Real Proof man does not evolve

[dad]

Of course it was! 360 = 2[sup]3[/sup]x 3[sup]2[/sup] x 5[sup]1[/sup] That is obvious proof that God designed the year to be 360 days long, and that is why there are 360[sup]o[/sup] in a circle. The only reason it is 365.2... days long now is because of the fall.

The split...more likely.

 

[dad]

That is not true! the year was never 360 days.

I will have to say you are overruled. The bible indicates it was so.

 

[Nostromo]

dad, a 360 day calendar doesn't mean that there's a 360 day solar year.

Plenty of civilisations use or used a lunisolar calendar (Persians, Babylonians, Jews) or a completely lunar calendar (Muslims).

You're one of a 'special' few who, when presented with the fact that the calendar year doesn't synchronise exactly with the length of the Earth's orbit, believe that the latter must have changed to fit the former rather than vice versa.

 

[dad]

dad, a 360 day calendar doesn't mean that there's a 360 day solar year.

No. But it could mean that was the natural order, and again will be...so why switch the clocks in the meantime..?

Plenty of civilisations use or used a lunisolar calendar (Persians, Babylonians, Jews) or a completely lunar calendar (Muslims).

You're one of a 'special' few who, when presented with the fact that the calendar year doesn't synchronise exactly with the length of the Earth's orbit, believe that the latter must have changed to fit the former rather than vice versa.

I don't recall the bible mentioning that the reason a 360 day year is used, is because of orbit. But it does make sense, in light of evidence. We know that the way the earth goes round was different. The axis tilt, etc. There is no reason to assume that a 360 day year movement was not the original setting to the earth.

So, who really cares what you assume? What matters is what you know. What we do know is that a bible year is 360 days. Run with it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The split...more likely.

How is it more likely?

 

[Nostromo]

There is no reason to assume that a 360 day year movement was not the original setting to the earth.

The reasons are
1) Observations of our reality.
2) :-

I don't recall the bible mentioning that...

Though no doubt you'll carry on publishing updates and changes to dadstianity as you see fit.

 

[Gothicnight]

The state of man over all history does not show any evolution for the better. It is a degradation. A slide. A devolution. For example, earlier man may have killed other men. We can use Cain as an example of early man. Modern man does not even take aim at a certain man with a club, usually. They have used nuclear weapons on whole cities! Indiscriminately murdering hundreds of thousands of kids, and women and civilians. Burning hundreds of thousands of people into carbon.

This is proof that man is not getting smarter, and better at preservation of the species! On the contrary.

Not good proof

 

[William_0]

I will have to say you are overruled. The bible indicates it was so.

The Bible does not hold any scientific legitimacy. When you begin to paraphrase from the Bible, you exit the realm of science and enter the realms of theology and philosophy. You believe that the earth had a 360-day orbit, but you cannot state it as fact, or even as a likely occurrence, without solid supporting evidence.

 

[GenericTaoMaster]

The state of man over all history does not show any evolution for the better. It is a degradation. A slide. A devolution. For example, earlier man may have killed other men. We can use Cain as an example of early man. Modern man does not even take aim at a certain man with a club, usually. They have used nuclear weapons on whole cities! Indiscriminately murdering hundreds of thousands of kids, and women and civilians. Burning hundreds of thousands of people into carbon.

This is proof that man is not getting smarter, and better at preservation of the species! On the contrary.

"real proof man does not evolve."

I don't see any proof here. You determine human evolution by examining our ability to efficiently murder each other? That is an arbitrary measure of evolution, what made you choose killing efficiency as your measuring criteria? and who is this "they" you refer to...?

 

[Delphiki]

What we do know is that a bible year is 360 days. Run with it.

LOL. I love it. "Just pretend it's 360 days, then you'll believe it!"

 

[Golden Yak]

The fact is, we could be way worse when it comes to killing one another, and as long as our birth rate keeps the population increasing or even stable, we'd still be evolutionary successes.

Soon be 7+ billion people on the planet. Species is doing fine... maybe a little too well, even.

 

[dad]

How is it more likely?

Because a state and law change could affect planetary movements.

 

[dad]

The reasons are
1) Observations of our reality.
2) :-

Irrelevant. We observe the present state. That does not force any thinking individual to believe that creation was the same.

 

[dad]

Not good proof

The devoluted state of man is fine proof we did not get the way we are through evolving. Not a good attempted point.

 

[dad]

The Bible .

False...so called science does not hold any scientific legitimacy. The bible is the creme de la creme of real knowledge.

When you begin to paraphrase from the Bible, you exit the realm of science and enter the realms of theology and philosophy.

Actually, when we pretend science and our present rules cover the far past or future, we exit the realm of science and enter the realms of theology and philosophy. The tragedy is that men do so and claim it is science.

You believe that the earth had a 360-day orbit, but you cannot state it as fact, or even as a likely occurrence, without solid supporting evidence.

You believe that the earth did not have a 360-day orbit, but you cannot state it as fact, or even as a likely occurrence, without solid supporting evidence. Work on that. Meanwhile we have the solid gold record of the bible. Like anyone needs your godless guesswork??

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because a state and law change could affect planetary movements.

Except you need to have a state and law change first -- simply claiming there is one means nothing.

Then, you need to specify exactly which states and laws were changed, if you're going to claim that they altered planetary movements. otherwise, once again, you have nothing.

So, how is redefining the state and laws of the universe to suit your whims more likely?

 

[William_0]

Fortunately the world doesn't operate the way you think it does.

 

[dad]

Except you need to have a state and law change first -- simply claiming there is one means nothing.

I don't claim it. I read the bible. You need to prove a state and law never changed first -- simply claiming there was always the one in place now one means nothing.

Then, you need to specify exactly which states and laws were changed, if you're going to claim that they altered planetary movements. otherwise, once again, you have nothing.

No I don't. There are plenty of specifics past and future about how things will work. Long lifespans for example.

 

[dad]

Fortunately the world doesn't operate the way you think it does.

I haven't discussed how I think it operates. Science covers that pretty good, in a mentally challenged sort of way. The issue is how it will operate in the future state, or the created state.

 

[Delphiki]

Because a state and law change could affect planetary movements.

Irrelevant. We observe the present state. That does not force any thinking individual to believe that creation was the same.

Congratulations on a devastating self-defeat. If you're changing-states idea were true, our earth wouldn't be where it is, our sun wouldn't be the size it is, and well.. pretty much nothing in the universe wouldn't be the way it currently is.

What do you think would happen, for example, to the moon if the force of gravity was made slightly weaker than it is now?

Do you really think the moon was just sort of randomly wandering aimlessly about shortly after creation, then Adam eats the apple and BAM, it's it orbit as gravity changes!