Genesis One

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I call it a part-truth since it is changeable over time and does NOT agree with every other Truth. God's Truth changes NOT. It doesn't have to. IF you wish to find God's Truth, it's found in the agreement of Scripture with the discoveries of mankind.

I'd rather just find the truth - God or otherwise. So far, otherwise is winning.

You are confusing the sons of God (prehistoric people) with Humans (descendants of Adam). Adam NEVER took a single step on the present Earth.

What a Crock. you have Zero evidence, and what we know of genetics would mean literally that your "Adam" had the same genome as all the other humans already here - even if what you say were real and not an unfounded imagined story.

Be nice. Adam was made to be immortal in the likeness of Lord God/Jesus. He lived with his Creator for billions of years BEFORE the first living creature appeared in water some 14 billion years later. Genesis 1:21

I don't have an interpretation which does NOT agree with Science and History since I show that God's Truth MUST agree with the discoveries of man or it is but a part-truth. Amen?

Even your own Bible doesn't say this about Adam. Your interpretation is very much one of the most out-there stories I've ever heard, and even other Christians balk at the nonsense you post. I wonder if you really think you're helping people understand your religion, or whether you know what you write reads like the ravings of a crazy man with too much internet access, and are just trolling these forums for a cheap laugh... I'm going with the latter.

 

[Aman777]

I'd rather just find the truth - God or otherwise. So far, otherwise is winning.

Only with those who reject God's Truth that they cannot understand.

What a Crock. you have Zero evidence, and what we know of genetics would mean literally that your "Adam" had the same genome as all the other humans already here - even if what you say were real and not an unfounded imagined story.

Adam was "His kind" or the kind made by the hands of Jesus. Prehistoric people are "Their kind" or the kind made by the Trinity. Your willing ignorance of the difference confuses you. We are genetically the same because His and Their kinds can produce children together. Genesis 6:4

Even your own Bible doesn't say this about Adam. Your interpretation is very much one of the most out-there stories I've ever heard, and even other Christians balk at the nonsense you post. I wonder if you really think you're helping people understand your religion, or whether you know what you write reads like the ravings of a crazy man with too much internet access, and are just trolling these forums for a cheap laugh... I'm going with the latter.

Actually, it's because most Christians study the ancient thoughts of Hebrews. Scripture tells us that ONLY those with the increased knowledge of the last days can understand. God told Daniel how He hid His scientific truth in Genesis until the last days.

Dan 12:4 ¶ But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Only with those who reject God's Truth that they cannot understand.

What Truth? There's been nothing presented aside claims.

Adam was "His kind" or the kind made by the hands of Jesus. Prehistoric people are "Their kind" or the kind made by the Trinity. Your willing ignorance of the difference confuses you. We are genetically the same because His and Their kinds can produce children together. Genesis 6:4

Rubbish. Present some evidence.

Actually, it's because most Christians study the ancient thoughts of Hebrews. Scripture tells us that ONLY those with the increased knowledge of the last days can understand. God told Daniel how He hid His scientific truth in Genesis until the last days.

Conjecture of your opinion based on your far-fetched interpretation of your holy book.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out" - Carl Sagan​

 

[Aman777]

Rubbish. Present some evidence.

It does no good to present actual evidence to the worshipers of Evolism. I know because I have presented the evidence which NO Evol has been able to explain. It was written thousands of years BEFORE Science and yet no one can explain HOW a man of the time knew and correctly wrote the scientific Truth which was discovered only 2 years ago.

Most just pass it off as myth but NONE can explain. Would you take the time to explain IF I posted you of this evidence? I doubt it since it would make you look like an idiot to your fellow evol worshipers...to agree with me. Amen?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It does no good to present actual evidence to the worshipers of Evolism. I know because I have presented the evidence which NO Evol has been able to explain. It was written thousands of years BEFORE Science and yet no one can explain HOW a man of the time knew and correctly wrote the scientific Truth which was discovered only 2 years ago.

Most just pass it off as myth but NONE can explain. Would you take the time to explain IF I posted you of this evidence? I doubt it since it would make you look like an idiot to your fellow evol worshipers...to agree with me. Amen?

All good, we already knew you had no evidence... no need to explain yourself.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It does no good to present actual evidence to the worshipers of Evolism. I know because I have presented the evidence which NO Evol has been able to explain. It was written thousands of years BEFORE Science and yet no one can explain HOW a man of the time knew and correctly wrote the scientific Truth which was discovered only 2 years ago.

Most just pass it off as myth but NONE can explain. Would you take the time to explain IF I posted you of this evidence? I doubt it since it would make you look like an idiot to your fellow evol worshipers...to agree with me. Amen?

How is there any need to 'explain' The Bible (which I think it what you are talking about), other than to say that it is a religious text which was written thousands of years ago, by putting together various pre-existing religious texts and stories, that had themselves evolved over time. (E.g. the development of the flood myth.)

What else needs to be explained?

 

[Aman777]

How is there any need to 'explain' The Bible (which I think it what you are talking about), other than to say that it is a religious text which was written thousands of years ago, by putting together various pre-existing religious texts and stories, that had themselves evolved over time. (E.g. the development of the flood myth.)

What else needs to be explained?

False, since God hid His scientific Truth in Genesis, and only the people of the last days, with our "increased knowledge" can possibly understand. Daniel 12:4 Your view is the same as ancient Hebrews when you speak of Genesis. Mine is God's revealed knowledge to the Christian people who live in the last days.

A good example is the flood story which caused the total destruction of Adam's firmament/Heaven in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, 11k years ago. Adam's world was totally destroyed but left our Earth with the Human intelligence of Adam, who never took a step on our planet. Amen?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

False, since God hid His scientific Truth in Genesis, and only the people of the last days, with our "increased knowledge" can possibly understand. Daniel 12:4 Your view is the same as ancient Hebrews when you speak of Genesis. Mine is God's revealed knowledge to the Christian people who live in the last days.

A good example is the flood story which caused the total destruction of Adam's firmament/Heaven in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, 11k years ago. Adam's world was totally destroyed but left our Earth with the Human intelligence of Adam, who never took a step on our planet. Amen?

There is nothing here which isn't covered by my explanation. This is exactly the kind of things that is found in religious texts, not just The Bible, written in the past, with no evidence of divine intervention in their writing.

 

[Speedwell]

There is nothing here which isn't covered by my explanation. This is exactly the kind of things that is found in religious texts, not just The Bible, written in the past, with no evidence of divine intervention in their writing.

Which strikes at the heart of the creationists' evangelical strategy: demonstrate that the Bible is objectively true and conversion is inevitable.

 

[Chinchilla]

There is nothing here which isn't covered by my explanation. This is exactly the kind of things that is found in religious texts, not just The Bible, written in the past, with no evidence of divine intervention in their writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Which strikes at the heart of the creationists' evangelical strategy: demonstrate that the Bible is objectively true and conversion is inevitable.

If that's their strategy, then I'd say that in general it's the correct strategy to apply. Demonstrate that something you've been claiming is true. Then people will believe.

For reasons that should be obvious, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to achieve this aim.

A problem for creationists is that too many things that are incompatible with a full literal reading of the bible have been shown to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm guessing that you think that the London Hammer supports the Bible, or contradicts deep time.

If so, I quote the following from the wikipedia link you gave.

Other observers have noted that the hammer is stylistically consistent with typical American tools manufactured in the region in the late 1800s. One possible explanation for the artifact is that the highly soluble minerals in the ancient limestone may have formed a concretion around the object, via a common process (like that of a petrifying well) which often creates similar encrustations around fossils and other nuclei.[2] J.R. Cole states: "The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."[1][5]

 

[Chinchilla]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm guessing that you think that the London Hammer supports the Bible, or contradicts deep time.

If so, I quote the following from the wikipedia link you gave.

That means either hammer is 300M years old or the rock is not 300M years old .

Did you read that part which says what it is made from ?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That means either hammer is 300M years old or the rock is not 300M years old .

Or, as in the Wikipedia page, the rock is soluble, the hammer was dropped into the crack, and solutes from the rock reformed around the hammer. This is well known process for which there are plenty of examples.

I'm a bit unsure as to whether or not you're serious, as your own link that you provided debunks your argument.

 

[Chinchilla]

Or, as in the Wikipedia page, the rock is soluble, the hammer was dropped into the crack, and solutes from the rock reformed around the hammer. This is well known process for which there are plenty of examples.

I'm a bit unsure as to whether or not you're serious, as your own link that you provided debunks your argument.

No it does not . Not everything written on wikipedia is true .

Can coal dissolve into liquid aswell ?

You said :
Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Here it is , Iron Bell inside of coal . Can you explain it ?
I would say flood . What would you say ?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No it does not . Not everything written on wikipedia is true .

It is not just 'written on Wikipedia', but also includes references to other sources that show that there is nothing mysterious about the hammers. Here's a more detailed description about how the hammer in rock could have formed. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

To sum up, there is an entirely reasonable and straightforward explanation of how the hammer came to be in the rock. So, I don't feel that this is proper evidence for me to change my beliefs that there were no handmade hammers on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.

Can coal dissolve into liquid aswell ?

Here's a question for you. Who was the witness to the finding of the bell inside coal, apart from the ten year old boy that found it? Was the bell examined still partially encased within the coal?

You said :
Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Here it is , Iron Bell inside of coal . Can you explain it ?
I would say flood . What would you say ?

I would note that there is no actual evidence that the bell was found in coal, except for the testimony of the ten year old boy that found it. I note that a subsequent study of the bell found no traces of coal, which you'd expect if the iron bell had actually been encased in coal. https://www.genesispark.com/essays/update-on-the-mysterious-bell-found-in-coal/

So, what do I say? I say that there is no actual evidence over and above hearsay that the bell actually ever was encased in coal. Where are the photos and record of it being extracted? Where are all the things that could confirm this story?

When I say 'Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence', you have to remember that I've already been given loads of evidence demonstrating (e.g.) deep time. Coming up with the testimony of a ten year old boy about an artefact that testing strongly suggests was never encased in coal doesn't really outweigh that.

Are you going to bring up the Turin shroud next?

 

[Aman777]

This is exactly the kind of things that is found in religious texts, not just The Bible, written in the past, with no evidence of divine intervention in their writing.

True, until the last days before Jesus returns to this Earth. In the last days God is going to pour out His Spirit, which is the Spirit of Truth, upon ALL flesh/Humans. Act 2:17 This includes you because God's Truth, hidden in Genesis, will be confirmed by today's Science in the last days, so that you are without excuse Rom 1:20 Live long and prosper, Brother.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

True, until the last days before Jesus returns to this Earth. In the last days God is going to pour out His Spirit, which is the Spirit of Truth, upon ALL flesh/Humans. Act 2:17 This includes you because God's Truth, hidden in Genesis, will be confirmed by today's Science in the last days, so that you are without excuse Rom 1:20 Live long and prosper, Brother.

Can you provide anything other than wildly interpreted Bible verses to back up your claims?

 

[Aman777]

Can you provide anything other than wildly interpreted Bible verses to back up your claims?

Sure. Can you explain how any person who lived more than 3k years ago, knew and wrote the scientific truth, thousands of years before announced by Science? He wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water in total agreement with today's Science?
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

I can. It's because Evols changed the name from descent with modification within kinds, to evolution. See how easy it is to refute the False ToE?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Sure. Can you explain how any person who lived more than 3k years ago, knew and wrote the scientific truth, thousands of years before announced by Science? He wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water in total agreement with today's Science?
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

Someone thousands of years ago wrote something that in no way looks like a modern scientific truth unless you interpret the wazoo out of your thousands of years old text. E.g. trying to match 'was created' with 'emerged from a non-living world through natural processes.'. The two don't match up as well.

That's no more impressive than claims that the phrase: 'An atom, nothing more, nothing less' in the Koran shows a knowledge of subatomic physics.

In both cases, nobody at all thought that the Bible/Koran phrases meant anything like these new interpretations until after the scientific discoveries were made.

I can. It's because Evols changed the name from descent with modification within kinds, to evolution. See how easy it is to refute the False ToE?

It is of course easy to create a completely unconvincing refutation of ToE. How about you try moving up a step and try to come up with something that has any believability about it at all. Can you do it?