The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Berzerker
People were made in the gods image first, Adam and Eve is a story about two people one God made for his Garden after people were living in the world.
It's an interesting question to ask when the scientific community changed their views on the subject.
The scientific method operates on the process of CHANGE in theories, through observation, experiemntation, and so forth.
To say that a scientific theory is invalidated because scientists modify a theory, or create an entirely new theory based on NEW knowledge and facts speaks of your ignorance of how the scientific method works.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
yup, the Sumerian story has us being created in Africa (which is a plausible and logical location for Enki's Apsu but the Edin was somewhere around the fertile crescent and belonged to his brother Enlil - they didn't always get along and may be the origin of the antagonism between God and Satan.
One theory has it that Enlil got mad at Enki for teaching or enabling his pets to procreate. Enki's symbol is the Serpent, so we see another contradiction in the Bible - The Serpent is condemned but Jesus tells his followers to be wise as the Serpent. Aint really a contradiction if you know the two story lines.
So for example when would you date Cain and Abel with respect to that new "archaeological evidence" called the dinosaurs?
There is a really smart theory that ascribes much of the mythology relating to monsters and battling dragons to ancient peoples finding the fossils of dinosaurs and freaking out. The Griffin looks alot like a dinosaur found in that region of the world.
The general interpretation and the one that I believe in myself is that the days in which Genesis refers to can also be eons, or an indeterminate period of time.
Super. And what method, rigorously applied, enabled you to arrive at this conclusion ?
Days in Genesis= whatever we want them to mean when it suits us.
A great substitute for calculating, quantifying, measuring et cetera.
The free form approach to science and religion.
If only I'd known physics was that easy in school, I'd never have bothered with all those formulae and S.I. units.
Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.
...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915
As for your example of Cain, well that one is difficult to understand.
Not if you accept that the Bible is myth, and not a historical documentary.
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.
Cain kills his brother Abel, and lo! Cain goes to dwell in the Land of Nod and incestuously reproduce part of the human race with Mrs. Cain- who suddenly makes her first appearance.
Not exactly the busiest list of dramatis personae in the world, is it, FOUR people ?
Mummy, Daddy, and their two male offspring ? Then just when she's needed, there's Mrs. Cain- who is presumably, either the offsrping of Adam and Eve, or the offspring of Cain and Eve or Abel and Eve.
But we don't know, because it's not until Cain gets to Nodland that she appears- conveniently.
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 ¶ And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis 4
Note- it doesn't state that Cain took his wife with him to Nod.
Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.
...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915
Gen1: creation of the earth
Gen2: creation of the garden of Ede
6 day creation? Genesis 1 speaks about a 7 day creation, but the story is cleary to be token spiritual or symbolical, not literally.
6000 years? Well, the Bible doesn't try to give an age of the earth anywhere. People try to add dates to each other and claim that the sum is the date of the earth according to the Bible, but the Bible doesn't claim to be complete anywhere.
Having said that, I don't believe in a billion years old earth either. I think it may be somewhere between 6000 (at least) and 25000.
I'm not sure if we should take anything prior the flood literally anyway. Not that it didn't happen, but it didn't nessecarily happen in that way. (still talking 'according to the Bible')
Gen 1-5 morely try to paint:
1. God is the creator of heaven and earth (it doesn't explain how he did it)
2. Mankind wanted to be autonome and decide over good and evil themselves. ( I don't think it's a must to take the story of Genesis 3 literally)
3. Mankind corrupted and things became a mess.
The Bible is not a modern science book, and people shouldn't try to use it as a modern science book. Having said that, Evolution is the modern science for age old materialism as well. To me people who try to explain billion years old stuff through todays observations are as crazy as people who try to explain Genesis 1 through modern observation. The arrogance that we can look that far back without a 99% change of error is amazing.
Adam and Eve get Kaïn and Abel. After Kaïn slays his brother, he goes in exile to another tribe.
I'm not sure if we should take this story literally, but let's just do it, if not only for the sake that it is easilly possible to come with an explanation for the above.
1. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect.
2. Their children were very very close to being perfect, therefor brothers and sisters multiplying was not a problem.
3. Adam and Eve got many children after Cain and Abel (the Bible says so)
4. Adam and Eve were biologically perfect (or close to perfect) and most probably got a child at least once a year.
5. Seth was born as a 'replacement' of Abel when Adam was 130, let's say that Abel was murdered when Adam was 128.
6. people could grow old because genetically perfectness and a different environment
7. Thus, Adam and Eve have multiplied every year for 128 years long, that's 128 children.
8. 128 children (let's say 50% man, 50% woman) were able to reproduce from the age of 12 years.
That means that on average Adam and Eve's children got 3364 children (see calculation below)
128 children
64 women
58 women who reached the age to multiply (64 - 50% of 12)
128 - 12 = 116 years to multiply at most, 0 years to multiply at least. That's on avg 58 children per child of Adam and Eve
58 x 58 = 3364 3rd generation children already
9. The 4th generation was able to reproduce after 24 years. After 128 years there were already 10 generations!!!!
You can calculate yourself to see that after 100 eyars it's easily possible to have at least hundreds (other tribes) of people on earth, and at most tens of thousands.
once again, I'm very fine with not taking the first chapters of Genesis not literally, and maybe I don't do that myself as well (didn't decide yet ), but there are explanations. The question is not if it's possible, the question is if it's likely.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
Also active on WePlayCiv.
This is science as assertion is it, not science from observable evidence....
Who did the D.N.A. study, in which laboratory?
like I said in my post, I explain how the Bible sees stuff. It doesn't matter if that's scientific been proven or not.
What matters in here is if the Bible is consistent or not. If the Bible is inconsistent in itself, then it has a problem.
Your response shows that you don't understand what this kinda debates are about. It can even slam back on you since nobody has tested the dna of billions of 'between' forms (if I may name them like that) in which the evolutionists believe anyway.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Originally posted by Berzerker
It is interesting how the first creation of man - let us make man in our image - doesn't really state a purpose for man other than to fill the earth. But the second version does - slave labor. Those passages do seem in conflict with the first version, but the second creation is more specific - it deals with Edin/Eden and God's garden. The Mesopotamian version says we were to do the work so the gods didn't have to and that this happened by "mixing" the blood of the annunaki (lower tiered gods) with a creature roaming the plains in Enki's Apsu (southern waters/lands).
By filtering and manipulating ten thousand years of myth, it's easy to support your wacky view that humans were created by aliens as servants.
What's this 'Mesopotamian version' you speak of? The (earlier) Sumerian version says that the gods created the humans out of clay. But that's not sufficiently close to evolution, so you go for the much later Babylonian version instead.
Originally posted by CyberShy
To me people who try to explain billion years old stuff through todays observations are as crazy as people who try to explain Genesis 1 through modern observation. The arrogance that we can look that far back without a 99% change of error is amazing.
You don't understand science at all
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF
That's obviously the easiest response one can give.
"Someone says something that goes totally against my opinion in, he most probably doesn't have a clue, while I have!"
I do very well understand science, my friend.
And I do also very well understand that we, humans, are only a very small part of the universe, and our direct observance only spans a very limited period, that our knowledge is only a small fraction of all knowledge there is to be known. I do not oppose science, I'd say that I'm happy with it! That we can't be sure now doesn't mean that we shouldn't proceed to try to discovered the truth. But we shouldn't be that @#!% arrogant about ourselves and keep thinking that we, tiny little humans with tiny little knowledge, know that much.
And that counts for both creationists and evolutionists.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
1. God is the creator of heaven and earth (it doesn't explain how he did it)
It explains how God made the land - he gathered together the waters under the firmament into Seas and fixed their borders revealing the land. The Heaven was used to divide the waters, the waters above from the waters below.
By filtering and manipulating ten thousand years of myth, it's easy to support your wacky view that humans were created by aliens as servants.
Thats what they said about our origins... Call it myth, religion, or wackiness, but they said it, not me.
What's this 'Mesopotamian version' you speak of? The (earlier) Sumerian version says that the gods created the humans out of clay. But that's not sufficiently close to evolution, so you go for the much later Babylonian version instead.
Clay mixed with the blood of the Anunaki and a creature roaming the Apsu. Accuse me of lying?
Tweet
Comment