Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 5:46 PM
335 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,725 Year: 27,331/21,208 Month: 1,244/1,714 Week: 87/365 Day: 43/44 Hour: 0/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 286 of 310 (683306)
12-09-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by jar
12-09-2012 1:56 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Jesus has everything to do with Genesis 1:1.

Gen 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,

John1:1
In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God, (the almighty for all men).

2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (i.e.; the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of material Reality in what was the actiual physical Creation).

Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence, (for man), through him, (i.e.; this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence (for men).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 1:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 12-09-2012 2:46 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29612
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 287 of 310 (683307)
12-09-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:39 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Again you are simply posting falsehoods when you post
Gen 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,

John is not Genesis 1.

Here is Genesis 1 yet again and try actually reading what it says.

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 where in Genesis 1 does it say "In the beginning was the Word".

It is really embarrassing that you are posting nonsense that supposedly represents Christians and Christianity to the world. Pitiful. Sad.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:39 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 288 of 310 (683309)
12-09-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 11:57 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

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.

Caroline Mackie Ogilvie and Paul N Scriven (December 2002). "Meiotic outcomes in reciprocal translocation carriers ascertained in 3-day human embryos". European Journal of Human Genetics (European Society of Human Genetics)

M. Oliver-Bonet; J. Navarro1, M. Carrera, J. Egozcue, J. Benet (October 2002). "Aneuploid and unbalanced sperm in two translocation carriers: evaluation of the genetic risk". Molecular Human Reproduction (Oxford University Press for the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology)

Mitelman, F; Johansson, B; Mertens, F (2007). "The impact of translocations and gene fusions on cancer causation". Nature reviews. Cancer

Homozygosity for a Robertsonian translocation (13q14q) in three offspring of heterozygous parents


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:57 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 289 of 310 (683310)
12-09-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:24 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

Bacteria plants was the first life:

oh.my.fucking.god.

Bacteria are not plants. Neither are fungus plants.

Take that 1910 textbook you pulled out of your grandpa's basement and shove it up your ass. It won't do you any good here.

We are talking about modern science, not bloodletting and eating bull testicles to increase fertility.

Do you know what year it is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:24 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10061
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 290 of 310 (683311)
12-09-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:36 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
Get smart, research a little...

You are a real gem. Well here is some polish. If you are going to be condescending, it is best to be right first. Given that I am not a geologist, researching is exactly what I did before posting.

Let's look at how these layers are defined.

First Asthenosphere

"The upper layer of the earth's mantle, below the lithosphere, in which there is relatively low resistance to plastic flow and convection"

"A zone of the earth's mantle that lies beneath the lithosphere and consists of several hundred kilometers of deformable rock."

"The upper part of the Earth's mantle, extending from a depth of about 75 km (46.5 mi) to about 200 km (124 mi)."

That's right, the asthenospere is actually part of the upper mantle.

Now the definition of lithosphere...

"The lithosphere is the rigid outermost shell of a rocky planet. On Earth, it comprises the crust and the portion of the upper mantle that behaves elastically on time .."

"The lithosphere is the outer solid part of the earth, including the crust and upper mantle... The lithosphere is about 100 km thick, although its thickness is age "

So now perhaps you can see the problem with listing the lithosphere, the asthenosphere, and the upper mantle as three layers. Those three layers overlap. An easier to justify layer count is crust, upper mantle, lower mantle, outer core and inner core. There are other ways to be consistent but those other ways don't produce a seven count.

Similarly your listing of the outer "firmament" as seven layers is also fubar.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 285 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:36 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 291 of 310 (683312)
12-09-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:36 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
kofh2u writes:

Surely, this listing borders on the TRUTRH.

The upper mantle is actually covered with the important lubericant of the asthenosphere.

The lithosphere includes the crust of dry land and the basin under the Oceans.

That's why the factual listings include seven layers

Yet even more numerological bullshit.

The "factual listings" is something you made up. The composition of the earth, whether mechanically or chemically, is divided into 5 layers.

And there are not 7 tectonic plates. There are 15.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:36 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2012 3:46 PM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 292 of 310 (683313)
12-09-2012 3:20 PM


Let's get this thing into summation mode so the arguments can be heard on how these subjects kofh2u wants to hijack other threads with have now been fully explored and how he has been offered ample room to make a case for his claims, which he has utterly failed at.

We can see that we will get no deeper into this and will only see him repeat the same claims regardless of the insurmountible evidence which clearly shows him to be wrong.

I only see more of the same in the future. Let this thread be the witness that the discussion deserves no more of our attention and let us, once the thread is closed, only engage kofh2u when he engages the actual discussion and makes no more mention of his numerology or forced pseudoscience and learns how to resist blatently lying, making claims of persecution or telling others that they are intellectually dishonest or have poor reading comprehension when they present evidence that disprove his claims..

Edited by Eli, : No reason given.


  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5295
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 293 of 310 (683314)
12-09-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Eli
12-09-2012 3:08 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
And there are not 7 tectonic plates. There are 15.

Oh, c'mon , Eli!! If you don't count the eight that are inconvenient, there are only seven!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 3:08 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Eli, posted 12-09-2012 5:27 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16163
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 294 of 310 (683317)
12-09-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 12:08 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

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????

You're not getting bashed, and what is happening to you isn't because you're a theistic Bible believer but because you're ignoring everything being explained to you. When someone appears to not hear what is said then people tend to repeat it at higher volume, which at a discussion board can come across as bashing.

An example of something explained many times that you're ignoring is that science doesn't believe there are 22 species on the line from the chimp/human common ancestor to modern man. The reality is that science doesn't know how many there are.

But this is only one point that you're ignoring. You've actually ignored almost every point made. An exhaustive list of every time you've ignored a point would go on for pages.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:08 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 295 of 310 (683324)
12-09-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Coragyps
12-09-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
And if you don't count your thumbs, then you have 8 fingers, which is pretty much seven, which demonstrates that science and the bible say the exact same thing when you use the correct reading comprehension.

7 candlesticks in hand=7 fingers.

de facto.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2012 3:46 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 296 of 310 (683407)
12-10-2012 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by kofh2u
12-07-2012 8:12 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
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.

Actually, the Hebrews envisioned a flat disc shape earth that was floating on the waters. They thought it looked something like this:

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.

But you are making up the interpretations to fit them with information! The Shaprshooter Fallacy. The only reason to think that your interpretation is right, is because you've already decided a priori that you want to make the Bible out to look accurate. We have no reason whatsoever to think that you have the right interpretation, in fact, we can be certain that what you are forcing into the the interpretation was nothing near what the original authors intended to write. As you admit, they were ignorant of the information.

So how'd it get there? I suppose you think god used his magic to include hidden meaning into the text that the authors were unaware of. So lets assume you're right, what does this do to the theology:

First off, god becomes some trickster that gives us this riddle/puzzle to solve. That's not the Chistian God. Second, he'd have to set up the whole thing where he was literally screwing over an entire culture of people just so that we cold get this secret message today. That's just evil. Thirdly, how arrogant do you have to be to think that over the last few thousand years, everyone was getting everything so wrong until one day YOU come along and figure out the whole thing? Oh thank god that he sent us YOU, the error-free magic writing interpreter... oh how bad off we'd be if you hadn't come along and figured everything out for us


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by kofh2u, posted 12-07-2012 8:12 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 297 of 310 (683408)
12-10-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by New Cat's Eye
12-10-2012 10:35 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
I suppose you atheists and denominational Christians think god didn't use the Literary Arts to include hidden meaning into the text that the authors themselves, were possibly unaware of.

1) Thoughtless Protestants forget that they brought down the Roman Catholic Church because THEY re-interpreted the teachings and interpretations which opposed scientific facts. It was the Pope's opposition to the Truth as it became clear through Science that cause the whole History of the Reformation.

2) Secret messages are clearly secret because the people could not handle the Truth before this Age, the End Times, when knowledge abounds and people run to and fro in a small Global Village of the highly informed and educated.

Proverbs 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels, to understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

3) Even today, there is foolishness in saying science facts are wrong and YECs and Creationism is right while one CLAIMS to worship Christ, "The Truth and the way to light into the world."

4) A comprehensive reading of the Bible explains that this is a closed book, not so much a secret as unfathomable before now:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

5) Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white (yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism does not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-wide floods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal life times, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shines through the Cosmos, etc) ...of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you as happened before The Reformation); ...and anoint thine eyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2012 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2012 12:08 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 298 of 310 (683411)
12-10-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Percy
12-09-2012 4:13 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Scientists have listed "the 22 now extinct humans" that they have been able to dig up and connect together in a line of ascent to modern man.

This compares with what Genesis already states in the stone of scripture and CORRESPONDS one-to-one with both disciplines.

Hence, again and again, Science does not refute Genesis.

Why is it people like Percy just miss this point?

I again post the claim of the thread, which is NOT that science is correct nor that Genesis is correct, but that SCIENCE DOES NOT REFUTE GENESIS:

Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.

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

Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.

Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.

Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.

Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.

Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."

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

Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.

Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."

Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.

Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.

Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.

Science does NOT refute Genesis.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 12-09-2012 4:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Eli, posted 12-10-2012 11:50 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 299 of 310 (683413)
12-10-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by kofh2u
12-10-2012 11:40 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Your claims are patently unscientific and your interpretations are 100% detached from what is actually written in the bible.

Your list has already been addressed. You are simply wrong.

End of story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:40 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 300 of 310 (683414)
12-10-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by kofh2u
12-10-2012 11:31 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Secret messages are clearly secret because the people could not handle the Truth before this Age, the End Times,...

Oh god, you're one of the End Times people!? Well I'll be a son of a bitch.

People have been talking about this End Times for thousands of years... it never happens.

A comprehensive reading of the Bible explains that this is a closed book, not so much a secret as unfathomable before now:

One of the fun things about the Bible, is that you can make it say almost anything:

quote:
Deuteronomy 4

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.


quote:

Galatians 1

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all.


quote:
Proverbs 30

5 Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
6 Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.


Heh, the Bible just called you a liar

From Message 289

Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."

I already explained to you that this one was refuted. For all the water to be in one place, Rodinia/Pangaea could not have any ponds or lakes or rivers or streams or any water on it whasoever, and that's impossible.

Science does NOT refute Genesis.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?

We cannot falsify your idea because you just make up the interpretation as you go to fit with the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:31 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017