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.
Or, intelligence and communication finally developed enough such that it was possible to begin keeping history records.
6,000 years seems logical--until you think about it logically.
Or, God gave his eyewitness testimony to the scribe Moses as the Bible indicates. Therefore it has nothing at all to do with man's intelligence or linguistics or script.
But, did he start to age since he was created or since the fall.The Bible gives us a starting point in Genesis 5:3. ....when it says that.... Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born.
Sure....and to get off the point a little.....I also find it interesting if man evovled...how is it there are no species of apeman still around....or all sorts of weird evolutionary beings that led to man.
No.... all men and women on this earth have that superior intelligence that animals do not have....the ability to reason and communicate with each other and also communicate with their Creator.
Just another nail in the coffin for the evolution of man.
Where would Darwinists be without their scientific pseudo jargon and the cover of nacht and nebel of huge periods of time. Who knows what might have happened in millions of years past. Darwin himself admitted the chief weakness of his theory was the total lack of intermediates in between these morphing species. God made the first beings as adults with a reproductive system. I think the male and female aspect of most life on earth blows the whole theory of evolution.
What was the title of this thread? I thought it had something to do with how long man has been around or something? I'm sorry if you're offended by my beliefs but different strokes for different folks, eh? When a question is asked about the existence of man, then, according to my belief, evolution has everything to do with any legitimate answer given to said question. You may not like it, but the truth will never change, irrespective of your emotions - sorry, this was not the intention of the post. FYI, I am one of "those scientists" who believe in the creation and evolution - to the fullest extent. Cheers.
genez, haha, so I see your "because I said so" doctrine still hasn't escaped your brain. You obviously need to brush up on your science. I love how you continue to assert authority as the all around arbitrator of what is fact and what is half-truth; psssht, your hubris is nauseating. "homo sapiens" have been around for a long time. Our exact species, Homo sapien sapiens, has been around for merely 500,000 years, whether you believe Adam represents the commencement of our species or not - although we might need to make an exception for you if your profile pic is legitimate, haha.
Excuse me Genez, if I chose to not interpret everything you say as doctrine. As much as you try to portray yourself a prophet of God, your fruits of personal attacks and misconceived judgements indicate that you are false indeed, sorry - that's just the way it is, and has always been since I've known you. Haha, it's just so funny how you post a link and get offended that I don't think it's as important as you think it is. Calm down please. Show the distinguishing characteristic of discipleship - for your own sake.
haha, genez, genez, genez. GEEZ, the fact that you continue to use jargon like "missing link" fundamentally proves that you have no idea what science is about. There's no such thing as the proverbial "missing link". There are only slight morphological changes expressed in species, but spread out of thousands and/or millions of years, depending. Any lack of fossils can be explained by the relatively new/recent interest and technology available to explore this huge planet and the fact that early hominid species weren't exactly large populations like ours today. Nevertheless, miraculously, many fossils have been found - and they will continue to be found. Consequently and inevitibly, you will just flinch each time they are found because you arrogantly refuse to believe what is staring at you in the face. (i.e. pride has bound and set limits on the knowledge your mind can potentially make available to you - so sad.)
There were humanoid creatures in prior creations. That's why they think its evolution. Most likely, from what we can see from the fossil records, these humanoid creatures had the highest level of intelligence of all the prehistoric creation. But, it was not until this creation when God gave Adam a soul that had been created in God's image, do we see history records being kept. Man is not a high order of animal like the humanoid creatures of prehistory. God decided to give Adam dominion over the earth. It was no longer under the dominion of Satan and his angels who utterly destroyed the function of the prior creation.
That is why dominion was defaulted back to Satan after Adam fell.
Satan had won back his right to be prince of this world.
If interested to learn how the Hebrew and Greek reveals there has been prior creations, look here:
Without Form and Void - Frontpage
In Christ, GeneZ
The Bible teaches that Adam was formed fully functional on his first day of life. There is no indication of either an infancy or childhood. So, on his first birthday, how old did he appear? 1? or 21?
If the universe were instantaneously created fully functional, from nothing, and light from the most distant galaxy was in universal contact with all points across the universe at the moment of creation... how long did it take the light to arrive? Billions and billions of years? or Instantaneously?
And isn't creation of something from nothing the bigger wonder here? Right down to the smallest subatomic particle.
Nah, it doesn't. The glass is half empty like the Bible says. You insist it's half full. Why not take the word of the one who made the water and the glass? You have no more evidence other than it appears half full to you.
You do realize the flaw in applying evolution to a topic posted in the theology section, yes? The original post asked for a biblical solution, not a scientific one.
I am compelled to call you out. Genez seems perfectly calm (to me) in his responses, yet yours are inflamed with personal attacks. I've garnered similar responses from people where there is obvious miscomunication, and it's never that I expect to be regarded as perfectly correct, but that the reader at least have an open mind. Instead, the common reaction is for my opponent to be posed to dismantle anything he or she disagreed with beforehand. I think I can safely assume I know where Genez is coming from in that respect.
If a scientist is using the term "missing link" it is only because his audience does not understand evolutionary processes and so he/she is translating, for lack of a better word, what uninformed people don't understand into a vernacular they will understand. in other words, it's a lay term. It's human nature to try and categorize and demarcate everything we come across. However, evolution is not that cut and dry. Evolution is a capricious process driven by the equally variable environment through natural selection. Just because humans don't carry the observational frame of reference to effectively note every morphological distinction through it's entirety, does not mean that said morphological changes are not taking place. Like I said before, early hominids did not live in large populations like the ones that exist today. Naturally, it is very difficult to find any fossils - let alone the amount that would satisfy your insatiable refusal to acknoledge what has been found already. It's not as though evolutionist are "out to get the religious folk". Evolutionists are scientists, they rejoice in truth that has been expressed in nature. Don't shoot the messangerIf there's no such thing as a "missing link," (and there are many of them) scientists wouldn't use the term (and they do.) Even if over thousands or millions of years, these morphological changes don't occur each year (obviously, since we haven't seen any in recent history) so there had to be some kind of species in between that survived long enough to get to the next evolutionary step. In general, it would seem logical that each species in the 'tree' would survive as long as the others, or else it didn't meet the requirement of survival of the fittest and would have died out and not just been forced to evolve into something more fit. So if they did exist, there should be a significant chance that at least one fossil of a key intermediate species would be found.
If a scientist is using the term "missing link" it is only because his audience does not understand evolutionary processes and so he/she is translating, for lack of a better word, what uninformed people don't understand into a vernacular they will understand. in other words, it's a lay term.
-
Entirety of the geological/fossil record.
So? Try making RNA out of nothing. Then I'll be impressed.-Experiments have shown that RNA can be built from natural materials
Prove unreliable (gives wide ranging rates of decay leaving subjective calibration to biased interpretation). And those dates are only reliable to the point carbon can exist (5000 years). Anything beyond is mathematical conjecture and speculation.-Radiometric dating.
I already answered this. A fully functional universe was created simultaneously with light reaching all points since days one.-Distances of space.
mutation within a kind, micro-evolution? no one debates this characteristic of adaptation. But no evidence of transpeciation (macro-evolution) is observed or found in the fossil record.-Observed speciation.
I guess you didn't listen to any of the links I provided... typical.
All UNDER 5000 years old.
Fossils are formed rapidly.
Layering (strata) reflects bottom - up flood (99% of fossils are aquadic and mostly invertabrites like clams etc.).
Then there's the evolution three card monte dating of the geo record:
The determining factor of the age of a layer is the fossils. The determining factor of the age of the fossils is the layer. In other words pick an age and get others to agree on it and use this method to make it "authoritative."
Cute.
It's impossible to make something out of nothing. Law of conservation of matter. What is your definition of "nothing?" Will it keep shifting around to avoid the results of this experiment? The materials they used for creating the RNA bases were pretty much "nothing." In fact I'm pretty sure they were inorganic.So? Try making RNA out of nothing. Then I'll be impressed.
Radiometric dating does not mean only carbon dating. Many other radioactive elements with longer half-lives are able to be used and give accurate data. Your assertion that anything beyond 5,000 years (what a convenient number, hmm?) is conjecture is an empty assertion.Prove unreliable (gives wide ranging rates of decay leaving subjective calibration to biased interpretation). And those dates are only reliable to the point carbon can exist (5000 years). Anything beyond is mathematical conjecture and speculation.
This sounds like the omphalos hypothesis: the idea that the universe was created appearing old but is actually young. The omphalos hypothesis makes God into a liar. Why would he try to trick the human race?I already answered this. A fully functional universe was created simultaneously with light reaching all points since days one.
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediamutation within a kind, micro-evolution? no one debates this characteristic of adaptation. But no evidence of transpeciation (macro-evolution) is observed or found in the fossil record.
Biogenesis is life forms producing other life forms. Obviously this happens. Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from non-life. The RNA base experiment along with the Miller-Urey experiments provide evidence for this. It's not as rock solid as the evidence for evolution, but it's still good evidence.And evolutionists run from biogenesis. You'd better check with your buddies. They want nothing do do with 'splainin' where grandmommy and granddaddy hydrogen atom came from.
This is what I was talking about. The mindset that says the Bible must be literal in order for us to trust it seems to be uniquely found in the hardcore YEC community. I have not made any statements on the veracity of the Bible one way or another; merely asserted that the creation story is not and cannot be literal given the evidence we now have.If you take your Bible so lack luster why believe anything in it? Why not invent your own religion (if you have to do something with rituals and whatnot)?
If a scientist is using the term "missing link" it is only because his audience does not understand evolutionary processes and so he/she is translating, for lack of a better word, what uninformed people don't understand into a vernacular they will understand. in other words, it's a lay term. It's human nature to try and categorize and demarcate everything we come across. However, evolution is not that cut and dry. Evolution is a capricious process driven by the equally variable environment through natural selection. Just because humans don't carry the observational frame of reference to effectively note every morphological distinction through it's entirety, does not mean that said morphological changes are not taking place. Like I said before, early hominids did not live in large populations like the ones that exist today. Naturally, it is very difficult to find any fossils - let alone the amount that would satisfy your insatiable refusal to acknoledge what has been found already. It's not as though evolutionist are "out to get the religious folk". Evolutionists are scientists, they rejoice in truth that has been expressed in nature. Don't shoot the messanger.
Just through reading the replies here,i would say that darwinism is understood.And im puzzled that you steadfastly stick to it despite admitting that theres a paucity of fossil evidence.
Despite you saying that our apparent ancestors were much smaller in population,these hominids were around for millions of years according to darwinists.
Surely the fossil evidence would be overwhelming.Millions of years is an extremely long time for pseudo men to be existing.
He knows the facts. Its an inconvenient truth that they all know they must distance themselves from now. To do so, they try and make you sound like you are the one who in misinformed. Its all bluff, smoke and mirrors, and posturing. Its easy to do. All they need to do is to treat everyone like they have an IQ of 80. That their knowledge is too advanced for our simple minds. Some must figure that the sort of offense should stun us. But, they have no idea that we have no need to see through them. For what they do is self evident. Their glory days of dealing with other children in the school yard are over. But, they cling to their old ways of trying to come out on top as a way of life.
In Christ, GeneZ
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?