How long has man been created.

[johnd]

What really happened to the dinosaurs?

http://static.icr.org/i/radio/mp3/sss-0983.mp3
​

 

[johnd]

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.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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 the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[johnd]

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

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.

 

[johnd]

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.

 

[Jeffersoni]

The Bible gives us a starting point in Genesis 5:3. ....when it says that.... Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born.

But, did he start to age since he was created or since the fall.

 

[JediMobius]

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.

I've been wondering about that lately, why don't we have lizard-humanoids for that matter?

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.

That's interesting, especially considering that a sponge is asexual and survives just fine, it would seem male and female isn't driven by survival of the fittest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[praisejahupeople]

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 homonid 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.)

Hello there,i would have to disagree with firstly

.1.your claim there are no missing links,all it takes is to look at evolutionary websites and see for myself what you stated is false.
Theres big gaps inbetween what is a apparently our hominid ancestors and what man is today.You just attempted to gloss over this fact.
.2.You contradicted yourself by firstly saying theres a lack of fossils due to poor technology then in the very next sentence claimed there were many fossils.Can you tell the audience which one it is?A lack of ,or many??

Nice to meet you btw i enjoy discussing darwinism with someone who is willing to be honest.

 

[JediMobius]

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.)

If 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.

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.

I'm with you in most of that. Is the point that Satan and his angels had dominion over the previous creation of earth covered in that link? Or did you get that somewhere else? Also, do you think evolution could have been God's mechanism for the diversity of creation other than humans? My only qualm with evolution will always be that man was a special creation of God, so we couldn't have been created the same way - and of course Genesis tells us Adam was created out of the dust, not out of the animals already created.

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

Seriously people, click the link and read past the front page!

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.

Are you getting at the relativity of time here? I see God's creation in six days as observed by science to be billions of years reconciled in that our time relative to God's 'time' causes the universe to appear (that's the operating word) billions of years old from our skewed perspective. I used 'time' loosely since God exists out of time, since He created it, but he put his creation of the universe within a frame of time relative to his perception of a day - like a thousand years, but could be any number greater than any man has ever lived.

Oh. . . Adam's apparent age in the garden. Was he childlike/teenage in the sense of innocence, or 20-30 in the sense of having dominion over the whole earth? I like to think he and eve were something like 7 year olds in the garden, but aged after the fall. Whether man even aged significantly before God took away his longevity is interesting to ponder.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

-Entirety of the geological/fossil record.
-Experiments have shown that RNA can be built from natural materials.
-Radiometric dating.
-Distances of space.
-Observed speciation.

All of those (and more) point to an old universe in which evolution was used as the mechanism for changing life on Earth and that abiogenesis is a plausible mechanism for the start of life.

I don't really feel like digging up a bunch of links for you to look at. If you're interested enough you will find them yourself (from reputable sites--not ICR and friends). Even Wikipedia will be able to direct you to various reputable sources.

All of modern science fits together. Physics, chemistry, geology, etc all build off each other. If you begin to redefine one part of it (which is what creationism does), you wind up having to redefine all of it. Most creationists tend to ignore all that doesn't agree with their worldview. They will calmly accept all of the advancements made by modern medicine, almost all of which would not have been possible without the advancements made in biology in the past ~1.5 centuries, but deny anything that doesn't fit--like the Earth being over 6,000 years old.

Creationism is an archaic position that is slowly dying. It holds to an erroneous interpretation of the Bible that doesn't fit with the world. The evidence that creation has flies in the face of a literalist interpretation. It is only in the minds of creationists that a non-literal interpretation of the Bible equates to a lack of faith or untrustworthiness in the divine revelation. Staying latched on to a literalist view of the Bible creates unnecessary problems like denying evolution and takes the focus away from more important issues in Christianity. It also somewhat impedes the intellectual stimulation of education. Luckily creationists do not have much ground in that area.

 

[fwwid]

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 actually don't realize this. You see, this is were you and I fundamentally diverge. You seem to believe the bible has no scientific relevancy were as I see an unabridged coupling between the two. You're version of reality has evidently been taught to you by your parents or spiritual mentor which traditionally pits science and religion against each other. My belief is that science seeks to understand reality, and the bible testifies of it. Consequently, if an aspect of reality has been expressed through science, then it must not conflict with the bible, given that the bible is translated and interpreted correctly. If reality is reality, and thus, truth, truth, then it doesn't matter were you get it then right? Truth is not found exclusively in the bible. Because you don't believe this is of no consequence to me other then we simply carry differing beliefs. Let us agree to disagree then.

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.

I wonder what the underlying force is that has "compelled" you to "call me out"? The tone does not seem characteristic of the spirit. It's good to see that you feel comfortable in being the judge of open-mindedness. On the flip-side, I don't consider you my "opponent" - this isn't a competition.

 

[fwwid]

If 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. 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 .

 

[GenemZ]

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.

That is always the ploy. We do not understand "evolution." We are all knuckle dragging, scientifically challenged peasants.

But? Doesn't matter. They (missing links) do not exist. Darwin said that they should. Instead? There are sudden stops, and new forms appear.

Coincidence? The Bible in the original languages reveals that prior creation was destroyed, and then replaced afresh.




Without Form and Void - Frontpage


I know... Ignore what refutes you. Throw verbal stones to the left side of the screen to divert everyone's eyes from discussing what's to be found with that link.

According to the Revised Edition of Chambers's Encyclopedia published in 1860, under the heading "Genesis", the view which was then being popularized by Buckland and others to the effect that an interval of unknown duration was to be interposed between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2 was already to be found in the Midrash. In his great work, The Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginsberg has put into continuous narrative a precis of their legends, as far as possible in the original phrase sand terms.



In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, he has this excerpt on Genesis 1:




"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."

from:
​

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1
​

Its just coincidence? That, before Darwin was even born, scholars were finding the Hebrew text revealing prior creations that were destroyed and replaced with the one we now know?

How could they know to make such a thing up to defend the Bible against your type of theory, if Darwin was not even near yet born?
​

​

What's it going to be? Well, just ignore that? And, precede (as usual) as nothing were said?
​

​

In Christ, GeneZ





.

 

[johnd]

-

Entirety of the geological/fossil record.

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.

-Experiments have shown that RNA can be built from natural materials

So? Try making RNA out of nothing. Then I'll be impressed.

-Radiometric dating.

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.

-Distances of space.

I already answered this. A fully functional universe was created simultaneously with light reaching all points since days one.

Also Norman and Setterfield have yet to be disproved their work on the decay of c. (to the tune of 10 million times slower today than 7000 years ago... that means take the farthest distance and divide it by 10 million you generally get around 7-10, 000 years).

-Observed speciation.

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.

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.

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)?

Dr. A.E. Wildersmith Media Library
​

 

[GenemZ]

I guess you didn't listen to any of the links I provided... typical.

They would rather see it as a "missing link."


But, they can not find their own.


Don't feel bad. They run away from the link I provide, as well.


Without Form and Void - Frontpage


Heaven forbid if the creation, as science finds it (prehistoric life forms) is in agreement with the original languages of Scripture. They refuse to make the link between the two.

On the other hand, Young Earth Creationists fail to see that God had a prior creation to this one. That leaves the debate between YEC's and TOE's in an ongoing conflict that can never be resolved with their held positions. Satan loves such perpetual, self sustaining, arguments, that each side does not have enough facts to see that they themselves are wrong. They only have enough facts to see that their opposition can not be right.



In Christ, GeneZ



.

.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

Are they now? Where's your physics explanation for this? As for most fossils being aquatic (of which I doubt 99% are), the world was covered by a lot more water a long time ago. Not to mention there seems to be a move from aquatic to land-based life forms before prehistoric lifeforms died out... Nothing to do with a global flood.

So? Try making RNA out of nothing. Then I'll be impressed.

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.

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 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.

I already answered this. A fully functional universe was created simultaneously with light reaching all points since days one.

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?

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.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, there are plenty of transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is one example of a transitional fossil from dinosaur to bird.

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.

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.

No one "runs" from abiogenesis (I'm assuming that's what you meant). I think that's a misunderstanding you 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)?

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.

Edit: And regarding the links. I did listen to one last night, but just as I'm not patient enough to go dig up 23948237 links dealing with evidence for evolution I'm not going to listen to an hour+ of creationist radio recordings. If you want to summarize the arguments made in them I'll deal with that instead. The one I listened to last night was "What really happened to the dinosaurs?" and it was a bunch of rather vague arguments against various theories and at which point they defaulted to "It must have been the flood!"

 

[praisejahupeople]

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.

 

[GenemZ]

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



.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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



.

In the end it's always a conspiracy of some sort...

 

[mpok1519]

humans have been around for (this is modern humans with 'little' variation on a genetic level) around 120,000 years. The first modern homo sapiens appear on the fossil record about 100,000 years ago, give or take 10-15-20 thousand years.