What year Did Adam come to earth?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2022/01/24/the-glasshouse-mountains/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2021/05/20/easter-egg-hunt-in-laramie-mountains-part-1/

I don't remember the details. I haven't done a ton of research into the theory. But it had something to do with plasma bolts striking the Earth and creating shockwaves of rock which are what the mountains are. Like a ripple in Earth. Don't quote me on that but I think that's the general sentiment expressed in this theory.

I would love to see the experiments replicating the buildup of sediments (with dead animals that then get fossilized by the same process I am guessing) that then get folded over each other on a small scale.  Serious comment even if I don’t believe it’s possible or probable.  That would be so cool.

As far as the first link, they start out with a major inaccuracy:

Quote

In the consensus view, all valleys are caused by water erosion and solitary peaks must be volcanoes.

Mainstream:  Most valleys are formed by water erosion.  Some by glacier erosion; others by tectonic movement, for example the Great Rift Valley.

Nor is the peak they describe what we think of when someone says volcano, which is a mountain that grew out of the ground as a volcano exploded over and over.

Quote

The Glass House Mountains are intrusive plugs—remnants of volcanic activity that occurred approximately 25–27 million years ago.

Molten rock filled small vents or intruded as bodies beneath the surface and solidified into hard rocks—trachyte and rhyolite.

Millions of years of erosion have removed the surrounding exteriors of the volcanic cones and softer sandstone rocks, leaving the magnificent landscape features you see today.

Interesting vertical columns that formed as the volcanic mountains cooled can be seen at Mount Beerwah and Mount Ngungun.

Iow, if I understand correctly (last time I had geology was high school, always meant to to take a class in college, but didn’t work out with my schedule) you have lava filling in gaps (honey comb structure) and holes in a ‘softer’ existing landscape (gypsum like white rock referred to), iow all underground at the time, the vast majority of which has since eroded away.  The YouTube video demonstrates one version of this, though not the honeycomb ones unfortunately which are only referred to later on in the video very briefly.  Very easy to explain if one knows a wee bit of geology.  I got taught about volcanic intrusions in 8th grade.  We were given handouts of ‘slices of earth’ where we would have to identify what the different sections were and what process formed them.  Most fun I had all year.  Loved that section, great teacher.

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ks3/gsl/education/resources/rockcycle/page3598.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF_wtH6jECo

https://parks.desi.qld.gov.au/parks/glass-house-mountains/about/culture#:~:text=Geology,hard rocks—trachyte and rhyolite.

Since I can’t find a name referenced for the X site in the second link and only for surrounding landmarks, it will take too much time to try and track it down.  Got to go swimming.

Edited July 10 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, the narrator said:

What, then, is your explanation for why we humans are so anatomically and genetically similar to other life forms, particularly primates (where are genetic code is 98-99% the same? Why our genetic code has 90% similar to all other mammals? Or even 40% similar to bananas? And why does our genetic coding match up perfectly with how our place in the entire evolutionary tree of life? And why do we have anatomical features shared with other animals that we have no need of (or are even detrimental to us) such as toe nails, appendices, back hair, tail bone, and a spinal column still not entire suited to standing up all the time?

Not looking to debate; just interested in your explanation.

Well I know exactly zero about DNA or about evolution. It's just not my field. I'm a home builder and a woodworker on Old yachts. I would have to assume all living things came from the basic same template. Whether they're on this Earth or some other Earth.

I can tell you that when we build groups of homes we build the same homes all over Southern California Central California and Northern California too. They have some differences on the Exteriors but the basic floor plans are the same. The beam measurements are the same from job to job. I've built the same homes in San Clemente Hacienda Heights Irvine etc etc. They just changed the exterior looks a little bit. I would imagine building living things are somewhat similar. It's probably a poor analogy but it's what I have.

[The Nehor]

October 27th, 4004 BCE

Bunch of heretics here ignoring Ussher’s chronology.

[the narrator]

[posted to wrong thread]

Edited July 11 by the narrator

[telnetd]

On 7/9/2024 at 11:37 AM, the narrator said:

the amount of geological, paleological, genetic, anthropological, etc evidence supporting evolution and human evolution is stronger and more voluminous than for any other theory of science

Why is evolution still called a theory?

[the narrator]

46 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Why is evolution still called a theory?

In science a "law" describes what happens (or what will happen), and a "theory" describes why it happens. So, for example, a law of gravity says that a ball thrown up from the ground will fall back down, and a theory of gravity will try to explain what gravity is and why it causes that ball to fall back down. They are doing two different things, and a theory, no matter how often it is proven correct, will never become a law.

Or consider Newtonian physics, those are primarily made up of laws describing the whats--behavior, forces, and motions--of the physical world, whereas Einstein's theory of relativity (from which we successfully create nuclear energy and devastating bombs) seeks to describe why some of those laws are that they are.

In that context, I suppose one could argue that based on the fossil and genetic record, evolution is a law (describing the fact that all life changes over time) but that natural selection is a theory (describing why that observed evolution occurs).

Hope that helps.

[longview]

30 minutes ago, the narrator said:

In that context, I suppose one could argue that based on the fossil and genetic record, evolution is a law (describing the fact that all life changes over time) but that natural selection is a theory (describing why that observed evolution occurs).

Hope that helps.

According to this website, more and more establishment scientists are having to come to grips with the fallacy of circular reasoning:

From https://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology

Quote

The use of "index fossils" to determine the geologic age of a formation, for example, is discussed in an interesting way in an important recent paper by J.E. O'Rourke.

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."1

Quote

It would help if the fossil record would yield somewhere at least a few transitional sequences demonstrating the evolution of some kind of organism into some other more complex kind. So far, however, it has been uncooperative.

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. — If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated relatively rapidly."⁴

Quote

The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks. No wonder the evolutionary system, to outsiders, implies circular reasoning.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."⁵

Quote

The most extensive recent discussion of the circular reasoning problem in evolutionary geology is the paper by O'Rourke.12 Although he attempts to explain and justify the process as being based on induction from observed field data, he does admit many important problems in this connection. With respect to the geologic column and its development, he says:

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."13

Quote

The fiction that the geological column was actually represented by real rock units in the field has long been abandoned, of course.

"By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous."14

Behind all such assumed time units must be the doctrinaire assumption of evolution, which is the basic component of materialism.

"The theory of dialectic materialism postulates matter as the ultimate reality, not to be questioned. — Evolution is more than a useful biologic concept: it is a natural law controlling the history of all phenomena."15

And if physical data in the field seem in any case to contradict this assumed evolutionary development, then the field data can easily be reinterpreted to correspond to evolution! This is always possible in circular reasoning.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. — The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age."16

 

[the narrator]

51 minutes ago, longview said:

According to this website

That website (or at least the article you linked) needs to update itself, as it seems to have been written nearly 50 years ago. Since the 1976 article it relies on, hundreds of thousands of pages of scientific articles and studies have been published that offer a nearly infinite magnitude of evidence supporting natural selection. Sheesh, it was written decades before thousands upon thousands of genetic studies have confirmed natural selection, and as thousands upon thousands of fossil fonds have confirmed and fine-tuned billions of years of evolution on earth.

[longview]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

That website (or at least the article you linked) needs to update itself, as it seems to have been written nearly 50 years ago.

A good argument is not time limited. The fact is there are way too many assumptions made in too many fields of science. Take a gander in the many excellent books by Dr. Stephen Meyer on many aspects of science that warrant careful review.

https://stephencmeyer.org/

Quote

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief — that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. 

Meyer argues that theism — with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator — best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind — but the existence of a personal God.

 

Edited July 23 by longview

[MiserereNobis]

On 7/10/2024 at 10:46 AM, JVW said:

Name me a culture or society that doesn't have a flood myth.

Japan.

[the narrator]

20 hours ago, longview said:

A good argument is not time limited.

It's not a good argument, and it's limited not by time but by the premises and points of date it relies on being overtaken by five decades of research.

[longview]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

It's not a good argument, and it's limited not by time but by the premises and points of date it relies on being overtaken by five decades of research.

Your response sounds strangely circular.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 7/23/2024 at 7:31 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Japan.

🎤 drop.

[JVW]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:31 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Japan.

That's really interesting. Thank you for pointing that out. This is such a strange thing to consider. I'm not well versed in Japanese history but it's very strange to me that they escaped the flood myth when literally every country and island culture surrounding them has one. I just spent 1 minute looking at the Japanese History wikipedia article and it seems like Japan didn't result as a split from China or Korea anciently. I don't have any way to immediately reconcile this, so it'll be fun to think about (and be perplexed by this) for the next decade or two.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, longview said:

Your response sounds strangely circular.

Pointing out that the argument you reference on scientific research is five decades and thousands upon thousands of studies behind is not circular. Do you even know what a circle is?

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

when literally every country and island culture surrounding them has one

Except that literally isn't true. You are just repeating a made up claim. (Or are you making up that claim yourself?)

[The Nehor]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:27 AM, telnetd said:

Why is evolution still called a theory?

A theory is the highest place you get in science for an explanation for something There is nothing higher to promote it too. The stuff we are most certain of is still called a theory. The common English usage of the word theory does not match with the scientific one..

[Stargazer]

On 7/10/2024 at 7:11 PM, the narrator said:

What, then, is your explanation for why we humans are so anatomically and genetically similar to other life forms, particularly primates (where are genetic code is 98-99% the same? Why our genetic code has 90% similar to all other mammals? Or even 40% similar to bananas? And why does our genetic coding match up perfectly with how our place in the entire evolutionary tree of life? And why do we have anatomical features shared with other animals that we have no need of (or are even detrimental to us) such as toe nails, appendices, back hair, tail bone, and a spinal column still not entire suited to standing up all the time?

Not looking to debate; just interested in your explanation.

For one reason or another, I was just going to post my take on the subject without quoting anyone, but your post here is a good "forming post" for that take. Thanks for that.

The explanation for why we humans are so anatomically similar to other animals, and our DNA is so extensively similar is quite simple: we could not survive on this earth without it. We have to be able to breathe the same atmosphere as all other micro- and macro-organisms on the planet, and we have to be able eat the plants and animals that are here. That means we have to have an anatomical similarity down to the DNA level. 

Now, saying that does not militate for one theory of origin over another. It's kind of like the anthropic principle: interesting, but not decisive in arguments over the origin of life. God put us here through one process or another, but regardless of which process it was, it was His work. 

In a discussion over whether Adam and Eve left the Garden in October 4004 BC (as @The Nehor points out), I'm happy to allow all who want to accept that as a fact, to accept it as a fact. It happens that I don't believe it, Archbishop Ussher or not, but it's not important, as my salvation doesn't depend upon it. What I do worry about is the salvation of those who gamely insist upon Ussher's timetable as if it were God's timetable, and perhaps lose their testimony because science has so thoroughly debunked all of its support. 

Anthropologists seem to feel that until about 12,000 years ago, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers. Then agriculture was invented, replaced hunter-gatherers (somewhat), and from that came the first cities. I read sometime ago, don't remember where or when, that some anthros have advanced the theory that Genesis is a stylized description of the process. That Abel represented the hunter-gatherer, and then Cain the agriculturalist came along. Cain killing Abel is theorized as an allegory for the beginning of civilization, and was not a literal event between two brothers. 

In my opinion, that Genesis is not to be taken literally is illustrated in the contradiction that chapter two presents over chapter one. Chapter one talks about six days of creation, with humans getting created as the crowning event on Day 6. The problem with the literal take is that immediately afterwards, in chapter two, God takes a holiday and what was going on in the Garden while He was "resting"? Maybe that's why Adam and Eve got up to mischief: nobody was supervising them. Except then we have Genesis chapter two, verse 4, where it says:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

So in chapter one He took six days, but in chapter two He immediately contradicts himself and says it was done in one day. And then He recaps the whole thing, and tells a different story.

So Abel is dead and Cain goes and finds a wife in the land of Nod. Except that in the narrative there haven't yet been any women born to Adam and Eve. In chapter five it says that A&E had sons and daughters, but this is after Cain found a wife. Oh, wait, maybe the narrative isn't being chronological. 

What I am trying to say is that Genesis is completely allegorical, and not literal at all (broadly speaking). There are principles being taught here, and that's all. The principles are that God created the heaven and the earth. He wants us to multiply, to create more humans, make choices, and choose between right and wrong.

I'm perfectly happy with science when it comes to the nature of the God's universe. I can perfectly accept that God created the universe 13.5 billion years ago, that He lit off the sun about 4.5 billion years ago, and however He created us, be it by evolution or by immaculate conception, it is immaterial. He's our Father, and I don't have to accept Young Earth Creationism in order to receive salvation.

I actually think it's pretty cool that our genesis took a very long time of careful shepherding of DNA until God got the results He wanted. And I believe that the reason He did it that way is so that we could live by faith, without evidence. He most certainly did not want us proving His existence by scientific means, but only by the Spirit.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A theory is the highest place you get in science for an explanation for something There is nothing higher to promote it too. The stuff we are most certain of is still called a theory. The common English usage of the word theory does not match with the scientific one..

What about laws of gravitation, momentum, and many physical phenomena? They are useful in spite of advances in cosmology and quantum physics. Newtonian formulas are still applicable for space operations and interplanetary transits. No guesswork for the most part. Are laws something higher than theories?

[longview]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Pointing out that the argument you reference on scientific research is five decades and thousands upon thousands of studies behind is not circular. Do you even know what a circle is?

I might come close. How about

Icosahedron: Has 20 sides, with each face being an equilateral triangle?

Your vague references to "thousands upon thousands of studies" reek of "scientism" and propaganda. I have given you specific examples for you to follow up but you have defaulted to emotionalism. How about you make a sincere review of Dr. Stephen Meyer's work?

Edited July 25 by longview

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, longview said:

What about laws of gravitation, momentum, and many physical phenomena? They are useful in spite of advances in cosmology and quantum physics. Newtonian formulas are still applicable for space operations and interplanetary transits. No guesswork for the most part. Are laws something higher than theories?

Scientific laws are formulas. Theories are explanations for why things happen.

The law of gravity is a formula describing what gravity does. The theory of gravity is an explanation for why gravity happens. They’re two different things. A lot of theories don’t have laws with the same name because they are describing something more complex.

They aren’t higher. They are a different class of things. The theory of evolution could not be upgraded to the law of evolution.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, longview said:

I might come close. How about

Icosahedron: Has 20 sides, with each face being an equilateral triangle?

Your vague references to "thousands upon thousands of studies" reek of "scientism" and propaganda. I have given you specific examples for you to follow up but you have defaulted to emotionalism. How about you make a sincere review of Dr. Stephen Meyer's work?

There are lots of easily accessible takedowns of Stephen Meyer’s pseudoscience. Demanding that a message board poster take hours out of their life to do one especially for you is ridiculous.

Google it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So Abel is dead and Cain goes and finds a wife in the land of Nod. Except that in the narrative there haven't yet been any women born to Adam and Eve. In chapter five it says that A&E had sons and daughters, but this is after Cain found a wife. Oh, wait, maybe the narrative isn't being chronological. 

Remind me if you are LDS.

[longview]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Theories are explanations for why things happen.

The "why" of things delve into things of deep philosophical ponderings of the nature of all existence. The only way to do that is to have the mind of God.

At best theories can only barely scratch the surface of "how" things happen. Einstein came up with formulas that show "how" space/time is curved. The greater the mass of an object, the greater the curvature of space/time around it. BUT it does NOT explain "why" there is attraction between two or more objects. Or "how" force operates between objects at a distance. Whether it be gravitation, electromagnetism, whatever.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Remind me if you are LDS.

He Is.