[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[cupid dave]

I could write a book on this.

Stay on the internet and these forms, but start listening to the Talk Radio Shows.
Contribute there, where the Harlots and the Publicans will hear you.

Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him:

 

[cupid dave]

science that doesn't consider the unseen? really?

Science considers everything. what scientist do not do is make claims about the unknown without any evidence to do so. They list what they have and draw a conclusion from that list.

That is bad why exactly?

I mean even jesus seemed to have done that. That is why he stood so firmly against literal religion.

Modern Science searches for Truth
This is Christian behavior, though they focus of the material and physical world.

As Social Science begins to gain the power inherent within this Information Age, what will see is the church people turning to the Facts and realizing that Truth is the definition of Christ.

We saw this Truth arise in 1965 when Rev Martin Luther King faced down the FBI even Kennedy with a truth about the lie of "Separate but equal."

What we will see I believe is the Truth arising all around us as the RCC falls apart under the strain of the Homosexual congregation of its priests and the ever more clear conspiracy that is revealed in that that not even one good priest has stepped forward and opposed the evil that still prevails now for this last decade.
Not one priest has publicly spoken out the Truth about the real depths of this depravity nor names of the pedophiles at the highest places.

Not one Christian minister or leader has condemned the Abortions by the Christian flock itself, now 66% of the 1.2 million performed every year.
No church has supported criticism of Welfare that is destroying Black America.
No church is opposing gun legislation against legal ownership while 70%of all murders are by people raised by Single mothers who predominantly used illegal firearms.

Where is the Truth that Christ once inspired in Rome, as apostles died because they spoke out where it was dangerously politically incorrect???

What I see coming is a new generation interested in the Truth about science and Christ, and willing to break the bands of the church that today binds them from speaking out that truth.

 

[cupid dave]

Are you saying that the difference between the thematic statements within what is alleged by cupid dave and the counter-point that I've tried to offer escapes you? Would you care to elaborate?

Why is what I say "alleged" and your take on Genesis a "counter point?"

To elaborate on my post above, the point I made was your counter point is one private interpretation held on the subject of Genesis, while my own is another.
In fact, today, there seven "counterpoints" on the table:


The seven types of creationism:
1) Young Earth creationism
2) Old Earth creationism
3) Day-Age creationism
4) Progressive creationism
5) Gap creationism
6) Intelligent design
7) Theistic evolution

see wiki

 

[Sparkey]

Why is what I say "alleged" and your take on Genesis a "counter point?"

Flip it if you like, I'm pretty sure you wanna.

Sparrow alleges that the bible is true, in counter-point cupid dave enters and states emphatically ...
Or --- Moses alleges that there are 7 days in a week. Sparrow alleges that Moses has an opinion and asserts that it is valid or at minimum something worth listening to.
cupid dave, in counter-point to the allegation of Moses, found in the Bible, given by God, states....

Other scenarios of the same field carry the same weight.



I can't put the words in your mouth now, can I?
That's why.

 

[cupid dave]

Moses alleges that there are 7 days in a week.

Do you believe that Genesis first appeared Moses and the all stories about his relatives back way past Abraham were unknown to the Jews until God told them about their own background and roots?

Do you believe Moses used the Hebrew word "yowm," or the English word "day?"
Do you believe Moses thought that a 24 hour day really existed before the 4th "yowm," as it is written in Gen 1:14?


just askin'...
I assume you do.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you believe Moses used the Hebrew word "yowm," or the English word "day?"

You, cupid dave, 'assume' that I believe that Moses didn't speak English?? Really? Why make that assumption? I don't know what the words, "Do you believe that Genesis first appeared Moses and the stories..." means. My belief about Moses is that he actually does have an opinion and he spoke about that. As I've stated before, I also believe that we would both do well to consider what he said about that.

 

[Sparkey]

I want you to know that it's okay if we do not agree on everything, I don't expect that from anyone. However, we must use the Word of God as the final authority, do you agree with that statement?

If you agree that we should use the Word of God as the final authority, then I would ask that you provide the Scripture(s) here in this thread that "clearly" teach this. If you have Scripture(s) that "clearly" teach us other than what I have stated, please share them here. As I said, and if possible, please show us the verse that say's what Moses believed exactly when he spoke in Exodus about the creation week. Can you find one passage that supports your allegation that he did not believe what he said? If so I will be willing to look at it with you, but until that time. I stand firm in my conviction.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't know what the words, "Do you believe that Genesis first appeared Moses and the stories..." means.

I asked "Do you believe Moses thought that a 24 hour day really existed before the 4th 'yowm,' as it is written in Gen 1:14?"

Did Moses believe that the 24 hour day was created, and had not existed, until the 4th "yowm?"

 

[Sparkey]

Since Moses is not here to ask, all we may do is quote him, as I have done. It certainly seems that way. In fact i would insist that since he modeled the weeks accordingly there is strong evidence to support that allegation. Are you saying that because at least one person doesn't clearly understand what God said, that means that Moses didn't? No? Didn't think so.

 

[cupid dave]

I want you to know that it's okay if we do not agree on everything, I don't expect that from anyone. However, we must use the Word of God as the final authority, do you agree with that statement?

Well I respect the right of everyone to disagree with me.
And I offer the alternative interpretations of the what the Word seems fairly to state from my prospective.

But when you say "Final Authority" all I hear is that you consider what you believe the Word say is final.

I asked you whether you agree that all people today are related to just the three sons of Noah when you said the Three Racial Stock Theory is all in my mind.
Are you insulted by that question?

 

[Sparkey]

But when you say "Final Authority" all I hear...

I see this too. But we can not really argue about Moses being the "final authority" because he's not hear to say. I could say that I am the "final authority" on what I think and mean, but then again, God knows better and even I am subject to that which can happen to all. The heart is desperately wicked and who can know it?

and you said the Three Racial Stock Theory is all in my mind.

Show me where I say anything like that or retract the lie about me.

 

[Adam]

I will say that it is all in CD's mind. I have no problem with that, considering that there is no "3 Racial Stock Theory." There are no proponents of such a "theory." There are no articles or college courses on this subject. There is no one talking about such a "theory" with the single exception of CD.

In fact, there is no supported theory about divisions by race at all in modern genetics. And to tack it on the end of the question of whether everyone is related to Noah's sons is simply a non sequitor.

 

[Sparkey]

cd, what do you know about "flow" ? We've looked at M. Csikszentmihalyi and his dissertations (and books) about flow in a couple of my classes. You like Psychology. This has very practical use even in sports.

Thought you might like. Easy to Google, but I suspect you may have read about it.

 

[cupid dave]

cupid dave


and you said the Three Racial Stock Theory is all in my mind.



Show me where I say anything like that or retract the lie about me.

?
OK,...

Technically you did not use those exact words, but merely bracketed the inference above somewhere.

I assumed the inference implied that there is no evidence for this Three Racial Stocks Theory and I am just favoring the hypothesis in a social environment where everyone else refuses to accept he unsupported idea.
Nevertheless, my reason for mentioning it is that it CORRESPONDS with the Genesis story that tells us that all people today DID derive from three different "sons" of one man.
AND, genetics further supports that all these people today are related to just one man, presumably this same Noah, who lived, again, coincidentally, at the exact time that a flood of Modern man populated the whole world CONURRENT with the total decimation of the previous dominant Neanderthal men who went extinct.

What I see evidence for is that in order to protect a private denominational interpretation of the Genesis story that is archaic and ancient by now, whole masses of people will ignore these correspondences that confirm the Noah's Ark general idea.

These people will insist that all these corresponding similarities are factual wrong or immaterial in the light that they say, "God said it," when they really "say that I am the 'final authority' on what I think and mean."

 

[cupid dave]

THE THREE RACIAL STOCK THEORY TO DATE:



Japanese Journal of Human Genetics

December 1978,Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 341-369

The theory of genetic distanceand evolution of human races

• Masatoshi Nei

Genetic distance estimatessuggest that among the three major races of man the first divergence occurredabout 120,000 years ago between Negroid and a group of Caucasoid and Mongoloidand then the latter group split into Caucasoid and Mongoloid around 60,000years ago. It is also shown that the genetic identity between man andchimpanzee corresponds to a divergence time of 4–6 million years if the assumptionof constant rate of amino acid substitution is correct.


BUT, THIS GENETIC EVIDENCE FURTHER SUPPORTS THAT TODAY, OVER TIME, THESE THREE STOCKS DIFFERENTIATED INTO TWELVE (2) RACES:



A phylogenetic tree for twelve races of man is constructed by using genefrequency data for 11 protein and 11 blood group loci. This tree roughly agreeswith what we expect intuitively from the morphological characters and thehistorical record of these races.



...WHICH CONFIRMS THE EARLIER SCIENCE GRAPHICALLY ORGANIZED BELOW:

 

[Adam]

A journal that is no longer even in publication and an article from 1978 is not "to date."

I restate my claim: In fact, there is no supported theory about divisions by race at all in MODERN genetics.

To date, any theory on "racial stocks" is treated like any other discarded science, such as a geocentric universe or the practice of blood letting. To date, according to almost all biologists, physical anthropologists, and geneticists, there is no valid scientific justification for the concept of race.

Since Wright's F statistics and Lewontin's identification that most of the variation (80-85%) within human populations is found within local geographic groups (differences attributable to traditional "race" groups are a minor part of human genetic variability) the argument against races has been expounded on by Dawkins and Ian Tattersal, making the concept of race a scientific myth in terms of category.


Please take note that when I mention that modern genetics refutes any race hypothesis, an appeal to a zoology book from the 1930s carries no weight against my argument.

 

[Sparkey]

Technically you did not use those exact words, but merely bracketed the inference above somewhere.

I assumed the inference implied...

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The reason that I ask, is what happened after the flood? We may look and see that at the tower of Babel, the Lord acted. He did some very specific things and He told us what he did. Now, at that time, Shem (not his real name) was there. I believe that what the Lord did there caused the "Scattering" and the "Confounding" of the languages. This is what the linguists who look toward figuring out origins don't quite see. This is what those who state categorically that there are only three races or that there are "races" at all, refuse to look at. What did God do? What did He say?

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

So two years after the Lord did something (that we are not explicitly told about) that Shem procreated and produced his son, Arphaxad. We are also told that at the tower of Babel the Lord acted to cause division and scattering and confounding of the purpose they had proposed, to reach up and grab that which is of God. My thought is that whatever happened at Babel is the cause of the various things we may still see today.

If it is your thought that the chicken came first and it was the fact that Noah had three sons, that's okay. If it is my thought that the egg was "scattered" before it hatched out from the loins of Shem and his brothers and every other person at that time (including their father and wives and others who were not saved)? Well, isn't that also okay and valid as far as thinking what may have occurred goes?

 

[cupid dave]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The reason that I ask, is what happened after the flood?

I miss your point here.

The "chicken" was the mother Ape within whose womb by an Act-of-God a new species evolved with no father or mother like it, since this "man" had only 23 chromosomes.
That "egg" which was mutated genetically, became the first in the line in the ascent of 22 species named in the Genealogy, to Modern Homo sapiens, thru Noah and then his three sons.

I am uncertain in regard to why Gen 11 is referred to here?

 

[Adam]

I'm sorry, but that is science fiction.

 

[cupid dave]

Its all in Genesis and can beunderstood as corresponding exactly to the very detailed explanations scienceoffers us today.

In the bracketed explanations of howscience and what genesis specifically states, you can see the one-to-onerelationship between the two descriptions:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning,(theFormative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or theDarkEnergy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created...(all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Timewhich consisted of Seven Stages:

1) The Inflation Era

2) The Quark Era

3) Hadron Era

4) Lepton Era

5) Nucleosynthesis Era

6) Opaque Era

7) Matter Era,...

in an enormous Einsteinian energytransformation,E = mC^2),...

... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the SolarSystem) and the (accretion disk whichwas yet to congeal into a sphericalplanet) earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth waswithoutform, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void:(not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness:[choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep:[tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (thepan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniymresence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory thingsspinningcounter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

Gen. 1:3 And God, (next,after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : andthere was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the BigBang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).



Gen. 1:4 And (FatherNature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light,that itwas good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfoldingReality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the starsformed).

Gen. 1:5 And (FatherNature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the lightDay, and the darkness he called Night.

Back to the point of the thread, the correspondence between the very loose statements from Gen 1:1-5 compare well with the science that rather supports what is states rather than contradicts it.
Genesis is not teaching science.
Nor is it explaining by science.
Genesis is merely stating a factual set of general statements about the beginning of time and the unfolding of the cosmic reality within which the God of the living reigns over the life of man.

What we see is that science has no criticism of these statements.

Continuing further, we read about a geological event which can only be important enough to mention because of its correspondence with a cyclic process that first took place during the third step or "day" of the evolving, unfolding formation of the world now known to us.

Verses Gen 1:9-10 continue to state events which a positive and supportive view from science facts verify as correct and acceptable factual occurrences:




There WAS one ocean, once,where all the waters had been collected together around Pangaea.





Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature,the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gatheredtogether unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia),the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):

1. North American Plate,

2. Pacific Plate,

3. South American Plate,

4. African Plate,

5. Eurasian Plate,

6. Anartic Plate,

7. Australian Plate),...



...and it was so.