Author Topic: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED  (Read 41004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #200 on: September 11, 2010, 01:45:13 AM »
Shawn let's try to find a common language here so we know what we are talking about.  Do you really think these people are 'scientists'?  They are guessing, making stuff up, making arbitrary claims, building on that more arbitrary claims.  They have no idea if these bones they are finding have any relationship at all to the man at the mall.  This is worse than religion because they are pretending to be something they are not.  They are just telling pretty stories to get their grant money, may their names be forgotten by posterity.

I'm still looking for the 50000 bc version of Shakespeare.



Overview of homo sapiens from wikipedia



Human evolution, or anthropogenesis, is the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominids, great apes and placental mammals. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.

Archaic Homo sapiens


Archaic Homo sapiens is a loosely defined term used to describe a number of varieties of Homo, as opposed to anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), in the period beginning 500,000 years ago. The term is typically taken to include Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis and sometimes Homo antecessor.[1]

Modern humans are believed to have evolved from archaic Homo sapiens, who in turn evolved from Homo erectus. Varieties of archaic Homo sapiens (also "Archaics" for short[dubious – discuss]) are included under the binomial name "Homo sapiens" because their brain size is very similar to that of modern humans. Archaic Homo sapiens had a brain size averaging 1200 to 1400 cubic centimeters, which overlaps with the range of modern humans. Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent brow ridges and the lack of a prominent chin.[1][2]

Anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago gradually marginalize the "archaic" varieties. Non-modern varieties of Homo are certain to have survived until after 30,000 years ago, and perhaps until as recent as 10,000 years ago. Which of these, if any, are included under the term "archaic Homo sapiens" is a matter of definition and varies among authors.

The category archaic Homo sapiens is disputed.[1] There is no single agreed upon definition of archaic Homo sapiens. According to one definition, Homo sapiens is a single species comprising several subspecies that include the archaics and modern humans. Under this definition, modern humans are referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens and Archaics are also designated with the prefix "Homo sapiens". For example, the Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis. Other taxonomists prefer not to consider archaics and modern humans as a single species but as several different species. In this case the standard taxonomy is used, ie Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo neanderthalensis[1].

The dividing lines that separate modern humans from archaic Homo sapiens and archaics from Homo erectus are blurry. The earliest known fossils of anatomically modern humans such as the Omo remains from 195kya, Homo sapiens idaltu from 160kya, and Qafzeh remains from 90kya are recognizably modern humans. However, these early modern humans do exhibit a mix of some archaic traits, such as moderate, but not prominent, brow ridges.


 The brain size of Archaic Homo sapiens expanded significantly from 900 cubic centimeters in erectus to 1300 cubic centimeters. Since the emergence of archaics, brain size has remained stable up until the present.

 Origin of language
Main article: Origin of language

Robin Dunbar has argued that Archaic Homo sapiens were the first to use language. Based on his analysis of the relationship between brain size and hominid group size, he concluded that because Archaic Homo sapiens had large brains, they must have lived in groups of over 120 individuals. Dunbar argues that it was not possible for Hominids to live in such large groups without using language, otherwise there could be no group cohesion and the group would disintegrate. By comparison, chimpanzees live in smaller groups of up to 50 individuals.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 01:49:04 AM by Molly »

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #201 on: September 11, 2010, 02:00:42 AM »
Tubal-Cain was born in 3313BC
Bronze ages started 3300BC in the near East
KJVGen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #202 on: September 11, 2010, 02:06:36 AM »
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids  and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.

Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different.  They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.'  Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.



Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era.

About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt's Nile Valley and the Indus Valleys. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in West Asia, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 02:13:48 AM by Molly »

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #203 on: September 11, 2010, 02:16:37 AM »
So until now I/we have

Mitochondrial Eve / start of farming = Garden of Eden=creation of man. 6000-10000 BC
Bronze age / Tubal-Cain 3300 BC

First city build 3rd millenium BC
Enoch was born 3779BC. Enoch means "build a city"

Any idea's for other anchor points?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 02:26:04 AM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #204 on: September 11, 2010, 02:19:56 AM »
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids  and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.

Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different.  They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.'  Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.
[

 :laugh:    :hihat:
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #205 on: September 11, 2010, 03:31:59 AM »
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,––and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,––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.   :2c:

There is a huge difference between swallowing every theory and looking at the actual evidence yourself and drawing a conclusion.  Microevolution certainly happened.  It's what has confused the whole situation.  There is virtually no support for macroevolution and it's actually laughable counterpart Neo-evolution (complexity built through random mutation).

So, if you are going to look at science to help you with some of your Biblical interpretation you ought to be well trained in the sciences.  Or, I will agree with you...you could get caught up in the ramblings of men.  Wow...sounds alot like Biblical interpretation by the mainstream church.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #206 on: September 11, 2010, 03:49:49 AM »
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.  6000 year old earth  :grin:  When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website?  No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.

And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator.  Isn't that what you basically called me?  This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities.  I didn't think I would find it here.  But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc.  It gets old.  

So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis.  Me?  I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me.  I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration.  I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence.  While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people.  But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.

And yes there is other ways to look at Genesis.  This thread inspired me to write up an article on original sin, the scientific evidence and what it means to traditional understanding.  Yes, that kinda thing tends to scare some Christians.

And boastings...it's not boasting.  Its fact.  There is no evidence to support YEC ramblings.  You may start a thread if you wish and we can discuss it further.  I would like to see the new evidence because the old points are indeed easily debated away.  They make no sense.  And again Im not an evolutionist.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 03:54:19 AM by shawn »

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #207 on: September 11, 2010, 04:04:17 AM »
I got this gem recently from a yec site...

Note: I believe that the science dating of material, to see how old something is, is correct! But what science does not understand is: God can create all that he needs to produce his creation. Though what science tests may say it's billions of years old, God did not have to wait a billion years for it to form so he could use it for His creation. In other words: 6,000 years ago God created material that normally takes billions of years to form. This explains both of the evidence for an old  and young earth. But the young will always be denied, because to admit to it is to admit to God.

What I see is this stretching, and twisting by yecs to get around the science.  That was some serious gymnastics.  I know it's scarey...science has been demonized by the church for as long as I can remember.  The study of God's handiwork in the right hands is not an evil thing.  It's a good thing to seek out the secrets of God.

Also this one...

OECs agree with science that the earth is old because of how far the stars are away from our planet, and how long it takes for light to travel that far. I can see were someone can be confused on this. But actually it very simple. When God created, he created the light before he created the object that produced the light.

Wow.

And this is the belief that supports that notion...

Thou shalt not make any engraved images... Replacing God's word with science puts science "before" God. Which in turn makes science better than God which also makes it replace God. And because it would make people turn away from God, science itself becomes God. Notice how science is put before God in OEC belief.

Nope I place the Bible ahead of all but I do place the evidence above the interpretations of men.  If I didn't why would I be here?  We question a 1500 year tradition of hellfire teaching in light of new evidence.  Gasp!  It's new to most people because we now have the internet...and easier access to the translations.  
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 04:16:38 AM by shawn »

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #208 on: September 11, 2010, 04:31:15 AM »
Here is more thinking from yecs.

Science often claims that evolution is not a religion. But evolutionists all to often welcome theistic evolution as a alternative to what they will accept as far as God is concerned.. Which actually mixes God and science, but you have to concede to their claimed fact that evolution is true, and old earth ideas. So what are evolutionists doing accepting those who will not totally commit to evolution? It is because they know that their theory will eventually make you doubt God. They know that you will come to a fork in the road about what you believe, and you have to choose which path. And because you can "see" more convincing evidence from their view of origins, they know that sight is more convincing to man than faith.

First God created the laws of science.  Science is the study of God's handiwork.  How can you seperate the two?  I don't subscribe to unsupported scientific theory much like I don't subscribe to interpretation of scripture without support.

His last statement.  No, I think more would begin to doubt God when they are taught beliefs that do not line up with the evidence.  If yecs state the earth is 6000 years old, and there is clear evidence of civilizations long before...then that could cause serious doubts in the believer.  I guess you can hang onto interpretations despite evidence to the contrary and try to demonize those who don't.

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #209 on: September 11, 2010, 04:42:11 AM »
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.
I admit that I need to update my knowledge on scientific findings, but that will come in time I hope but there is so much out there it is impossible to research all of it, especially for the average folk out there. So when a person does not have the time to have a degree in evolution science, then he must either accept what the scholars have done at their word or he can look to the scriptures and find truth from there. If one cannot find the truth of creation from the scriptures, then why are we wasting our time with this phony book calling it Gods word, when in reality it is half of Gods word. I believe the word is the inspired word of God so why are you disgruntled at me for looking to the scriptures for the truth?

  6000 year old earth  grin  When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website?  No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.

I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.


And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator.  Isn't that what you basically called me?  This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities.  I didn't think I would find it here.  But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc.  It gets old.  

It does get old, but welcome to Christianity my friend  :thumbsup:
In my view you are my christian brother, as long as you hold onto the saviour, if not then I hope that I will treat you well within reason, but if you mess with me, let's dance  :bgdance:.


So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis.  Me?  I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me.  I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration.  I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence.

Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?

 While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people.

I don't dispute that, but it is ineivatable that in your education you will spend a great deal of time with unbelivers, who operate at the academic level who care not for the things of God. Do you agree with this?
Do you honestly think that academia is filled with spirit filled people?
The whole system is geared towards filling the brain with knowledge and sometimes that knowledge leads to confusion and cuts off the heart from entering. I don't know where you were educated but what I have heard is that the system is designed to limit creativity and intution as much as possible and give precedence to filling the mind with facts, whether it is intentional or not the system is based on a greek way of learning.



  But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.

Similar to people who insist the earth is flat you mean?
But the scripture can prove the earth is round. To me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 12 thousand years old it still is a young earth. But if the earth is indeed millions of years old, then I do not see that it has to have creation upon it until the creation of Adam that occured 6 to 12 thousand years ago. But where is the pattern in scripture is a day means a million years  :dontknow:



And yes there is other ways to look at Genesis.  This thread inspired me to write up an article on original sin, the scientific evidence and what it means to traditional understanding.  Yes, that kinda thing tends to scare some Christians.

And boastings...it's not boasting.  Its fact.  There is no evidence to support YEC ramblings.  You may start a thread if you wish and we can discuss it further.  I would like to see the new evidence because the old points are indeed easily debated away.  They make no sense.  And again Im not an evolutionist.

Offline reFORMer

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
  • Gender: Male
  • Psalm 133
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #210 on: September 11, 2010, 05:15:50 AM »
I keep trying to catch up on reading everything I've missed on this thread, then I go do something else.  When I get back it has surged ahead.  Back around pages 6-7 I wanted to post this...

Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world (cosmos.)"  The world is this outer realm our physical bodies are in, the orderly arrangement of things in it, specially the values and governments of carnal men and the effect all this has on our minds, even if we are spiritual men.

John 18:36 (Concordant Literal Translation)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence."

Now it seems a little out of place.  I'll keep reading and try to get back to y'all.

James
I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program!  JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!!  MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #211 on: September 11, 2010, 05:41:21 AM »
This topic is now, Creation - Science/Faith AND Genesis, MERGED

Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #212 on: September 11, 2010, 05:58:12 AM »
This thread is getting confusing ==but I'm wondering, are there some things we could all agree on?

For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man,  the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?

If we could agree on that, then does it really matter what games science wishes to play with what existed before this time--because whatever it was it didn't look, act, think, or behave like us?

That second point is important because anyone can say modern man existed 250,000 years ago we just can't tell.  Or, here we have this skull that looks sort of like modern man but with hefty brow ridges and a higher forehead and bigger brain capacity but we are going to call it modern man.  This is just game playing and doesn't belong in science.

So--Could someone please address these two points?

IF you want to claim that modern man existed earlier than Adam--could you prove it?  In particular, I'd like to see his version of Shakespeare or the Bible.  Then, I might accept it.

Otherwise--let's try to nail down at least this one fact--Adam was a man set apart,  and none before compares to him.  That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 06:01:16 AM by Molly »

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #213 on: September 11, 2010, 06:03:42 AM »
Adam was a man set apart,  and none before compares to him.  That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.

Amen from me - created by God.  

I personally believe there was some sort of prior creation, but again, amen to the above - created by God.  And God said...
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #214 on: September 11, 2010, 06:07:23 AM »

For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man,  the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?

you think Adam wore Levis?  :mshock:   :grin:

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #215 on: September 11, 2010, 06:11:18 AM »

For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man,  the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?

you think Adam wore Levis?  :mshock:   :grin:

No, he wore animal skins. :happygrin:

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #216 on: September 11, 2010, 06:15:03 AM »
or nothing at all  :mblush:
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #217 on: September 11, 2010, 06:17:01 AM »

you think Adam wore Levis?  :mshock:   :grin:

No, he wore animal skins. :happygrin:

You mean he wasn't a vegan?  :prankster:
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #218 on: September 11, 2010, 06:17:56 AM »
Adam was a man set apart,  and none before compares to him.  That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.

Amen from me - created by God.  

I personally believe there was some sort of prior creation, but again, amen to the above - created by God.  And God said...

We don't even have to agree he was created by God.

The believer will tend to agree on that.

The atheistic scientist can just say--well, this is strange, this guy appears out of nowhere and starts building cities--we'll call him Human. :happygrin:

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #219 on: September 11, 2010, 06:19:18 AM »
or nothing at all  :mblush:

Is this what happened to you today at the mall  :laughing7:

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #220 on: September 11, 2010, 06:24:40 AM »
This thread is getting confusing ==but I'm wondering, are there some things we could all agree on?

For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man,  the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?

If we could agree on that, then does it really matter what games science wishes to play with what existed before this time--because whatever it was it didn't look, act, think, or behave like us?

That second point is important because anyone can say modern man existed 250,000 years ago we just can't tell.  Or, here we have this skull that looks sort of like modern man but with hefty brow ridges and a higher forehead and bigger brain capacity but we are going to call it modern man.  This is just game playing and doesn't belong in science.

So--Could someone please address these two points?

IF you want to claim that modern man existed earlier than Adam--could you prove it?  In particular, I'd like to see his version of Shakespeare or the Bible.  Then, I might accept it.

Otherwise--let's try to nail down at least this one fact--Adam was a man set apart,  and none before compares to him.  That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.

I thought I addressed those points earlier.  Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs.  It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago.  Would I "bet the farm on it"?  No, because I'm not an archeologist.  I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training.  Is it possible they are wrong?  Sure.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #221 on: September 11, 2010, 06:25:58 AM »
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.

I admit that I need to update my knowledge on scientific findings, but that will come in time I hope but there is so much out there it is impossible to research all of it, especially for the average folk out there. So when a person does not have the time to have a degree in evolution science, then he must either accept what the scholars have done at their word or he can look to the scriptures and find truth from there. If one cannot find the truth of creation from the scriptures, then why are we wasting our time with this phony book calling it Gods word, when in reality it is half of Gods word. I believe the word is the inspired word of God so why are you disgruntled at me for looking to the scriptures for the truth?

That I can respect.  I do not expect everyone to be a science expert.  I will say this however.  If you are not well versed in the sciences it's best to stay out of debate that will involve science.  If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then you should know why you believe it and be able to defend it...if you decide to debate oecs.

  6000 year old earth  grin  When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website?  No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.

I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.

Cool.  But, I thought when you trace back Bible lineage it comes out to 6000 years right?  How can you compromise on what you believe to be Biblical truth?

And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator.  Isn't that what you basically called me?  This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities.  I didn't think I would find it here.  But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc.  It gets old. 

It does get old, but welcome to Christianity my friend 
In my view you are my christian brother, as long as you hold onto the saviour, if not then I hope that I will treat you well within reason, but if you mess with me, let's dance  .

So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis.  Me?  I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me.  I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration.  I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence.

Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?

Absolutely.
 
While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people.

I don't dispute that, but it is ineivatable that in your education you will spend a great deal of time with unbelivers, who operate at the academic level who care not for the things of God. Do you agree with this?
Do you honestly think that academia is filled with spirit filled people?
The whole system is geared towards filling the brain with knowledge and sometimes that knowledge leads to confusion and cuts off the heart from entering. I don't know where you were educated but what I have heard is that the system is designed to limit creativity and intution as much as possible and give precedence to filling the mind with facts, whether it is intentional or not the system is based on a greek way of learning.


I think that there are many Christ lovers in academia...yes.  But, I graduated from a Christian college and had Christian science teachers.  These men no doubt loved the Lord as I do.  But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.
Similar to people who insist the earth is flat you mean?
But the scripture can prove the earth is round. To me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 12 thousand years old it still is a young earth. But if the earth is indeed millions of years old, then I do not see that it has to have creation upon it until the creation of Adam that occured 6 to 12 thousand years ago. But where is the pattern in scripture is a day means a million years 


Not sure of the point here.  You have to ignore geological, carbon dating, fossil records etc to believe the earth is that young.  I'm just not willing to do so.  YECs haven't been able to show me how these are incorrect.  If they have a valid point I will certainly listen.  I read their websites.  Instead, often times they make up these scenerios that might have happened to get around the science.  I do believe you can interpret the Bible outside of young earth and it still be very much in line with scripture.  What we can agree on is the fact that there are MANY things the evolutionists are wrong about and things they say that are just anti-Biblical no matter how you slice it.



Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #222 on: September 11, 2010, 06:30:53 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I thought I addressed those points earlier.  Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs.  It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago.  Would I "bet the farm on it"?  No, because I'm not an archeologist.  I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training.  Is it possible they are wrong?  Sure.

Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?

You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].

Or what?

Can you prove it?

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #223 on: September 11, 2010, 06:37:41 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I thought I addressed those points earlier.  Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs.  It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago.  Would I "bet the farm on it"?  No, because I'm not an archeologist.  I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training.  Is it possible they are wrong?  Sure.

Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?

You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].

Or what?

Can you prove it?

I'm not sure I understand your point.  Not as smart?  Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons.  What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence.  We know his anatomy is essentially the same.  The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #224 on: September 11, 2010, 06:45:21 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I thought I addressed those points earlier.  Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs.  It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago.  Would I "bet the farm on it"?  No, because I'm not an archeologist.  I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training.  Is it possible they are wrong?  Sure.

Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?

You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].

Or what?

Can you prove it?

I'm not sure I understand your point.  Not as smart?  Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons.  What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence.  We know his anatomy is essentially the same.  The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.

I mentioned not as smart because you made a comment about that earlier.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that humans are getting smarter with the passage of time.  So I would expect that, on the average, Adam and I would be the same intelligence.   But, I sure wouldn't put up with him using stone age tools for 40,000 years.

You say he had tools 50,000 years--so did Neanderthal, and so do birds.

But the man at the mall has a black and decker and Adam's sons built the pyramids.

So this 50,000 year old--are you willing to grant that you do not know what he is except to admit he's not Adam?  We don't even know if he had language.  As far as anatomy is concerned--if I saw him at the mall, I would probably cross the street--right?  He doesn't look exactly like us.