Silkroad Online Forums

Israelites would have only been aware of 24 hours, they're humans and subject to the same environment we are. 24 hours as dictated by earths revolutions, 12 months divided by year via the revolving of the earth around the sun. If it wasn't 7 24 hour days as we know it then what was it? Hmm.. this would require me to accept the existence of God for the sake of good discussion.

@your second post; it would be nice if you answered my questions, and use Edit more often

@skwirls Buddhism would be considered an atheistic religion (as Grandpa already typed).

EDIT: @grandpa, read your edit: WHOA insects were not the only creatures. There were Fish, Amphibians, Crustaceans, Reptiles, and Insects. It is well known crawling came before flying unless you categorize swimming as flying. Another matter, crustaceans would have crawled on the ocean floor before migrating to land to eat fish that strayed during reproduction periods. As insects and other species on earth at that time evolved they adapted (Note* over a large period of time) to fill a specific niche. This can be seen even today, I'll use darwin's example when he first postulated the basics of what would later become the theory of Evolution, One phrase: Galapagos Island. Didn't Stress already win the premise of the thread when he pointed out that God said (assuming God exist) "Seek and You shall Find". King Solomon would look at this topic and shake his head in shame XD.

Grandpa:
Barotix, have you studied Hebrew? A full answer to your question would take too long if you haven't studied Hebrew. In reply to your specific question about the word 'Yom' or "Yowm"; it doesn't mean 24 hours. Take my word for it. The Hebrew word 'Yom', translated as into "The King's English" as 'day' isn't based on the sun. It never was and never will be. To support my assertion let me remind you that according to the creation story in Genesis it wasn't until the 4th 'yom' that the sun was created to "rule the day".

Regarding your false logic attempt (also called smoke and mirrors) to establish your point by referring to the Israelites: Your data about Israelites does not apply because they weren't around in the first, second, third 'yom' (the time period in question) and neither was the sun (according to creationist theory). Just because they actually spoke Hebrew (and I don't) doesn't demand that they would disagree with my definition. Of course I can't prove this but I am confident that it is true. BTW, I can't even type the actual word here, ya know? My reply wasn't directed to you and was sufficient IMO to answer the question about resolving the fossil record needing millions of years. I was replying to another person, not you.
Grandpa: The word 'yom' or 'yowm', is only one of many, many Hebrew words that have been edited/translated by the King James guys as 'day'. I doubt they knew what it meant (literally) because they didn't have the resources we do today. 'Yom' means "time of warmth". There are other words that refer to specific time periods, this one doesn't. I believe that it was ambiguous regarding timeframe for reason, but that's just me. On a side-note, recall please that the Children of 'Avram' (Abraham) both Jewish and Muslim alike continue to hold that the 'day' doesn't start at midnight. Their belief conforms to the text, "The evening and the morning were the first 'day', more than any concept of the King James assumptions that a day is a day is a day. There are other texts that could be used to obscure this like "One day is as a 1,000 years unto the LORD", but don't get me started... Please, don't get me started... I do understand the point of your question though, there are some theists that think the KJV is the inspired word of God. Suffice it to say I don't, but thanks for asking in any case.
Grandpa:If your point was that I tried to require you to accept the existence of God for the sake of good discussion, that also is untrue. The only thing required (for the sake of a good conversation) is that you accept that I believe, not that you must accept my belief as your own. Don't be so sensitive, okay?

As I've previously posted I can't really even say that I know Him, but He has, does, and, as I am promised, will continue to know me. For instance, if you wanted an introduction to a person in this forum (for politeness' sake) that I didn't know, I'd reasonably decline.

Again, Barotix, IF you really want to know more about various views regarding the Age of the Universe, an expanded discussion can be found here: The Age of the Earth
Grandpa:Okay, but only if you agree to ask them one or two at a time.
I'll try to answer the "EDIT" you posted here within that topic later.
Again, pardon the exploitation of your signature "Key-J's secret XD",
Enuf for now.

Grandpa's reply:
No need for my reply, right? You’ve clarified it enough for me to withdraw (and erase) the question. The original post told you my reason: It's not just theists who are subject to rigid thinking it's everybody. What I said was, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks."
Grandpa's reply:
This second question is an example of redundancy but I'll try to answer it for ya.
It was an attempt to define by example the rigid thinking that scientists are also subject to (as if you didn't know). The actual reference was:



QUESTION: Do you recall now that I provoked your comment about absolutist thinking when I said

Grandpa's reply:
Are you serious? How can you pretend even for an instant that what we've been doing here isn't competitive Of course it is. Not only are our theories in competition we (you and me) are too, at least on some level. It's okay.Grandpa:
FIRST: A point of order. I've never directly stated that "insects came from crustaceans. All that I've admitted directly on that subject was that crawling things (invertebrates with exoskeletons) were contemporary in time. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.

Now back to the subject, You have at least implied they did and I've already quoted this: You even went as far as drawing a picture:
----One Celled Organism----
--V----------------------V--
-Fish------------------Insects-
-V------------V----------V
Amphibians---Reptiles--Insects-


Now you disavow saying insects came from reptiles. WTH? You certainly tried to assert that somehow insects and their major predators (birds and bats) were contemporary in time. Your attempt to make some distinction between "insects" on land and "insects" in the sea is highly questionable and unnecessary. For our purpose let's agree that "insects" are not the same as "crustaceans" because they aren't. You later confirmed your allegation (that reptiles and amphibians, that is, non-flight insect predators were contemporary in time to the first presence of insects on land) by saying, "so that way it could be inferred that the natural predator of insects are other insects, reptiles, and amphibians as they evolved along side each other".

Your confirmed assertion proves to me that you're way out of your depth here. If this were true and insects were contemporary in time with reptiles or amphibians (for that matter) -or- if they evolved "along side each other" my main premise regarding differences in the timelines would be proven false . It's similar to saying that amphibians and monkeys evolved at the same time. Both sides (creation and evolution) agree that there were periods of time that lapsed between the first presence of various species. Having read this, can you now assert this isn't true? QUESTION: do you think that insects were first present on the earth at or about the same time as the first presence of fish or reptiles or amphibians? Capitulate if you don't, just admit that I've proven my point sufficiently to satisfy you. Else, quote any real scientific data to back this up and I'll withdraw my objection. I will then post that in my considered opinion Model A (defined herein) is triumphantly victorious over Model B. I won't like it, but I'll do it. WORD!

Honestly I can not put too much of a point on this
In Summary:
Major Premise: Insect life without major limiting factors = destruction of life

Two Competing Theories:
Model A: Insect population is not kept in check by life with flight (because they don’t exist) called “Evolution Theory”
Model B: Insect population is kept in check by predators who fly called “Creation Theory”
Note: This model is based on progression that follows function over complexity, hence there would be no life with flight.

I suspect we should have spent more time on our definitions prior to discussing this to such depth. This is as much my fault as yours as well as the fault of our medium (typing here on the forum). I took a firm "tone" in my addressing this only because it is crucial to understanding.
According to your statements and assumptions Model A (evolutionary theory as stated herein) requires major predators for insects like

• fish
• reptiles
• amphibians

and since this can easily be debunked as I have shown:

My conclusion is that according to Occum's Razor, one theory can be demonstrated to be clearly superior over the other. .
In absence other competing theories, Grandpa claims victory for Model B and states: "I rest my case."

~Grandpa

Reply to crazyskwrls > HERE < is included for clarity.

Science is essentialy knowlage based on empirical evidence and Faith is essentialy knowlage not based on any empirical evidence. therefore thechnicaly the answer to the question is neither. faith in anything (religious or not) can either be correct or incorrect for instance ever had a gut feeling about somthing and it was true? thats faith-- ie not based on any empirical evidence. however im going to assume that this thread is not a philisophical argument on where knowlage comes from, but an argument of wether religious or supernatrual faith is false and im going to say again that it is neither true or false for one main reason. Faith uses a dualy un-provable and un-disproveable base for knowlage, either god, or the supernatrual. as you can not prove the basis for religious based faith to be false in any truly scientific way (or true at that) and thus you can not prove religious based faith to be "false"

the greatest of intelectuals have debated on and on about wether god or the supernatrual is real or not. and despite their genius no one has been able to give a good clear answer on their exsitence that truly and 100% debases the theory of god's existence. thus i think its fairly usless to debate it on an internet forum because the fact of the matter is that it happens on every forum or mass online media, facebook/myspace/forums ect. and no one ever gets a straight answer the people who come into an argument beliving either way or the other leaves the argument beliving the same (in most cases) because neither side of the argument has enough evidence to debase the other.

so my point is that this is a useless and pointless debate and should probobly get locked before some RATM anticonformist rebel kid and some religous fanatic start eating eachother alive

Grandpa your actualy wrong. i lived in israel for 1/3 of my life and know for a fact that Yom or day is a 24 hour period of time. what dosnt rely on the sun is the montly calender which is determined by the moon, not the sun

The different models were "Model A" and "Model B" and defined herein. The test was valid because either could win -AND- either could lose as I've previously demonstrated. I appreciate your comment though, but your assumption that this was about rational empiricism or faith is simply not true. I sidestepped the issue of "faith" when I offered a cogent argument for Model B. It was purposefully constructed such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is more likely to be true than not. For more information in re arguments you may see Wikipedia links for "Cogent" vs. Logical Fallacy

~Grandpa

[EDIT]
Regarding your final statement I can tell you that although I don't know what a "RATM anticonformist rebel kid" is in actuality, I do know that Barotix doesn't strike me as one. Also, I eat kosher style, so there is little danger of us eating "each other". We have come close though but those differences were mutually apologized for and resolved.

My first mention of the subject is reproduced here:

Thanks for your input, Qosta420.
I've heard this before though. You will note that the above graphic has a vowel point, right? The word the Torah is in reference to doesn't. Hence my transliteration as "yowm" as opposed to "yohm". I hope it's okay to reproduce graphics from the dictionary if it isn't modified and the copyright is included. If not, I'll delete this.

QUESTION: Has your Rabbi stated that the Hebrew word "yom" as used in the Torah should more truly be rendered "day" over "time of warmth"? I've read various scholarly works on this but it's been a couple decades since then. Still, and as I've said before, I was using a very literal definition that was specific to the context of the time of declaration.

Regarding current day (now) what I said was:

Anyone who is sufficiently interested in the first reference to what I call "Model B" theory is more than welcome to find my first post > here <

Shalom,

~Grandpa

First off: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8 ... =salesrank
^Read it, great book about this very subject.
Carboniferous
Devonian
Paleozoic
Phanerozoic

Wikipedia is the quickest and easiest way to site things without bringing up other useless junk *DAMN YOU GOOGLE!*

LoL, You misinterpreted my drawing, I'll Clarify.

One Celled Organism ~>(your YOM would go here) Simple Fish ~>(your Yom would go here) Amphibians
One Celled Organism ~>(your YOM would go here) Simple Fish ~>(your YOM would go here) Reptiles
One Celled Organism ~>(your YOM would go here) Simple Crustaceans ~>(your YOM would go here) Insects (Land Insects and Flying Insects)

My Chart ends at the carboniferous which would have had an abundance of plant life, different insects (land and flying), amphibians, and reptiles that would later take shape to form modern birds via dinosaurs. Insects don't change much for millions of years, they just get bigger or (as in the case of modern insects) get smaller.

Nature would have kept the insects in check, with other insects, our reptilian cousins and amphibian + fish ancestors.

Cousin refers to reptiles having the same ancestor we do (fish).

Barotix,

By redrawing the chart did you not more clearly mean:
One Celled Organism ~>(unspecified timespan) Simple Fish ~>(unspecified timespan) Amphibians
One Celled Organism ~>(unspecified timespan) Simple Fish ~>(unspecified timespan) Reptiles
One Celled Organism ~>(unspecified timespan) Simple Crustaceans ~>(unspecified timespan) Insects (Land Insects and Flying Insects)

I'm getting the idea that you're more clearly showing specific lines here, but my question is

Question 1: In other words, are you certain you want to use "(your YOM would go here)" in your redrawn chart?

Question 2: Do you recall your recent post where you stated:

BTW, Nice to see you today *yawn* - Sounds like the book, Your Inner Fish deserves a trip to the library.
I've previously and again recently read the Wikipedia articles you mentioned.

Gonna keep this short, sleepytime for me.

Thanks for the reply,
~Grandpa

Disregard my Use of the term YOM. Now you typed earlier that the hebrews didn't exist in the earlier YOMs, are you aware there are two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis? Also, if the Hebrews didn't exist how would they be able to record this, when do you believe humans started keeping written records?



Also if the bible can be considered infallible, therefore wouldn't its interpretation in the KJB be considered accurate? Shouldn't the contradictions be considered a work of God due to divine guidance?

WOW! Nice job up there on your presentation. I have very much enjoyed this discussion, sir.
I see no problem with your presentation, appreciate the amount of work it took, and am trying to think about what we accomplished here. Honestly, it was quite a bit.

Can a Evolutionist debate with a Creationist without extreme lunacy? . For the times I personally didn't, I appreciate you accepting my apology very much. I didn't see much sense in trying to disguise the model that I advanced here. I think that genesis 1 is poetry. I know it's classified as "Law" by the CoI (Children of Israel), but it's poetry to me. A love song, if you will -- not a science book.

Again, many thanks for this very enjoyable point / counterpoint style discussion we've shared. Here: In parting... allow me to present you with a pearl. I will speak only momentarily about "Faith". It's only my faith. It's all mixed up with hope. And trust. My deepest prayer for our great nation, so that the great gashing wounds that have caused all of us to bleed are healed, is simply this.

"Turn our Hearts O LORD." Move the hearts of the Fathers to the Children and the hearts of the Children to the Fathers. Heal this land."

It is the prayer of the friend.
God bless you Barotix.

~Grandpa

No. Life with flight existed, most notably in the Carboniferous era. A quick example would be the giant dragonfly, Meganeura. Not only were they winged, they were also carnivorous predators. In this case, both models cannot compete against each other because they both present the same hypothesis: "Insect population is kept in check by predators who fly."

As I have mentioned earlier, predation is not the only form of interspecific interaction found in nature. There are also others such as parasitism, parasitoidism, and mutualism. Aside from these different interactions that prevented predation to be the only form of population regulation, I have also mentioned the major ones, as you have clearly listed:



I will emphasize it again: Predation is not the only factor that regulates population growth.



The interaction between predator (insects) and prey (plants) is an oscillating density dependent regulation. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that all the insects in the Devonian era are herbivorous, and all the plant life are edible to these foragers. Let's also assume that predation is the only form of interspecific interaction, and also the only form for population regulation. Last, let's also assume that all terrestrial environments are situated in one gigantic island - like a Devonian Pangea. Even then, insects cannot overexploit the plants to the extent of wiping out all them. Here's the scenario:

Plants, being the first to conquer land, are extremely abundant. After the amphibians, the insects follow and due to the large amount of resource, they flourish. The insects' population grows exponentially and starts overexploiting the plants. Eventually, the amount of predator far exceeds the amount of prey. This finally results in starvation, local extinctions, delayed growth and development, low reproduction rate, low fecundity. As the insect population crashes, the plants begin to regain their numbers. The prey becomes abundant once again, with the predator in low numbers. The cycle repeats.

This is an extremely simple model for predator-prey interaction. I have stripped numerous factors from it - factors that could reinforce against the major premise. We do not know the many details of prehistoric life, such as the the insects' diet, the proportion of herbivores and carnivores, the plants' modes of self-defense, the predator and prey's life history traits, microclimates, different terrestrial biospheres, and many more. However, we know enough of the mechanisms of population regulation to conclude that insects, without their modern day predators (if bats existed during the Carboniferous era, they might not be predators for insects, but might even be in competition with them due to size and diet similarity @_@) wouldn't entirely overrun the world.

[It should be noted that insects are currently overriding Earth as they are the most successful Class. >.<"]

Greetings, Prophet Izaach!

I'm getting the idea that your mind is like a steel trap. I can respect that (OUCH). Good job but...

Grandpa takes a deep breath...
The only factors that actually need to be considered are those that exert greater affect¹ on one model over another. Unless we start ascribing intelligence like "nature has her ways" it just doesn't matter. I've never said there were no other factors that could be considered. If the phase of the moon had an affect, it just doesn't matter. If the shape of an island had an affect, it just doesn't matter. If the atmospheric pressure had an affect, it just doesn't matter. If one were not able to Google "insect population density", it just doesn't matter. Comparing fecund insects to the norm just doesn't matter when discussion predation (in the short term). The statements listed that attempt to describe limitations other than "Predation" like "low reproduction rate, low fecundity" are better described as attempts at redundancy than argumentation. Not that I don't like your style, I do. Frankly, the word "Predation" confused me until I looked it up. It means "to date before", right? .cf 1. Predation, meaning Predatory Behavior and 2. WIKI Predation meaning "to date before" or pre-date. Nice pun, even if you didn't mean it.

Reply:
Inductive reasoning starts with a particular observation, in this case, we focused on first appearance order of life in the sea, on the land and life in flight. I constructed one demonstrative model and contrasted it with current thought of the other to be better able to determine likelihoods of each model.

Grandpa takes another breath before making his conciliatory statements...
The real problem that we have to both admit to here and now is that neither theory is observable and neither is directly testable, hence there is no ultimate truth. Otherwise we could put it on youtube and be done with it. My alternative was to show a different way. Cogency is similar to soundness for deductive arguments. I proposed a model that satisfied me. It wasn't stated as the ultimate final absolute truth. I attempted to make "Model B" a predictive model. Not more "true" simply more probable. Scope was limited to 2 main factors: Flight came long before crawling -and- function was given preference over complexity (form). Two competing models must by definition have differences. I wasn't trying to prove one over the other, only trying to see if we could determine one to be more probable than the other. BTW, it is much more difficult to present a cogent (superlative) argument than it is to present a logical one.

Again, I've never asserted that there were no other factors. Only that predators were (and are) a major factor, a significant factor. Had it not been that way the cogency of my argument would have been lost. Occum's Razor would not have applied, and the argument could not have been proven one way or another. I'm not saying that Barotix is wrong, only that one model (it's hypotheotical, in point of fact, both are) can be demonstrated to have greater weight than another as stated herein.

Red Herrings, Smoke screens and Wild goose chases are all logical fallacies.

• Topic A is under discussion.
• Topic B is introduced pretending to be relevant to topic A (when it isn't).
• Topic A is abandoned.

In the meantime, Insect Factoids:
What does the number 10 Quintillion look like?

I don't like the word insectivore, do you have a better term maybe?

Ten Quintillion? I don't get that. Hmmmm... can you tell me how many insects live on like hmmmm... an acre of land?
If there are that many insects, how come I don't see them? Where do they hide?

In terms of agriculture, what is the most destructive insect?

Is there such a thing as a Humanzee (a cross between man and a chimp)???

Do all bats eat insects?


Comparing things like the grazing rates of herd animals (St. Paul Reindeer) to even a single swarm of a million or so locusts just doesn't matter. Saying some plants are poisonous just doesn't matter. You do have a point though, that was something that I didn't state in my original premise but what is so wrong with agreement (that common sense is sufficient here)??? The Scientific Method commonly accepts Occum's Razor. I could have spoken about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (something you didn't include in the opposing theory) as my own red herring - it is applicable, but and again, it just doesn't matter and the Principle of Parsimony itself might object.

"Grandpa, I like the cut of your jib, do you have anything else to say?"

Respectfully, IF we were to go back and attempt to mutually adjust our models as you suggested above for the sake of simplicity, the main assertion you made fails to apply: Your assertion doesn't address mine, seen here.
Evolution lacks any and all quick methods of adaptation sufficient to compensate for the differences.
Allow me to say that again:
Evolution lacks any and all quick methods of adaptation sufficient to compensate for the differences (in the two models):

Mechanics WIKI presents for Evolution:
It's quite possible that in reality it doesn't take 10 Quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) insects to destroy plantlife. Remember locusts? I didn't think that was worth mentioning in response to your St. Paul Reindeer studies at the time, maybe it was.

"Grandpa, tell me more."

By the way, this is the first time that I have ever publicly advanced my ideas (herein called Model B) and I wish the information (both Model A and Model B) would have been around in 1925 during the time of the 'Scopes Monkey Trial'. Not because it would have defeated the Evolution guys but because I honestly believe that mankind would be closer to truth today if it were and they had not gotten sidetracked by so many eristic³ dialogues.

"But, Grandpa, you said your model was "predictive" what did you mean by that?"

If truth is our only hidden agenda it becomes clear: Especially when we classify knowledge, Collaboration is key and Creative Thinkers are absolutely needed.

Grandpa, wait... What IS truth



Gotta go now, I want to test and update my
SRO GUIDE for Newbs

~Grandpa


_______________________________________
[size=85 vs. size=85.3]Footnotes:
Footnote¹ Affect: To have an influence on or effect a change in.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Bartleby.com
Footnote² Literary Dialogue: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. Bartleby.com.
Footnote³ Eristic Dialogue: For the sake my discussion here means human male pee-pee [/size].
Final Footnote: One could cite several ZenHabits.net articles without fear of copyright violation, but it just doesn't matter. I do like their style though.

Question: I don't think you did a good job here (Grandpa), what was your hidden agenda?

Grandpa, give me an example of what you call “non-linear” thinking.


Grandpa, give me an example of what you call “linear” thinking.


Conclusion:
Questions about "Faith" and our "Classification Methods" are related but they are two very different things. Examples such as "how many planets in the solar system?" and "Predation" (both 'Predatory Methodologies' and how we date things) are applicable but neither can be used to prove greater or lesser probability. It should be noted that looking at how and why we do things can help though >.<

Trying to prove the opposing side to be wrong does not prove oneself to be 'right'.

~Grandpa


Unbelief: What is it and what are your thoughts about it?


Grandpa, you talk funny.

Closing Thoughts:

Prophet Izaach, you're attempting a study of Science, n'est-ce pas?
Have you seen the NBIC3_report, entitled "Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations:
Converging Technologies In Society" (published in 2006 by Springer)?

~Grandpa

POST SCRIPT:
Recent email to my son is included here:

The topic "Faith - False or?" was called an "apologists haven".
Many unfounded and biased accusations based have been made.
When it comes down to it, all must agree: Nobody saw, nobody knows.
What is more probable?

I've enjoyed this dialog, thank you.