[Outdoor Man]

Mayby you let yourself go.
I don't think they are reading the whole stories.

Try to denie it.

 

[setmenu]

I would not say evolution teaches that we get better.
That's a subjective term.
More like water running through complex terrain, DNA responds
to external influence and allows the organism to best conform
to it's environment for improved survival rates.

When The Bible says Gets worse I am presuming this really refers
to mans Moral state rather than mechanical.

10000 years is not a long time,especially in evolutionary terms.
There are trees over 3000years old and one in particular that
is some 6000 [and it looks it too! ..can't quite make out that carving though,think it says something like..Adam was here

]

I think if I were a 'God' and fancied setting about making an everything ,I would find building an adaptive machine that regulated itself more interesting than creating something that
needed my constant intervention and regular maintenance.
A growing evolving universe would be far more interesting
than a still life.
mmm..I do like to make little folk from clay though....none have
answered me back as yet,

Setmenu

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating since it was almost three pages or so ago. The University of California San Diego science department tracked the changes and errors occuring in DNA for a couple of years, then extrapolated that data backward and came to a wonderful conclusion: there was a perfect sample of DNA without a single error in it that existed roughly 10,000 years ago. This also disproves evolution. Why? Because evolution has taught that we are getting better over time, making improvements that get us more and more complex, not worse.

Now that IS interesting!

 

[setmenu]

Seems to me the real problem some have with evolution is often
washed over by debate on details trying to prove this or that.

That problem is to equate man with the beasts!
I detect a recoiling at the very thought of it

So Beasts or Angels what's it to be?

One hell of a football game thats what

Setmenu

 

[eric343]

Quote:

Originally posted by ServinginEcuador Evolution , as it is taught = man from slime due to minor changes over millions and millions of years. The fact that there are variances in height, skin color, and such are only micro evolution, not macro evolution. Did you notice one thing that all these people have in common? That's right, they're all humans. Evolution is man from slime thru an evolutionary chain of events that links us to said slime thru transitional species to get us to where we are today. Please, let's not confuse micro and macro evolution, or try to say that there are different size men walking the earth now, therefore macro evolution is true. These two are light years apart and have nothing to do with each other apart from the word evolution. Also, all of what we are and can be is contained within our DNA. Certain traits are dominant, big ears for example, and certain ones are recessant, red hair. Certain countries have always had shorter people, like Japan, but now that they've opened their borders more to outsiders, their average height is increasing. Micro evolution again - they always were men, and always will be. Also, have you ever observed a large family? Let's say a husband, wife, and at least 4 kids or more? If so you'll encounter on neat phenomenon: they can vary in skin color from totally dark to white with the same family. A black family can have children that are almost white in pigment, and totally black, all from the same parents. This is becase the info for height, skin, hair, and everything else is contained in their DNA, and how it comes out at conception is unique to each individual. That's the mircale of DNA - it shows an intelligent designer of its infinitely complex nature. A Swiss watch shows an intelligent designer, and something as tiny as a DNA strand is infinitely more complex, and yet we still look at it and say evolution and chance.

Of course! You'll note that one of the functions of DNA is to introduce slight variations from individual to individual. I guess you could say it's sort of a brute force approach - whichever version survives, becomes the blueprint for the next set of humans. Thing is, it isn't JUST humans that have DNA! In fact, our DNA is extremely similar (on the order of 99% if I remember correctly) to that of a certain ape [it's been ages since I took biology]. The difference, literally, is in that last 1% - kind of like with audio cables... Quote:

But I digress, this only goes to show how science accounts for the physiognomy of man. Now to answer your question: it doesn't say why there are differences, only that there are differences within the various people groups of the earth. It is a given that there are differences and variances, it speaks not at all about their origin or occurence, but it speaks a lot about their facts and existence. There are accounts of people of various languages, skin colors, heights, etc. throughtout the Bible. It does not explain the specifics per se, but then again it doesn't talk about the origin of Bermuda shorts either, so that's not a problem. If it said that all man were the same height, weight, hair color, etc. then we'd have a problem.

Because the Bible was written in the world, and the author(s) had to acknowledge this... it was rather obvious! Yet if we were created rather than evolved, why does our DNA still search for improvements? Any creator diety should be able to say, "OK, the best form for the people in place X would be like this, and for over here, they'll want to be a bit paler..." and then the DNA would only have to vary things like hair/eye/sex/etc. so we wouldn't get bored with each other. Quote:

I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating since it was almost three pages or so ago. The University of California San Diego science department tracked the changes and errors occuring in DNA for a couple of years, then extrapolated that data backward and came to a wonderful conclusion: there was a perfect sample of DNA without a single error in it that existed roughly 10,000 years ago.

Doesn't the Bible place the date of creation at about 5000-6000 years ago? If the error is that great, I wouldn't trust its accuracy on rather more important matters - like what '7 days' is in diety-time. Any Muslims, Hindus, or people of any other faith are welcome to chime in with the age of the human race as predicted by their religion. Quote:

This also disproves evolution. Why? Because evolution has taught that we are getting better over time, making improvements that get us more and more complex, not worse.

No, it just says that we're changing, and that those changes will theoretically be for the better. The whole point to evolution is that it IS random - the changes might be for the worse, in which case those people are less likely to reproduce. Change for the better happens when someone is born whose DNA happens to have that change - that might take awhile. Quote:

Whereas the Bible teaches that a man and a woman were created in the image of God about that smae amount of time ego. Evolution says we are getting better and better, Bible says worse and worse. Which of these two proposals can we observe on a day-to-day basis and therefore say are scientifically accurate?

When you consider how our lifespan has increased, quality of life has increased... of course those things are the result of developing 'civilization' and all its trappings. But other than that San Diego study [and I'd like to see the text, or at least a good reference for it, as I suspect the results weren't nearly as clear-cut as you make them out to be.], I don't know of any indication that we're getting worse. Quote:

When science begin to theorize and postulate what it thinks occurred instead of what is can test, obesrve, and repeat, it has now changed to philosophy. Or at the very least it changes from operation science to speculative science.

Incidentally, I believe that Neanderthal Man is no longer considered a link in the evolutionary chain, but a "branch off" species that was made extinct by climate changes and the influx of "humans" from Africa. The sophistication of his society is really a moot point - though he was a different animal, so to speak, similar things have happened (society-wise) with the Celts and ancient Indian societies. [not modern indian, but the ones that were there before the aryans came and killed them off.]

And just because he used flints of a similar type and sophistication as Native Americans means nothing - the Native Americans have had those tools for hundreds or probably thousands of years, and even they descended from buffalo hunters that came from Asia and , earlier, Africa - and there's nothing to say that brain size and intelligence are related at all.

Lastly, how does burying ones dead support the bible? The Egyptians were hardly Christian...

 

[ServinginEcuador]

[size=xx-small]When The Bible says Gets worse I am presuming this really refers to man’s Moral state rather than mechanical.[/size]

No, it actually refers to the mechanical state as well. They started out living over 900 years and slowly starting lowering and lowering in their lifespan, until just after Noah it says that man will only live about 120 years. The reported length of life we find in the Bible is one that starts off very long, and decreases with each nearly every passing generation. Once it hit 120 years it settled there.

[size=xx-small]"I think if I were a 'God' and fancied setting about making an everything ,I would find building an adaptive machine that regulated itself more interesting than creating something that needed my constant intervention and regular maintenance.[/size]

Sounds to me like you hit the nail on the head and summed up what happened. Sounds like you just described DNA and man’s capacity for though and creativity. We are self-repairing, self-replicating, and self-aware, three things that speak of the highest order of intelligence and design that could ever occur. There is simply no other mechanism more complex than one that can replicate and heal itself, and is self-aware.


When you state that a human is 99% similar to an ape species, gorilla I’ll assume, you must be referring to the external universe; the physical composition of the gorilla. Simply by looking at a gorilla one can deduce that he has certain human-like characteristics. I do not, however, think you can be implying that the internal universe or mind of a gorilla is 99% human-like. I doubt that you can show me a gorilla that can even draw a line 95% straight compared to a human that is able to a 100% straight line. If the gorilla is 99% human-like, I do not suppose a full-grown gorilla is able to formulate language, speak, and communicate 95% human-like? Neither has the gorilla ever created a chair to sit on, nor a table on which to eat? Or do we surmise that the gorilla has understood freedom of choice 95% when compared to humans and chosen not to build a table or chair? Neither do we see a 99% coexistence in the physical universe between the thought, will, and creative art of man and the thought, will, and creative art of a gorilla. Since the gorilla’s thought and will resulting in the production and creativity is much closer to 0% compared to the internal thoughts and will produced externally by humans, how is it that you are willing to so closely associate the human creative mind which has produced 100% of the inanimate are in the physical world to the mind of a gorilla which has not thought, not willed and not produced anything originating in the gorilla’s thoughts, in the physical universe. What you’re saying is that these gorillas or apes without thought gave humans their thinking process, a gorilla without ability and will to produce gave humans the will and ability to produce? Why do we insist on studying the evolution of the physical body, such as the physical makeup of the gorilla, instead of studying the natural substance of the mind? It seems that modern man has neglected the study of the uniqueness of the mind but is compulsively obsessed with studying this recyclable physical substance called the body. Amazingly the same 92 natural elements that compose all other lifeless matter also make up our brain, and yet a singularly unique phenomenon exists in the human brain. These 92 lifeless atoms somehow not only made life, totally violating the law of biogenesis - only life can beget life, but also gave spark to our mind, making it unique among all the species that roam the earth.

Since you brought up the point about humans not being the only thing with DNA, let me pose a question: if DNA is the most complicated and complex molecule in existence, and it is, would it not be that the more DNA molecules in a thing, the more complex that thing would be? IOW, if something has more of this complex molecule, that thing would be more complicated due to the complexity of the sheer number of DNA molecules? Of course, it’s common sense. Then answer me this: why are the majority of things that have more DNA pairs than we do called less complex organisms than humans? By default these much more complex forms of life should have evolved AFTER man, not before man. Shouldn’t these things with more complexity and complication due to the number of DNA molecules contained in them be more complex, more evolved than humans who have less of these DNA pairs? Amazingly, even this defies the precepts of evolution since a fern has 100 pairs of DNA in it, while we only have 22. Some of the “simpler” forms of life actually have more DNA in it than we do, yet that is not mentioned either.


[size=xx-small]Because the Bible was written in the world, and the author(s) had to acknowledge this... it was rather obvious! Yet if we were created rather than evolved, why does our DNA still search for improvements? Any creator diety should be able to say, "OK, the best form for the people in place X would be like this, and for over here, they'll want to be a bit paler..." and then the DNA would only have to vary things like hair/eye/sex/etc. so we wouldn't get bored with each other.[/size]

You’re assuming something, that is who says DNA searches for anything, much less improvement? No one. It merely changes each time an ovum and a sperm come together and form life thru combining the two sets of chromosones. All it does is combine itself when the sperm and ovum come together in the womb, and doesn’t seek or search for anything. In fact, many times there are errors in this process and we have birth defects and such. If that’s what the DNA was searching for, we’ve got a problem. There is no divine intervention necessary to have DNA combinations and certain attributes come to the front, it’s inherent in the design of the molecule. Again, this self-replicating, self-healing machine called DNA can only belie one thing: an even more highly intelligent designer. When one looks at a Swiss Rolex compared to a cheap watch, one sees more intelligent design in the Swiss watch, yet when we see life here, infinitely more complex than any watch, why do we think that it all happened by chance? Why do we not marvel at how complex something is, and remark that it smacks of design, and not chance?

Firstly, there was only one location or continent on earth at the time of creation, and the entire earth was surrounded by a water canopy of some sorts that created a perfect climate control system from the north pole to the south pole. There would have been no differences in climate at that time, so why would there be a need for different anything amongst the people? Pigment variation to protect people from different levels of UV exposure, different heights for people that lived in caves vice out in the open, sightless people if they lived deep in caves, etc. Is this biblical account at the time of creation scientifically accurate? Yes. How so? They have found frozen mastodons in Siberia that had undigested food in their stomachs. There have been frozen ferns found in these regions also - a plant that only grows in tropical environments. Secondly, God only created two people, Adam and Eve. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. He created them with the DNA to allow for changes in minor attributes that allow them do adapt to whatever environment they encountered. There was no further need for divine intervention each and every time a child was conceived to adapt better to its environment: it would happen and continue to improve that adaption with each generation due to the design of our DNA.

[size=xx-small]Doesn't the Bible place the date of creation at about 5000-6000 years ago? If the error is that great, I wouldn't trust its accuracy on rather more important matters - like what '7 days' is in diety-time. Any Muslims, Hindus, or people of any other faith are welcome to chime in with the age of the human race as predicted by their religion.[/size]

Well, it’s not deity-time we’re talking about when the Bible spoke of creation. It says right in the text that there was morning and evening, the first day, morning and evening the second day, etc. during each day of creation. That’s a sunrise and a sunset, which makes for only a single day, not in deity time, but in earth time. Each day of creation was just that, one single day of OUR time here on earth. And to your second point, no, the Bible does not place the time of creation about 5-6000 years ago. That’s extrapolated data from the geneologies and other info that we find contained therein, based on assumptions of how much time we “think” a generation of time was. If a generation was a little more time it would throw that calculation off quite a bit. If it’s a little less, the same. Therefore we conjecture these things, but can’t with with exactitude how old it is. The first chapters of Genesis contain the only accurate account of the order necessary to sustain life. The order is of 12 items, each placed where they would have to occur for life to exist and continue. Using a little math, you can see that the variables in order of these 12 parts of creating life have exactly 479,001,600 to 1 chance of being correctly placed in the right order. No other religion has ever even come close to explaining our origins. They all fall woefully short in their scientific explanation of our origins.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

[size=xx-small]No, it just says that we're changing, and that those changes will theoretically be for the better. The whole point to evolution is that it IS random - the changes might be for the worse, in which case those people are less likely to reproduce. Change for the better happens when someone is born whose DNA happens to have that change - that might take awhile. [/size]

Actually, the entire premise of evolution is that everything is evolving to a higher form of life from a lower form of life. That is called improving. It is going from chaos and simplicity to greater and greater states of complexity. That’s improvement. This defies everything we know of as real science. Read your second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy again, and tell me if this theory of evolution does not in every way defy what is observed in all of existence. Everything is getting worse and worse, going from complex to simple thru deterioration, rust, decay, etc. not better.

[size=xx-small]When you consider how our lifespan has increased, quality of life has increased... of course those things are the result of developing 'civilization' and all its trappings. But other than that San Diego study [and I'd like to see the text, or at least a good reference for it, as I suspect the results weren't nearly as clear-cut as you make them out to be.], I don't know of any indication that we're getting worse.[/size]

Actually, only the average lifespan has increased over the centuries, not the actual personal lifespan. Again, this is only data being looked at without a proper explanation. If 50% of the children died within the first few weeks of life, what would that do to the average lifespan at the time? Knock it down to a very low figure. People still lived a long time back a few hundred years, but the average lifespan was low. Has it increased thru evolution my friend? Not a chance and not at all. It has improved thru the direct advances of man influencing his environment, medicine, diseases, etc. This in no way proves evolution, it merely shows how man has discovered ways of artificially delaying death by the fighting off of diseases that killed us off in great numbers before. This is not evolution in any way shape or form. Again, the fact that we live longer does not convince me that we evolved from slime over millions of years.


[size=xx-small]Incidentally, I believe that Neanderthal Man is no longer considered a link in the evolutionary chain, but a "branch off" species that was made extinct by climate changes and the influx of "humans" from Africa. The sophistication of his society is really a moot point - though he was a different animal, so to speak, similar things have happened (society-wise) with the Celts and ancient Indian societies. [not modern indian, but the ones that were there before the aryans came and killed them off.] And just because he used flints of a similar type and sophistication as Native Americans means nothing - the Native Americans have had those tools for hundreds or probably thousands of years, and even they descended from buffalo hunters that came from Asia and , earlier, Africa - and there's nothing to say that brain size and intelligence are related at all.
[/size]

Actually the inference is always made by the evolutionists themselves that cranial capacity in our ancestors has steadily increased, and we are the pinnacle of that increase with the larger capacity. I was only using their verbage myself, not making my own point. They subscribe the use of these tools with a more modern man, not at the time of Neanderthal Man which was over 100,000 years ago. These primitive men had robes, tools of flint, hats, etc. and yet that point was totally overlooked in favor of a small thing like a tool. There is also one point overlooked I that little tidbit: they chose 1 and only one skeleton out of the whole group of them found there. Why? Why did they pick one hunched over skeleton out of all the ones they found? Answer: it was the only one that resembled what they were looking for. All the rest were fully developed and resembles us to a tee. Reread the quote from the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica. It states that they misconstructed the skull base, and misinterpreted certain features of ONE skeleton found. They chose one, and only one skeleton out of all the remains that were found together in one cave. Science or bias my friend?


[size=xx-small]Lastly, how does burying ones dead support the bible? The Egyptians were hardly Christian...[/size]

I only quoted what was in the article, those were not my words, so I can only hazard a guess on that one from the context of the article. The article is to be taken as a whole, not dissected into individual parts. It didn’t say that ONLY the fact that they buried their dead proved the Bible. It sounds like he’s referring to the fact that evolution teaches that these people were supposedly primitive, naked, and with little capacity for knowledge of advanced concepts like clothes and such, where as the Bible teaches all the way back from the beginning that man built cities and civilizations, had musical instruments, understood metallurgy, etc. Much more sophisticated than the evolutionary model we are presented with today. The facts just don’t fit the evolutionary model.

 

[eric343]

My apologies if I get a bit rude... it's 11:45PM and I'm tired.

Quote:

Originally posted by ServinginEcuador No, it actually refers to the mechanical state as well. They started out living over 900 years and slowly starting lowering and lowering in their lifespan, until just after Noah it says that man will only live about 120 years. The reported length of life we find in the Bible is one that starts off very long, and decreases with each nearly every passing generation. Once it hit 120 years it settled there.

The thing is, VERY VERY few people live to 120 years. The vast majority die at 70 to 80 in the US, and much earlier in third-world countries. In essence, people have degraded quite a bit from the biblical prediction - and even in biblical times, I suspect that the lack of hygene and proper medical care meant that even fewer, if any people lived to 120. If we are supposed to live to be that old, shouldn't dying earlier be the exception, not the norm? Quote:

When you state that a human is 99% similar to an ape species, gorilla I’ll assume, you must be referring to the external universe; the physical composition of the gorilla. Simply by looking at a gorilla one can deduce that he has certain human-like characteristics.

No, I was saying that the DNA is 99% (or 95%, I don't remember) similar.
Not that the mental capacity / capability for thought/expression/war/hate is 99% identical. Quote:

Amazingly the same 92 natural elements that compose all other lifeless matter also make up our brain, and yet a singularly unique phenomenon exists in the human brain. These 92 lifeless atoms somehow not only made life, totally violating the law of biogenesis - only life can beget life, but also gave spark to our mind, making it unique among all the species that roam the earth.

Rather arrogant to assume one is the highest/best species, isn't it? (Looking at a lot of organized religion from a cynic's view, much of it seems designed to appeal to the ego, or just to one's feelings in general - not one's brain.) I think Douglas Adams made that point when he pointed out that dolphins are a whole lot more intelligent - they spend all day having fun in tropical waters, playing around, and don't worry about nukes/guns/murder/all that other bad stuff. They're also smart enough that they don't get eaten by sharks. Anyways, that's beside the point, isn't it...

Since when does the fact that we're made from atoms have anything to do with it? Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules interact... much of biology is how the different organic molecules and combinations thereof send other molecules back and forth. I agree there's a missing link between "raw molecules" and "first bacteria", but if there's anything I've come to realize is that we, including scientists, don't know everything. Anyone who thinks they know everything is wrong. Quote:

Since you brought up the point about humans not being the only thing with DNA, let me pose a question: if DNA is the most complicated and complex molecule in existence, and it is, would it not be that the more DNA molecules in a thing, the more complex that thing would be?

No, because of things like ferns, as you mentioned! Quote:

IOW, if something has more of this complex molecule, that thing would be more complicated due to the complexity of the sheer number of DNA molecules? Of course, it’s common sense. Then answer me this: why are the majority of things that have more DNA pairs than we do called less complex organisms than humans? By default these much more complex forms of life should have evolved AFTER man, not before man. Shouldn’t these things with more complexity and complication due to the number of DNA molecules contained in them be more complex, more evolved than humans who have less of these DNA pairs? Amazingly, even this defies the precepts of evolution since a fern has 100 pairs of DNA in it, while we only have 22. Some of the “simpler” forms of life actually have more DNA in it than we do, yet that is not mentioned either.

Yes, and all audio equipment with low THD sounds better than equipment with higher THD. You're essentially arguing that more DNA = more complex, except you disprove that, and then using the argument which you disprove in the process of arguing in order to try to prove something else. Or am I missing something really big? Quote:

You’re assuming something, that is who says DNA searches for anything, much less improvement? No one. It merely changes each time an ovum and a sperm come together and form life thru combining the two sets of chromosones.

Well, it "searches" in a completely random fashion - if it finds something good, then it goes after it, but it searches without any intelligence or logic - much like how your computer searches your hard drive, except DNA doesn't know what it's looking for, just what the result will be. In retrospect, that's streching the analogy a bit far, isn't it... Quote:

All it does is combine itself when the sperm and ovum come together in the womb, and doesn’t seek or search for anything. In fact, many times there are errors in this process and we have birth defects and such. If that’s what the DNA was searching for, we’ve got a problem. There is no divine intervention necessary to have DNA combinations and certain attributes come to the front, it’s inherent in the design of the molecule. Again, this self-replicating, self-healing machine called DNA can only belie one thing: an even more highly intelligent designer.

Well, since DNA is by nature random, and only heals through randomness, it seems to belie a random designer, not intelligent design. Intelligent design would include some form of error-checking - to prevent bad errors like deformities et al. Quote:

When one looks at a Swiss Rolex compared to a cheap watch, one sees more intelligent design in the Swiss watch, yet when we see life here, infinitely more complex than any watch, why do we think that it all happened by chance?

Because life is unpredictable, imperfect, random, and imprecise when compared to a Swiss watch. Sure, life is a lot more versatile - but YOU try keeping time like the watch does! Quote:

Why do we not marvel at how complex something is, and remark that it smacks of design, and not chance?

Because it smacks of chance, not design... believe it or not, humans are far from optimal. I remember reading an article (in Discover magazine, I believe it was) on how humans would look if they were optimal - our knee joints would be reversed, we'd be shorter, etc. Quote:

Firstly, there was only one location or continent on earth at the time of creation, and the entire earth was surrounded by a water canopy of some sorts that created a perfect climate control system from the north pole to the south pole.

You're assuming that we were created, and that's the whole point of contention here! Quote:

There would have been no differences in climate at that time, so why would there be a need for different anything amongst the people? Pigment variation to protect people from different levels of UV exposure, different heights for people that lived in caves vice out in the open, sightless people if they lived deep in caves, etc.

So, then, if we were created in this seeming paradise, then why *can* we adapt? If a diety had wanted that to be the environment, then why did it not stay that way? On the other hand, if people evolved over millions of years, then they would have been subject to all the different changes, gradually, giving the proto-human race time for people with advantageous abilities to reproduce more than those without those abilities. Also, you forget that the environment in which the first organisms lived was a VERY hostile one, and the ability to change and adapt would have been necessary for any kind of survival. Quote:

Is this biblical account at the time of creation scientifically accurate? Yes. How so? They have found frozen mastodons in Siberia that had undigested food in their stomachs. There have been frozen ferns found in these regions also - a plant that only grows in tropical environments.

Alright, so we know that Panagea existed. Your point? The existence of Panangea isn't exactly controversial. Quote:

Secondly, God only created two people, Adam and Eve. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. He created them with the DNA to allow for changes in minor attributes that allow them do adapt to whatever environment they encountered.

Except you just said that at the time of creation, the environment was all the same. Quote:

There was no further need for divine intervention each and every time a child was conceived to adapt better to its environment: it would happen and continue to improve that adaption with each generation due to the design of our DNA.

OK, so we've got a lazy diety... that seems to support creation via evolution, no? Quote:

Well, it’s not deity-time we’re talking about when the Bible spoke of creation. It says right in the text that there was morning and evening, the first day, morning and evening the second day, etc. during each day of creation. That’s a sunrise and a sunset, which makes for only a single day, not in deity time, but in earth time. Each day of creation was just that, one single day of OUR time here on earth.

One of the reasons Martin Luther formed the Protestant branch of Christianity was that the Catholic church held that the bible should be inaccessible to common people... also, the bible has been translated, retranslated, passed down, edited for political reasons, and generally gone through the equivalent of a several-generation analog tape copy to such a degree that I wouldn't be surprised if some simplification occured somewhere down the line. Even if it hasn't, it would be rather simpler for God to simplify the process of creation down to the point where people could easily understand it instead of talking about metaphysical time-scale differences. Quote:

And to your second point, no, the Bible does not place the time of creation about 5-6000 years ago. That’s extrapolated data from the geneologies and other info that we find contained therein, based on assumptions of how much time we “think” a generation of time was. If a generation was a little more time it would throw that calculation off quite a bit. If it’s a little less, the same. Therefore we conjecture these things, but can’t with with exactitude how old it is.

OK, I give you that... Quote:

The first chapters of Genesis contain the only accurate account of the order necessary to sustain life. The order is of 12 items, each placed where they would have to occur for life to exist and continue. Using a little math, you can see that the variables in order of these 12 parts of creating life have exactly 479,001,600 to 1 chance of being correctly placed in the right order.

Not having read Genesis, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Could you clarify what you mean by "12 items"?
Quote:

Actually, only the average lifespan has increased over the centuries, not the actual personal lifespan. Again, this is only data being looked at without a proper explanation. If 50% of the children died within the first few weeks of life, what would that do to the average lifespan at the time? Knock it down to a very low figure. People still lived a long time back a few hundred years, but the average lifespan was low. Has it increased thru evolution my friend? Not a chance and not at all. It has improved thru the direct advances of man influencing his environment, medicine, diseases, etc. This in no way proves evolution, it merely shows how man has discovered ways of artificially delaying death by the fighting off of diseases that killed us off in great numbers before. This is not evolution in any way shape or form. Again, the fact that we live longer does not convince me that we evolved from slime over millions of years.

So how exactly is average lifespan different from expected personal lifespan? You're saying that, 1000 years ago, I could live to be 120, as long as I wasn't stillborn, or died of starvation, or disease, or... The whole idea of average lifespan is that it takes all these things into account - that's the lifespan you could reasonably expect, though you might be lucky or unlucky and live a longer or shorter life. And of course evolution has little to do with lifespan - one's useful reproductive ability drops off quite a bit in one's later years, and as such is not something that would really be affected by evolution. (in theory...) I brought up the point since you said that people were supposed to live to 120...
Quote:

It sounds like he’s referring to the fact that evolution teaches that these people were supposedly primitive, naked, and with little capacity for knowledge of advanced concepts like clothes and such, where as the Bible teaches all the way back from the beginning that man built cities and civilizations, had musical instruments, understood metallurgy, etc. Much more sophisticated than the evolutionary model we are presented with today.

Excuse me?! Iron smelting was discovered, what, 1500+ years ago? And bronze earlier than that. Perhaps you're talking about the misconception of cavemen of dumb primitive hulking monstrosities going around with clubs saying "duuuhhh"...

 

[Outdoor Man]

Sorry people.
Those postings are to long to read.

Peter.

 

[eloquentspeaker]

Man you guys are stirring up alot of trouble. Lots of different religions here. Better close this thread!! Hey no politics no religious talk. This heresy. The church will not abide. Im calling the pope on head-fi.

 

[setmenu]

Does existence require perception?


Setmenu

 

[Zanth]

Peter, we don't need you posting to tell us the threads are too long to read. I'm enjoying reading the banter. It has not gone nuts yet and I am again...very pleased about this.

If you don't want to read them, don't but stop with the "too long" posts.


As for closing the thread down...I don't think it is necessary yet. Eric and Servinginecuador have not been harsh. As long as the name calling doesn't start up, or "my religion is better than your religion" garbage, we can all learn something. No one has to agree on anything, nor does one have to accept anything posted, but I personally love to read arguments from both sides. Let's just keep it civil.

 

[grancasa]

You are all ugly, and my religion is better than your religion.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Now can we close this thread??

 

[Audio Redneck]

I am just going to clear a few things up. Any of this can be found in most translations of the Bible (most of it in Genesis). Either side is welcome quote the Bible or other book, BUT I think they should get the quotes accurate. So whether you believe it or not, here is what the Bible says-

Calculated age of the earth since Creation: about 2000 years from Adam to the Flood, about 2000 years between the flood and Christ, and about 2000 years between Christ and now, so about 6000 years its been around [ I refrain from saying "years old" as, with all other things created, Adam was FULL GROWN, or probably the equivilant of a 25-30 year old man]. This calculation is based on recorded ages and births through the Bible and the accepted historical calander from the time of Christ on.

Life span of folks in the Bible: Pre-flood, most folks mentioned were going about 900 years, baring murder and other no-biological reasons. Post flood, ages quickly droped to under 120 years, with a few making or surpassing that (Abraham and Moses). By the time David became king 70-80 was considered a long life (Psalms 90:10)

God Time - days vs. thousands of years: Now here is a point of great confusion. First, the Genesis account spells out "the evening and the morning" for each day which is still the "Jewish" clock - sunset marks one day from the next. Now, everyone likes to throw out "a thousand years is as a day ", BUT they usually forget that "a day is as a thousand years" follows in most places (2 Peter 3:8). What people that play with that verse forget is that a "God" must be transcendant of time, meaning existing in the past, present, and future simultaniously and conciously aware of all three. So, whether you believe the Bible or not, it does say 6 regular days.

(Note: anyone bored with this thread should check out the Music Forum, as there is a really nice discussion of Favorite Live Albums going on.

)

(Grandcasa, I want my picture back

)

 

[grancasa]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio Redneck (Grandcasa, I want my picture back )

Qua????




Edit: Ahhhhhh, just figured it out. We've all seen your website, and we also seen pictures of plenty of Head-Fi folks from the meets. Trust me, there are many out there that leave you looking like Fabio!