|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: These are catered to, while not disregarding the generations of mankind and their knowledge quotient at any given time. The once unseen micro creatures and subteranean insects are 'swarms of living creatures' and 'and every living creature that creepeth', respectively.
quote: quote: No contradiction or omissions here, nor can it be said better - all manner of vegetation is catered to, and note the deliberated categories listed. The term, 'root' was my own, to indicate all plants and vegetation as a differential from other kinds of life forms:
quote: quote: Before being verterbtrates, they are water borne, the transcendent factor in their differentials. All types are catered too, in what is the first recording of such a breakdown.
quote: All are catered to and well ensconsed in the text when read with equal deliberation as a science or math treatise. Note how 'and every living creature that creepeth' and 'and every winged fowl' is as comprehensive as it can get - for ALL generations of mankind:
quote: quote: Consider you are sitting for one of those tests and have to tick off the uncommon factor from a list, which includes all life forms and humans. If you answer in variance to genesis - you will fail this test. Darwin failed here.
quote: Genesis is science, even introducing this faculty. Creationism and Monotheism are absolutely scientific premises. I don't know of any document which is as much science, certainly none in Genesis spacetime, and none of its stats have been disproven: this makes genesis the world's most vindicated science account, by period of time, number of stats and by impact. To put this issue to some examination, which stat of genesis 1/1, which deals with Creation, is not scientific? The following, I believe are scientifically redeemed stats of Genesis 1/1, and this is an example how it's reading is allignable with the best of science: Gen 1:1. IN THE BEGINNING. This is the first recording of the universe being finite: there was a beginning. Science reflects this as the BBT. The first 4 words also gives a source for creation, IN THE BEGINNING GOD. The factor of effect is not left bereft of a cause, or takes refuge in the most unscientific premise of all: it just happened, or it was always so. We know for a fact it was not always so, and a finite universe is far more scientific than an infinite one. 1. HEAVEN AND EARTH.This has dual positions, the word heaven having two meanings - the physical galaxies, and a spiritual realm, and it is correct to cater to both premises. One stat says the universe includes two facets, namely corporeal [physical] and incorporeal [non-physical/spiritual] facets, namely heaven and earth. This is not provable but is held by most humans as the lingering issue, that more is occuring than what can be physically verified; it is justified by occurences which have no percievable cause. The other position of this stat is that the two focal points for humanity, which it is addressed to, are the universe at large and the earth: the former is described from the latter human POV. 2. Now the earth was unformed and void.This is not in question: the products we have now were not existent in their current form immediately after the emergence of matter. Unions occured and molecules and atoms formed; there was no water till H2 combined with O, for example, and there were no trees, stars or planets. 2. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.Obviously, light had to become existent, when it was not before. While genesis at no time says how it was made, it is for science or mankind to learn these things, same as Genesis does not say how trees were made. We have been given the ability to think - so this is not an escapist stat, but it is scientifically ratifiable that Light would be one of the primal products of the universe. 2. and God divided the light from the darkness.One of the most important words comes into play here, namely 'SEPARATED' - and the reason why we cannot break certain tresholds, such as a pre-universe scenario or an after-death one or the source of the Creator: there is a cnnectivity and a separation - we percieve but cannot grasp it. Of course, light and darkness had to be clearly separated, else this would contradict or make superflous the earlier term of 'void' [chaos/without order]. The term GOOD refers to the infusion of order in the previous order-less. It should be noted that this separation factor is not sufficiently acknowledged in most scientific appraisals, while it should be a prominent factor in all advents of the early emergence of the universe products. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. The factor which separates day from night is not the movements of the sun and moon, but darkness and light per se - and their separation: had the separation not be implemented, humans would not be able to differentiate light from darkness. Genesis also says the first day began at evening, from where the term eve is derived - and there had to be a first day: but no - it cannot be the first day, because that would signify a precedence - so genesis uses the more correct term as 'ONE DAY' instead of first, but correctly lists the following days as second, third, etc. This is no typo but profound exacting text. 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. This is scientific geography of the universe's early period in two levels. The term heaven is used, namely the galaxies, which were now separated from the non-physical realm. Why the term 'water'? I'm not sure, but one explanation is that water and darkness were prevalent in the unformed period, when the spiritual and physical was as yet not separated. Water and darkness remained on the side of the physical realm after this separation. The other level is the water separation on earth, vital for any life and any order. When it is correctly seen from a creational view, the waters would have covered the planet, with the earth being submerged. The issue that this took a period of time, does not impact or contradict, except that this clearly signifies Genesis is NOT talking about a 24-hour day here or the length of a day, but an epoch of time. We can establish this by a later verse down the track. Obviously, no calendar has been designated, and no life appears yet: the table is not yet ready for the guests. 8. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.Note it says 'second' not day two. This is an Epoch two, it's unspecified period being that of the earth's early formation, namely: 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.The same occured on earth, enabling seas and land, with the separation factor. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.' While the order of the first life emerges after light, water and land, and their critical separations, we have our first toss with science here, namely that there is life before the sun: so what about photosenthesis? Not so fast - this one is easily answered, namely the life was static and not animated [which is clarified later on]. The other issue with science here is, that vegetation is mentioned before the sun - which predates the planet earth. So one has to concentrate better with the exacting mathematical texts: the sun was already created in the opening verse, along with the galaxies - but the sun's luminosity had not yet occured. This may sound controversial, but when seen by this view, some other mysteries or unknowns become more clearer. Regardless of the potential dispute - Genesis still talks science here, and not myth. We know that a star only attains luminosity after a certain period following its formation as a fully developed star, and not in its earliest stages.The other factor here which is scientifically correct is the structure of vegetation, and how they are able to reproduce from, and emulate, their derivitive host. The poignant factor here is, Genesis is saying the so-called process of evolution is not mentioned or required here, which is justified by the actions of the repro by virtue of the seed. Also what is said, the repro program is embedded in the seed - not the external environment. From this view, Darwin's evolution becomes superflous. This is a legitimate counter account, and is not a stray from science, which is not above logic. It can occur this way, is the point here, and there is no disproof of it. If anything, it is better manifest, all repro being from the seed, as opposed invisable, inexplained, unevidenced factors of a mythical evolution. 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 the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 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 there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Clearly in the above only luminosity is spoken of, the sun's creation being never mentioned. Also, both astrology [omens] and astronomy [signs] is mentioned, and vindicated today. The word 'formed' is used when mentioning the stars, clarifying it was 'created' before in the opening verse. 20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' Here we see the correct order of life forms, and their correct categorising, which will show the error of darwin. This is the first recording of the order of life forms, which Darwin copied from, and called it the evolution chain. The error of darwin is his method of categorising the species, using skelatal imprints - which are common to all life forms, and which subsequently contains man as one of the overall species, thereby ignoring human variations from all other life forms. Darwin says humans and speech is a result of accumulated graduations - but this is not provable, and all evidences contradict it [eg. the time factor and that no other life has attained speech]. Darwin's breakdowns are more directed to sub-divisions within species, than fulcrum differences between primal life forms. Genesis' categorising is far more accurate and contextual, separating species by root [vegetation], water based [fish], air borne [fowl], land based [animals and mammals] and humans - the only one possessing a stand out unique difference. One must consider how they would categorise the life forms on a planet they can witness being formed! This is about the peripheral overview of the creation chapter, and I cannot see anything but a scientific, logical, believable portrayal. The OT calendar, which is the only one using the sun, moon and earth movements, begins at evening of the 6th day's termination, as day one - also the start of history per se, and an affirming the creation days are not 24-hour days. Further, if one disagrees with a certain stat, it does not mean Genesis is not scientific, but is akin to two scientists with two different views only. There is no reason to view this chapter as metaphoric! The first recorded scientific equation: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' The first recorded pointer to the origin of all things in their primal emergence: 'MAN & WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' - Namely, All life and other universal intities emerged as a duality; there is no actual ONE or ZERO in the universe. The first facet of active and applied science is Medicine, and the first separation of medicine from the occult came from this source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't see any reference to being identical or not in the verse. What I see is the traits of a holistic species is pointed to, which is contained in the seed, and passed on. Speech endowed life forms beget the same trai, and water based life forms will do the same. This does not infringe on the individualities of each offspring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Treat the text as you would a physics theory. Both types of those fish come under the same nominated water based 'kind'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I rest my case with the term paranoia.
quote: One need not add or subtract anything: the text is literally [grammatically] comprehensive, and includes both micro and subteranean and all living creatures. There are no superflous words or alphabets in the OT, and grammar comes from here: the pristine, shortest distance of words are employed, requiring no input. For sure, as with all other aspects, the majesty of literature is seldom acknowledged here. This is not mere writings, but marks the epitomy of language, utilised by the greatest writers after these writings reached Europe via Greek and Roman translations, which also imported Democracy from here. Such a calibre of writings has never been equalled, and it appears to have arrived suddenly and in already advanced state, being not only alphabetical, but inherent of numerals and able to function with and without vowels; many later languages did not possess all phonetic sounds till well after the latin [eg: 'V']. Well before numerlas became advanced, we have in the same source the first scientific cencus, in the millions, with subototals and corresponding accounting totals, and gender and age breakdowns. Such indicators say the text is a very serious business. It is the literature, and its contruction and clear transcending wisdom inherent here, which first captured me. I now see a high evidence of good writing as the pre-requisite and transcendent factor to wisdom. If we do not know a word - we cannot think that word; how a word is utilised marks the wisdom of the writer. No two words in any language mean the same thing, and we have in the OT the bold advocation not to add or subtract anything - this is an indication of a runaway confidence which appears not perturbed of the future advancements of mankind, and is not seeking refuge of any potential errors in its declarations.
quote: Yes. Read it again. All plants/vegetation is covered in a single stroke of words.
quote: I'm not a biologist, but it seems likely that the solar derived photosenthesis acts more as a fuel or catalyst for life - after it is existant. IOW: it is not connected with life's formation. The text caters to this, and more, with the follow-up chapter, illustrating how static life became dynamic, with all fors of vegetation, in the earth, above the earth and those which cling to the earth:
quote: quote: You have not stated the contradictions you refer to. The term 'kind' is used in all instances of life form categories.
quote: One would use the means known and available to its generation, same way as now to confirm it correctly.
quote: There is nothing missing. Swarms identify virus and bacteria [life-form cells]. The first recording of a contagious and infectious desease is in the follow-up books, namely Leviticus, and relating to malignant leprosy, its ID, treatment and quarantine. This is the first notion of medicine and its separation from occultism. The washing of hands, which negates 90% of germs, is also a mandated law here, and enshrined in medical process some 3oo years ago. Its a question of correct comprehension and deciphering of a deceptively simple biblespeak: a cursory acknowledgement of its writings time, should quickly dispell any notion of naivity here. The issue extends itself in all areas, even maths, biology and history: the most daring stat is the specifically nominated dating for speech endowed modern man, namely 5678 years - and this cannot be disproven, while it is evidenced today as being without negation factors. There is not only no name of a human, no king, no country before this date, there is no history per se. The notion speech could not be proven because of the absence of writings is simply not credible: the latter is an effect, not the cause, of speech!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Look at the stats as equations, akin to MC2. The observations and evidencing is upto each generation's status. Science is a recent study, appearing after maths and history. If there is a stat the city Ramesey is a one day journey from Goshen - mankind has to determine and evidence its veracity. Where it says the Nile never runs dry, it becomes evidenced by the terrain examination, namely all rivers flow down and never up from this point: there was never a famine in Egypt. If the text describes the ancient Egyptian diets [the fleshpots of egypt, the fish for naught, the garlic, melons, etc..] - we can verify of this is of contemporanous veracity. The surrounding colliliary gives the credibility factor.
quote: It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Sure it does. The word 'kind' is qualified and extended in all its placements - water/ocean life, and referred to 'after its kind' - after water based life forms. There is no other reading than this is about divisions, and is the first recording of life form grads, which was later adapted by Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What I 'added' was relevent to the point of discussion. Being perfectly written is impressive to the factor of your deliberation of virus - the text incorporates this very adequately and eloquently - taking into consideration all of mankind's understanding, including this advanced scientific period. If the text has no superflous words, one must take more seriously the term 'every living creature that swarms and/or creapeth'. Any further elaboration here would make it an overkill and render superflous additions. If you were a scientist, and were to correctly write the texts 3,500 years ago, catering for virus' which would have no meaning till very recently: how would you go about it? Here, the text's veracity reaches total vindication for being comprehensive, and catering to this generation.
quote: No, I did not venture there in such a fashion. What I do say is, there is the comprehensive listing of all kinds of vegetation, plants, herbs - which cater to all known categories of vegetation, including root growths like potatoes, lowly shurbs and tall tree growth. Fruits, nuts, grains, cactus, herbs, spices, and vegatables are catered to, and this is dispenced in a few [compacted] wordage.
quote: mammals are included here, which is in the same verse as water-based life: 'and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind'. These are creatures which inhabit both water and land ['wherewith the waters'].
quote: Everything with wings refers to more than air-borne, namely also those birds which are mostly ground based [chickens] but possess wings.
quote: Speech is only recently being scientifically considered as a mysterious phenomenon. It is the only unique attribute of humans, and correctly declared in the texts. Communication and the brain are common to all life. We speak, but we have no idea how - it is not because we have voice boxes or any organ which is condusive to it. Its an involuntary feature, and connected to the brain in an intergrated form. It is not a phenomenon of evolution, and not explained by it. Unfortunately, ToE has no input here. The situation becomes compounded when we consider that animals and birds have a greater degree of natural understandings when they can anticipate earthquakes, smell a fire coming, adapt to sonar, see without eyes and had the benefit of greater time to adapt - yet have not 'evolved' to the most powerful adaptation tool: speech. Here we see why the statute to GO FORTH AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS is linked to a speech endowed life form, but one which is not the most powerful in any other area: imagine if dogs, tigers and gorrilas had speech - they would transcend us and prevail in the dominion stakes.
quote: As I said, I'm not a biologist to answer the minutae details correctly, but I have read on it, and agree there are no contradictions here. The term 'EVERY' is placed strategically in many places, and are conducive to your questions.
quote: I don't think your trying to trap, but rather there are big swathes of mis reps of the OT the last 2000 years, by religions which took in on board, but without the correct understanding of it and without the explainatory laws. Christianity and islam, which spread the OT to the world at large, understandably had their focus on their own new scriptures. The variance of a virus and bacteria is addressed in infectcious and contagious deseases respectively [as with the multi-page descriptions in the various forms of leprosy and other deseases]. The reference to cell was to anticipate you bringing up single celled amoeba. Allow me to extend, how the biology of life forms is fully known here. Take the example of the given reason for the dietary laws, which forbids the consumption of pig meat. This is not for health or hygiene reasons, and this law made life much more difficult for a farming community where meats were luxury items. The relevent factor here is the depiction of the pig as having an attribute not shared by any other life form on the planet - and this attribute is a hidden, camouflaged one. It is the only animal with split hooves, but which does not chew its cud - which all domestic animals do. How can such a factor be known by the ancients or indeed even today? How was it known there was no such animal in the Amazon or in Tasmania? To dispell that it was a good guess, three other animals are nominated which have the oppositte attributes of the pig: they chew their cud but have no split hooves: there is not a 4th one. The reason the pig is forbidden is because slaughtering a pig via its throat would cause it great pain, applicable even for slaughter or killing an animal. Unlike all other nominated animals with the said two attributes, the pig does not posses a loop in its throat vein which connects to the brain - slitting this vein would thus cause it pain, while in the other nominated animals, it would render them unconscious within a few seconds by virtue of this hidden loop which acts as a filter stoppage of blood flow to the brain. A case was won on this grounds recently, when a canadian animal rights group embarked on legal action to ban kosher slaughtering. Scietists and prominent biologists were called in and detailed mid-section filmography was shown in the court. The animal rights group lost, and all costs were awarded against them, with the court order that if such a case was brought again - the evidences tended must be shown. The OT understands biology and medicine, which are prime factors of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This says the duality of man ['him'] has Godlike qualities [a unique attribute not said of others].
quote: This says how and when the 'woman' [the counterpart of the aforesaid duality] was formed.
quote: This says humans [woman too/the duality] were blessed jointly [together/designated equal status] when they were created.
quote: I don't think so. Each verse is separate, pivotal and indispensable to one deliberating, asking and seeking the correct process. There is no good science when comprehension is not transcendent, and here is a transcendent writing. The rules of comprehending and grammar comes from this source: eg: if the term GOD is used twice consecutively, it is not superflous [obviously] and denotes an expression of approval - often used in normal speech as an expression of affection [a mother calling a child, etc]; if the expression 'I AM THE LRD' appears at the end of a sentence, it is a disapproval or warning and the matter will be dealt with - often used in normal expression by mankind as a warning also [a father warning a naught son not to speak badly to his father]. My response here is not a religious but scientific one, concerning the deciphering of a text only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I believe I was using the wrong 'reply' buttons, but what do you mean with 'qs' instead of 'quote':
It's not a requirement that you do the name when hitting the reply button but do use "qs" rather than "quote." It is usually best to do the name also, imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The creaping things upon the earth are designated one category from those that are sub-terreanean, and those which perform both such as the snail and moles: These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,30And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
quote: The correct ID is subject to our knowledge at a given time. There may be hidden conditions which we may not be privy to at any time, or our understandings may alter, and must allow for this. My pain point in this discussion was to focus one factor only: the designation of Genesis as a document varied from the normal, generic allocation given to all religious texts, and from this pov it is also scientific - which does not mean it must allign with every premise deemed scientific by anyone's particular understanding. Better, that it is a view which has differences but remains a logical and independent view wherever it differs. What we call science today, are not all factual or mutally agreed upon by all scientists, and this also contains scientific beliefs which are unproven, inconsistant, deflective and unknown. Here, there are things which can impact and render some answers for science - eg, the premise of a 'duality' at the source of life origins; that life's design is precedent to external evolutionary impacts and is reliant on the parent host seed; that humans constitute a separate classification and this is not based on skelatal separations; and speech is varied from communications seen in all other life forms and thus outside of any evolutionary process. That such premises differ from one's understanding does not render it unscientific by any means. Genesis should be better viewed as an independent document from other religious texts - and if one cannot do so, it requires deliberation and debate, if the paranoia of casting all religious sounding texts can be abated. Genesis, it should be remembered, is 2000 years older than today's prominent religions, and the aspect of creation is not discussed in other theological texts, certainly not with a set of bold specifics and a detailed process as with Genesis. Also, I am not presenting Genesis as a theology, but as a scientific treatise - I do not share the view of some here, that it does not belong in a science thread, nor have I responded unscientifically to any science issues. Creationism and Monotheism are not unscientific premises, when seen in the document which introduced these premises: Genesis is not talking about a personalised diety, but declares the Creator as unseen and unprovable, but existent - this alligns with all sciences and knowledge today, and thus wholly vindicated - with no opposing scenario. Monotheism is proposed by science in another form [the quest for an indivisable/irreducable entity/GUF]; Creationism/Creator being a logical 'cause and effect' premise, though not provable, but without any opposing scenario at hand. IOW, there is no option than attending what is said in genesis as a legitimate counter to atheistic science - on a scientific basis, and this is only viable with one document.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
What I said/meant was that excellent writing is a mark of wisdom, and what is true must be independently determined. There is no contradiction here. Wisdom and proof are separate but alligned, and both have to be respected; one should not conclude irespectively.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Obviously yes, because science is making a declaration as a constant, specially a new view against the grain of what was previously held - this must be vindicated, else it is not science. By the same token, some factors require more than science as the determining factor, while still under the hammer of requiring proof and vindication. One is never obligated to follow anything which they sinserely do not hold as true or correct - the operative factor being 'sincerely' [honestly, and to the best of one's ability].
quote: Science is a sacred institution, being non-biased and the closest thing to truth. Yet it is subject to error and corruption, equally as any other faculty, including its application of verification. Thus a sound premise can overide science, specially where proof is not available or possible. IMHO, science is about the B to Z, namely post-creation, and does not apply outside this factor [Genesis, incidently, begins with the second alphabet]. What does relate to the first alphabet or a pre-creation, is also not answerable, but in some instances scientific verification does not apply. When we cannot prove either way, for or against, other tools and faculties come into play, such as a sound premise. eg: We cannot prove the universe was created, or brought about by a supreme mind - but its antithesis is an unsound, unscientific premise. We have a choice here of not believing in a Creator - which becomes legitimate when one has sinserely considered the issue. However, if we decide there is no Creator and propose other, equally unsound premises - such as a complexity resulted by itself or from a random foundation - we have to prove this premise also. When proof is not available either side - only the sound premise will help. There are distortions of equal magnitude on both these paths: all of science and all religious beliefs cannot be right - because they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Currently, the distortions of science are at the forefront, while those of religions are seen as understood but which cannot be helped.
quote: I see a problem in using darwinian speciation as applicable in primal, original overviews, and that it pertains only to sub-groupings which can entail many further layers. A rough analogy would be casting human ethnic groups [chinese, mexicans,etc] as fulcrum divisions of life forms, as opposed sub-groups. the difference between canine animals and feline animals are sub-groups, while the land based grouping is the transcendent grouping factor here. This means genesis is correct, and darwin is not wrong - 'when seen as a sub-group' division.
quote: The issue of primal, creation-viewed divisions has nothing to do with biology, because biology is not a primal factor but a subset view; its not about which life form has protruding lobes and upright structures, but which has a transcendent factor above these divisions. View the planet and its life forms as though you are witnessing its original formation and take notes: biology would not figure here.
quote: I say, prove something by the provables; what are listed as miracles should not be the criteria - specially not when these are presented as miracles [above nature] and not natural phenomena subject to science verification. Having said that, the Noah story is blazenly misrepresented, and subsequent to a less than adequate comprehension of the text. This was a regional flood with domestic animals only: the intro verse to the story preambles it applies to Noah and his household [family and possessions]. When one considers it properly, it cannot ever apply to the world, but rather only the then known world: this is grammatically vindicated, with further inferences in the text. Had the text been discussing the whole world as we know it now - it would correctly incur a grammatical blemish: it does not suffer this error, and its expressionism of the whole earth is well vindicated and acceptable. The writings must be read as subjective to its designated subject, in the subject's spacetime - not one which is 5,500 years apart. Equally, our conclusions today would not apply 5,500 years in the future: perhaps six new planets may be incorporated as humanity's spheare of relevence 5500 years from now - the ratio between us and Noah. What's next - the splitting of the sea?
quote: I see it as all life forms which are land based are one kind; those which fall into transitory groups are catered to, and do not pose a negation of the premise. Certainly, there may be forms of life as yet not discovered or imagined, or some life forms may be connected with points we never associated them with previously.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024