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 SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 190 of 310 (682970)
12-06-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
12-06-2012 11:06 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Yes, you make a lot of bullshit claims.
Give me one that I have not backed up with science references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:06 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:50 AM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 192 of 310 (682979)
12-06-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
12-06-2012 11:50 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
You have not backed up even one with a science reference.
yeah, yeah, yeah,...
That is what you keep accusing me of here, but fail to give me the post(s) where that is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:05 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 195 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 12:08 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 215 of 310 (683081)
12-07-2012 11:03 AM
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.
Of course each body of water in itself could be understood to be in one place.
lol.
To comprehend what the Bible writers is saying, tho, we must read the whole context of the verse where it starts by saying, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered"... so the plural reference to waters and the command to gather THEM into one place supports the interpretation which tells us that these ancients knew of the tectonic cycle that began with Rodinia.
NOT only is the Bible correct, then, about something so far out of the realm if human knowledge back in 3362AD, but this is said to happen on "the Archean evening and the Proterozoic morning of the THIRD 'day'".
EXACTLY when the first of the cycles began with the formation of Rodinia:
Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-
and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day
WHAT A DIRECT AND CLEAR MATTER OF SCIENCE SUPPORTING THE BIBLE... wow for Christians and woe for you guys.

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 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2012 11:19 AM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 217 of 310 (683135)
12-07-2012 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2012 11:19 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Of course.
Whereas that recent sketch of what medieval Jews thought about the universe is pretty much the same as christians believed until this Age, it is just evidence of the medieval ignorance that prevented factual interpretations of Genesis.
The religious people through out the ages did not have enough information about the facts which the Bible laid out for us today, when in the end times the Book could be opened and read in the way I am demonstrating.
\[B\]This is why stories like Noah's Ark and the Flood had to be written in a way that contained enough information so we could piece together what they were really about.
Yet writtem cleverly enough so those people could accept the story in a way that fit into their own educational paradigms of their times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2012 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Eli, posted 12-07-2012 8:45 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2012 10:35 AM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 222 of 310 (683144)
12-07-2012 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
12-07-2012 9:33 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
If you look right now you will see that there are "7" cervical vertebrae and "12" thoracic vertebrae ...
... and if you add the fused tail bone vertebra to the "5" lumbar vertebrae you end up with 14 which is 7 + 7.
Actually, I will bring this all up in regard to the Urim and Thumimm, Ex 28:30, when I discuss the Pattern of the Temple and how its geometry models the way out brain casts a fixed pattern to the organization of data it senses,... from the seven senses coming, into the 12 Cortex Functional Areas of the Brain, via the 12 pairs of Cranial Nerves.
So on and so on....
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 12-07-2012 9:33 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Eli, posted 12-07-2012 10:42 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2012 11:52 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 227 of 310 (683180)
12-08-2012 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
12-08-2012 9:53 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
1) I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.
1) I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.
ANS: You are openly bias against my point of view and seem eager to silence it simply because of that.
It seems fair that you avoid the urge to press your own views such as to make sure my own are not available here.
I thank you for the fair play.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 12:16 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 2:13 PM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 228 of 310 (683181)
12-08-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
12-08-2012 9:53 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
2) I think you need to connect your ideas to evidence. For example, what evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis?
ANS:
A) The theological evidence of 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in Genesis.
The Scientific evidence for 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in The Last Human: the 22 now extinct humans.
B) Paleontologists hypothesize that Sahefanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate for the first branch from chimps to the new species, Humanoids.
Re:
Search for the First Human (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis)
Sahelanthropus Tchadensis is one of the oldest known species on the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago.
topdocumentaryfilms.com/search-first-human-sahelanthropus-tchade...
And, conversely, Gen 5:2 says that Adam is the first of the human species:
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 2:16 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 3:04 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 229 of 310 (683182)
12-08-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
12-08-2012 9:53 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
3) What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?
ANS:
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred... before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).
References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 12:11 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 234 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 2:24 PM kofh2u has replied

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


Message 238 of 310 (683207)
12-08-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Eli
12-08-2012 2:24 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Obviously humans were not born out of this fusion (mostly because chromosome fusions don't change gene expression on their own) because the line that leads to modern humans HAD ALREADY SPLIT OFF FROM OTHER APES.

You are reading to that sentence something that OBVIOUSLY the writer could NOT have meant, because he specifically is saying that this fusion is the very evidence of common descent:
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. "
His point is merely that the branch of humans appeared after this fusion.
He is also reserving the opinion that this immediately produced such a stark difference between the surrogate mother Ape to this early first divergence as to question whether it was still more ape than Hominid, but that after this the common decent followed:

"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human—chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).
References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 2:24 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 5:56 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 253 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 9:44 PM kofh2u 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