My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

quote:

---

Now either put up or shut up.

---

I did! We have C14 datings for relics found in Israel, as an example. However, these relics, aside from C14, are also backed by a host of on the ground evidences which align themselves to the conclusion of C14, in their original dating and in a thread of graduated evidences since that time - with no vacuums.Please show us equal proof of a 30K year cave painting or 60K year natives from Australia - in accordance with the above criteria. If you cannot - and you absolutely cannot, then how about aligning those C14 datings with some circumstantial trace evidences - like population counts of 60K speech endowed humans, whose pops should be around six trillion today? How about a few other French cave paintings say 10K years ago? Am I being too abnoxious for you - or making reasonable requests?We can safely prempt here: you have no coins, relics, moniments, nations, kings, names - you have nothing - zero - outside C14 assessments, which are notoriously insufficient of small margin accuracies. How come?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now either put up or shut up.

---

Actually, you are guilty of your own accusation: you have not responded to any of the criteria put to you in the last six posts! You have only played leap frog and made new unrelated demands.

quote:

---

So the C14 method works when it supports relics from Israel, but not when it supports other events in the past?

---

C14 is not proof by itself, especially so when making extraordinary claims of a 30K year elaborate color painting, with no traces of anything else for that whole period outside of C14 conclusions - in fact everything else contradicts it. The example given of this in an Israel relic is a classic one. 20 years ago, King David was deemed a myth by a host of archeologists, and Jericho was rejected as per the Hebrew texts: those scholars will never recover from their shame. The fundamental things apply, not a one-eyed jack view.

Where does it say that swarms are life that cannot be seen by naked eyes? Winged fowls did not exist until after the most primitive mammals existed. The first winged creatures were ancestors of current dragonflies & mayflies in the carboniferous. Winged fowls in the Jurassic. Mammals from the Triassic. The order is wrong.

quote:

---

'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth

---

Ancient writing meanings require study. Small stated twice has a specific meaning; a name mentioned twice consecutvely has a connotation of affection and welcoming; etc. Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small]. There is no other way of describing nano life forms in an ancient text.The first winged creatures were derivitive to life forms which extended out of the ocean; land based dinosaurs thus emerged after winged airborne kinds.The fundamental factor, more so than one's own interpretation of the details, is that such life form groupings are the first introduction of its kind, and thus an advanced view of the planet. There is absolutely no error in the texts.

quote:

---

As for the Temple, it was not destroyed by Babylon, but by the Chaldeans who made their capital at Babylon, after conquering the Assyrians who had previously conquered the Babylonians.

---

Yes; the Chaldeans [Assyrians] were vasal states of Babylon; the exile was made to Babylon, where the Jews met the first figures of a group which later became the Arab race [not to be confused with Arabians]. The point of the temple was to evidence that it was standing before the Babylonian invasion, thus the Hebrew writings is obviously older than that date, an indicator its point of dating origins is becoming more aligned as time goes by and new relics unearthed, with that given in the texts itself. I know of no other writings of this period which can match such evidences anywhere in the world.

quote:

---

No chemist in any lab anywhere in the world could ever cause a reaction to occur that would not be able to occur naturally.

---

Define 'naturally'. Of note there is no such thing as nature in actuality. I prefer the term:
THERE IS NOTHING NEW.

quote:

---

This is a lot of arbitrary definitions assigned to not very specific passages. "Swarms" = "nano life forms"? Why not schools of fish? Why not groups of insects?

​

If I asked a biblical scholar 1000 years ago what "swarms" referred to, he would have answered me with certainty. AND, his certainty would not include any "nano life forms".

---

Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano as per the state of knowledge of this generation. Sorry to surprise you so much.

quote:

---

So, you believe that NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANY work of art without art being their "vocation"?

​

Laughable.

---

I never even alluded to that - that is your own twist. I don't accept an advanced artistic work when no artists or art yet exists. Its like finding Picaso on Mars.

quote:

---

So, you believe that it is easier to force a change in radioactive decay (something that no one has ever been able to do) than it is for forge a piece of currency (something that people have been doing for as long as there has been currency).

---

speciation; cross-speciation comes from Genesis, not ToE.A life form can follow its kind, and the kinds [specie] are categorized by terrain. This says that a land based life form can follow another land based life form.Genesis goes further, by seperating one land based life form from the trillions of others, namely the speech endowed one is categorized as a seperate life form. This is vindicated: humans are unique to the ratio of ONE against trillions of others by speech.Amazing not?!Natural Selection.If one asks what is NS they will pour down a whole lot of gibberish, which when examined will fail all the way to the bank. Does anyone wish to describe how NS is dealt with in Genesis?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Setting aside you appear fanatically predisposed to your deep auto rejection of EVERYTHING stated, I can only put down for other sane posters, the life form groupings is introduced in Genesis [not Darwin!], in their correct protocol [waterborne life is listed before airborne life and numerous transit life are mentioned], and that humans are listed as the final grouping. This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye. I imagine now you will deflect to questioning the use of my term 'naked eye' - that is how every post has been seen by you. You have a problem.

quote:

---

You are reading into this.

---

There is only one reading of it possible. Else the text becomes incoherent with superfluous words. The Hebrew grammar is the epitome of writing, transcending Shakespeare and Isaiah. The term nano was my 'legitimate' input.

quote:

---

The storytellers who concocted the Genesis story,

---

Your proof? Any even miniscule evidence of your claim, notwithstanding it is a deflection from the issue, which remains viable of any selected dating?

quote:

---

knew nothing of life that was too small to see.

---

They knew how to write in advanced alphabetical books - show us another equivalence of people who knew nothing - or check the Nobels listing?

quote:

---

The idea of swarm was such things as locusts which were a problem to the primitive humans. Swarm doesn't mean small, it means a large number of like things. Humans can form a swarm.

---

Its 'swarm of swarms' - as in small of small. This cannot relate to mere small! Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

quote:

---

Yes; the Chaldeans [Assyrians] were vasal states of Babylon;

​

1) The Chaldeans were not Assyrians, they conquered the Assyrians.
2) they were not vassals of Babylon, they just made their capital at Babylon. The Babylonians had not been in power for nearly 1000 years before the destruction of the temple.

---

As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

quote:

---

Chaldean. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Look up chaldean in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

​

Chaldean (or Chaldian) may refer to:

​

Historical Babylon

---

quote:

---

That definition of "swarm" is yours, it's not backed up by the text.

---

Here we go again! The term swarm is NOT mine but a translation from numerous levels of languages of a little understood Hebrew by peoples who never spoke Hebrew or possessed alphabetical advanced books. The term is not swarm but emphasized as 'swarm of swarm' - it is indiisputably referring to small of small - small as can be - extremely small, which is the only reading and in its correct context here. Nor do you understand the term 'nano' was yet not invented.I would say many anti-Genesis folk are actually astonished to learn what they never knew here and find it unacceptable their wrong understandings are being crrected and exposed.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Play devil's deciple and assume everything in Genesis is correct. Then measure it against today's accepted science. It will be seen no writings even near its time comes close to correct science, and nothing has ever been disproven. Disregard the insane rebutters who invent antithetical readings - they have all been proven wrong in everything they said of this writings and this continues. This includes the greatest scholars, while the greatest scientific minds have aligned with Genesis in some form!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Bacteria. Main articles: Swarming motility and Microbial intelligenceSwarm behaviour - WikipediaSwarming is also used to describe groupings of some kinds of bacteria such as myxobacteria. Myxobacteria swarm together in "wolf packs", actively moving using a process known as bacterial gliding and keeping together with the help of intercellular molecular [[signal trC. Allison and C. Hughes. Bacterial swarming: an example of procaryotic differentiation and multicellular behaviour. Sci. Progress, 75:403—422, 1991. ansduction|signals].[92]

quote:

---

can refer to any large closely spaced grouping consisting of anything from atomic particles to stars.

---

"Examine your contradictory terms:

quote:

---

"Use of the word swarm does not imply anything about the size of the individual elements of the swarm."

---

Swarms can of course relate to small - as in bacteria which is not seen by the naked eye. Bacteria and virus are both identifiable elsewhere in the text, in the case of contagious and infectous maligansies like leprosy, which is both incurable and resultant from life forms too small to see - in ancient times.The small life forms would have no meaning to an ancient world - it is slanted at this modern generation and very well done. An intelligent reading must factor in how the descriptions suits all generations - a feat in itself.

I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.Where is the equivalent list of life forms in Egypt or any other writings?

quote:

---

These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

---

How do such statements pass w/o any response! Hebrew alphabets have been found dated 1000 BCE; king David has been proven, even where he wrote different psalms - all in alphabetical prose which have not dated any today. David is a mere 250 years from Moses. You should post your evidence when making such statements.

quote:

---

Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

​

The storytellers knew of locusts. Locusts and other winged creatures appeared in the carboniferous, millions of years before the storytellers. is a large conglomeration of a particular thing and a swarm of swarms ids simply a swarm of swarms of other things.

---

Even allowing your premise, it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures. How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?

quote:

---

As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

​

What allies? The destroyer of the Temple was the Chaldean Empire, who had overthrown the Assyrians. The Babylonians hadn't been in power for nearly 1000 years prior to the destruction of the temple.

---

My understanding is the Babylonian empire was at its peak at this time, as was Rome later. Babylon was conquered by Persia, which allowed the Jews to return from Babylon [Mesopotamia; Iraq] and rebuild the destroyed temple - this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries. It is also where the re-Islamic peoples learnt of Monotheism and Judaism.