It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ignorance and God

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
I understand what you are saying and would agree with that process but that is not what I meant. Take for instance the Lucy dating. It was the dating that changed, not Lucy.


You'd need to give me better details to understand exactly what changed. Lucy is dated at between 3 and 4 million years, no?

I wouldn't be surprised it was just the difference between methods. Some give relative dates, some give more specific dates.

Moreover, techniques have improved over time. So, if a date from the 1970s has been updated, not really an issue.


By the same methods we have discussed, which is why I don't quote a date for the age of the earth at all. There is no doubt in my mind that earth is ancient - exactly how old it is I don't know. Your quote of 4.6 billion years is acceptable to me as I don't know. My point is that it doesn't disagree with the account God gives.


But whether it agrees with your book or not should not be the guiding factor. That's why your approach is not evidence-based.

The techniques to date the earth are generally the same as those used to date fossils. But in one instance you deny the evidence because your book says otherwise, but accept the same methods when your book doesn't speak to a particular claim.

So, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much evidence I could show you, the book of myths would win every time. Why even bother asking me to explain various aspects of evolution? I just presented a pile of evidence of modern humans dating well past 14,000 years and you disregard it.

You might as well state 'my book says x therefore you are wrong'. Do you think your book is inerrant or something?



1. I understand what you have termed as evolving with the Italian gene. It is not becoming a separate species. It may mutate within people but the people do not become something else as in ape becomes man. When I speak of evolution that is what I mean, the evolution of man from ape or one animal species into another.


It is still evolution. It is the one and the same. What you are doing is comparable to denying the existence of years but accepting seconds. Over very long periods of time, little changes become big changes. Just like lots of seconds become hours, days, and even years.

Do you expect to see himalayan mountains appear before your eyes to agree that they were gradually raised by plate tectonics?


2. I would expect that if evolution (ape to man) was true then it would be a continuing process. There are still apes, there is still man and there are no in betweens. Fossils are ape or are man.


This betrays quite a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no target. There is no reason why a chimp should evolve into a man in the next few million years. It is populations that evolve, not individuals.

There are also lots of fossils between humans and lucy.


A is modern chimp, N is modern human.

Tell me where you make the dividing line? That's homonid fossils spanning over almost 4 million years.


3. I didn't phrase that well. What I mean is how did one piece of evolutionary material work out evolving into a male while another piece evolved into a female (animal, human, whatever) at the same time so they could procreate and have offspring? If they didn't do that at the same time would not the species simply die off?


I would have thought they'd have evolved together. Like most evolutionary changes, it would not have been asexual -> sexual in a single step.

Although, it is an area we have some ideas for, but no real certainity. Basically because it is likely to have happened very early in evolution. Even bacteria swap genes, so it is likely that asexual species gradually specialised into sexual species. For example, yeast can reproduce by either method, but sexual reproduction allows faster evolutionary change.



4. I do mean transitionals (thank you). My point is where are they now. For evolution to be a fact it must be a continous process. Where are the "living" transitionals? To me, we would see a constant state of flux in the process.


All species are potentially living transitionals.



Of course science gets along fine....I was speaking about you adding more about Him.


Heh, I wouldn't waste the effort in trying to convert me. I have little time for such non-entities.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

 


You'd need to give me better details to understand exactly what changed. Lucy is dated at between 3 and 4 million years, no?


No, my reference was to the man that discovered her going through 22 processes of dating before the one he approved of was IT!


WW - By the same methods we have discussed, which is why I don't quote a date for the age of the earth at all. There is no doubt in my mind that earth is ancient - exactly how old it is I don't know. Your quote of 4.6 billion years is acceptable to me as I don't know. My point is that it doesn't disagree with the account God gives.

Mel - But whether it agrees with your book or not should not be the guiding factor. That's why your approach is not evidence-based.


Agreeing with the Book is the guiding factor to me. I know how that sounds to a scientifically minded person but it is what it is.


The techniques to date the earth are generally the same as those used to date fossils. But in one instance you deny the evidence because your book says otherwise, but accept the same methods when your book doesn't speak to a particular claim.


I understand that and agree with it being ancient, as Lucy is ancient but not man's ancestor. I don't put an age date on it because I don't know the methods used are infallible...actually evidence points to the fact that they aren't. The earth is ancient and we can make it millions or billions. The actual date doesn't matter to me.

The earth is ancient, animals and plant life are ancient but man is not, at least not in the flesh. He was here in that ancient time but not in a flesh and blood body and for that reason human (as we know human) bones are not found from that time.


So, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much evidence I could show you, the book of myths would win every time. Why even bother asking me to explain various aspects of evolution? I just presented a pile of evidence of modern humans dating well past 14,000 years and you disregard it.

You might as well state 'my book says x therefore you are wrong'. Do you think your book is inerrant or something?


I didn't see evidence for ancient man in what you presented. The numbers are just numbers as presented by man. I know you don't accept this but I do place "my book of myths" over anything man claims. It is infallible. It may contain things not yet understood or things that have been mistranslated but other than the part man stuck his nose in it is the Word of God and therefore, inerrant.


It is still evolution. It is the one and the same. What you are doing is comparable to denying the existence of years but accepting seconds. Over very long periods of time, little changes become big changes. Just like lots of seconds become hours, days, and even years.

Do you expect to see himalayan mountains appear before your eyes to agree that they were gradually raised by plate tectonics?


I believe that is playing word games. As I stated, the evolution I am speaking of is the jump of one species to another, as in animals. The Himalayan Mountains certainly took time to shift upward but they started out mountains (or earth and rocks) and at the end they are still mountains (earth and rocks).



WW - 2. I would expect that if evolution (ape to man) was true then it would be a continuing process. There are still apes, there is still man and there are no in betweens. Fossils are ape or are man.


Mel - This betrays quite a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no target. There is no reason why a chimp should evolve into a man in the next few million years....There are also lots of fossils between humans and lucy.


I agree that there is no reason why a chimp would evolve into man and any time schedule could be given.....there is still no reason. There may be many fossils between humans and Lucy but some are ape and others are human. No dividing line has to be made. You are looking at it from the persepective of them becoming human. I look at it from seeing apes and humans - separate beings, separate entities with no melding involved.



WW -
3. I didn't phrase that well. What I mean is how did one piece of evolutionary material work out evolving into a male while another piece evolved into a female (animal, human, whatever) at the same time so they could procreate and have offspring? If they didn't do that at the same time would not the species simply die off?

Mel -
I would have thought they'd have evolved together. Like most evolutionary changes, it would not have been asexual -> sexual in a single step.

Although, it is an area we have some ideas for, but no real certainity. Basically because it is likely to have happened very early in evolution. Even bacteria swap genes, so it is likely that asexual species gradually specialised into sexual species. For example, yeast can reproduce by either method, but sexual reproduction allows faster evolutionary change.


Bacteria may swap genes but you are asking me to believe that not only did humans begin in a primordial swamp but they eventually became animal and somehow at the same time stopped being asexual and became male and female in order to produce offspring. Oh, and along the way developed a moral code and emotions and love for fellow man with a thought process that enables them to achieve so many things? And you think I believe in myths?




All species are potentially living transitionals.


Where are their remains? With all the searching for fossils should we not have found numerous complete skeletal forms of "transitionals"in various stages. I don't believe your apes qualify for that - they are apes, not human. Because there are similar facial or body characteristics doesn't mean they are related.

Take for instance a can of Campbell's Soup. It contains all the amino acids needed for life but it will continue to be a can of dried up chicken soup at the end of a million years. Apes will continue to be apes at the end of a million years.

As far as trying to convert you....as you are trying to get me to understand science more I ask you to also open that scientific mind to your spiritual side. Both of us will benefit, I'm sure.


.......Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
No, my reference was to the man that discovered her going through 22 processes of dating before the one he approved of was IT!


You'll need to do better than that. Any support for this?


Agreeing with the Book is the guiding factor to me. I know how that sounds to a scientifically minded person but it is what it is.


Aye, it basically says to me that you are closed-minded.

What's the point of me carrying on? Why even bother discussing it? I have a busy life, and so the 10-20 minutes it might take me to respond to you is a waste of time, no?


I understand that and agree with it being ancient, as Lucy is ancient but not man's ancestor. I don't put an age date on it because I don't know the methods used are infallible...actually evidence points to the fact that they aren't. The earth is ancient and we can make it millions or billions. The actual date doesn't matter to me.

The earth is ancient, animals and plant life are ancient but man is not, at least not in the flesh. He was here in that ancient time but not in a flesh and blood body and for that reason human (as we know human) bones are not found from that time.


What does 'flesh and blood' body mean? Are you basically saying that homonids may have been around, even modern looking humans at dates of 190,000 years, but that they were not true human like you?


I didn't see evidence for ancient man in what you presented. The numbers are just numbers as presented by man.


Of course, it all just words and numbers on a forum. Are you suggesting that scientists are lying?

Even the Xian ones?


I know you don't accept this but I do place "my book of myths" over anything man claims. It is infallible. It may contain things not yet understood or things that have been mistranslated but other than the part man stuck his nose in it is the Word of God and therefore, inerrant.


Heh, yeah, of course it is. Unless it is actually compared to evidence.


I believe that is playing word games. As I stated, the evolution I am speaking of is the jump of one species to another, as in animals. The Himalayan Mountains certainly took time to shift upward but they started out mountains (or earth and rocks) and at the end they are still mountains (earth and rocks).


And DNA-based organisms are still DNA-based organisms. There is no jump, there is change over time. At no point did an ape-like ancestor give birth to a human. No jump. The rate of evolution may change. There may be periods when evolutionary change is slow, and periods where it is fast, but there is no species A -> species B in a single step.



I agree that there is no reason why a chimp would evolve into man and any time schedule could be given.....there is still no reason. There may be many fossils between humans and Lucy but some are ape and others are human. No dividing line has to be made. You are looking at it from the persepective of them becoming human. I look at it from seeing apes and humans - separate beings, separate entities with no melding involved.


Tell me which were the apes and which were the humans. Come on, it should be easy. Is habilis an ape? How about erectus? These dudes were around millions of years ago, never mind 190,000.



Bacteria may swap genes but you are asking me to believe that not only did humans begin in a primordial swamp but they eventually became animal and somehow at the same time stopped being asexual and became male and female in order to produce offspring. Oh, and along the way developed a moral code and emotions and love for fellow man with a thought process that enables them to achieve so many things? And you think I believe in myths?


Why even ask the question if you are just going to throw the 'you are asking me to believe evolution' hurdle? Of course I am. You were asking me to explain a concept within evolution.

Now you throw in more stuff. You are just obfuscating now. It was bad enough before by throwing non-sensical questions to me. I answered them. Now you want answers to more questions, we get further and further from the 14,000 year fantasy of yours all the time.



Where are their remains? With all the searching for fossils should we not have found numerous complete skeletal forms of "transitionals"in various stages. I don't believe your apes qualify for that - they are apes, not human. Because there are similar facial or body characteristics doesn't mean they are related.


We have much more than looking at their morphology to determine phylogeny. I'll let a more reality-based Xian explain just one line of molecular evidence for you:




We have loads of transitionals forms in the fossil record. How about whales...




Apes will continue to be apes at the end of a million years.


You have no evidence this would be the case. This is just an unsupported claim. You can't even support the 14,000 year claim, why should I even think you know what you are talking about here.


As far as trying to convert you....as you are trying to get me to understand science more I ask you to also open that scientific mind to your spiritual side. Both of us will benefit, I'm sure.


I've got an open-mind. You haven't. You have the conclusion before the evidence, which leads you to deny piles of good scientific evidence in favour of a book written thousands of years ago. I follow the evidence, like any good rational individual.

'Spiritual' side? I think I already have one. But it has nothing to do with your book of myths.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



No, my reference was to the man that discovered her going through 22 processes of dating before the one he approved of was IT!

You'll need to do better than that. Any support for this?


From the television program "Carl Baugh" and he stated it was from a March 1996 National Geographic. I assume, an article about the one that discovered Lucy, in which he admitted he was biased.


Agreeing with the Book is the guiding factor to me. I know how that sounds to a scientifically minded person but it is what it is.

Aye, it basically says to me that you are closed-minded. ...What's the point of me carrying on? Why even bother discussing it? I have a busy life, and so the 10-20 minutes it might take me to respond to you is a waste of time, no?


I hate to say this as I have enjoyed our discussion but it could well be a waste of our time. I used to be so open minded and gullible that I accepted anything a knowledgeable person taught. What you term closed-minded I believe is being certain, so certain I stake my soul on it. So, I hope we will be able to discuss topics but I will certainly understand if you cannot.


The earth is ancient, animals and plant life are ancient but man is not, at least not in the flesh. He was here in that ancient time but not in a flesh and blood body and for that reason human (as we know human) bones are not found from that time.

What does 'flesh and blood' body mean? Are you basically saying that homonids may have been around, even modern looking humans at dates of 190,000 years, but that they were not true human like you?


What I am saying is that there was an age before this one. That was the age of the dinosaurs. Satan, rebelled in that age and many of God's children followed him. Father, instead of killing His children, destroyed the age, not earth but the age. The earth was greatly shaken and flooded. Is that when the plates split apart and the earth tilted on it's axis? Perhaps.

We are the same spirit now as we were then and as we will be in the next age. The only change is that God created us in flesh to pass through this time on earth. The 14,000 years I have explained before as when this age began. So...yes, I am saying that either the dates are incorrect when dating humans or they are not human beings. That is based on "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". If that isn't correct then my calculations are also incorrect but it is what I have to go on and I trust it.

If you are at all interested or question the three ages of earth I can validate, Biblically of course. Just let me know.


Of course, it all just words and numbers on a forum. Are you suggesting that scientists are lying?...Even the Xian ones?


No, I'm not. I am suggesting that is what they believe but that does not make them right.


I know you don't accept this but I do place "my book of myths" over anything man claims. It is infallible. It may contain things not yet understood or things that have been mistranslated but other than the part man stuck his nose in it is the Word of God and therefore, inerrant.

Heh, yeah, of course it is. Unless it is actually compared to evidence.


What it comes down to is someone is wrong. Either the scientist are incorrect or God is.


I agree that there is no reason why a chimp would evolve into man and any time schedule could be given.....there is still no reason. There may be many fossils between humans and Lucy but some are ape and others are human. No dividing line has to be made. You are looking at it from the persepective of them becoming human. I look at it from seeing apes and humans - separate beings, separate entities with no melding involved.

Tell me which were the apes and which were the humans. Come on, it should be easy. Is habilis an ape? How about erectus? These dudes were around millions of years ago, never mind 190,000.


My answer to that would be the human ones may certainly be human but the dates given for their existence would be incorrect.



Why even ask the question if you are just going to throw the 'you are asking me to believe evolution' hurdle? Of course I am. You were asking me to explain a concept within evolution.

Now you throw in more stuff. You are just obfuscating now. It was bad enough before by throwing non-sensical questions to me. I answered them. Now you want answers to more questions, we get further and further from the 14,000 year fantasy of yours all the time.


Melatonin, those were not non-sensical. If evolution is true then they are valid questions that need to be answered. Too, you can throw out that I believe in myths and fantasies but I can't say "you are asking me to believe evolution"? Which do you believe was more harsh?

We may be getting more distant from the original topic but it isn't on purpose. One thing seems to lead to another.

I watched the two clips and they were interesting. I'll comment on them in the following post.


.........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




Where are their remains? With all the searching for fossils should we not have found numerous complete skeletal forms of "transitionals"in various stages. I don't believe your apes qualify for that - they are apes, not human. Because there are similar facial or body characteristics doesn't mean they are related.


We have much more than looking at their morphology to determine phylogeny. I'll let a more reality-based Xian explain just one line of molecular evidence for you:


Thank you for providing those two links. I'm afraid, as you know, genomes, etc. aren't something I'm at all familiar with although I enjoyed how he presented it. Even without my having any scientific acumen he clearly presented his case. However, I don't know the answer to the missing chromosome nor do I understand why he is certain it links us to the ape. Isn't it possible for both ape and man to have that feature? Why couldn't we have simply been designed that way?


We have loads of transitionals forms in the fossil record. How about whales...


If a flipper on a whale was once a hand or if the whale once walked on land, or lived in half water half land...he is still a whale. A different whale and one we may not recognize today but a whale nevertheless. The inner ear information was really interesting though.



Apes will continue to be apes at the end of a million years.

You have no evidence this would be the case. This is just an unsupported claim. You can't even support the 14,000 year claim, why should I even think you know what you are talking about here.


Well....you're right, I don't have evidence for that. I should have placed an I Believe in front of that sentence. The 14,000 year claim I do support but it is with biblical documentation and if that isn't something you believe you will consider it unsubstantiated.



As far as trying to convert you....as you are trying to get me to understand science more I ask you to also open that scientific mind to your spiritual side. Both of us will benefit, I'm sure.

I've got an open-mind. You haven't. You have the conclusion before the evidence, which leads you to deny piles of good scientific evidence in favour of a book written thousands of years ago. I follow the evidence, like any good rational individual.

'Spiritual' side? I think I already have one. But it has nothing to do with your book of myths.


I'm glad you do so forgive me for assuming you didn't. Please accept my apologies but I do wish you would stop calling it a book of myths.

There is one thing I would like to mention. You may find it of interest. A scientist, I believe his name is Maestro Paulo, states that the world is actually undergoing de-evolution instead of evolution. Things are winding down. His point was that since 1966 there have been 1,487 to 15,000 new genetic disorders. He also said that the first humans were much taller and had larger brains than modern man while Neanderthal was smaller and stockier, although he too had a larger brain than us.

Now, I don't know what dates he placed on the "first humans" or Neanderthal so I can't say if he is in your camp or mine. It's just something to think about.

............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
From the television program "Carl Baugh" and he stated it was from a March 1996 National Geographic. I assume, an article about the one that discovered Lucy, in which he admitted he was biased.


march '96?
i should have that one... i guess i'll have to look through my as of yet unpacked collection of national geographics later.

or through the online archives...
damn, they only go back to '97



I hate to say this as I have enjoyed our discussion but it could well be a waste of our time. I used to be so open minded and gullible that I accepted anything a knowledgeable person taught. What you term closed-minded I believe is being certain, so certain I stake my soul on it. So, I hope we will be able to discuss topics but I will certainly understand if you cannot.


but you're still being closed-minded. you're "so certain" that you're willing to ignore reality for the sake of your personal beliefs.



What I am saying is that there was an age before this one. That was the age of the dinosaurs.


ok, what about the billions of years prior to the arrival of dinosaurs?



Satan, rebelled in that age and many of God's children followed him. Father, instead of killing His children, destroyed the age, not earth but the age. The earth was greatly shaken and flooded. Is that when the plates split apart and the earth tilted on it's axis? Perhaps.


now you're adding superfluous superstition to events that can be explained by cosmology and geology.



We are the same spirit now as we were then and as we will be in the next age. The only change is that God created us in flesh to pass through this time on earth. The 14,000 years I have explained before as when this age began. So...yes, I am saying that either the dates are incorrect when dating humans or they are not human beings. That is based on "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". If that isn't correct then my calculations are also incorrect but it is what I have to go on and I trust it.


so you're saying that dating methods based on proven constants are incorrect because a book of myths written by bronze age nomads who ended up committing atrocious genocides in the name of a previously henotheistic mountain god to finally settle in the region of cannaan says that things can't be that old?

look at the dating methods, they're not 100% accurate, but they aren't going to be off by enough for it to matter.



If you are at all interested or question the three ages of earth I can validate, Biblically of course. Just let me know.


aye, but can ye validate the beliefs scientifically?



No, I'm not. I am suggesting that is what they believe but that does not make them right.


you're correct, the fact that they believe it isn't what makes it right, the evidence is what makes them right.



What it comes down to is someone is wrong. Either the scientist are incorrect or God is.


you're creating a false dichotomy. it's either your book is the absolute inerrant word of god and is wrong or science is wrong...
that's actually not the case. thousands of other arrogant religions have each tried to show how much they know about how the world was created and each one had a different story, any of those is just as valid as your idea.



My answer to that would be the human ones may certainly be human but the dates given for their existence would be incorrect.


again, you're saying that the dating methods are incorrect
are you saying that dinosaurs didn't stop existing 65 milllion years ago?
that date was figured out through the same concept of radiometric dating. do you dispute it?

it's quite obvious that the radiometric dating isn't wrong here, you are in error

do you even understand the dating methods that you're claiming are incorrect?



Melatonin, those were not non-sensical. If evolution is true then they are valid questions that need to be answered. Too, you can throw out that I believe in myths and fantasies but I can't say "you are asking me to believe evolution"? Which do you believe was more harsh?


mel isn't asking you to believe in anything but quite apparent reality that you're arrogantly stating is incorrect without a thorough examination of the evidence
now, to the contrary you believe in something that is essentially baseless make-believe that i cannot disprove, for that is the nature of make-believe things. that is the very definition of myth and fantasy.



We may be getting more distant from the original topic but it isn't on purpose. One thing seems to lead to another.


ok, now can you support that 14,000 year date without using the ol' bible?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Originally posted by whirlwind
From the television program "Carl Baugh" and he stated it was from a March 1996 National Geographic. I assume, an article about the one that discovered Lucy, in which he admitted he was biased.




march '96?
i should have that one... i guess i'll have to look through my as of yet unpacked collection of national geographics later.

or through the online archives...
damn, they only go back to '97



Hi Madness.....I only have a few minutes tonight to answer some of your questions but I'll have more time in the morning.


From the "tone" of your response about National Geographic I assume you think I'm making it up? You should know me better than that by now. I just wrote down what I heard. I don't know why you question it anyway as you already agreed that Lucy turned out to be a fake, so why do you question the validity of what I said?





I hate to say this as I have enjoyed our discussion but it could well be a waste of our time. I used to be so open minded and gullible that I accepted anything a knowledgeable person taught. What you term closed-minded I believe is being certain, so certain I stake my soul on it. So, I hope we will be able to discuss topics but I will certainly understand if you cannot.


but you're still being closed-minded. you're "so certain" that you're willing to ignore reality for the sake of your personal beliefs.



Aren't you and Melatonin being closed-minded to what I am saying? It's a two-way street. I looked more into evolution today but don't have time to discuss it until tomorrow.



What I am saying is that there was an age before this one. That was the age of the dinosaurs.




ok, what about the billions of years prior to the arrival of dinosaurs?



I didn't explain myself well. I meant that whole first age, however long it was and whatever went on during it. As far as I know the dinosaurs could have been there the whole time.....I don't know. The Bible gives us some hints about that age but it doesn't tell us very much.



...........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

I'll begin where I had to end last night:



Satan, rebelled in that age and many of God's children followed him. Father, instead of killing His children, destroyed the age, not earth but the age. The earth was greatly shaken and flooded. Is that when the plates split apart and the earth tilted on it's axis? Perhaps.


now you're adding superfluous superstition to events that can be explained by cosmology and geology.



Superstition? Why do you say that? Because God shook and flooded the earth you think it wouldn't be shown in cosmology and geology? The two are one.



We are the same spirit now as we were then and as we will be in the next age. The only change is that God created us in flesh to pass through this time on earth. The 14,000 years I have explained before as when this age began. So...yes, I am saying that either the dates are incorrect when dating humans or they are not human beings. That is based on "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". If that isn't correct then my calculations are also incorrect but it is what I have to go on and I trust it.

so you're saying that dating methods based on proven constants are incorrect because a book of myths written by bronze age nomads who ended up committing atrocious genocides in the name of a previously henotheistic mountain god to finally settle in the region of cannaan says that things can't be that old?

look at the dating methods, they're not 100% accurate, but they aren't going to be off by enough for it to matter.



Madness....You will stand in front of that God one day, whether or not you believe in Him now. Please consider that in the references you use here.

You believe dating methods are correct but many do not. As you've argued this before I know you have heard the arguments. The only thing "constant" about them is that they constantly change. I don't have any argument with "things" being ancient and I don't care about how many thousands or millions of years are placed on them. I know they are ancient, I know they can certainly be the age scientist place on them. But, not humans. Apes and animals are....humans are not.

To substantiate the Bible telling us about the three ages of earth and the earth being millions or billions of years old, agreeing with geology, let me list the scriptures that teach us that.


11 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth
such an one caught up to the third heaven.



Paul was telling us that he was taken (probably in a vision, in spirit) to the third heaven. He was shown the future. If there is a third heaven we must be in the second age and it follows that there had to be a first age.

The first age is the one in which Satan rebelled but before that he was loved by God and called the king of Tyrus:


Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13.Thou had been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.....(snip)



That time obviously predates Adam so would be the time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It also predates his revolt against God:


Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

There were nations in that first age! Had Satan been up to his "stuff" during the creation God would not have said that it was "very good". He didn't say that until Gen.1:3. This may be why John refers to him as "Prince of this world" (John 12:31).

Also it could be why Satan was called the King of Tyrus in one verse and Prince of Tyrus in another - he was demoted (Ez.28:2,12)

He rebelled in that age and took 1/3 of God's children with him.


Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.


Instead of killing His children he instead destroyed that age. In this present 2nd age all of us must be born of woman and make our minds up as to who we follow. This age is a spiritual war and the next is about spiritual judgment.

Peter also refers to the first age:


2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

6.Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished.

7.But the heavens and the earth which are now by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



The "ungodly men" will be judged. Peter was speaking about the first age, not Noah's flood as the world then didn't perish nor did the heaven age.


Another mention of the first age is:


Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23.I beheld the earth, and lo, it was (became) without form and void: and the heavens and they had no light.


It became without form. God created it to be inhabited but it became
void.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God
himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, He
created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited
: I am the Lord;
and there is none else.


24.I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25.I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled
This is NOT Noah's flood as here there was no man or birds left.

26.I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger.


So...there were cities and nations in that first age!

Continued



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
Superstition? Why do you say that? Because God shook and flooded the earth you think it wouldn't be shown in cosmology and geology? The two are one.


it would be... but there isn't any evidence of the earth being flooded. and plate tectonics can be explained without your deity.
you're adding something that you cannot prove to a situation that can be explained without the supernatural.



Madness....You will stand in front of that God one day, whether or not you believe in Him now. Please consider that in the references you use here.


and a viking would tell me the same thing about odin. this is nothing more than an indirect threat stemming from insecurity, i will not stand in front of any being who doesn't exist. so, until i see proof of that being existing, i will not agree to the statement you made.



You believe dating methods are correct but many do not.


it doesn't matter who believes, they are OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.



As you've argued this before I know you have heard the arguments. The only thing "constant" about them is that they constantly change.


...no, the rate of radioactive decay doesn't change. it is a constant. carbon-14 decays at a constant rate. all the other radioactive isotopes used for radiometric dating decay at a constant rate. that is a statement of fact.

the only changes that occur in the dating of an object happen when they are retested with instruments that are more suited to testing the decay. newer and more accurate tests. the dates change to become more accurate, nothing has been dated as 2400 years old and then 600000 years old, the changes are minor.



I don't have any argument with "things" being ancient and I don't care about how many thousands or millions of years are placed on them. I know they are ancient, I know they can certainly be the age scientist place on them. But, not humans. Apes and animals are....humans are not.


but the evidence contradicts you. therefore, you should change your belief.



To substantiate the Bible telling us about the three ages of earth and the earth being millions or billions of years old, agreeing with geology, let me list the scriptures that teach us that.


let me repeat this:
i
don't
care
what
your
book
says

i care about the evidence.

the book you're citing from is a highly flawed and imperfect text, something else you refuse to accept in the face of evidence.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
From the "tone" of your response about National Geographic I assume you think I'm making it up?


not at all, i just want to see the original reference.



You should know me better than that by now. I just wrote down what I heard. I don't know why you question it anyway as you already agreed that Lucy turned out to be a fake, so why do you question the validity of what I said?


... i never said lucy was a fake. i said piltdown was a fake. lucy is far from a fake, lucy is legit.




Aren't you and Melatonin being closed-minded to what I am saying? It's a two-way street. I looked more into evolution today but don't have time to discuss it until tomorrow.


we aren't being closed minded, we're completely open minded. you just have to give us evidence, you haven't.



I didn't explain myself well. I meant that whole first age, however long it was and whatever went on during it. As far as I know the dinosaurs could have been there the whole time.....I don't know. The Bible gives us some hints about that age but it doesn't tell us very much.


but the bible is far from an accurate history book, and you'll have to provide us with some outside evidence.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Continued:


So... God shook the earth and flooded it. When Satan next makes his appearance, Gen.3:1, in the garden it is after the creation of Adam and Even and long after his rebellion.

This is not scripture, but the "Book of Jasher" is quoted twice in the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13 and 11 Samuel 1:18) so some credence therefore should probably be given to this:

Jasher, speaking of the creation (Jasher was the son of Caleb....a contemporary of Moses), says in 1:4-5, And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was formed a second time.

I mentioned to you before about the other clue given in Gen.1:28, when God told them to replenish the earth, not plenish it.

There is more given about the "foundation" of the earth, or the casting down or overthrow, if you are interested.



aye, but can ye validate the beliefs scientifically?


No, I'm not a scientist. I leave that to you.



What it comes down to is someone is wrong. Either the scientist are incorrect or God is.

you're creating a false dichotomy. it's either your book is the absolute inerrant word of god and is wrong or science is wrong...
that's actually not the case. thousands of other arrogant religions have each tried to show how much they know about how the world was created and each one had a different story, any of those is just as valid as your idea.


Of course the others aren't valid. They weren't inspired by God and if not Him, I must wonder who???



My answer to that would be the human ones may certainly be human but the dates given for their existence would be incorrect.

again, you're saying that the dating methods are incorrect
are you saying that dinosaurs didn't stop existing 65 milllion years ago?
that date was figured out through the same concept of radiometric dating. do you dispute it?

it's quite obvious that the radiometric dating isn't wrong here, you are in error



I'm saying that the dinosaurs stopped existing when God destroyed that age.



Melatonin, those were not non-sensical. If evolution is true then they are valid questions that need to be answered. Too, you can throw out that I believe in myths and fantasies but I can't say "you are asking me to believe evolution"? Which do you believe was more harsh?


mel isn't asking you to believe in anything but quite apparent reality that you're arrogantly stating is incorrect without a thorough examination of the evidence
now, to the contrary you believe in something that is essentially baseless make-believe that i cannot disprove, for that is the nature of make-believe things. that is the very definition of myth and fantasy.



Over 250 million fossils from 25,000 species have been found, yet only a handful are even compatible with evolution and not one that can't fit into a Creationist model. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of transitional fossils.

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" - Tom Kemp, Oxford University

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequences very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." - D. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Palenontology (Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan,1979).

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Dr. Tim White (anthropoligist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in new Scientist, April 28, 1983, p.199


"And paleonanthropoligsts disagee about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. It's characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropolgists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape. - H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vo. 31, 1980, p.138


So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.



We may be getting more distant from the original topic but it isn't on purpose. One thing seems to lead to another.

ok, now can you support that 14,000 year date without using the ol' bible?



Everything in it is shown to be true so why would I not wish to use it?

................Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
There is more given about the "foundation" of the earth, or the casting down or overthrow, if you are interested.


stop with the bible quotes. they won't get you anywhere in this discussion. start with physical evidence, that WILL get you somewhere.



No, I'm not a scientist. I leave that to you.


i'm not a scientist either, i'm a person studying to be an archaeologist.
just because you're not a scientist doesn't mean you can't validate a belief scientifically. there should be SOME evidence that validates your theory, but there isn't. just a book that is quite flawed.



Of course the others aren't valid. They weren't inspired by God and if not Him, I must wonder who???


but every other religion would say your story wasn't inspired by their deity...
so your argument kind of falls flat

can you actually PROVE that your story was inspired by god?
hell, can you actually prove that god exists?


dinosaurs stopped existing when God destroyed that age.


but you can't prove this...




Over 250 million fossils from 25,000 species have been found, yet only a handful are even compatible with evolution and not one that can't fit into a Creationist model. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of transitional fossils.


there ARE millions of transitional forms. 250 million fossils of them, by your numbers. every species is a "transitional form"
this isn't pokemon where there's a first stage, a second stage, and a third stage that has clear and definite forms.



"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" - Tom Kemp, Oxford University


yes, this has to do with the nature of fossilization. they don't appear gradually because their initial populations were small in number and didn't have a high probability of being fossilized.



"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequences very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." - D. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Palenontology (Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan,1979).


this guy is just outright wrong... he gets a write-off because i'm not sure what the evidence was in 1979, but we have the so called "transitional forms" today.



"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland


ok, 1 case in millions. we have many clearly human bones that are well over 14,000 years old to counter you. however, you have yet to show that your hypothesis has any weight.



"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Dr. Tim White (anthropoligist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in new Scientist, April 28, 1983, p.199


this is an argument from authority. show me one place where evolution contradicts the evidence.



"And paleonanthropoligsts disagee about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. It's characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropolgists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape. - H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vo. 31, 1980, p.138


So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.


do you have anything more modern about the disagreement. i look at the date and that was 27 years ago.
and that's a physicist disagreeing... not exactly his field.

and this isn't a disagreement about the theory of evolution's validity, but the specifics of it. it is well known that neanderthals and humans existed side by side (well over 14000 years ago), this person is just talking about whether or not the homo erectus classification should be done away with.



Everything in it is shown to be true so why would I not wish to use it?


because everything shown in it ISN'T true.

small example: exodus
says that the pharaoh's son was killed by the angel of death...
reality says his son was killed by blunt force trauma to the head.
..oh, and there isn't any evidence to show that the jews were slaves in israel.

it's also true that women are the equals of men.. but the bible doesn't say that
the bible says that the earth is a flat disc.... that is also not true
the bible says the the sun stopped in the sky, that's just not true either

it's quite clear your book isn't true on all accounts, you just refuse to acknowledge that.

[edit on 9/25/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Originally posted by whirlwind
From the "tone" of your response about National Geographic I assume you think I'm making it up?

not at all, i just want to see the original reference.



Good.




You should know me better than that by now. I just wrote down what I heard. I don't know why you question it anyway as you already agreed that Lucy turned out to be a fake, so why do you question the validity of what I said?


... i never said lucy was a fake. i said piltdown was a fake. lucy is far from a fake, lucy is legit.



My apologies, I misunderstood you. Lucy is a fake human. He is apparently an extinct ape.



Aren't you and Melatonin being closed-minded to what I am saying? It's a two-way street. I looked more into evolution today but don't have time to discuss it until tomorrow.


we aren't being closed minded, we're completely open minded. you just have to give us evidence, you haven't.



I don't agree. You won't accept anything I say if it is from the Bible and you assume it isn't correct.




I didn't explain myself well. I meant that whole first age, however long it was and whatever went on during it. As far as I know the dinosaurs could have been there the whole time.....I don't know. The Bible gives us some hints about that age but it doesn't tell us very much.


but the bible is far from an accurate history book, and you'll have to provide us with some outside evidence.


Well, let's see. Who can I ask that was there at the beginning? What books are written from that time?

Science itself documents everything the Bible tells us but man is trying to also pass humans off as being the age of the dinosaurs - it doesn't work.



..........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




stop with the bible quotes. they won't get you anywhere in this discussion. start with physical evidence, that WILL get you somewhere.


Madness, I'm not a scientist, I don't go and try to prove anything. I am telling you what your Father tells you happened and it is up to you to believe it or not. Please ask yourself just what kind of "physical evidence" you think I could possible provide.



i'm not a scientist either, i'm a person studying to be an archaeologist.
just because you're not a scientist doesn't mean you can't validate a belief scientifically. there should be SOME evidence that validates your theory, but there isn't. just a book that is quite flawed.


The Book is not flawed. It has some mistranslations from the original manuscripts.



Of course the others aren't valid. They weren't inspired by God and if not Him, I must wonder who???


but every other religion would say your story wasn't inspired by their deity...
so your argument kind of falls flat


I truly don't give a rat's patootie about other religions. They are not real. They are a complete waste of time, energy and thought and should be completely disregarded by anyone of any spiritual discernment at all.



can you actually PROVE that your story was inspired by god?
hell, can you actually prove that god exists?



I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.



dinosaurs stopped existing when God destroyed that age.

but you can't prove this...


Good heavens Madness, I can't even prove I'm who I am to you.





do you have anything more modern about the disagreement. i look at the date and that was 27 years ago.



I might. I just typed some in. The point isn't when but what is being said and by whom. Even the scientist disagree about what are considered facts and dates. The argument can go on forever by knowledgeable people and I am not one of those. I don't know anything about archaology (what a terrific field for you to go into though).



Everything in it is shown to be true so why would I not wish to use it?

because everything shown in it ISN'T true.

small example: exodus
says that the pharaoh's son was killed by the angel of death...
reality says his son was killed by blunt force trauma to the head.
..oh, and there isn't any evidence to show that the jews were slaves in israel.

it's also true that women are the equals of men.. but the bible doesn't say that
the bible says that the earth is a flat disc.... that is also not true
the bible says the the sun stopped in the sky, that's just not true either

it's quite clear your book isn't true on all accounts, you just refuse to acknowledge that.



We already discussed most of those. I'll have to put off further discussion until later. I will say, I don't understand what you mean by "flat disc". The quote was the "circle of the earth". Where do you get flat disc?


..................Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Madness, I'm not a scientist, I don't go and try to prove anything. I am telling you what your Father tells you happened and it is up to you to believe it or not. Please ask yourself just what kind of "physical evidence" you think I could possible provide.


well... you said that god flooded the earth. i'm going to assume you meant the whole planet... surely some scientist has found proof of this. i'm not asking you to go out and do field work, i'm asking you to find me information from people that have that can substantiate your position.



The Book is not flawed. It has some mistranslations from the original manuscripts.


no, the original manuscripts are flawed to. like where it says that the earth is a circle. the hebrew is the same for the word for a flat circle someone would draw on a piece of paper.



I truly don't give a rat's patootie about other religions. They are not real. They are a complete waste of time, energy and thought and should be completely disregarded by anyone of any spiritual discernment at all.


your ironic arrogance amuses and saddens me.
have you even bothered to study any of them?
i mean, honestly, islam has a great amount of good in it. for one, it actually praises the scholar, unlike christianity.



I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.


i told you, i want proof.



Good heavens Madness, I can't even prove I'm who I am to you.


well, you could. it'd be a long, complex, and expensive process, but you could.
i can prove to you that the dinosaurs were most likely killed in a massive cataclysm involving an impact of an asteroid approx. 65 million years ago



I might. I just typed some in. The point isn't when but what is being said and by whom. Even the scientist disagree about what are considered facts and dates. The argument can go on forever by knowledgeable people and I am not one of those. I don't know anything about archaology (what a terrific field for you to go into though).


well, the disagreement in the source wasn't about dates, it was about classification of homo erectus.



We already discussed most of those. I'll have to put off further discussion until later. I will say, I don't understand what you mean by "flat disc". The quote was the "circle of the earth". Where do you get flat disc?


the hebrew word is the same word for a circle i'd draw on a piece of paper.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Madness, I'm not a scientist, I don't go and try to prove anything. I am telling you what your Father tells you happened and it is up to you to believe it or not. Please ask yourself just what kind of "physical evidence" you think I could possible provide.


well... you said that god flooded the earth. i'm going to assume you meant the whole planet... surely some scientist has found proof of this. i'm not asking you to go out and do field work, i'm asking you to find me information from people that have that can substantiate your position.


I never looked for those people as I believed God. But....for those that may need proof I thought it was common knowledge that signs of water are found everywhere. We are a water planet. Water is everywhere.... in the form of ice, liquid or vapor. The Great God of the universe would not have found it difficult to locate, rearrange and utilize to his purposes any amount of water he would deem sufficient....for any project he may have had in mind.

I have been looking through some notes I took and haven't located it yet but perhaps you remember. Not long ago an article came out about a flood of water that was so intense it is what separated the British Isles from France - in one day. I'll keep looking.



The Book is not flawed. It has some mistranslations from the original manuscripts.


no, the original manuscripts are flawed to. like where it says that the earth is a circle. the hebrew is the same for the word for a flat circle someone would draw on a piece of paper.


I am a portrait artist. If someone asked me to draw the earth I would draw a circle and do my best to make it appear three dimensional. Nevertheless, it will still be a circle drawn on a flat surface.



I truly don't give a rat's patootie about other religions. They are not real. They are a complete waste of time, energy and thought and should be completely disregarded by anyone of any spiritual discernment at all.


your ironic arrogance amuses and saddens me.
have you even bothered to study any of them?
i mean, honestly, islam has a great amount of good in it. for one, it actually praises the scholar, unlike christianity.


It was arrogant but I truly don't care. I'm sorry it saddens you but you must know that you sadden me when you so quickly defend Islam and ridicule Christianity. One is true and one is not. No one can or should be in between. It is what this age on earth is about, making a choice.

Why do you believe Christianity wouldn't praise a scholar?



I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.


i told you, i want proof.


I'll put them in a separate post. You realize, if you want proof of the validity of the Bible then that is where I will find the proof.



Good heavens Madness, I can't even prove I'm who I am to you.



well, you could. it'd be a long, complex, and expensive process, but you could.
i can prove to you that the dinosaurs were most likely killed in a massive cataclysm involving an impact of an asteroid approx. 65 million years ago


And I would accept your explanation. It doesn't disagree with anything I have said. They lived in the first age and whether they were killed long before the overthrow or right before the overthrow isn't a point I can or wish to argue. They were here and they died in the first age.



I might. I just typed some in. The point isn't when but what is being said and by whom. Even the scientist disagree about what are considered facts and dates. The argument can go on forever by knowledgeable people and I am not one of those. I don't know anything about archaology (what a terrific field for you to go into though).

well, the disagreement in the source wasn't about dates, it was about classification of homo erectus.


That wasn't my point in listing them. It was to point out the disagreement about this issue among many intelligent, informed people on both sides of the argument.


[quoteWe already discussed most of those. I'll have to put off further discussion until later. I will say, I don't understand what you mean by "flat disc". The quote was the "circle of the earth". Where do you get flat disc?

I explained the "circle" already. Your list of problems with the Bible included the Exodus, Jewish slaves, the Sun stopping, and the Pharoah's son being killed.

The Exodus did happen. Look for information on it in "In Search Of Pharaoh's Lost Army", (the Red Sea Crossing) By Jonathan Gray. If you can't find it let me know and I'll try to figure out how to provide a link (I'm a computer illiterate). If I'm not mistaken that same site also gives information on Mt. Sinai and shows proof of the Israelites there.

The slaves we have also discussed before. They were in that area when Joseph served under the Pharoah. Apparently that Pharoah was one of the Hyksos Kings but after their death, Joseph and the Pharoah, a new king came into power:

Exodus 1:8Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

9.And he said unto his people, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

11.Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.


As far as the Pharoah's son being killed. As I said before, how does anyone know the child they found was the first born, how do they know he was a son of the Pharoah that was there when this event happened. It seems to me you should be requiring much more proof before you take their word that he was the firstborn son and killed with a blunt instrument.

Now.....the sun standing still. I have no idea. I have heard the NASA story but I don't know if it is or isn't true so.......I don't know.



.............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.


i told you, i want proof.



I found the paper that wrote the "Biblical-style flood tore Britain from France" by Jonathan Leake. ww.theaustralian.new.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20470390,00.html

Some of the information is: Scientist have found that Britain owes it's island status to a catastrophic flood that swept away in less than 24 hours the hills that once joined the land mass to France.

It also states that event was 400,000 to 200,000 years ago. This could have been one of the most powerful flood events every known on earth," said Chris Stringer, head of the human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "It would have cut through the chalk hills joining Britain to Europe and created a Niagara-style waterfall 300 ft to 400 ft. high."

You know that I don't put a lot of credence in the dates that get thrown around but nevertheless it is an interesting article. Could this have been when the world was covered in water at the overthrow? (Not Noah's flood)

The next things I'm going to tell you, to me, is proof of God's divine hand on the Bible.

This one I'm relaying from memory but I believe it is accurate: In the manuscipts, in the first five books of the Bible you will find the name Yahveh. In the first two books, Genesis and Exodus, every 50th letter spells out YHVH (Yahveh). In the last two books, Numbers and Deuteronomy His name is spelled, every 50th letter - backwards. This points to the middle book, Leviticus, where every 50th letter spells Torah.

Man didn't do that......Yahveh did.


In the Book of Esther, in the manuscripts, we find an acrostic. In Deuteronomy 31:16-18, Yahveh declared His people would forsake Him and in His anger He would hide His face from them. That comes to pass in the Book of Esther. Through this Book He was guiding them secretly, without their knowledge. His name is not mentioned once but secretly His Sacred Name is hidden therein.

1:20 "All The Wives Shall Give". This is the first of the five acrostics that exhibit, in the initials, the Divine Name.

5>4 "Let The King And Haman Come This Day".

5:13. "This Availeth Me Nothing".

7:5 "Who Is He, And Where Is He"? This is the fifth acrostic and does not give the name Yahveh but does give us the Divine Name, "I AM".

7:7 "That There Was Evil Determined Against Him." This is the fourth and last of the four acrostics exhibiting the name Yahveh in this book.

His working was secret and hidden, hence the name of Yahveh is hidden secretly four times and the name Ehyeh, I AM that I AM, once. The massorah has a rubic, calling attention to that and at least three of the ancient manuscripts show the acrostic letters written in bolder print to draw attention to them, showing the four consonant letters of the name YHVH.

Man didn't do that........Yahveh did.


Then you must consider the prophecies of the Bible. Please read Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, just to name two.

We now learn about the Bible Code. I know very little about it, nothing other than from the programs on television but if it is true.......how fascinating and we know that.........Man didn't do that.....Yahveh did.

Another interesting fact in the Bible are the numbers. They are used with supernatural design and spiritual significance. Consistently throughout the Bible the numbers have a meaning and that meaning never alters throughout. For instance, the #7 is always about spiritual perfection, the #40 is always about probation, the #13 is always about rebellion, apostasy, etc. Again, a fascinating study and......Man didn't do that....Yahveh did.


I believed in Father before I knew those things but they certainly helped me understand the validity of the Bible and I trust it completely. Perhaps it will help you too.



................Whirlwind



[edit on 26-9-2007 by whirlwind]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" - Tom Kemp, Oxford University


quote mine project


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequences very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." - D. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Palenontology (Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan,1979).


Quote mine project


"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland


Quote mine project



"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Dr. Tim White (anthropoligist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in new Scientist, April 28, 1983, p.199


A quote of a opinion.



"And paleonanthropoligsts disagee about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. It's characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropolgists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape. - H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vo. 31, 1980, p.138


A physicist? Who cares...



So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.


Not really, half of those quotes are quote mines, the others are just opinion. None of them actually question evolution, not one. At most, they might be seen to be questioning details.

Why is that creationists think that regurgitation quote mines and opinion means anything? Iz it coz they do it with teh bible?

There is no debate on the validity of evolution in the scientific community. Lots on details, none on the big picture. I'm sure you can find a few scientists who'll spout religiously-motivated BS about evolution, like Dembski and Behe, but they are sort of like mad auntie in the basement types.




[edit on 26-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by whirlwind
 


I'm having trouble with the EDIT situation. I type in the edit I want but it doesn't get printed.

I'll have to correct it here instead. In my post to Madness in the paragraph about the Torah. I was correct in that every 50th letter in the first two and last two books of the Torah spealls Yahveh, front and back, however in the Book of Leviticus.......It is every 7th letter that spells Torah. Sorry about the mistake, I should know by now not to trust my memory.

.............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



What are "quote mines"?




So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.



Not really, half of those quotes are quote mines, the others are just opinion. None of them actually question evolution, not one. At most, they might be seen to be questioning details.

Why is that creationists think that regurgitation quote mines and opinion means anything? Iz it coz they do it with teh bible?

There is no debate on the validity of evolution in the scientific community. Lots on details, none on the big picture. I'm sure you can find a few scientists who'll spout religiously-motivated BS about evolution, like Dembski and Behe, but they are sort of like mad auntie in the basement types.



Okay, here is another:


Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:...Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk...It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.


............Whirlwind



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join