Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 121 of 310 (682627)
12-04-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 7:32 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.
Good - now we can move on to the geological eras:
There is no connection between the number of geological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
Do you agree with this?
OR am I going to have to spend another 11 posts explaining your cherry picking and confirmation bias, to finally have you claim that no connection was implied?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 7:32 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:04 PM Panda has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 122 of 310 (682629)
12-04-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Panda
12-04-2012 8:32 AM


Re: Selective learning
Well, your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.
We differ on whether it is I or the scientists I quoted, who claim these sources enumerate 7 events, whether they do so by using the ruler of Time, draw charts, create graphic organizers, and list seven Eras.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 8:32 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 123 of 310 (682642)
12-04-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
We differ on whether it is I or the scientists I quoted, who claim these sources enumerate 7 events, whether they do so by using the ruler of Time, draw charts, create graphic organizers, and list seven Eras.
Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong.
It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true.
And from your silence, I assume that you accept the rest of my post where I accurately describe your cherry picking.
Good - we are getting somewhere at last.
Your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:45 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:21 PM Panda has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 310 (682643)
12-04-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 5:51 PM


No, you get the idea but
Why are they lined up differently before?
they are lined up like this:
That didn't really help at all. The colorful charts don't really provide much explanation for what's going on in the era so we can't really compare to what's going on in the day in the Bible.
Anyways, here's a couple that I think have problems.
Day 3
quote:
9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
Day three has seed and fruit bearing plants and trees emerging.
You have:
quote:
3. Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-
and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day
There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time. According to wiki:
quote:
The Proterozoic is a geological eon representing the time just before the proliferation of complex life on Earth.
...
The first advanced single-celled, eukaryotes and multi-cellular life, Francevillian Group Fossils, roughly coincides with the start of the accumulation of free oxygen. This may have been due to an increase in the oxidized nitrates that eukaryotes use, as opposed to cyanobacteria. It was also during the Proterozoic that the first symbiotic relationships between mitochondria (for nearly all eukaryotes) and chloroplasts (for plants and some protists only) and their hosts evolved.
Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants.
So there's a discrepancy.
Also, Day 7.
You have this:
quote:
7. Quaternary evening of the Cenozoic Era-
and the Recent Epoch morning of the Common Era/ = Seventh Day
Corresponding with this:
quote:
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Those don't line up at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:51 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 131 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 125 of 310 (682647)
12-04-2012 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Re:Mnemonic learning
Hi kofh,
kofh2u writes:
In the desert, before the Torah was written down, they did this so they could use the space on the fingers for a Loci Memory System to remember the Oral Torah and keep the facts straight:
How do you know when the Torah was written down?
Prior to 585 BC the Hebrew alphabet was what is in my profil picture.
This is the alphabet that Moses would have used to write the Torah.
Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 5:31 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:10 PM ICANT has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 126 of 310 (682657)
12-04-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Panda
12-04-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.
Good - now we can move on
Yes, as you agreed for argument sake, we could choose to make the list of seven longer than the six science sources to which I referenced my assertion in Gen 1:1.
We ought move on, with the understanding that "In the beginning" is in essence a 1362BC direct concrete statement that the Universe was not always there but had a beginning.
The connection with the general seven (7) details we have been calling "eras", as referenced by the six science sources to which I have brought your attention, above, however, spell out what we have discovered since @ 1940AD.
The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.
But let the thread show that what I have told you has been referenced by science sources regardless of your own preferences to enumerate the stages differently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 8:38 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 1:48 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 127 of 310 (682660)
12-04-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ICANT
12-04-2012 10:24 AM


Re: Re:Mnemonic learning
How do you know when the Torah was written down?
Prior to 585 BC the Hebrew alphabet was what is in my profil picture.
This is the alphabet that Moses would have used to write the Torah.
Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah?
WOW.
You certainly inferred a lot and put an argument out against the mere claim that at some time, the Torah was, obviously, written down.
I claimed that there was a time before that, around 1362BC I will specify now, when the tradition of the Jews says an Oral Torah existed.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2012 10:24 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2012 9:52 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 128 of 310 (682661)
12-04-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Panda
12-04-2012 9:51 AM


Re: Selective learning
Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong.
It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true.
Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references.
I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them.
I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas.[/B]
These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials.
As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present.
They are useful to back me up.
But you can start a thread which questions the wisdom of these authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 12-04-2012 9:51 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Eli, posted 12-04-2012 7:25 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 129 of 310 (682666)
12-04-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2012 9:52 AM


Why are they lined up differently before?
What post number are you referring to?
These have always been lined up the same way.
However, the mention of these historical events that are measured out in the rocks as an unfolding history of the earth has progressively become a little more closely examined.
back a page or so, I posted the six major rock layers and their subdivisions so we could be clear about these six evenings and mornings.
You are referencing them here.
"The colorful charts don't really provide much explanation for what's going on in the era so we can't really compare to what's going on in the day in the Bible."
So, apparently, that is our next job, to see at what point in each of these "days" the evening ends and the morning began.
I would bring your attention to a number of rather obvious points of agreement between historical events within one or another of these 6 major rock layers and what is reported to us in Genesis.
Rodinia (the first Pangea-like event), mentioned in Genesis 1:9 as an event, where "all the waters under the heaven were collected together into one place" is said to occur on the "Proterozoic morning" of the third 'day.'"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2012 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 130 of 310 (682667)
12-04-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kofh2u
12-03-2012 7:49 PM


The scientific grouping of these parts to the "day" is sub-divided into parts, like the dawn, morning, afternoon, and evening.
Ahh, so when there are more divisions than you want you lump them together in order to get the answer you want.
Arbitrary much?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:49 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 131 of 310 (682669)
12-04-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2012 9:52 AM


There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time.
Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants.
Remember that this Bible interpretation condones the theory of evolution which tells us that in one series of very early Spontaneous Generations of first life, (bacteria, explicitly), the seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom were created.
With the cravat in mind, you can understand that the gradually appearance from of the more complex life forms would be historically reported throughout all the subsequent eras after the Meso/Eo-archean morning of the third "day."
(NOTE: to critics who would prefer the Six Kingdom System we must note that Genesis speaks only of Two Kingdoms, specisically mentioning only Plants and Animal.)
Does that help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2012 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2012 1:38 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 134 by Coragyps, posted 12-04-2012 5:16 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 136 by Eli, posted 12-04-2012 8:03 PM kofh2u has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 132 of 310 (682673)
12-04-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 1:03 PM


There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time.
Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants.
Remember that this Bible interpretation condones the theory of evolution which tells us that in one series of very early Spontaneous Generations of first life, (bacteria, explicitly), the seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom were created.
With the cravat in mind, you can understand that the gradually appearance from of the more complex life forms would be historically reported throughout all the subsequent eras after the Meso/Eo-archean morning of the third "day."
That's an utterly ridiculous and desperate stretch. The Bible says "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."
That is not talking about bacteria, which didn't come from the land, are not "vegetation", and do not bear fruit.
And this "interpretation" of your's exposes your true motive: to twist the Bible into saying anything it has to in order to maintain consistency with modern science. That's not only dishonest but its terrible theology. You're basically just lying to yourself so you can maintain your delusion of an accurate Bible. Grow up.
Your theory has been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 1:03 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 133 of 310 (682676)
12-04-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
Yes, as you agreed for argument sake, we could choose to make the list of seven longer than the six science sources to which I referenced my assertion in Gen 1:1.
No. I greed to skip one era for argument's sale.
But, as long as you admit that your claims about geological eras are refuted, we can move on...
...or not.
kofh2u writes:
The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.
Have you forgotten already?
There are more than 7 cosmological eras!
The links you provided are to geological eras - NOT cosmological eras.
The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras.
So - now I have to repeat:
There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
kofh2u writes:
But let the thread show that what I have told you has been referenced by science sources regardless of your own preferences to enumerate the stages differently.
And let the thread show that the only way you can support your claims about cosmological eras is by intentionally ignoring more than half of the eras.
In fact, you admitted that not only was there no connection between the cosmological eras and the number 7, but you denied claiming that there was: "nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied."
Could you possibly make up your mind?
There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.
Do you agree or not?
Because you are currently contradicting yourself:
kofh2u writes:
The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.
directly contradicts:
kofh2u writes:
"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:04 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 8:41 PM Panda has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 134 of 310 (682692)
12-04-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 1:03 PM


Bacteria (or Archaea, for that matter) are not the "seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom" any more than they are "seeds" of animals. They are prokaryotes. Plants and animals are a couple of examples of eukaryotes, and appear to be the result of parasitisms/symbioses involving the first two. You're about a half-century behind high-school biology, kofh.
Does that help?
Not significantly.
Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 1:03 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 135 of 310 (682699)
12-04-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kofh2u
12-04-2012 12:21 PM


Re: Selective learning
kofh2u writes:
Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references.
I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them.
I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas.
These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials.
As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present.
They are useful to back me up.
The sources you have provided disprove your claim.
And it is obvious you have done no further research into these matters than looking up charts using google images.
You keep saying "the scientists."
What scientists? What are their names, degrees, papers, peer reviewed works, ect?
You can't point to a blog or present pictures that you have ADDED TO, cropped, left off relevant information in order to give incomplete information that is supposed to confirm your claim, but doesn't.
We have six days of creation, yet most of the charts you present are of at least 8 eras AND the ones that are 7 are NUMBERED WRONG, with the exception of one picture that is from Time magazine showcasing a children's book.
You have given zero accceptible sources that actually agree with your claim, so when others disagree with you, it has no bearing on whether the reject science, because the actual science is not even included in your argument. What you are presenting is clear to be solely your own ideas. You have given no evidence that supports your claim and the appeal to the ever more vague "scientists" with unmentioned credentials has utterly failed you. You have nothing to back you up.
I call POE.
Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kofh2u, posted 12-04-2012 12:21 PM kofh2u 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