Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Yesterday at 10:11 PM Cantuar said this in Post #19
Then why even bother to talk to non-Christians?
We believe that about half of this world is going to accept Christianity. Some will fall away and in the end one third will be saved. I do not believe God is a respector of persons. I believe He will save one third of all nations, tongues, tribes & people. So for example, I believe one third of Iraqi people will be saved, as well as one third of India, one third of China and so forth.
Out of the third that God saves, I believe He uses a third of them, to represent Him. We are a called out people from a called out people. Willing to sacrifice ourselves, to be used by God. Willing to pay a price in Holiness, Sanctification & Consecration.
So, while one third of the people will be saved, only about 11% of the people at any given time are willing to be twice cleansed, twice tested, to qualify to be used by God.
Yesterday at 09:52 PM Kung Food Fighting said this in Post #18
John, since you are using this webpage as your evidence, do you also accept the dates that it provided? It says that ag. started in 9000 BC, 5000 years older then the world is supposed to be according to a YEC world view and 7000 years older then the supposed date of the flood.
Do I accept the dates? Any prehistoic dates is just a guess from the natural record. I tend to deal more with historical evidence and records from 6000 years ago on. If there was a prehistorical man, we are not prepared to tell you the difference in detail between historical and prehistorical man. We can tell you the difference between Adam and Eve before the fall, and Adam and Eve after the fall. Because God is going to redeem and restore mankind to the condition they were in before Adam and Eve fell from the Grace of God in about 4000 BC.
Also the middle East is not the only area where dometication occured. Rice, soybean, millets (a grain), and pigs were all domesticated in China around the same time as the domestications in the fertile cresent (which is in Iraq by the way, not Armenia). Corn, beans, squash, patatos, turkeys and llamas were domesticated in central and south america. In Africa sorghum (another grain) African rice, African yams and coffee were domesticated. All of these domestications were completely independent of the ones occuring in the fertile cresent. So why should the one you mentioned be considered special? [/b]
The fertile cresent is pretty big. It covers the delta area of the Nile river and the delta area of the Tigris - Euphrates rives. Then it covers Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Lebonon, Isreal and so forth. Even the Bible talks about the Great Cedar Forests of Lebonon in the Great White Moutains there. Even today there are a few patches left. The Bible compares this with the Garden that was in Eden.
As far as other areas of dometication. That sounds interesting, I have not run across anything on it yet in my studies. The pig of course was a scavanger and a unclean animal as far as the Bible is concerned.
Do I accept the dates? Any prehistoic dates is just a guess from the natural record. I tend to deal more with historical evidence and records from 6000 years ago on. If there was a prehistorical man, we are not prepared to tell you the difference in detail between historical and prehistorical man. We can tell you the difference between Adam and Eve before the fall, and Adam and Eve after the fall. Because God is going to redeem and restore mankind to the condition they were in before Adam and Eve fell from the Grace of God in about 4000 BC.
Okay, so you say the date is just a guess. The why are you trying to use this as evidence? If the date can not be relied on, then for all you know the domestications in China came way before the fertile cresent ones. Maybe the ones in the Americas came first. Now wouldn't that throw a big ol' monkey wrench in your arguement? Just how is it that you reject the methods (ie carbon dating) why accepting the conclusion (that fertle cresent domestication came first)?
Today at 08:29 AM Kung Food Fighting said this in Post #23
Okay, so you say the date is just a guess.
Pre histroy dating is just a guess. That is why I mostly just deal with recorded history from 6000 years ago on. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden in what is most likely now called Turkey.
In prehistoric age of 10,000 bc to 6000 bc, there really is not that much information. A lot of the northern part of the earth was under ice.
You didn't answer my question at all. If prehistoric dates are just a guess, then how can you use the date of a prehistoric event (the start of fertile cresent farming) as evidence?
Today at 12:32 AM Kung Food Fighting said this in Post #25
You didn't answer my question at all. If prehistoric dates are just a guess, then how can you use the date of a prehistoric event (the start of fertile cresent farming) as evidence?
Are you saying that science is wrong and can not be trusted? Are you saying that scientific evidence is not good for anything?
John, I believe He is saying, if You believe prehistoric dates are just a guess, why do You trust them for the dates of the the start of the fertile cresent.
John, I believe He is saying, if You believe prehistoric dates are just a guess, why do You trust them for the dates of the the start of the fertile cresent.
I go by the dates in the Bible for the beginning of civilization. This does not conflict with science. They just use the theory of evolution to say there was a transition between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. The problem with this is, that beginning 10,000 years ago, was the slow, gradual end of the ice age. So it is a little bit hard to say there was a transition in a area that was under ice at the time. Also, there is very little evidence in this period of time, to back up the scientific theory that there was a gradual transition from prehistoric to civilized man.
If you look at the data, civilized man just all of a sudden appeared about 6000 years ago. The most recent theory now is that Europeans are decended from about 80% of people who were hunter gathers. Then there was about 20% of the people who were farmers, hurdsman, who influence all the others. So it was not that there was a slow gradual transition. Civilized man appeared rather suddenly. But their influence on stone age man was gradual, and their transition took place over time.
Actually, you will find enough people still alive today in remote areas of the world, that still live pretty much as a stone age men did, and they have not gone through any transition.
Linear Mode
