Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED

[Molly]

I thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection.  Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.

 Yes, transition.


Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


It disappeared at ad 70.

[WhiteWings]

Molly "In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light."
I never liked the way people give satan (the adversary) so much power just by their speak.
The adversary is ALLOWED to rule...

But that doesn't lessen his power. Satan is even called a god.
(2 Corinthians 4:4) In whom, the god of this age, hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to the end they may not discern the radiance of the glad卜essage of the glory of the Christ末who is the image of God.

[Doug]

I thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection.  Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.

 Yes, transition.


Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


It disappeared at ad 70.

The old temple, made with hands, was destroyed; the Levitical priesthood disappeared. They were "shadows" of good things to come. Christ is our high priest in heaven, Hebrews 8:1; the saints are the true temple, Ephesians 2:19-22; and the "circumcision," Paul said in Philippians 3:3.

In the new covenant, which is made with Israel, God promises that he will write his laws on our hearts and in our minds.

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The "house of Israel" refers to the church, not the circumcision made with hands.

Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul said Christ is "a minister of the circumcision," but he means the circumcision "made without hands." [Colossians 2:11]

Doug

[micah7:9]

Molly "In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light."
I never liked the way people give satan (the adversary) so much power just by their speak.
The adversary is ALLOWED to rule...

But that doesn't lessen his power. Satan is even called a god.
(2 Corinthians 4:4) In whom, the god of this age, hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to the end they may not discern the radiance of the glad卜essage of the glory of the Christ末who is the image of God.

Yes that is true, but we are also called gods
Psa 82:6  I--I have said, `Gods ye are , And sons of the Most High--all of you,
I still contend that it is mans speak that allows the advesary power in this age.

[WhiteWings]

For me there is a difference. Just feeling:

"Man are gods"  --> Here gods is a type/species
"Satan is god of this age" --> Here god is about authority

 

[Molly]

I still contend that it is mans speak that allows the advesary power in this age.

Interesting, Micah, if you could keep elaborating on that...

[Molly]

I thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection.  Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.

 Yes, transition.


Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


It disappeared at ad 70.

The old temple, made with hands, was destroyed; the Levitical priesthood disappeared. They were "shadows" of good things to come. Christ is our high priest in heaven, Hebrews 8:1; the saints are the true temple, Ephesians 2:19-22; and the "circumcision," Paul said in Philippians 3:3.

In the new covenant, which is made with Israel, God promises that he will write his laws on our hearts and in our minds.

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The "house of Israel" refers to the church, not the circumcision made with hands.

Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul said Christ is "a minister of the circumcision," but he means the circumcision "made without hands." [Colossians 2:11]

Doug

 

This idea of ages and one age preparing for and leading into the next changes how everythink looks.

Everything starts to make sense, and God's plan for salvation is so much bigger than most could grasp without the understanding of it.

[Molly]

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


Death reigned--Death is the king of this kosmos [system] and many choose to worship him--

"reigned"

G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.

G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.


This kosmos--system--has death as its foundation of power.


G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.


And those that walk in it [this kosmos--this system] are walking in death--dead men walking.


Isaiah 59:7
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.



OK I'll make it about science--They split the atom which could provide free energy to the whole world but what do they do with it?  Incinerate two cities in ten seconds.

Science itself is part of this system, and scientists its high priests, therefore everything coming out of science is twisted and distorted towards perpetrating the system and serving death.   It is not science in the pure sense that is incompatible with religion, it is science within a distorted system ruled by death which makes itself so.



5Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.
 
 6Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.

 7How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

--Isa 57

[shawn]

The oldest human bones found are 195,000 years old.

What do you mean by 'human'?

We've been down this road before on these boards, Shawn.  We've talked about gap theory, hidden archeology, suppressed science, all sorts of things related to this subject.

I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.

If homo sapiens sapiens has been around for 195,000 years, where are the great civilizations?  where are the mozarts, the newtons, the shakespeares?  

The best we can do in all that time is a few cave drawings and a couple of pyramids?

Why are we still moving around in glorified model-T's?

Really, the birthplace of modern civilization was Mesopotamia around and about the time that Adam would have lived.  

So why hundreds of thousands of years of....silence?

Good question.  Now we can take a stubborn stance and say science has nothing to offer those of faith.  Or, we can actually look at the evidence, which I believe are clue given to us by God (not man).  We know there were humans of a more primative form for hundreds of thousands of years.  200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth.  But, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc.  It was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities.  All the while, humans were dying.  Animals were dying around them, before them and after them in the fossil record.  Hard to blend that with current interpretation by many with original sin.  But, it's not because I believe Genesis is a nonliteral accounting for real spiritual truths.

I believe Adam was the first convenant man.  Eve was the first covenant woman.  If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.  I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal. 

[WhiteWings]

(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,末I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.

Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)

[Molly]

I believe Adam was the first convenant man.  Eve was the first covenant woman.  If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.  I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal.  

I could agree with that.  I think its a good place to start.  But, maybe there was another previous covenant man.  If there is a war going on in heaven that spans ages, wouldn't that be possible? What if we are just being shown a part of the picture, the one most relevant to us?

"In the beginning"  [Gen 1:1] means 'firstfruits.'

H7225
ראשׁית
rê'shıyth
ray-sheeth'
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.


"The 'ĕlôhıym of the firstfruits created heaven and earth." [Gen 1:1, mollybible]


1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth.

Are you sure about that? Would you bet the farm on it?

But, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc.

Why would that be?  Any reasonable scientific explanation for it?

 

It was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities.

Like what?

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

Adam needed a set apart woman like himself, plus Eve was effectively his clone.



23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

--Gen 2

[micah7:9]

The Barringer crater or what they call the Arizona crater.
It's about a mile in diameter, it's a pretty good size hole and it's a recent one. They think this one hit 49,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the power of a hundred and fifty atomic booms. That is how much power is in that.
 
'You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood.' (L.Ray Smith)

L.Ray Smith has a great amount of info on the subject you all are into should you want to look into it.

[WhiteWings]

!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow.

Darwian evolution is extremely slow.(and false) Ever wondered what is means if the so called missing links are never found?

James I think this part of the thread needs to be merged with the science thread.

[WhiteWings]

You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood.

Two things I agree with.

[shawn]

Again, this is man trying to reason out God's thinking.

I'm using scriptures to support my hypothesis, but yet you turn to the science gods and call it Gods thinking?

 There is purpose even unto death.

Yes in todays covenant, for God reveals his love through death. But where is the love of God when God decided to create  a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death?


 In order for you to believe what you believe then you must ignore scientific findings.  If you are comfortable with that then so be it.

I only ignore some scientific findings that change just about every year, swaying back and forth with no stability, how can I put my faith in scientific findings that waiver back and forth as the sea.

 With that said, I truly believe the study of God's handiwork is significant in a fuller understanding of scripture.  We are now able to be blown away by the breath taking complexity of a living cell, DNA etc.  I see the hand of our loving Father all over it.  In my sense of awe I find worship.  For me, science has brought me closer to my maker

Me to, but not the theory of evolution over millions of years, shows that God subjected creation through millions of years of suffering? without hope? where is the prophecy that indicates that Adam will be created to put an end to death? The scriptures declare that it is the second Adam , the lord from heaven that puts an end to death, not the first Adam, for death was not at that time in force.

When a potter places a lump of clay on the potters wheel, it looks nothing like the vase he is creating.  As he moves his hands along the surface it slowly takes shape and begins to look like a vase.  It's not functional, it's not a complete vase but it's moving along.  Then at the end, the clay has taken shape and looks and functions like a vase.  It's now a vase.  It can be used.  It's the potter's handiwork...maybe even his masterpiece.  In the same way, man was formed slowly through time on the potters wheel.  Early man, was not in God's image.  He wasn't complete...slowly taking shape overtime.  If Adam was indeed a real man (which I am not sure he was) then he was the first man God considered complete....covenant man....in God's image

So at what point did man evolve enough to become worthy enough to be called Adam in his image.

!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow. So at what point did man change enough to be called Adam made in his image.

My point is that evolution is an unstable theory that cannot be reconcilled to the scriptures according to our current understanding. Perhaps our understanding of the scriptures is incorrect, but the same can be applied to the theory of evolution.

Let the truth of the creator of heaven and earth be shed upon this topic in his name.

First, don't debate me like you are debating Willie or this will end here.  Second, I don't turn to "science gods" nor is the study of God's creation the "devils work".  If you believe it is we have no room to debate.  You turn to your own idea of scripture...you turn to your interpretations.  While everyone wants to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit into correctly looking at each scripture...I'm not sure how that could be so considering there are so many interpretations.

Your secong point...is you again judging God.  Whether God considered creation perfect with death or without death is not really the point.  The fact is our all knowing God created the world before us.  This world contains death, pain, despair, etc.  This is part of God's plan.  Therefore you judge God with comments like, "But where is the love of God when God decided to create  a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death"?  If the world before you is used for God's purpose and he is still holy, good and loving...why would that change before creation of man?  Is God not sovereign?

Your third point...no you ignore the VAST bodies of scientific evidence to believe in a 6000 year old earth.  YEC scientists are practicing pseudo science with points that are easily crushed by anyone with basic science knowledge.  I can't see how any educated person who has any sort of background in the sciences could believe in such nonsense.  It's groups like this that make Christians look like uneducated maroons.

Your fourth point about it being painful slow cracks me up a bit.  Painfully slow to who?  God?  Thats kind of funny.  Do you believe God is bound by time?  

And let me be clear I am not a Neo-Darwinist.  But, there are some evolutionary principles that have been demonstrated.  I do not believe man started out as an amoeba.  I believe man started out as man...just a primitive form of man.

.

[shawn]

(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,末I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.

Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)

One of inferior intellect?  And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.

[shawn]

I believe Adam was the first convenant man.  Eve was the first covenant woman.  If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.  I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal.  

I could agree with that.  I think its a good place to start.  But, maybe there was another previous covenant man.  If there is a war going on in heaven that spans ages, wouldn't that be possible? What if we are just being shown a part of the picture, the one most relevant to us?

"In the beginning"  [Gen 1:1] means 'firstfruits.'

H7225
ראשׁית
rê'shıyth
ray-sheeth'
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.


"The 'ĕlôhıym of the firstfruits created heaven and earth." [Gen 1:1, mollybible]


1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth.

Are you sure about that? Would you bet the farm on it?

But, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc.

Why would that be?  Any reasonable scientific explanation for it?

 

It was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities.

Like what?

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

Adam needed a set apart woman like himself, plus Eve was effectively his clone.



23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

--Gen 2

Would I bet the farm on it?  Depends on how exact you are talking.  But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.

They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings.  I'm not sure what you want from your other question.  But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller?  I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.

[WhiteWings]

(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,末I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.

Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)

One of inferior intellect?  And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.

I'm not stating what you do (not) believe. I just state when we read Adam it's often mankind. Like in God created man and woman --> many of each.
I know nothing about their intellect. But as I wrote before if Tubal-Cain invented bronze (bronze age) I think (not dogmaticly state) Adam and Eve where at stone age level.

[shawn]

(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,末I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.

If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.

If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.

Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)

One of inferior intellect?  And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.

I'm not stating what you do (not) believe. I just state when we read Adam it's often mankind. Like in God created man and woman --> many of each.
I know nothing about their intellect. But as I wrote before if Tubal-Cain invented bronze (bronze age) I think (not dogmaticly state) Adam and Eve where at stone age level.

Ok cool I can agree with that.  But, that means I don't understand your original question.  God created covenant mankind (men and women) in his image.  Would God's image lie with someone not of God's image? 

[Lefein]

The Bible never talks about how plants, and lower animals came about.  A myriad of things could be used there, from evolution, to kinds-adaptation.

But it says Man was made from the dust of the ground, Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens are not all that different if I recall correctly...recent things I've seen showed inter breeding was actually possible - and that we may indeed have their genetic structure in us today.

Only two "species" of Human have ever been found in the fossil record in any form of completeness (as far as I know): Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon.

Neanderthal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy

Cro-Magnon: Also known as the first "Modern Humans" Homo Sapiens.

It may be possible that these two indeed are not separate species, and not primitive at all really...Not biologically atleast, no more than the African tribesman is a primitive life form to the Japanese engineer.

But I guess what I am trying to get to, is that while animals are not specifically talked about in terms of how they where made, and variations amongst them enough to show evolution (theistic) - I don't believe it is the way evolution puts it...

Primitive/simple > complex.  Ancient life looks far more complex, and in many ways far more beautiful, and interesting compared to our animals...

Like Elephants:

http://phsgirard.org/Biology/Evolution/ElephantEvolution.jpg

They're rather neat looking...but none of them I'd call "simple->complex" just artistically different.

Man I think would inevitably be the same.  Complex from the beginning, but I need to do more study into man's "Emergence" specifically.

I'm looking into the ISA2 for insight right now.  But I'll only say this - focus on what the ISA2 texts say concerning the soil - Dust, I believe/feel it will prove useful.  I unfortunately don't have the energy to transcribe it here...if someone can do that for me, I'd be thankful.

[WhiteWings]

Would I bet the farm on it?  Depends on how exact you are talking.  But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.

They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings.  I'm not sure what you want from your other question.  But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller?  I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.

I think Adam was not that old. The first homids were just collectors.
(Genesis 2:8) And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east,末and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,末to till the ground wherefrom he had been taken.
Adam and Eve worked in the garden. They tilled the ground that's farming.
Farming started 10,000-8,500 BC
So my strong guess is that's their birth date.

The article states farming started in Syria. It's believed Eden was in Iraq. See the rivers in on the above map. Not the exact location but still nice it happend near the promised land.

[thinktank]

First, don't debate me like you are debating Willie or this will end here.

I don't understand? is it because I use the terms science gods and bring it to your face? do you prefer it if I were more subtle and said you prefer to follow what scientists say than what the word says? If so then I will try to be more subtle with you, but please bare with me.

 Second, I don't turn to "science gods" nor is the study of God's creation the "devils work".  If you believe it is we have no room to debate.

Science is not devils work, I don't agree with that type of religious thinking and I am opposed to it, for it breeds ignorance and hatred of the truth. But the scriptures when read correctly should  bring great spiritual truths to even the most foolish of persons, given that they seek God with a true heart and welcome the truth, otherwise they are just modern day pharisses, knowing the scriptures but not knowing the lord of the scriptures.


 You turn to your own idea of scripture...you turn to your interpretations.  While everyone wants to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit into correctly looking at each scripture...I'm not sure how that could be so considering there are so many interpretations.

When it comes to the creation of the world there are not many interpretations. I can see how the gap theory might fit in, but evolution? I don't see any interpretation of the bible supporting evolution.

Your secong point...is you again judging God.  Whether God considered creation perfect with death or without death is not really the point.  The fact is our all knowing God created the world before us.  This world contains death, pain, despair, etc.  This is part of God's plan.  Therefore you judge God with comments like, "But where is the love of God when God decided to create  a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death"?  If the world before you is used for God's purpose and he is still holy, good and loving...why would that change before creation of man?  Is God not sovereign?

This is a general question I ask to put things in perspective. The scriptures declare that death came by Adam's transgression, by saying that death existed prior to this is adding to the scriptures, something that the scriptures says not to do. There are many things in life not contained in the scriptures, but is God the author of confusion? Why didn't God say there was death before Adam?

Your third point...no you ignore the VAST bodies of scientific evidence to believe in a 6000 year old earth.  YEC scientists are practicing pseudo science with points that are easily crushed by anyone with basic science knowledge.  I can't see how any educated person who has any sort of background in the sciences could believe in such nonsense.  It's groups like this that make Christians look like uneducated maroons.

I have heard this saying before from evolutionists, that any fool with basic science can crush a YEC scholar. This is nothing more than vain babblings and boastings, one evolutionists saying leading another, the blind leading the blind. I have seen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the best arguments that the evolutionist comes up with is, there's lot's of evidence for our beliefs, the majority of our scientist believe it and typical vague answers, meanwhile the creationist speaks science, none of which is refuted.

Your fourth point about it being painful slow cracks me up a bit.  Painfully slow to who?  God?  Thats kind of funny.  Do you believe God is bound by time? 

No I mean to mankind. Think, 6000 years to mankind is a painfully long time how much more is 6 million! years? That mankind has to suffer death and destruction for 6 million years, that's a painfully long time. How does this fit into scripture that man's appointed once to die then the judgment?

What kind of dumb human were those millions of years ago, we have learned more in the last 100 years than what they have in 6 million years.



And let me be clear I am not a Neo-Darwinist.  But, there are some evolutionary principles that have been demonstrated.  I do not believe man started out as an amoeba.  I believe man started out as man...just a primitive form of man.

I think that maybe because your a doctor you tend to hang around academically educated minds a great deal and I perceive that the ignorance of those around you has bound your thinking to stop you from even considering that YEC is true. You refuse to even aknowledge the credibility of YEC, because of the lies that you hang around. Whether YEC is true or not is not the point. How can you see the truth of this matter if the lies of the scholars around you create a stronghold in your mind, that does not allow you even the opportunity to hear what YEC scientist's have got to say for themselves. As a Christian I encourage you to pray to the messiah and ask him for truth concering this matter, as whether studying YEC science is worth your time and to bring down those strongholds that bound your mind and spirit. For the lord came to set us free.

[WhiteWings]

!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow.

Darwian evolution is extremely slow.(and false) Ever wondered what is means if the so called missing links are never found?

James I think this part of the thread needs to be merged with the science thread.

Actually, it's kind of hard for me to tell where to cut in.  80-90% of this thread could be tied into the science one, but I'll watch it and see if there are any definite trends/separating points I can see...Thanks.

Can't you move per post? Or split, move, and merg again

[jabcat]

Would I bet the farm on it?  Depends on how exact you are talking.  But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.

They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings.  I'm not sure what you want from your other question.  But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller?  I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.

I think Adam was not that old. The first homids were just collectors.
(Genesis 2:8) And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east,末and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,末to till the ground wherefrom he had been taken.
Adam and Eve worked in the garden. They tilled the ground that's farming.
Farming started 10,000-8,500 BC
So my strong guess is that's their birth date.

I agree Tony.  I also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural.  I personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)

How many types of prior creation, I don't know.  Maybe only one, which came to the cataclysmic end ("became without form and void"), but then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve.  I'm still not saying none of Genesis is symbolic or allegorical, or that we can narrow time down to the absolute day.  However, I'm personally going to lean to the scriptures, with the idea there may be many things in there we don't as yet know or understand.  When reading some things though, including your excellent link to bibletruths.com, I'm reminded of God using the simple things, and laughing at and confounding those of this world who think themselves to be wise.  So I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith.  

[WhiteWings]

I agree Tony.

My  leaps with joy 

I also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural.

OED does not by definition mean a belief in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists. That's a fact. Just look at the many breeds of dogs. Let them mix and they become (almost) one breed again.

I personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)

I've not decided on the gap theory. I wonder if that desolate and void refers to the comet impact (some say a chunk of wormwood) that wiped out the dinos. The dustcloud would cause a nuclear winter and the sunlight will be blocked out.

but then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve.

Darwin teaches gradual change. That would mean zillion of (deformed) intermediate lifeforms.
Number found: 0
Evidence points more to sudden appearance of complete lifeforms.

So I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith.   

I would say study. But imo science agrees with the Biblical timeline of the last 10000 years. I think also the time before that; but that harder to see because it about translation of words and gaps.
YECs are partly right imo. Earth starting from Adam is 6,000-10,000 years old. Or civilasations started at that point. But the opion on civilisation varies a bit. Some say it starts with argiculture. Other say art. Yet others with writing.