bringing scientists to God

[cupid dave]

The academic world, especially our coleges, respond to the long standing pre-medieval interpretations of Genesis, allof which are not supported by Genesis but mere tradition and the power of teachings by the churches.

These teachings were man made explanations of Genesis developed and conceived long before Modern Science appeared in the Western world.

Scientists who accept Christians as experrt in their own field, theology, believe that Genesis mean what these no-reflective ministers and theologians have subscribed to.
Science people do not read Genesis themselves, and then seek to align what they read with what they scientifically know.

These potential Christians accept the churchs' statements which the church insists explain Genesis.


The virtual war between people like Bill Maher and religion has had the effect of avoiding the possibility that both sides are wrong.

Theistic Evolution, then, is the peacemaker who says both are wrong, an Genesis is right.




1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)[/font]

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html

3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg

4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos.
(Gen 1:3-5)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg

5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together
(Gen 1:9)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg

6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html

7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.
(Gen 1:11)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html

8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html

9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg

10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html

11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:
NOTE:
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html[/font]


12) The 22 names in the genealogy compare directly with the 22 extinct species in the ascent to Modern man.


http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans by G.J. Sawyer, (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D

 

[gluadys]

The academic world, especially our coleges, respond to the long standing pre-medieval interpretations of Genesis, allof which are not supported by Genesis but mere tradition and the power of teachings by the churches.

These teachings were man made explanations of Genesis developed and conceived long before Modern Science appeared in the Western world.

Scientists who accept Christians as experrt in their own field, theology, believe that Genesis mean what these no-reflective ministers and theologians have subscribed to.
Science people do not read Genesis themselves, and then seek to align what they read with what they scientifically know.

These potential Christians accept the churchs' statements which the church insists explain Genesis.


The virtual war between people like Bill Maher and religion has had the effect of avoiding the possibility that both sides are wrong.

Theistic Evolution, then, is the peacemaker who says both are wrong, an Genesis is right.

The problem with trying to link Genesis with any current version of science is that when science changes, then Genesis is wrong again and you have to do it all over again.

Better to accept Genesis for what it was to the people for whom it was originally written---an account of creation couched in the pre-scientific concepts of their time.

Science may change, but the message of Genesis: that God is the creator of all things--of heaven and earth and all things in them--that he formed the structure of the cosmos and filled it with beings and made humans in his own image--that remains valid.

7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.

Well, no. Bacteria, even photosynthetic bacteria, are not plants; they are not even eukaryotes.

9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.

We don't know that. It's possible we will have evolutionary successors. Also, evolutionary history is more like a bush than a ladder. Every living species is a last step in the evolution of its lineage---until it gives rise to a new species.

 

[cupid dave]

1) The problem with trying to link Genesis with any current version of science is that when science changes, then Genesis is wrong again and you have to do it all over again.


2) Well, no. Bacteria, even photosynthetic bacteria, are not plants; they are not even eukaryotes.


3) We don't know that. It's possible we will have evolutionary successors. Also, evolutionary history is more like a bush than a ladder. Every living species is a last step in the evolution of its lineage---until it gives rise to a new species.

1) Genesis is dead right.
When science is right, it will agree with Genesis.

2) Bacteria have cell walls so are merely plants placed in a special category as plants without nucleus membranes.

But, Genesis is clearly utilizing the two Kingdom System of Taxonomy since it mantions only the Plant kingdom and the Animal kingdom.


3) We do KNOW that Genesis says there were 22 links in modern man's ascent.
That will not change.

Scientists are still juggling their own list of our ancestors.
When they finally discover the list of extinct humans they will agree that Genesis beatthem to the punch.




4) How do you ignore that "allthe waters under heaven were gathered together into one place" when Rodinia formed during the Archean "evening" and the Proterozoic "morning?"

 

[NGC 6712]

2) Bacteria have cell walls so are merely plants placed in a special category as plants without nucleus membranes.

Bacteria are not plants placed in special category. They just aren't plants period.

 

[Philonephius]

Interesting ideas. Some are probably valid points, but others (like point #7) stretch it a bit. Thanks for sharing, though.

 

[KTskater]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly with point 3, but we're almost certain that Homo sapiens are not successors to the Neanderthal. They are another species that evolved along side us and were more suited for the cold climate in Europe, while we most likely evolved in Africa (although, some claim that we independently evolved in Asia as well).
Also, P. bosei and P. robustus aren't usually considered predecessors of humans, because we're too gracile. They are yet another species that evolved along side us.

 

[Papias]

cupid dave wrote:

3) We do KNOW that Genesis says there were 22 links in modern man's ascent.
That will not change.

Scientists are still juggling their own list of our ancestors.
When they finally discover the list of extinct humans they will agree that Genesis beatthem to the punch.

Along with other things in the OP, this seems to be working too hard to fit in stuff that isn't there. The idea of there being exactly 22 predecessors is meaningless because any division you make of the often smooth transition involving millions of ancestors will be arbitrary.

If we say that arbitrary interpretations like that presage science, then we'd be equally obligated to agree with the similarly arbitary interpretations in places like this one (Quran & Science), which also claim to presage science - and that's something we should avoid.

Papias