Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 196 of 302 (408345)
07-02-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 11:12 PM


Huh?
I'm afraid you're going to have to formulate those questions much more clearly. It appears you are producing gibberish.
However, the question (however garbled) doesn't appear to be appropriate for this topic.
Maybe you can explain what you are asking and why you disagree with what you think the biological explanations are in a newly proposed topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 11:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 1:33 AM NosyNed has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 197 of 302 (408353)
07-02-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by NosyNed
07-02-2007 1:04 AM


Re: Huh?
quote:
noseyned
I'm afraid you're going to have to formulate those questions much more clearly. It appears you are producing gibberish.
However, the question (however garbled) doesn't appear to be appropriate for this topic.
Maybe you can explain what you are asking and why you disagree with what you think the biological explanations are in a newly proposed topic.
Now that's strange. If one asks what is the most pivotal difference between darwin's and genesis' versions of evolution, I could'nt think of anything more relevent that cross-specie and within-specie grads, respectively. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a Q which better aligns with this thread's heading too!
Why not cut to the chase scene - and deal with the Q posed - that would assist in which is more accurate - darwin or genesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 1:04 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 1:51 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 8:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 198 of 302 (408354)
07-02-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 1:33 AM


Darwin or Genesis
Ok, maybe it is on topic.
Genesis says that from the first week the animals we see now have been around.
We know that isn't the case. Once upon a time there were no animals (to use a not very precise term to mean everything from creepy crawlies to elephants ). A long time later there were fish but nothing that walked. Another long time later there were things on land but no mammals and no birds. We even have samples of how those things changed to be able to get onto land. And so it went. It is abundantly clear that the two stories are different and that Genesis has it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 1:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 2:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 199 of 302 (408359)
07-02-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by NosyNed
07-02-2007 1:51 AM


Re: Darwin or Genesis
quote:
noseyned
Genesis says that from the first week the animals we see now have been around.
We know that isn't the case. Once upon a time there were no animals (to use a not very precise term to mean everything from creepy crawlies to elephants ). A long time later there were fish but nothing that walked. Another long time later there were things on land but no mammals and no birds. We even have samples of how those things changed to be able to get onto land. And so it went. It is abundantly clear that the two stories are different and that Genesis has it wrong.
Nope. Your comprehension of an exacting text, written for all genrations of mankind, is the problem.
Genesis lists the fundamental life forms (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). They are not presented as occuring in a span of a 7 X 24 hour day week. These pre-calendar days are epochs of time, prior to the sun's luminosity appearing, making the 24-hour day out of the question. Note that this luminosity (as opposed the sun itself, which is given as created in the first verse of genesis) appears in the 4th cosmic day, which affirms these are not 24-hour days. The first 24-hour day begins after these cosmic days, when the calendar is given, after the advent of a personalised, dialogued human is addressed in the next chapters. The exacting texts requires a deliberation, which has been missing for the world mindset due to its transmissions via christianity and islam, which never followed or understood these texts - here, everything is aligned with their own preferrential end-point beliefs, while the OT is not based on 'belief'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 1:51 AM NosyNed has not replied

rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 6113 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 200 of 302 (408367)
07-02-2007 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 11:12 PM


quote:
Q: What is more scientifically vindicated: complexity from random, or complexity from a greater complexity?
There is one major fallacy in your question. You are proposing two possible answers. Both are scientifically unacceptable.
The scientific principle of evolution does state that complex lifeforms evolved form simple lifeforms, but this evolution is definitely not random. The eventual outcome of evolution may not be known in advance and can be influenced by a large number of factors, so it may seem random to the layperson. However if you look closely you will notice that evolution is guided by a strict set of principles. Those principles are still observable today and can also be tested by looking at the fossil record.
The second answer may sound logical and in certain parts of science it may even be a valid assumption. But regarding the origins of life the notion of complexity from a greater complexity is untenable. A major scientific obstacle is that it is completely untestable. Let’s call things by their names. We have no instances in the fossil record that can only be explained by an instant creation by a creator God. An even bigger problem is that there is no scientific reason to assume a creator God even exists. Granted, there is also no proof that one does not exist, but that does not even remotely make the probability that one exists come close to being 50-50.
So, my answer to your question: Neither

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 11:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 4:47 AM rakaz has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 201 of 302 (408373)
07-02-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by rakaz
07-02-2007 4:06 AM


quote:
rakaz
So, my answer to your question: Neither
Based on your conclusion, which I placed on top, we do not have a winner - which says Genesis is of equal status. But - lets examine your reasonings:
quote:
The scientific principle of evolution does state that complex lifeforms evolved form simple lifeforms, but this evolution is definitely not random. The eventual outcome of evolution may not be known in advance and can be influenced by a large number of factors, so it may seem random to the layperson. However if you look closely you will notice that evolution is guided by a strict set of principles. Those principles are still observable today and can also be tested by looking at the fossil record.
Disagree. It is random from all views. You are assuming here that different impacting external conditions determine which way evolution turns: this is a subjective random - namely the subject is controlled by external, objective factors, thereby rendering it superfluous or at best - conduitive only, not controlling. And we have not even considered as yet the vlidity and value of the external impacting factors in this scenario. The other premise which makes darwin's evolution random, is its ultimate, potential source - not even addressed by darwin: we have no complexity governing any contrived actions at the foundations - this also makes it absolutely and totally random.
I put it to you that there is an absence of logic and credibility here when properly examined, and the constant that a complexity cannot result from a random at any stage, is being bypassed without any justification. It is ultimately wholly unscientific, both in its process and its conclusion. We accept this because of a fear of aligning with any theology, and without proper contemplation.
quote:
Granted, there is also no proof that one does not exist, but that does not even remotely make the probability that one exists come close to being 50-50.
Disagree. You have not considered this position. Firstly, even if there was proof of a Creator, this could not be borne out voluntarilly by us humans: what size lab, or what criteria would we use for its verification? - the Creator must be - at least - transcendent of anything within creator. IOW, would you look for the potter inside the vase? The 10 Commandments correctly gives the operative preamble here, negating and forbidding the comparisons of the Creator to anything within the universe, not on earth, in the oceans or the heavens: this is a 100% logical advocation.
However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect); A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY. IOW, one must nominate a cause which can satisfy the entire universe outcome - not just cross-specie, and also affirm 'intergration' of all the works and structures in the universe; and this cannot be done even as a mental exercise - outside of the genesis premise.
The other issue of 'complexity' is again very wrongly applied by darwin's logic: it is the 'RESULTS', not the process, which determine this complexity - not the proposed links being impacted by external factors. If the result is a car, for example, we cannot allocate its cause to metal being impacted by wind and heat: that is illogical; if the result evidences a complexity - then wind and heat become inapplicable - we have to come up with a MIND - because we know of no phenomenon which can effect a complexity via random - nothing outside of darwin's novella.
The sound premise rules, when proof is not available either way. And here, genesis wins from all perspectives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by rakaz, posted 07-02-2007 4:06 AM rakaz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2007 5:36 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 205 by rakaz, posted 07-02-2007 10:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 302 (408379)
07-02-2007 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 4:47 AM


Disagree. It is random from all views. You are assuming here that different impacting external conditions determine which way evolution turns: this is a subjective random - namely the subject is controlled by external, objective factors, thereby rendering it superfluous or at best - conduitive only, not controlling. And we have not even considered as yet the vlidity and value of the external impacting factors in this scenario. The other premise which makes darwin's evolution random, is its ultimate, potential source - not even addressed by darwin: we have no complexity governing any contrived actions at the foundations - this also makes it absolutely and totally random.
I put it to you that there is an absence of logic and credibility here ...
I agree. I can see no logic or credibility in your strange statements about "darwin's evolution". Nor meaning, if it comes to that.
Is English your native language?
However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect); A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY.
But this is not a scientific principle, it's just something creationists made up.
The other issue of 'complexity' is again very wrongly applied by darwin's logic: it is the 'RESULTS', not the process, which determine this complexity - not the proposed links being impacted by external factors. If the result is a car, for example, we cannot allocate its cause to metal being impacted by wind and heat: that is illogical; if the result evidences a complexity - then wind and heat become inapplicable - we have to come up with a MIND - because we know of no phenomenon which can effect a complexity via random - nothing outside of darwin's novella.
Actually, we know of lots of things beside a mind which can produce complexity. Evolution is one of them, but there are others. For example ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 4:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 6:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 203 of 302 (408383)
07-02-2007 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
07-02-2007 5:36 AM


quote:
dr adequate
However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect); A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY.
But this is not a scientific principle, it's just something creationists made up.
Nope. These are constants which cannot be violated. Darwin's evolution contrives around them - unsuccessfully when examined.
quote:
Actually, we know of lots of things beside a mind which can produce complexity. Evolution is one of them, but there are others. For example ...
This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution: butterflies show no self in-put in the designs of their wings - its totally involuntary, and what's more the complexity of the universe predates life and evolution. If anything, they attest as a proof only of Creationism.
If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant:
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2007 5:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 12:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 271 by Rahvin, posted 07-03-2007 7:44 PM IamJoseph has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 302 (408395)
07-02-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 1:33 AM


because the question posed was really stupid
Now that's strange. If one asks what is the most pivotal difference between darwin's and genesis' versions of evolution, I could'nt think of anything more relevent that cross-specie and within-specie grads, respectively. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a Q which better aligns with this thread's heading too!
Why not cut to the chase scene - and deal with the Q posed - that would assist in which is more accurate - darwin or genesis?
The problem was that it was a really stupid question that also showed just how ignorant you are about what the Theory of Evolution says. It was also one of those total strawmen that Biblical Creations love to make.
No one but Biblical Creationists claims that a critter of one species gives birth to a critter of another species. In addition, with a few well known exceptions, most DNA transfer is within species.
But none of that has anything to do with the Creation Myth found in Genesis 1.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 1:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 9:52 PM jar has replied

rakaz
Junior Member (Idle past 6113 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Netherlands
Joined: 01-24-2006


Message 205 of 302 (408402)
07-02-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 4:47 AM


quote:
Disagree. It is random from all views. You are assuming here that different impacting external conditions determine which way evolution turns: this is a subjective random - namely the subject is controlled by external, objective factors, thereby rendering it superfluous or at best - conduitive only, not controlling.
You are once again trying to make evolution into something that it is not. Like I said before, it may look random to the uninformed. And in part you are right; the mutations are indeed random. The process that determines which mutation is successful is anything but random and entirely depends on principles described in the theory of evolution.
Let’s assume that 10 mutations happen in the exact same environment and that those mutations are all unfavourable. For example a seagull is born with only one wing. That mutation will almost certainly not be passed on because the seagull has no chance to survive in its natural environment. The next nine times that mutation occurs will have the same predictable result . the mutated genes will not be passed on. If evolution were random we would have to expect that some of these mutated genes would be passed on and thrive just as the unmutated genes.
No, evolution is not random. It is governed by predictable principles.
quote:
The other premise which makes darwin's evolution random, is its ultimate, potential source - not even addressed by darwin: we have no complexity governing any contrived actions at the foundations - this also makes it absolutely and totally random.
First you tell us that it must be random because it isn’t governed by a creator god. Then you tell us that as a rule it can’t be random, so there must be a creator . Please . That is circular reasoning at best.
quote:
Disagree. You have not considered this position. Firstly, even if there was proof of a Creator, this could not be borne out voluntarilly by us humans: what size lab, or what criteria would we use for its verification? - the Creator must be - at least - transcendent of anything within creator.
I did consider this position, but your original questions were based on science. Science deals with observable phenomenons. If something cannot be observed it is out of reach of science. I felt no need to include reasoning that falls outside of science in a question that was scientific in nature.
quote:
IOW, would you look for the potter inside the vase?
Vases are made by potters . where does that imply that a god created the universe?
You are missing the obvious here. We know that vases are made by potters. If we visit a pottery we can even observe vases being made by potters. Therefore it is logical to assume that a certain vase is made by a potter. It’s a safe and reasonable conclusion. We do not have the same evidence for a creator god, so it is not logical to jump to the same conclusion - the universe is created by a god.
quote:
However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect);
A discussion about cause and effect is completely irrelevant to evolution. The factors that cause evolution are known and specified in the theory of evolution.
quote:
A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY. IOW, one must nominate a cause which can satisfy the entire universe outcome - not just cross-specie, and also affirm 'intergration' of all the works and structures in the universe; and this cannot be done even as a mental exercise - outside of the genesis premise.
You can keep asserting that these are rules that cannot be broken, but are you aware that your reasoning also disproves the existence of the specific creator that you seem to believe in? Ask yourself the following questions:
What is the cause of God?
On what greater complexity is God based on?
quote:
The other issue of 'complexity' is again very wrongly applied by darwin's logic: it is the 'RESULTS', not the process, which determine this complexity - not the proposed links being impacted by external factors.
Sorry, but that is totally illogical. Evolution does not happen instantly. Evolution happens in small intermediate steps. The complexity of each step is limited. Each step adds to the complexity that already exists. You would just need to have a lot of intermediate steps to achieve a large difference in complexity between the originating species and the end-result.
quote:
If the result is a car, for example, we cannot allocate its cause to metal being impacted by wind and heat: that is illogical; if the result evidences a complexity - then wind and heat become inapplicable - we have to come up with a MIND - because we know of no phenomenon which can effect a complexity via random - nothing outside of darwin's novella.
I am sorry to say this, but this the dumbest example I’ve heard so far. Cars are inanimate objects. They are assembled by man. They do not live and procreate. You cannot disprove evolution by using an example that obviously does not evolve. You are comparing oranges with apples.
quote:
The sound premise rules, when proof is not available either way. And here, genesis wins from all perspectives.
Wrong. If there is really no proof either way, then both the assumptions are considered to be false - at least until one of them is proven. Genesis is not an exception to this.
Fortunately there is enough evidence for evolution and Genesis has been proven wrong and thus excluded as a possible explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 4:47 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2007 10:37 PM rakaz has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 206 of 302 (408403)
07-02-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 11:03 PM


IamJoseph writes:
quote:
Again, you haven't shown where any of those fluctuations or inclinations are mentioned in Genesis.
But I did state, the genesis calendar accurately predicts sunsets, sunrises, and harvest seasons, which are vested in actual, mandated commandments in the OT - such details are subsequent to no other factors than the inclinations and fluctuations of the spacial bodies and their impacting movements.
I've been following your dialog with Ringo and am wondering the same thing Ringo is: Where in Genesis is this calendar described? In case it isn't clear, the answer would be in the form of, for example, "The calendar is described in Genesis 7:25."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 11:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 207 of 302 (408431)
07-02-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Nimrod
06-29-2007 6:20 PM


layers of explanation
Nimrod wrote:
I believe that the proto-Semitic stage of the Hebrew language would have been founded
You know, linguists have done a lot of work on much of the development of languages. It sounds like you’ve read a little already (though I seriously hope it isn’t just from one source, or even worse, one non-academic source). It may be already decently established which language developed into Hebrew (btw, languages aren’t “founded”, they evolve from earlier languages). I’d go no further without a simple fact check.
after the Babel event
Wha? Are you saying you think the tower of Babel legend and the global flood legend describe events that actually happened? If so, you really have some basic homework to do. Both have no evidence for them, and lots of evidence against them.
Also, there hasnt been any really decent case made showing the Hebrews borrowing from a SPECIFIC Mesopotamian text.
Again, have you compared the creation and flood accounts to the preceding stories in the Mesopotamian texts? Or the legend of King Sargon, as a baby, being kept from a hostile ruler by his being put in a basket and floated down the river? I guess I don’t understand your statement - it sounded like you were denying that the Bible copied stories from earlier legends - which is well known and uncontested, except among fundamentalists who also believe in flying people and talking animals.
If you aren’t convinced of that yet, we could start another thread (though I’ll have sparse attendance until next week).
some basic details in the early stories of Genesis can be found in nearly all the worlds cultures.
) would be consistent with mass diffusion post-flood but pre Babel
Well sure - people are people, and have common themes because those are the things that really happen, such as love, conflict, adultery, etc. This is especially true of the story of a flood - since people live near rivers for water, food, washing, travel and other reasons, and since rivers flood, it’s a no-brainer that everyone has flood stories, sometimes more than one.
One argument to consider is the order of events in the 6 days of genesis and how they square to scientific discoveries.Two thorny issues are whether everything should be in 100% order- with every stage of evolution carefully included in the Genesis account; then the issue of what an exact word meant or could have meant which I think needs to be expanded into "what primitive concept could the word be a reflection of or translation of".
Well, we can look at the Genesis text and see that the order doesn’t make any sense at all. The Genesis account has whales and birds existing before reptiles, and fruit appearing before animals of any kind, and many other egregious mistakes. I don’t understand why anyone claims the “correct order” thing - it’s just silly, like claiming that the words in the US constitution are in alphabetical order, it’s easy to just look and see that it’s incorrect, and it makes it look like the person saying that either doesn't know the Bible, or doesn't know science or perhaps both.
Then to try to claim that the words mean different things in Hebrew or that the ancients were too stupid to know any better only seem to dig the hole deeper. It seems much better just to avoid making the initial statement.
Have a fun day-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Nimrod, posted 06-29-2007 6:20 PM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 1:27 AM Equinox has replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 208 of 302 (408434)
07-02-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 11:13 PM


I am Joseph wrote:
There is a walt disney presentation of the OT stories promoted by European christianity (Isaac is portrayed as an 8 year child offered for sacrifice: actually Isaac was 37 years old!).
Could you please post why it is that you think this? There is nothing in the story that specifies Isaac’s age, yet you seem to know it is 37 and not 36 or such. Elements in the story suggest that he’s a little boy, like 8 (see how he interacts with his father), but when it comes down to it, I don’t see any number from the text itself.
I mean, I certainly agree with you that the text has been changed over the centuries and is unreliable, but on this point I'm wondering where you see 37.
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.
Also, can you explain a bit more about this? It sounds like either Prof Penfold was quoted out of context (quotemining), or that he’s not a professor but rather a creationist poser. More importantly, could you explain why you think it is true - even if the quote is genuine, from a genuine scientist and in context, that doesn’t prove it, and you seem to be hanging a lot on it, and your interpretation of it is simply false. As others have pointed out, random processes give rise to order on a regular basis, in your own experience. One example you can try is putting a pan of water on the stove - it’s hard to get simpler than a pan of water, yet it will form orderly convection currents when heated. Similarly, hurricane Katrina was very complex and very well ordered to move energy (and arose out of simplicity)- Katrina must have been intelligently designed? It’s well established in the natural world that order can arise from simplicity - so that quote is probably either a hoax, out of context, or from a non-scientist - that’s my guess at least, thanks for showing me where it came from.
About the supposed perfect calendar in Genesis - could you supply a simple verse #?
Thanks-
Have a fun evening-
-Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : fix

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2007 4:44 PM Equinox has replied
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 11:29 PM Equinox has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 209 of 302 (408436)
07-02-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Equinox
07-02-2007 4:12 PM


quote:
Could you please post why it is that you think this? There is nothing in the story that specifies Isaac’s age, yet you seem to know it is 37 and not 36 or such
If you investigate, 37 is the maximum possible age allowed by the story. Sarah is 90 before Isacc is born (Genesis 17:17). Sarah dies at the age of 127 (Genesis 23:1) - an unspecified time after the story.
There is nothing in the events either side of the story that demand any great passage of time. Isaac could easily be 8 - and that's more likely than 37.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Equinox, posted 07-02-2007 4:12 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 10:48 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 249 by Equinox, posted 07-03-2007 1:31 PM PaulK has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 210 of 302 (408458)
07-02-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
07-02-2007 8:47 AM


Re: because the question posed was really stupid
quote:
jar
No one but Biblical Creationists claims that a critter of one species gives birth to a critter of another species. In addition, with a few well known exceptions, most DNA transfer is within species.
This is not how the world at large reads it, and they are correct. In fact darwin depends on cross-specie, to the extent he is saying nothing aside from it. It is the stand-out controversy, with notions of puddles in the mountains being ecosystems where varieties of plant and animal life struggle to survive against each other; species have been seen to morph in the span of weeks to survive in controlled environment.
quote:
But none of that has anything to do with the Creation Myth found in Genesis 1.
Except that genesis specifically forbids cross-specie, and also gives the reason why it is superflous with reproduction, adaptation and hereditary data (dna) transfer! The scientific community which ahderes to cross-specie (no grants or career advancement if you don't), have come up with the most imaginative explanations of evidencing cross-specie where it really is myth, followed by mythical proportions of million year life forms having any connection to today's life forms by siting digits of a finger bone fossil reconstructed to whatever form which meets their preference. The myth is with cross-specie, not with genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 8:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 07-02-2007 10:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024