Just Accidental?

metis · Dec 22, 2016

gnostic said:
This is poor understanding of Genesis 1, and substandard in literary scholarship, to the point of dishonest idiocy.

The "day" presented in Genesis 1 may be "yom" in Hebrew transliteration, which mean an unspecified period of time.

I know that some Christian creationists tried to specify yom being "era" and "epoch", and some of them tried to assert this yom to be 1000 years because a verse from 2 Peter 3:8:

But Genesis yom is not really "unspecified" and it is certainly not a long "epoch" and "era".

This argument from creationists who believe that (Genesis) yom is the same as (Peter's verse) era of 1000 years, is a logical fallacy of false equivalence.

It is false equivalence because 2 Peter 3 is not Genesis 1, and the authors of these two works are not from the same author. But more importantly, Genesis 1 has never equate yom to be "1000 years" or a "millennium".

The reason why we do know that yom in Genesis 1 to be "1 day" is because yom is always equated immediately before with "evening" and "morning" with each mention of yom (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31), as highlighted in red, below:

...hence each time a verse say "And there was evening and there was morning...", yom will mean "day" in these verses.

A first, second, etc "day" would only make sense because it always linked "evening" and "morning".

Genesis 1 is clearly referring to day, not a millennium.

If what you say that yom means "a thousand-year" or "millennium", then the translation should read something like this:

It doesn't say that.

Why is Genesis never translated as "1000 years"?

Also, if we used Peter's verse of a day equals to 1000 years, that mean there are 3000 years of mornings, but mornings without the sun, moon and stars, because these would be created until 4th millennium.

Plants were created in the 3rd day (Genesis 1:9-13), and most plants require the sun's light and heat for survival. But if what Peter say is true about 1000 years, then there has been plants without the sun for 1000 years.

Genesis 1:3-5 stated that light was created on the first day, dividing the day into "day" and "night", with no mention of the sun at all. How can you have night and day, or evening and morning without the sun?

Also, a sun is essential in forming the Sky or Earth's atmospheres. Atmosphere cannot be created from nothing. And the sky wasn't created until the 1000 years, if creationists used Peter's verse.

The whole yom being an era or epoch is false assertion, because the "evening and morning" is definitely equated to being a day, not a millennium.

Excellent post, imo.

The "solution" to resolve this is to see the creation accounts as being allegorical, which many denominations that are not anti-science tend to believe.

And there's also good reason to go in that direction as it's probably a taking of the Babylonian creation-narrative and reworking it to teach traditional Jewish morals and values. This is what cultures have done throughout history, as you undoubtedly well know.

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

dust1n said:
I understand that is the general. I don't really see how any of that relates to DNA, or diseases or anything.

If the defect of sin (imperfection) occurred in the genetics of our first parent, then the defect has to be inherited. (Romans 5:12 indicates that it was.) I don't need to tell you how inherited genetic disorders are passed on do I? Both Adam and his wife were defective due to their receiving the same sentence of death.....the defect applying equally to both. So if both parents have the defect, there is no way to avoid passing it on. It's not a difficult concept surely? Inheritance is a 50/50 thing.

dust1n said:
Usually I would blame the person who committed the supposed crime, not thier children and their children's children ad infintum.

Adam and his wife paid for their own abuse of free will. We can blame them for the situation we find ourselves in, but their children did not die without hope. If we remember that the Creator does not exist in a realm where time is counted in earth years, we can understand why it has taken so long for the rescue mission to be completed. The first rebel was not human and he not only influenced rebellion in the human race, but managed to lure a good many of his fellow spirit beings into rebellion as well. Spirits operate in universal time, which is not 24 hour days. (2 Peter 3:8) It is these beings who can do the most damage by abusing free will. It is dealt with in their time, not ours.

Giving his intelligent creatures free will was not a mistake....it was a calculated risk, in full awareness of the possible outcome. God allowed for all contingencies and he will keep his original purpose on track as he brings it to completion. (Isaiah 55:11) What he accomplishes in the process is a tested population for his earthly Kingdom who have all proved that humans can serve the interests of the Creator without being influenced away from him by the cunning and deceptive speech of others.
That is what faith is....its the "irresistible force meeting the immovable object".

dust1n said:
This seems to me like a big extrapolation from what the book of Genesis says. No where does it mentions genetics, and the eating things doesn't change genetics anyways. I thought eating the apple gave people God's wisdom, not like, AIDs or whatever.

It wasn't an apple, but that doesn't matter. It is what the fruit represented, not the fruit itself. That particular tree represented something that God withheld from his children for their own benefit. It wasn't wisdom that resulted from the eating, but a "knowledge of good and evil". Withholding this knowledge was in effect, God saying to his children, I will decide what is good for you and keep evil away from you. A knowledge of evil was never going to benefit them in any way and God knew it.....the devil talked the whole issue into a situation where the withholding of that knowledge meant something else entirely. He implied that it was the actions of a controlling and uncaring Father who was keeping something from them that they had a right to have.
He targeted the 'newbie' and she fell for it. But her husband was not with her to modify what the devil had said, so knowing what that meant, Adam chose to eat for a very different reason. Maybe the thought of losing her was more than he could bear? So rather than live without her he chose to join her in death. Or maybe because death was not immediate, he felt that she might be right?
Whatever his reason...the rest is history. Both suffered the consequences of what they each chose to do. So do we.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

This is a passage that has much overlooked detail.

First of all, the long garments of skin made for them by God to replace the loin coverings that they had made for themselves as a result of this new knowledge they has stolen....revealed a new feeling....shame over their nakedness. God then introduced an appropriate standard of modesty. The skins would also protect them to a degree from the wilderness outside the garden, where thorns and thistles would make farming difficult on cursed ground. (Genesis 3:17-19)
Along with the knowledge of evil, came the desire to carry it out. Within one generation, a murderer emerged, who killed his own brother in a premeditated act of jealousy.

Along with "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was "the tree of life". This tree was the one that could have kept them 'living forever' in their perfect state. There was no death mentioned in Eden except as a penalty for disobedience. The partaking of this tree would have complicated the now sinful condition that the first humans found themselves in. With access to this tree, evil men could have lived forever! Imagine what the world would be like if men like Hitler, Idi Armin or Pol Pot were still alive and never had to face death?
God evicted the pair from the garden and barred access to the tree of life to prevent such a situation. Humans would have seen that sword and the guardian angels probably until the flood of Noah's day completely changed the landscape. It served as a constant reminder that humans were suffering on cursed ground because of what Adam did. Obedience would have saved them from all of that.Object lessons are always the best teachers.

dust1n said:
Apparently the sort of fools God makes?

Giving humans free will was not a bad thing. It gave them an attribute that other creatures did not have. Only humans were "made in God's image and likeness". They alone could act by conscious forethought. Humans can contemplate past present and future actions and make decisions based on this knowledge. To understand or to imagine what will happen if we consider a certain course separates us from the animals, who only live by programmed instinct.

dust1n said:
How is someone as a young as a child capable of redeeming themselves before death? Is it just assumed all kids are redeemed immediately? But aren't they born in sin?

I thought I explained that already. Being "born in sin" simply means inheriting the defect of imperfection from Adam. No one can redeem themselves. All they can do is avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice and live in such a way that they do not lose it. Disobedience to God's commands through his Christ eliminates us from citizenship in his Kingdom. No one outside of that kingdom is alive. There is no reason to keep dissenters or rebels in existence. It serves no purpose.

Children are judged by the merits (or lack of them) from their parents until they are of an age to make their own decisions. You will recall that not a single child survived the flood but were swept away with their wicked parents. It is also good to understand that death to God is reversible. It isn't an end to life unless you are deemed to be incorrigible. Denying God's existence is one way to lose all possibility of being accepted for citizenship in the only place where life will be found. According to the Bible, only those who want to live under God's rules will get to experience the life he is offering, but not forcing.

dust1n said:
Sounds more like a Sheol sort of thing than a Hell then.

The Bible's hell is sheol.....simply mankind's common grave. We all go to this "hell" and sleep peacefully, unaware of anything that is taking place in the land of the living. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

Sapiens said:
That's fine. The sense that "theory" is used in science is: "a system of ideas intended to explain something, based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Yet the whole "theory" is based on conjecture and supposition backed up by biased "interpretation" of evidence that just happens to agree with the theory......you think we don't notice this?
Weight of numbers carries no weight with the Creator who really has no time for those who have no time for him, or who fail to appreciate his creative genius. But that is of course, of no interest to you.

You choose to make a semantic game of it and quote mine, incorrectly using: "a supposition intended to explain something." which is not the way scientists use the word.

"Semantics"? I was giving you the true original definition of the word. If science wants to make out that a theory is actually akin to a fact, then may I suggest that it uses a more appropriate descriptor. Perhaps a "factory" would be more appropriate to describe the 'manufacture' of evidence so prevalent in evolutionary science....? Since when does "could have" mean "must have"?

What you are doing is playing quote mine with the word since NO SCIENTIST using the term would be referencing your meaning and all would be referencing the form I indicate.

I really don't care what men of science are saying....a lie is a lie no matter who tells it......and saying that a theory is the same as a fact is bold face lying. You think men and women of intelligence are incapable of telling lies? Of falsifying or misinterpreting evidence?

One famous case here in Australia some decades ago was that of Lindy Chamberlain who was falsely accused of murdering her baby and claiming that it was taken by a dingo. The forensic scientist who examined the evidence claimed that there was a blood spurt under the dashboard indicating that the baby was killed in the vehicle. That "evidence" was later found to be an anti-rust solution, not blood at all. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail as a convicted murderer, ostracized by many because they believed that the scientific evidence proved her guilt.

Humans are fallible, prone to error and to make bad decisions. I don't really trust many of them at all, given their track record. Give humans power and it just corrupts them.....no matter what field they work in.
Science has produced everything that is killing our planet, stripping it of its resources, and drowning it in non-biodegradable pollution, altering its climate. All hail science.

Quote mining of that sort is a form of lying.

You seem very quick to point that finger but you are equally guilty if you present suggestions as facts.

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

gnostic said:
This is poor understanding of Genesis 1, and substandard in literary scholarship, to the point of dishonest idiocy.

Oh please.....what is with the insults......you seriously can't just discuss the issues without the condescension? You must be desperate.

The "day" presented in Genesis 1 may be "yom" in Hebrew transliteration, which mean an unspecified period of time.

I know that some Christian creationists tried to specify yom being "era" and "epoch", and some of them tried to assert this yom to be 1000 years because a verse from 2 Peter 3:8:

You got it.
Genesis 2:4 uses "yom" for the entire creative process.
" These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (ASV)

The 'making of the heavens and the earth' was not assigned to a "day" in Genesis ch.1. It simply says in verse 1...."In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth"....it thereafter describes how God took a 'formless and waste' planet and began to prepare it for habitation. The preparation of habitat and creation of living beings is what took place in the creative "days".

According to Strongs....we can see the many uses of "yom"....so it is not restricted to just a 24 hour period.

"Outline of Biblical Usage

day, time, year
1. day (as opposed to night)
2. day (24 hour period)
  1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
  2. as a division of time
    1. a working day, a day's journey
3. days, lifetime (pl.)
4. time, period (general)
5. year
6. temporal references
  1. today
  2. yesterday
  3. tomorrow"

Genesis Chapter 1 (NASB)

gnostic said:
Why is Genesis never translated as "1000 years"?

That could be because it wasn't revealed until Peter was inspired to write it down a couple of thousand years later.

What did it matter to the Israelites how long it took to create everything, or how God accomplished it? They only needed the bare bones of the information to give them faith, so that is what they got.

Also, if we used Peter's verse of a day equals to 1000 years, that mean there are 3000 years of mornings, but mornings without the sun, moon and stars, because these would be created until 4th millennium.

Plants were created in the 3rd day (Genesis 1:9-13), and most plants require the sun's light and heat for survival. But if what Peter say is true about 1000 years, then there has been plants without the sun for 1000 years.

Genesis 1:3-5 stated that light was created on the first day, dividing the day into "day" and "night", with no mention of the sun at all. How can you have night and day, or evening and morning without the sun?

Talk about a poor understanding of Genesis....?

Good grief! Read the account and see that "light was first to appear. What is the only source of light for our planet? Night and day is the result of.....?

All Peter's description of God's counting of time indicates is that it isn't the same as ours. The Creator is NOT bound by earth years, nor is he limited in how much time he uses to accomplish what he sets out to do. If you have forever, why rush?

Plants were created before there were creatures that would use it as a food source.

Also, a sun is essential in forming the Sky or Earth's atmospheres. Atmosphere cannot be created from nothing. And the sky wasn't created until the 1000 years, if creationists used Peter's verse.

Where does it say that we have to take Peter's words literally? Earth's atmosphere was in evidence on the second "day".
So light, heat and the right mixture of gases in earth's atmosphere are things we would expect in a logical sequence.
Plants needed these things to grow.

The whole yom being an era or epoch is false assertion, because the "evening and morning" is definitely equated to being a day, not a millennium.

In your limited understanding perhaps, but we are not all bound by the way you interpret the Bible. (Thank goodness!)

When we speak of the "dawn of a new era" or if we allude to something "in our Grandfather's day" are we talking about a 24 hour period? The Bible uses figurative language too.....it all fits perfectly if we exercise a little common sense.....

gnostic · Dec 22, 2016

metis said:
Excellent post, imo.

The "solution" to resolve this is to see the creation accounts as being allegorical, which many denominations that are not anti-science tend to believe.

And there's also good reason to go in that direction as it's probably a taking of the Babylonian creation-narrative and reworking it to teach traditional Jewish morals and values. This is what cultures have done throughout history, as you undoubtedly well know.

Whether the text be treated as literal or metaphorical, I don't think it matter that much, as long people understand the context of what have been written down. It all come down to context.

And Deeje has definitely veered off what are in Genesis 1 by ignoring yom whenever it say "And there was evening and there was morning..." ...the xxx day.

This part highlighted in red, give us context that "day" (found in the 6 verses, 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31) is a "day", and not some unspecified "era" or "epoch" that Deeje claimed, or Peter's "a-thousand-year".

Deeje is simply projecting her flawed reasoning (of era or epoch) on the scriptural passages.

Sapiens · Dec 23, 2016

Deeje said:
Yet the whole "theory" is based on conjecture and supposition backed up by biased "interpretation" of evidence that just happens to agree with the theory......you think we don't notice this?

This is a lie that we correct and yet you persist in advancing.

Deeje said:
Weight of numbers carries no weight with the Creator who really has no time for those who have no time for him, or who fail to appreciate his creative genius. But that is of course, of no interest to you.

Since there is no "creator" that is an irrelevancy.

Deeje said:
"Semantics"? I was giving you the true original definition of the word.

No, the definition you gave suggests several different meanings. You insist, despite correction, on using one that is obviously inappropriate and that is not what any scientist referring to a theory would mean. That is called "quote mining" and is a form of lying.

Deeje said:
If science wants to make out that a theory is actually akin to a fact, then may I suggest that it uses a more appropriate descriptor.

No, in fact, while you can, you may not, unless you like being considered a liar.

Deeje said:
Perhaps a "factory" would be more appropriate to describe the 'manufacture' of evidence so prevalent in evolutionary science....? Since when does "could have" mean "must have"?

Science does not deal in absolutes like "must." It rarely deals in speculations like "could have." They typical construct is "probably" or "likely."

Deeje said:
I really don't care what men of science are saying....a lie is a lie no matter who tells it......and saying that a theory is the same as a fact is bold face lying.

I have never made that claim nor seen other scientists make that claim, so that is yet another lie on your conscience.

Deeje said:
You think men and women of intelligence are incapable of telling lies?

No they are quite capable of it, but the community inevitable detects it, reveals it and kicks the liar out.

Deeje said:
Of falsifying or misinterpreting evidence?

No they are quite capable of it, but the community inevitable detects it, reveals it and kicks the liar out.

Deeje said:
One famous case here in Australia some decades ago was that of Lindy Chamberlain who was falsely accused of murdering her baby and claiming that it was taken by a dingo. The forensic scientist who examined the evidence claimed that there was a blood spurt under the dashboard indicating that the baby was killed in the vehicle. That "evidence" was later found to be an anti-rust solution, not blood at all. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail as a convicted murderer, ostracized by many because they believed that the scientific evidence proved her guilt.

But that is not the question here. No one is claiming that science, especially "forensic science," a term that may well be an oxymoron, always gets it right. The point is that science is self correcting, even as forensic science was in this case.

Wiki: The questionable nature of the forensic evidence in the Chamberlain trial, and the weight given to it, raised concerns about such procedures and about expert testimony in criminal cases. The prosecution had successfully argued that the pivotal haemoglobin tests indicated the presence of foetal haemoglobin in the Chamberlains' car and it was a significant factor in the original conviction. But it was later shown that these tests were highly unreliable and that similar tests, conducted on a "sound deadener" sprayed on during the manufacture of the car, had yielded virtually identical results.

Most of the blame here goes to the sensationalist press. Wiki:
Public and media opinion during the trial was polarised, with "fanciful rumours and sickening jokes" and many cartoons. In particular, antagonism was directed towards Lindy Chamberlain for reportedly not behaving like a "stereotypical" grieving mother. Much was made of the Chamberlains' Seventh-day Adventist religion, including false allegations that the church was actually a cult that killed infants as part of bizarre religious ceremonies, that the family took a newborn baby to a remote desert location, and that Lindy Chamberlain showed little emotion during the proceedings.

In the end science got it right and overcame public opinion and the press and she was set free.

Deeje said:
Humans are fallible, prone to error and to make bad decisions. I don't really trust many of them at all, given their track record. Give humans power and it just corrupts them.....no matter what field they work in.
Science has produced everything that is killing our planet, stripping it of its resources, and drowning it in non-biodegradable pollution, altering its climate. All hail science.

You seem very quick to point that finger but you are equally guilty if you present suggestions as facts.

Something I have never done. I do point my finger at you, however, to indicate your propensity for lying, bold faced and direct, as above and more sneakily in your quote mining.

gnostic · Dec 23, 2016

Deeje said:
Talk about a poor understanding of Genesis....? Good grief! Read the account and see that "light was first to appear. What is the only source of light for our planet? Night and day is the result of.....?

The Sun (1:11-19) wasn't created at the same time as the Light (1:3-5). Light created on the 1st day, the Sun (and Moon and stars) on the 4th day.

And if you applied Peter's 1000-year to 1-day in Genesis 1, then the Sun only appeared 3000 years after the first appearance of Light.

So, no, Deeje, you are the one who is not reading Genesis 1 correctly.

Deeje said:
All Peter's description of God's counting of time indicates is that it isn't the same as ours. The Creator is NOT bound by earth years, nor is he limited in how much time he uses to accomplish what he sets out to do. If you have forever, why rush?

And there goes your common sense, right out of the window, and into the trash bin.

Have you ever heard of simile, Deeje?

Simile is like metaphor, not meant to be taken literally, and you are reading 2 Peter 3:8 too literally.

Simile is figure of speech, not meant to be taken literal. Simile often used the words, "like" or "as".

You could ONLY take Peter passage literally if he wrote without using the word "like":

modified 2 Peter 3:8 said:
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years are one day.

This would mean 1 day = 1000 years. But that is not what it say.

Now compare the above modified passage with the original translation of Peter's passage:

2 Peter 3:8 said:
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Here, 1 day DOES NOT EQUAL TO 1000 years.

Adding the word "like" to "is like" or "are like", changes the meaning. The ones highlighted in RED (without "LIKE") are literal, the ones highlighted in GREEN (with "LIKE") are metaphorical.

Context is very important, when reading passages, and your poor scholarship in not recognizing simile when it is right in front of you, prove that you are wrong and you confusing context.

To give you an example of what a simile is, when a newspaper reporter write:

"Usain Bolt runs like a wind."

This is just a fancy or poetic way to say Bolt is a fast sprinter, but that does not mean Bolt is literally the wind.

It is the same when I am reading Peter's passage about day and a thousand years. The passage just mean a long period of time would seem to be like only a day.

Another example of simile, using time this time. If I say something like this:

"I had dislocated my elbow when I was 9, but I can still remember it, like as if it happened yesterday."

I did actually dislocated my elbow, 41 years ago on Chinese New Year, but that doesn't mean the all those years had vanished. So I don't mean it literally happened yesterday.

Like I have said, you are taking Peter's verse too literally, when it should clearly be taken metaphorically.

Second, you should read what it say Genesis 1, especially the context of the passages, instead of seeking interpretations outside of Genesis 1, or the entire book (Genesis) altogether.

I really don't give a rat's *** what Peter wrote, because his epistle has nothing to with understanding Genesis creation.

Hockeycowboy · Dec 23, 2016

dust1n said:
Which chapter is that again?

Romans 5:12 tells us we inherited imperfection from Adam.

But soon, error will be pardoned (through Jesus' sacrifice), and then no one will be sick anymore! -- Isaiah 33:24; compare Revelation 21:3-4; Isaiah 35:5-10

Hockeycowboy · Dec 23, 2016

metis said:
see the creation accounts as being allegorical,

If this viewpoint is the truth, that it's not literal, then for Christians, where is the value of Jesus' sacrifice? Why would it be needed?

metis · Dec 23, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
If this viewpoint is the truth, that it's not literal, then for Christians, where is the value of Jesus' sacrifice? Why would it be needed?

But the issue of the source of the creation accounts versus the issue of "Jesus' sacrifice" are not the same. I'm certainly not in any way suggesting that all the Bible narratives are allegorical, although that's the way that I personally deal with them-- but that's just my approach.

Hockeycowboy · Dec 23, 2016

metis said:
But the issue of the source of the creation accounts versus the issue of "Jesus' sacrifice" are not the same. I'm certainly not in any way suggesting that all the Bible narratives are allegorical, although that's the way that I personally deal with them-- but that's just my approach.

Hey Metis, hope you're having a good day!

The reason for Jesus giving his life, is to undo the effects that sin and death have brought to humankind. Adam was the source of that condemnation for us, since we are his (and Eve's - Genesis 3:20) offspring. -- Romans 5:12-19.

The Apostle Paul wrote further about this, @ 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.

One day, all the injustices that ever happened will be rectified -- people will be resurrected, and given their lives back (Acts of the Apostles 24:15) -- all the evil that started with the Devil will be cleared out (1 John 3:8), and everything will be brought in line with Jehovah God's purpose! -- Matthew 6:10; compare Revelation 21:3-4; Colossians 1:20.

Take care.

metis · Dec 23, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
Hey Metis, hope you're having a good day!

The reason for Jesus giving his life, is to undo the effects that sin and death have brought to humankind. Adam was the source of that condemnation for us, since we are his (and Eve's - Genesis 3:20) offspring. -- Romans 5:12-19.

The Apostle Paul wrote further about this, @ 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.

One day, all the injustices that ever happened will be rectified -- people will be resurrected, and given their lives back (Acts of the Apostles 24:15) -- all the evil that started with the Devil will be cleared out (1 John 3:8), and everything will be brought in line with Jehovah God's purpose! -- Matthew 6:10; compare Revelation 21:3-4; Colossians 1:20.

Take care.

I can accept that you believe as such even though I don't.

Take care yourself, and I hope you have a blessed weekend.

Guy Threepwood · Dec 23, 2016

Deeje said:
Yet the whole "theory" is based on conjecture and supposition backed up by biased "interpretation" of evidence that just happens to agree with the theory......you think we don't notice this?
Weight of numbers carries no weight with the Creator who really has no time for those who have no time for him, or who fail to appreciate his creative genius. But that is of course, of no interest to you.

"Semantics"? I was giving you the true original definition of the word. If science wants to make out that a theory is actually akin to a fact, then may I suggest that it uses a more appropriate descriptor. Perhaps a "factory" would be more appropriate to describe the 'manufacture' of evidence so prevalent in evolutionary science....? Since when does "could have" mean "must have"?

I really don't care what men of science are saying....a lie is a lie no matter who tells it......and saying that a theory is the same as a fact is bold face lying. You think men and women of intelligence are incapable of telling lies? Of falsifying or misinterpreting evidence?

One famous case here in Australia some decades ago was that of Lindy Chamberlain who was falsely accused of murdering her baby and claiming that it was taken by a dingo. The forensic scientist who examined the evidence claimed that there was a blood spurt under the dashboard indicating that the baby was killed in the vehicle. That "evidence" was later found to be an anti-rust solution, not blood at all. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail as a convicted murderer, ostracized by many because they believed that the scientific evidence proved her guilt.

Humans are fallible, prone to error and to make bad decisions. I don't really trust many of them at all, given their track record. Give humans power and it just corrupts them.....no matter what field they work in.
Science has produced everything that is killing our planet, stripping it of its resources, and drowning it in non-biodegradable pollution, altering its climate. All hail science.

You seem very quick to point that finger but you are equally guilty if you present suggestions as facts.

You're making a commendable effort here Deeje, I often lose interest when people start getting ad hominid, calling you a liar etc- there seems little point in trying to debate anything- but that's probably just lazy of me.

I was born and raised atheist, like some posters here, I was often quite rude and patronizing to people with other beliefs. But the fact that they invariably showed me more patience and understanding than I showed them, at least opened my heart to their point of view eventually. I'm very grateful now they did, but those people never knew it.

So I've no doubt that your efforts on this forum are not in vain!

Deeje · Dec 23, 2016

Guy Threepwood said:
You're making a commendable effort here Deeje, I often lose interest when people start getting ad hominid, calling you a liar etc- there seems little point in trying to debate anything- but that's probably just lazy of me.

I was born and raised atheist, like some posters here, I was often quite rude and patronizing to people with other beliefs. But the fact that they invariably showed me more patience and understanding than I showed them, at least opened my heart to their point of view eventually. I'm very grateful now they did, but those people never knew it.

So I've no doubt that your efforts on this forum are not in vain!

Well, seeing as how these kinds of threads have many readers but relatively few posters, (over 20,500 views so far) it shows that people are eager to hear both sides of this story. Its not hard to see who has to use condescension, rather than hard evidence, to make themselves feel or sound superior. I feel that observable facts in nature outweigh "scientific" conjecture and supposition any day. If science says it doesn't deal in facts, then why present their findings (interpretation of their evidence) as if they were undeniably true?

Thank you for your input, it has been good having your experience and knowledge shared here. So as long as people want to read the exchanges, I shall keep posting in defense of ID and exposing the ToE as the concocted fraud that it is.

Thank you for the encouragement.

Feel free to stick around.....

ArtieE · Dec 23, 2016

Deeje said:
Well, seeing as how these kinds of threads have many readers but relatively few posters, (over 20,500 views so far) it shows that people are eager to hear both sides of this story. Its not hard to see who has to use condescension, rather than hard evidence, to make themselves feel or sound superior. I feel that observable facts in nature outweigh "scientific" conjecture and supposition any day. If science says it doesn't deal in facts, then why present their findings (interpretation of their evidence) as if they were undeniably true?

Thank you for your input, it has been good having your experience and knowledge shared here. So as long as people want to read the exchanges, I shall keep posting in defense of ID

And here's a message from the designers. Intelligent Design for Atheists - The Raelian Movement

gnostic · Dec 23, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
If this viewpoint is the truth, that it's not literal, then for Christians, where is the value of Jesus' sacrifice? Why would it be needed?

I don't discount the values of Jesus' teachings on morals...of doing right for others as well as for one's self...of being responsible and accountable for one's own actions...of empathy and compassion...of forgiveness...and so on.

These have real-world values to me; not resurrection, afterlife and the rewards of heaven. I don't find the whole rewards in afterlife all that appealing.

And Jesus often taught in parables. The values of parables are not historical accuracies of these allegorical stories, but in their messages about morals.

I think the gospel and epistle authors have distorted and exaggerated Jesus' life with these unverifiable miracles.

eg Walking on water, stopping storms with words, healing, Lazarus, and bringing to life all the saints from the graves (Matthew 27:52-53). These are the things that make gospels less believable.

Deeje · Dec 23, 2016

Sapiens said:
This is a lie that we correct and yet you persist in advancing.

Who is "we"? And who says my statements need correcting?

Since there is no "creator" that is an irrelevancy.

What are you going to do if there is a Creator Sapiens? I don't think he accepts apologies.

No, the definition you gave suggests several different meanings. You insist, despite correction, on using one that is obviously inappropriate and that is not what any scientist referring to a theory would mean. That is called "quote mining" and is a form of lying.

Actually stating a suggestion or educated guesswork as if it were a fact, is lying.

No, in fact, while you can, you may not, unless you like being considered a liar.

That is getting old Sapiens.....is this your only defense?
"I must be right because I tell the truth and you don't"? Really?

Who said that you are telling the truth?

Someone who lies is deliberately telling untruths. Since my Creator takes a dim view of liars, I try really hard to be as truthful as possible. My view is not a lie just because you don't believe it.

Science does not deal in absolutes like "must." It rarely deals in speculations like "could have." They typical construct is "probably" or "likely."

All the language in evolution is speculative in the articles I have read, regardless of the specific subject.
Is a "probability" the same as a "certainty"? If there is no certainty, then how can the ToE be presented as though it is a fact? Teach it as a theory by all means, but don't pretend that you know it's true just because you believe the "interpretation of the "evidence". That places you on the same lever as us. You have an unprovable belief and so do we....the probability points us in opposite directions is all.
Saying that there is no proof of an Intelligent Creator is nonsense because the proof is all around you. Interpreting it in a different way alters nothing. You all refuse to acknowledge his handiwork is all.
Walking around with your eyes closed is another way of saying "I am blind by choice".

I have never made that claim nor seen other scientists make that claim, so that is yet another lie on your conscience.

My conscience is clear and so is my hope for the future.....what do you have to look forward to?

No they are quite capable of it, but the community inevitable detects it, reveals it and kicks the liar out.
No they are quite capable of it, but the community inevitable detects it, reveals it and kicks the liar out.

It is highly unlikely that those who are deceived will kick our someone who believes the same lie that they do.
The "community" are "birds of a feather" who all want to support the lie that we have no higher power to answer to. I wonder why so many of those "birds" are angry?

As for the Lindy Chamberlain case.....

Most of the blame here goes to the sensationalist press. Wiki:
Public and media opinion during the trial was polarised, with "fanciful rumours and sickening jokes" and many cartoons. In particular, antagonism was directed towards Lindy Chamberlain for reportedly not behaving like a "stereotypical" grieving mother. Much was made of the Chamberlains' Seventh-day Adventist religion, including false allegations that the church was actually a cult that killed infants as part of bizarre religious ceremonies, that the family took a newborn baby to a remote desert location, and that Lindy Chamberlain showed little emotion during the proceedings.

In the end science got it right and overcame public opinion and the press and she was set free.

In the end, justice got it right. It was the forensic science that put her behind bars and a police force that was made to look inept....not public opinion. They have a bit of a reputation for that in my country. Nothing overcame the public prejudice even when she was released and exonerated, many people still believed what was reported in the press and other news media.....humans do what humans do best.....they make bad judgments and can be swayed by a convincing argument, even if it isn't true. Its the mob mentality that makes people assume that if the majority believe something, it must be true.....big mistake.

I do point my finger at you, however, to indicate your propensity for lying, bold faced and direct, as above and more sneakily in your quote mining.

You do realize that when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you?

I don't say that evolutionists lie...I prefer to say that they are sadly misled and missing out on a relationship with the Creator of the Universe. To know him is to love him.

I guess you'll never know him.....pity.

Hockeycowboy · Dec 23, 2016

Deeje said:
I don't think he accepts apologies.

Well, He does -- both of us know that He does -- but you have to say you're sorry, and show it.

Deeje said:
To know (God) is to love him. I guess you'll never know him.....pity.

Maybe not to the point of loving Him (we can only hope), but everyone here will come to know who God is! There will be no doubt! -- Ezekiel 38:23......"and they will have to know that I am Jehovah"!

Deeje · Dec 23, 2016

gnostic said:
The Sun (1:11-19) wasn't created at the same time as the Light (1:3-5). Light created on the 1st day, the Sun (and Moon and stars) on the 4th day.

I guess you must be devoid of imagination.....please read the account again. If "light" was apparent on the "first day" then what is Earth's only light source?

Also on "day one" was the differentiation in light from darkness....which God called "day and night". What causes day and night Gnostic? I am guessing that it is Earth's 24 hour rotation.....Earth is also in orbit around the sun. So I am assuming that the very first verse in Genesis is clearly in keeping with what we already know.... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What are "the heavens" in this statement?
I assume that they include all that is in the heavens.....the entire universe, of which Earth is but a tiny speck.

As for the 4th "day".....what happened after the creation of the earth has to be considered.

Genesis 1:2:
"Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water."

What created the darkness on the Earth before God lifted that darkness? Perhaps thick clouds were responsible for not allowing the light to penetrate. This is what God did first....."let there be light" doesn't mean he created the light source then, but that he allowed light to be seen on the Earth by lifting some of the early cloud layers.

14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

Since the luminaries were already in existence as part of the "heavens", again we see what appears to be another refinement in the atmosphere....the luminaries that were already present now became visible from Earth's surface. God "put them in the expanse", simply making them visible by lifting all the cloud layers. He really doesn't tell us a lot of detail, but we get the gist.

All we know that is that the earth itself is very ancient and that life forms have inhabited it for a very long time.
Man is a relative newcomer. That means that the creative "days" were not 24 hours long.....and humans were the last of God's creation.....the Genesis account allows for all of that......its not rocket science, is it?

And if you applied Peter's 1000-year to 1-day in Genesis 1, then the Sun only appeared 3000 years after the first appearance of Light.

You don't read replies very well, do you? No one is saying that Peter's words are literal, but that they simply suggest that God's counting of time is vastly different to our own. The Creator dwells in a realm that is not governed by the rotation of a planet. Time is irrelevant to him.

So, no, Deeje, you are the one who is not reading Genesis 1 correctly.

You are free to read Genesis any way you like.....I believe that you have it all wrong. We are all entitled to our opinion.

And there goes your common sense, right out of the window, and into the trash bin.

Have you ever heard of simile, Deeje?

Yes I believe I have Gnostic.....have you ever heard of comprehension?

I believe I already explained this. I do not take Peter's words literally....I believe it is suggestive of a much broader meaning of God's counting of time.

Simile is like metaphor, not meant to be taken literally, and you are reading 2 Peter 3:8 too literally.

Simile is figure of speech, not meant to be taken literal. Simile often used the words, "like" or "as".

You could ONLY take Peter passage literally if he wrote without using the word "like":

This would mean 1 day = 1000 years. But that is not what it say.

Now compare the above modified passage with the original translation of Peter's passage:

Here, 1 day DOES NOT EQUAL TO 1000 years.

Adding the word "like" to "is like" or "are like", changes the meaning. The ones highlighted in RED (without "LIKE") are literal, the ones highlighted in GREEN (with "LIKE") are metaphorical.

Context is very important, when reading passages, and your poor scholarship in not recognizing simile when it is right in front of you, prove that you are wrong and you confusing context.

To give you an example of what a simile is, when a newspaper reporter write:

"Usain Bolt runs like a wind."

This is just a fancy or poetic way to say Bolt is a fast sprinter, but that does not mean Bolt is literally the wind.

It is the same when I am reading Peter's passage about day and a thousand years. The passage just mean a long period of time would seem to be like only a day.

Another example of simile, using time this time. If I say something like this:

"I had dislocated my elbow when I was 9, but I can still remember it, like as if it happened yesterday."

I did actually dislocated my elbow, 41 years ago on Chinese New Year, but that doesn't mean the all those years had vanished. So I don't mean it literally happened yesterday.

Like I have said, you are taking Peter's verse too literally, when it should clearly be taken metaphorically.

Second, you should read what it say Genesis 1, especially the context of the passages, instead of seeking interpretations outside of Genesis 1, or the entire book (Genesis) altogether.

I really don't give a rat's *** what Peter wrote, because his epistle has nothing to with understanding Genesis creation.

Oh dear

you really have lost the plot haven't you?

Deeje · Dec 23, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
Well, He does -- both of us know that He does -- but you have to say you're sorry, and show it.

Perhaps I should have said "late" apologies.

There are no last minute 'jumpers', just as there were no last minute passengers on the Ark.

(Matthew 24:37-39)

Maybe not to the point of loving Him (we can only hope), but everyone here will come to know who God is! There will be no doubt! -- Ezekiel 38:23......"and they will have to know that I am Jehovah"!

So much better to get to know him the other way first.....

(Hebrews 11:6)

Just Accidental?

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

The Lost One

Polymathematician

The Lost One

Witness for Jehovah

Witness for Jehovah

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Witness for Jehovah

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Mighty Pirate

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Avid Bible Student

Witness for Jehovah

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student