How long has man been created.

[JediMobius]

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'm not talking about our disagreement, I'm talking about the OP's original request: "Just interested if anyone has tell me how long since Adam was created, according to the Bible....I believe this can be worked out."

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.

It's simple, man, you were crying 'foul' so-to-speak, yet you were committing similar 'fouls' of poor-sportsmanship against Genez. It was incongruous, that's why I called it out. I do consider myself open-minded, and I have a tendency to almost demand open-mindedness in others, I hold everyone to a higher standard because if I don't, then who? I work to understand exactly what is being said, yet it rarely seems that I am understood similarly regardless of how well I try to structure my own posts. For example, when I said "the common reaction is for my opponent to [posture against me]" I don't see how you immediately applied that to yourself. As we haven't debated much - I don't think, you haven't established a common reaction to my posts. Certainly though, your post which I replied to posture against Genez as an opponent.

 

[JediMobius]

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 .

You only answered my post in part, apparently hung up on my opposition to evolution. I'm merely critical of it. I don't have a problem with evolution versus faith, but I do have a problem with how evolution could result in mankind as he is now. I've thought on the subject extensively and in different lights, always revisiting the question of its veracity. Simply, I always end up finding it lacking in the area of human evolution from out of the animal kingdom.

Granted, we can't observe every morphological change ever, but if there are many, we should have found at least one.

I'm not trying to dismantle evolution, I'm pointing out the discrepancies I see, and if those remain unresolved, it's either incomplete or untrue.

 

[GenemZ]

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.

I love that Mad Rabbits video!


When I get home I hope to copy it to my PC.

Grace and peace, GeneZ


.

 

[GenemZ]

Creationism was originally sufficient to explain that which we knew about the world, but evolution came along and explained it better.

Young Earth Creationism was unfortunately a fabled concept that originated from sloppy exegesis that became commonly accepted by the masses that had no need to question what was taught.

On the other hand.. Knowledge of a prehistoric creation which is to be found by sound exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek text, was seen (and a point of perplexing curiosity) by a good number of Bible scholars who lived long before Darwin was ever born.

Long before. These men who were born long before the evolution controversy had no hidden agenda motivating their discoveries from the original languages. It was more a "wonder why?" phenomena that they could see having no dogmatism for, other than accepting it by faith.

Its only after Darwin burst onto the scene that an interest in what these scholars had found became truly relevant for the first time. Darwinism ironically introduced certain men in the Church for the first time to an insightful glimpse into the prehistoric realm long hidden from man, but always pointed to in the Bible.

How could the ancient men who wrote the Bible know that there was a prehistoric creation? Where they all scientists? No. God knew.

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."

I believe you need to find out that there is much more to the Bible than Young Earth Creationism.


Have a few minutes?


Without Form and Void - Chapter 1


There is much more to know. Don't limit Creationism to young earthers.



In Christ, GeneZ

 

[richterforest]

What I have always wondered about evolution is if God started it that way, or if it just happened randomly? Some evolutionists would answer the former and others would answer the latter. In fact, not all evolutionists believe the same way.

Originally evolution explained that species evolved to make themselves better, now after reading these posts I have heard one say that it is not all about upward improvement, or whatever the term was. Now its suddenly about whatever is best at the time so they may actually go backwards. So, if that is the case why dont we have birds changing back to dinosaurs in some areas, oh wait the dinosaurs were destroyed in a mass extinction, oh wait no actually they all changed to birds, but we do have alligators, hmmmm....so confusing!!!!!!!!

They love to point out that science makes the silly idea of creation absurd. But Moses, who was chosen by God, writes it in the Bible. Obviously he has some intelligence, so why wouldnt God just tell him about evolution? Did he think Moses would have a stroke and die? Did God think the Jewish people would all fall into fetal positions because God told them this? Or did Moses write what he wanted without Gods hand in it? What is the answer?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am aware of the various positions in creationism: old earth creationism, gap theory, etc. They are far more sane than the YEC position, but ultimately they all come back to the same premise: that God created species separately in separate "kinds" and that we don't see any variation outside of those species, only within them. The problem is that this too goes against the evidence we have available today.

Darwin's theory has not created any dogmatism. The theory resulted from, and is still driven by, the curiosity to discover more about our past. As I'm sure you know, evolutionary theory is refined constantly. This results from people trying to falsify it and figure out things wrong with it all the time. The theory has stood the test of falsification, making it extremely robust, and the new evidence and refinery that constantly comes in makes it even more robust. The same cannot be said for creationism.

I looked a bit at the link you provided and it seems to be gap theory. I don't have time to really read it right now (doing philosophy papers), but am I correct in assuming that it is a proponent of gap theory creationism?

 

[GenemZ]

I am aware of the various positions in creationism: old earth creationism, gap theory, etc. They are far more sane than the YEC position, but ultimately they all come back to the same premise: that God created species separately in separate "kinds" and that we don't see any variation outside of those species, only within them. The problem is that this too goes against the evidence we have available today.

What evidence exactly are you referencing?




.

 

[Dark_Lite]

What I have always wondered about evolution is if God started it that way, or if it just happened randomly? Some evolutionists would answer the former and others would answer the latter. In fact, not all evolutionists believe the same way.

Just as no two creationists believe the same. This is the theological context of evolution, which does not deal with the scientific context. The theological context is different and must be discussed on different grounds (i.e. theological as opposed to scientific).

Originally evolution explained that species evolved to make themselves better, now after reading these posts I have heard one say that it is not all about upward improvement, or whatever the term was. Now its suddenly about whatever is best at the time so they may actually go backwards. So, if that is the case why dont we have birds changing back to dinosaurs in some areas, oh wait the dinosaurs were destroyed in a mass extinction, oh wait no actually they all changed to birds, but we do have alligators, hmmmm....so confusing!!!!!!!!

You are still thinking that evolution implies some sort of linear progression to some metaphysically "higher" life form. This is evident in your question of "why don't we have birds changing back to dinosaurs?"

The point I am trying to make is that evolution forces the traits that are best suited for the environment to be passed on. The environment changes, so do the organisms that inhabit that environment. What I am saying is that there is no constant movement "upwards" towards a higher life form. The dinosaurs are gone because of mass extinction, the environment changing not to support them, whatever. Birds are not going back into dinosaurs because the environment of earth is better suited them as birds, not as dinosaurs.

They love to point out that science makes the silly idea of creation absurd. But Moses, who was chosen by God, writes it in the Bible. Obviously he has some intelligence, so why wouldnt God just tell him about evolution? Did he think Moses would have a stroke and die? Did God think the Jewish people would all fall into fetal positions because God told them this? Or did Moses write what he wanted without Gods hand in it? What is the answer?

I'm thinking fetal positions.

 

[Dark_Lite]

What evidence exactly are you referencing?




.

Pretty much the entirety of modern biology, radiometric dating, etc.

 

[GenemZ]

Pretty much the entirety of modern biology, radiometric dating, etc.

That's non answer. Are you comparing what has been categorized as prehistoric species with what is currently inhabiting the earth? Sounds like that is what you might be getting at.

One more time: Here is what you said...

I am aware of the various positions in creationism: old earth creationism, gap theory, etc. They are far more sane than the YEC position, but ultimately they all come back to the same premise: that God created species separately in separate "kinds" and that we don't see any variation outside of those species, only within them. The problem is that this too goes against the evidence we have available today.

So far, you gave a non-answer.

What references do you have to actually show that a species has become a new species? That was what you were claiming. Right?

I asked for evidence, and all I got was...

Pretty much the entirety of modern biology, radiometric dating, etc.

That is not an answer at all. There is nothing specific in what you said.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Go read the speciation article on wikipedia article if you want specific examples. The fossil record has plenty of transitional fossils--horses in particular if I remember correctly.

There are experiments that show how RNA could have arisen from non-life. These are also supported by the Miller-Urey experiments.

The examples were covered earlier in the thread. The reason I told you the entirety of modern biology is because so much of it is built upon the theory of evolution. It's all connected.

 

[johnd]

All UNDER 5000 years old.

Fossils are formed rapidly.

Layering (strata) reflects bottom - up flood (99% of fossils are aquatic and mostly invertebrates 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?

"The most important conclusion is probably that fossilization has to happen quickly, or it won’t happen at all because, “fossilization is a race between the processes of mineralization and decay.” If something doesn’t fossilize quickly, it will decay." http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i6n.htm

As for most fossils being aquatic (of which I doubt 99% are),

I said 99% are aquatic and most fossils are invertebrates:

"The most common and often-found macrofossils are the very hard calcareous shells of articulate brachiopods (that is, the everyday "lampshells") and of mollusks (such as the omnipresent clams, snails, mussels and oysters)" Invertebrate paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

You wanted to see my evidence. I showed you mine, you show me yours! You are not getting off the hook this easily as to give me your opinion and what merely "SEEMS" to be this or "APPEARS" to be that... huh uh.

I am showing you evidence that the evidence points to a rapid deposit of sedimentary layers that buried first (and mostly) the aquatic life, then worked its way up to land life. These layers formed the fossils rapidly as they hardened. That spells flood any way you look at it.

It's impossible to make something out of nothing. Law of conservation of matter. What is your definition of "nothing?"

Bravo! It is impossible for (macro) evolution to have taken place. You made my case. From nothing comes nothing is my definition. Someone greater than the universe in every detail (from the micro to the macro) spoke all that exists into existence from nothingness.

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:13-18
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

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.

Nope. Doesn't count. It is merely regrouping what already exists.

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.

Yes yes, I know about them and their unreliability. I said Carbon 14 isotope dating is the most reliable and even it has hick ups.

THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING

Doesn?t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Is Carbon Dating Reliable? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

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?

Show me how it makes anyone into a liar?

It just goes against what you want to believe and you will grasp after any line of reason rather than face the facts that birds were formed fully capable of flight, lungs were made fully capable to breathe, eyes to see, and stars to radiate the right amount of energy, radiation, gravity with back ups to set the stage on this one meticulously balanced sphere.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is rich!

I proves my point. Macro-evolution is a farce a false religion of blind faith and hopeful monster theories. Not one of these turned into cats or dogs or elephants nor showed any sign whatsoever of ever going to.

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

Is this what you are referring to? An extinct bird? Surely you jest.

That reminds me, I need to put "hotwings" on my grocery list.

Continued...

 

[johnd]

Continued...

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.

Nope it is not only no evidence, it is bad science and not even a good theory. It is brute peer pressure of the humanists and theists and religious weaklings that push it on the world rather than making it the laughingstock it deserves to be.

The Bible, which is authenticated by the fact that its Author is able to tell history in advance, tells us an eternal God created the temporal universe and eternity itself from nothing. By your own admission here and in the previous post the first law of thermodynamics nothing less than an eternal God could produce something from nothing.

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

You are avoiding it now and trying to sound studious in your haste to avoid it. Only to the not easily impressed it only sounds like burying one's head in the sand. Maybe it with fossilize too...

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.

Why start now? You just slammed the Bible and with no proof just your pov.

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.

Hitler relied on such tactics. The Big Lie told often enough is believed to be true. I don't care if all the links in the world say evolution is true if it is in fact not true then it's not true.

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!"

I believe I already have listed quite a few and you have shown nothing but pov... and the links I provided were filled with evidence provided the listener listens. I do not believe in blind faith which is why I do not believe in macro evolution. But I believe in open mindedness. I listened to your theory (ies) in school, in debate after debate with not just Christian scholars but framers of the humanist manifestos et al.

All that ever comes from your side is your minds are made up despite facts to the contrary. If the bullying tactics did not stymie scientific advancements so much it would be laughable.

 

[Jase]

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.

Wow, 200 years of study, and millions of pieces of evidence compiled by the greatest minds to ever exist, and little old you disproved the most solid scientific theory every to be proposed, based on the fact that humans are smart.

Bravo.

 

[Jase]

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.

The Omphalos argument ( also known as created with the appearance of age), makes God look like a great deceiver.

The Bible doesn't even teach that Adam was real. It's a metaphorical, hebrew song used to convey a message.

Your stretching out light argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, and is completely disproven by physics.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Ok, so in two posts, we have:

• An apparent acceptance of the omphalos hypothesis.
• A regrouping of something that already exists? Seriously? THAT is what you came up with against the RNA experiment? The entirety of the physical universe is "regrouping what already exists."
• A complete misunderstanding of speciation. Butterflies -> Elephants? Um... right.
• "Oh, it's a bird!" Because when evidence stares you in the face, it's easier to just ignore it.
• Godwin's Law.
• Some random side comment about abiogenesis that has nothing to do with anything.
• Some accusation about slamming the Bible which derives from the inability to decouple literalism and truth.

So, the remaining cogent arguments would be:

• Fossilization argument.

Alrighty. Fossilization happens when there is sediment covering the organism, as well as a host of other conditions. Permineralization is a type where it must be covered by sediment quickly. It does not necessarily have to form quickly however. Then there's all the other types of fossilization.

And even if it did have to form quickly, that does not necessitate a young earth, given the remaining 82 billion pieces of evidence for an old universe.

This is why I don't usually bother digging up links, because of weird "arguments" like the ones presented in your post. This is, in general, how I see the content of your previous post:

----------Discussion--------->
          \
           \  your post
            \
             V

 

[fwwid]

You only answered my post in part, apparently hung up on my opposition to evolution. I'm merely critical of it. I don't have a problem with evolution versus faith, but I do have a problem with how evolution could result in mankind as he is now. I've thought on the subject extensively and in different lights, always revisiting the question of its veracity. Simply, I always end up finding it lacking in the area of human evolution from out of the animal kingdom.

Granted, we can't observe every morphological change ever, but if there are many, we should have found at least one.

I'm not trying to dismantle evolution, I'm pointing out the discrepancies I see, and if those remain unresolved, it's either incomplete or untrue.

Excellent post, and I agree with you. I don't, like many atheists, believe that mankind and our existence is an accident. I have too much education in human physiology to dismiss our existence as anything less then a miracle. However, I'm confused with how you seem to believe that no morphological change has been described as of yet in human evolution. There are many and I only hope that you would seek them out for yourself. Seriously, like I said, this is not a competition and I'm not trying to one-up anybody here. I only invite you to use your "open-mind" to discover what has already been revealed. Good luck brother in Christ.

 

[praisejahupeople]

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.



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.

Humans tend to populate areas quickly.100,000 years is an extremely long time.Even a quick look at how the US population has exploded in a few hundred years would cast doubt on your claim.My assertion is that from 8 people ,4400 years ago we get the earths population and when you can look at how fast man can spread,the 100 000 years theory becomes very hard to believe.

Erectus is made up of various fossil finds,however once again when you look at each fossil find critically then holes begin to appear.1.4 million years huh.Fossil finds can be explained as human or animal,not some sort of strange mixture.1.4 million years.....

 

[praisejahupeople]

The Omphalos argument ( also known as created with the appearance of age), makes God look like a great deceiver.

The Bible doesn't even teach that Adam was real. It's a metaphorical, hebrew song used to convey a message.

Your stretching out light argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, and is completely disproven by physics.

Adam was real.Would you class your beliefs as christian?im curious.

 

[fwwid]

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

That's not a ploy, it's a simple fact that many people are unfamiliar with evolution. Your word only.

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

haha, "they" don't exist because they literally don't exist, or because you don't want them to exist? Pretty inconvenient to have all of these intermediates being dug up when it directly contrasts with your "abrupt" creation theory which is simply not found in the geological record. Again, evolutionists aren't out to get you and we're not your enemy as much as you try and make us out to be. We see evidence, we report evidence - period.

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

That's what it says huh?

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

?

Precisely, don't mean to spoil the occasion, but I don't think theories such as these were that influential during the time of the apostasy. Neither do I think that Darwin was influenced by it. Although, I do believe that many of lifes miracles we enjoy today are because some scientist/inventor was influenced by some others. Newton himself claimed that he had accomplished so much because of what other great individuals had provided him with thus far.

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

Just because an answer I give doesn't correlate 100% with your beliefs does not mean that I'm ignoring you, it's just that I don't agree with you. There's no problem in that.