Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 121 of 231 (616756)
05-24-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:46 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
I also suggested that the language may now be dead.
You can suggest all you. Evidence is what counts, not your wild musings.
Time for the standard response.
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:46 AM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:07 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 05-24-2011 11:34 AM Theodoric has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 231 (616757)
05-24-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:36 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Yes, it *was* an oral tradition... an oral tradition that got carved into stone... centuries before the hebrews existed.
Even the idea of Adam did not originate with the hebrews.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:36 AM granpa has not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 123 of 231 (616763)
05-24-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 11:01 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see.
we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:14 AM granpa has replied

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


Message 124 of 231 (616767)
05-24-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by granpa
05-24-2011 11:07 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see.
we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway.
And we can test for their existence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:07 AM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:17 AM jar has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 125 of 231 (616769)
05-24-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
05-24-2011 11:14 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:21 AM granpa has not replied

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


Message 126 of 231 (616773)
05-24-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by granpa
05-24-2011 11:17 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis?
By examining both the documents themselves as well as actual history.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 11:17 AM granpa has not replied

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


Message 127 of 231 (616778)
05-24-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 11:01 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Theodoric writes:
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
Confusion between effect and affect is effecting clarity and having an affect on communication.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 128 of 231 (616796)
05-24-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Percy
05-24-2011 11:34 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Thank you for pointing that out. This is a brain glitch I have that I always use effect instead of affect. I appreciate the correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 05-24-2011 11:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 129 of 231 (626663)
07-30-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


Reborn stars do not conflict with Genesis; the reverse applies [re-pro is based on a core output of the host!]. The preamble must say the universe is finite [Genesis], so the age of the universe does not change no matter how old we deem it. The other factor applicable is that light predates stars and is the first product in the universe [Genesis]; stars don't create light - they merely produce it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-10-2011 9:34 AM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Larni, posted 07-31-2011 3:40 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 130 of 231 (626833)
07-31-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 9:12 PM


More gibberish.
Did you not learn how to write correctly at school?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 5:48 AM Larni has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 131 of 231 (627337)
08-02-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


Assuming that the sun is second or third generation of stars betrays the same kind of parochial view that prompted the arrogant stupid ape to conclude it was the first. All things in existence repeat indefinitely so there is no reason to think that galaxies count less generations than bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-10-2011 9:34 AM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

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


Message 132 of 231 (627343)
08-02-2011 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Larni
07-31-2011 3:40 PM


Re-generation, re-birth and geneology are not gibberish but evidenced in all biological and inanimate stuff. Welcome to the universe and planet earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Larni, posted 07-31-2011 3:40 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Larni, posted 08-02-2011 8:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 133 of 231 (627370)
08-02-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 5:48 AM


No, I think you will find that what you have written is in fact gibberish.
Happy to clear that one up for you.
Any chance of supporting your bollocks about genesis I created for you? Or are you full of shit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 5:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 134 of 231 (627378)
08-02-2011 9:33 AM


Moderator On Duty
Alfred Maddenstein and IamJoseph,
Unless you're presenting evidence around which you then build your arguments, please stop participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 135 of 231 (720235)
02-21-2014 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coyote
05-20-2011 10:21 PM


Re: Mythology...
Bs'd
From the days of Aristoteles, about 2300 years ago, up to and including Einstein, science believed that the universe was eternal, without beginning or end.
With the big-bang theory, science made an about-face, and brought itself in line with what the Bible claims for already 3300 years: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Science now agrees, after thousands of years, that there was a beginning.
Were making progress, only it takes a bit long.


"Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."

Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2011 10:21 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-21-2014 8:29 AM Eliyahu 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