Lines of Evidence

[[serious]]

It has 4003 in the margin of my old KJV. (*) So, if we estimate that Adam was about 20 - 30 years old when he was made from dust of the ground and נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים from the mouth of God וַיִּפַּ֥ח into the nostrils -- then he would have been 21 or 31 -- when was driven out of the Garden,

(*)The work done on this dating* is pretty highly regarded, even by the late Stephen Gould.**

---
*The Ussher Chronology

'....We castigate Ussher for making the creation so short – a mere six days, where we reckon billions for evolution. But Ussher fears that six days might seem too long in the opinion of his contemporaries, for why should God, who could do all in an instant, so spread out his work? “Why was he creating so long, seeing he could have perfected all the creatures at once and in a moment?” Ussher gives a list of answers, but one caught my attention both for its charm and for its incisive statement about the need for sequential order in teaching – as good a rationale as one could ever devise for working out a chronology in the first place! “To teach us the better to understand their workmanship; even as a man which will teach a child in the frame of a letter, will first teach him one line of the letter, and not the whole letter together.”....'
** Conflict Myths: Bishop Ussher and the Date of Creation - bethinking.org

Additional Reading:

'And the Lord God created Adam from dust of the ground, and breathed upon his face the breath of lives, and it became in Adam a Discoursing Spirit.' - The Targum of Onkelos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM
Science and Genesis - N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath

Wait, you are basing all of this on the margin commentary in a bible you have? Who is the commentary by? What makes them experts? On what did they base their commentary?

 

[JacksBratt]

The fact that you don't like that my source is able to explain why we have polystrate trees does not make it biased. If it is biased, please feel free to point out where that bias makes it wrong. If you cannot point out where it is wrong, then agree that my source is unbiased.

Bias comes from deciding on your conclusions BEFORE examining the evidence. If you examine the evidence and let that evidence lead you to conclusions, and then get lots of other people to do it and see if it leads them to the same conclusions, then you can be fairly sure there is no significant bias in your conclusion.

But like I said, show me where my source is wrong or agree that it's accurate.

Do you believe that the author of your source was not a believer in the TOE before they put that presentation together? Before the evidence of Polystrate trees? Maybe they were creationists beforehand? I doubt it very much.

Do you think that polystrate trees would not put a big dent in their beliefs if they did not find a way to explain away the possibility that they are formed by a massive flood?

You see, polystrate trees can be used by a creationist as evidence of a global flood. Evolutionists (or for the sake of argument) anti creationists, will use the same evidence to explain away anything that creationists use to discount the TOE.

The sources are all predermined in their belief. Please show me a creationist, that on the reading of the descovery of polystrate trees said that "this must back up the TOE".

According to your definition, this would be the only acceptable "unbiased" source.

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you suggesting that scientists cannot be swayed by a rational argument or evidence? Because it happens all the time.

The statement that I bolded was not mine. I was commenting on the fact that, even though it was presented as a condescention of Creationist believers, it could be stated about believers of the TOE.

 

[JacksBratt]

Religious people, patriots, racists, et cetera, do, demonstrably, act irrationally because they believe absurdities. (e.g talking snakes, and an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent father deity, who allows his children to be exploited, tortured, starved and murdered, et cetera, et cetera) Even the most cursory examination of history shows that clearly.

Racists? hmm. And now patriotism is a flaw in character too? All because they believe in absurdities? Hmm like believing in a spontainious existance of life that is unexplainable as is the existance of simpathy, empathy, love, compassion. Things that compell a "evolved being" to put itself in danger to save the life of another "random" evolved being? Contrary to the drive of survival of the fittest and the race?

As I have said before, both sides in this debate may claim that their opponent is mentally ill, Paranoid,Fearful,Needing to feel important, etc.

I don't think you can sell that to anyone who isn't religious.

Well, of course not. Your point?

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" -- Matthew 19:21 NIV

I would be willing to bet that you haven't done that, and the reason you haven't is because you are afraid to. I don't claim to follow him myself. I seek a better path, one informed by reason and not wishful thinking.

Nice quote mine here. I'm actually surprised at you, Gracchus! You are usually more competent than this.

However the context of the story is not that all Christians should give up their possesions in order to be perfect.
The context is that this man was very wealthy, having many earthly possesions, and if he could not give up that which was dear to him, actually his god (money and earthly possesions) then he could never be perfect. He would have to give up his life's works to follow Christ.

He couldn't do it. Pride, greed, whatever. He chose his god that day.

It means that you are going to die, and after a few decades no one will know or care that you ever lived. Once the world rang with the fame and glory of men and women no one at all today would recognize or care about if they did. Death and obscurity are the common fate of us all.

So, you believe that I am unaware of this. That I believe that I will live, on this earth forever? That I believe that I will somehow be imortalised by my life's works?

Are you disturbed? Your spelling is somewhat ... idiosyncratic.

I fail to see how the fact that I am poor at spelling and that I stated that both creationists and evolutonists are not easily swayed fromt their believes would classify me as "disturbed".

The drugs in question are called "antipsychotics", and by altering brain chemistry they can sometimes bring delusional people to recognize their delusions for what they are.

Hmm, and this would change all the Christians into non-believers with chemicals that remove the blinders from their eyes. Well, you did say sometimes.... And, what if this person is then taken off the mind altering drugs? DO they revert to their "unreal" world or stay with the mindset that you and the drugs say is truth?

Sounds to me like control and not freedom to believe what they have the right to believe.

I did not specify any particular brains. I do understand that the shoe fits many, but it seems to pinch you.

Well, concidering you have mentioned "patriots" in the same group as "racists" and state that they act irrationally followed by the knowledge of drugs that can be used to change the mind and belief of someone that YOU determine to be delusional because they believe differently than you....

Sounds to me like you are the one who may be the paranoid delusional that needs to feel important. If the shoe fits as you say.

It doesn't pinch my brain. I just need to point out that my views are much different than yours'

 

[JacksBratt]

The 'Christianity is the opposite of self-importance' argument always strikes me as deceptive. I mean, the belief that you were created by a supreme being is narcissistic in itself. The belief that you will carry on living for all eternity in paradise after you die as long as you maintain your beliefs is self-interest at about the most fundamental level you can get. And then to create a big drama out of the whole belief system with a supreme being watching YOU and your every action personally and even listening to all your thoughts and wishes (prayers) is pretty much the definition of an ego trip.

The whole thing is about making you feel important; that's what it's for.

If that is your view of a life following and walking with Christ, I really pity you. You've missed it.

 

[JacksBratt]

We, as a society, could be in danger. There has been a fundamental christian political movement to remove science from the public school classroom. When we let religions decide what science can and can't be taught, we run the risk of tipping into a theocracy like those seen in the Middle East. Our society will never benefit from throwing out facts that contradict religious belief.

Yes, yes, I can see it now. The fear of a nation of Christians. The horror.
Such danger.

Removing science from the classroom would be catastrophic. How would we educate chemists, engineers of all types, biologists, doctors etc.... all of which MUST believe in the TOE to be applicable????


In the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, in Canada, evolution and creation was taught side by side as the theories they are. The student was then given the opportunity to believe the one they thought was the truth. It was not jammed down their throte that we all came from apes and if you don't believe that then you need some of Gracchus's drugs. Why does this scare the evolutionist camp so much?

And we built great things, great planes, fought a war against the genocide of the Jewish people. Great structures, and great scholars...... Wow and all coming from an education system that didn't teach just creation or just evolution. IT taught both and it thrived.

Look at the US. Removed God from the schools and now is destined to collapse under the weight of it's unbearable debt, crime, corruption and the cost of protecting itself from nations all around the globe.

The middle east is an extension of what you are trying to protect. ONE LESSON, ONE TRUTH. OUR WAY. Not..here are two beliefs, you need to decide for yourself. The middle east is "teach them and convert them and if they don't....you can kill them.

Funny thing is, after the church is gone and the tribulation begins... the west will adopt this same mantra. Follow the government mandate, take the mark, renounce Christ or DIE.

Schools teaching something other than evolution... ya, real scary!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, yes, I can see it now. The fear of a nation of Christians. The horror.
Such danger.

Actually, it's the fear of a large segment of paranoid, willfully ignorant ignoramuses -- add religious zeal to the mix and... well, let's see how that's worked out in certain other parts of the world, shall we?

Removing science from the classroom would be catastrophic. How would we educate chemists, engineers of all types, biologists, doctors etc.... all of which MUST believe in the TOE to be applicable????

I'm sure there are plenty of mathematicians who are successful even though their religious beliefs force them to deny the existence of the number 3... but it does somewhat hamper their efforts, doesn't it?

In the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, in Canada, evolution and creation was taught side by side as the theories they are. The student was then given the opportunity to believe the one they thought was the truth. It was not jammed down their throte that we all came from apes and if you don't believe that then you need some of Gracchus's drugs. Why does this scare the evolutionist camp so much?

Why don't you tell us what you did to the ones who accepted evolution, Jack?

And we built great things, great planes, fought a war against the genocide of the Jewish people. Great structures, and great scholars...... Wow and all coming from an education system that didn't teach just creation or just evolution. IT taught both and it thrived.

You built great things? Taking the lion's share of credit, are we?

Look at the US. Removed God from the schools and now is destined to collapse under the weight of it's unbearable debt, crime, corruption and the cost of protecting itself from nations all around the globe.

I suppose we could adopt a more God-centered military strategy... disband our armed forces and pray to God to defend us.

Or... in deference to your earlier proposal, we can engage in two competing strategies: in the next war, we can send out half our army armed with conventional weapons, and the other half equipped with nothing but Bibles.

Care to place a bet? I'm sure God will protect the Bible-bearing servicemen/

The middle east is an extension of what you are trying to protect. ONE LESSON, ONE TRUTH. OUR WAY. Not..here are two beliefs, you need to decide for yourself. The middle east is "teach them and convert them and if they don't....you can kill them.

Funny how fighting fire with fire hasn't worked so well, has it?

Funny thing is, after the church is gone and the tribulation begins... the west will adopt this same mantra. Follow the government mandate, take the mark, renounce Christ or DIE.

Schools teaching something other than evolution... ya, real scary!

Might I remind you of some history you may have gotten wrong?

"And we built great things, great planes, fought a war against the genocide of the Jewish people." saywhut?

There are plenty of people out there who will gladly explain to you that this never happened... surely you're not afraid of them teaching this competing idea in your child's school?

 

[Gracchus]

Racists? hmm. And now patriotism is a flaw in character too?

Bingo! Give that man a seegar!

All because they believe in absurdities? Hmm like believing in a spontainious existance of life that is unexplainable as is the existance of simpathy, empathy, love, compassion. Things that compell a "evolved being" to put itself in danger to save the life of another "random" evolved being? Contrary to the drive of survival of the fittest and the race?

Life is chemistry, and chemical reactions are spontaneous in given conditions. And even an ant or termite will die for the mound.

As I have said before, both sides in this debate may claim that their opponent is mentally ill, Paranoid,Fearful,Needing to feel important, etc.

Both sides may make the claim. The decision whether either is correct should be based on supporting evidence.

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" -- Matthew 19:21 NIV


I would be willing to bet that you haven't done that, and the reason you haven't is because you are afraid to. I don't claim to follow him myself. I seek a better path, one informed by reason and not wishful thinking.

Nice quote mine here.

The Bible is low grade ore and pretty much played out but there are occasional nuggets.

I'm actually surprised at you, Gracchus! You are usually more competent than this.

Why thank you for the praise, however faint!

However the context of the story is not that all Christians should give up their possesions in order to be perfect.
The context is that this man was very wealthy, having many earthly possesions, and if he could not give up that which was dear to him, actually his god (money and earthly possesions) then he could never be perfect. He would have to give up his life's works to follow Christ.


He couldn't do it. Pride, greed, whatever. He chose his god that day.

Of course it doesn't apply to you!
And neither does “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” – Matthew 5:48


Obviously, Jesus didn't mean to inconvenience you. He meant the other guy.

So, you believe that I am unaware of this. That I believe that I will live, on this earth forever? That I believe that I will somehow be imortalised by my life's works?

You think you will live in some other place after you die.

I fail to see how the fact that I am poor at spelling and that I stated that both creationists and evolutonists are not easily swayed fromt their believes would classify me as "disturbed".

The fact that you write without considering what you write indicates some sort of disturbance. I happen to be a very good at spelling, but out of respect for the readers, I do use the spell checker.

Hmm, and this would change all the Christians into non-believers with chemicals that remove the blinders from their eyes. Well, you did say sometimes.... And, what if this person is then taken off the mind altering drugs? DO they revert to their "unreal" world or stay with the mindset that you and the drugs say is truth?

When they go off the antipsychotics, patients do indeed fall prey to delusions.

Sounds to me like control and not freedom to believe what they have the right to believe.

I don't want crazy people voting, or sitting on juries, or teaching in schools. No sane person would.

Well, concidering you have mentioned "patriots" in the same group as "racists" and state that they act irrationally followed by the knowledge of drugs that can be used to change the mind and belief of someone that YOU determine to be delusional because they believe differently than you...

I never said that I would make the determination. Still, I think those who believesin talking snakes, world-wide floods, pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by-when-you-die, et cetera should have their heads examined by licensed professionals.

Sounds to me like you are the one who may be the paranoid delusional that needs to feel important. If the shoe fits as you say.

I'm not important. I just watch and witness. And I am sure that, whatever you hear, it always sounds to you exactly like you wish it to sound.

I just need to point out that my views are much different than yours'

I had already guessed that, but thanks anyway.


By the way, for your convenience I have bold-faced all your misspellings. I will leave it to you to correct yourself, although I suspect you seldom do.

 

[Gracchus]

Yes, yes, I can see it now. The fear of a nation of Christians. The horror.
Such danger.

There are many reasons they they call that time the "dark ages": Inquisitions, holy wars, witch burnings, the "Hundred Years War", illteracy, ignorance, poverty, plague, superstition... it was moderately horrible, at least.

Removing science from the classroom would be catastrophic. How would we educate chemists, engineers of all types, biologists, doctors etc.... all of which MUST believe in the TOE to be applicable????

I would not use the word "applicable". I would use "competent". But the ignorant and superstitious can survive if there aren't to many of them.

In the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, in Canada, evolution and creation was taught side by side as the theories they are.

Creationism is not a theory. It is not an explanation backed by evidence.

The student was then given the opportunity to believe the one they thought was the truth.

And if they wanted to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 they should be allowed to do that, but they shouldn't be allowed to pass the first grade.

It was not jammed down their throte that we all came from apes and if you don't believe that then you need some of Gracchus's drugs. Why does this scare the evolutionist camp so much?

Can we deduce that you are a product of that system? If so, you have scored one for our side.

And we built great things, great planes, fought a war against the genocide of the Jewish people. Great structures, and great scholars...... Wow and all coming from an education system that didn't teach just creation or just evolution. IT taught both and it thrived.

Dare we mention that Canada had a rich neighbor, with a common culture and economy, and an open border? And, aside from draft dodgers, most of the traffic has been heading south.

Look at the US. Removed God from the schools and now is destined to collapse under the weight of it's unbearable debt, crime, corruption and the cost of protecting itself from nations all around the globe.

Yes, indeed, it is collapsing for lots of reasons. But:

It does seem to be as Christian as Canada. And I doubt that Canada will fare any better than the US when the global economy collapses.

The middle east is an extension of what you are trying to protect. ONE LESSON, ONE TRUTH. OUR WAY. Not..here are two beliefs, you need to decide for yourself. The middle east is "teach them and convert them and if they don't....you can kill them.

The gun in one hand and the Bible in the other is well documented in history.

Funny thing is, after the church is gone and the tribulation begins... the west will adopt this same mantra. Follow the government mandate, take the mark, renounce Christ or DIE.

We'll see when it happens. We have already seen much the same when the Christians were running things.

Schools teaching something other than evolution... ya, real scary!

It is not scary to me, just sad.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If that is your view of a life following and walking with Christ, I really pity you. You've missed it.

Yes, "walking with christ" doesn't make you feel important at all.

 

[EternalDragon]

As you're a literalist, does that mean your god requires oxygen?

Obviously you need to brush up on your Greek.

 

[EternalDragon]

And where in the bible is that indicated?

It's starting to feel like you are just dodging the question.

Because I have stated it before. Jesus is the second Adam and he
started his ministry at the age of 30. Received the holy ghost at
that time as well.

God breathed life into the first Adam. He had language and intelligence
from the start and was obviously of marrying age.

All logic points to Adam having the appearance of 30 years old when
he was 1 minute old.

 

[Kylie]

Because I have stated it before. Jesus is the second Adam and he
started his ministry at the age of 30. Received the holy ghost at
that time as well.

God breathed life into the first Adam. He had language and intelligence
from the start and was obviously of marrying age.

All logic points to Adam having the appearance of 30 years old when
he was 1 minute old.

Where do you get this? Reading Gen 1 and 2, I see no passage that shows that Adam couldn't have been created as a baby and then lived 30 years before he got married.

Also, assuming something because you think the symbolism and parallels with another story would be neat does not equate to logic.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Obviously you need to brush up on your Greek.

So not breathing involved at all? That sounds rather problematic for a literalist like you.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Wait, you are basing all of this on the margin commentary in a bible you have? Who is the commentary by? What makes them experts? On what did they base their commentary?

Yes. I am merely regurgitating what I read about Ussher's Chronology* (motivated by some of what Stephen Gould wrote in 'The Fall of the House of Ussher'*) -- If you think you can do better than that, go on and have a crack at it mate?

---
* The Annals of James Usher ( download the entire book )
** The Fall of the House of Usher by Stephen Jay Gould.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Translation:

The information you perceive from a bunch of stories written by anonymous authors.

That is Mr. Strawberry's and your opinion, based however on the opinion of certain very liberal scholars. Anyhow. As impossible as it is to prove that any extant 'sacred' manuscripts (which we do not have) were the product of any deity (no matter how that was done), so too is it equally impossible to prove the existence of any such deities.
What prompts you to be so sure that (a) Deities exist, and (b) that the sacred writings of any such deities can be shown to be authoritative?

 

[lasthero]

Because I have stated it before. Jesus is the second Adam and he
started his ministry at the age of 30. Received the holy ghost at
that time as well.

God breathed life into the first Adam. He had language and intelligence
from the start and was obviously of marrying age.

All logic points to Adam having the appearance of 30 years old when
he was 1 minute old.

What's funny about this is that this isn't even a consistent argument for you. I distinctly remember you arguing that Adam that Adam must have been about twenty because that's the age of adulthood for the Hebrews or something like that. This parrallel is a completely new thing that you've never mentioned before.

Nevermind that I can't find a single scholar on the subject that agrees with your reasoning. This is a question that's come up a lot, and most of the theologians I'm aware of agree there's no way to really know. But you seem so sure on it, I'm sure you've read the Bible better than they have. You get these amazing insights. People have been reading the Bible for centuries and never came to that conclusion, but here you are, boldly proclaiming. It would be one thing if you were just admitting this was only an idea of yours, but no, you talk about it like ti's so obvious and easy to see.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Where do you get this? Reading Gen 1 and 2, I see no passage that shows that Adam couldn't have been created as a baby and then lived 30 years before he got married.

That's perhaps a bit too liberal, even for my palette.

MESSAGE:


God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature

---

God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.

---

God formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive—a living soul!

---

God put the Man into a deep sleep. As he slept he removed one of his ribs and replaced it with flesh. God then used the rib that he had taken from the Man to make Woman and presented her to the Man.

---

The other point you made, is a massive study -- requiring considerable education. There are various books, but they are too technical to begin unpacking on the Creation or Evolution forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[EternalDragon]

Where do you get this? Reading Gen 1 and 2, I see no passage that shows that Adam couldn't have been created as a baby and then lived 30 years before he got married.

Also, assuming something because you think the symbolism and parallels with another story would be neat does not equate to logic.

Uh...Gen. 2 is where God created Adam and placed him in the garden
especially designed for him. On day 6. Then he made Eve and they were
technically married that day. Still day 6. Adam was only hours old.

Babies can't speak and name animals and take a wife. They also need
parents to take care of them.

 

[Kylie]

That's perhaps a bit too liberal, even for my palette.

Do you think that the Bible and/or reality must adjust itself to what you find appropriate?

God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature

And this equates to adults? How so? And surely, the level of PHYSICAL development can't be said to be in the image of God. After all, I don't see God as having gone through puberty, or having to shave his beard, or having to wash his hair.

If you are going to say that the adult formation of Adam and Eve must be true because God created them in his image (and why does he use the plural when he's saying this?), then you are required to have a physical God.

God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.

And as I said, the godlike aspect could not have been physical. Does God have a stomach? Does he need to eat and then go to the toilet? Of course not. The physical presence of humanity is not the "godlike" image.

God formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive—a living soul!

So is it the soul that is Godlike? In which case it doesn't matter what age Adam was when he was created, unless you are suggesting that people don't get souls until a certain age.

God put the Man into a deep sleep. As he slept he removed one of his ribs and replaced it with flesh. God then used the rib that he had taken from the Man to make Woman and presented her to the Man.

Not only does this violate every law of biology that I can think of, it does not require the subject to be an adult.

The other point you made, is a massive study -- requiring considerable education. There are various books, but they are too technical to begin unpacking on the Creation or Evolution forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

And I doubt any of them will be based on logic, for the simple reason that valid logic does not start by using the conclusion as a premise.