it was in existence and inhabited before it became desolate and empty is not known, but why and when it was cursed and became desolate and empty is known and clearly revealed in Scripture. In Scripture all cases of obscuring the sun and bringing consequent darkness, and all cases of floods are a result of Judgment and never of an acts of creation, unless it be Gen. 1:2; and we have no authority on which to believe that this is an exception. Why could not Gen. 1;2 be a result of a curse, as is clear of all other floods and darkness on the Earth, as revealed in Gen. 6-8; Ex. 10:21-23; Isa. 5:30; 13:10; Jer. 4:23-26; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph. 1:15; Joel 2:30-3: 16; Matt. 8:12; 9:2; 16:10.
The fact that Moses by inspiration said that God told Adam, to multiply and replenish the Earth proves that there was a social system on the Earth before Adam, for he could not replenish something that had been plenished before. Some argue that the Hebrew word for replenish means fill and not refill, but this proves nothing. An examination of all the places where the word replenish is used disproves this. Suppose we make the word replenish mean plenish in Gen. 9:1; Isa. 2:6; 23:2; Jer. 31:25; Ezek. 26:2; 27:25, and note the results. Where the Hebrew word mala is translated fill, it does not mean that the thing referred to had never been filled before. For example, when Joseph commanded his bretheren to “fill their sacks,” does this mean that those sack had never been filled before? They had no doubt been filled many times. See Gen. 42:25; 44:1; 1 Kings 18:33; Hag. 2:7 etc. To say, “Fill that glass with water” does not prove that ithad never been filled before, but to say, “Refill that glass with water” proves that it had been filled before. When God said to Noah, “be fruitfull and multiply, and replenish the earth” Gen. 9:1, it is clear that the Earth had been plenished before, so why not believe that God meant the same thing when He said it to Adam? The same Hebrew statement is found in both passages (Gen. 1;28; 9:1),and it is translated exactly the same in English, so would it be wrong to believe that it means the same thing? If the Earth had been plenished before Adam, then it was overthrown by judgment before the six days, as is shown in Gen.1;2.