Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@It Aint Necessarily So and @gnostic These have all been covered a hundred times.....haven't you got anything new?

And how many of those times did you duck the response then repeat your original claims?

Nothing new is needed. Responses like mine above defeat these tepid claims every time you or other apologists make them, because you offer no rebuttal to the rebuttal made to your argument. You just disappear for two weeks without addressing the counterargument made and return in two weeks making the same claim as if nothing was said.

I don't need anything new.

 

[gnostic]

The term “day(s)” is used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Luke 17:26-30; Isaiah 1:1. "Yohm" can mean "day" or "days".

According to Strongs,

The KJV translates Strong's H3117 (day, yom) in the following manner:
day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x), ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full 8 always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).

Not a word with a singular meaning.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopædia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

You don't get it.

Quoting a different passages from different chapters or different books, and thinking they all have mean the same things, contextually, is cherry picking and taking it out of context.

It state each of the 6 days in Genesis 1 in 6 different verses, and in each of those verses, it has in the SAME SENTENCE -

"And there was evening and there was morning..."​

That is the context for yom, a very specific period of time.

1 day (yom) = a period of 1 evening and 1 morning​

When you read any literature, you have to examine the sentence or group of sentences in a paragraph, to determine what they mean.

In the case of Genesis, you have a period of one evening and one morning, so contextually, the Hebrew yom is equaled to "1 day".

It is dishonest to compare yom of Genesis 1 with yom in Zechariah 1:7, 1:15, 2 Corinthians 6:2, 2 Peter 3:7 and Revelation 16:14, because the subject matter is completely different.

Again, yom is not unspecified period of time, because in that sentence, there is "And there was evening and there was morning..."

The "And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't equal to 1 year, 1 century, 1 millennium, 1 million years, etc.

You are being both st#### and dishonest, when you used yom or day in this way.

If I used this same stupid logic as you, then if 1 day equal to 1000 years (like in 2 Peter 3:8), then when Eve gave birth to Seth, when he was age 130, then Adam should be 47,450,000 years old!!!! (e.g. 130 years x 365 days x 1000 years = 47,450,000)

 

[Deeje]

And how many of those times did you duck the response then repeat your original claims?

I don't recall ducking anything. There was nothing to duck.....

If anything was 'defeated', it was so only in your own mind and the minds of others who share your views. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. My views are mine and your views are yours....and never the twain shall meet I'm afraid.

 

[gnostic]

I don't recall ducking anything. There was nothing to duck.....

If anything was 'defeated', it was so only in your own mind and the minds of others who share your views. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. My views are mine and your views are yours....and never the twain shall meet I'm afraid.

All you have provided is some twisted logic of yours.

You say that the bible quotes match with science, but it doesn't.

Where is the science that a serpent can talk in human language?

In myth, fairytale and fable, or in today's cartoons, comic and animations, yeah sure, snakes and donkeys can talk.

Where the science of making adult human male from dust.

Dust are dead particles, waste byproducts.

I think it is absurd that you can reject evolution, where the sum of small changes can change species, but you would wholly accept making human from dead dust is possible.

It is remarkable that in this day and age, you have creationists, like yourself, believing in magic and superstition.

 

[Deeje]

You don't get it.

You appear not to "get" a lot of things.

Quoting a different passages from different chapters or different books, and thinking they all have mean the same things, contextually, is cherry picking and taking it out of context.

Nonsense. It was showing you how yom is used elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures.

It state each of the 6 days in Genesis 1 in 6 different verses, and in each of those verses, it has in the SAME SENTENCE -

"And there was evening and there was morning..."​

That is the context for yom, a very specific period of time.

1 day (yom) = a period of 1 evening and 1 morning​

When you read any literature, you have to examine the sentence or group of sentences in a paragraph, to determine what they mean.

In the case of Genesis, you have a period of one evening and one morning, so contextually, the Hebrew yom is equaled to "1 day".

Do you believe that each creative day was 24 hours long? I don't, so looking at 'yom' to mean a much longer period was not difficult. Elsewhere in the scriptures, it is used to mean different lengths of time.

Strongs.....

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. day, time, year
   1. day (as opposed to night)
   2. day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
      2. as a division of time
         1. a working day, a day's journey
   3. days, lifetime (pl.)
   4. time, period (general)
   5. year
   6. temporal references
      1. today
      2. yesterday
      3. tomorrow

It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.

It is dishonest to yom of Genesis 1, to compare with Zechariah 1:7, 1:15, 2 Corinthians 6:2, 2 Peter 3:7 and Revelation 16:14, because the subject matter is completely different.

Again, yom is not unspecified period of time, because in that sentence, there is "And there was evening and there was morning..."

Yes, meaning that the period had a beginning and an end....is that difficult for you to comprehend? "The dawn of a new era" isn't speaking about a single 24 hour day. Your grandfather's "day" was 24 hours either.

The "And there was evening and there was morning..." doesn't equal to 1 year, 1 century, 1 millennium, 1 million years, etc.

You are being both st#### and dishonest, when you used yom or day in this way.

If I used this same stupid logic as you, then if 1 day equal to 1000 years (like in 2 Peter 3:8), then when Eve gave birth to Seth, when he was age 130, then Adam should be 47,450,000 years old!!!! (e.g. 130 years x 365 days x 1000 years = 47,450,000)

good grief.

 

[Deeje]

It is remarkable that in this day and age, you have creationists, like yourself, believing in magic and superstition.

It is just as remarkable to us, that those who have ditched God for science ignore so many things in nature that could not possibly have arisen by chance. You are going to miss out on the greatest scientific adventure man has ever seen....still to come....your loss.

 

[Deeje]

Where is the science that a serpent can talk in human language?

Can science prove that it is impossible for God to exist? Can they state categorically that the one who created the laws of nature cannot circumvent them if he chooses to? What does science really know in the realms of all there is to know. It is in its infancy. It knows very little in the big scheme of things.

Where the science of making adult human male from dust.

The dust of the earth is made from the elements. We are made from those very elements and with lots of water....another product found bountifully in nature. It is a very apt description in the Bible of a potter and his clay.

Dust are dead particles, waste byproducts.

Dust can be made out of lots of things. Even gold can be made of dust.

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense. It was showing you how yom is used elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures.

But it doesn't mean that yom isn't specified in Genesis 1.

Yom may be unspecified, if it didn't include this: "And there was evening and there was morning...", but 6 verses included this same phrase for each successive yom, so yom mean a single day, not an era, age or epoch.

You should be reading yom in context of the sentence or verse they are found in, not where they appeared elsewhere in the bible.

And I never said 24-hour, which is bloody straw man, I only said repeatedly that day consist of a period of evening and morning, as stated for each of creative day, hence verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31.

You have to be either bloody blind or stupid or lying to not see that a period of "And there was evening and there was morning..." equals to 1 day.

 

[gnostic]

The dust of the earth is made from the elements. We are made from those very elements and with lots of water....another product found bountifully in nature. It is a very apt description in the Bible of a potter and his clay.

Humans are not made out of dust or of clay. There are no clay minerals in our body.

And the whole potter and clay is stolen from the Egyptian myth of the ram-headed god Khnum. There is even image of Khnum (on the left) making human on a potter's wheel.

(source: Wikipedia, Khnum)

And humans are not plants. They don't sprout from the soil.

You have heard of reproduction, sex, haven't you?

 

[gnostic]

Can science prove that it is impossible for God to exist?

Science have nothing to do with god or anything supernatural.

It will only explain what is observable and testable, and it through these tests, that determine if a theory or hypothesis is true or false.

Since god is not falsifiable, and cannot be tested, it isn't scientific.

Hypothesis and theory are only useful if they can be tested.

Religion, religious faith and belief, are not testable. And what you would call Creationism or Intelligent Design are pseudoscience.

 

[Deeje]

Science have nothing to do with god or anything supernatural.

It will only explain what is observable and testable, and it through these tests, that determine if a theory or hypothesis is true or false.

Now that's funny. Since when can you observe or test macro-evolution?

Since god is not falsifiable, and cannot be tested, it isn't scientific.

I think the world will find out soon enough if God is falsifiable or not.

Hypothesis and theory are only useful if they can be tested.

I agree......I test God out on a daily basis and he never lets me down. But again, I cannot see where science can test macro-evolution.

Religion, religious faith and belief, are not testable. And what you would call Creationism or Intelligent Design are pseudoscience.

I call macro-evolution "pseudoscience". If you can't prove it, its not scientific. Right?

 

[Deeje]

Humans are not made out of dust or of clay. There are no clay minerals in our body.

Its kinda metaphoric ya know.....

But according to Wiki....

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium."

And the whole potter and clay is stolen from the Egyptian myth of the ram-headed god Khnum. There is even image of Khnum (on the left) making human on a potter's wheel.

Seeing as how all of humankind descended from Adam, I assume that God's creative abilities were widely known before Israel became a nation....and well before the flood of Noah's day. The confusion of the language at the Tower of Babel would be the prime reason why we have such common elements in all of the world's religions. (Genesis 11:1-9)

 

[gnostic]

If you can't prove it, its not scientific. Right?

You are ignorant as always.

How many times must we tell you that science don't prove anything?

Science required evidences, not proofs.

Evidences that can be observed, detected, measured, quantified, tested.

Proofs are mathematical equations, which mathematicians and theoretical physicists tried to solve, hence the "proving".

Fossils are evidences, not proofs (hence not mathematical equations).

Comparing the rocks where the fossils were found against layers of rock above it, like testing their age with K-Ar (potassium-argon) or U-Pb (uranium-lead) radiometric dating techniques, can measure the age of the rocks and fossils that are millions of years old with precision. Those

Those are evidences, not proofs.

There are some things that we cannot use our senses, so we use instruments, devices or equipment that can measure them.

For instance, electrician and anyone who specialised with electronic devices, can use multimeters to measure electrical current or voltage.

Astronomers and astrophysicists can use optical or radio telescopes that allow us to observe stars or galaxies that are too far for our eyes to observe, or to detect and measure other electromagnetic waves that our eyes cannot perceive (near-infrared, ultraviolet or microwave radiations). Those images that we can get from space telescopes are evidences, not proofs.

Proofs are what mathematicians and theoretical physicists use to prove their axioms. But proofs are not the same as evidences.

M-theory, String Theory, Multiverse, Oscillating or Cyclical universe model, are "theoretical" physics because there are currently no tests can be performed, but the equations make these hypotheses true in the sense of maths and logic, but they are scientific theories, because the scientific method cannot be used.

Evolution don't use proofs, because it relied on evidences, such as fossils, DNA, pollens, and non-biological fields involved with discoveries, such as geology, paleoclimateology, etc, where evidences can be tested.

 

[Deeje]

ou are ignorant as always.

How many times must we tell you that science don't prove anything?

Science required evidences, not proofs.

Evidences that can be observed, detected, measured, quantified, tested.

Proofs are mathematical equations, which mathematicians and theoretical physicists tried to solve, hence the "proving".

Fossils are evidences, not proofs (hence not mathematical equations).

Comparing the rocks where the fossils were found against layers of rock above it, like testing their age with K-Ar (potassium-argon) or U-Pb (uranium-lead) radiometric dating techniques, can measure the age of the rocks and fossils that are millions of years old with precision. Those

Those are evidences, not proofs.

Please forgive me.....if we must be pedantic about the semantics...let me just say then, that science has no real conclusive "evidence" for what it believes....a bit like us really.

If your beliefs can lead you to evolution, then mine can lead me to ID. I have as much "evidence" as you do....maybe more.

Look at these....designed or just a fluke of nature?

Nothing about these looks even remotely accidental to me. Look at the colors, patterns and designs.....amazing!

Evolution don't use proofs, because it relied on evidences, such as fossils

The fossils aren't speaking for themselves. They are like ventriloquist's dummies.....science puts words in their mouths.

DNA, pollens, and non-biological fields involved with discoveries, such as geology, paleoclimateology, etc, where evidences can be tested.

Oh my, how impressive.....and what are those "fields" telling us? The same interpreters are using the same empty rhetoric to prove what in these fields? That they can guess what the world was like 60 billion years ago? It's what evolutionary science does best...guess. "Evidence" is used to provide either proof or suggestion.....so you know which one fits the description here. A suggestion is not science.....its a belief.

 

[gnostic]

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium."

Yes, all these elements exist in the human body.

But water is not an element; it is molecule of two atoms, hydrogen and oxygen, bonded together.

Proteins, fat, chromosome, DNA and RNA, which are compounds of two or more different molecules.

Molecules and compounds are different from element. Every cells, genes, tissues, organs, bones, when broken down, they are molecules and compounds that make them living matters.

Clay mineral, are inorganic molecule, made from wearing or erosion of rock, becoming malleable when saturated with water. Of course, some clay are mixed with organic compounds, because some dead creature or dead plants have decayed, and mixed with clay minerals, so clay might have some impurities.

These organic impurities in clay, is what make some plants able to grow clay soil. It is these organic impurities in clay soil that provide nutrients to plants, not the clay minerals themselves.

The most basic compound of clay mineral, is aluminium phyllosilicates (Al2 Si2O5). There may be trace elements of aluminium and silicon in our body, but they are not molecularly bonded as clay mineral. So unless these atoms are into such a compound, there is no clay mineral.

Part of my civil engineering subjects were geology, and that not only taught me about rocks and stones, but also about minerals. Certain minerals can be found in the ground, where there may be construction (e.g. buildings, roads, or laying of pipes for water or sewerage), so understanding soil was part of my geology subject. As an engineer, we need to test soils and rocks, and there are number of different soils, like clay soil or sandy soil, etc. Depending on the soil, it may retain water or offer no natural drainage, or if the soil contain too much acids or too much alkaline, are they porous or not.

That's why soil tests are done before excavation or construction, and knowing what sort of foundation are essential for engineers.

That's where I learned about clay minerals, from understanding what soils are at the sites.

I know that human body have many different elements, but there are no clay minerals, because none of the elements are bonded together as clay minerals.

And even though I don't consider myself as biologist or chemist, I know enough to know when you are talking rubbish.

 

[gnostic]

Please forgive me.....if we must be pedantic about the semantics...let me just say then, that science has no real conclusive "evidence" for what it believes....a bit like us really.

If your beliefs can lead you to evolution, then mine can lead me to ID. I have as much "evidence" as you do....maybe more.

Look at these....designed or just a fluke of nature?

Nothing about these looks even remotely accidental to me. Look at the colors, patterns and designs.....amazing!



The fossils aren't speaking for themselves. They are like ventriloquist's dummies.....science puts words in their mouths.



Oh my, how impressive.....and what are those "fields" telling us? The same interpreters are using the same empty rhetoric to prove what in these fields? That they can guess what the world was like 60 billion years ago? It's what evolutionary science does best...guess. "Evidence" is used to provide either proof or suggestion.....so you know which one fits the description here. A suggestion is not science.....its a belief.

Again, you showing photos of animals, but they are images without contexts.

You need to explain to me, why these animals not product of evolution. Posting these photos only showed that these animals exhibited vivid colours, but other than that, they are meaningless, since you provide no contexts to them.

These are stupid tactics that I have come to expect from you.

 

[Deeje]

Again, you showing photos of animals, but they are images without contexts.

They need no context. They speak for themselves. They need nothing to be said except perhaps a scripture....

Romans 1:20-21:
"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened."

This describes the situation well, I think.

You need to explain to me, why these animals not product of evolution.

No, you need to tell me why you think they are not created. How do these creatures just accidentally come to look like this? Millions of them, all different and exhibiting exquisite design. What things do you use that have a specific purpose were not designed by someone with intelligence?

How could these just be the product of blind chance? Look carefully...

Its harder to deny them when they are right in front of your eyes, isn't it? If I were to design jewelry, I could do no better than these.

These are stupid tactics that I have come to expect from you.

Why do they annoy you so much gnostic.....? I think we know.

 

[Looncall]

The term “day(s)” is used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Luke 17:26-30; Isaiah 1:1. "Yohm" can mean "day" or "days".

According to Strongs,

The KJV translates Strong's H3117 (day, yom) in the following manner:
day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x), ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full 8 always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).

Not a word with a singular meaning.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopædia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

Why spend all this effort on a primitive myth cooked up by ignorant savages? Especially when there is actual knowledge available.

You might just as well get worked up about the colour of Sherlock Holmes' hat.

 

[Polymath257]

It is just as remarkable to us, that those who have ditched God for science ignore so many things in nature that could not possibly have arisen by chance. You are going to miss out on the greatest scientific adventure man has ever seen....still to come....your loss.

You claim it could not possibly have arisen by chance. But you don't know the genetics involved. You don't know the time periods involved. You don't know the environment involved. YOu don't know the selection pressures involved. You don't know the proteins involved.

In other words, you don't know *anything* relevant to whether the observed species could evolve from other ones. We seem to think 'pretty' or 'complicated' somehow mean 'can't be the product of evolution'.

 

[gnostic]

The fossils aren't speaking for themselves. They are like ventriloquist's dummies.....science puts words in their mouths.

Absurdity and ignorance combined served as anti-knowledge. Well done, Deeje.

Science provide the explanations through observation, then they test it, experiment it, find answers through evidences that can be detected, measured or both.

When I seek to know just how much electricity is flowing through a copper cable, do you think the electricity can test itself, and say how much current, voltage or power?

Do you think electricity has a voice, Deeje?

When you look up in the sky, and find Andromeda Galaxy, do you think the galaxy can tell you how much stars and planets there, tell you how much it has? Can it tell you how it was formed? Does it has a voice?

Before the invention of telescopes, everyone thought it was another star in the sky. It wasn't.

And when there were telescopes, astronomers before the 20th century (to be more precise, 1919) thought it was nebula, a glowing of gas and dust that was part of the Milky Way.

Before 1919, we thought the Milky Way was the entire universe.

In 1919, Edwin Hubble looked through the telescope at the Hooker Observatory, and discovered it wasn't a nebula, but another spiral galaxy, even larger than the Milky Way. Over the decades that followed we learned more and more.

The Andromeda Galaxy was there all along, never telling us its secrets. Men have to discover whatever we could know through observation, developing new technology, so we can learn more.

Fossils cannot talk, but we have learned so much from it, but if you don't want to learn, which I know you don't, then all we can do is argue over the same things continuously, while you can wallow in your ignorance and silly superstition.