Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[Mr Spinkles]

inca-- so what exactly do you beleive happened? Is the Earth 6,000 years old etc? I don't think you've adequately accounted for all the humanoid fossils that seem to be a mix of human and ape characteristics.

If humans didn't evolve, then why don't we find any human fossils way back in the fossil record? Why, instead, are there so many fossils that appear to be partly ape, then half ape half human, then partly human, then mostly ape? What is your alternative theory to explain these observations?

Also, inca--could we be a little more civil to others? We all have a passion for this issue...let's be friends anyways though.

[Mr Spinkles]

inca-- so what exactly do you beleive happened? Is the Earth 6,000 years old etc? I don't think you've adequately accounted for all the humanoid fossils that seem to be a mix of human and ape characteristics.

If humans didn't evolve, then why don't we find any human fossils way back in the fossil record? Why, instead, are there so many fossils that appear to be partly ape, then half ape half human, then partly human, then mostly ape? What is your alternative theory to explain these observations?

Also, inca--could we be a little more civil to others? We all have a passion for this issue...let's be friends anyways though.

[inca]

As I said before, most of the fossil records don't present evolution not only from hominids into apes but no evolution at all in any specie, there was no transformation from fish to birds or them into reptiles, mammals, etc or evolution in reverse in some cases. All diferent species appear (having the genetic limitations of their kind but in spite of that with capacity of variations within those limits) and dissapear. In the fossil record you can see an explosion of life in different geological strata as layers in a cake, no link between species. All fossils presented parts complete. Even Darwin was aware of this, that's why in his Origin of Species he begged the readers at least 7 times to ignore what fossil evidence was really saying to understand his idea. He expected in his future those fossils would be provided by paleonthologists' shovel. We have now abundancy of fossils but no intermediary connection between them. The so called best examples of evolution had their parts complete, there was no metamorphosis, no transformation, no hocus-pocus miracle, no half-way adaptation. In a nutshell: no evolution. The fact is fossils never proved your faith. You ask me about time, I'll try to respond honestly:

[inca]

As I said before, most of the fossil records don't present evolution not only from hominids into apes but no evolution at all in any specie, there was no transformation from fish to birds or them into reptiles, mammals, etc or evolution in reverse in some cases. All diferent species appear (having the genetic limitations of their kind but in spite of that with capacity of variations within those limits) and dissapear. In the fossil record you can see an explosion of life in different geological strata as layers in a cake, no link between species. All fossils presented parts complete. Even Darwin was aware of this, that's why in his Origin of Species he begged the readers at least 7 times to ignore what fossil evidence was really saying to understand his idea. He expected in his future those fossils would be provided by paleonthologists' shovel. We have now abundancy of fossils but no intermediary connection between them. The so called best examples of evolution had their parts complete, there was no metamorphosis, no transformation, no hocus-pocus miracle, no half-way adaptation. In a nutshell: no evolution. The fact is fossils never proved your faith. You ask me about time, I'll try to respond honestly:

[inca]

Let's say our universe is 5 billion years old. I really don't trust too much in the data giving by methods used. Because they are not measuring time in first place but activity on time which is different and based upon some speculations. We don't even know when were the sphinx and pyramids constructed and egyptologist get furious when geologists contradict their data cos they see this as interference in their "science" in particular. So, if we can't measure even historical time, I doubt we can measure accurately prehistory. Even measuring ligh years distance it's used paralax method which is trigonometry that should'nt be applied to far away stars but only near stars but if I give more explanation I would be off topic. In spite of this, I don't have much problem in accepting the universe as old as 5 billion years old cos the Creationists never understood this point correctly as Jewish scholar would.
That date is seen only from the perspective of space-time reference of the place we are. :angel:
The kabalistic reference are based WHEN the universe was the size of the mustard seed. :roll: The expansion of the universe changes the temporal perception. Einstein, as a Jew who believed in pantheism and yet wrote personal letters to his friend in reference to Hebrew God applied his intelect to what Judaism knew. In a standard cosmology, if an Et :angel: uses a laser beam to shoot an impulse every second, the recorded information in optical fibers would say "I'm sending an impulse per second" and will repeat the impulse every second. In a universe in expansion that information won't reach its destiny a second later, perhaps it would take billions of years later on depending on the time the light traveled in space. mg: In the books of physic you read the "beginning" of the universe (only accepted by modern science from 1965 on cos prior to that 2/3 of scientists believed in Greek philosophers thinking there was no beginning of the cosmos at all) and time is 1 followed by many zeros. If Torah says "we're sending information every 6 days" the information would be received as 16 billion years (you can even transform X millions of millions days and divide by 365) and the rsult will be equal.
The rythm of acceleration is the Principles of Physic Cosmology: Every time the universe duplicates, the perception of time divides in the middle. When universe was small it duplicated faster, when it gets bigger it takes more time to duplicate.
The first Biblical "day" lasted 24 hours according to Jewish believe, but that is the perspective of the beginning of time itself. In our perspective is 8 billion years. The second day lasted 24 hours (in our point of view that is half of the previous day, or 4 billion years). The 3rd day lasted half the previous (in our perspective 2 billion years old) and so the rest of "days". The understanding of simultaneous times or two different ticking of the superbalck hole and darkness in Genesis account is something proved in kabalistic writings. This is no modern concept or interpretation. Scientist George Ferrows (not a Creationist) calculated the probability against entropy or gravity appearing by itself in a number followed by 123 zeros never happening in nature. He recognizes the universe urges the believe in a "creator". He used that word rather than "god". And of course, this is not an anecdote :drink: cos he was using math which is an exact science though U-know-Who will never understand that.

[inca]

Let's say our universe is 5 billion years old. I really don't trust too much in the data giving by methods used. Because they are not measuring time in first place but activity on time which is different and based upon some speculations. We don't even know when were the sphinx and pyramids constructed and egyptologist get furious when geologists contradict their data cos they see this as interference in their "science" in particular. So, if we can't measure even historical time, I doubt we can measure accurately prehistory. Even measuring ligh years distance it's used paralax method which is trigonometry that should'nt be applied to far away stars but only near stars but if I give more explanation I would be off topic. In spite of this, I don't have much problem in accepting the universe as old as 5 billion years old cos the Creationists never understood this point correctly as Jewish scholar would.
That date is seen only from the perspective of space-time reference of the place we are. :angel:
The kabalistic reference are based WHEN the universe was the size of the mustard seed. :roll: The expansion of the universe changes the temporal perception. Einstein, as a Jew who believed in pantheism and yet wrote personal letters to his friend in reference to Hebrew God applied his intelect to what Judaism knew. In a standard cosmology, if an Et :angel: uses a laser beam to shoot an impulse every second, the recorded information in optical fibers would say "I'm sending an impulse per second" and will repeat the impulse every second. In a universe in expansion that information won't reach its destiny a second later, perhaps it would take billions of years later on depending on the time the light traveled in space. mg: In the books of physic you read the "beginning" of the universe (only accepted by modern science from 1965 on cos prior to that 2/3 of scientists believed in Greek philosophers thinking there was no beginning of the cosmos at all) and time is 1 followed by many zeros. If Torah says "we're sending information every 6 days" the information would be received as 16 billion years (you can even transform X millions of millions days and divide by 365) and the rsult will be equal.
The rythm of acceleration is the Principles of Physic Cosmology: Every time the universe duplicates, the perception of time divides in the middle. When universe was small it duplicated faster, when it gets bigger it takes more time to duplicate.
The first Biblical "day" lasted 24 hours according to Jewish believe, but that is the perspective of the beginning of time itself. In our perspective is 8 billion years. The second day lasted 24 hours (in our point of view that is half of the previous day, or 4 billion years). The 3rd day lasted half the previous (in our perspective 2 billion years old) and so the rest of "days". The understanding of simultaneous times or two different ticking of the superbalck hole and darkness in Genesis account is something proved in kabalistic writings. This is no modern concept or interpretation. Scientist George Ferrows (not a Creationist) calculated the probability against entropy or gravity appearing by itself in a number followed by 123 zeros never happening in nature. He recognizes the universe urges the believe in a "creator". He used that word rather than "god". And of course, this is not an anecdote :drink: cos he was using math which is an exact science though U-know-Who will never understand that.

[inca]

I discussed the subject about scientific methods and the thread was closed after responses of "socratic method" dodging the issue I was mentioning in detail:
http://egyptologist.org/discuss/mess...tml?1014780427
The collegues of the biggest Egyptologist Egyptian authority -Dr. Hawass- were irritated with me all over the forum but they couldn't answer my questions or contradict the arguments. Until now my messages under my name Oscar are still there. Others were "erased" conveniently. You'll see my thread was the only one closed in that page:
http://egyptologist.org/discuss/mess...tml?1084755064
In yet another one I was discussing dendrochronology and they left only the last post when I was soliciting an answer to a question but they erased the whole discussion before!
So, even when I don't have problem the POSSIBILITY to apply simulatenous times and the perspective of millions of years in our universe or Earth, it doesn't mean we know everything about it. Wanna know why?

[inca]

I discussed the subject about scientific methods and the thread was closed after responses of "socratic method" dodging the issue I was mentioning in detail:
http://egyptologist.org/discuss/mess...tml?1014780427
The collegues of the biggest Egyptologist Egyptian authority -Dr. Hawass- were irritated with me all over the forum but they couldn't answer my questions or contradict the arguments. Until now my messages under my name Oscar are still there. Others were "erased" conveniently. You'll see my thread was the only one closed in that page:
http://egyptologist.org/discuss/mess...tml?1084755064
In yet another one I was discussing dendrochronology and they left only the last post when I was soliciting an answer to a question but they erased the whole discussion before!
So, even when I don't have problem the POSSIBILITY to apply simulatenous times and the perspective of millions of years in our universe or Earth, it doesn't mean we know everything about it. Wanna know why?

[inca]

The conversation was this:
Process uranium-lead is expensive, they prefer using the unsafe rubidium-stroncium.Carbon 14 which turns out nitrogen 14 half-life is only 5730 years and ain`t efficient if there was MORE MAGNETIC proportion in the past of the atmosphera (some discuss it happened 4000 years ago),it shouldn`t be used on stone. A dead seal moments after was dated 1300 years old, Siberian mamooth skin (animal which lived 26,000 years ago as suposition)was dated only 5600 years. One of the swiss members in a laboratory measured a recent piece of cloth on his table and the result with this cientific method was 350 years old! Even the pioneers using C-14 didn`t give it the credit now it`s been given. Many people think even nuke disasters affected our atmosphera to the point it altered all measuring of activity in time. Argon-potasium half life is 1300 million years and determines volccanic rock.The scientists have to GUESS the bones beneath rock may be equal data or older. It ain`t exact in dates less than 1 million and they must have faith in using human beings of Pleistocene or believe volcanic action DISSAPEARED ABSOLUTELY ALL original argon in melted lava. If it remains a little bit, cristalyzed, if there was atmospheric pollution, if sediments below are younger..a simple date 5000 is INFLATED 2 and a half million! Proportion between uranium 238 and lead 206 in wood converted coal should be low but it wasn`t in all cases. Potasium,uranium,torium lost of radiactivity can`t be measured in amounts if we don`t know zero point of ORIGINAL CONCENTRATION. The same elements and rubidium-stroncium can be damaged by radiation itself. Aminoacids don`t serve in stones. Also the organic rests can be asimilated or destroyed by organic acids. Zircon crystals formed in magma are difficult to find and geo-chemists grab these as a gift of God. They are trying to find out levogire aminoacids and date with optic stimulated luminiscense.Another method is watching rings of the trees,etc. So please, DON`T TALK ABOUT ABSOLUTS NOR IN HISTORY NEITHER IN PRE-HISTORY.In matter of time we`re watching time with a clock without pointers! This certainly concerns historians,geologists,egyptologists. Maybe you can say, ok,we can trust better astronomers. Can we? They use trigonometry to see distances of far away stars,yet they trust paralex method that should be applied to NEAR STARS.A celestial object would move in relation to set constelations near us when observed from 2 distant points on the surface of the Earth.The smallest angle we can stare naked eye is just a minute of a bow or 1|60 of 1 degree. Einstein said nothing about finite or infinite volume of space.Using cristalography to detect space topology now a new theory rises. It seems billions of galaxies REPEAT images of smaller galaxies. Using hipersphere or poincare space (a kind of dodecaedr)with 120 times smaller volume than hipersphere, they are guessing our universe is like spheric lens,maybe smaller and creating OPTIC ILLUSIONS.We`re like fishes in acuarium.


Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 02:02 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar, it is a common ploy of fringies to be dismissive of all dating techniques which disagree with their agendas. In support of their positions, they posit any number of claimed errors and the like, all the meantime ignoring the vast body of knowledge supporting the controlled tests. I don't know your positions, so I don't apply this to you. However, when you have multiple scientifically (meaning the ability to meet the rigors of objective peer-review) accepted chronological models converging on a discrete time frame for a given article, you have a time frame which it is reasonable to accept. In the OK, C-14 is only one of several models giving the time frame for construction. Those models have been reviewed extensively in past strings.


Rick (24.25.208.10)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:44 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great post Brent! You neatly summarized all of the points for the age of the pyramids being correct, while pointing out the flaws in the fringe's thinking. I assume this is the "socratic method" at work?


Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 10:27 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Rick. Not the "socratic method." Rather, the "scientific method."

[inca]

The conversation was this:
Process uranium-lead is expensive, they prefer using the unsafe rubidium-stroncium.Carbon 14 which turns out nitrogen 14 half-life is only 5730 years and ain`t efficient if there was MORE MAGNETIC proportion in the past of the atmosphera (some discuss it happened 4000 years ago),it shouldn`t be used on stone. A dead seal moments after was dated 1300 years old, Siberian mamooth skin (animal which lived 26,000 years ago as suposition)was dated only 5600 years. One of the swiss members in a laboratory measured a recent piece of cloth on his table and the result with this cientific method was 350 years old! Even the pioneers using C-14 didn`t give it the credit now it`s been given. Many people think even nuke disasters affected our atmosphera to the point it altered all measuring of activity in time. Argon-potasium half life is 1300 million years and determines volccanic rock.The scientists have to GUESS the bones beneath rock may be equal data or older. It ain`t exact in dates less than 1 million and they must have faith in using human beings of Pleistocene or believe volcanic action DISSAPEARED ABSOLUTELY ALL original argon in melted lava. If it remains a little bit, cristalyzed, if there was atmospheric pollution, if sediments below are younger..a simple date 5000 is INFLATED 2 and a half million! Proportion between uranium 238 and lead 206 in wood converted coal should be low but it wasn`t in all cases. Potasium,uranium,torium lost of radiactivity can`t be measured in amounts if we don`t know zero point of ORIGINAL CONCENTRATION. The same elements and rubidium-stroncium can be damaged by radiation itself. Aminoacids don`t serve in stones. Also the organic rests can be asimilated or destroyed by organic acids. Zircon crystals formed in magma are difficult to find and geo-chemists grab these as a gift of God. They are trying to find out levogire aminoacids and date with optic stimulated luminiscense.Another method is watching rings of the trees,etc. So please, DON`T TALK ABOUT ABSOLUTS NOR IN HISTORY NEITHER IN PRE-HISTORY.In matter of time we`re watching time with a clock without pointers! This certainly concerns historians,geologists,egyptologists. Maybe you can say, ok,we can trust better astronomers. Can we? They use trigonometry to see distances of far away stars,yet they trust paralex method that should be applied to NEAR STARS.A celestial object would move in relation to set constelations near us when observed from 2 distant points on the surface of the Earth.The smallest angle we can stare naked eye is just a minute of a bow or 1|60 of 1 degree. Einstein said nothing about finite or infinite volume of space.Using cristalography to detect space topology now a new theory rises. It seems billions of galaxies REPEAT images of smaller galaxies. Using hipersphere or poincare space (a kind of dodecaedr)with 120 times smaller volume than hipersphere, they are guessing our universe is like spheric lens,maybe smaller and creating OPTIC ILLUSIONS.We`re like fishes in acuarium.


Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 02:02 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar, it is a common ploy of fringies to be dismissive of all dating techniques which disagree with their agendas. In support of their positions, they posit any number of claimed errors and the like, all the meantime ignoring the vast body of knowledge supporting the controlled tests. I don't know your positions, so I don't apply this to you. However, when you have multiple scientifically (meaning the ability to meet the rigors of objective peer-review) accepted chronological models converging on a discrete time frame for a given article, you have a time frame which it is reasonable to accept. In the OK, C-14 is only one of several models giving the time frame for construction. Those models have been reviewed extensively in past strings.


Rick (24.25.208.10)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:44 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great post Brent! You neatly summarized all of the points for the age of the pyramids being correct, while pointing out the flaws in the fringe's thinking. I assume this is the "socratic method" at work?


Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51)
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 10:27 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Rick. Not the "socratic method." Rather, the "scientific method."