How long has man been created.

[An Arch Angel]

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.


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


.

I checked out that site a little bit. I love the part about leaving science to science and theology to religion. It reminds me of:

God said: Give the Romans what is roman.

If our Brother Jesus was here he would say:

Give to science what is science.
Give religion what is religion.



Why do religions take for themselves?
“Here, Eat the “apple”, “religion” and you will know all of god.

You wanna know who created the universe and man, I as a Christian say God did. You ask me how he did it.

I say the evidence today does not tell us how the universe was created. It is logical for a believer to say that god was born unto the universe, is the universe, and/or created the universe. We then need supporting evidence, when you find it, let the rest of the world know too please. It looks like the big bang happened, so he may have done it through that processes.

As for man, it looks like he used a carbon based “program” we call DNA (We could say at earlier times it was RNA) so that life could evolved into “conscious” life. Given the size of the universe it is not illogical to assume “life” needed to be flexible until such time is reached that this “life” could evolve with self determined stressors instead of being totally influence by external stressors. The “will” of god.

We have been given the tools to our own salvation. You quote the verse!

The devil would have us argue over the bible instead of embracing science as ‘HOW” and religions as “why”. The devil wants both theist and atheist to think they alone have the answer, that way, we are pitted against one another over the petty knowledge of 7 days or not.

The devil’s seed is deception, deceiving us to believe this apple has all we need. Why eat another fruit (science), just eat this here apple (religion) and you’ll have everything you need.

God’s will …
Need a meal? Go to a cook book.
Need to add? Go to a math book
Need to know what you are capable of? Go to the bible?
Need to know how to do what you are capable of? Go to a science book.

The greatest fear of the devil is your understanding of this.

 

[An Arch Angel]

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

lol lite, hang in there my fellow evil do'er.

There are sweet little angels that wear lil’ white sheets and have their azz hanging out.

Because they are of god too,
We are cloaked in armor; (let them go get the quote),
We will hold the line.
We are of him

 

[praisejahupeople]

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.

Give or take 94,000 years or so and id agree with you.

 

[praisejahupeople]

I checked out that site a little bit. I love the part about leaving science to science and theology to religion. It reminds me of:

God said: Give the Romans what is roman.

If our Brother Jesus was here he would say:

Give to science what is science.
Give religion what is religion.



Why do religions take for themselves?
“Here, Eat the “apple”, “religion” and you will know all of god.

You wanna know who created the universe and man, I as a Christian say God did. You ask me how he did it.

I say the evidence today does not tell us how the universe was created. It is logical for a believer to say that god was born unto the universe, is the universe, and/or created the universe. We then need supporting evidence, when you find it, let the rest of the world know too please. It looks like the big bang happened, so he may have done it through that processes.

As for man, it looks like he used a carbon based “program” we call DNA (We could say at earlier times it was RNA) so that life could evolved into “conscious” life. Given the size of the universe it is not illogical to assume “life” needed to be flexible until such time is reached that this “life” could evolve with self determined stressors instead of being totally influence by external stressors. The “will” of god.

We have been given the tools to our own salvation. You quote the verse!

The devil would have us argue over the bible instead of embracing science as ‘HOW” and religions as “why”. The devil wants both theist and atheist to think they alone have the answer, that way, we are pitted against one another over the petty knowledge of 7 days or not.

The devil’s seed is deception, deceiving us to believe this apple has all we need. Why eat another fruit (science), just eat this here apple (religion) and you’ll have everything you need.

God’s will …
Need a meal? Go to a cook book.
Need to add? Go to a math book
Need to know what you are capable of? Go to the bible?
Need to know how to do what you are capable of? Go to a science book.

The greatest fear of the devil is your understanding of this.

I guess the general gist of your post is that true science and the bible dont mix.I believe when the bible talks of scientific matters,that its accurate.It is the word of God after all.

 

[mpok1519]

Give or take 94,000 years or so and id agree with you.

Well the fossil record doesn't lie. Humans have been around for longer than 10,000 years. Theyve found cave art like sculptures that radiometrically date further than 6,000 years. Its proof we've been around longer than what the Bible suggest.

Truth, however, doesnt depend upon whether or not people agree with it. =)

 

[praisejahupeople]

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



.

i think the best lies have elements of truth to them.This is how i view darwinism.

 

[An Arch Angel]

I guess the general gist of your post is that true science and the bible dont mix.I believe when the bible talks of scientific matters,that its accurate.It is the word of God after all.

NO!

Not at all,
you need them to be separate.
I need them to “BE” as they are.
Each as they stand.

They are as independent as you and I.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Well the fossil record doesn't lie. Humans have been around for longer than 10,000 years. Theyve found cave art like sculptures that radiometrically date further than 6,000 years. Its proof we've been around longer than what the Bible suggest.

Truth, however, doesnt depend upon whether or not people agree with it. =)

Indeed the fossil record doesnt lie.However a case could be put forward that people who attempt to interpret it a certain way who have an agenda,well im not so certain of their honesty.
You were off by 20% in your initial assessment,thats not very accurate at all.

 

[praisejahupeople]

NO!

Not at all,
you need them to be separate.
I need them to “BE” as they are.
Each as they stand.

They are as independent as you and I.

True science and the bible mix well.Attempting to arrange jaw bones and teeth in a particular pattern and attributing characteristics and qualities,plus adding wildly inaccurate dates to them,thats not science.

 

[praisejahupeople]

ill ask you this,i know of a lady who never married never had children and probably will die a spinster.
How it is possible to take her skull after shes deceased and tell whether she has had children or not,plus be able to tell if her children were more intelligent than she was?
Im not sure if evolutionists will understand what im getting at here....

 

[An Arch Angel]

True science and the bible mix well.Attempting to arrange jaw bones and teeth in a particular pattern and attributing characteristics and qualities,plus adding wildly inaccurate dates to them,thats not science.[/quote


Some see,
Others just need to open their eyes.

This applies well to us Both.
I understand the bible as well
as you understand science.

We need each other.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The science of constructing skeletal features from small features such as teeth was developed by some guy in the 1800s. Don't remember his name.

Also I think your analogy is a bit off, and also hints at a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Particularly the part about being "able to tell if her children were more intelligent than she was."

My mistake if you already know this, but I feel I should explain it anyway (if not for you than for the benefit of other people). Evolution does not imply any sort of "upward progress." What works best in the environment survives and that's the end. Mutations don't necessarily have to produce some metaphysically better trait in order to be passed on. If they're better for the environment and survival of the species they will be passed on.

 

[mpok1519]

Indeed the fossil record doesnt lie.However a case could be put forward that people who attempt to interpret it a certain way who have an agenda,well im not so certain of their honesty.
You were off by 20% in your initial assessment,thats not very accurate at all.

no, there is no conspiracy or agenda; just accurate, useful scientific methodology for the purpose of gaining knowledge of the truth. The agenda is to gain knowledge, not to trick, decieve or manipulate people (like religion has done plenty of in the past. The catholic church only recently apologized to Galleleio. I mean, talk about a grudge. lol They wont apologize until the proof guy is dead by a thousand or so years).

Homo sapiens appear somewhere after homoergastor and homo erectus, 100,000-120,000 years ago, although, it could be even longer. If we found another homo sapien skeleton dating even further, that previous assessment would be changed.

My assessment was %20 off, yes, but saying humanshave been around for 6000 years is %99.05 off the truth, which is, well.....~sigh~

 

[praisejahupeople]

The science of constructing skeletal features from small features such as teeth was developed by some guy in the 1800s. Don't remember his name.

Also I think your analogy is a bit off, and also hints at a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Particularly the part about being "able to tell if her children were more intelligent than she was."

My mistake if you already know this, but I feel I should explain it anyway (if not for you than for the benefit of other people). Evolution does not imply any sort of "upward progress." What works best in the environment survives and that's the end. Mutations don't necessarily have to produce some metaphysically better trait in order to be passed on. If they're better for the environment and survival of the species they will be passed on.

Contradictory.We are smarter than the half monkey half human ancestors according to darwinists.Im not sure why you say thats not upwards progress.Can you answer how its possible to read all sorts of traits from a skull please?

 

[praisejahupeople]

Homo sapiens appear somewhere after homoergastor and homo erectus, 100,000-120,000 years ago, although, it could be even longer. If we found another homo sapien skeleton dating even further, that previous assessment would be changed.

My assessment was %20 off, yes, but saying humanshave been around for 6000 years is %99.05 off the truth, which is, well.....~sigh~

Two things,
.1.If mankind was around for 20 times longer than what i claim can you give an approximate population for man at 100,000 bc?
.2.Ive actually studied a bit about homo erectus,how many fossils have been found and what time period do they cover?.A quick answer would suffice..I can help you a little ...peking man?

 

[JediMobius]

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



.

Indeed. My pause in replying to such posturing is in recognizing the futility of sound arguments being ignored in favor of nit-picking one small point, and from there trying to discover a way to circumvent the tenacity.

 

[GenemZ]

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

Conspiracy? What I said, was descriptive of a conspiracy?!





I was describing a pattern of behavior. Not a conspiracy. The fallen nature of man does not need a conspiracy to be itself.





.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Contradictory.We are smarter than the half monkey half human ancestors according to darwinists.Im not sure why you say thats not upwards progress.Can you answer how its possible to read all sorts of traits from a skull please?

Excellent. I can now explain this in more detail. I note several things in your post:

1. You think that humans came from monkeys.
2. You misunderstood what I meant about upward progress.

Addressing #2 first (makes sense right?): I said evolution does not imply upward progress. I did not say that it cannot create "upward" progress. As far as this upward progress is concerned, evolution has done that with humans, as human intelligence has expanded beyond what our ancestors had.

I also strongly suggest avoid using terms like "upward progress" although I have used it already. Upward progress tends to imply some sort of metaphysical "betterness," and aside from that we are not speaking in a metaphysical context, it can cause unclarity and miscommunication as people tend to have a difference of what constitutes "betterness." This may also be what fwiwd is getting at with the missing link discussion. It implies something that shouldn't be implied.

Addressing #1:
You stated that we have half human-half monkey ancestors. That is not how evolution works. It is more properly viewed as a tree model, and not as some sort of linear model that you appear to be viewing it as. Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor. Humans did not come from monkeys.

As for the skull thing, I am looking for the name of the scientist who originally came up with it. I at present cannot find it via Google. The only reason I even responded to it because I remember he was mentioned in another thread on the Origins Theology board. Apparently he was actually a creationist. If I can find out who he is I will let you know.

 

[mpok1519]

Two things,
.1.If mankind was around for 20 times longer than what i claim can you give an approximate population for man at 100,000 bc?

uh.....What? You honestly think that a model of aproximate population an be deduced from the number of fossils paleontologists have found? Nope; cant do it.

.2.Ive actually studied a bit about homo erectus,how many fossils have been found and what time period do they cover?.A quick answer would suffice..I can help you a little ...peking man?

Well I've studied alot about homo erectus this last semester in Physical Anthropology. And they cover 1.8 million years ago - 400,000 years ago.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Conspiracy? What I said, was descriptive of a conspiracy?!





I was describing a pattern of behavior. Not a conspiracy. The fallen nature of man does not need a conspiracy to be itself.





.

The ideas you presented are often expanded out into some sort of "conspiracy" when the hardcore creationists refer to the lack of creationist papers published in journals, the refusal of (most...) school districts to teach creationist ideas, etc.

I must also contend that what you described is not how things are. The evidence is there. Evolution was arrived at via the standard scientific method. Creationism was originally sufficient to explain that which we knew about the world, but evolution came along and explained it better. And now, scientifically, it can explain things creationism can't. I stress the use of "scientifically" in the previous sentence because creationism can explain pretty much anything by simply saying "God created it that way."