THE Evolution Thread

[DLH]

Show me macroevolution.

What is that?

This

I see the post, but I do not see a clear explanation of what you are asking to have "proven" to you. Or why the Bible has anything to do with it, for that matter.

I'm not asking for anything to be proven to me. I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means, like this: I think macroevolution is one animal turning into another.

You can call it what you want, you can classify it how you like, what I want to hear, in your own words, is that a bird becomes a lizard or a lizard becomes a bird over blank period of time. We think this because etc.

I don't want to take a college course in economics or biology with all sorts of jargon designed for the field of science it occurs or to confuse and disguise.

The Bible says God created according to kinds.

I can't really ask even critics of the Bible to explain the Biblical creation account because they are only conversant enough on the religious nonsense coming from that enough to know it's stupid, just like when I was taught evolution in school, I knew it was stupid.

What we observe has only ever been grass makes grass, squirrils make squirrels etc. The Biblical kinds are two things making more of the same that may differ slightly. Black people, white people, red people, yellow people, blue people, brown people, etc. Big beaks, little beaks. That's all we have ever observed.

Ever.

 

[DLH]

When Whales Could Walk

Who ya gonna believe, Yay! Hovah-fearin’ DLH or Satantic PBS?

So your little funny image earlier of whales with arms only differs slightly from the once respected PBS? Think about it. If you can. On your own.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH wants a complicated diverse topic reduced to a simplistic biblical kind of passage.

Archeology
Paleontology
Biology
Physic
Genetics

You will not get a picture from a few posts or links if you are looking for the basis of evolution theory.

The basic idea is all life evolved from simple organisms through mutation and natural selection. Over long periods of time.

To begin with if you look at the marine and land fossils the idea that humans could have survived with that life is ridiculous. You would not want to drop a net off a boat trolling for fish.

The first thing you may want to look at is the evolutionary tree tracing back as far as the fossil record goes. All the branches. And the time line. That alone will keep you busy for a while.


No math or classroom time required, just time and effort to learn.

DLH posts more random links, he revels in his ignorance as if he is confounding us.

 

[pood]

Show me macroevolution.

What is that?

This

I see the post, but I do not see a clear explanation of what you are asking to have "proven" to you. Or why the Bible has anything to do with it, for that matter.

I'm not asking for anything to be proven to me. I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means, like this: I think macroevolution is one animal turning into another.

You can call it what you want, you can classify it how you like, what I want to hear, in your own words, is that a bird becomes a lizard or a lizard becomes a bird over blank period of time. We think this because etc.

I don't want to take a college course in economics or biology with all sorts of jargon designed for the field of science it occurs or to confuse and disguise.

The Bible says God created according to kinds.

I can't really ask even critics of the Bible to explain the Biblical creation account because they are only conversant enough on the religious nonsense coming from that enough to know it's stupid, just like when I was taught evolution in school, I knew it was stupid.

What we observe has only ever been grass makes grass, squirrils make squirrels etc. The Biblical kinds are two things making more of the same that may differ slightly. Black people, white people, red people, yellow people, blue people, brown people, etc. Big beaks, little beaks. That's all we have ever observed.

Ever.

Ahem

 

[Politesse]

I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means

You want someone else to tell you what you mean by a term you asked us to provide evidence for?

 

[DLH]

I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means

You want someone else to tell you what you mean by a term you asked us to provide evidence for?

I want YOU (the collective or royal you, rather than you specifically) to tell me where YOU THINK the Bible and evolutionary biology differ in principle. And by principle, I mean fundamental source or basis rather than scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field.

Can YOU do that? Can you even understand that?

 

[Politesse]

I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means

You want someone else to tell you what you mean by a term you asked us to provide evidence for?

I want YOU (the collective or royal you, rather than you specifically) to tell me where the Bible and evolutionary biology differ in principle. And by principle, I mean fundamental source or basis rather than scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field.

Can YOU do that? Can you even understand that?

The Bible is a collection of books about cultural history, mythology, and spirituality. It neither affirms nor contradicts evolutionary theory. Why would it? Biology is not the primary topic of any section of the Christian Bible, and it sets forth no "principles" of biological study or theory. Nor is evolutionary theory a question of "principles", at least, no more or less so than any other branch of scientific inquiry.

As for whether I understand you, no. You have not made yourself in any way clear. In fact, you seem to be obviously contradicting yourself at least every other post, and sometimes in the same post. For instance, when you insist that "religious nonsense" is not a valid line of argument, but then in the same post dump a bunch of random Bible verses as though they were evidence of something. I cannot cultivate a clear understanding of your claims, if you yourself do not have a clear or consistent understanding of what you are writing about.

But if you are asking me to explain how evolutionary biology is not a "scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field", then you are asking for something that cannot be done. Evolutionary theory is in fact a scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field. It's never been anything else, nor is there any reason to suppose it might not be. How could the mechanism by which the diversity and flexibility of the biosphere is explained be anything other than a scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field?

And you have not answered my question, which was very simple: define your term "macroevolution", please.

 

[pood]

I'm not stupid. I want someone - anyone - to tell me what it means

You want someone else to tell you what you mean by a term you asked us to provide evidence for?

I want YOU (the collective or royal you, rather than you specifically) to tell me where YOU THINK the Bible and evolutionary biology differ in principle. And by principle, I mean fundamental source or basis rather than scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field.

Can YOU do that? Can you even understand that?

Funny you keep ignoring this.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bible creation account". If you could state this in very simple terms, we could gradually increase the complexity of the conversation.

The Genesis Creation Account, found in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, presents the biblical narrative of the origins of the universe, the earth, and humanity. This account is foundational to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God as the Creator and sustainer of all things. It is divided into two primary sections: the six days of creation and the creation of humanity, followed by the seventh day of rest. Source

Six days doesn't seem like nearly enough time.

I am perfectly ready to reconsider evolution, if you can explain the time frame of the six day creation scenario, specifically, how many six day time periods have elapsed since then?

Are we supposed to infer that creation stopped after seven days? The problem is, we can observe natural processes, especially geological processes and measure their progress. For example, very old seashells can be found in mountains which are thousands of feet above sea level. This raises a question. Were the mountains created with bare sea shells in them, or were living mollusks placed in mountain strata, where they quickly died for lack of water? If on the other hand, it took millions of years for a seabed to rise high enough to be a mountain, six days is obviously not enough time.


Using current observations, between the rise in the land mass and the erosive effect of the Colorado River, it has taken between 5 to 6 million years to create the Grand Canyon. Was the Canyon formed in the original six days, or was it just a flat plain, and then allowed to follow its natural course? Does the six day scenario allow enough time for this?

 

[steve_bank]

In principle biblical creationism is inconsistent with TOE. Period.

Some ancient Hebrew observed camels do;;t produce humans and humans don't produce birds and said a god created kinds, so what? That says nothing about evolution.

An anisette Greek postulated all life began in the sea.

Geology, archeology, and paleontology show the biblical accounts and the time lines are false.

The only recourse for creationists is to refute tested and demonstrated science.

 

[excreationist]

@DLH
In post #34 I talked about where evolution differs from the Bible in very simple terms. What do you think?

 

[DLH]

Learning to make and control fire is science. As is learning to harden wooden spears with fire. Bows and arrows.

No. It isn't. Science investigates the world. For example, people were boiling water for various reasons long before science investigated how or why it works. You're thinking of technology. Sometimes technology produces something science doesn't understand or even strongly opposes. Mechanical flight and germ theory, for example.

Not a Scientific Cosmology:
It's important to note that biblical cosmology is not a scientific theory about the universe but rather a theological framework for understanding God's creation

I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in what modern-day apostate Judaism or Christianity say about anything unless I can get from it where understanding of the Bible might be right or wrong. If you want to argue with me, you have to understand this because I'm not going to defend what they or the JWs or anyone else think unless it happens to be what I think.

The Three-Part World:
The Hebrew Bible depicts a world with the heavens (shamayim) above, Earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.

You're convoluting, I think, Hebrew words with the theology of modern-day Judaism, the latter of which isn't necessarily scripturally supported. I originally had a response to this that was much more articulate and specific, with links etc. but I fucked it up and it's gone. Suffice it to say that shamayim (heavens) means high. Concepts like the seven heavens are theological and not necessarily supported by scripture but rather tradition.

The Bible teaches that heaven means high. Put your hand above your head and you are literally reaching into the (physical) heavens. Erets (Hebrew) or ge (Greek) is earth and its various applications. Soil, the world, the planet, etc. Ge being where we get geological, geography etc.

Sheol is the common grave. Greek Hades, Latin Infernus. Various origins have been suggested for Sheol, usually having to do with insatiable inquiry. It asks for everyone. Hades means unseen place, hell means covering, Infernus means beneath or lower region.

IOW the u verse goes around the Earth which is wrong.

Sometimes I don't know if you are just obtuse or you just think you are not nearly as clever as you like to think. Or both.

How you get one from the other there in that conclusion baffles me. The u verse goes around the earth? Are you talking about Galileo and the inquisition?

According to a traditional biblical timeline, Noah's flood is believed to have occurred around 2348 BC.

It varies; 2370-69. I have all of that posted here somewhere. I'm not going to look it up.

Given the time frame and only the crew of the Ark and its creatures on board all the pant and animal genetic biodiversity and all the major civilizations would have had

Let me just stop you right there. You can't present articles of faith to argue other articles of faith. It's he said she said.

 

[DLH]

@DLH
In post #34 I talked about where evolution differs from the Bible in very simple terms. What do you think?

Hold on. Just a second. Let me look. Like the avatar, by the way.

 

[DLH]

Also macroevolution is said to take millions of years but it seems the Bible says that life was created a couple of days before humans were.

The Bible doesn't indicate an age for the universe. It doesn't state it directly nor even imply such a thing so no contradiction for the ever-changing estimation of science regarding the age of the earth and universe can be established. There's no argument. Whatever science says is acceptable.

The term day, first of all, doesn't occur until after the creation is complete. The structure of the Hebrew bara (created) is perfect, complete, at Genesis 1:1. I could link you to my own translation of Genesis 1:1 but I took my site down. Okay, I knew I could find it somewhere. Here. I may have even posted it here. I can't keep track of it, I don't even bother trying anymore.

Some of the font is wonky due to the older format, but this will do.

Spoiler: Genesis Chapter 1

[Genesis 1:1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

[Genesis 1:2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

[Genesis 1:3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

[Genesis 1:4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

[Genesis 1:5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15)

The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

[Genesis 1:6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.� - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.

[Genesis 1:7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

[Genesis 1:11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses.

In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.

[Genesis 1:14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [3]

The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term “sign� is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect. See What The Bible Says About Astrology and Does The Bible Condemn Astrology?

[Genesis 1:16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [1]

[Genesis 1:20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul.

[21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish.

[Genesis 1:24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah).

[Genesis 1:25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.

[Genesis 1:26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.

[Genesis 1:27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God’s image, and thus deserving respect.

[Genesis 1:31] God’s creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn’t God’s purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven.

The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

 

[excreationist]

The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

"may have lasted thousands or even millions of years". But apparently the earth and the universe are billions of years old.

The Bible doesn't indicate an age for the universe. It doesn't state it directly nor even imply such a thing

Then why did Ussher and Answers in Genesis say it was about 6000 years old?

In answer to your original question about evolution and the Bible I also said:

"Genesis 1 repeats ten times that God created creatures separately according to various “kinds.” Today’s species show the potential variation that God designed within the original kinds, but this variety remains limited—cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs." [i.e. no macroevolution]

 

[steve_bank]

DLH
The word science lie many categorical words are is highly contextual.

Science as contrasted to religion and metaphysics is based in numerical quantification and repeatable exp-merriment open to interdependent evaluation.

In the 90s a claim was made of successful cold fusion, if true it would have had major impacts It quickly went global on the net. Within a few days the claim was refuted globally, the alleged experiment could not be repeated.

In contrast beliefs like god answering prayers is a subjective perception not sublet to testing. If you pary and you get a good result it is a miracle. If you get nothing then maybe god has other pans for you, and so on.

As someone with education in and a life of applying science to put it unscientifically, you have your head up your ass.

From observation of the fossil record and archeology of the human past it is obvious that biblical creationism is false. There is little leeway for interpretation.

 

[Learner]

All of that is true, but don’t forget—according to Watchtower theology, a ‘day’ in the Genesis creation account refers to eons of time.

NHC

On day 3 it says vegetation was created while on day 4 the sun, moon, and stars were created (or "revealed"). There seems to be a problem if it took more than a day between day 3 and day 4...
BTW

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

When I was working in construction, we were building a new house. The house was dark without light - we had to use lights powered by a generator in order to continue with the building. The electrics and gas systems were installed a little after. If you are asking from the hypothecal according to Genesis. God would be that Light source himself. There's no confliction with the theology.

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

This "tract" promotes old-earth creationism:

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

Not making an agument here with this idea, but...I have had the curiosity and wondered even before I became a believer (I mentioned on another thread with you with a similar topic): Why there aren't many people (if at all) who are also 'in the controversy' promoting the ages between the two extreme opposing ends, i.e. A Goldy Locks princlple, if you will. The age of time not being so old, and not being so young, but just right. One of the spanners-in-the-works about many millions and millions of years for me 'back then' was rapid fossilization or flash fossilization.

 

[excreationist]

When I was working in construction, we were building a new house. The house was dark without light - we had to use lights powered by a generator in order to continue with the building. The electrics and gas systems were installed a little after. If you are asking from the hypothecal according to Genesis. God would be that Light source himself. There's no confliction with the theology.

Yes and in Revelation 21:23 and 22:5, God's light is compared to the sun. I think that was partly because people would worship the sun but God is saying that the sun isn't that important.

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

This "tract" promotes old-earth creationism:

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

Not making an agument here with this idea, but...I have had the curiosity and wondered even before I became a believer (I mentioned on another thread with you with a similar topic): Why there aren't many people (if at all) who are also 'in the controversy' promoting the ages between the two extreme opposing ends, i.e. A Goldy Locks princlple, if you will. The age of time not being so old, and not being so young, but just right. One of the spanners-in-the-works about many millions and millions of years for me 'back then' was rapid fossilization or flash fossilization.

Well I think our world was probably created a couple of decades ago... (as part of a simulation) but it gives the impression that it is billions of years old. BTW it is spelt "goldilocks".

 

[Learner]

When I was working in construction, we were building a new house. The house was dark without light - we had to use lights powered by a generator in order to continue with the building. The electrics and gas systems were installed a little after. If you are asking from the hypothecal according to Genesis. God would be that Light source himself. There's no confliction with the theology.

Yes and in Revelation 21:23 and 22:5, God's light is compared to the sun. I think that was partly because people would worship the sun but God is saying that the sun isn't that important.

Thats an interesting thought. What was quite interesting for me was, the description tells us the Sun and Moon are not gods or intelligent entities, like it is with many religions who worship them. It describes acurately the Sun and Moon as being Calender Markers as shown in the verses below.

Psalms 104:19
He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knows its place of setting.

Genesis 1:14
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

This "tract" promotes old-earth creationism:

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

Not making an agument here with this idea, but...I have had the curiosity and wondered even before I became a believer (I mentioned on another thread with you with a similar topic): Why there aren't many people (if at all) who are also 'in the controversy' promoting the ages between the two extreme opposing ends, i.e. A Goldy Locks princlple, if you will. The age of time not being so old, and not being so young, but just right. One of the spanners-in-the-works about many millions and millions of years for me 'back then' was rapid fossilization or flash fossilization.

Well I think our world was probably created a couple of decades ago... (as part of a simulation) but it gives the impression that it is billions of years old. BTW it is spelt "goldilocks".

Pardon me, I sensed 'Goldy Locks' didn't seem quite right some how. Cheers for higlighting.

Its funny, I just saw the Matrix (again) just last week. I still find it a fascinating concept. Who knows?

 

[steve_bank]

That the ancient Hebrews used the Sun and Moon as alanderss is s far from unique, and proves