Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 209 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 7 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Topic Options
#13421 - 09/09/06 01:16 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Hi dehammer:

You inquire: "do you have any evidence that venus was nearer mars (where did mars come from) and somehow went into the orbit its in now. it would take billions of years for it to stablize in such an orbit. definiately much less than the 5000 or so that biblical scholars claim the earth has existed."

We do not exchange ideas very well. It would take a lot of discussion to open this thought and I fail, even as an advocate, to see any semblance of potential progress from the effort. You have a lot of questions of many. It becomes tedius to respond to all of them. Ignore my previous comment.
jjw

Top
.
#13422 - 09/13/06 01:24 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
One point dehammer,

I did not say that "Venus was nearer Mars".

You are in excellent company if you think the Solar System we see today was the Solar System as it originated.

There is nothing wrong with expecting people to explain thier theories. A requirement that is mandated is that you acurately read what is offered so you can frame intellegent questions to the moving party.
jjw

Top
#13423 - 09/13/06 02:55 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
One point dehammer,

I did not say that "Venus was nearer Mars".

You are in excellent company if you think the Solar System we see today was the Solar System as it originated.

There is nothing wrong with expecting people to explain thier theories. A requirement that is mandated is that you acurately read what is offered so you can frame intellegent questions to the moving party.
jjw
Quote:
My personal contention is that there is a large object out there and/or a lot of trash which gave our SS the shape we find it in. As to the light by night I contend it was a brilliant planet Venus located about where Nars
since there is no Nars in the system, i assumed you meant Mars. so i did read what you wrote.

since you did not mention Mars moving in to, that would put them both in the same orbit.

unless your claiming a that all planets have moved in that far, in which case earth wold have been somewhere in the vacinity of jupiter's current orbit.

unless there is some theory that would indicate with evidence that the planets have been rearranged somehow and some where, the current theory is that they were created in the general areas they are now. Do you have evidence of that theory? If you do, please share it. ive never heard of any theory that the planets changed orbits that much. (you can ask others, ive heard some really far out theories, and like to check them out, but this one is not one ive ever heard of)
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#13424 - 09/13/06 10:50 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Hi dehammer, you made a good choice. In my coded message I did mean to call Mars - Nars. Good pick.

Venus located where about Mars is now was another coded idea that failed to grasp due to my lack of clarity.

You insist so I will share the tip of the issue,

From the Sun out.

1. Possibly the Earths Moon;
2. Mercury is next;
3. Mars is next;
4. Earth is next:
5. Venus is next;
6. Atlan or whatever was next and gone;
7. Jupiter;
8. Saturn;
9. Uranus;
10. Neptune.

Mow you want proof! None available. The prospect I offer by my speculation has much circumstantial evidence for me but most certainly not for you. I can risk the plunge into heavy speculative imagination because my working life is behind me and I can now be self indulgent.

I will not elaborate further for your curiosity because I do now want to waste web space. You are not ready yet, in my opinion, to fairly consider prospects beyound the common place and I respect that circumstance but have no desire to feed it. Remind me, I left out Pluto.

I will document my views evem though we are all well aware proof, at this time, is beyound any possible individuals grasp.
Cheers.
JJW

Top
#13425 - 09/20/06 11:02 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
onegermanglassofbeer Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 16
Loc: Wisconsin
I appologize, first and foremost, if I cover something already covered. I read the first and last three pages, but being that time is relavent to me and any changes in time do not grant any more of it to me, I had to cut my reading short.

I believe that Genesis can be explained, and can coincide with most of current science. The first thing you have to understand is this (sorry all you high-science minded non-religious individuals, but its a discussion on religion, so we have to start there):

God is perfect, man is fallible. So the interpretations of one or even a group of religious people can very easily be incorrect.

Second: Theology is a science (Check out the Pope's speech in Germany (you know, the controversial one) at www.vatican.va

As such, when we create a hypothesis (in this case, understanding biblical text) that fails the test, we have to go back and re-examine.

It may not need to be said, but I am a believer. I also believe that there is room for science and reason along side belief in a creator diety.

In this case, we need to address two things. First, in Genesis 1, there is a repeated theme of acts of God, followed by "And there was evening, and there was morning - the ___ day."

Important to note is that in the original Hebrew, the word pronounced "yom" is used for day. Of most interest relating to this subject, the use of "yom" in Genesis 1 is unique in the bible. For example, Gensis 1:5 reads "yom ehad" and Genesis 1:8 reads "yom seni." Elsewhere in the bible, where you find the hebrew word "yom" either it or the numerical value associated with it (or in most cases, both) are prefixed, making the wording different. For example, in many places, "the first day" is denoted in hebrew as "hayyom harison" and "the second day" is "hayyom hasseni."

I believe, and there are many others who follow this belief, that the uniqueness of the use of the word "yom" in Genesis suggests that it should be interpreted differently than elsewhere in the book. One other I've read even suggested replacing the translation to "day" with "time."

Secondly, there are only three creative acts in Genesis, and I've noticed many people talking about God creating the Sun and Moon, this is not readily evident in Genesis. The three creative acts of God are: Heaven & Earth, Animal Life, and Mankind.

As such, this would mean Genesis 1 could be read (roughly) as:

God created Heaven and earth* and seperated light from darkness, thereby defining day and night. This was the first age/era/time.

God seperated water of heaven from water of earth* and called the seperation "sky".** This was the second age/era/time.

God draws land from the sea and allows it to produce plant life.. This was the third age/era/tme.

God allows the sun, moon, and stars to be individually visible, and to mark the passage of time.*** This was the fourth age/era/time.

God creates aquatic and aerial life. This was the fifth age/era/time.****

God allows creatures of the land to form.****

God creates man in his own image and likeness. This was the sixth age/era/time.*****

God rests. This is the seventh age/era/time.

*Also an important note is the use of the translation, "earth" which comes from the Hebrew word pronounced "erhets" which can be anything from a small locality to the entire planet, to all of existence. Taking "erhets" in Genesis 1:1 to mean, all of existence, simply means that God instigated the "big bang."

** This could be seen as the forming of the Earth, and or other planets.

*** There is no creative act in Genesis 1:14-19, merely allowing the sources of light to be visible. By this interpretation, the light that is "allowed to appear" in 1:3-5 could also be the Sun, suggesting that the Sun came before the Earth, but was seen as dispersed light within a vapor until Genesis 1:14.

**** Note again that this interpretation of "yom" allows for evolution among animal life. Also note that in Genesis 1:24-25 there is no implicit act of creation with the land dwelling creatures as there is with the aquatic and aerial creatures, leaving room for the possibility that creatures of the land could have evolved out of the sea. If I recall correctly, current scientific theory suggest something of the like.

***** This is where the point of contention comes in between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution. Genesis explicitly spells out that man was created, not evolved. I personally believe this is why there has been no evolutionary "missing link" found, and there won't be. Mankind's existence is an act of God. Note also, that the divine creation of mankind, does not prohibit mankind from experiencing evolution also.

Science and religion can exist in conjunction, and both can be true. Throughout the bible, God is portrayed and a structured and orderly entity. Thus, it makes sense that there would be scientific laws that govern existence. These do not rule out actual miracles, or acts of God, such as the creation of mankind. Another example, as Hawking put it (paraphrased), our current understanding of physics works mathematically all the way to (something like) one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of a second after the "big bang." I believe Hawking has even suggested that this supports the idea of a creator entity, that physics breaks down at the moment of creation (or course, I also believe he leaves open the possibility for error in scientific theory).
_________________________
"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist

Top
#13426 - 09/21/06 03:48 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Theology may be some kind of 'science', but it is not science, per se.

There are plenty of transitionals between humans and other animals.

Top
#13427 - 09/24/06 01:03 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
onegermanglassofbeer Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 16
Loc: Wisconsin
The best example I've found of what you're suggesting is the 3.3 million year old skeleton of Lucy, which, reading the analysis written by the scientists, seems just as likely to be a precursor of chimpanzees as it is of humans. (I believe the current theory is that it is a precursor of both).

Again, though, I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water. (Both being unproven theories).
_________________________
"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist

Top
#13428 - 09/24/06 02:22 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
no, the chimpanzee would not be standing upright, nor would it have ancestors that did so. Since it stands up right, but still has some of the atrobutes of a tree climber it is believed to be the place where our ancestors seperated from them. If this is true, then it disproves the bible as fact theory.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#13429 - 09/24/06 06:32 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Again, though, I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water. (Both being unproven theories)."

Theories aren't generally "proven," rather they fail to be disproved. Evolution is disprovable if it is false. Creationism is not. Creationism is not science. Theology is not science. The bible's story is not a scientific theory at all.

Top
#13430 - 09/27/06 02:52 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
onegermanglassofbeer wrote:
"I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water."

Given that no scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from animals what is your point? It would seem you are commenting on evolution while lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the theory.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13431 - 09/27/06 03:53 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
onegermanglassofbeer Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 16
Loc: Wisconsin
Dehammer, you make the assumption that evolution would require being upright to be the product of an mutation, rather than the possibly that a more upright species evolved to be more squat and arced, as chimpanzees are. But in truth, the theory of evolution suggests both are possible.

Fallible, Christian Theology is the study and interpretation of the bible and criptural events. These can indeed be shown to be false. More over, even the bible, though it is more difficult to do because of the varied interpretations, can, in heory, be proven false.

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
onegermanglassofbeer wrote:
"I don't think science will ever find clear proof, without clear evidence that humans evolved from animals, then the bible's explanation of creation holds just as much water."

Given that no scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from animals what is your point? It would seem you are commenting on evolution while lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the theory.
I guess that means you don't consider Raymond Dart or Thomas Huxley to be scientists.

Regardless, if the position, as you seem to be claiming, is that man is not the product of evolution from animals, then there is no contention at all between Genesis and Evolution, which is also fine by me.
_________________________
"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist

Top
#13432 - 09/27/06 04:54 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by onegermanglassofbeer:
Dehammer, you make the assumption that evolution would require being upright to be the product of an mutation, rather than the possibly that a more upright species evolved to be more squat and arced, as chimpanzees are. But in truth, the theory of evolution suggests both are possible.
they might be possible, but show me any sign that any of the chimpanzees ancestors were upright. no sign of any save the potencial of the one in Africa.

On the other hand, all the possible ancestors of that one species were squat tree climbers that were simular to chimps, apes and others of that kind. So far there has never been one found before that time that stood upright. so how did they go from upright to squat if there was no uprights before.

the stories indicate that it had the arms of a tree climber but the legs of something that spent its more time on the ground. Last i heard they were hoping that the feet would show that they still had the climbers feet. that would show distinct linage from the tree climber to the ground runner.

chimps have the same type arm sturcture and leg structure of tree climbers that were the ancestors. This species is the first to have the legs of a ground runner.

theory would allow both, but it does require some form of evidence to back it up.

I could make a theory that we all came from Alpha Cenaturi, but i would not have any proof of it. It would not be considered scientific theory, because of that, more speculative theory instead. the theory that this is mans link to tree climbers is backed with scientific evidence. So far there is none to say that this is the ancestory of chimps. So that too would be considered speculative theory instead of scientific theory.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#13433 - 09/27/06 05:17 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
onegermanglassofbeer Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 16
Loc: Wisconsin
Finding a long extinct species and attempting to link it to a modern species is speculative. There's no other approach. It is an unprovable, or better put, not falsifiable.
_________________________
"It is better to believe than to disbelieve. In so doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility." - Albert Einstein, physicist

Top
#13434 - 09/27/06 09:17 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
OGGOB wrote:
"I guess that means you don't consider Raymond Dart or Thomas Huxley to be scientists."

Not at all. It means that I consider you capable of reading things and not understanding what you've read.

Your lack of comprehension does not make them non-scientists.

Feel free to disagree. But you'll never find anywhere that it is written by a biologist that "humans evolved from animals."
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13435 - 09/27/06 09:19 PM Re: genisis is NOT possible
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
If it were just one species that has been dead that long, then it might be.

But when there is a line between it and the current speicies, there is not much room for speculation.

each spot in the line shows a small change, with the rest being identical to its predicessor.

Example: skulls that are identical save for a slightly longer or shorter jaw. If there is a small amount of time between it, then you know that they are related. Esp if the rest of the body is identical. Then the next one in the line has a slightly shorter or longer arm. Again everything else is the same. Then a hand, then a leg.

this is all example. I dont know right off the top of my head what the sequences of changes were. there has long been a problem that they could not find one that showed both a connection with tree climbers and land walkers. The newest one is in the right time frame and shows things that were the same as both sides of the line.

that takes the speculation out of it. That makes it scientific.

claiming that man was made from mud with nothing else between the mud and the man is speculative at best.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#13436 - 10/25/06 12:49 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Hi, one too many Germanglassofbeer.

Nice to hear from our friends accross the blue. I spent some time in Germany and Austria and did not get to exchange ideas of your kind with any of them.

Those people that read and understand Hebrew come forward to tell us how many words in the Bible were translated impropery or incorrectly and that is fine. Is is only when you begin to rewrite the meaning of the content that some of us may take issue. Every religion fosters its own interpretation of the Bible. Does not that lack of focus suggest possibly none of the efforts are worthwhile?
I like the King James version because I can read it.
jjw

Top
#13437 - 11/06/06 05:18 AM Re: genisis is NOT possible
M. D. Vaden Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2
Loc: Jacksonville, Oregon
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
?I believe it's possible to make something out of nothing, especially if that is done by intelligence higher than ours. For our limited understanding of something and nothing can in no way set rules or boundaries about what is possible or impossible?

Limited understanding? What's to understand? Something is the presence of something, no matter how big or small; nothing is the abscence of anything. Just because we can't visualise nothing, or everything, it doesn't mean we have a limited understanding of it. We understand what it is, that's what's important.
Really?

Then tell me one thing that you think that you, or me, or someone else has unlimited understanding about?

A lion? The ocean? Genetics?

I believe there is almost no single thing that anybody - ever - fully understands.

We may believe what we see, but that's different from believing something we can only learn about, and never have seen, such as the rain of Genesis 2.
_________________________
mdvaden
To contact - frame my signature with www. and .com

Top
Page 7 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.