Hyper evolution in the bible

quote:

---

prove it. arguments from incredulity don't work. period. not even with the bible. there's a lot of incredible stuff that happens, and as i've pointed out, LONG after your separation....

---

Not really, the lifespans and fast growth, and flood events far out import anything else you could dig up. And even if you could, likely the spiritual was involved.

quote:

---

we've shown that long lifes happen in the bible after your split.

---

Oh have we now? Peleg was a harbinger of much shorter spans, you must know this?

quote:

---

apply this logic to the rest your post. it's not even worth my time to go through it and "prove it" for every unsupported and wild assertion that just plain reaks of biblical ignorance.

---

Your attempts at an opposing veiw were met, and defeated, whe=ther you realize it or not. Apply that.

[quote] god then limits human lifespan to 120 years. simple, btw, is misreading this verse too.[quote] "God promised them one hundred and twenty years' respite: if they repented in that interim, well; if not, they should be destroyed by a flood. See note on "Ge 6:5" " Genesis 6 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
"b. God also promises of man, his days will be one hundred and twenty years. This is not the outside life span of man, but this is the time left until the judgment of the flood." David Guzik's Commentary - StudyLight.org
These are the first commentaries I pulled up on the issue. You are wrong.

quote:

---

he says the "split" happened during peleg's lifetime, but the next two generations of peleg's sons STILL live longer than normal. at least one is 200+. ..

---

Well, yes, this is my attempt to pinpoint it, but the general concept is not pegged to peleg! Now, at Peleg, we do get down to 200 year plus lifespans, with a pattern of dropping from there, down to present levels. Could this be simple genetic purity, which, after the split, and radioactivity of decay, or whatnot, start to affect our genes, and a pattern comes, where they seettle down at lower levels? Or some such after effect? I mean, this is a far cry from the old near one thousand years here!This would take some looking at, however, if it does qualify as something much affected by the split, or not. Noah, for example lived a long time after the flood. (three hundred and fifty years) Which means about 240 some odd years after the split. This could indicate it was a result of the split that lower lifespans came as well, cause this was more or less what Peleg, and a few others lived after the split.

quote:

---

at no point is there a SUDDEN shift in god's presence, other than possibly the exile. and god certainly does not need a merged world to act.

---

No, He still acts today, as I have said. As for your claim there was no shift in His presence, I'm sure He is present, as are the angels somewhere. But there seems to be a seperation that did happen, for a lot of reasons, and you have nothing you can say against it, but opinion.

quote:

---

if we want to look at actual divisions, look at the creation event. heavne divides the water -- and is structurally separate from earth.

---

But look at where He caused the devided waters to come down and flood the earth! This is another indication there was more than physical only at work, because under most scenarios now, if we plunk a half a world of water on to earth, let alone blow it off again with a great wind (?!)- we kill life on earth with heat. This didn't happen, indicating something more was at play here.Interesting sidenote: If the great wind in a merged world, after the flood did blow off somehow much of the flood water into space, it may have ended up on mars, and some other places! If, say, space were not a cold vacuum in a merged universe, and gravity was either less, or temporarily counterbalanced with some other force, or something - then the water from the flooded planet would have gone off into spavce. A century later ( I admit this is some speculation here)as the split comes about, space is cold, the globs of water freeze into 'spacebergs'crashing into planets, causing craters! In a recent photo of mars, we see ice, right in a crater!!!!!! Oh the possible wonders of a split!

quote:

---

. there's lots of spiritual stuff going on in the nt. simple is forced to support his idea with an ad-hoc explanation of localized spiritual intervention. it doesn't hold up.

---

The spirits can come through to the physical, and we know they do. This is no ad hoc point. The angel troubled the water in a pool, for example, not all the water in the world, this is pretty local.

You really seem to like making references to relativity and quantum mechanics, but from what I can tell you are expounding something like a physics version of pop-psychology. I'm sorry, but you don't make much sense. Statements like...

quote:

---

Most physicists believe that GR and QM have not been harmonized, and that may be true...

---

... illustrate the point. That may be true? What an understatement! Getting the two to play nice would be like finding the Grail and having it filled with Guinness to boot.But, and much more importantly, all you are presenting are 'ifs' and 'maybes' and 'could possiblies'. I can make those up for the rest of my life and not one would mean anything without evidence. And merely stating...

quote:

---

Well, evidence has begun to come forth.

---

... doesn't cut it. You have to say specifically what evidence and provide math, charts, and singing telegrams. Evidence. Evidence. Not 'because it kinda sorta looks like maybe'. What you are providing is extraordinarily vague, and it is unconvincing in direct relation to its vagueness.To be honest, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with this post.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, my point is not to delve into the areas less understood, but to discuss the areas that are somewhat understood and supported. It's not pop-physics as you say.Of course, the grand unified theory is not there yet, but at the same time, we do see the things I have discussed.Is there any factual claim I have made that you disagree with? It's not extraordinarily vague. What part do you not understand?the time is relative?
principles of entanglement (action at a distance)
the concept of a whole picture of earth being a streak in space-time rather than a sphere in space?
the concept of physical form being derived from an information pattern?All of this stuff is weird. I admit that. But it's also all well-established physics. It's not the real advanced stuff of superstrings, 20-some dimensions, etc,...but the basics of physics discories for over 80 years that have borne out and have been amplified with experiments for over 80 years now.The rest of science ought to at least catch up with physics paradigms over 80 years old, and incidentally most physicists should as well.It's not an if and maybe, in terms of this stuff. I write if and maybe for applying this to the historical time-line. Imo, the evidence thus far is that the time-line is not static. There is no real evidence that it is, and quite a lot of evidence that it should be affected as a whole within space-time, and evidence in QM of causal effects backwards in time, and discussions within QM of transverse waves that travel backwards in time, though the transverse wave would not necessarily be considered causal in terms of real world effects.But unlike evos, imo, I say if and maybe from a scientific perspective because it's just a hypothesis or theory. For me, it's religious truth, but scientifically we should be cautious about insisting on things not fully proven (layman's term) or substantiated(like ToE).

that's the point, simple. the spiritual continues LONG after you say it stops. not.according.to.the.bible.http://EvC Forum: Hyper evolution in the biblepeleg lives 239 years. peleg's son lives 239 years as well. peleg's grandson lives 230 years. peleg's great grandson lives 148 years. the first person in peleg's line to come within the normal lifespan is his great, great grandson tehor, at 70 years. the span between peleg's birth and tehor's birth is 121 years (not 120, i might add). after tehor's birth, his father lives another 119 years (outliving his son by 49 years).

quote:

---

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

​

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

​

Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

​

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

---

there's a bit of descrepency here, of about two years. i'll be generous, and give you those two years. it seems it takes noah about 100 years to build that ark, during which shem grows up to be about 98. i'll use the 98, not 100. cause i'm nice. so, from the time of the proclamation of the limited lifespace (120 years), it's at least 98 years until the flood.

quote:

---

Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

---

flood (98) + 2 = 100.

quote:

---

Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

---

100 + 35 = 135

quote:

---

Gen 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

---

135 + 30 = 165

quote:

---

Gen 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

---

165 + 34 = 199. your date for the split (still not 120)

quote:

---

Gen 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

---

199 + 30 = 229

quote:

---

Gen 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

---

299 + 32 = 261

quote:

---

Gen 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

---

261 + 30 = 291

quote:

---

Gen 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

---

291 + 29 = 320. so, from the flood, it's 320 before the BIRTH of the first guy with a "normal" lifespan. or, if you'd like, 390 before the first normal death. that's the MINIMUM figure. not 120. you're wrong, qed.of course, just to fould you up even more, we all know who terah's son is, right?

quote:

---

Gen 25:7 And these [are] the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.

---

that's 145 years.

quote:

---

Gen 35:28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.

---

that's 180 years.

quote:

---

Gen 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

---

147 years. still not normal!

quote:

---

Gen 50:26 So Joseph died, [being] an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

---

hmm, getting closer. in other word, terah was a fluke. all of the people in the book of genesis seem to have longer-than-normal lifespans. hwy is peleg singled out? his next two generations live almost exactly as long as he did, and there is NO logical way to apply that 120 years verse to peleg, who was born at least 199 years after that proclamation.so where, pray tell, are these shorter lifespans? well, there IS a pretty significant drop in lifespan from eber to peleg (-48%). but there's a -52% difference between nahor and terah. not to mention a -36% between noah and shem and a -35% difference between serug and nahor. so it's not even the most significant drop. if we remove terah as a statistical fluke, it is a pretty significant decline, but not that much out of the curve of the steady decline of genesis's patriarchal lifespans, starting at noah, which drop 350 years, skips a few generations, drops 150, skips a few, drops 200 (peleg), skips a few, drops 100, and then stays about the same.now, you may have caught something here. quantitatively, peleg's lifespan's shortening is not even the biggest. shem's is. all the people before shem lived 950 some years. shem only lived 600.so let's review.

• peleg's difference in lifespan was not statistically the most significant
• peleg's difference in lifespan was not quantitatively the biggest
• peleg was not even born 120 years after god's "120 year" decree.

in other words, not one of your points lines up.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-23-2005 01:17 AM

---

אָרַח

ahem. no. in message 219 of this very thread, you write:

quote:

---

So we have a set time before something happens, 120 years. Most have taken this to be the time till the flood came, hence, many say that Noah took 120 years to build the ark. Fine, this was my opinion as well. However, it seems more reasonable to take it as the time God set till the split! Peleg was born 101 years after the flood

---

interestingly enough, you cite the same resources. i am not arguing a strawman, i am arguing what you, yourself said: that it was 120 years from the proclamation to split. incidently, peleg was born 101 years after the flood. but at least 199 years after the proclamation. if it were 120 years from proclamation to the flood (a MUCH better reading) then it doesn't matter, and this whole 120 years to peleg thing is moot. the decline is more drawn out. there is no point of splitting. whoa there! ad-hoc. show me something in the bible that has to do with radioactive decay or genetics. actually, there is something i can say to it.

quote:

---

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

---

quote:

---

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

---

do you really think god has abandoned us? do you think we are separated from our god? it's times like this i really wish the book of thomas were actually in the bible:

quote:

---

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

---

what you're basically saying is that natural explanation don't work. that's a tautology, and tautologies are logically meaningless. god is supernatural. duh.of COURSE there's something more at play here -- it's called "god." you either believe, or you don't. trying to justify something that is inherently supernatural with a naturalistic explanation is just stupid. why do you need this merged reality? can't you just accept that "god did it" like every other creationist? uh.you ever thought of trying out for olympic gymnastics?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-23-2005 02:06 AM

---

אָרַח

alright. here's god affecting something HUGE post "split."

quote:

---

Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

---

the sun and the moon stood still. if you wanna interpolate this into our modern understand of the solar system, the earth stopped rotating, and probably stopped revolving around the sun too. the moon halted it's orbit as well.a flood is cake compared to stopping the motions of the heavens. and this is well after your split.can we stop this now? are you satisfied that you're actually wrong? or do you have some other ad-hoc explanation for this you'd liek to add? that's a pretty big thing, you know. not local. not a little pool. WHOLE FREAKING PLANETS.what is size to god?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-23-2005 01:58 AM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

It's not extraordinarily vague. What part do you not understand?

---

Its not the physics. Its you. You are littering your posts with little fragments of physics but you aren't really going anywhere with them. You aren't making any arguments. What you are doing is mentioning some component of physics-- minimally mentioning it-- then saying 'ooh, neato, maybe it could be that...' Well, that isn't an argument. Maybe it COULD be that... but it still isn't an argument. 'Could bees' are a dime a dozen. Make a case for something.

quote:

---

the time is relative?
principles of entanglement (action at a distance)
the concept of a whole picture of earth being a streak in space-time rather than a sphere in space?
the concept of physical form being derived from an information pattern?

---

Pick one, and make a case. Make a case not for the physics, but for... well, for whatever it is you are trying to say. Right now, I read your posts and see something like 'time is relative' and think, "Ok. Fine. Time is relative. Big deal. What is randman's point in mentioning that? And, how does his argument for that opinion work?"

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I have been giving evidence of where certain assumptions are based on outdated science, assumptions about time and the nature of physical existence.You asked for evidence, and so I have been providing evidence.Physical form is derivative of a potential for multiple states of existence which all exist as potentials regardless of which form or of any form exists at all. In fact, I showed where both relativity and QM indicate existence essentially exists as information, and yet when we talk of evolution or physical history, there is no accounting for the production and maintaining of this information.In fact, the suggestion of evos seems to be that the information is a by-product or derivative of the physical form, which is totally incorrect since what we have called the physical is not the fundamental aspect to something's existence, as demonstrably proved in the areas of science I referred to.Instead, we see physicality to a large extent illusory. What is not illusory is the information pattern which governs or is the set of "rules" or parameters by which we see matter take on real form. So matter is derivative, not fundamental. The implications for this, concerning how the world can be directly affected, should be obvious.Secondly, I showed that we already have moved away from an absolute view of time. Time is relative, and there are indications causal effects are not strictly linear, and there is reason within GR to expect that, imo, because frankly, once you view time as relative, and can view objects as a whole (the streak through space-time instead of a thing in space), one should expect to see the whole affected as a whole, and not just via linear causal effects.I showed from the photon's perspective, if we could measure from there, we would observe no time at all, nor space. Since measurements from any point and speed are as accurate and valid as any other in the universe, it can be said that space and time are not absolute and fundamental to the universe.Only information is.So the question is how this information arises, where does it come from, what maintains it, and can it be directly affected by conscious choice.

quote:

---

the sun and the moon stood still. if you wanna interpolate this into our modern understand of the solar system, the earth stopped rotating, and probably stopped revolving around the sun too. the moon halted it's orbit as well.

---

This is supposed to be news? Yes this did happen, how, we don't know. It seems to have been noticed only at the battle scene there, however, and worldwide records, as far as I know, do not record the event. This leads in the direction of speculating it may have been a local event. Either way, very hard to understand using conventional wisdom. In fact, we do need to have the spiritual at work here, and the only question is to what extent? Was time affected, but not space, was space affected, but not time, were both affected, but with the spiritual added, was the split delayed some centuries off earth, in the rest of the universe, who knows? But God can do anything, and is not limited by few or many (even stars and suns)etc.
No, this does not rule out a coming merged universe, and eternity, and heaven, or a split.I'm away from easy net access for a week or so.

[quoote] you either believe, or you don't. trying to justify something that is inherently supernatural with a naturalistic explanation is just stupid. why do you need this merged reality? can't you just accept that "god did it" like every other creationist?[/quote] Because I can, because the ones on offer are absurd, because to God, even the merged universe is natural, and because I feel like it.

quote:

---

. in other word, terah was a fluke. all of the people in the book of genesis seem to have longer-than-normal lifespans. hwy is peleg singled out? his next two generations live almost exactly as long as he did, and there is NO logical way to apply that 120 years verse to peleg, who was born at least 199 years after that proclamation.

---

False, I don't have the time now to explain. Peleg was born 101 years after the flood. I have read this, as well as looked it up in the bible, if you are right, I will be very surprised.
As for lifespans, the trnd was clear, and some did live longer than others, it isn't a rigid thing here, just an emmerging pattern. As you say, his great gtreat grandson was already at our levels!

I have not argued with you about any of the science sprinkled throughout your posts.Time is relative. Fine.Quantum Mechanics. General Relativity. Fine.But what is the point you are trying to make? Is it this?

quote:

---

... certain assumptions are based on outdated science

---

Ok. Now make an argument. How do you get to this conclusion? Right now, I'm feeling like either you do not have a real argument or you are giving me only pieces of an argument. Either way is no good.Do you know how to make an argument? Step one leads to step two leads to step three leads to step four and so on. The best I can get from you is step one, step ten, step twenty-three. There! See, there is your evidence. For example...You've mentioned numerous times that time is relative. Ok. Lets go with that. (Remember. I am making up the rest of this. I don't know if this is what you actually believe, but that doesn't matter. This is illustration.) Scientists use the idea of time to make calculations. They are using an outdated concept of time. Therefore,the science is invalid. That is a good nutshell version. It tells me the point, but there are gaps. What calculations in particular depend upon outdated concepts of time? Does it matter? For most purposes, Newton's outdated laws work fine. Maybe it doesn't matter if the concept of time is outdated. Without the details, I can't tell. Nor can you, for that matter. Perhaps the scientists aren't using outdated notions after all. Without the particulars, I can't tell. And you are loath to give particulars. If I said to certain members of these forums, "The Bible is full of contradictions." What would be the first response? "Give me an example." Right?As it is. You give the conclusion, if it is your conclusion, that some science is invalid because it uses outdated notions. You give your premise that time is relative, BUT there is NOTHING-- or very little-- connecting the two. It is your job to make those connections. You've had to prove a geometry problem right? Do you look at the problem and leap to the answer? Or do you work the problem step by step? Making an argument is like that. You have to show your steps. If you don't, no one knows how you did it.Pointing at a layer of rock isn't providing evidence. Pointing at the sky isn't the same as making an argument about cosmology. An argument, a chain of reasoning, must accompany the pointing for it to be evidence. You point. You do not provide the chain of reasoning.Did Darwin, , point at birds and squeal, "There is your evidence!!!" No, Darwin pointed at birds and said, "Notice how this bird resembles the one from ten miles North. Notice that... etc and etc. From this I reason that..." Can you see the difference between that and what you have been doing? If you cannot tell the difference, I suggest to you honestly that you sit down and reflect.When you give someone directions do you tell them only the major roads. "Take I-90." Well that is fine if you live on I-90 and your friend, who is trying to visit, also lives on I-90, but otherwise your friend has a very good chance of getting lost. And I am. And what might be a very fine opinion is about to be tossed because that opinion's owner cannot or will not speak in any but the vaguest generalities. You won't tell me which roads to take to get to your conceptual house. All you want to say is that I'll be driving on I-90 (call it 'time is relative highway') some of the way, and I'll drive on county road 85 (call it 'GR') a bit. Those directions are crap. They are meaningless.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

simple!spiritual was merged with the physical!anything else is a double standard. listen, i don't even need to address this. it's pretty obvious that you're just making stuff up as you go along. i mean, a bunch of water indicates that a spiritual plane is merged with the physical, but stopping the motions of the heavens does not? come on, simple! nor do they record the flood. nor is god limited (or kept away) but your supposed split. yes, actually, it does. you're implying a change. the only change seems to be who's in charge, not whether god's around, can act, or works gigantic miracles. saying that there will be a merge in the future is implying that there is a split NOW -- the position you cannot demonstrate with the text. do you always run away from a really good point?

---

אָרַח