Human Population

[AV1611VET]

Hey, c'mon, guys.

You asked dad what he thought -- and he told you.

Now you guys are criticizing him for being honest?

 

[dad]

Ignoring the fact that this will make no difference, I have to ask, for the sake of future generations, you do know, don't you, that making stuff up isn't actually what scientists do?

No. I know that that is exactly what they have done. Universe in a speck, standard cosmo model, moon creation, radioactive dating, first lifeform, etc. This is news? Really.

Kids...know that you were duped, question things. It is OK to think. Don't let them bully you intellectually.

 

[dad]

It's from Arrested Development.

Compared to AV, you have an absent sense of humor. At least AV is willing to dip into his soul and bring out some wit when the moment strikes him. You're all business.

Not all need to laugh at the same sort of things.

 

[dad]

Why not dad... can you prove that there is no different state between New York and Paris??? Can you???

I don't need to prove that a munchkin doesn't lurk in your wheaties. Neither claim is relevant. Sorry if you thought you had some brilliant point. At least you got a laugh.

That all you got?

 

[ug333]

Disregarding imaginary planet smash up derbies that poofed the moon into being is not what is delusional. Pretending such events are science is.

Dropping "magic" sounding terms into your description of the theory doesn't change its nature. I think my original critique holds true in that you are not questioning the theory of the moon's formation on scientific grounds, but on the grounds that it doesn't fit your view of the bible.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry, not me. I find truth in a joke really makes it. The dad in his routine didn't resemble anything I think.

It fit you to a tee. I see that and AVET sees that. Sorry you didn't find it amusing, though.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't need to prove that a munchkin doesn't lurk in your wheaties. Neither claim is relevant. Sorry if you thought you had some brilliant point.

The irony in this statement is amazing. Do you really not see that this is the point everyone else has been making about your claims about present and past states? Are you really so self-oriented and dense?

At least you got a laugh.

That all you got?

I also made everyone else laugh... except you. I would say I batted 900.

 

[USincognito]

Of course not, we got to get a Time of the Gaps fallacy up in here.
Anybody got a million years to add to this thread?

Haven't we already established that "Time fo the Gaps" is something you've made up in your own mind? Much like how dad thinks he's making a point and AV thinks he's entertaining?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The ancients may has puffed the magic dragon too, is that your point?

Um, no that wasn't what I was referring to. You don't need drugs in order to have a misinterpretation of events or to forget certain events. I've specifically had a instance where I had a friend and I was so positive that I watched a movie with him at some point this past summer and he was so positive that he had never seen this movie. To this day, it blows my mind that I have a vivid memory of watching a movie with him while he has no recollection of seeing the movie. (Note: neither of us were on drugs....)

So? I'll wait till he parts the sea.

I said Jews think he will be LIKE Moses: human but with a deep, prophetic connection to God. I never said he had to do all the things Moses did.

Ever consider Jesus spoke of some basic things like creation time, and the flood?

Scriptural evidence, please.

You have no evidence. It is all present state modeling. As desperate as some might be to create the moon with such pixie dust, they are grasping at physical only straws.

Thank you for proving my point: "So any evidence for the moon formation will never be considered evidence for you. That's the logical flaw here: you demand evidence for something that happened in the past while pre-supposing that any evidence from the past will be invalid. Greeeeaaat."

You tell me!?

That should have been an edit: "If I look at the "different state past conclusion"...."

Sure...

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

Thanks. That's a really interesting essay. I don't agree with it specifically because on the second page, the author makes a small, nonchalant comment: "Something must be going to change, if the bible is correct!"

That's a huge "if", especially if you're saying the bible is literally correct. The literal-Bible hypothesis has been debated for centuries with many brilliant theologians concluding that it is not literal (St. Augustine, Philo, St Paul (Galatians 4: 22-26) etc)

Also, the part about Noah's deluge uses the following argument:

Premise 1: The Bible is literally correct
Premise 2: The Bible says there was a flood which defied all physical laws
Conclusion: Physical laws were different.

This is the argument you yourself use. Problem: logical arguments only reach "true" conclusions (not just valid conclusions) when the premises are true.

The premise in question is Premise 1.

That makes no sense. Why make someone live a thousand years when it is not the natural lifespan of the day? Why send ferries for trillions of water droplets falling on earth in the flood, to make sure killing heat was not produced?? Etc..

It makes sense to me, its more "miraculous" for God to have done that then to do all this different-state stuff. But that's just my opinion. Just like the above quote is just your opinion.

I have a dating method that is many times more accurate than same state based methods. I look to God's word as the thing to align to. Also, stick to what is known.

Okay, that's fine. Why don't you believe in the literal account of what actually happened according to the Norse epics?

History. The long life spans of Sumer, and spirit among men recorded.
Nonsense. There is no evidence to disregard for a same state past. All that must be disregarded is the godless belief based foundational premise for the claims.

I'm slowly beginning to realize that this is circular. Sloooowwwly.

You are right, anyone could put one up.

I just don't believe in a literal account of Genesis. I believe it to be allegorical. In no way does that affect my spiritual relationship to God. As I said before, many brilliant (Christian) theologians believed in an allegorical account of the Bible. Thanks for judging my beliefs though

 

[dad]

The irony in this statement is amazing. Do you really not see that this is the point everyone else has been making about your claims about present and past states? Are you really so self-oriented and dense?


I also made everyone else laugh... except you. I would say I batted 900.

No problem. I don't think you are so wrong all the time, that you can't so much as crack a joke. As I say, I don't find it funny personally, because I do not question laws that are in place.

 

[dad]

Haven't we already established that "Time fo the Gaps" is something you've made up in your own mind? Much like how dad thinks he's making a point and AV thinks he's entertaining?

And you think you have it all figured out...

 

[Dram the mighty]

No. I know that that is exactly what they have done. Universe in a speck, standard cosmo model, moon creation, radioactive dating, first lifeform, etc. This is news? Really.

Kids...know that you were duped, question things. It is OK to think. Don't let them bully you intellectually.

It is always good to think. It's also good to make up stories, at least until you grow up a bit.

But then you have to actually look at reality.

You'll get there, in the end.

Probably.

 

[dad]

Um, no that wasn't what I was referring to. You don't need drugs in order to have a misinterpretation of events or to forget certain events. I've specifically had a instance where I had a friend and I was so positive that I watched a movie with him at some point this past summer and he was so positive that he had never seen this movie. To this day, it blows my mind that I have a vivid memory of watching a movie with him while he has no recollection of seeing the movie. (Note: neither of us were on drugs....)

Any history of Alzheimer in your family? But OK, so we sometimes forget things. There are millions of people on earth that see stuff. Lots of records, they couldn't all forget at once.

I said Jews think he will be LIKE Moses: human but with a deep, prophetic connection to God. I never said he had to do all the things Moses did.

No. If they read the scripture, they will realize that He will rule forever, and is God. The confusion you seem to allude to is likely the mystery that is the church, that was hid from those in the old testament. They never saw the time gap between the first and second coming of Christ. So, they expected the lion, and not so much the Lamb.

Scriptural evidence, please.

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;


Mt 19:4 -And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Thank you for proving my point: "So any evidence for the moon formation will never be considered evidence for you. That's the logical flaw here: you demand evidence for something that happened in the past while pre-supposing that any evidence from the past will be invalid. Greeeeaaat."

There is no evidence to be considered. You have merely made a fantasy model based on desperately trying to find a way to make a moon in our state, with our laws, and no hand of God. You have nothing but fantasy, do not insult us alluding to evidence that doesn't exist.

Thanks. That's a really interesting essay. I don't agree with it specifically because on the second page, the author makes a small, nonchalant comment: "Something must be going to change, if the bible is correct!"

That's a huge "if", especially if you're saying the bible is literally correct. The literal-Bible hypothesis has been debated for centuries with many brilliant theologians concluding that it is not literal (St. Augustine, Philo, St Paul (Galatians 4: 22-26) etc)

Also, the part about Noah's deluge uses the following argument:

Premise 1: The Bible is literally correct
Premise 2: The Bible says there was a flood which defied all physical laws
Conclusion: Physical laws were different.

Not really. The Bible merely tells how it was. It is in looking at present laws that we know they could not have applied.

If the flood really happened, then we need a way for water to stay up there, so it could fall..we need no killing heat, we need a lot of things. The creation science thing has been an attempt to explain these things as true. The problem is that they have used the present to try to explain them just as much as science does to explain them away!

This is the argument you yourself use. Problem: logical arguments only reach "true" conclusions (not just valid conclusions) when the premises are true.

The premise in question is Premise 1.

The premise is not in question, that is your problem. Jesus created all things, and He spoke of the flood, and creation. The inability of present state science to be able to confirm or deny this immutable truth in no way affects whether it is true. All it does is show that they are limited.

It makes sense to me, its more "miraculous" for God to have done that then to do all this different-state stuff. But that's just my opinion. Just like the above quote is just your opinion.

Nonsensical. If nature was different in that day and the light and laws allowed for fast plant growth, and long lives, and a mingling of spirits in the world of men, and water to come up from below, and no killing heat from friction from land or water movements, and fast reproduction rates, and fast evolving rates, etc...then no magic is required. We simply have a different nature in place. In like manner, when the new heavens state gets here, we will have new laws, and a new nature, no magic pixie dust needed. Remember Occam.

Okay, that's fine. Why don't you believe in the literal account of what actually happened according to the Norse epics?

Maybe some of it is true. Maybe there is a spirit named Thor..why not? But pagan accounts are too burdened with idiot icing to take as serious, accurate records.

I just don't believe in a literal account of Genesis. I believe it to be allegorical. In no way does that affect my spiritual relationship to God.

OK

As I said before, many brilliant (Christian) theologians believed in an allegorical account of the Bible. Thanks for judging my beliefs though

It is what you don't believe that worries me, not what you do. But as long as you believe in the basics of the faith, you are not an issue here, or your beliefs. What is the issue is what God says, and what science actually knows.

 

[dad]

It is always good to think. It's also good to make up stories, at least until you grow up a bit.

But then you have to actually look at reality.

You'll get there, in the end.

Probably.

What story was made up by who?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Any history of Alzheimer in your family? But OK, so we sometimes forget things. There are millions of people on earth that see stuff. Lots of records, they couldn't all forget at once.

Its not so much about forgetting as interpreting events differently. Lots of records of what?

No. If they read the scripture, they will realize that He will rule forever, and is God. The confusion you seem to allude to is likely the mystery that is the church, that was hid from those in the old testament. They never saw the time gap between the first and second coming of Christ. So, they expected the lion, and not so much the Lamb.

I like how you replied first with "No", when the quote wasn't even a question, it was a statement. They don't agree with you, telling a Jew, "no you're wrong because the Bible is true" doesn't change their interpretation of the same words you're reading. Do you think the Bible can be interpreted? And if so, why is your interpretation truth? How are you sure of this? How do you reconcile the fact that other people are just as adamant about their interpretation and profess with equal conviction the truth of their interpretation?

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;


Mt 19:4 -And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Let me give you my interpretation of the above quotes. The first is a metaphor about Jesus coming to the fallen world and "wiping it clean" so-to-speak by forgiving spiritually which is analogous to the flood which came to "wipe clean" the world physically.

The second verse seems to have nothing to do with your "different-state" hypothesis. He's answering the Pharisees when they asked him about divorce and he replies that God made male and female to be united under one flesh. What does this have to do with time, the flood or the different-state hypothesis?

There is no evidence to be considered. You have merely made a fantasy model based on desperately trying to find a way to make a moon in our state, with our laws, and no hand of God. You have nothing but fantasy, do not insult us alluding to evidence that doesn't exist.

What does the word "evidence" mean to you?

Not really. The Bible merely tells how it was. It is in looking at present laws that we know they could not have applied.

The Bible isn't like a textbook. It doesn't tell us what happened in a matter of fact, bullet-by-bullet way. It is laced with poetry, allegory and metaphor. This is why people spend years studying it and interpreting different verses. No one spends years examining a textbook because a textbook is straightforward.

The premise is not in question, that is your problem. Jesus created all things, and He spoke of the flood, and creation. The inability of present state science to be able to confirm or deny this immutable truth in no way affects whether it is true. All it does is show that they are limited.

How many people on this forum agree with you that the Bible is literally true? Lets take a poll? Everyone who agrees, say "aye".

Guess what? Not everyone says "aye". Therefore the premise is in question, by definition. The simple fact that I disagree with you means the premise is in question.

Nonsensical. If nature was different in that day and the light and laws allowed for fast plant growth, and long lives, and a mingling of spirits in the world of men, and water to come up from below, and no killing heat from friction from land or water movements, and fast reproduction rates, and fast evolving rates, etc...then no magic is required. We simply have a different nature in place. In like manner, when the new heavens state gets here, we will have new laws, and a new nature, no magic pixie dust needed. Remember Occam.

That whole paragraph begins with an "If". To me, that is a HUGE "if"; to you, you take it as fact.

If A, B, C, D, E, F, G....Then Dad is right.

If we assume same-state physical laws....Then everyone else is right.

Notice how many more assumptions you have to make....

Maybe some of it is true. Maybe there is a spirit named Thor..why not? But pagan accounts are too burdened with idiot icing to take as serious, accurate records.

Idiot icing like what? Like having to literally believe that all the animals on the Earth fit into one ark? Sounds like "idiot icing" to me
Only an idiot would believe that to be literal

It is what you don't believe that worries me, not what you do. But as long as you believe in the basics of the faith, you are not an issue here, or your beliefs. What is the issue is what God says, and what science actually knows.

Do you really think that me believing whether or not the flood happened literally is going to change my day-to-day life. Or my eternal life? Is that what God bases eternity on? Belief that the flood literally happened?

 

[dad]

Its not so much about forgetting as interpreting events differently. Lots of records of what?

Well, human population growth had to happen in 4500 years, for example. So how would that be interpreted different? Records of civilizations since the dawn of history are records. Even if some king was wonky, we still have some basic comprehension that Egypt and Sumer, and Greece, and Assyria etc existed.

I like how you replied first with "No", when the quote wasn't even a question, it was a statement. They don't agree with you, telling a Jew, "no you're wrong because the Bible is true" doesn't change their interpretation of the same words you're reading.

All that matters is what scripture says. Some things are beyond interpretation. There are hundreds and hundreds of prophesies of messiah. Both first coming and reign. He will rule with a rod of iron, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

Do you think the Bible can be interpreted? And if so, why is your interpretation truth? How are you sure of this? How do you reconcile the fact that other people are just as adamant about their interpretation and profess with equal conviction the truth of their interpretation?

The bible is a big book. I like to stick to absolutes, and basics beyond interpretation where possible. For example that population grew after the flood.

Let me give you my interpretation of the above quotes. The first is a metaphor about Jesus coming to the fallen world and "wiping it clean" so-to-speak by forgiving spiritually which is analogous to the flood which came to "wipe clean" the world physically.

It says it took them all away. We also see that the flood is clearly mentioned in other parts of the New Testament. So is Adam. Any attempt to wave it away is impossible when the book is taken as a whole.

The second verse seems to have nothing to do with your "different-state" hypothesis. He's answering the Pharisees when they asked him about divorce and he replies that God made male and female to be united under one flesh. What does this have to do with time, the flood or the different-state hypothesis?

I had mentioned that the flood and time of creation were spoken of by Jesus. God making man male and female clearly eliminates evolution as an origin.

The Bible isn't like a textbook. It doesn't tell us what happened in a matter of fact, bullet-by-bullet way. It is laced with poetry, allegory and metaphor. This is why people spend years studying it and interpreting different verses. No one spends years examining a textbook because a textbook is straightforward.

It speaks of spiritual things as well as physical. Studying it requires one to be spiritually minded. Otherwise one would merely wave most of it away in one's mind, to accommodate one's present state physical only belief system, and natural minded colorization of scripture.

How many people on this forum agree with you that the Bible is literally true? Lets take a poll? Everyone who agrees, say "aye".

They don't get a vote. This isn't a democracy.

Guess what? Not everyone says "aye". Therefore the premise is in question, by definition. The simple fact that I disagree with you means the premise is in question.

Guess what, not everyone is God's people.

If we assume same-state physical laws....Then everyone else is right.

No. Assuming and a dollar and a quarter might get you a doughnut. Not an alternate creation.

Idiot icing like what? Like having to literally believe that all the animals on the Earth fit into one ark?

Yes. Like that. If you know anyone that believes that, I am sorry for them.

Do you really think that me believing whether or not the flood happened literally is going to change my day-to-day life.

No. Believing in God and His word is what changes us.

Or my eternal life? Is that what God bases eternity on? Belief that the flood literally happened?

No. But don't think that rejecting God's word as real will help either.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many people on this forum agree with you that the Bible is literally true? Lets take a poll? Everyone who agrees, say "aye".

Aye --

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Well, human population growth had to happen in 4500 years, for example. So how would that be interpreted different? Records of civilizations since the dawn of history are records. Even if some king was wonky, we still have some basic comprehension that Egypt and Sumer, and Greece, and Assyria etc existed.

Sigh. Ok...

All that matters is what scripture says. Some things are beyond interpretation. There are hundreds and hundreds of prophesies of messiah. Both first coming and reign. He will rule with a rod of iron, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

Ok...

The bible is a big book. I like to stick to absolutes, and basics beyond interpretation where possible. For example that population grew after the flood.

Ok...

It says it took them all away. We also see that the flood is clearly mentioned in other parts of the New Testament. So is Adam. Any attempt to wave it away is impossible when the book is taken as a whole.

Ok...

I had mentioned that the flood and time of creation were spoken of by Jesus. God making man male and female clearly eliminates evolution as an origin.

Ok...

It speaks of spiritual things as well as physical. Studying it requires one to be spiritually minded. Otherwise one would merely wave most of it away in one's mind, to accommodate one's present state physical only belief system, and natural minded colorization of scripture.

Ok...

They don't get a vote. This isn't a democracy.
Guess what, not everyone is God's people.

Yikes...but ok...

No. Assuming and a dollar and a quarter might get you a doughnut. Not an alternate creation.

I don't get it...but ok...

Yes. Like that. If you know anyone that believes that, I am sorry for them.

Don't you believe that?

No. Believing in God and His word is what changes us.

No. But don't think that rejecting God's word as real will help either.

Agreed.

See you later

 

[dad]

Sigh. Ok...



Ok...



Ok...



Ok...




Ok...



Ok...




Yikes...but ok...



I don't get it...but ok...



Don't you believe that?



Agreed.

See you later

Looks like you had the wind knocked out of your sails somethin fierce. Kids, watch out..before you mess with a creationist, or this could happen to you!

Anyhow, no, I do not believe all animals on earth were in the ark. I suspect that the created kinds were put in there. Now, there was a lot of hyper evolution, most likely that had went on. So not all the animals need to have been put on the ark. Just the basic kinds. Likewise, a lot of hyper evolving likely went on after the flood. Therefore, not all animals we now have were on the ark, again, just the basic kinds. If you need that broken down for you in simpler terms, just ask.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
Please folks try to deal with each other posts... Stay on topic too Too many rule violation in this thread let's keep it civil ;can we please?
Mod hat off​