Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 196 of 310 (682988)
12-06-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
12-06-2012 12:05 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
But I did give you the posts where that is true, every single one of your posts is just plain bullshit.
That is what one side in a debate says, mutually, to the other side, from the get-go.
But only idiots keep repeating that they are on the one side while there is the other side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:16 PM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 197 of 310 (682990)
12-06-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 12:11 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
So far there is no other side.
People have shown you time after time why what you post is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of both what the Bible says and what science says.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:11 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:27 PM jar has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 198 of 310 (682993)
12-06-2012 12:22 PM


There is still more in Genesis which fits into the scientific chronology of the History of the Earth.
Things in the geology of the rocks also add to the Paleontology in regard to the credibility of Genesis as a factual set of statements on beginnings.
Assuming that the "day three" in Genesis actually refers to the "evening of the Archean era and the morning of the Proterozoic era,"...
... we CAN see that Genesis recognizes that "the first sprouts of life on Earth" spontaneously generated, while during that same moment in the history of the earth, Rodinia (the first pangea-like episode) appeared in the midst of "all the waters under heaven havingbeen collected into just one place."
Science support for this observation:

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 199 of 310 (682994)
12-06-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by jar
12-06-2012 12:16 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
People have shown you time after time why what you post is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of both what the Bible says and what science says.
What about the above post?
Can you just deny arbritarily, that Gen 1:9-11 specifically says these same events took place or give a reason which shows Genesis or the facts are not both the same ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:34 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 201 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 12:38 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


(1)
Message 200 of 310 (682997)
12-06-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 12:27 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
The above post ( Message 198 ) is utter bullshit and simply false bullshit at that.
You really haven't read the Bible have you?
One continent with all the water tied up in isolated lakes would be all the land gathered in one place, but of course Genesis 1 says NOTHING about all the land being in one place. It simply says dry land appeared.
Also note your own word "assume" in that bullshit. There is no reason for anyone to assume your assertion unless their goal was to try to make Genesis 1 factual which it clearly is not.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:27 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 5:52 PM jar has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 201 of 310 (683000)
12-06-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 12:27 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
You've been given plenty of reason as well as evidence that shows the two are not the same.
Not even close to describing the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:27 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 202 of 310 (683024)
12-06-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
12-06-2012 12:34 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Lame objects to what is clearly stated in Gen 1:9-10, about all the waters UNDER HEAVEN, collected TOGETHER into ONE place is an unavoidable analogy of this first Pangea-like geography forming on the same exact geological "day" as found in Genesis.
Wiggle wiggle, secular atheists this totally unknown event before 1920 was a divine revelation from the Bible 3362 years prior.
Then, the same one-to-one correspondence again,... between the events of the "evening" of the Big Bang, that first "day" when the planetesimal accretion ring of an Earth void of shape, then coalesced into a sphere,...
...AND, the molten Earth cooled...
Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not valid as a sphere yet- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 5:58 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 213 by Eli, posted 12-07-2012 6:17 AM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 203 of 310 (683026)
12-06-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 5:52 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Yet more bullshit and misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.
Genesis 1:9-10 says NOTHING about all the land gathered together in one place.
You are misrepresenting the Bible yet again.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 5:52 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 7:05 PM jar has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 204 of 310 (683039)
12-06-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jar
12-06-2012 5:58 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
[qs] /qs
"The single global ocean which surrounded Pangaea is accordingly named Panthalassa."
Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10:
Pangaea - Wikipedia
Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):
1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Anartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...
...and it was so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 5:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 7:10 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2012 9:50 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 205 of 310 (683041)
12-06-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 7:05 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10:
Utter bullshit.
There could be thousands of islands and the water still in one place.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 7:05 PM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Theodoric, posted 12-06-2012 7:20 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 206 of 310 (683044)
12-06-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by jar
12-06-2012 7:10 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
There could be thousands of islands and the water still in one place.
Even a few more continents and the water could still be in one place.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 7:10 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 7:46 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 215 by kofh2u, posted 12-07-2012 11:03 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 207 of 310 (683047)
12-06-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Theodoric
12-06-2012 7:20 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Even a few more continents and the water could still be in one place.
1) But Genesis does say God collected all the waters together.
So the Bible is not incorrect in any case.
2) Panthallasso is the science term for a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean, which requires a single continent by definition.
3) Lame as these attempts are, attempting to avoid the amazing revelation 3362 years ago about the mention of this previously unknown geological event,...
... it is true that all the water was in one place called Earth, of course.
4) But Genesis says all the (separated) waters were "collected together," which tells us that the water was already on earth but separated, de facto of implying so in that verse.
5) And, even if your intellectual dishonesty were to presist with such lame defenses against the evidence in Gen 1:9, motivated by the sole attempt to bash the Bible,...
.... you can not object to a rational reading of Genesis which scientifically conforms with the facts we now know and explains what Genesis meant, at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Theodoric, posted 12-06-2012 7:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 7:54 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 208 of 310 (683048)
12-06-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 7:46 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
2) Panthallasso is the science term for a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean, which requires a single continent by definition.
More utter bullshit and misrepresentation.
First, it is "Panthalassa" not Panthallasso and second it is not a term for "a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean", it is the name assigned to a specific body of water at a specific time and third it does NOT require a single continent by definition.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 7:46 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 209 of 310 (683053)
12-06-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 10:48 AM


Re: Refrence to Hybridization of Erectus
Sorry for being late to respond to this, but I looked at it this morning and just walked away from the computer.
So now I'm back from work and looking at it again and it is still a confused mess.
Your non-standard use of terms is too much for me. "Modern Homo erectus?" In all my years of graduate school, and since, I've never seen that term in the literature.
Unraveling your mess is just not worth the effort.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 10:48 AM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by foreveryoung, posted 12-06-2012 10:05 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 210 of 310 (683054)
12-06-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 7:05 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10:
False.
Two continents could exist when there is only a single global ocean as if it was like this:
Or, as jar points out, it could be a thousand islands. Even today, all of the oceans touch each other and are in "one place".
To get your interpretation, Pangea would have to exist without even one single lake or pond or river or stream or any kind of body of water that was seperate from the ocean. And that's impossible.
Another false interpretation from you refuted by me. Try again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 7:05 PM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Eli, posted 12-07-2012 6:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024