-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First born
- Thread starter tevans9129
- Start date
I have already posted "evidence" but you hand waved it away and then claimed you had refuted me. I will post it again and see IF you can dismiss it. It's scientific and historic, testable evidence of the sudden arrival of Humans (descendants of Adam) on this planet.
For some 6 Million years since prehistoric people diverged from Chimps, they remained like ANY other animal for more than 99% of the time since they diverged. Suddenly, 11,000 years ago a 450 foot long Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey bringing the FIRST farmer who desired to get drunk and naked. So, Noah walked from the mile high Lake into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia between the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. This History of modern Humans began there and here is a Map which you STILL haven't refuted. It totally DESTROYS you idea of evolving from the common ancestor of Apes. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE
Noah came from Adam's firmament which sank in the Lake and is still there waiting to be discovered. When it is, it will turn the False ToE into a laughingstock.
Upvote
0
Why should the DNA be different? What you are suggesting is that God, the Creator, is incapable of making Human DNA and prehistoric people's DNA match. How many studies have been made to find the difference 11k years ago? Any?
*** However, the truth of the matter is, even if you tripled the number of "true humans" on the ark, and all of them maintained lineages, the resulting interbreeding would have been entirely inconsequential to the genetics of the "prehistoric people" population. The number is too few to actually impact their evolution at all. So, even if Noah and the rest of his family were extremely prolific, by this point, their genetic contribution would be so watered down that modern humans would essentially be these "prehistoric peoples", not Noah's species or even a defined hybrid species.
Wonderful! You are so insightful. The Bible doesn't say the DNA will be the same BUT it allows the superior Intelligence of Adam, which is like God's, Gen 3:22 to enter the brains of children of prehistoric people, who have offspring with Humans. It's is HOW God has produced the 7.4 Billion Humans alive today. We can't prove it with the DNA but we can prove it since Humans have the highest intelligence level of ANY other creature on planet Earth.
***No, the bible says "things that moveth" come from water. It specifies that, implying that either biblical authors didn't know of animals that don't move, or that the bible is entirely missing where non-moving animals come from.
A coral reef doesn't move but it also came from L.U.C.A. which came from WATER in total agreement with Gen 1:21 AND L.U.C.A. did move.
*** In order for you to claim that "the bible, science, and history do not conflict" does not demand that you fill in theological gaps with science and pretend that the bible doesn't have these gaps. The bible says nothing of the nature of electricity, of atoms, or even that galaxies exist. The bible isn't long enough to cover everything.
Amen. What I have found in more than 30 years of study seeking the agreement of Scripture, science and history is that Genesis chapter one is filled with some evidence, which Science has only recently discovered. The multiverse, where life first began, and how we changed from prehistoric to human are some examples. There are too many examples for it NOT to be true. When you combine this with historic Truth of where Human civilization began, it becomes very interesting.
*** However, any time you claim that the bible does mention something, you have to back it up with verses that specify the topic. Mentioning that stars exist is not the same as stating that galaxies exist, for example.
Another agreement with today's scientific discoveries since the FIRST Stars lit up less than 1 billion years after the big bang. This means it was late on the 3rd Day when this happened Gen 2:4 since it was less than a billion years and the FIRST Stars lit up on the 4th Day Gen 1:16 and each of God's Days is more than 4 Billion years in man's time.
*** The explicit reason people were scattered was to actually harm humanity and it's potential for progress: 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
The Lord KNEW that the SAME thing which happened on Adam's Earth, would be repeated on planet Earth. The thoughts of the Humans on Adam's Earth were only evil continually Gen 6:5 and it's the same on Earth today. That is WHY the Lord cut our lifespans to some 10% of what they were on Adam's Earth. This allows more people to be made who can choose Heaven or Not. It's God's way of filling His perfect Heaven.
*** There's absolutely NOTHING suggesting the events at Babel benefited humanity in the long run. Logically, creating multiple languages wouldn't benefit humanity, aside from sign language for the deaf and mute, and braille as a written language for the blind. Those languages were definitively made by us, not any god.
This event produced 7.4 living Humans (Adam's descendants) over the face of the whole Earth while not allowing Humans to get together and do evil things. It's another indication of the last days since the Internet has brought us all back together and this will bring the end quicker.
*** Wrong, our species was already present in Australia over 40 thousand years ago. People had long since spread around by 10-11 thousand years ago.
I'm talking about Humans who were FIRST made. You are confusing the sons of God (prehistoric people) with Humans (descendants of Adam). Today, the Aborigines are Humans showing that sometime in the past, one of Noah's descendants was placed among them. One is all it takes.
***-_- technology and innovation aren't a part of evolution. People in the 1500s were not "less evolved" than modern people on account of less advanced technology. Furthermore, the start of farming is estimated at 12,000 years ago, which falls 1000 years before Noah's arrival, according to you.
Depends on which source you check. It matters NOT to me since I know it happened some 10-12k years ago in Lake Van, Turkey.
***Incorrect. Farming techniques and what is farmed varied significantly by region, and people that lived in North America were isolated from the people in the Fertile Crescent before farming began. Another way genetics counter your claims: the slight variations of human races. If people had been spread around about 10,000 years ago, there would have been significant genetic mixing at this time. Yet, our genes indicate otherwise.
That is WHY I wish today's scientists would identify prehistoric people from Humans. They don't because no one has told them the difference and they all worship at the Altar of Evolism. They become arrogantly nasty when their precious ToE is questioned.
***Genesis never names "prehistoric peoples", so your claims about them are empty from a theological perspective. That it names that "moving animals" exist is not specific enough to back your claim.
IF Genesis 1:21 and science is correct, ALL life came from water, which means that 3,000 years ago, when the Bible first appeared, ONLY God knew that. Such knowledge is proof of the Literal God whether coral reefs move or not.
*** So you are just going to ignore that not every human on this planet has genes indicating hybridization with other species and that this directly contradicts your claim that the intelligence within all modern humans is the result of such hybridization.
Then show us the study which contradicts History and Scripture. I doubt that you will find it since I'm sure you've already looked for it.
*** You do not know, for you have no evidence at all by which to back your claim that people that lived more than 11 thousand years ago on this planet weren't the same species as ourselves. Even their genes match up.
In less than 1% of the time since prehistoric people diverged from Chimps, Humankind has gone from Caves to the Moon and back. Can you explain WHY prehistoric people NEVER grew a crop? built a home or a city? or demonstrated ANY modern Human traits until some 11k years ago? when the Ark arrived?
***In scripture where? In science where? In history where?
Genesis 6:1-4...Science, inside every Human alive today...Fertile Crescent
***-_- there are chimpanzees that write and use sign language. Most of what they like to talk about is food. Studies also have found that they understand the basic concept of currency.
Amen. I once spent 25 cents to watch a chicken play the piano, too. They do whatever they are taught but they cannot Judge. Only God and the descendants of Adam have this ability to judge between good and evil.
***Wrong, according to both science and history, our species has existed for at least 100 thousand years.
Most claim we became fully human 195,000 years ago. They have mistakenly classified the sons of God (prehistoric people) as Humans (descendants of Adam)
***Incorrect, Ararat is too far North East of the area where agriculture actually started (if it actually began in the Fertile Cresent and not China). Your map doesn't distinguish the fact that the boundary of the Fertile Cresent expands farther than the area in which agriculture began the earliest. When agriculture started, it was in Syria or China. Ararat is in Eastern Turkey. Furthermore, you don't account for the fact that farm animals were raised before agriculture took place in the Fertile Cresent, in 13000 BCE.
I don't argue with dates BUT how do you know the difference between prehistoric people and Humans? It's the question today's science doesn't know the answer to.
*** Another problem: the bible claims people were scattered all over, but Judaism remained confined to a limited area. Why? The same god spread all of these people around, but only those that remained in a specific area kept worshiping this deity and documenting it? That makes absolutely no sense.
It's because Abraham was from Ur, in the SAME area where the Ark arrived and one of Noah's grandsons constructions. Abraham was one of Noah's direct descendants and NOT contaminated by the blood of savages/gentiles. Gentiles were NOT accepted by God, until AFTER Jesus died for all of us, Gentiles included. God Bless you
Upvote
0
It will be discovered soon. I've already read about how the "Scoffers" of the last days will be "willingly ignorant" that Adam's world, where Humanity began, was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 This means the the False ToE is incomplete, untrue and made up in order to eliminate God from His own Creation. Discovering Adam's firmament will expose the Lies of Evolism. Amen?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I see that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Since the myths of Genesis are in doubt (in fact they have been shown to be that) the book of Genesis cannot be used as "evidence" in your arguments.
Upvote
0
JIMINZ
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 6,600
- 2,358
- 80
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
.
That's cool, the book of Genesis which speaks directly to the question of Creation, cannot be used as evidence because evolutionists disagree with it and have deemed it to be myth.
Upvote
0
.
That's cool, the book of Genesis which speaks directly to the question of Creation, cannot be used as evidence because evolutionists disagree with it and have deemed it to be myth.
You can't use a claim as evidence. It's a rather simple concept to understand.
"Your honor, I claim that John Smith is guilty of murder. My evidence is my claim that John Smith is guilty of murder!!"
Does that sound like a valid argument to you?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No problem. These are of varying levels of contradiction. You can start here:
http://bibviz.com/
One of my favorites is that Luke has Jesus born about ten years after Matthew does.
Upvote
0
The claim of evolution is backed by mountains of verifiable and observable evidence:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
You do not see your error.
Once again, why not at least learn what the scientific method is so that you do not keep embarrassing yourself.
Upvote
0
The earliest candidates likely to be classified as mammals were small creatures between 150 to 200 million years ago. This article gives a reasonable account of the transition to mammals (see sections 5 and 6).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
