100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion.  JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb Well - there's Pathios, Ignacious, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thalus... Flavius Josephus was said to have been born Joseph ben Mattathias, a jewish general, if he indeed even existed. The name Flavius Josephus was very likely a pen name used by Calpurnius Piso. In any case, what you claim is that the writings of these historians would be invalidated if the New Testament is a forgery written by Calpurnius Piso. Why? JB No, actually, that is not what I said. You asked - what if all of the people were "made up" to make the story seem plausable. Well, the people in the bible have also been documented in the writings of the historians I provided for you. That was my point - that would indicate that Piso was a world travelor, and involved in a conspiracy with all of the historians of Rome, Syria, Jerusalem, etc. Okay then I will reread what you wrote: ""If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse."" Fair enough. I agree. IF THIS WERE THE CASE (and I believe it is the case) then all of the alleged "Roman Historians" are now suspect. I totally agree. All of them are suspect and should be scrutinized. For that matter all Historians are suspect and should be scrutinized. (I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart)  But in this case I totally agree with you. Hence forth all recorded history of that time should be looked at with a raised eyebrow. ------->  raised eyebrow JB  Can't say I disagree with you there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. That's a Creationists wet dream Eljay. There is no way that anyone can seriously claim that the modern science of evolution is saying anything other than the fact that we evolved from lower life forms. To try to even pretend that it could be saying something other than this is turly ludicous. If Creations don't want to believe in evolution they they should just say so. To try to claim that the modern science of evolution can somehow be wiggled around to imply that mankind did not evolve from lower life forms is truly not even a plausible argument. That's just a wishy-washy pretense to try to convince people that somehow the biblical creationism and evolution don't actually conflict with each other. They most certainly do. The only way that they can be made to be compatible is too accept that God indeed did create Adam from the dust of the earth via evolution, which means that God used lower lifeforms between finally evolving that into Adam. There just no way that the modern science of evolution is compatible with a verbatim biblical creationism. Evolution does not deny the possiblity of a 'god' in the most absract sense, but it asbsolutely flies in the face of the verbatim idea that God created Adam directly from the dust of the earth without any intervening lower life forms. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Ejay, but we did indeed evolve from lower primates. If religious people want to cling to a biblical picture they are just going to have to accept that the biblical story is a gross abstraction and cannot be taken literally. To do otherwise is to denounce evolution altogether. Trying to pretent that a verbatim biblical account is compatible with evolution is just play ignorant. It truly displays an ignorance of what is actually known about evolution and what it is actually showing us had to have occured. Either denounce science all together, or accept an abstract interpretation of the religion doctrine. But to try to pretend that they are compatible is truly nothing more than a display of gross misunderstanding what is actually known and understood about evolution. And like Voil suggests, to 'preach' otherwise is to truly preach lies just to try to support an unproven picture of God. A picture that has mankind fallen from grace and responsible for having his creator nailed to a pole. Why you would even want to support such a negative picture of a man/God relationship is totally beyond me. You should be absolutely thrilled to know that it can't be true. It means that we haven't fallen from grace from our creator, and we aren't responsible for having him nailed to a pole. I'll take that to the bank any day! We've been vindicated Eljay! We've been exonerated! We are innocent! The trial's over! We didn't do what the Bible charges! We are truly blamless Ejay! We aren't responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! We aren't responsible for the fact that the world is a dog-eat-god world. The world has been like this long before we ever came to be! Run out and celebrate! We're NOT GUILTY Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! It was never true. All these years we were made to believe that we were guilty of something that we were never guilty of! Why are you so anxious to insist that we're guilty! The evidence is in. The book that made those claims is a big fat LIE! You're an innocent man Eljay! You can go home now and know that you've been exonerated from any wrong doing with respect to your creator! You're innocent! The trial's over, the world was always dog-eat-dog. There never was a perfect "Garden of Eden" where Adam and Eve ate an apple and then all hell broke loose. It was all a LIE Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! Abra - why do you insist on attempting to prove the validity of evolution by discrediting Creationism. Do you think this will provide adequate proof for me? I'm not attempting to prove that Creationism is the only option. I have stated, and will continue to state that youcan no more prove we evolved from lower primates - than I can trace your dna back to Adam and Eve. We have no idea where the remains are for Adam and Eve, as we have no idea where the transitional fossels are to prove man mysteriously evolved from an Ape. We have drawings of these supposed transitions, just as we have drawings of Adam and Eve. Straight from the imaginations of artists. You can go on and on about the overwhelming proof you think supports your premises - but you can supply no evidence to back it up. You say you have absolute faith in this. Congradulations - you have now joined the ranks of the "fundies". You have your religion. It is a faith based theory - nothing more, nothing less. Until you provide me with a semblance of evidence for man evolving from primates - your rhetoric remains the rantings of a >>>>>>"fundamentalist Eve-ist"<<<<<<<<<. You "fundies" are all alike. You listen to the council of men and take it as fact. Think for yourself - don't let these "fundies" drag you in and make you a slave to their unfounded premises. Free yourself. That's "fudilusionist" eljay please use proper grammer from now on or i will report you -  Should that be spelt "Fundillusionist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. That's a Creationists wet dream Eljay. There is no way that anyone can seriously claim that the modern science of evolution is saying anything other than the fact that we evolved from lower life forms. To try to even pretend that it could be saying something other than this is turly ludicous. If Creations don't want to believe in evolution they they should just say so. To try to claim that the modern science of evolution can somehow be wiggled around to imply that mankind did not evolve from lower life forms is truly not even a plausible argument. That's just a wishy-washy pretense to try to convince people that somehow the biblical creationism and evolution don't actually conflict with each other. They most certainly do. The only way that they can be made to be compatible is too accept that God indeed did create Adam from the dust of the earth via evolution, which means that God used lower lifeforms between finally evolving that into Adam. There just no way that the modern science of evolution is compatible with a verbatim biblical creationism. Evolution does not deny the possiblity of a 'god' in the most absract sense, but it asbsolutely flies in the face of the verbatim idea that God created Adam directly from the dust of the earth without any intervening lower life forms. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Ejay, but we did indeed evolve from lower primates. If religious people want to cling to a biblical picture they are just going to have to accept that the biblical story is a gross abstraction and cannot be taken literally. To do otherwise is to denounce evolution altogether. Trying to pretent that a verbatim biblical account is compatible with evolution is just play ignorant. It truly displays an ignorance of what is actually known about evolution and what it is actually showing us had to have occured. Either denounce science all together, or accept an abstract interpretation of the religion doctrine. But to try to pretend that they are compatible is truly nothing more than a display of gross misunderstanding what is actually known and understood about evolution. And like Voil suggests, to 'preach' otherwise is to truly preach lies just to try to support an unproven picture of God. A picture that has mankind fallen from grace and responsible for having his creator nailed to a pole. Why you would even want to support such a negative picture of a man/God relationship is totally beyond me. You should be absolutely thrilled to know that it can't be true. It means that we haven't fallen from grace from our creator, and we aren't responsible for having him nailed to a pole. I'll take that to the bank any day! We've been vindicated Eljay! We've been exonerated! We are innocent! The trial's over! We didn't do what the Bible charges! We are truly blamless Ejay! We aren't responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! We aren't responsible for the fact that the world is a dog-eat-god world. The world has been like this long before we ever came to be! Run out and celebrate! We're NOT GUILTY Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! It was never true. All these years we were made to believe that we were guilty of something that we were never guilty of! Why are you so anxious to insist that we're guilty! The evidence is in. The book that made those claims is a big fat LIE! You're an innocent man Eljay! You can go home now and know that you've been exonerated from any wrong doing with respect to your creator! You're innocent! The trial's over, the world was always dog-eat-dog. There never was a perfect "Garden of Eden" where Adam and Eve ate an apple and then all hell broke loose. It was all a LIE Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! Abra - why do you insist on attempting to prove the validity of evolution by discrediting Creationism. Do you think this will provide adequate proof for me? I'm not attempting to prove that Creationism is the only option. I have stated, and will continue to state that youcan no more prove we evolved from lower primates - than I can trace your dna back to Adam and Eve. We have no idea where the remains are for Adam and Eve, as we have no idea where the transitional fossels are to prove man mysteriously evolved from an Ape. We have drawings of these supposed transitions, just as we have drawings of Adam and Eve. Straight from the imaginations of artists. You can go on and on about the overwhelming proof you think supports your premises - but you can supply no evidence to back it up. You say you have absolute faith in this. Congradulations - you have now joined the ranks of the "fundies". You have your religion. It is a faith based theory - nothing more, nothing less. Until you provide me with a semblance of evidence for man evolving from primates - your rhetoric remains the rantings of a >>>>>>"fundamentalist Eve-ist"<<<<<<<<<. You "fundies" are all alike. You listen to the council of men and take it as fact. Think for yourself - don't let these "fundies" drag you in and make you a slave to their unfounded premises. Free yourself. That's "fudilusionist" eljay please use proper grammer from now on or i will report you - Should that be spelt "Fundillusionist? actually it should be Fundie-lusionist |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 08/29/08 11:08 AM
|
|
I can understand that to consider the belief one has had since childhood to be determined wrong as a slap in the face but if there is one thing I have discovered in my short life it is that I relearn what I have been taught all through my life. So is it immature and closeminded to not consider that I will relearn even my belief system?
The bible is a man made story, the small to minute accuracies in the bible are possibly the writers throwing in some "real" details for the fun of it. When these stories were written, they were not composed to be a guide for later peoples to base their lives on. Each story is individual, each story is from a different writer. Later people decided to use these stories for a "guide" and proceeded to force it through threat of death on those who fought against it. This is the truth of the bible and it cannot be disproven. Now as for evolution, we are still learning and experimenting with DNA, but even the basics of these premises is astounding in it's discoveries. We are all (living things) genetically related. This is proven. Just with this knowledge alone, evolution is not only possible but more than likely. I will choose the road of enlightenment for myself and this road must include my mind open for the new discoveries of man. Christianity is an old discovery, analyzed, realized and outgrown. Or at least enlightenment should make this happen. JMOOC I did not bring up the incestuous story of the beginning of man of the book of Genesis but this part of the story alone tells you that from beginning to the end of the book is a fantasy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
notboring111
on
Fri 08/29/08 11:10 AM
|
|
I can understand that to consider the belief one has had since childhood to be determined wrong as a slap in the face but if there is one thing I have discovered in my short life it is that I relearn what I have been taught all through my life. So is it not immature and closeminded to not consider that I will relearn even my belief system? The bible is a man made story, the small to minute accuracies in the bible are possibly the writers throwing in some "real" details for the fun of it. When these stories were written, they were not composed to be a guide for later peoples to base their lives on. Each story is individual, each story is from a different writer. Later people decided to use these stories for a "guide" and proceeded to force it through threat of death on those who fought against it. This is the truth of the bible and it cannot be disproven. Now as for evolution, we are still learning and experimenting with DNA, but even the basics of these premises is astounding in it's discoveries. We are all (living things) genetically related. This is proven. Just with this knowledge alone, evolution is not only possible but more than likely. I will choose the road of enlightenment for myself and this road must include my mind open for the new discoveries of man. Christianity is an old discovery, analyzed, realized and outgrown. Or at least enlightenment should make this happen. JMOOC I did not bring up the incestuous story of the beginning of man of the book of Genesis but this part of the story alone tells you that from beginning to the end of the book is a fantasy. I USE TO THINK LIKE YOU...THEN I READ THE BOOK "SURPRISED BY FAITH" AUTHOR DON BIERLE...CHECK IT OUT IF YOU DARE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand that to consider the belief one has had since childhood to be determined wrong as a slap in the face but if there is one thing I have discovered in my short life it is that I relearn what I have been taught all through my life. So is it not immature and closeminded to not consider that I will relearn even my belief system? The bible is a man made story, the small to minute accuracies in the bible are possibly the writers throwing in some "real" details for the fun of it. When these stories were written, they were not composed to be a guide for later peoples to base their lives on. Each story is individual, each story is from a different writer. Later people decided to use these stories for a "guide" and proceeded to force it through threat of death on those who fought against it. This is the truth of the bible and it cannot be disproven. Now as for evolution, we are still learning and experimenting with DNA, but even the basics of these premises is astounding in it's discoveries. We are all (living things) genetically related. This is proven. Just with this knowledge alone, evolution is not only possible but more than likely. I will choose the road of enlightenment for myself and this road must include my mind open for the new discoveries of man. Christianity is an old discovery, analyzed, realized and outgrown. Or at least enlightenment should make this happen. JMOOC I did not bring up the incestuous story of the beginning of man of the book of Genesis but this part of the story alone tells you that from beginning to the end of the book is a fantasy. I USE TO THINK LIKE YOU...THEN I READ THE BOOK "SURPRISED BY FAITH" AUTHOR DON BIERLE...CHECK IT OUT IF YOU DARE. I was raised religious, there is nothing in that book that I have not already heard, read or understood. But if I should run across it and have the time I will consider it. This book cannot factually disprove anything I wrote. It cannot disprove the danger of religion for the freedom of the minds of people. I have shed the shackles of man made religion and I have a more fulfilling and happy life since doing so. So if you are trying to save me, although I thank you for the thought, I saved myself years ago, by letting all of the man made religions go. I wish you a safe and happy journey. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that is was a great show back in the early 80s!!! I love the baby dinosaur he was awesome hittin his dad with a fryin pan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that is was a great show back in the early 80s!!! I love the baby dinosaur he was awesome hittin his dad with a fryin pan Love The Momma,.....Love The Momma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without a sense for critical comprehension, its neigh impossible to point out the logical inconsistencies in Genesis. Please explain why (beyond the simple first 6 days) it is that there are two diverging stories of creation, why there are whole cities and nations of people into which Cain is able to emigrate and find shelter. If Adam and Eve were the first people made by God how do we have them? That's a convenient little part to skip over in church school, and if you ask about it you get your ear twisted and stuck in a corner... it also leads to a sound reason why 6000 years is too short for the Earth too have been around, but that's a different part of the discussion. Please explain why you think there are two creation accounts in Genesis, and not two accounts of creation. Adam and Eve lived over 900 years - it is quite possible, that they themselves could have had well over 1000 children, let alone the expodential expansion of their children's children. More than enough children to populate all 6 states of New England. How could there NOT be at least two cities for Cain to pass amoungst? This should be more than enough to tell you that you shouldn't take for granted what you are told, and not told in school. Church or otherwise. After all - children are brainwashed every year about the "truth" of evolution. Why aren't they told there is no fossel evidence for transitional species? And if you don't believe what they tell you - you don't get your ear twisted and put in a corner... They FLUNK you! How's that for being held hostage! Two accounts of creation or two creation accounts kind of translates too the same thing for me... Either it happened one way or it didn't. I'm not trying to say there were TWO CREATIONS, just that there are two versions of it that don't entirely line up. The main problem I have is still the population issue. Lets say it is a given that Adam and Eve lived 900 years. If we also allow that A&E were fully mature at creation then it is conceivable that the first human baby followed in approximately 9-10 months. It would take another month or so for # 2 to get underway, and thus almost two years to reach the Cain & Able feasability. We do not know how many years exactly passed until the two had at it at the alter... we can infer that they were grown men. The question then is did aging occur in a normal fashion i.e. If they lived 900 years (which is pure conjecture incidentally), did they mature more slowly at a similar ration too ours? That would mean that Cain and Able would have to be somewhere around 150 years old or so before reaching sexual maturity. We could have Eve still popping out kids every 9-10 months, so potentially there could be another 180 kids. If the conditions were right and from Cain and Able onward there were only females born, then at about 200 years you can really start to see the population exploding, and there could be enough people to populate a small town a few valleys west of the gates. We know that at some point in Eve's life menopause had to kick in. This usually occurs about 2/3 -3/4 of the way through a modern healthy female lifespan (60s?) and if it were the same for Eve, she would only have had about six or seven hundred children of her own. In the most favorable of conditions it seems a stretch that a viable population of humans would stem from only two pair. BUT!!! Here is the kicker - Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden before this could have happened, so death and mortality had already kicked in. Since we can predict the population mortality due to illness, accident, or homicide at the time we can't accept best case figuring. Also; as the story goes, the city that existed WAS THERE BEFORE Cain reached it... so there had to be other people from somewhere else. Perhaps Yahweh got his human clay molds at a discount rate from one of the other gods floating around at the time and shaped his own version of humans? That might account for the overlap of Neanderthal and modern Homosapian populations, and why some of our neighbors are knuckle dragging uni-browed brutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 08/29/08 07:04 PM
|
|
You should read the Urantia book. It has all the answers to these questions and still maintains Christianity.
Adam and Eve were simply an upgrade of human stock meant to help the current primitive humans improve their genes. I believe they claim that Cane and Able were twins but I can't remember. Perhaps twins were common then. If so, then populations could reproduce faster. The offspring of Adam and Eve were sent out to spread their seed amongst the primitive human populations. Many of the unanswered questions of the Bible are answered in extreme detail in the Uranita book. I believe the intention of the Urantia book is to replace the Bible and maintain Christianity as the one world religion using the Urantia book instead of the Bible. If my theory the writing of the New Testament is true, and that it is fiction written by the Babylonian Brotherhood, (which still exists today) then I suspect the author of the Urantia Book is part of that Brotherhood, which is a secret society with an agenda of a one world religion and one world government. It is one of the goals of the earth game. JB (Dinosaurs still exist today, only they evolved into the humanoid Draconians and the Reptilians who live beneath the earth's crust.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs
The truth about dinosaurs is that I am glad that I didn't live at that time fearing to be eaten by some reptilian carnivore the size of a building! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 08/30/08 12:43 AM
|
|
Without a sense for critical comprehension, its neigh impossible to point out the logical inconsistencies in Genesis. Please explain why (beyond the simple first 6 days) it is that there are two diverging stories of creation, why there are whole cities and nations of people into which Cain is able to emigrate and find shelter. If Adam and Eve were the first people made by God how do we have them? That's a convenient little part to skip over in church school, and if you ask about it you get your ear twisted and stuck in a corner... it also leads to a sound reason why 6000 years is too short for the Earth too have been around, but that's a different part of the discussion. Please explain why you think there are two creation accounts in Genesis, and not two accounts of creation. Adam and Eve lived over 900 years - it is quite possible, that they themselves could have had well over 1000 children, let alone the expodential expansion of their children's children. More than enough children to populate all 6 states of New England. How could there NOT be at least two cities for Cain to pass amoungst? This should be more than enough to tell you that you shouldn't take for granted what you are told, and not told in school. Church or otherwise. After all - children are brainwashed every year about the "truth" of evolution. Why aren't they told there is no fossel evidence for transitional species? And if you don't believe what they tell you - you don't get your ear twisted and put in a corner... They FLUNK you! How's that for being held hostage! Two accounts of creation or two creation accounts kind of translates too the same thing for me... Either it happened one way or it didn't. I'm not trying to say there were TWO CREATIONS, just that there are two versions of it that don't entirely line up. There is one creation - Genesis 1:1 to Gen 2:3. At that point - as the text states "The heavens and earth were completed in all their vast array.". That is the end of all that was to be created. Now we have Gen 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." No new creating here - just an account of what was stated in the first chapter, only more detailed. The first chapter is the story of the Creation - from the second chapter on - it is the account of man (chpt 2 - The Fall (chpt 3) - Cain and Abel (chpt 4). From chapter 5 on - the account gets even more specific, following the line of Adam to Noah. The main problem I have is still the population issue. Lets say it is a given that Adam and Eve lived 900 years. If we also allow that A&E were fully mature at creation then it is conceivable that the first human baby followed in approximately 9-10 months. It would take another month or so for # 2 to get underway, and thus almost two years to reach the Cain & Able feasability. We do not know how many years exactly passed until the two had at it at the alter... we can infer that they were grown men. The question then is did aging occur in a normal fashion i.e. If they lived 900 years (which is pure conjecture incidentally), did they mature more slowly at a similar ration too ours? That would mean that Cain and Able would have to be somewhere around 150 years old or so before reaching sexual maturity. We could have Eve still popping out kids every 9-10 months, so potentially there could be another 180 kids. If the conditions were right and from Cain and Able onward there were only females born, then at about 200 years you can really start to see the population exploding, and there could be enough people to populate a small town a few valleys west of the gates. We know that at some point in Eve's life menopause had to kick in. This usually occurs about 2/3 -3/4 of the way through a modern healthy female lifespan (60s?) and if it were the same for Eve, she would only have had about six or seven hundred children of her own. In the most favorable of conditions it seems a stretch that a viable population of humans would stem from only two pair. One of the issues you have is extrapolating the way life is now - back to what happened then. The text states that the average lifespan for the first half dozen men was 900 years old - give or take a few. It says Adam lived to be 930 years old. Let's set an arbitrary time at 30 years old that A&E were expelled from the garden, and say that about 18 years old would be common for marriage (though it was likely younger.) But 20 is a nice # to work with. By the time A&E were 50, their children would have started having children, and so forth - for the years to follow. The increase in children would have been expodential. (Though not necessarily formularmatic) From the time they were 50, and every 20 or so years thereafter, the number of children would double, quadruple - etc. At 130, A&E had Seth, declaring God has granted me another child in lace of Abel, since cain killed him." At the time that A&E were 130, there could easily have been up to 1,000 people living on the earth. Some - if not most, far removed from the immediate family of A&E, though related. Generations removed, at least 5 generations, given the 20 year premise. This is not enough to have already established a city or two? At 200 years - there's literally a guarentee of one, since you don't have anyone passing away in their youth as is the case today. And this is not even taking into account that it is possible that some had twins - or even triplets. So I'm not following the difficulty with established cities outside of the one A&E occupied. BUT!!! Here is the kicker - Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden before this could have happened, so death and mortality had already kicked in. Since we can predict the population mortality due to illness, accident, or homicide at the time we can't accept best case figuring. The text states that the average age of life was 900 years. Lamech lived the least I believe, and that was 777 years. Illness, accident, homicide? That's extrapolation. There is one account of murder - and all were aware of the consequences. The earth does not begin to be overrun with wickedness until the days of Noah - nearly 1000 years after the fall. Also; as the story goes, the city that existed WAS THERE BEFORE Cain reached it... so there had to be other people from somewhere else. Well - yeah. With at least 1,000 people on the planet, they had to spread out and form cities. They weren't building high rise condo's back then. Perhaps Yahweh got his human clay molds at a discount rate from one of the other gods floating around at the time and shaped his own version of humans? Simply illogical. Certainly - I would hope - not the concluison you were building towards. Either you are confusing yourself with extrapolation, or you're not very good at math. That might account for the overlap of Neanderthal and modern Homosapian populations, and why some of our neighbors are knuckle dragging uni-browed brutes. What is a Neanderthal. I didn't read comic books as a child. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/30/08 04:57 AM
|
|
Oh Eljay, be nice. Neanderthal is right here. Let's try to stay at least civil with one another but if you do require a refresher, Im always ready to jump in.
The Neanderthal, or Neandertal, are paleoanthropological specimens classified as Pleistocene species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis which inhabited Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 500-350 thousand years ago. So you will notice they are not all that old relatively speaking and are actually our recent descendants. You will also recall them depicted on any number of "Geico car insurance" commercials.  The point being that most who lend at least SOME credibility to the theory of human evolution or anthropogenesis, have read about them or studied them in school. They are so recognizable to modern day man now that they CAN in fact be featured in television commercials because they are intensely high profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/30/08 07:47 AM
|
|
I would also add that if people in biblical times were living 900 years and having thousands of babies, is this not Marvel Comic like? I am a little confused by this concept. Did god not make us as we are now, today? If you completely and totally reject the theory of human evolution (which is of course your right) then why would we have lived so long? I am assuming that part of the reason that people did in fact marry and begin having children so young during this time was partly due to the fact that humans died much earlier due to untreatable illness, warfare, starvation perhaps, any number of reasons. Just a thought of course.
He's not smiling of course, but you get the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthalensis.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 08/30/08 08:18 AM
|
|
Krisma, its becuase there was more oxygen in the atmosphere dont ya know!!!!
Thats why old ladies hooked up to oxygen masks live forever! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would also add that if people in biblical times were living 900 years and having thousands of babies, is this not Marvel Comic like? I am a little confused by this concept. Did god not make us as we are now, today? If you completely and totally reject the theory of human evolution (which is of course your right) then why would we have lived so long? I am assuming that part of the reason that people did in fact marry and begin having children so young during this time was partly due to the fact that humans died much earlier due to untreatable illness, warfare, starvation perhaps, any number of reasons. Just a thought of course. He's not smiling of course, but you get the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthalensis.jpg In Marvel Comics the High Evoltionary came to Earth during prehistoric times and converted several of our primate ancestors into the Eternals. A highly advanced human race- the peak of our evolutionary capability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would also add that if people in biblical times were living 900 years and having thousands of babies, is this not Marvel Comic like? I am a little confused by this concept. Did god not make us as we are now, today? If you completely and totally reject the theory of human evolution (which is of course your right) then why would we have lived so long? I am assuming that part of the reason that people did in fact marry and begin having children so young during this time was partly due to the fact that humans died much earlier due to untreatable illness, warfare, starvation perhaps, any number of reasons. Just a thought of course. He's not smiling of course, but you get the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthalensis.jpg I think it is possible that some of the stories were gleaned from a time where people existed in the astral material state which are bodies of higher frequency. It is said that in the astral world, which is a material world but just not as dense, people live up to a thousand years old or maybe more. I do not believe that any person existing in third density earth could live that long unless they were aliens. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay said:
One of the issues you have is extrapolating the way life is now - back to what happened then. The text states that the average lifespan for the first half dozen men was 900 years old - give or take a few. It says Adam lived to be 930 years old. Let's set an arbitrary time at 30 years old that A&E were expelled from the garden, and say that about 18 years old would be common for marriage (though it was likely younger.) But 20 is a nice # to work with. By the time A&E were 50, their children would have started having children, and so forth - for the years to follow. The increase in children would have been expodential. (Though not necessarily formularmatic) From the time they were 50, and every 20 or so years thereafter, the number of children would double, quadruple - etc. At 130, A&E had Seth, declaring God has granted me another child in lace of Abel, since cain killed him." At the time that A&E were 130, there could easily have been up to 1,000 people living on the earth. Some - if not most, far removed from the immediate family of A&E, though related. Generations removed, at least 5 generations, given the 20 year premise. This is not enough to have already established a city or two? At 200 years - there's literally a guarentee of one, since you don't have anyone passing away in their youth as is the case today. And this is not even taking into account that it is possible that some had twins - or even triplets. So I'm not following the difficulty with established cities outside of the one A&E occupied tribo reply: Fanciful extropilation of how many children eve had when the book says nothing about it is just that. We only read of three - C&A, then seth. it's already enough of a "story" don't make it worse by adding your own account of what took place. Unless your studying to be a non denominational troll. which brings me the trollish issue of 2 creations. but that would take trollish answers in return so it's moot -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that the show got cancelled just after a few seasons!!! But it was awesome watchin the baby poundin the father with the fryin pan!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that is was a great show back in the early 80s!!! I love the baby dinosaur he was awesome hittin his dad with a fryin pan Love The Momma,.....Love The Momma I believe you meant "not the momma" |
|
|
|
|
