6000 years

[outhouse]

Your knowledge was derived from your faith in the sources which revealed the knowledge to you

there is scientific knowledge and mythology


and one account of mythology such as creation is outlawed and kept from our childrens minds, while scientifically evolution which isnt up for debate is taught worldwide as higher learning.

 

[james2ko]

that doesnt amount to squat scientifically, or historically, or biblically. The Masoretic text does not represent gensis as written. So you fail

We all have opinions. The only problem is you can't prove the Masoretic text does not represent Genesis. So who's the one failing?

it would be more intellectual dishonesty for you digging out of a earlier mistake by promoting text copied between 700 and 1000 CE even though we do have some early sources that are close around 200 BC by obscure cults, as representing genesis as written.

In "logicville" we call that a genetic fallacy.

It is embarrassing to me and humanity to see such refusal of common knowledge in these modern times.

And we call this one an appeal to novelty and appeal to pity. Two for the price of one. Very creative

 

[james2ko]

there is scientific knowledge and mythology

Your claim of mythology is based on your faith of those who interpret said scientific knowledge. It all goes back to faith, my friend.

and one account of mythology such as creation is outlawed and kept from our childrens minds, while scientifically evolution which isnt up for debate is taught worldwide as higher learning.

So this makes evolution the winner by default? Is that another appeal to novelty? You guys are just full of it-----fallacious logic that is

 

[outhouse]

despite the rederick

there are no known changes to humans 6000 years ago.


the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

and homo sapiens have been on the planet 200,000 years.



all of which is not up for debate in favor of mythology

 

[savagewind]

there are no known changes to humans 6000 years ago

If the changes occurred in the mind there would be no physical evidence.

 

[McBell]

Read literally, the Bible implicitly says that the entire universe was built 6000 years ago, with nothing pre-existing.

Really? Show me..

it does state it though.

Really? Show me...

Still waiting...

 

[outhouse]

Still waiting...

if you read earlier

through the bibles geneology and ages attributed

 

[McBell]

if you read earlier

through the bibles geneology and ages attributed

geneologies and ages attributed do not "implicitly says that the entire universe was built 6000 years ago, with nothing pre-existing".


So like I said:

still waiting...
​

 

[oldbadger]

Prokaryotes 3,6 billion years ago I think and stromatolites a couple of hundred million years later...................
Believers in literally inspired genesis can't explain it so they often try to present it as if dating methods are faulty. Typically they discard carbon dating as unreliable, which sometimes works with those that don't know that carbon dating is only usable to about 50-60.000 years ago. Or they give -often false- examples of animals that had their heads dated as older than their tales or so, not mentioning that scientists themselves often caution about the easy contamination of samples. They discard just about the whole science of geology and forget as a rule to mention that long before Darwin published his book the scientific community had allready accepted a very old earth, from hundreds of thousands to 20 million or so (Darwin read Lyell on his trip). They need some tricks of divine intervention to make fossils older than they are. They need the stars to be an illusion, light from the 'stars' being manipulated on it's way by...divine intervention. They have as yet no explanation for redshift, I think.
In short, they can't explain the facts away so the explanation is divine intervention made everything appear thousands of times older than it is.
...................
Mere believing that literal interpretation is something else. Most people who believe in such things have never really thought it through or have insufficient scientific education and knowledge to judge the arguments properly so they don't have to have such a negative view of science and scientists. Some think people with a scientific mind are just indoctrinated and know no better.

Excuse me hacking lumps out of your post? I underlined a few 'theys' etc, here and there. Now, either you know these people or you have just had bad dreams about them?

What I need you to do is indentify who these 'theys' are. Are 'they' a religion or group? How many of 'them' are there? Look...... you wrote this stuff, so who are these groups or religions?

I bet you don't have the first clue who 'they' might be. Now let's be clear here. You are saying that 'they' do not accept a 4.54 billion year Earth? Do not accept 3.5 billion year life? Do not accept 300 million year dinosaurs? Come on..... give us a laugh! Tell us who 'they' are!

 

[mycorrhiza]

If the changes occurred in the mind there would be no physical evidence.

Actually, there might be physical evidence. A change in the mind could mean a different form of tool use, a different form of living, a different diet etc, so it could show when it comes to archeology.

 

[james2ko]

despite the rederick

Who or what is "rederick"?

there are no known changes to humans 6000 years ago.all of which is not up for debate in favor of mythology

I'll respect your faith. But I don't have to agree with it.

the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I agree

and homo sapiens have been on the planet 200,000 years.

But only in God's image and likeness for the last 6,000...

 

[james2ko]

Still waiting...

Not sure why you included me in your quote. I'm also still waiting.

 

[savagewind]

Actually, there might be physical evidence. A change in the mind could mean a different form of tool use, a different form of living, a different diet etc, so it could show when it comes to archeology.

I understand. Animals use tools, build living places and have a change of diet according to what is available. Animals have never been considered sons of God. The change would have been in the will of the man. Wills cannot be observed. That is why there is trouble.

 

[fallingblood]

if you read earlier

through the bibles geneology and ages attributed

Through those means, one can only get to maybe when Adam was created. However, it says nothing about when the Earth, or Universe were created (unless you take the seven days extremely literally, and then combine that with the second creation story).

More so, it says nothing about what was before creation, and as I pointed out earlier, the Bible does suggest that there was at least formless void before creation.

 

[McBell]

Not sure why you included me in your quote. I'm also still waiting.

Simply to show the line of conversation.

 

[outhouse]

More so, it says nothing about what was before creation, and as I pointed out earlier, the Bible does suggest that there was at least formless void before creation.

splitting hairs in a mythical realm doesnt cut it.

lets call it what it is, and realize what it isnt.


I personally feel anyone who uses this to challenge modern science has serious issues trying to place this into reality. In this modern time there is no excuse for refusing common knowledge.

 

[fallingblood]

splitting hairs in a mythical realm doesnt cut it.

lets call it what it is, and realize what it isnt.


I personally feel anyone who uses this to challenge modern science has serious issues trying to place this into reality. In this modern time there is no excuse for refusing common knowledge.

Lets call it what it is then. It is mythology and is meant to portray a truth. It may not be a historical event, but it portrays truth none the less.

And really, I think your response is just a cop out. There is no problem accepting creation and evolution. Especially in the sense that is being exposed here. It really isn't refusing knowledge. Also, evolution, or how evolution works is not common sense. You use the term incorrectly.

 

[idav]

More so, it says nothing about what was before creation, and as I pointed out earlier, the Bible does suggest that there was at least formless void before creation.

Even so I agree with this, I believe it requires a rather loose translation of what "in the beginning" means. From the story one can assume that god would have existed before the beginning where creation starts. Also it doesn't exactly sound like the creation of the universe but rather the creation of the solar system.

 

[Awoon]

The universe is created buy splitting the whole in Genesis. God seperated this from that, that from this. Mankind then learned what multiples were when the tree of the knowledge of everything was eaten from. Quit interesting when read as a "Once upon a time" story.

 

[outhouse]

Lets call it what it is then. It is mythology and is meant to portray a truth. It may not be a historical event, but it portrays truth none the less.

And really, I think your response is just a cop out. There is no problem accepting creation and evolution. Especially in the sense that is being exposed here. It really isn't refusing knowledge. Also, evolution, or how evolution works is not common sense. You use the term incorrectly.

what part does genesis play in reality?