|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam. Genesis does not negate pre-speech prototypes. The 6000 only refers to speech endowed humans, not the age of the earth or when other life forms appeared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Obviously, there is much variances in understanding genesis and the OT here - this document has not been accurately presented via christianity. The 37 year age is not something I made up - it is part of writings and commentary made 1000s of years ago. Re this and the genesis calendar, I will retrieve these later, as I am in-tranit with a laptop without access to my files. The Hebrew calendar is commonly known and acknowledged, and has been in active usage for over 3000 years till today. Gregory was told by his preists his calendar was wrong by 11 days and that he should adopt the hebrew lunar-solar one; but he replied: we will just cancel those 11 days, siting, 'better to be wrong by the moon than be right by the jews'. Thus we have leap years and history starting 2000 years ago. One of the functions thus negated from an anniversary observence is that it is not a true annual recurrence, as with the genesis formular - here, if the sun was at 12 o'clock high noon in a certain area on 1 Jan 2006, then the sun will be in the same position on 1 Jan 2007.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no contradiction here. Genesis classifies life forms in larger groupings than we do today - this is in the texts. The relevent factor is that genesis does not differentiate modern humans by their skeletal forms, as we do today, but it distinguishes humans by their speech attribute. This is correct - all life forms share skeletal formations - only one displays speech. The issue where a life form such as a neaderthal would fit is a subjective one: according to genesis and my understandinging of it, neanderthal or any other life form, and human derivitive from them, has no impact here. Whether neaderthal constitutes a prototype of modern humans, or of another life form (a certain ape?), does not negate or impact, because genesis, which is minimilist, says only that speech endowed humans emerged as a distinct life form 6000 years ago. Whether neaderthal falls with animal and humans, or mammals and animals - is a separate issue. But genesis is correct in that it is speaking of a life form with speech - it is correct from this point and premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The translation is not lad as in child, but young man (opposiite of maiden). Sarah dies almost simultainiously as the sacrifice was being conducted. The 37 year figure is recorded in 1000s of years' sages commentary: there is no motive to alter this age - I am at a loss to encounter it as an issue.
quote: This is not correct - the calendar was in use in Canaan when Joshua reigned. The 4CE refers to Pope Gregory, while the OT Calendar was in use throughout the period after Moses completed the five books. The first New Year and Passover were conducted after Israel entered Canaan under Joshua. quote: I'm not sure what you mean here, but lunar calendars, like the Jewish calendar, are far worse at this than even the Julian calendar. The Jewish calendar requires the addition of a whole month every few years to stop it drifting too far from the solar year.[/quote] Its not a lunar calendar but a lunar-solar calendar, the only means to calculate both seasonal (solar for year calc) and months (lunar). I beieve the islamic calendar is lunar based. yes, some years have 13 months, which is correct when measuring a lunar-solar cycle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I see the fulcrum factor here being whether one sees evolution as a universal constant or not. There is no life on the moon. In fact, there is no such thing as evolution - all universal systems must be intergrated or they do not exist independently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Hint: only the genesis mode of evolution is vindicated. The premise of darwin's cross-specie is still only a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Science, after all said and done, is but one of the results of a sound premise - a correctly thinking mind. The accuracy of Genesis is not limited to science, but also has to be accurate in its maths and historical stats equally - it does this. Here's an interesting *Big Bang* between a famed contemporary scientist and a Rabbi, which shows the Talibanic dogma which has swept certain sectors of science, and that Darwin's evolution remains a theory with manifold problem areas:
Scientific fundamentalists: Richard Dawkins meets with Rabbi Boteach. THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 24, 2007 I participated in two debates this week, and between them learned a great deal about the nature of science and religion in our time. The first debate, on the subject of religion, was with Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist and atheist, in Toronto. The second, in New York, was with a leading Jewish-Christian missionary on whether Jesus died for our sins. What startled me was how, in the religion debate, although my adversary and I challenged each other's most sacredly held beliefs, there was no offense taken on either side. Less so was there any acrimony directed toward me from the approximately 1000 Christians who were in the audience. Religious people are by now so used to having their faith challenged that being on the defensive is no big deal. Not so science, which has enjoyed hegemony for so long that it has become its own orthodoxy and dare never be questioned, as the following experience demonstrates. I had already either directly participated in or moderated five previous debates that featured Richard Dawkins, the Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Through the debates, Dawkins and I had become friends and he even attended Shabbat lunch at my home in Oxford. But the warmth of our former relationship was not in evidence as we sat waiting to be called to speak at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto. I detected a hardening in Dawkins' position and perhaps an inability to distinguish between religion and religious people, such that his disdain for the former led to his contempt for the latter. DAWKINS BEGAN by arguing that he did not care whether or not religion had any positive social advantages. The only thing that mattered was whether not it was true. And it was his firm belief that religion was a canard. He was therefore inspired to crusade against it. He proceeded to argue for the logical and mathematical impossibility of God's existence and the truth of evolution. When it was my turn I began by questioning Dawkins' point on his humanitarian crusade to awaken the world to the lie that is religion. Why, I asked, was religion the only "lie" that seemed to bother Dawkins. After all, he is an Englishman and lives in a country that promotes the "lie" that one human being is born royal while another is born ordinary. Surely, as part of a modern egalitarian society that rejects the divine right of kings, Dawkins ought to be inveighing as much against the British royal family as he does against vicars, rabbis, and priests! Unless, of course, he has decided that, even though the idea of royalty is a fictitious man-made construct, it was OK to keep it around given that it is a thousand-year-old British tradition and has positive social value. But religion is more than a useful myth. For me, my faith is true. I believe that God created the world. And yes, I said, I understood that modern science replaced creation with evolution. But the theory still had much explaining to do and many holes to fill. I mentioned that I had participated in debated evolution with prominent evolutionary theorists, such as the late Prof. John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex at Brighton. In those debates, in the same way that the scientists who participated raised reasonable objections to religion, the other side had raised reasonable objections to evolution. There are massive inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which is why it remains just that - a theory. Foremost among these unresolved issues is, first, how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase. Second, genetic mutation, the very engine of modern neo-Darwinism, is almost always catastrophically destructive to an organism, which severely challenges the notion that mutation with natural selection ultimately leads to higher complexity. Third, after 140 years of digging up the earth, there still remain enormous holes in the fossil record, the missing links that account for tens of millions of years of evolution, which is why many leading paleontologists, most notably the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, argued for punctuated equilibrium - giant leaps - in evolutionary development, rather than the slow and gradual ascent argued for by scientists like Dawkins. Indeed, Darwin makes it clear in The Origin of Species that evolution was not developed as a theory to explain the origin of life but as a theory to explain the fossil record. Thus, the theory had to accord with existing fossil finds. I mentioned that, from my experience, scientists responded to these objections by saying that, given sufficient time, all evolutionary obstacles could be surmounted. Billions and billions of years of accidental evolution could surmount the seemingly impossible mathematical odds that complexity and life could evolve from an amorphous cosmic soup. Yes, mutations are nearly all harmful and life-threatening. But with infinite time enough of the beneficial variety could still be had. And with more time the missing fossils links will finally be found. So, I concluded, what separates religion and science is seemingly semantics. What religion calls God science calls time. For scientists, time had an almost divine quality and could provide for the miraculous materialization of near mathematical impossibility. WHEN I finished, I received a warm ovation from the audience, that is, until I alighted from the stage. I was immediately set upon by an angry, world-famous physicist who told me that evolution was a fact and could not be questioned. I responded that I was not denying it was so, but rather thought it was the purpose of science to question everything. A few reporters watched our exchange. One told me that it seemed that he had witnessed a role reversal. He would have expected the religious person to say that faith could not be questioned. A few hours later, at a cocktail reception, a Harvard professor of physics and I were having a pleasant conversation. She suddenly interjected, "I find it curious that someone as smart as you does not believe in unaided evolution." I thanked her for her backhanded compliment and told her, "Imagine if I said to you, 'I find it curious that someone as smart as you doesn't believe in God. You would probably think that I was a close-minded, condescending, ideologue." Albert Einstein once commented on the co-existence of faith and reason by saying, "Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame." But in our time, many scientists who harbor an unreasonable objection to faith are making science into a new religion. The writer's debates with Richard Dawkins at Oxford are contained in his book, Moses of Oxford. His latest book, named after his television series, is "Shalom in the Home" (Home | Rabbi Shmuley Boteach).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Darwin Evolution - VS - Genesis Evolution.
Darwin posits cross-specie adaptation - Genesis, the most ancient document to refer to these issues, in fact introducing them, also 'proclaims' adaptation, but contradicts head-on where this adaptation is stationed: only via the seed, and only via its own species [A seed will follow its own kind, with the ability to reproduce and carry millinia of data via its genes/Genesis]. IOW, Genesis rules out cross-specie transformations, and instead allocates all adaptation to the 'seed'. Anyone abreast on this issue will know, there are almost bi-monthly scientific reports plugging holes into Darwin's mode of Adaptation, as well as the methodology of accounting for Darwin's Theory in this fascet. Although Darwin's Theory is accepted by the world at large and the west's education systems. Here, aside from the 'in-lab' reports of percieved imprints dating millions of years - Darwin's cross-specie premise is the most unvindictaed theory ever theorised: no one's seen an actual 'in-transit' cross-species life form - in any specie - when we should see millions. The reasonings given for this lack of physical evidence range from the surreal to equally deflective sources, and we end up back in the millinia of 'wait and see'. Only the most improbable theoretic assumptions, backed by scientifically impossible odds - sustains the cross-specie premise. One of the ways cross-species has been studied, is how real life-forms behave when faced with diversity - because this gives an indication what imprints are derived from our past DNA sources. Diversity does not look good for the promotion of Adaptation, as per the report below, and subsequently not good for cross-specie transformations. Quite the oppositte. This means that aside from the lack of actual proof for Darwin's cross-specie outside of the millions of years and impossible odds - even the perephial indicators are coming up NEGATIVE. It appears that cross-specie adaptation is less credible than within-species adaptation. Genesis' 'within-specie' adaptation, via the 'seed' - does not suffer these credibility issues. The point: we almost always neglect the sum of Genesis being right - and Darwin wrong or pointing that way according to all new investigations. The misery of diversity June 29, 2007By Ilana Mercer When an academic discovers what ordinary mortals have known for eons, it's called science. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Professor Putnam's five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times and is finally percolating down to others in the media and blogosphere. In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people "hunker down": They withdraw, have fewer "friends and confidants," distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and carpool less, give less to charity, and "agitate for social reform more," with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui. Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history." Since this is all very perplexing to the "progressive" Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, allow me to save the good professor from another future shock. People are doing more than hunkering down in these unhappy habitations; they are fleeing. In 1995, the New York Times mocked the findings of William H. Frey and Jonathan Tilove, authors of "Immigrants in, Native Whites Out." These demographers noted that as states stretching from California to Texas were swamped by Third World immigrants, the historic population began leaving. At least those who did not reside in $16.5 million mansions, in the exclusive Pacific Heights. At its most elevated, the Times discounted the findings with the aid of the correlation-is-not-causation claim. At its most debased, the newspaper called those who tracked the trend xenophobes. (Column continues below) Almost as predictable is the manner in which these straightforward, sad findings are being misconstrued by puzzled pundits or pressure groups accustomed to maligning You Know Who. The Commission for Racial Equality hasn't heard a word Putnam has said. "Separateness is becoming more entrenched in parts of our society," they warn ominously, as they rededicate themselves to "encouraging people from different communities to meet and understand one another." Putnam said nothing about a lack of understanding or roiling conflict. Diversity triggered not racial hostility but "anomie or social isolation," as he puts it. Writing for City Journal about the sad settings Putnam excavated statistically, John Leo also introduces an error: "Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance. . " Putnam said nothing about intolerance. If anything, he makes it abundantly clear that he found no evidence of "bad race relations, or ethnically defined group hostility." Rather, diversity generates withdrawal and isolation. The thousands surveyed were not intolerant, bigoted, or even hostile; they were merely miserable. This is mass depression, the kind that stems from loss, resignation and hopelessness. So too does Tammy Bruce mangle Putnam. Formulaically, she fingers multiculturalism and a failure to assimilate. Again, this is not what Putnam has unraveled. He says nothing about whether newcomers in the 41 localities studied across the U.S. fly Old Glory, recite the Pledge of Allegiance or are proficient in English (an impossibility if the non-English speaker immigrated in adulthood) - or whether these matter at all. He merely examined the impact on trust and sociability of racial and ethnic diversity, only to find that it messes equally with men, women, conservatives, liberals, rich and poor alike. (He does concede that "the impact of diversity is definitely greater among whites," but, predictably, fails to dignify the finding.) There is nothing in Putnam's research to implicate assimilation or lack thereof. Like all social scientists living in symbiosis with statists, Putnam doesn't confine himself to observations; he offers recommendations. Having aligned himself with central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the factual gloom-and-doom with a stern pep talk. Take the lumps of diversity without complaining! Mass immigration and diversity are, overall, good for the collective. (Didn't he just spend five years demonstrating the opposite?) To sum, a scientist-cum-policy wonk "uncovers" patterns of co-existence among human beings that are as old as the hills. Greater diversity equals more misery. Does he respect these age-old peaceful preferences? No. Instead, with all the sympathy of a social planner, he reaffirms the glories of forced integration, and recommends dismantling old identities and constructing new, "shared" ones. (Or else!) Putnam also pelts us with utilitarian platitudes. Evidently, the ethnic engineering historic populations have suffered at the hands of soviet-style planners dwarfs compared to the long-term benefits of mass, Third World immigration. The many thousands of miserable individuals Putnam interviewed must soldier on, their pursuit of happiness sacrificed for the collective gains of cheap Tyson chicken and colorful cuisine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
pquoteicant
I debated the 2 accounts of creation in another thread for over 300 posts most of these guys did not post there.[/quote] LOL - my sympathies. Its amazing how distorted the impression of the OT is. They even forget proper grammar in concluding two creation stories!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You guys are building towers of babel in mid air. The scrolls are regarded the same as today, with no variation in its narratives from the Septuagint or the current OT. I have many links which say this. The discrepencies are allocated to alphabet styles and some differences of sylables, and writings style of scribes, etc. If there were any real differences, there would have been a major consequence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not at this particular spacetime. Isaac was not yet married, and the texts allocate very long lifespans for almost all figures at this time.
quote: True, it is not said explicitly, but it is alluded to, and the oral law expands on it. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 37 year figure is recorded in 1000s of years' sages commentary: there is no motive to alter this age - I am at a loss to encounter it as an issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that so far you haven't even named one of these commentaries let alone explained the reasoning that underlies the conclusions the only surprise is that you are so insistent on trying to argue the point. And what would be the Christian reason for "altering" the age as you allege they have done ?[/quote] I will get you back-up for Isaac being 37, and the calendar references. The calendar was used upon entering canaan. The Israelites were told the laws won't apply in the desert but will become law when in Canaan. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There's only one kind.
quote: Until science can show otherwise, there is no alternative to Creationism. And thread carefully - the OT has never been disproven to date, and over 50% of all its narratives have been proven. Any alternative considered, must be at least greater than the result, and at least Genesis satisfies with an accurate description of a Creator who is greater than his creation. The latter premise is non-negotiable - so let's see what those scientists in white come up with, and lets hope they have good imaginations. You have to start being objective. Genesis, a 3,500 year old ancient document, containing 100s of 1000s of stats throughout its passages - is proving to be one tough cooky. And you have'nt begun to consider the extent of vindication, as opposed very few stand out items. Consider this, because in its own way it does align with science:All the laws the world follows is from the OT - exclusively; not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What's your problem here? The last major thud faced by scholars was with their bold declaration king david was a myth - they're still recovering from that fall. Every week a major discovery is unearthed in Palestine - that ground talks, and verifies its declared history, math and science. There is no document with more stats and none which contents have been equally vindicated.
quote: Science, history and math have to prove themselves too. There is scientific proof of a 3000 + years egyptian stele which mentions a war with *ISRAEL*; there is mathematical proof the Genesis calendar is the most accurate one in existence; there is historial proof the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by europeans and pre-islamic arabs.
quote: Ok, the world's Institutions follow all the dumb laws of the OT: but you have not come up with one from elsewhere. Take your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ok, then tell me this - anyone can - which came first: Evolution - or Wisdom? There is NO bypassing that Q.
quote: The designs on abutterfly are not random - you act like you just proved they are. Its like finding a car on Mars and declaring it random - just to justify another insane premise. 'TO COVER ONE INSANITY - A 1000 INSANITIES MUST BE COVERED' Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: he did'nt fool me. He never mentioned what in genesis was at odds with science, math or histor.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024