Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evidence of evolution in the bible?
Green44
Junior Member (Idle past 5099 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-23-2010


Message 1 of 22 (551689)
03-23-2010 7:33 PM


Well to start I think most people know about the snake in the bible.
I do not want to discus talking snakes or a punished snake.,
Anyone who knows nothing about the snakes Fossil record I am sorry but I am not going to explain it.
This leads me to think that the man that wrote this small part of text had been influenced by science and/or a fossil record.
A past civilization that got to the point in science where they understood the fossil record as well as we do today,.and,....... they had been reduced to nothing after the great flood,. Then wrote about it in a vary Bias way. It would be a new start with out science to influence free thinking. a code of laws and warning to help us prepare for the next end of days. History proves to us that many great leaders of people are anything but nice.
I must stress that finding such proof of a past civilization would be impossible if it had all been tossed under the ocean.The time it takes the Ocean to decay things is frightfully fast. so after 4000? 6000? or more years would surly have eaten all evidence.
There is roads under the Ocean, its strange but, it seems only stone and earth can survive the test of time. And this proves nothing in terms of advanced people. whats your car look like after 5 years? old? rusty?
I only write this here in reason that I do think we had a past civilization that was advanced and it predates the bible. Everything in life has a history of evolution, animals , stars , Guns , swords , shoe's, the computer you are using,. It dont mater what it is, it has a common descent,.
But there is only one thing we know of that has no common descent, Our early technology. It simply is, with no past to explain it, I dont think we got visited by ancient astronauts I feel this is an insult to humans, we are much greater then that,.
thanks for reading,.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 03-24-2010 9:07 AM Green44 has not replied
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 9:51 AM Green44 has not replied
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 03-24-2010 1:55 PM Green44 has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 22 (551793)
03-24-2010 8:38 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the evidence of evolution in the bible? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 22 (551797)
03-24-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Green44
03-23-2010 7:33 PM


It doesn't require knowledge of the fossil record to know about snakes. Presumably, snakes were a part of people's everyday lives.
I do think that parts of Genesis were pre-scientific attempts to explain the world.
In Genesis 1, the world is as seen by a scientifically naive person. The heavens (just another word for the sky at that time) was seen as a domed ceiling. It was seen as having a luminosity independent of the sun, hence "let there be light" came before the sun. The sun, moon, stars were seen as fixtures attached to that ceiling. It describes water above the ceiling, presumably to account for the rain.
Of course, with today's science we can see that this is all wrong. Somehow the biblical literalists manage to come up with highly non-literal readings of Genesis 1, so as to allow themselves to remain in denial of the obvious fact that what it says is nonsense.
The Adam and Eve story was similar to the Kipling "Just So" stories. It was fiction, intended to give a pseudo-explanation of why humans seem different from other animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Green44, posted 03-23-2010 7:33 PM Green44 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 22 (551802)
03-24-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Green44
03-23-2010 7:33 PM


Elaborate the OP
There is roads under the Ocean, its strange but, it seems only stone and earth can survive the test of time.
There are what appears to be underwater roads, like the Bimini Road, that appear to be manmade structures that likely are natural formations according to most reputable geologists. There are other phenomenon around the world with similar characteristics like the Giant's Causway, that even in spite of its geometric structure, it is formed naturally and not by, say, giants, much less any other man.
The only underwater structure that really makes me wonder, and has for a long time, is the Yonaguni Monument. There seems to be good reason to at least consider the possibility that it was both manmade and was at one time above water and if that is so, that it is a very old structure.
I only write this here in reason that I do think we had a past civilization that was advanced and it predates the bible.
Yeah, sure, the Egyptians and Sumerians considerably predate the bible. They were already well established before the Israelites invaded Caanan and deposed the Caananites. They were quite advanced in comparison to other cultures that existed contemporaneously.
I am not seeing, however, where evolution or the bible ties in to your discussion. Can you please elaborate?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Green44, posted 03-23-2010 7:33 PM Green44 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 03-25-2010 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 22 (551844)
03-24-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Green44
03-23-2010 7:33 PM


Our early technology. It simply is, with no past to explain it, I dont think we got visited by ancient astronauts I feel this is an insult to humans, we are much greater then that,.
Is this your only reason for supposing that we had a previous advanced culture?
You also seem to forget that there is no evidence for a world wide flood so that at least blows your suggestion out of the water (excuse the pun).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Green44, posted 03-23-2010 7:33 PM Green44 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Green44, posted 03-24-2010 11:18 PM Larni has replied

  
Green44
Junior Member (Idle past 5099 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-23-2010


(1)
Message 6 of 22 (551875)
03-24-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Larni
03-24-2010 1:55 PM


Its not the only reason, I was trying to keep my wall of text simple but I had more then one reason in there.
There's evidence of floods ,. Its not hard to find. I choose the flood and/or a Raging sun. as its the most reasonable civilization crusher to have come in cycles.
The useless pelvis in the snake I feel took more then an uneducated glance at a given species. The bones are pretty old for them to have lived at the same time when said species used to walk.
I know about old world Sumerians ect ect,. I like to think of them as the generations shortly after the rebuilding. all the old world build super structures that , when ya think about it can protect you from the suns deadly rays, and could survive a great flood... stone and earth, stone and earth,. cant beat it,. you could put a pyramid on the moon, an it would block the deadly cosmic rays...
These people must have been aware of deadly rays, an floods.. they may look like graves today, but they could save you from a out of control sun,. and If a flood just rinsed the place, the pyramids might still stand. They look like doomsday shelters...more or less to save there rich bloodline..
Anyway,.. I don't mind getting debunked,.. if its real science debunking me, then its out of my control and I have to change what I think,. an well,..... thats ok

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 03-24-2010 1:55 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 03-25-2010 7:26 AM Green44 has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 22 (551885)
03-25-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
03-24-2010 9:51 AM


Re: Elaborate the OP
I do have one problem with modern archaeology. Once a date is set in stone, it's hard as hell to question it and be taken seriously. With all the crackpots around claiming biblical floods and alien abductions, I think mainstream archaeologists are afraid of even hinting that there could be something to ancient monuments that appeared to have been built before the end of the last ice age. Why? I think they're just afraid of being associated with the biblical and alien crackpots.
For now, I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility that civilization came about millenia before the official date.
And don't tell me that stone rings that go from land right into the sea were built after the end of the last ice age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 9:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phage0070, posted 03-25-2010 2:15 AM Taz has replied
 Message 9 by Green44, posted 03-25-2010 3:45 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-27-2010 9:35 AM Taz has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 22 (551892)
03-25-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
03-25-2010 12:45 AM


Re: Elaborate the OP
Taz writes:
Once a date is set in stone, it's hard as hell to question it and be taken seriously.
The problem is questioning it based on little more than flights of fancy. Archaeologists don't just pull dates out of their rear, they have hard data backing their claims up. The same thing counts for geologists who say that a given formation is naturally occurring.
If you want to be taken seriously you need to have qualifications, hard data, and a reasonable explanation. If you lack even one of those it is unlikely that you will be taken seriously, and for good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 03-25-2010 12:45 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 03-25-2010 9:44 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Green44
Junior Member (Idle past 5099 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-23-2010


Message 9 of 22 (551897)
03-25-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
03-25-2010 12:45 AM


Re: Elaborate the OP
I see no problems with rock dates, I went down the rabbit hole after learning about carbon 14 an stuff,. It turns out that they use close to 40 methods to date a rock then cross reference the data.
I allso found in the same rabbit hole that sediment layers are made horizontal and it can effect fossil dates,. but this is just a matter of old an young dates still,. its a horizontal wave pattern of all things,..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exxtkN8610&feature=PlayL...
this video can give you the idea..
If it was not for the fact that anything we can think of can be put into a list of common descent I would think the the Fossil theory is flawed,. and it might be,. But I cant overlook how the concept has been used,. Our table of elements blows me away,. and star formation,. A real obvious one is the evolution of the rifle,. just amazing to see,. and read about. Its hard to think the Human race has no common descent in a universe that makes it so obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 03-25-2010 12:45 AM Taz has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 10 of 22 (551913)
03-25-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Green44
03-24-2010 11:18 PM


There is evidence of floods, that's true: but a world wide flood? I think not.
About the snake not having legs: my 10 year old nephew once asked me: "what happened to the snake's legs?". My other 9 old nephew piped up with "They must have fell off".
If two kids can surmise that snakes may have had legs it does not mean a great deal that a bronze age man could have thought the same thing. After all most land a imals have legs.
Your point about the Sumarian civilizations being after the flood does not hold water as the deluge was mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh which a) predates the bible and b) references the deluge as yet to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Green44, posted 03-24-2010 11:18 PM Green44 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Green44, posted 03-25-2010 3:19 PM Larni has replied

  
Green44
Junior Member (Idle past 5099 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-23-2010


Message 11 of 22 (551977)
03-25-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Larni
03-25-2010 7:26 AM


Well I never did say world wide flood..The energy it would take for one single event like that is unrealistic. I think more along the line of many smaller events that came in cycles. some of witch would land a crushing blow to technology .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 03-25-2010 7:26 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 3:29 PM Green44 has not replied
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 03-25-2010 4:28 PM Green44 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 12 of 22 (551978)
03-25-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Green44
03-25-2010 3:19 PM


Why? Where?
some of witch would land a crushing blow to technology .
The Nile flooded yearly, but Egypt continued to advance. There may have been a huge flood in the Black Sea basin, but that area did not contain all of the worlds technology of the time. Was there cataclysmic elsewhere; Mesopotamia, China, Indus river valley, Mediterranean?
I think your premise needs to show some facts behind it before you can make a categorical assertion like this. I do not see the evidence for the assertion at all.
Where is the evidence that some sort of advanced technology existed and then disappeared? Supposition?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Green44, posted 03-25-2010 3:19 PM Green44 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2010 5:12 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 13 of 22 (551987)
03-25-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Green44
03-25-2010 3:19 PM


This sounds very like the plot of one of David Gemmel's 'Sipstrassi' novels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Green44, posted 03-25-2010 3:19 PM Green44 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 22 (551993)
03-25-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Theodoric
03-25-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Why? Where?
Where is the evidence that some sort of advanced technology existed and then disappeared? Supposition?
There is this one thing I heard of:
The Piri Reis map
Supposedly it has the coast of Antartica mapped out centuries before it was discovered. And the kicker is that its supposedly the map of the land under the ice and not a map of the ice itself.
This would indicate global exploration technology well before current history suggests.
The wiki article doesn't talk much about that but this site has a blip:
World-Mysteries.com
Most people doubt it though.
But lets not hijack this thread and make it all about that map. I just wanted to show you something that might suggest ancient advanced technology that I thought was neat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 3:29 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 5:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 22 (551997)
03-25-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2010 5:12 PM


Re: Why? Where?
But lets not hijack this thread and make it all about that map.
But since you present it as evidence lets address it.
It is not at all relevant. You might want to read the full Wiki article.
Pirei Reis map is not from some sort of preclassical culture. No matter what anyone wants to suggest. Modern analysis has explained quite well where the the sources for this map came from.
This book The Piri Reis map of 1513 effectively destroys any of the arguments, made by Charles Hapgood, that this map is from some unknown preclassical culture.
Your other source actually debunks the whole idea that the Piri Reis map is preclassical.
Here you go
quote:
Not a map from some ancient Atlantean civilization, not a map created by extraterrestrials, but a first class piece of naval intelligence. Considering that it was created by a sailor whose country never participated in the age of exploration, and that it's drawn wholly from second-hand sources, it's an astonishing piece of work. It seems to contain up-to-the-minute details derived from enemy maps, many of which would have been tightly-guarded secrets.
Next.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2010 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024