Creation history vs. evolution history

nuttypiglet said:

no peoples life spans are not affected by infections are they, apart from the millions who die from pneumonia and lots of other infections. What am I dealing with here? someone from another reality?

Click to expand...

He never said people don't die from infections. Re-read the post. He said that our lifespans are not affected by infection, big difference. In other words, even if you never get sick you will die shortly after you turn 100. You are the one that seems to be living in a different reality.

I found this, not sure it's related, but I just want people to notice the first line of the article inspired by the study brought up by the Creationist.

ht tp://ww w.ny times.com/1987/10/29/us/air-from-dinosaurs-age-suggests-dramatic-change.ht ml

So, seeing that its unlikely that the New York Times have got a major point like this wrong, do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or not, because according to this the air bubbles have been there for 80 million years.....

HappyAtheist83 said:

I found this, not sure it's related, but I just want people to notice the first line of the article inspired by the study brought up by the Creationist.

ht tp://ww w.ny times.com/1987/10/29/us/air-from-dinosaurs-age-suggests-dramatic-change.ht ml

So, seeing that its unlikely that the New York Times have got a major point like this wrong, do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or not, because according to this the air bubbles have been there for 80 million years.....

Click to expand...

Nice appeal to authority, so it's not just Creationists who have all the fallacious arguments.

HappyAtheist83 said:

I found this, not sure it's related, but I just want people to notice the first line of the article inspired by the study brought up by the Creationist.

ht tp://ww w.ny times.com/1987/10/29/us/air-from-dinosaurs-age-suggests-dramatic-change.ht ml

So, seeing that its unlikely that the New York Times have got a major point like this wrong, do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or not, because according to this the air bubbles have been there for 80 million years.....

Click to expand...

No, the earth is not 6,000 years old. It is approximately 4.54 billion years old.

nuttypiglet said:

no peoples life spans are not affected by infections are they, apart from the millions who die from pneumonia and lots of other infections. What am I dealing with here? someone from another reality?

Click to expand...

People die of old age without infections all of the time. Our lifespans are not limited by infections.

PRE-HISTORY


... Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)


I. THE "CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION"
CONTROVERSY, OR: "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING"

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasiscientific manner. 128

In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the "pro-evolution" argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.

... The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

... Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.


If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.
If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. What is time to God other than a necessary process? Time is not the barrier to Him that it is to us. Why should we not expect God to have used eons of time to bring about life as we know it? Why do some people insist that God brought about life instantaneously: would such a means really be any more miraculous?
Furthermore, in any supernatural manifestations to man of a magnitude that would leave archeologically verifiable traces, we should expect that God would likewise use a natural means of accomplishing such stupendous events a means in accordance with the laws of the physical universe.
According to the ramifications of free will, then, whenever traces of God’s actions are of a nature or magnitude sufficient to leave verifiable traces, He will accomplish these actions in conformity to the laws of the physical universe. Thus, we should logically expect that evolution was used by God to form man and that catastrophism was used by God in His major supernatural dealings with man. Also, just as any skillful artist will personally put the final finishing touches on a great masterpiece, we should expect to find subtle traces of direct divine intervention.
In the three following subsections, I will put forward both Scriptural and scientific evidence substantiating that all three of these processesevolution, catastrophism, and direct divine intervention have indeed occurred.


Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.

This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the preAdamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem?

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man 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. 2:18, 2123)

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman.

The sixtyfour dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?
It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest)  something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?
Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries.

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.


To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

Oh, look, a wall of text copied and pasted from creationist websites, how original...

Your first post- "No' is merely your opinion, which, w/o any substantiation is merely air.
Your second post is a lie, my words are my own- as are my thoughts. Not fashionable knee-jerk responses.
amessageforthehumanrace

pgardner31 said:

Your first post- "No' is merely your opinion, which, w/o any substantiation is merely air.
Your second post is a lie, my words are my own- as are my thoughts. Not fashionable knee-jerk responses.
amessageforthehumanrace

Click to expand...

Can you please tell us how the evidence would be different if man evolved naturally without any god in existence?

Logically, we should expect that God would use a natural (vs. supernatural) process to crate man, in order to not interfere with free will. Logically, there should and need be only one written record (out of the many which claim to be of divine origin) which is God's autobiography. Logically, that one record would correlate to Divine Purpose requiring a second, opposing will. {The only thing that an omnipotent God would desire is an entity which returned His love because it chose to- not because it had to}. If God's will is the only will in the universe that would be impossible- there must be a secondary opposing will in order to have a being with a free will to be able to choose. Which of those books speaks of one God, who also has one opposing enemy? The Bible. Does the account in Genesis match in specific, critical aspects what we know of evolution? Yes. But not in empirical detail- which would interfere with free will.
amessageforethehumanrace

CabVet said:

Oh, look, a wall of text copied and pasted from creationist websites, how original...

Click to expand...

I did a search for part of it and it does appear to be original work (to decribe it charitably), that he's been posting on a number of forums since early 2012.

That would make it spam.

USincognito said:

I did a search for part of it and it does appear to be original work (to decribe it charitably), that he's been posting on a number of forums since early 2012.

That would make it spam.

Click to expand...

Dear US, It also sounds like Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses cult training, to me. He keeps "adding to" what is written. ie. YHWH is changed to Jehovah as if he knows which vowels to place where, which he doesn't, according to Scripture. He probably doesn't know that YHWH and Jesus are ONE.

In Love,
Aman

"Judge not, lest you be judged" "Out of your own mouth shall you be judged" 'you will be held accountable for every word- at the judgment seat of Christ'
Dear born-again fellow family members: I am regenerated and my practices, teachings, and profession of the faith are totally orthodox. I just do not care for traditions which are not scriptural, nor for a divisive religious system which is in Satan's kingdom. Please repent to the Lord for spewing out the condemnation of calling me heretical- 'Jehovah's witness, or Mormon'. Read what I say in Chapter Seven of 'A Message for the Human Race' concerning religion, and cults.
May you seek the Lord concerning His eternal purpose, and do not think to yourselves that you know or are participating in it (Laodicea). All that God the Father is, is embodied in Jesus His Son,; and all that The Son is and has accomplished is available as the Spirit.
A Christian

quote=pgardner31;63220582]"Judge not, lest you be judged" "Out of your own mouth shall you be judged" 'you will be held accountable for every word- at the judgment seat of Christ

Dear born-again fellow family members: I am regenerated and my practices, teachings, and profession of the faith are totally orthodox. I just do not care for traditions which are not scriptural, nor for a divisive religious system which is in Satan's kingdom.
[/quote]

Dear pg, Are you speaking of my views? I support what I write with Scripture, Science, and History. I suppose you will find that too high a standard for someone of your position? Right?

You misunderstand the Judgment. it's not of Bible believing Christians like me, but of those reject the saving grace of Jesus. Have you been born again Spiritually?

pg:>>Please repent to the Lord for spewing out the condemnation of calling me heretical- 'Jehovah's witness, or Mormon'. Read what I say in Chapter Seven of 'A Message for the Human Race' concerning religion, and cults.

Click to expand...

Why don't you give us a link? Please tell me why I should repent of correctly identifying those cults which are not accepted by most Christians?

Mormons added to what was written and JWs just wrote their own Bible. Their whole faith is based on adding "unknown vowels" to YHWH. Chapter 7 of the human race is the twisted thinking of Mormons. Right? The lost tribe of Israel? and all that?

May you seek the Lord concerning His eternal purpose, and do not think to yourselves that you know or are participating in it (Laodicea). All that God the Father is, is embodied in Jesus His Son,; and all that The Son is and has accomplished is available as the Spirit.
A Christian

Click to expand...

[/quote]

Amen. Jesus is LORD. However, your idea that we are the embodiment of the Church of Laodicea, is wrong. I know, for I am not luke warm, but hot in my faith. Speak for yourself and don't judge me as a spewed out luke warm Christian, like the Laodicians.

In Love,
Aman

One of the replies to a post of mine strongly insinuated that I was either a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon (both of which are heretical, anti-christian cults- not merely divisions, denominationsal sects). Therefore my caution against idle, judgmental speaking. I was profoundly born-again in September, 1971- praise the Lord. Now as to links- since you asked I will make even more obvious than I have already: amessageforthehumanrace.org

THE BIBLE BEING A BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE TO BRING DEATH OR A BOOK OF LIFE TO GIVE LIFE
Many people have been reading and studying the word for years, but I am not speaking about the old way of taking the word. What I am speaking is a new way that the brothers and sisters among us have been helped to realize. Some of us, though, may not know it very well, or we may know it partly but not in an adequate way. I would like to make this clear to you so that we can be brought into the proper way to apply the word of the Lord daily. In the garden of Eden there were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without the revelation of the Scriptures we could never realize that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is something negative, bringing death to us. However, the Bible tells us clearly that this tree brings death. This is confirmed by 2 Corinthians 3:6, which says that the letter kills. The letter here is mere knowledge, the knowledge in letters. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. When we take the tree of life, we have life, but when we touch the tree of knowledge, we find death. The one Bible can be two kinds of books to us, a book of knowledge or a book of life. If it is a book of knowledge to us, it will kill us; it will bring death.
How can this book be a book of knowledge, and how can it be a book of life? I will tell you the secret. If we take this book merely by exercising our mentality to read, study, memorize, and keep it in our mind, it is one hundred percent a book of knowledge to us. But there is another way to contact this book and apply it. It is not only to exercise our mind but even more to exercise our spirit. Of course, we have to read it. We have to use our eyes, that is, our body. When we exercise our eyes as members of our body to re ad the word, spontaneously the mind of the soul understands it. However, this is not all. After this, we have to exercise our spirit. When we exercise our spirit to contact the word and apply it, the Bible becomes a book of life. Whether this Bible is a book of knowledge or a book of life to us depends on whether we exercise our spirit or our minds to contact it. If we exercise only our minds, this book becomes a book of knowledge. Then it will not help us; on the contrary it will kill us. However, if we exercise our spirit to contact the Bible, spontaneously it will be a book of life to constantly nourish us.
John 5:39 and 40 says, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is these that testify concerning Me. Yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The Jews, especially the scribes and Pharisees, spent much time to research the scriptures. However, they would not come to the Lord Jesus. This means that they contacted only the written word by exercising their mind to understand it; they would not exercise their spirit to come to contact the Lord. Therefore the Scriptures became a book of knowledge to kill them. The Jewish scribes and Pharisees knew the Scriptures, but they were killed by the Scriptures. They did not have life to constantly nourish them because they were using the wrong organ. They used only their mentality without exercising their spirit.
Let us apply this principle. Whenever we come to read the word, we must first realize that the Bible must be a book of life, not a book knowledge. It must not be knowledge, but spiritual food. Second, when we come to read the Bible we should not have the intention to get mere knowledge. Rather, we must have the intention to get some spiritual food. Yes, the Bible is written and printed in black and white. Yet we must realize that it is not an ordinary writing; it is something breathed out of God Himself. It is the breath of God as the Spirit to be food to us. Therefore we come to the Bible not with the intention to gain some knowledge but with the desire to be fed. We should not say that we already know these things. We may know them, but we may not practice them. We must thoroughly, clearly realize that the Bible is food to us rather than knowledge, so we come to it not for knowledge but to be fed.

pg:>>One of the replies to a post of mine strongly insinuated that I was either a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon (both of which are heretical, anti-christian cults- not merely divisions, denominationsal sects).

Click to expand...

Dear pg, I'm sorry but maybe you should look at how you appear to others. I thought you were a JW or a Mormon. It's good to see that you are a Christian instead. Scripture tells us to "try the Spirits" to see if they are good or evil. No offense intended.

In Love,
Aman

pgardner31 said:

One of the replies to a post of mine strongly insinuated that I was either a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon (both of which are heretical, anti-christian cults- not merely divisions, denominationsal sects). Therefore my caution against idle, judgmental speaking. I was profoundly born-again in September, 1971- praise the Lord. Now as to links- since you asked I will make even more obvious than I have already: amessageforthehumanrace.org

THE BIBLE BEING A BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE TO BRING DEATH OR A BOOK OF LIFE TO GIVE LIFE
Many people have been reading and studying the word for years, but I am not speaking about the old way of taking the word. What I am speaking is a new way that the brothers and sisters among us have been helped to realize. Some of us, though, may not know it very well, or we may know it partly but not in an adequate way. I would like to make this clear to you so that we can be brought into the proper way to apply the word of the Lord daily. In the garden of Eden there were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without the revelation of the Scriptures we could never realize that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is something negative, bringing death to us. However, the Bible tells us clearly that this tree brings death. This is confirmed by 2 Corinthians 3:6, which says that the letter kills. The letter here is mere knowledge, the knowledge in letters. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. When we take the tree of life, we have life, but when we touch the tree of knowledge, we find death. The one Bible can be two kinds of books to us, a book of knowledge or a book of life. If it is a book of knowledge to us, it will kill us; it will bring death.
How can this book be a book of knowledge, and how can it be a book of life? I will tell you the secret. If we take this book merely by exercising our mentality to read, study, memorize, and keep it in our mind, it is one hundred percent a book of knowledge to us. But there is another way to contact this book and apply it. It is not only to exercise our mind but even more to exercise our spirit. Of course, we have to read it. We have to use our eyes, that is, our body. When we exercise our eyes as members of our body to re ad the word, spontaneously the mind of the soul understands it. However, this is not all. After this, we have to exercise our spirit. When we exercise our spirit to contact the word and apply it, the Bible becomes a book of life. Whether this Bible is a book of knowledge or a book of life to us depends on whether we exercise our spirit or our minds to contact it. If we exercise only our minds, this book becomes a book of knowledge. Then it will not help us; on the contrary it will kill us. However, if we exercise our spirit to contact the Bible, spontaneously it will be a book of life to constantly nourish us.
John 5:39 and 40 says, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is these that testify concerning Me. Yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The Jews, especially the scribes and Pharisees, spent much time to research the scriptures. However, they would not come to the Lord Jesus. This means that they contacted only the written word by exercising their mind to understand it; they would not exercise their spirit to come to contact the Lord. Therefore the Scriptures became a book of knowledge to kill them. The Jewish scribes and Pharisees knew the Scriptures, but they were killed by the Scriptures. They did not have life to constantly nourish them because they were using the wrong organ. They used only their mentality without exercising their spirit.
Let us apply this principle. Whenever we come to read the word, we must first realize that the Bible must be a book of life, not a book knowledge. It must not be knowledge, but spiritual food. Second, when we come to read the Bible we should not have the intention to get mere knowledge. Rather, we must have the intention to get some spiritual food. Yes, the Bible is written and printed in black and white. Yet we must realize that it is not an ordinary writing; it is something breathed out of God Himself. It is the breath of God as the Spirit to be food to us. Therefore we come to the Bible not with the intention to gain some knowledge but with the desire to be fed. We should not say that we already know these things. We may know them, but we may not practice them. We must thoroughly, clearly realize that the Bible is food to us rather than knowledge, so we come to it not for knowledge but to be fed.

Click to expand...

You have totally lost me on this one. Based on two trees we have to assume the bible is knowledge for the physical body and death? I know people who have never read the bible and died, it comes to us all. Maybe you are referring to the spirit? but doesn't the bible teach fear the one who has the power to destroy spirit, GOD? As for Jesus not being accepted by the so called religious expert Jews at the time, this was down to two reasons. The first is they believed the saviour would come in spirit, powerful and ready to rule. Secondly he was gaining too much influence over the ordinary person, and they felt threatened. Of course the bible is knowledge, knowledge of how to know God, our Father, and our Brother Jesus. Spirit doesn't need knowledge, we will get all that knowledge in the next life when all things will become perfectly clear and obvious. The bible tells us many things about these times and the future, it contains warnings. I like this knowledge and see things unfolding daily in the news. Why would the spirit be concerned with current and future events on the Earth?

There are only 2 sources, and only 2 kingdoms in the universe. One source is God in Christ as the Spirit- who is symbolized as the tree of (zoe) life for man to receive. The other source is Satan as death symbolized by the tree of knowledge (of both good and evil). This is the tree we were born under, and if we approach God's word merely as knowledge to be understood by our mind, then it is the dead letter to us- same as if we didn't have a regenerated spirit. You take physical food into your physical stomach to nourish your physical body, by means of your mouth- NOT with your eyes, ears, or nose. If we do not set our mind on our spirit in order to take God's word (by means of prayer) as Spirit and life into our spirit; then we are taking the word as dead letter knowledge which kills the spirit, puffs up the individual (opinions) and divides believers. Disecting and analyzing food does not nourish you unless you eat it. Searching and re-searching the word without touching the Lord who is joined to our spirit will quench your spirit. "I am the Word" "He who eats me even he shall live because of me" "This He spoke concerning the Spirit"

I understand what you are saying, or trying to say, but it just doesn't make sense. You now make references to the eating of his flesh. It obviously began with Abel who sacrificed the first lambs. Then we had Abraham and of course we had Moses. All those slaves in Egypt who showed their faith by spreading lambs blood around the door were saved. Then we of course had the final passover with Jesus, where he fulfilled the meaning. When Jesus is speaking of eating his flesh, he is referring to faith. It is faith which strengthens our link with him and saves our soul. Anyway, the main issue which is confusing me is the 'knowledge' of the bible. Whether this knowledge comes from reading the bible, or from someone else who has, the knowledge still comes from the book. Now, there are no witnesses to Jesus left on Earth, so how else would anyone learn of his existence? Without knowledge from the bible how would you know to feed your soul? Without the bible how would you know who Jesus was, or his Father? Let me give you a hyperthetical question. It is obvious that Jesus wants to save as many people as he possibly can. If the Jews had hidden their scriptures, or destroyed them all, and the disciples were killed with Jesus, do you believe anyone today would know about Jesus? Without knowledge from the bible do you believe he would have anyone to save?
Jesus actually read from scriptures to the Jews, and he taught them about the scriptures, giving them knowledge. He even used his scriptural knowledge to fight Lucifer in the desert.

God is Spirit.
Man has a spirit. Man's spirit is made to receive and contain God.
If you want to grow spiritually, you have to eat spiritually.
Taking the Word only as knowledge will kill your spirit.

I can't put it any simpler than that.