How long has man been created.

[An Arch Angel]

About 4.45 billion years if IIRC. What I don't understand (hence the scratch head smiley ) is what problem you think I have with carbon dating. I suspect you may have misunderstood my post. I was trying to correct Creationist misunderstandings of carbon dating. On the other hand if you have spotted some misunderstanding I have about C14 do let me know. I am not an expert on the subject by any means.

OK,

What about deposition rates and Plate movement? They point to an older Earth.

 

[An Arch Angel]

Religion is not the Bible. You seem not able to discern the difference.


Funny how you confuse Christianity with religion.

Remember:

Pharissees = RELIGION

Jesus = CHRISTIANITY
​

What did the religious Pharisees do? They wanted the Lord of life murdered. Their kind are what you are refering to as the "church." That same "church" also murdered Bible believing Christians. They once sent out a hit squad to murder Luther after Luther discovered that the Bible tells man of the true way to salvation from the Bible.

Religion - bad. .... Christianity - good.
​

You have confused the two as being one and the same.

Genz,

Christianity is a religion.

Jesus = Jesus = Christ = God … do not equal the bible.

Jesus (the man) would not be happy that some of us have turned the Bible into an idol. He also would not like how many Christians are exactly the same as the Pharisees.

I normally wouldn’t talk like this, but just this once forgive me.
The “hit Squad” were angels sent to stop Pharisees from “putting” all of god in the book. The dark one got away that time, cunning, powerful, and baffling is that one. Thank GOD they he and his soldiers didn’t get the church yet.

So is Jesus Christianity or the bible? If it is Jesus, like I think it is, then the bible is our best reference book.

 

[Blue sapphire]

Well.....i had intentions of reading through this thread again to gain a better understanding of the answer to my original question....then i looked at the number of pages.....and thought better of it.

But if any of you have more insight to offer on the original question....briefly.... you can reply....

I do hope and pray ....you all remain friends....even if you have your differences.

 

[Assyrian]

About 4.45 billion years if IIRC. What I don't understand (hence the scratch head smiley ) is what problem you think I have with carbon dating. I suspect you may have misunderstood my post. I was trying to correct Creationist misunderstandings of carbon dating. On the other hand if you have spotted some misunderstanding I have about C14 do let me know. I am not an expert on the subject by any means.

OK,

What about deposition rates and Plate movement? They point to an older Earth.

Older than 4.45 billion years? Are you actually reading what I post? ...

 

[An Arch Angel]

Older than 4.45 billion years? Are you actually reading what I post? ...

errr ... silly me?
I get these post mixed up some times.

 

[GenemZ]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


It think you are getting confused here, why would God have to state that Israel would be spared a destruction happened before Genesis 1:2?

27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."
​

God drew distinctions. First, God reminded Israel of his power to utterly destroy.

Do not mess with God's patience. To do so? Genesis 1:2!

Genesis 1:2 speaks of a COMPLETE and utter destruction of all life. That is why Jeremiah warned with it, and had to add that Israel would not be completely destroyed, as Genesis 1:2 describes.

It was sending a message to Satan who after hearing about Genesis 1:2, thought maybe God was about to wipe out Israel, en toto. For Israel in Jeremiah's day was behaving like nations that God in the past had commanded be entirely wiped from the face of the earth. Men.. women... children... even their animals.


Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew spoke to the Jews (and Satan) of a judgment from God that involved utter and total destruction of all life. That is why Jeremiah had to add that Israel will not face the exact same extent of the wrath of God.

Israel was destroyed soon after by Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed off. Yet, Israel was not 'completely' destroyed. A select group of Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. That is where we get the book of Daniel from. From the Babylon captivity. Many years later the Jews were allowed to return to their land. It was not completely ruined for the sake of the few who remained faithful to God's Word.



.



.

 

[Assyrian]

errr ... silly me?
I get these post mixed up some times.

LOL Easily happens, don't worry about it

 

[mpok1519]

Religion is not the Bible. You seem not able to discern the difference.

You know what I meant; twisting words is just childish and juvenile.

Funny how you confuse Christianity with religion.

Remember:

Pharissees = RELIGION

Jesus = CHRISTIANITY
​

OH wait, Christianity is NOT a religion! lol
​

Religion - bad. .... Christianity - good.
​

You have confused the two as being one and the same.

Okay, Christianity is not a religion according to you.

That was hypocritical projection. Its you who take pleasure in wallowing in ignorance.

Nope, its still you taking the cake on that one son.

Remember? Without Form and Void - Frontpage

Yes I do; terrible book. Absolutely horrible.

You are the one who walllows. You have been shown time after time.


.

And you continuously lie to those who are smart enough not to buy it. lol Its still a lie even though you believe it to be true.

 

[GenemZ]

You know what I meant; twisting words is just childish and juvenile.

Just because you have something to say. Does not mean you have something to say.


You are like a jealous blind man who swears beautiful colors do not exist because those who can see them are not able to prove it to him.

 

[mpok1519]

Just because you have something to say. Does not mean you have something to say.


You are like a jealous blind man who swears beautiful colors do not exist because those who can see them are not able to prove it to him.

Ok son, whatever helps you sleep at night and keeps the demons away...

 

[GenemZ]

Matthew 15:14
Leave them; they are blind guides.
If a blind man leads a blind man,
both will fall into a pit."
​

Jesus said that about unbelievers who deemed themselves to be much smarter than the average dumb believer. They were the ones with the equivalent of having doctorates today.

"Leave them; they are blind guides.
If a blind man leads a blind man,
both will fall into a pit."

But, then again? The Apostle Paul was a child prodigy, a genius in theology before he was saved. And, his epistles to this day frustrate those who in ignorance distort the Bible as a way of life.

There are those in Christianity today that do have Ph.D's ... I am sure all the evolutionists already know who they are. For obviously, you seek out sound exegesis and accurate interpretation to base your arguments against the Bible being the Word of God.


Enjoy your time here on earth, my fellow human beings. Enjoy your fantasy that must insist that what Jesus died on the Cross for was intended to give believers a fantasy to cling to in their lives.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ






​

 

[GenemZ]

Let's try again...

I really do not think an evolutionist can even spin this one away. I ask them to answer my question to show them the corner they have bricked themselves in with. If they are to remain consistent with their theory? They will end up burying themselves inside the hole in the wall that the question tears wide open. They know it. That is why they try to act like the answer is too much for others to understand, or that rocks are similar, therefore complex lifeforms formed spontaneously and evolved independently from each other.

Here we go again. This is the Achilles heel of the theory of Evolution as it now stands.






Most animals have eyes.

Most animals have lungs.

Most animals have blood.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have bowels.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have a nervous system.

Most animals have brains.

Most animals have bones.

Most animals have ears.

Most animals have skin.

Most animals share common design, but are simply rearranged in shape and colors that make one animal type unique from another.


Now if almost all animals share all these complex organs and physical attributes?

How could eyes happen by chance in thousands of different animals? Lungs? Hearts? Teeth? Noses? Ears? Stomachs? Intestines? Livers? All happen by chance independently from one another?

Looking at the ultra complexity that so many animals share in common? How can one believe that each type of animal started out as an independent entity onto itself millions of years ago? If one believes evolution is the means by which we got from the Triassic period to here? It would have to mean we all share one common ancestor. Or do you believe all these same attributes developed in different animals independently from one another by chance?

If not? Then most animals would have all begun by chance, and by chance all develop eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and everything we share commonly by design! Kidneys? Spleens? Livers? Blood vessels? Blood? All happened by chance? Sexual organs?

We all had to come from a common ancestor. Not possible.

 

[mpok1519]

compexity is not a sign that people are willing to buy the whole ID load of tripe.

How do you define independently? What do you mean by "they all developed independently" form each other. Because your organs all develope inter-dependently among each other. Take that university college course in anthropology I was talking about, and you'll understand. The only weakness this argument of yours has is its coming from someone who doesn't have an associates, BA, or MD, or PhD in any field related to biology. This is the achilles heal of your argument. you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop spreading nonsense.

Take it easy buddy. Don't get too stressed thinking about it.

 

[GenemZ]

compexity is not a sign that people are willing to buy the whole ID load of tripe.

That's your only defense? You can not defend the indefensible. Your only defense is getting offensively defensive and trying to change the subject.

How do you define independently? What do you mean by "they all developed independently" form each other. Because your organs all develope inter-dependently among each other. Take that university college course in anthropology I was talking about, and you'll understand.

Anthropology? You sure you got the right course?

You keep missing the point. I am not taking about each creature developing independently in the sense you speak of. I am speaking of all those complex AND AMAZING organs that all work together? To form 9by means of evolution) into a biological unit that develops as a creature independently from the other creatures that contain all the same organ functions. ... too deep for you to grasp, I see.

You mean to say that an elephant's liver happened on its own? While a chicken's liver developed (evolved) into being independently from an ancestor not also linked to the elephant?

The only weakness this argument of yours has is its coming from someone who doesn't have an associates, BA, or MD, or PhD in any field related to biology.

Then why are you being a hypocrite for coming here to make your claims if only those on that level could receive it!


No, sir. You have no answer and are hiding behind the wizard's curtain of imposing upon us here that we all have no capacity to understand the data that you welcome like a fat lady does a box of chocolates.

If your premise about being so educated were true? You are hypocritical for coming to a forum where you know the people have no capacity to receive your argument on that level.

What a load of rubbish... "You can not understand what is needed to know you are wrong, so just accept the fact when I tell you that you are wrong."

What the heck are you? You just told us we have no ability nor capacity to know that what you believe is right. Yet, you act like we are idiots for not believing you.

This is the achilles heal of your argument. you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop spreading nonsense.

Will you send the KGB to silence me if I keep speaking out and exposing the fallacy of your pseudo scientific dogma?

Take it easy buddy. Don't get too stressed thinking about it.

That's your wish.. "I upset you, therefore I am."

You have no idea how easy it is to see through your illogical, pseudo intellectual, smoke screen. I am not stressed out as you desire. If I am frustrated at all? Its because you can offer no logical rebuttal that I might learn something new from, and offers nothing as far as an answer. You end up only able to pontificate from the holy grail of alleged scientific fact.

You continue to have nothing to offer as an answer.


Most animals have eyes.

Most animals have lungs.

Most animals have blood.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have bowels.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have a nervous system.

Most animals have brains.

Most animals have bones.

Most animals have ears.

Most animals have skin.

Most animals share common design, but are simply rearranged in shape and colors that make one animal type unique from another.


Now if almost all animals share all these complex organs and physical attributes?

How could eyes happen by chance in thousands of different animals? Lungs? Hearts? Teeth? Noses? Ears? Stomachs? Intestines? Livers? All happen by chance independently from one another?

Looking at the ultra complexity that so many animals share in common? How can one believe that each type of animal started out as an independent entity onto itself millions of years ago? If one believes evolution is the means by which we got from the Triassic period to here? It would have to mean we all share one common ancestor. Or do you believe all these same attributes developed in different animals independently from one another by chance?

If not? Then most animals would have all begun by chance, and by chance all develop eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and everything we share commonly by design! Kidneys? Spleens? Livers? Blood vessels? Blood? All happened by chance? Sexual organs?

We all had to come from a common ancestor. Not possible.




.

 

[fwwid]

That's your only defense? You can not defend the indefensible. Your only defense is getting offensively defensive and trying to change the subject.




Anthropology? You sure you got the right course?

You keep missing the point. I am not taking about each creature developing independently in the sense you speak of. I am speaking of all those complex AND AMAZING organs that all work together? To form 9by means of evolution) into a biological unit that develops as a creature independently from the other creatures that contain all the same organ functions. ... too deep for you to grasp, I see.

You mean to say that an elephant's liver happened on its own? While a chicken's liver developed (evolved) into being independently from an ancestor not also linked to the elephant?



Then why are you being a hypocrite for coming here to make your claims if only those on that level could receive it!


No, sir. You have no answer and are hiding behind the wizard's curtain of imposing upon us here that we all have no capacity to understand the data that you welcome like a fat lady does a box of chocolates.

If your premise about being so educated were true? You are hypocritical for coming to a forum where you know the people have no capacity to receive your argument on that level.

What a load of rubbish... "You can not understand what is needed to know you are wrong, so just accept the fact when I tell you that you are wrong."

What the heck are you? You just told us we have no ability nor capacity to know that what you believe is right. Yet, you act like we are idiots for not believing you.




Will you send the KGB to silence me if I keep speaking out and exposing the fallacy of your pseudo scientific dogma?




That's your wish.. "I upset you, therefore I am."

You have no idea how easy it is to see through your illogical, pseudo intellectual, smoke screen. I am not stressed out as you desire. If I am frustrated at all? Its because you can offer no logical rebuttal that I might learn something new from, and offers nothing as far as an answer. You end up only able to pontificate from the holy grail of alleged scientific fact.

You continue to have nothing to offer as an answer.


Most animals have eyes.

Most animals have lungs.

Most animals have blood.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have bowels.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have a nervous system.

Most animals have brains.

Most animals have bones.

Most animals have ears.

Most animals have skin.

Most animals share common design, but are simply rearranged in shape and colors that make one animal type unique from another.


Now if almost all animals share all these complex organs and physical attributes?

How could eyes happen by chance in thousands of different animals? Lungs? Hearts? Teeth? Noses? Ears? Stomachs? Intestines? Livers? All happen by chance independently from one another?

Looking at the ultra complexity that so many animals share in common? How can one believe that each type of animal started out as an independent entity onto itself millions of years ago? If one believes evolution is the means by which we got from the Triassic period to here? It would have to mean we all share one common ancestor. Or do you believe all these same attributes developed in different animals independently from one another by chance?

If not? Then most animals would have all begun by chance, and by chance all develop eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and everything we share commonly by design! Kidneys? Spleens? Livers? Blood vessels? Blood? All happened by chance? Sexual organs?

We all had to come from a common ancestor. Not possible.




.

Genez, come on, you already know why you'll never receive an answer from those who ackowledge natural selection and the origen of species - I already told you why. Your asking us to fork over an exorbitant amount of information to someone WE ALREADY KNOW HAS MADE UP THEIR MIND REGARDING THE MATTER. IOW, any effort to share what we hold to be true is in vane.

That said, your questions are already fundamentally flawed in concept. You ask a question assuming chance = no God, not by chance = still involves God. This would only be appropriate for atheists or agnostics as they recognize chance as a means to justify their beliefs. Most theologic evolutionists recognize that while evolution was the means by which God created man, it was still God who created man - how are you still failing to see this disconnect?

Just because we don't carry the capacity to understand how God manipulated events taking place in both intra and extracellular environments to yield man does NOT make said events random, or by chance - at least in the sense that you interpret chance to denote. Consequently, and for obvious reasons, your interpretation of what "chance" denotes would make God out to be less-powerful or non-existant. Again, your ability to interpret, decipher, and elucidate what is really taking place is in question. What you call "chance", I call God just knowing something that we don't. I know that's hard for you to believe, but yes, there actually exists someOne in the universe who does know something that you do not.

What's more, an easier question which would require much less effort on your part to answer then it would be for us to present to you the unconscionable, would be for you to simply tell us why you believe your interpretation of the Bible is correct while ours is incorrect. How do you KNOW when to interpret the Bible literally versus figuratively? Why do you feel so entitled to being the sole bearer of truth while at the same time refusing to admit the possibility that maybe, maybe, maybe, you could be wrong on this issue?

 

[An Arch Angel]

Ok son, whatever helps you sleep at night and keeps the demons away...

He is so afraid.
In time he will try and release the book to fly.

 

[GenemZ]

He is so afraid.
In time he will try and release the book to fly.

The only thing I fear is hearing your names to appear before the Lord. Its not me I fear for.

 

[Assyrian]

27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."
​

God drew distinctions. First, God reminded Israel of his power to utterly destroy.

Do not mess with God's patience. To do so? Genesis 1:2!

Genesis 1:2 speaks of a COMPLETE and utter destruction of all life.

Except it doesn't. There is no reference to destruction, no reference to a previous life and civilisation, to previous men, birds, towns and agriculture, no reference to the previous creation's sin, no reference to God's judgement on the previous creation, or that its state of being formless and void was the result of any judgement. All that come from reading passages like Jeremiah 4 which are about God using the Babylonians to judge the land of Judah, pulling them out of their context and reading them back into Gen 1:2. But there is nothing in Genesis about it.

That is why Jeremiah warned with it, and had to add that Israel would not be completely destroyed, as Genesis 1:2 describes.

Certainly God uses the formless and void of Genesis 1:2 to describe the results of the Babylonian devastation, which is plenty of reason to reassure the Israelites that this destruction would not be total.

It was sending a message to Satan who after hearing about Genesis 1:2, thought maybe God was about to wipe out Israel, en toto. For Israel in Jeremiah's day was behaving like nations that God in the past had commanded be entirely wiped from the face of the earth. Men.. women... children... even their animals.

Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew spoke to the Jews (and Satan) of a judgment from God that involved utter and total destruction of all life. That is why Jeremiah had to add that Israel will not face the exact same extent of the wrath of God.

Again absolutely no reference on Gen 1:2 to any kind of sin, condemnation or judgement.

Israel was destroyed soon after by Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed off. Yet, Israel was not 'completely' destroyed. A select group of Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. That is where we get the book of Daniel from. From the Babylon captivity. Many years later the Jews were allowed to return to their land. It was not completely ruined for the sake of the few who remained faithful to God's Word.

True.

 

[mpok1519]

I love all these terribly constructed arguments from Genez as if he's taken courses in biology, anthropology (which is the study of humans, btw), anatomy, and zoology. Theyre so entertaining!

"A chicken cant be related to an elephant!" lol cmon, saying things akin to that further our notions that you don't know what you're talking about.

Complexity is not a sign of creationism.

The fact that most organisms share similiar organs but yet are all different, is not a sign of creationism.

Its a sign that life is diverse, complicated, but also makes perfect sense once you examine it.

 

[GenemZ]

Except it doesn't. There is no reference to destruction, no reference to a previous life and civilisation, to previous men, birds, towns and agriculture, no reference to the previous creation's sin, no reference to God's judgement on the previous creation, or that its state of being formless and void was the result of any judgement.

To the Jews who knew Hebrew and what their teachers believed and taught them, they did understand it spoke of an utter destruction. Why would Jeremiah digress to a peaceful creation if he was warning Israel that they were about to be judged and destroyed?

The Jews were well acquainted with the teachings on Genesis and understood the Hebrew intent. Its even on record that many of the rabbis believed that there had been other worlds created before this one for that very reason.

​

Akiba ben Joseph was an influential Jewish rabbi who was president of the School Bene Barek near Saffa. He laid the basis for the Mishna. When Barcochebas rebelled against the Romans, Akiba joined him and was captured. He was executed in 135 A.D. The ancient work known as The Book of Light or Sefer Hazzohar, some- times simply Zohar was traditionally ascribed to one of Akiba's disciples, a certain Simeon ben Jochai. In this work, which thus represents an opinion held towards the end of the first century and the early part of the second, there is a comment on Genesis 2.4-6 which, though difficult to follow, reads thus:


"These are the generations (ie., this is the history of...) of heaven and earth.... Now wherever there is written the word 'these' (

) the previous words are put aside. And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."

And



We are in no position at present to determine precisely how the Jewish commentators made the discovery, but their early literature (the Midrash for example) reveals that they had some intimation of an early pre- Adamic catastrophe affecting the whole earth.

Similarly, clear evidence appears in the oldest extant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Targum of 0nkelos)and some intimation may be seen in the "punctuation marks" of the Massoretic text of Genesis Chapter One. Early Jewish writers subsequently built up some abstruse arguments about God's dealings with Israel on the basis of this belief and it would seem that Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians is at one point making indirect reference to this traditional background.



Without Form and Void - Chapter 1
​

If you do not understand what the Jews were thinking from what they understood from the Hebrew? You will not be able to discern why Jeremiah used Genesis 1:2 for his harsh warning from God.

Speculation from a position of ignorance is all you can offer in your desire to protect your theory. Protect it from being disproven as to be explained perfectly by the Bible.

Amazing! The Bible reveals in its wording that there was a prior creation (which would explain the fossils) and you fight it as if the very high priestess of science must be dearly guarded. As if science in this case is being the very voice of God!




You get what it says. I know you do.

It appears that your job is not to get, but to create spin. You are not getting the job.




.




.