Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    derinos

    JDCHESS:
    "Is there an evolutionary process in play? Yes.

    Is God the one who set it into motion? Yes."

    Comments:

    1.Your first statement? Yes,if you examine the evolutionary process from a simple true scientific source (like, say the last 20 years of the Scientific American magazine), you will find an awesome, intriguing interactive system between the biosphere ("Life"), and the rest of the planet. Even entire Solar System is inescapably a part of this; you cannot fail to notice that the Sun is strongly influential on Life; and its radiation is subtly modulated by everything that moves between us and it. Even cosmic rays, coming from very far away, are capable of mutation or destruction; and are also modulated where we live, by the elements of the Solar System, particularly the Earth's atmosphere.
    Given DNA as the individual's blueprint, it is easy to see how it can interact with mutating effects of the micro and macro environment, as manifested in the life-history of each organism. Multiply this by billions of examples over millions of years, and you have a complex interactive system that resembles "intelligence". Its results are not accidental or haphazard, any more than a good computer AI program. It just works.
    And the arrival of such a system is not hard to conceive from studying cosmologic interactions at the basic level, by rules built into the 4D Universe, (like e=mc2, and the like).

    2. Your second statement? We all recognise that the Universe has built-in rules that we have begun to understand only in the last few centuries. These rules will ultimately explain to us everything * we can observe *. Where do they come from?

    That is a difficult detail. For example, e=mc2 resolves to m= e/c2 (matter equals energy divided by the Constant c2 .
    Which devolves into c2 = (dl/dt)(dl/dt)
    (c is the speed of transmission of radiation including light. l is the locus of a photon, the unit of light. t is time. d is "difference of")

    The Big Bang or whatever you call the singularity at which the Universe begins, has no "t", since "t' is a measure which exists only when and AFTER everything begins to show change.
    Something very big went on, before or outside of Time.
    Call it Creation, if you like.

    Being creatures of Time ourselves, our senses and instruments cannot function outside our 4D universe, in which Time is the familiar and compelling 4th dimension. So to a sincere scientist, there was an instant of Creation that is accepted as what it is, a Singularity. Meaning something unlike anything else, and which is not accessible to current instrumental observation and methematics.
    To a Jewish scientist, it is an evocative echo of the Shemot, "Hear o Israel, the Lord is One!" In English, the word "Singularity" is a synonym of "One".

    3.Your third statement? One you did not finish, "I believe the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, because.......???

    In the Bible, Genesis gives no duration. "In the beginning" and a poetic one week's work, is all you get, and afterwards, no measures mark the major early epochs. How long, for instance in the Garden of Eden? And the giants there were in ancient time.
    So whatever science can make of Time, our ancient fossil records, the immense geologic story, a Universe where light has not yet reached us despite travelling since The Begining, whatever they honestly discover, it will never contradict any Bible timeline. Because that Book does not actually declare one.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by derinos
      3.Your third statement? One you did not finish, "I believe the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, because.......???

      In the Bible, Genesis gives no duration. "In the beginning" and a poetic one week's work, is all you get, and afterwards, no measures mark the major early epochs. How long, for instance in the Garden of Eden? And the giants there were in ancient time. So whatever science can make of Time, our ancient fossil records, the immense geologic story, a Universe where light has not yet reached us despite travelling since The Begining, whatever they honestly discover, it will never contradict any Bible timeline. Because that Book does not actually declare one.
      First off, please be careful how you use quotation marks. I never made the statement that you said I did. What I DID say was that I belived in a young earth and that that GENERALLY meant 6,000 - 10,000 years old. I never stated emphatically that "I believe the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, because...," as you said I did. I do not like being mis-quoted.

      Secondly you said that "In the Bible, Genesis gives no duration. ""In the beginning"" and a poetic one week's work, is all you get, and afterwards, no measures mark the major early epochs."

      This is simply UNTRUE. This clearly shows that you have NOT read Genesis carefully enough. There are ages at the time of death of almost all mojor people mentioned in Genesis. In several places there is mention of the number of years between certain events. That is not to mention the listing of generations of several lineages; however, as Mr. Denning pointed out, there might perhaps be an issue with the terminology of "son of" meaning "grandson of" or something else. I am not certain this is the case, but I am checking into it. However, even without using the lists of generational lineages, you still have a fairly sound chronology. Now, one must mention that there is always the argument that time was counted differently then as opposed to now, i.e. a year then is not equal to a year now, but the fact is that there ARE MEASURES OF TIME in Genesis. You just missed them I suppose.

      I wasn't trying to totally destroy your post, but you really must not mis-quote someone, and also, you really should read a work before trying to discuss it.

      Comment


      • #48
        I think it is unfortunate that the media and some scientists are talking about Adam and Eve when discussing DNA and a past common ancestor for men and women. This does a disservice to the field by creating confusion among lay people.

        The truth of the matter is that the scientists working in this field do not believe there was one man 80 000-100 000 years ago and no single woman 200 000 years ago. These are not the biblical Adam and Eve.

        I will now go a bit off topic:

        Science does not say we evolved from chimps, but that chimps and humans had a common ancestor, there is a subtle difference. Despite the similarities between humans and other primates, science is still at a loss to explain how we as a species developed higher intelligence, there are plenty of weak theories, but nothing solid. The point is that science can question itself to get at a better answer.

        I saw a documentary on String Theory where some scientists were saying it resembled religion more than it did science, there was no way of testing the theories directly.

        That is why I respect people with alternate views. Nobody has all the answers. From my perspective, a world view must be testable and stand up to hard questions, there has to be some rigour.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by derinos
          JDCHESS:
          "
          In the Bible, Genesis gives no duration. "In the beginning" and a poetic one week's work, is all you get, and afterwards, no measures mark the major early epochs. How long, for instance in the Garden of Eden? And the giants there were in ancient time.
          So whatever science can make of Time, our ancient fossil records, the immense geologic story, a Universe where light has not yet reached us despite travelling since The Begining, whatever they honestly discover, it will never contradict any Bible timeline. Because that Book does not actually declare one.
          AUGH BUT THE BIBLE SAYS ONE THING YOU DON'T ACCOUNT FOR
          "go and replenish the earth"
          you see the bible talks of a time before man and between creation when there was a creation that ended and god choose adam to start the repacement
          your idea of what happened doesnt allow for man being smart getting dumb and smart again . all it allows for is a steady progression.and no variance from that basic plot
          yet the world is full of examples of man being smart and reaching a point we are only reaching again.
          i meantioned before pee reese 's map he wasnt a ballplayer but an sea captain who took source maps and made a map. this map gives the shoreline of the antartic . yeah the shoreline. with technology developed in the last decades of the 1900s they just authenticated it. amazing since its been under ice for many millenia
          science has changed its big bang to a quantum pyshics ball comming in and out of our demension and exploding here and /or a taffy pull never really a small ball but constantly streaching the same material.what ever puffs your sails .
          what difference does it make today? none

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jim Denning
            what difference does it make today? none

            i have no problem with religion or science both are belief systems
            i happen to be christian but can understand jewish protestant catholic and penticostal doctrine and merge themi also can do the same to science.i see what dna people say and archeolgists find and physicists do

            the key is keep an open mind
            both scientists and religious have their territories and derogate the opponent. for 1700 years or so the church believed the term "that which is perfect" meant christ .but the baptists had a problem with the penticostals . they spoke in tounges .so the baptists changed it to mean the word of god the bible. which came in 500. this way they could persecute them. which they did
            now today tell a biologist that a anthropologist found something. and you get "oh thats not real science" lol "thats soft science"

            funny how people are like that

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Jim Denning
              i meantioned before pee reese 's map he wasnt a ballplayer but an sea captain who took source maps and made a map. this map gives the shoreline of the antartic . yeah the shoreline. with technology developed in the last decades of the 1900s they just authenticated it. amazing since its been under ice for many millenia
              I have read about this map, it frequently show up in Erich von Danicken's entertaining books about ancient astronauts.

              The last what I read about this many years ago this coast they mentioned was not really the antartic shoreline but the the last southern tip of south america was too long for the map, so they simply just bended it to the right to make it fit into the map so what you see as antartic shoreline looks more like coast of Patagonia to me, but that of course dont explain how they already had a map of the whole eastern coastal line of south america so early. What really take my interest is that the map appearntly seem to show rivers floating down from the Sahara.

              The map is viewable at http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/eng...s/pirimap3.jpg

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Noaide
                I have read about this map, it frequently show up in Erich von Danicken's entertaining books about ancient astronauts.

                The last what I read about this many years ago this coast they mentioned was not really the antartic shoreline but the the last southern tip of south america was too long for the map, so they simply just bended it to the right to make it fit into the map so what you see as antartic shoreline looks more like coast of Patagonia to me, but that of course dont explain how they already had a map of the whole eastern coastal line of south america so early. What really take my interest is that the map appearntly seem to show rivers floating down from the Sahara.

                The map is viewable at http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/eng...s/pirimap3.jpg

                Erich von Danicken's was along time ago 25 yrs or so

                since then the us army corp of engineers said it was accurate thats good enough for me.
                btw since you bring up Eric his therorys were based on the sumarian story. perhaps he didnt know it but most would be found in the 12th planet by stichen. people capable of that flight would be capable of dna modification

                too bad eric didnt know religion because if he did he would of known some answers to his problems.
                Last edited by Jim Denning; 29 December 2005, 02:47 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I'm watching the 1958 BBC 6-part series "Quatermass and the Pit". It explains it all - We're the product of genetic engineering done by Insects from the dying planet Mars about 5,000,000 years ago.


                  Rod (an R1B Ashkenazic Orthodox Jew)
                  Last edited by rod; 29 December 2005, 07:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rod
                    I'm watching the 1958 BBC 6-part series "Quatermass and the Pit". It explains it all - We're the product of genetic engineering done by Insects from the dying planet Mars about 5,000,000 years ago.


                    Rod (an R1B Ashkenazic Orthodox Jew)

                    ROD if you put that out there for people to believe they would be certain percentages that would die for it

                    the book by stichken is the basis of the stargate plot a race of evil arrogant people enslaving humanity with the smarts to engineer dna .
                    all part of the show. yeah people will believe things. it depends who tells them and how many boogles and bangles they use
                    nimrod always conterfieted the truth

                    i cant wait til we test 9 million + people and the picture becomes more obvious

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      derinos

                      Thanks, jdchess for:
                      "I believe in a "young earth," and for the most part that implies an age of roughly 6,000 - 10,000 years old."
                      I trust that is the exact quotation? (And please note that I am not debating religion, but archaeology sources.)
                      My question should perhaps have been, what is it that "implies" those numbers?

                      If the Bible is the source, nothing in Genesis implies the *age* of the planet. That matter is just not addressed.

                      What is valuably provided is a timed genealogy of known prominent persons in Neolithic and Bronze age Canaan and Mesopotamia. This describes the age of a particular human population. Not the age of of the planet, nor of the biosphere, nor indeed of human populations elsewhere.

                      And for the specific of the regional population, Bishop Ussher's figuring was not far wrong, as later supported by archaeology. The first mini-cities like Bogaz-Koy to the north, (unknown to the writers of Genesis), and nearer home, the base of the tower of Jericho, the first stone structure in the region, are dated about 8000 to 9000 BC. And the major geologic Flood (of the Black Sea) slots into the same timeline without great effort.
                      The error would be to take the social duration of a localised population, for the entire planet and mankind. For example, there are remains of older civilizations on the Indian subcontinent , before the Mesopotamian, whose stories are yet to be told.

                      Some years ago I asked the Rambam database how the Year One had been assigned in the Jewish Calendar, which is in much higher numbers than others. (But still, not up to the 6,000 to 10,000's!) The Rambam stated that Abraham,the first Jew,and a Babylonian citizen, was using his national calendar, and just kept on using it.
                      Let us just use the DNA clock for what it is.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by derinos
                        Some years ago I asked the Rambam database how the Year One had been assigned in the Jewish Calendar, which is in much higher numbers than others. (But still, not up to the 6,000 to 10,000's!) The Rambam stated that Abraham,the first Jew,and a Babylonian citizen, was using his national calendar, and just kept on using it.
                        I have to say that I find this very interesting. Can you elaborate on where you found this info and how I could go about looking into it. I think it would be interesting to research further.

                        Also, your last statement...

                        Originally posted by derinos
                        Let us just use the DNA clock for what it is.
                        I am not sure I understand what you mean exactly...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jim Denning
                          since then the us army corp of engineers said it was accurate thats good enough for me
                          By the way if you lower the ocean level by 1 000 meters it would still not be any landbridge between Southern America and Antarctica. Maybe better letting the US marine engineers doing that evaluations?

                          Excellent ocean floor map here: http://mapmachine.nationalgeographic...themeId=p10800

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by derinos
                            If the Bible is the source, nothing in Genesis implies the *age* of the planet. That matter is just not addressed.

                            What is valuably provided is a timed genealogy of known prominent persons in Neolithic and Bronze age Canaan and Mesopotamia. This describes the age of a particular human population. Not the age of of the planet, nor of the biosphere, nor indeed of human populations elsewhere.

                            And for the specific of the regional population, Bishop Ussher's figuring was not far wrong, as later supported by archaeology. The first mini-cities like Bogaz-Koy to the north, (unknown to the writers of Genesis), and nearer home, the base of the tower of Jericho, the first stone structure in the region, are dated about 8000 to 9000 BC. And the major geologic Flood (of the Black Sea) slots into the same timeline without great effort.
                            The error would be to take the social duration of a localised population, for the entire planet and mankind. For example, there are remains of older civilizations on the Indian subcontinent , before the Mesopotamian, whose stories are yet to be told.

                            Some years ago I asked the Rambam database how the Year One had been assigned in the Jewish Calendar, which is in much higher numbers than others. (But still, not up to the 6,000 to 10,000's!) The Rambam stated that Abraham,the first Jew,and a Babylonian citizen, was using his national calendar, and just kept on using it.
                            Let us just use the DNA clock for what it is.

                            If you think scientists are the only ones that make the results confirm some belief system , you would be wrong ussher did it
                            BTW abraham wasnt the first jew , judea was and his first borns [zarah]sons founded many of the city states of the medditeranian like troy rome and ibernia

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              That's correct, Jim, the modern notion of Jewishness simply didn't exist at the time of Abraham. Abraham, in a feudalistic manner, prostrated himself before Melchizedek, King of Salem (King of Peace), the pre-Hebraic "Ursaliimmu" of the Hittites or Jebusites. Considering the traditional Hebrew anti-kingly perspective as manifested in Samuel:

                              "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them"

                              Melchizedek, King of Salem, was probably of entirely non-Hebrew origin and belonged to the sun-worshipping Indo-European Hittite/Jebusite priest-king caste of Ursaliimmu that Abraham acknowledged as containing a higher legitimacy over all subsequent Abrahamic religion.

                              And actually, from a biblical perspective, Japhetic tribes founded all the places you mention. This is especially obvious in the case of Troy: Troy was founded by the Japhetic/Indo-European tribe springing from Tiras (worshipped by his descendents as war-god Thuras or Thor).

                              Tiras>Tiracian>Thirasian>Thracian>Trajan>Trojan (later named Aesir, “Iron people”>Svear>Swede).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                derinos

                                jdchess: You asked where this info comes from:

                                1. "Abraham, the first Jew, and a Babylonian citizen, ..."

                                Abram's fervent adoption of Jaweh as the unique God makes him "the first Jew" (=Jaweh-person).
                                He comes on in Genesis at Haran, a village of Ur, which was by then a fading imperium undergoing Semitic tribal invasions from the north, and in process of annexation by Babylon (= "gateway to God"), Babel in Hebrew). Babylon, with firm civic organisation and a sophisticated calendar, was the main stabilising culture in that region and time. Genesis makes it clear that Ur was a place Abram was urged to get out of.

                                As a wealthy nomadic cattleman with a large household, Abram could choose his background. Babylonian citizenship was considered up-market. On visiting Egypt, Pharaoh welcomed him to his household. Later, in Philistia or Palestine, King Abimelech did the same. At each visit, Abram represented his lovely and brilliant wife Sarai as his sister, his host then becoming infatuated with her,with later embarassment. From the intimate Genesis material, Abimelech may have fathered the son of Abram's old age, promised by God.
                                Which anciently melds Palestinian and Israeli genes at the source. Pity they drifted apart.



                                2. "was using his national calendar, and just kept on using it."
                                That the Jewish calendar timeline is that of the Babylonian calendar, adopted and continued by the descendants of Abraham, came as a reply from the "Ask the Rabbi" website 4 years ago. Sorry I don't presently have the link, but Google should find it.

                                3. The "DNA clock" is the timeline in years yielded by a count of the number of mutations identified in a given comparative allele sequence, applying a (standard guess) number of years for each generation, and a (standard guess) number of generations between mutations. Not too different from what Bishop Ussher (and others later) did with the Genesis genealogy, but with commensurate margins of error for the much longer timescale.

                                Sources? Isaac Asimov's "Guide to the Bible" and "....Middle East" are still great reading. For Mideast prehistory (is the Bible not history?) there are countless websites pointed out by Google responding to suitable Key Words. Try "Jewish Calendar", for instance. Wikipedia is rather brief, but accurate. Good hunting!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X