Monotheism is Evil, separating the human race

[CoinCube]

I agree with much of what you say. But the length of time is way off. It is secular timelines based on speculation and misinformation. The Bible record is clear that the earth is only about 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

I tend to lean towards the following explanation regarding biblical timelines though I understand that there are differing schools of thought.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” (day) in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.
...
Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons
...
And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

[Moloch]

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” (day) in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.
...
Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons
...
And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

I also like how God created the plants on day 3, but the sun on day 4... poor staving plants...
God hates figs! (Also read Matthew 21:19... Jesus curses a fig tree)

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars... or plants before the sun

[BADecker]

I agree with much of what you say. But the length of time is way off. It is secular timelines based on speculation and misinformation. The Bible record is clear that the earth is only about 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

I tend to lean towards the following explanation regarding biblical timelines though I understand that there are differing schools of thought.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” (day) in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.
...
Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons
...
And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

The biblical site I linked above, shows only 6,200 years back to the time of Adam and Eve. The word "day" means 24 hours because of the included "evening and morning." The only time that is not clear is the time before the creation of light. The electromagnetic spectrum might not have been in existence before then. We don't know if time had the same meaning before light was created.

If the Hebrew word for the first "was" in verse 1 of Genesis really meant its other meaning "became," then there might have been untold ages prior to the earth becoming formless and void. But we know nothing of these, since everything was formless and void when God started making things on the earth that existed since the time that He created light.

The question is, why would anyone lean towards the idea that the earth was much older than 6,000 years? If it is because of what science and the media say, the scientists tell us themselves in their papers that they are not sure. It is the media and the universities that have made up the whole idea of millions or billions of years.

[Moloch]

The question is, why would anyone lean towards the idea that the earth was much older than 6,000 years? If it is because of what science and the media say, the scientists tell us themselves in their papers that they are not sure. It is the media and the universities that have made up the whole idea of millions or billions of years.

The evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years... that's why... it's not someones opinion, it's based on facts and evidence

On the subject of certainty... you claim to know for certain the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on no evidence at all...

Scientists rarely claim certainty of anything... Scientists present the evidence, and their opinion on what the evidence suggests... and all the evidence suggests an Earth that is billions of years old, not thousands... the evidence for such is overwhelming... you have to intentionally blind yourself from the facts to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old... period... end of debate

The person who claims to be certain, is certainly a liar *cough* BADlogic *cough*

[BADecker]

The question is, why would anyone lean towards the idea that the earth was much older than 6,000 years? If it is because of what science and the media say, the scientists tell us themselves in their papers that they are not sure. It is the media and the universities that have made up the whole idea of millions or billions of years.

The evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years... that's why... it's not someones opinion, it's based on facts and evidence

On the subject of certainty... you claim to know for certain the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on no evidence at all...

Scientists rarely claim certainty of anything... Scientists present the evidence, and their opinion on what the evidence suggests... and all the evidence suggests an Earth that is billions of years old, not thousands... the evidence for such is overwhelming... you have to intentionally blind yourself from the facts to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old... period... end of debate

The person who claims to be certain, is certainly a liar *cough* BADlogic *cough*

Okay, so somebody has interpreted something he/she calls evidence, to mean that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years old. But few people consider that carbon dating can be off by as much as billions of years. And since carbon dating can be off by this much, so can all the rest of modern day dating.

The Bible is a record that is way stronger than all the guess-dating done by scientists and science fiction writers.

[Moloch]

The question is, why would anyone lean towards the idea that the earth was much older than 6,000 years? If it is because of what science and the media say, the scientists tell us themselves in their papers that they are not sure. It is the media and the universities that have made up the whole idea of millions or billions of years.

The evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years... that's why... it's not someones opinion, it's based on facts and evidence

On the subject of certainty... you claim to know for certain the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on no evidence at all...

Scientists rarely claim certainty of anything... Scientists present the evidence, and their opinion on what the evidence suggests... and all the evidence suggests an Earth that is billions of years old, not thousands... the evidence for such is overwhelming... you have to intentionally blind yourself from the facts to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old... period... end of debate

The person who claims to be certain, is certainly a liar *cough* BADlogic *cough*

Okay, so somebody has interpreted something he/she calls evidence...

NO, no... they present the evidence... and it is not "something he calls evidence"...

Evidence has a definition... some things count as evidence, like physical evidence... the changing of bone structure through time is a good example... you can clearly see hundreds of thousands of years of human history just by studying skulls and bones of ancient humans and primates... this is evidence which can be shown to anyone (this is one of thousands of examples of acceptable scientific evidence)

You have nothing that qualifies as evidence to support your (wrong) opinion of the Earth being 6,000 years old... nothing

Testimony, no matter how long ago it was written, is not scientific evidence... we know people lie, and have lied for thousands of years... people make up stories... it is not factual scientific evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

[BADecker]

The question is, why would anyone lean towards the idea that the earth was much older than 6,000 years? If it is because of what science and the media say, the scientists tell us themselves in their papers that they are not sure. It is the media and the universities that have made up the whole idea of millions or billions of years.

The evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years... that's why... it's not someones opinion, it's based on facts and evidence

On the subject of certainty... you claim to know for certain the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on no evidence at all...

Scientists rarely claim certainty of anything... Scientists present the evidence, and their opinion on what the evidence suggests... and all the evidence suggests an Earth that is billions of years old, not thousands... the evidence for such is overwhelming... you have to intentionally blind yourself from the facts to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old... period... end of debate

The person who claims to be certain, is certainly a liar *cough* BADlogic *cough*

Okay, so somebody has interpreted something he/she calls evidence...

NO, no... they present the evidence... and it is not "something he calls evidence"...

Evidence has a definition... some things count as evidence, like physical evidence... the changing of bone structure through time is a good example... you can clearly see hundreds of thousands of years of human history just by studying skulls and bones of ancient humans and primates... this is evidence which can be shown to anyone (this is one of thousands of examples of acceptable scientific evidence)

You have nothing that qualifies as evidence to support your (wrong) opinion of the Earth being 6,000 years old... nothing

Testimony, no matter how long ago it was written, is not scientific evidence... we know people lie, and have lied for thousands of years... people make up stories... it is not factual scientific evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

So-called scientific evidence that is shown and said to be an uncertain thing by the scientists themselves, isn't really evidence. All dating back past about 4,500 years ago fits this description, and much of the dating before 4,500 years back is the same.

[CoinCube]

I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

...

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars...

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

[BADecker]

I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

...

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars...

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

[CoinCube]

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

I agree that the model will change. That is almost a certainty astronomy is not my area of expertise but it takes very little digging to hit the limits of human understanding. For example a few years ago scientist realized that according to the readings we have the universe is expanding at an increasing not a decreasing rate. However, we did not have any logical explanation for this so we made up one "dark energy" does it really exist or is the model wrong. I suspect the latter but it is the most widely accepted model currently.

However, a lot of smart people have worked on the model and while it is almost a certainty parts of it will change it is also possible that other parts will stand the test of time. Personally I see no conflict between the model and Genesis but that is not an interpretation that everyone will share.

The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, (The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light)

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.God saw that the light was good,

followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years.

and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

[MisO69]

Hard to believe that the Indo-Europeans, negros, and the Japanese are descended from Adam and Eve.

Why do you find that hard to believe?

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

It is the survivors of this near extinction who appear to have made some form of fundamental technological, social or evolutionary leap that allowed humanity to break the prior constraints which had kept its population small and limited to Africa.

http://blog.23andme.com/news/the-first-population-explosion-human-numbers-expanded-dramatically-millennia-before-agriculture/

The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelry.

The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes – the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, calls this period “The Great Leap Forward,” when humans burst forth culturally – finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.

The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the (much later) invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.

In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve Our ancestors are warned not to eat of the fruit of the “Etz Hadaath,” the “Tree of Knowledge” for as long as They did not eat of it, they were like angels who do only good. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge,” however, changed this.

People interpret this story in different ways but I tend to view it as instructive parable. A primitive species in a natural competitive equilibrium can be thought of as living in a garden. Breaching this equilibrium requires knowledge. Sometime around 70,000 years ago our ancient ancestors acquired the knowledge needed to explosively overcome the constraints that had previously kept our numbers and progress in check. We ceased living as a part of nature and began to dominate it.

This breakthrough led to the spread of humanity throughout the world and possibly made inevitable the later agricultural revolution. Having broken our natural constraints we are now compelled to continue our relentless climb up the tree of knowledge until we grow knowledgeable enough to voluntarily establish new ones for ourselves.

Ya know after reading this it sure seems like humans were created in Africa some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. Before that we were just neanderthals.

So I guess "gods" created us by altering neanderthals dna and out we came with intelligence. Just like that.. sure.. gods.. okay. idiots.

[BADecker]

Hard to believe that the Indo-Europeans, negros, and the Japanese are descended from Adam and Eve.

Why do you find that hard to believe?

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

It is the survivors of this near extinction who appear to have made some form of fundamental technological, social or evolutionary leap that allowed humanity to break the prior constraints which had kept its population small and limited to Africa.

http://blog.23andme.com/news/the-first-population-explosion-human-numbers-expanded-dramatically-millennia-before-agriculture/

The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelry.

The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes – the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, calls this period “The Great Leap Forward,” when humans burst forth culturally – finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.

The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the (much later) invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.

In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve Our ancestors are warned not to eat of the fruit of the “Etz Hadaath,” the “Tree of Knowledge” for as long as They did not eat of it, they were like angels who do only good. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge,” however, changed this.

People interpret this story in different ways but I tend to view it as instructive parable. A primitive species in a natural competitive equilibrium can be thought of as living in a garden. Breaching this equilibrium requires knowledge. Sometime around 70,000 years ago our ancient ancestors acquired the knowledge needed to explosively overcome the constraints that had previously kept our numbers and progress in check. We ceased living as a part of nature and began to dominate it.

This breakthrough led to the spread of humanity throughout the world and possibly made inevitable the later agricultural revolution. Having broken our natural constraints we are now compelled to continue our relentless climb up the tree of knowledge until we grow knowledgeable enough to voluntarily establish new ones for ourselves.

Ya know after reading this it sure seems like humans were created in Africa some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. Before that we were just neanderthals.

So I guess "gods" created us by altering neanderthals dna and out we came with intelligence. Just like that.. sure.. gods.. okay. idiots.

Neanderthals had a much large cranial capacity than we do. Nobody knows what went on in there. Probably Neanderthals didn't invent much technology, because they had ESP, extrasensory perception, telekinesis, and teleportation, besides a much better ability to think. It was probably the neanderthals that created us, right? And the reason we find so few Neanderthal skeletons is, they took off long ago to visit the stars. By now, they have probably evolved into disembodied spirits that can travel the universe way faster than the speed of light.

 

[CoinCube]

Ya know after reading this it sure seems like humans were created in Africa some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. Before that we were just neanderthals.

So I guess "gods" created us by altering neanderthals dna and out we came with intelligence. Just like that.. sure.. gods.. okay. idiots.

*clap....clap....clap*
I am blown away by the depth of your insight MisO69. After all perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars, that the Big Bang was caused by some random fluctuations and it is so obvious that dark energy is causing the universe to expand.

No point in questioning these things all these mysteries are solved.

[BADecker]

Ya know after reading this it sure seems like humans were created in Africa some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. Before that we were just neanderthals.

So I guess "gods" created us by altering neanderthals dna and out we came with intelligence. Just like that.. sure.. gods.. okay. idiots.

*clap....clap....clap*
I am blown away by the depth of your insight MisO69. After all perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars, that the Big Bang was caused by some random fluctuations and it is so obvious that dark energy is causing the universe to expand.

No point in questioning these things all these mysteries are solved.

Is there a universe for you after you are dead? When you are dead, the universe is gone as far as you are concerned. So, while you are still alive, the universe for you is what you perceive it to be.

There is some dark energy in the universe that is getting some people to think that the universe is billions of years old, that Big Bang is fact, and all kinds of other goofy things that draw them away from the pure knowledge of God, as it is taught in the Bible.