Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 8:15 AM
379 online now:
CRR, Faith, jar, PaulK (4 members, 375 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,065 Year: 16,671/21,208 Month: 2,560/3,593 Week: 27/646 Day: 27/78 Hour: 6/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 256 of 310 (683244)
12-09-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 8:46 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
I was responding to a typical put down of believers, Crash, couldn't you leave it at that?

You attached this message as a follow up to me, but I'm not Crash, and I'm not an atheist.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 8:46 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 257 of 310 (683248)
12-09-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:52 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u in Message 244 writes:

I was responding to Percy's reminder that he is a Moderator.

Like many others in this thread, I asked for the evidence behind your claims. I never mentioned my moderator status. I responded to your paranoid Message 180 that I'm a mere participant in this thread.

No one is trying to censor you. We're not trying to get you to say less. We're trying to get you to say more. Specifically, about evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:52 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 258 of 310 (683249)
12-09-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:34 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Hi Kofh2u,

You have very odd ideas about how science works. Science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted. Science is a matter of what has been supported with evidence.

You claim there were 22 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that. Let us say, just for the sake of discussion, that this is all true.

But I could claim there were 23 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that either. It's just as true as your claim.

But they can't both be true. That's why science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted, because all kinds of contradictory claims haven't been refuted, and they can't all be true. Scientific claims become tentatively accepted as accurate reflections of reality because of positive evidence, not because of lack of refutation.

Addressing this more directly now:

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

It has been explained to you many times that science does not believe there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man. We don't know the correct number. Some of the 22 species from the book The Last Human are definitely cousin species, some have strong evidence for being on a direct line to humans, others are ambiguous. Science cannot refute that there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man, but it can't refute 23 or 10 or 37 either.

All your other claims have pretty much the same problem. In other words, you've spent this entire thread making empty claims. You need to begin talking about evidence, and now is as good a time as any.

So tell us, what evidence do you have that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Science does not know whether it's on the line of descent to humans from the chimp/human common ancestor, nor even whether it existed before or after the split. You need to also explain what evidence leads you to conclude that the chimp/human split is relevant to Adam, as opposed to say the gorilla/human split, or the monkey/human split.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:34 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:08 PM Percy has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 259 of 310 (683256)
12-09-2012 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
12-08-2012 7:12 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

1) But you made the claim didn't you?

2) What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?

1 Hmmm....
I believe in every case I have been saying that there are CORRESPONDENCES between what science tells us today and Genesis actually says.

In the case of Adam in Genesis and the scientists who claim this ape/man as the missing link, I see the correspondence.

2 The list supports that Genesis says things which correspond closely enough to what Sceince says today such that Science does not refute it.

This correspondence which I have set down, between the events of each "day" of the seven durations, that correspond to the geological history of the earth is the basis for the opening post.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 7:12 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 10:05 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29029
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 260 of 310 (683259)
12-09-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 10:00 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Everyone realizes that you have made such claims, but you have presented NO evidence to support the claims that you made.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis?

You made the claim didn't you?

What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:00 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 261 of 310 (683260)
12-09-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by jar
12-08-2012 7:15 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

Should I post Genesis 1 again so maybe you can read it?

Yes, before the summation let's review Gen 1:1 first, then we can read each verse and explain what it says.

I will place the explanations I understand to be literally valid in brackets so you can see what Theistic Evolutoon believers understand the verse to me, scientificlly and academically in the ligtht of today's knowledge.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which was yet to congeal into a spherical planet) earth.

(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

NOW YOU POST WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 7:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 10:13 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 269 by Panda, posted 12-09-2012 12:07 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 262 of 310 (683261)
12-09-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Coyote
12-08-2012 7:58 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

In other words, you can come up with any number of races you want depending on which criteria you choose (including both visible traits and genetic traits), and none is any more accurate than the rest.

So why not choose the one which supports Genesis, the Bible, and God then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2012 7:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29029
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 263 of 310 (683262)
12-09-2012 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 10:08 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
I know what it says and have posted it for you:

quote:
Genesis 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


No mention if eras and six 24 hour days.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:08 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:29 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 268 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:04 PM jar has responded
 Message 275 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 1:26 PM jar has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 264 of 310 (683276)
12-09-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-09-2012 10:13 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So then we agree this correponds to the Big Bang Beginning then.

So what is the problem?

Now Gen 1:2 clearly means that the Earth was void of a shape hence the Hadan Era has not yet begun:

The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

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])

Word: EDA = void
Pronounce: bo'-hoo
Strong: H922
Orig: from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html

No problem again between Genesis and science....

Or do you differ with the clear meaning of the verse?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 10:13 AM jar has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 265 of 310 (683277)
12-09-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by NoNukes
12-08-2012 7:58 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

Haven't you heard anything that has been said about this. You are not properly characterizing what Genesis says about this issue.

Of course I am.

I have only heard you people who want to characterize it differently insist yiu are correct and the Theistic Evolution reader is wrong.

God says he created the Plant Kingdom first, then a few "days" later, he creates the Animal Kingdom.

That is correct for readers who understand that God utilized Evolution to carry this out.
TE readers realize that God created "the first sprouts on Earth" and all the plants, trees, seeds, flowers evolved from that first Spontaneous Generation.

Haven't you read this before??????
What is so hard to understand when we KNOW god used evolution as his "tool?"

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 7:58 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 2:14 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 266 of 310 (683279)
12-09-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
12-09-2012 7:45 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

Like many others in this thread, I asked for the evidence behind your claims. I never mentioned my moderator status. I responded to your paranoid Message 180 that I'm a mere participant in this thread.

No one is trying to censor you. We're not trying to get you to say less. We're trying to get you to say more. Specifically, about evidence.

Oh,... good.
I welcome your intellectual freedom here and the free flow of ideas then.

You still confuse the issue however.

The thread is whether Genesis has a correspondence with the EVIDENCE that science produces.

Can you get your head around that?
Genesis says stuff, which when it is read properly corresponds with the evidence that science has presented.

There is a correspodence between the Geological Record of the History of the Earth and the corresponding seven long durations, (i.e., yowm, the Hebrew meaning for day is duration).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-09-2012 7:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 267 of 310 (683282)
12-09-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Eli
12-08-2012 9:44 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

The hominid branch from other apes occurred FIRST and that is why the fusion appears in modern humans and not other apes.

And, again, this type of fusion produces no change in gene expression. There is no stark difference between the point when the fusion first happened, as has already been pointed out, such a stark change would render such an animal as sterile, being the only "species" of its kind.

You have absolutely no science to support the claim that the fusion had no effect or that there was no "no stark difference between the point when the fusion first happened" regardless of how many times your side might point out that nonosense.

What we DO KNOW scientifically, is that:

"As it turns out Chromosome number 2 in Humans was once two different chromosomes that were fused together. "

AND...

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

What part of "common,"..... "common descent"... "of HUMANS" don't YOU understand????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 9:44 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 2:55 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 268 of 310 (683283)
12-09-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-09-2012 10:13 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.

Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light, and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And that was the Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era -

and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era = First Day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 10:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 12:23 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1154 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 269 of 310 (683284)
12-09-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 10:08 AM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
kofh2u writes:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...


And as you agreed:
kofh2u writes:

"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.

So - your own claim is denied by you.

It seems that everyone - including you - agrees that there is no connection between the Big Bang eras and the Genesis 7 days....except you.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:08 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:45 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 270 of 310 (683285)
12-09-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Percy
12-09-2012 8:11 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

Hi Kofh2u,
You have very odd ideas about how science works. Science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted. Science is a matter of what has been supported with evidence.

You claim there were 22 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that. Let us say, just for the sake of discussion, that this is all true.

But I could claim there were 23 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that either. It's just as true as your claim.

EXACTLY...
So why bash the Theistic Bible believer who chooses to see the 22 names in Genesis description of the roots in the ascent of man as corresponding with the paleontological evidence of science????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 12-09-2012 8:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 12-09-2012 4:13 PM kofh2u has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017