Are scientists any closer

[ecco]

Then we have the discoveries that time and again confirm the Genesis account, but what happens... They get shoved into the other corner, where the community says with a smile, "That's ours. ". Or they are just ignored.

God’s Laws on Hygiene Were Ahead of Their Time

None of the hygiene laws listed on your linked page appear in Genesis. For you to assert they "confirm the Genesis account" is absurd.


Given that man has been around for about 100,000 years, it is not surprising that humans had learned a little about sanitation (Don't **** where you eat). So it should not be surprising that the people who wrote some of the chapters and stories in the OT would have included them.

However, assertions like this...

9These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.​

...clearly show that the contents of the OT could not have been written with the concurrence of an Omniscient God.

The ancients were not knowledgeable enough to know that shellfish just had to be harvested at certain times of the year. That's something even a mediocre god would know - especially if he created the clams and lobsters.

 

[Astrophile]

also, just because an explosion is reproducible, that does not mean that an explosion was responsible for... say, as an example, the universe.

The universe did not begin with an explosion. We don't know how it began, but there is strong evidence that it is expanding from a state of high temperature and high density in which the elements hydrogen and helium were produced, and that this expansion began approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

The moon being where it is located, and the size it is, etc., is not proven to be so, because one can reproduce a deflection from a collision that one sets up with all the circumstances one wants to exist.
In other words, making assumptions does not prove anything scientifically.

You are right in saying that the collision hypothesis for the origin of the Moon is not proven. However, the hypothesis explains the facts better than any of the present alternatives, and much better than the statement that the Moon was created by a god on the fourth day of the creation week. Until someone presents a better hypothesis, we are justified in accepting the collision hypothesis as the most probable explanation.

 

[nPeace]

The universe did not begin with an explosion. We don't know how it began, but there is strong evidence that it is expanding from a state of high temperature and high density in which the elements hydrogen and helium were produced, and that this expansion began approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

I didn't say the universe resulted from an explosion, but I expected persons to read that into what I said.

You are right in saying that the collision hypothesis for the origin of the Moon is not proven. However, the hypothesis explains the facts better than any of the present alternatives, and much better than the statement that the Moon was created by a god on the fourth day of the creation week. Until someone presents a better hypothesis, we are justified in accepting the collision hypothesis as the most probable explanation.

I don't mind people having explanations. We all do.
People don't accept the ones given by the opinions of one or the other.
I don't mind you accepting the opinions that you think fit best.
Do you have a problem with people accepting opinions they think fit best. If so, why?

 

[nPeace]

The universe did not begin with an explosion. We don't know how it began, but there is strong evidence that it is expanding from a state of high temperature and high density in which the elements hydrogen and helium were produced, and that this expansion began approximately 13.8 billion years ago.



You are right in saying that the collision hypothesis for the origin of the Moon is not proven. However, the hypothesis explains the facts better than any of the present alternatives, and much better than the statement that the Moon was created by a god on the fourth day of the creation week. Until someone presents a better hypothesis, we are justified in accepting the collision hypothesis as the most probable explanation.

Oh. PS. You said "the hypothesis explains the facts better"
What facts does that idea explain, and how is it better?
Or do you mean, it's better than what you don't believe?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you don't have any opinions about dating the end of the ice age or neanderthal man. OK.

Not really because i don"t know if neanderthal man is really what they say it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

What's your point?
Scientists don't all agree on what should be included in "planet".
Scientists don't all agree on the causes of ADHD.

What's your point?
Creationists don't all agree on the length of a "day".
Creationists don't all agree on the age of the earth.
Creationists don't all agree on the order of Creation events.

What's your point? You have no point.

First of all, despite claims to the contrary, a day in the Bible does not always refer to a 24-hour time period. AND--I might venture to say--that not even Einstein thought a day was always 24 hours as timed by a clock on the earth. Biblical use of the word day is obviously NOT a 24-hour time period in the 'days' of creation. And other scriptures help to understand that the word day is not always 24 hours as we count time now, but can represent a set but unknown portion of time, with a beginning and an end.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is like asking when winter ends. Is it at the vernal equinox, or on the last day of February (or the last day of August in the southern hemisphere), or on the last day when it snows? According to https:en.wikipedia.org/Würm_glaciation, the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago, but sources differ about the date. As you will see from the isotopic data obtained from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores (see below), the recession of the ice age lasted several thousand years, probably from about 20,000 years to about 11,700 years ago.

If I recall correctly from my reading, we're still living in an ice age. My cousin, a doctor, insists however that the earth is not getting warmer. Yet the news has it that bergs are melting and cities in coastal areas should watch out. And of course now we're being told that the axis is shifting due to atmospheric changes.

 

[nPeace]

Not really because i don"t know if neanderthal man is really what they say it is.

A lot of information can be found indicating they were human. Were Neanderthals Like Us?

In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.

“Ape-Men”—What Were They?
Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.”* As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

So, it's rather a case of "mistaken identity" in the race to find a missing link between ape and man. Man is taken to be ape, and ape taken to be ape-man.
At one time Australopithecus was accepted as a human ancestor, “the missing link.” Now some scientists agree that its skull was “overwhelmingly simian [ape] - not human”

It is as you said earlier...
Stephen Jay Gould, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists has rebutted the contentions of the sociobiologists in the following manner : “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo Sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty years ago .. All that we have done since then – the greatest transformation in the shortest time that our planet has experienced since its crust solidified nearly four billion years ago – is the product of cultural evolution”.

I retract that quote because I don't know the context, and it says nothing really for an argument against what we are discussing.
Nevertheless, one can consider the entire belief a fairy tale.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not know the specifics. I could look them up. So could you. Why don't you ever do your homework? Why do you think that the other side loses when they are honest? That implies that you think dishonesty is a valid tool in debate.

I do my own homework. But I want to know what YOU GUYS know or don't know, or think you know. And then I will do more homework if I can. Or I will offer a thought I read or question I have and want to see what you think. For instance, I was looking at the chart someone posted here (not sure who) about the differences of craniums. And it's possible that genetic transference enabled skull sizes to change. In fact, I'm sure of it because it is said that Chinese, African, and Caucasoid skull sizes are different. Since I like short posts, I'll leave it there for the present.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Now there ya go! Here's a problem I found, however, the term 'creationism' can be misleading, referring to the belief. For instance, there are those that take literally each day of creation to be 24 hours long. But the science itself testifies that would be contradictory to the real facts of geology.

creation —> the fall or the prophets —> rise —> the infinite Buddha and all the remaining beings become Buddha’s at once and the St. Michael will defeat supernova and LOVE will have his Uber fight against hate, and the gates of Heaven will be shut with LOVE & FAITH to reign over ever after.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of the hygiene laws listed on your linked page appear in Genesis. For you to assert they "confirm the Genesis account" is absurd.


Given that man has been around for about 100,000 years, it is not surprising that humans had learned a little about sanitation (Don't **** where you eat). So it should not be surprising that the people who wrote some of the chapters and stories in the OT would have included them.

However, assertions like this...

9These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.​

...clearly show that the contents of the OT could not have been written with the concurrence of an Omniscient God.

The ancients were not knowledgeable enough to know that shellfish just had to be harvested at certain times of the year. That's something even a mediocre god would know - especially if he created the clams and lobsters.

It was a safeguard. The rest of the world did not have those sanitary or dietary restrictions as given to the Israelites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do my own homework. But I want to know what YOU GUYS know or don't know, or think you know. And then I will do more homework if I can. Or I will offer a thought I read or question I have and want to see what you think. For instance, I was looking at the chart someone posted here (not sure who) about the differences of craniums. And it's possible that genetic transference enabled skull sizes to change. In fact, I'm sure of it because it is said that Chinese, African, and Caucasoid skull sizes are different. Since I like short posts, I'll leave it there for the present.

I know quite a bit of general knowledge, but no one can know all of the specifics. That is when you go to the specialists if you have a question. Why the interest in Neanderthasls? They were man, but a different species of man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a safeguard. The rest of the world did not have those sanitary or dietary restrictions as given to the Israelites.

How do you know that? Why could other cultures have similar messages from their mythical gods?

 

[oldbadger]

No thanks. I prefer women of my own age.

I heard that you like old grannies!

 

[oldbadger]

I leave those opinions for those guys who seem to enjoy making them, no matter how often it turns out to be a ball of mess.

Of course you don't!
How could you?

 

[oldbadger]

This is like asking when winter ends. Is it at the vernal equinox, or on the last day of February (or the last day of August in the southern hemisphere), or on the last day when it snows? According to https:en.wikipedia.org/Würm_glaciation, the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago, but sources differ about the date. As you will see from the isotopic data obtained from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores (see below), the recession of the ice age lasted several thousand years, probably from about 20,000 years to about 11,700 years ago.

Just because you're a year older 'n me, don't mean you're more brighter......
So you had your second Vax jab last week?
There it is, your were able to give an idea of a timescale for the retreat
of the ice...... so I knew you were not a creationist, just by your answer.

 

[oldbadger]

Not really because i don"t know if neanderthal man is really what they say it is.

Of course you don't.
How could you have any idea about any ancient events?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyone can do that. "Let's see... This looks like that, and that looks like this, so that must have come from this."

This is the root cause of your error. And ironically you are literally guilty of what you (falsely) accuse scientists of. You assume that's how science works. It doesn't.

Try being honest and actually inform yourself instead of just making juvenile assumptions and running with them.

Clearly you have no idea what the procedure is for a scientific idea to be brought forward and the harsh scrutiny such submissions have to face. Even before anyone even considers the conclusions of a paper, first it is reviewed on methods, premises, form, set up, etc.

If problems are found with those things, it is already dismissed and send back even before the conclusion is analyzed, with the request to fix those problems and then try again.

You should read up a bit.

"Yeah. You are right. See how that has two of these, and that has one. It's because the two became one."
Then the community agrees. All in favor say aye.

More delusional, dishonest, malinformed bs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really because i don"t know if neanderthal man is really what they say it is.

If you would read up just a little bit, you would know.

Willful ignorance is not a proper argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First of all, despite claims to the contrary, a day in the Bible does not always refer to a 24-hour time period. AND--I might venture to say--that not even Einstein thought a day was always 24 hours as timed by a clock on the earth. Biblical use of the word day is obviously NOT a 24-hour time period in the 'days' of creation. And other scriptures help to understand that the word day is not always 24 hours as we count time now, but can represent a set but unknown portion of time, with a beginning and an end.

Please do not try to hide behind Einstein as if anything he said supports your religious beliefs, a brilliant genius who literally called your religion primitive and juvenile.