An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

[Lootifer]

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

We are trying to work out what part of the crazy spectrum you lie on.

[AndyDufresne]

Any answer would suffice please.

--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

We are trying to work out what part of the crazy spectrum you lie on.

Harshly put, Loot - but yes, Viceroy, that's sort of why I asked.
See, most people who deny evolution think otherwise.
Especially people who urge us to read the bible for ourselves.
But thank you for the straight answer Viceroy.

It has to do with the question of evolution because if (for instance) you accepted the 3000 5000 or 10000 years old doctrine, that would mean that that had to be disposed of first.

OK next question - when did life on Earth begin? It's not a trick question, I'm not fooling, just trying to establish where we stand - and trying to avoid the huge posts which topics like this tend to generate.

[Viceroy63]

Anyone who really reads and studies the Bible with no bias or preconceived notions will realize that the creation of the earth 6,000 years ago was not the original creation of the earth but a recreation. Most so called "Christians," loose track because they assume that Genesis 1:1 is part of Genesis 1:2 and beyond. And I know that doctrine of a young 6,000 year old earth and how they mix up the words "and it was all Good" and conclude that all must include the universe because of Genesis 1:1, and also how the Sun was "Created" in the 4th day and all of that is explain in the pages of the Bible for serious studiers of the word but I don't subscribe to a young earth because the Bible gives indication that the earth is ancient and old and not 6,000 years young.

We need to keep in mind that man put the chapter and verses there. A Catholic Jesuit Monk in some monastery somewhere just sat down and began numbering the Bible verses and creating the chapters. But the Bible was not written that way. Genesis 1:1 stands alone as a statement of fact. Revealed knowledge that man can have no other way.

In fact if you have an open mind I will show you something right now for you to consider. In Genesis 1:2 it reads...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

That word "was" is in the original Hebrew "Hayah" and it can be used in several different ways. It is Strong's Bible Concordance word 1961. It is basically a Verb and as we know a Verb is an Action word and not a descriptive word.

The way it was translated in 1600AD. was the best to their understanding but the majority of the time that word "was" (Hayah) is not used to relay a condition but an event.

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

a) (Qal)

1) -----
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass

2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become

1) to become

2) to become like

3) to be instituted, be established

3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with...

There is more but I think you get the gist. So instead of the verse reading...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

It should read...

"And the earth "became" without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

So right there you have a clue that the earth was not created in Genesis 1:2 but was already here because if the earth was created in Genesis 1:2 then how did the earth "Become" and from what and where did the earth become from? The earth was created before Genesis 1:2 and After 1:1.

Hopefully you will understand what I just wrote.

So if the earth was already here and if the earth is ancient as the Bible indicates in other verses; in the Psalms and Job among others, then why could it not have life on it. Just not Modern man. Modern man is a modern creation made after the God kind 6,000 years ago. All other creations were made after their kind. But if they never existed before 6,000 years ago, then what "Kind" is the Bible referring to?

Can you answer me that?

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
-Genesis 1:12

Incidentally some teach that the word "Kind" means family as in the dog kind but that is just one use for the word. A word like most Hebrew words that have multiple uses. I mean this in the sense that when it reads "after their kind" it is reading "in accordance to their families or species." But another use is "type of." So grass was created after the type of grass that had already existed before the destruction of the earth which also caused mass extinctions. Including the grass "kind."

And an indication of this is the use of the word, "his" kind and not "their" kind. Their kind would tend to indicate species while his kind tends to indicate type of. So that a blade of grass is created after his kind/type of. Just in case you look this up and try and give me this as an answer.

so if we are made "after god's kind" why do we have a coccyx? answer this simple question.
Why would we have a tale residius on our asses? why did god create us with that shit? why was "god" himself created with that shit if we were "created" after his kind?
Why do we have 5 toes per feet, when clearly they could be better designed?
If we are made after god's kind, how come our 5 senses suck that much compared to other animals?
Given how insignificant is our galaxy on the scale of the universe, do you think god would have that much time to spend on it, and create all those species? I mean our galaxy on the scale of the universe is so small that even an electron compared to our human scale would be huge. Not to mention how our planet is shit nothing on the scale of our galaxy. There is probably life out there on trillions of planets/moons, which %agewise would be absolutely nothing compared to the total amount of planets/moons existing. Do you really think we are special in the universe? How can a god so weak as the one described in the bible could have influence elsewhere than in the solar system?

You are asking all kinds of question that show how much you don't know. Unfortunately you don't want to learn because if you did you would find the answers for yourself. But I will explain what I meant by man being made after the God kind. First of all I said that and not the Bible. The Bible reads "Image and Likeness" of God.

All of creation, plants and animals, were created after their kind. If God had said the same thing about Man, 6,000 years ago, "Let us make man after his kind," then the only creature that would have been created would have been Neanderthal man, again. Modern man was created in the image of God and not after the man kind and this gave us a form of intelligence that the animal and vegetable kingdom does not possess. Because we possess this special intelligence (because we are modern man in the image of God) we can grow and created in ways that no other species can. This is what I meant by man being created after the God kind.

We are not stupid animal neanderthal man, but God like man, so we are able to go beyond what animals can do. Neanderthal man could never write books or go to the moon or create Music or art, but we, man in God's image, can do all of that and much more.

[Lootifer]

Sounds a bit silly. God should join you in your plain english classes.

[Metsfanmax]

A useful chart, for Viceroy's benefit:

Click image to enlarge.

[betiko]

so if we are made "after god's kind" why do we have a coccyx? answer this simple question.
Why would we have a tale residius on our asses? why did god create us with that shit? why was "god" himself created with that shit if we were "created" after his kind?
Why do we have 5 toes per feet, when clearly they could be better designed?
If we are made after god's kind, how come our 5 senses suck that much compared to other animals?
Given how insignificant is our galaxy on the scale of the universe, do you think god would have that much time to spend on it, and create all those species? I mean our galaxy on the scale of the universe is so small that even an electron compared to our human scale would be huge. Not to mention how our planet is shit nothing on the scale of our galaxy. There is probably life out there on trillions of planets/moons, which %agewise would be absolutely nothing compared to the total amount of planets/moons existing. Do you really think we are special in the universe? How can a god so weak as the one described in the bible could have influence elsewhere than in the solar system?

[PLAYER57832]

[ .

Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...
.

The problem is what you posted were NOT facts, are not accurate. You accuse us of pushing things put out for money.

I am posting information I have seen myself... anyone who has read much of my writing knows I am NOT benefitting from my education. In fact, I can point to a good many scientists, good, professional, well-trained scientists who are working for pittances. And, let's be frank, plenty of evangelical "associates" are very far from living on pittances. Some certainly live as they preach, but for many taking money and profit has become a gauge of faith.

[PLAYER57832]

Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!

Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...

What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?

Any answer would suffice please.

First address MY comments. I showed you that nothing you said was true. You ignored it.

You can pick plenty of errors in the course of how evolutionary thinking developed, how the science evolved. But, if you wish to be honest, you MUST pay attention to the truth, the things that stand, not just the errors.

[PLAYER57832]

In fact if you have an open mind I will show you something right now for you to consider. In Genesis 1:2 it reads...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

That word "was" is in the original Hebrew "Hayah" and it can be used in several different ways. It is Strong's Bible Concordance word 1961. It is basically a Verb and as we know a Verb is an Action word and not a descriptive word.

Th important part is that this pretty well cooincides with any accepted scientific theory for the intitial creation, particularly the Big Bang (though no SCIENTIST will claim that the Big Bang theory is fact!.. or even necessarily more than a very loose theory).

There is more but I think you get the gist. So instead of the verse reading...

"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2

[section omitted]
Hopefully you will understand what I just wrote.

Yes, I but without getting into your analysis too deeply, the real point for this thread is that its irrelevant. Evolution in no way disputes that explanatio of the creation.

So if the earth was already here and if the earth is ancient as the Bible indicates in other verses; in the Psalms and Job among others, then why could it not have life on it. Just not Modern man. Modern man is a modern creation made after the God kind 6,000 years ago. All other creations were made after their kind. But if they never existed before 6,000 years ago, then what "Kind" is the Bible referring to?

Can you answer me that?

Yeah, both on the biblical front and the scientific front.

Biblically, you don't have to get into a prior creation, though that is an "interesting" idea. You simply have to recognize that the time frames given are not human time frames. The references to "day", "evening", etc are all terms that can have a specific "so many hours and seconds" time frame OR they can be more general, such as "this day and age", "in the eve of a man's life..", etc, etc. That is true in ancient Hebrew, other languages and not just in English. That, alone, is enough.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
-Genesis 1:12

Interstingly, the order is the same as scientists believe. That said, the Bible was not a scientific text. It is a declaration that God created all, not a textbook on how God did it.

Incidentally some teach that the word "Kind" means family as in the dog kind but that is just one use for the word. A word like most Hebrew words that have multiple uses. I mean this in the sense that when it reads "after their kind" it is reading "in accordance to their families or species." But another use is "type of." So grass was created after the type of grass that had already existed before the destruction of the earth which also caused mass extinctions. Including the grass "kind."

And an indication of this is the use of the word, "his" kind and not "their" kind. Their kind would tend to indicate species while his kind tends to indicate type of. So that a blade of grass is created after his kind/type of. Just in case you look this up and try and give me this as an answer.

Well, I find it interesting that all these distinctions are pretty modern "discoveries" and by modern Christians largely, not Jews.

Even so, it really has nothing to do with whether evolution is real or not.

All of creation, plants and animals, were created after their kind. If God had said the same thing about Man, 6,000 years ago, "Let us make man after his kind," then the only creature that would have been created would have been Neanderthal man, again. Modern man was created in the image of God and not after the man kind and this gave us a form of intelligence that the animal and vegetable kingdom does not possess. Because we possess this special intelligence (because we are modern man in the image of God) we can grow and created in ways that no other species can. This is what I meant by man being created after the God kind.

Actually, the Bible just says we were made in God's image. Nothing more. What that means is a matter of debate. I take serious exception to anyone who claims to follow the Bible, but who, in fact is pointing to added, human words as if they were truly what the Bible says.

You find varied opinions on what the image of God means. I agree that intelligence is included, but I don't say that is what the Bible specifies. You can make no such claim, becuase the Bible does not specify.

We are not stupid animal neanderthal man, but God like man, so we are able to go beyond what animals can do. Neanderthal man could never write books or go to the moon or create Music or art, but we, man in God's image, can do all of that and much more.

Uh.. Neaderthal were not stupid. Latest thinking has that they might well have had music, even some kind of religion. BUT.. and this is important, we are not and did not come from Neaderthals.

[Symmetry]

I don't think Viceroy is particularly interested in discussing the truth, as he still seems stuck on the idea that evolution equates to Darwin's theories, an idea remarkable for for being two centuries out of date, as well as showing that he has not actually read Darwin.

[betiko]

Uh.. Neaderthal were not stupid. Latest thinking has that they might well have had music, even some kind of religion. BUT.. and this is important, we are not and did not come from Neaderthals.

I wouldn't be so sure. Recent dna studies have brought up new theories and there is a controversy among scientists wether or not the neanderthal was a completely different specie or if there has been hybridation with our specie at some point. We do not know for sure at this point if the homo sapiens and the neanderthal could procreate and if their progeniture could be fertile or not, I'm talking about 2010 studies.
The most common theory is that our common ancestor is the 500 000 years old homo erectus. But yes, Neanderthals had sepultures, religions, art forms, complex tools. They were stronger and had a bigger brain that the homo sapiens. They are vulgarly seen as retards, but in fact they were not.

[comic boy]

I am still waiting to see an explanation from Viceroy regarding the Nat Geo article ? Why did he display it and then afterwards condemn it , does he only show 'evidence' that supports his bias , must the charge of hypocrisy be leveled again or is he just stupid ?

[DoomYoshi]

Finally, the conversation has entered the only realm I know better than evolutionary Biology.

Between the years the Bible was written and around the 5th century AD, all arguments around the Bible centered around whether it was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically.Even then, only a few crackpots even toyed with the idea of biblical literalism. Then the reformation happened.

Now, the reformation was ridiculous. The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping the Bible instead of God. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).

With these bullshit reformations came reading the Bible literally. I repeat, this is a completely modern invention, as removed from Jesus as internet porn over Wi-Fi.

So sure,

any who reads the bible....

Once again, legerdemain based on the fact that those who read the bible are getting a skewed viewed, which is missing the most important historical contexts.

On religious and historical (completely non-scientific) grounds, biblical creationism (or any other literalism) makes no sense.