[_ Old Earth _] The churches today agree with Bill Maher...

[VirginShallConceive]

What do you have in mind?

Like how Carl Linnaeus proposed a classification of plants and animals. Then, Charles Darwin came out with his findings. Then, lo and behold, scientists find 94% commonality of DNA between humans and chimpanzees. DNA is used to solve rapes and murders. It is also used to find out the paternity of a child. This is mainstream science. It works. The scientists of the world keep each other in check.

You're making a serious mistake here.

If there is 94% commonality in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, what does that really prove? That we are 94% chimps, and chimps are 94% human? Would you stand by that foolish description?

If I point out that all DNA, from whatever species, contain the very same elements (carbon, hydrogen etc etc) does that prove that we are closely related to whales, sequoias and bananas? It proves nothing, besides a common creator.

I was just trying to get you to see the big picture.

It's like this. Scientists have suspected objects that they can't see in outer space, by gravitational pull or whatever. Then, when they get a more powerful telescope, they actually see it, confirming their "hunch".

Evolution of Species is constantly being confirmed. From before Linnaeus to now.

You had better jump on the band wagon of reality now. Better now than later, so that you can accelerate your wiseness and enrich your life with a cleaner lense with which to view it.

 

[Sparkey]

It's like this. Scientists have suspected objects that they can't see in outer space, by gravitational pull or whatever. Then, when they get a more powerful telescope, they actually see it, confirming their "hunch".

Evolution of Species is constantly being confirmed. From before Linnaeus to now.

It's like this: Religious advocates have long suspected that God is involved in creation. They know even by basic observation of natural things that it is as God has declared. Then, when they enter the information age and more and more word studies and Holy Spirit inspired men speak about and interpret what God did and did not say, they are able to turn that telescope upon nature and confirm what has long been suspected.

Creationism is constantly being confirmed. From before the Time of Jesus to now.

What did God precisely say about "kinds" and how does that shed light on "species"? Where did the confusion begin? Was it in the translation of the word in English as 'kind,' in Hebrew 'miyn' to LATIN in 1545–55; < Latin speciēs : appearance, form, sort, kind, equivalent to spec ( ere ) to look, regard + -iēs?

When St. Jerome translated to Latin, he used both Hebrew and Greek versions. Was it the genus transferri that caused confusion there and then as well as here and now? Was it the translation to the Septuagint or to the Latin Vulgate? Both were done by scholars who were influenced by the knowledge (or lack thereof) in their day.

But what did God mean? What did HE say?

 

[Sparkey]

Then I assume you deny the validity of the other 8?

Only as they presume to represent all the views, yes. There needs to be, as I have said, another possibility, that being: "None of the above." Else I may not fit into any of the above. Are you asserting that all may fit themselves into the 8 you have listed? And if so, by what authority to you make such allegation? In other words, can you back up your words or at minimum agree that you failed to mention another very possible option?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

It's like this. Scientists have suspected objects that they can't see in outer space, by gravitational pull or whatever. Then, when they get a more powerful telescope, they actually see it, confirming their "hunch".

Evolution of Species is constantly being confirmed. From before Linnaeus to now.

It's like this: Religious advocates have long suspected that God is involved in creation. They know even by basic observation of natural things that it is as God has declared. Then, when they enter the information age and more and more word studies and Holy Spirit inspired men speak about and interpret what God did and did not say, they are able to turn that telescope upon nature and confirm what has long been suspected.

Creationism is constantly being confirmed. From before the Time of Jesus to now.

:toofunny

I like your style, Sparrow. I really do.

Creationism is constantly being confirmed. From before the Time of Jesus to now.

I agree with you, as long as the type of Creationism that you are referring to is Theistic Evolution, because anything that goes against Evolution is constantly being de-confirmed. :crazy

What did God precisely say about "kinds" and how does that shed light on "species"? Where did the confusion begin? Was it in the translation of the word in English as 'kind,' in Hebrew 'miyn' to LATIN in 1545–55; < Latin speciēs : appearance, form, sort, kind, equivalent to spec ( ere ) to look, regard + -iēs?

When St. Jerome translated to Latin, he used both Hebrew and Greek versions. Was it the genus transferri that caused confusion there and then as well as here and now? Was it the translation to the Septuagint or to the Latin Vulgate? Both were done by scholars who were influenced by the knowledge (or lack thereof) in their day.

But what did God mean? What did HE say?

I have no clue as to how to respond to this, but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

[Asyncritus]

Evolution is constantly being disproved - and they won't admit it.

Every biochemical dscovery shows increasing complexity of everything being demonstrated. Complexity demands the original input of the most unbelievably complex information.

Where did all that come from?

And most damaging of all to the theory, is the question of the origin of instinctive behaviour.

Evolution simply cannot account for its existence, as I have shown many times over and over again.

Reptiles could not have become birds - the flight instincts cannot be accounted for. Barbarian mumbles foolishly about 'modification of existing information'. Which is utter nonsense.

Anything in a reptile's genome which had to do with flight WHEN THE REPTILE COULDN'T (AND IT STILL DOESN'T) FLY, would have been selected out - because of its uselessness. That is how natural selection is supposed to work - by the elimination of the useless and/or harmful. Where then, did the vast amount of information needed to make a reptile fly come from?

Answer, nowhere. It simply couldn't and didn't arise by evolution.

So where then? Answer: from the Creator.

Just think about it VSC. Would you, or anyone else put an untrained mechanic into a fighter plane and say - here, go fly? Disaster is sure to come.

And isn't that exactly what evolution entails? That a reptile (untrained, like the mechanic), is put into a bird's body or a bat's body (the fighter plane), and told , here, go fly!

What would have happened? You know the answer.

Or take any given fish, and tell it, here, go walk on land. Death and disaster.

Similarly with every other alleged evolutionary step from one group to another. How did the instinct required originate?

Answer, from its Creator. Not evolution.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Evolution is constantly being disproved - and they won't admit it.

They?

Nah, they just keep looking for cures, with Evolution in mind.

 

[Sparkey]

I agree with you, as long as the type of Creationism that you are referring to is Theistic Evolution

You've stipulated (as is your right) a quality that is required for your agreement. And it may or may not leave us where we are not able to agree. That's up to you. As for me? I agree with what I hear from you, but I also agree with what I hear from others. How can this be?

Paul:

• Could I be known as Paul Muad'Dib? ...
• He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
• ... The planet is Arrakis, also known as Dune.

"He IS the Kwisatz Haderach"
[video=youtube;B8-eiBqri0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-eiBqri0U[/video]

Am I the 'Kwisatz Haderach' ?? No. I can not be in two places at once. That's silly.
But how can this be? How may I agree in two places at once? This isn't silly. It is known and declared.

Which of the 8 general categories do you place yourself in:

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
8) Atheist

I am "none of the above".

 

[cupid dave]

My position is that Genesis isn't a science book, and shouldn't be taken as such.
.

Funnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaa...

No kidding?
I am always amazed when people suggest that such a point is being made, when all that is noted is that Genesis ought and can be read so as not to be contradicted by a Science book.

 

[cupid dave]

Evolution of Species is constantly being confirmed. From before Linnaeus to now.

You had better jump on the band wagon of reality now. Better now than later, so that you can accelerate your wiseness and enrich your life with a cleaner lense with which to view it.

Yep...

The Pope, in 1998, agreed that science has too strong an argument for Catholics to oppose evolution.

The religious arguments, based upon some ancient way of reading that book, and their stone-walling, as if it is essential doctrine, when actually people/churches do this merely because they fear admitting they have been wrong, over centuries, about ANYTHING they contend concerning what they have/had been telling people.

That is all this is really about.
If the leaders, pastors, ministers, etc admit that they are way out and preaching myth-type interpretations to Genesis, they fear their other preachings will look faulty.

 

[Adam]

Only as they presume to represent all the views, yes. There needs to be, as I have said, another possibility, that being: "None of the above." Else I may not fit into any of the above. Are you asserting that all may fit themselves into the 8 you have listed? And if so, by what authority to you make such allegation? In other words, can you back up your words or at minimum agree that you failed to mention another very possible option?

It seems to me that CD has purposely filtered his list because he makes it a point to list things in sevens or 7 + 1 alternative.

Of course, there are several more types of creationists.

 

[Adam]

My position is that Genesis isn't a science book, and shouldn't be taken as such.
.

Funnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaa...

No kidding?
I am always amazed when people suggest that such a point is being made, when all that is noted is that Genesis ought and can be read so as not to be contradicted by a Science book.

You aren't making an observation, though. There is nothing that you are noting. You are making a claim. One that goes sour within the first few pages of Genesis.


I hope not to offend anyone, but when the bible states that woman was formed out of man's rib, modern science certainly contradicts that.

 

[cupid dave]

The point remains that "The churches today agree with Bill Maher"... who mocks religion, laughs at the Bible, and speaks every week to a growing audience of young educated people who see that the Church and Maher agree that Genesis is just a mythological description of creation since it does not conform to factual reality.

Definition of MYTH

an unfounded or false notion

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

 

[Vaccine]

I hope not to offend anyone, but when the bible states that woman was formed out of man's rib, modern science certainly contradicts that.

Im not offended. I am curious, where did she come from then?

 

[cupid dave]

Gen 2 and 3

I hope not to offend anyone, but when the bible states that woman was formed out of man's rib, modern science certainly contradicts that.

Im not offended. I am curious, where did she come from then?

The Hebrew word for "rib"really means a door into a part of a whole.

It was a necessary metaphor in Genesis 2, which really describes the evolution of the Human psyche, composed of the seven Freudian/Jungian Archetypes.



The "woman," found in us all, refers to the Anima or woman's Intuition.

It is supportive in Genesis 2:21 that evolution is implied as "a long sleep."





Gen. 2:21 And the LORD God,(The First Cause), caused a deep sleep, (a progressive series ofevolutions), to fall upon (this first of our species: [Gen 5:2] i.e.),Adam, (to psychologically change him), and he (evolved over manythousands of years as if he had) slept: and He, (the Universal Power,over time), took one of his (psychic) ribs, (Tsela; "a side of aperson," or, figuratively, “a door:” [Hebrew]), and closed up the flesh (of this psychic facility), instead, (of including Human Intuition) thereof (within the rest of the mind of man);

 

[Adam]

I hope not to offend anyone, but when the bible states that woman was formed out of man's rib, modern science certainly contradicts that.

Im not offended. I am curious, where did she come from then?

Your question is in regard to the scientific assumptions surrounding the origin of gender. Gender precedes humans. "She" presumedly came from her mother, which is certainly contrary to the details given in Genesis.

 

[Adam]

Gen 2 and 3

I hope not to offend anyone, but when the bible states that woman was formed out of man's rib, modern science certainly contradicts that.

Im not offended. I am curious, where did she come from then?

The Hebrew word for "rib"really means a door into a part of a whole.

It was a necessary metaphor in Genesis 2, which really describes the evolution of the Human psyche, composed of the seven Freudian/Jungian Archetypes.

Neither of those claims are true.

The word for "rib" can refer to beams, in the exact usage in today's archetectural language. A "supporting structure." Which Eve was. The Hebrew does not mean "door" or rather what you meant "entryway." It is certainly not in regard to evolution of the psyche.


And, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "seven Freudian/Jungian archetypes."

 

[Vaccine]

I still don't understand. Can you explain again where did the 1st woman come from? Born, made?

 

[Sparkey]

I still don't understand. Can you explain again where did the 1st woman come from? Born, made?

The discussion centers on what may be considered a "vague" term when read in the Hebrew. The word may be examined by looking at Strong's definitions, but that is not the most reliable source, although I would not hesitate to say that it is a "good" and "reliable" source with known repute. The real benefit of the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is that it used to be the only one what was crossed referenced to so many other sources. Quite the handy tool that.

But to get a quick look at the topic currently under discussion one may go to a Hebrew Interlinear and check it out there. I just happen to have a link and reading the verse as given in the Sub-Texts helps. One of the things that I very much enjoy is defamiliarization of things we've heard so many times that we consider them so quickly that our eye just jumps over them. Letting the well known word of God be something "Other" and remarkable and filled with wonder is an experience that is worth sharing. Pray, seek, ask, knock.

Here's the link: Scripture 4 All: Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)

I'd suggest clicking on the link given above and starting around Genesis 2:16 to read the Sublinears WLC_t, CHES (v2.0) from there. It's the green text.

 

[Vaccine]

I guess that is a question better answered in the evolve thread. I don't want to hijack this one so carry on..

 

[cupid dave]

The churches today agree with Bill Maher...














I still don't understand. Can you explain again where did the 1st woman come from? Born, made?

What I am saying is that the Bible writers, understandably, couched the stories in parable or analogies which they report to us and for us today.
The reason the "book is closed" to previous readers is that the actual facts we now recognize are more unbelievable, really, than the mythological way those writers had to tell us these things.
Even now, today, educated intelligent people can not believe that the History of the Earth is recorded in six separate layers of Rocks, in the geology, or that we evolved from 22 now extinct humans, etc.

With that in mind, the story about Adam and Eve and the garden makes sense as an important thing for God to focus on, i.e.; how man thinks.
Essentially, Gen 2 and Gen 3 is describing the Freudian/Jungian mind that evolved after a "long sleep" or slow evolution of our present mind.

Ribs are a reference to the parts of the Freudian/Jungian psyche.

The use of the simile, 'rib," is interesting in that man has seven pairs of True Ribs, (and 5 floating ribs), and also seven Freudian/Jungian Archetypes: