How long has man been created.

[GenemZ]

we've explained the answers; they just do't understand them.

It has to do with comprehension skills.

I have them, sir. Its you that fail (and presume) that I don't. How are your comprehension skills?

We get a bunch scripture in return, but, no real comprehension as to what science says.

You're not getting it. That, you are not getting it.

Theres no real need to convince older generations of thee things, however; its the kids that're in school that need to understand concepts of evolution.

What you can not get because of needing to maintain your self image of being such a superior mind, is that its not hard to understand the concept. A child could do it. It can be grasped in an instant. And,. equally quick, be thought through as being highly illogical because of the very nature of the complexity of form and function of creation.

Its just amazing.

Evolution is a great prophet! For it had to predict that the digestive juices would digest the creature's stomach. So? For about a million years. Maybe even, two? It randomly produced that special protective coating of the stomach to counter the corrosive effects of the hydrochloric acid! Amazing! The prophet Evolution knew it was to provide the hydrochloric acid after wards. For science tells us the protective coating had to precede and be in place before the digestive juices could do its job. Trouble with that? The creature would have died of starvation long before that could come into effect. C'est la vie.

Romans 1:18-20
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against
all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth
by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation
of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature —
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse."
​

What was made to be understood by God? That there had to be an intelligent designer because of the very way creation exists.

But these men had poor comprehension skills... Actually. They saw it just fine at some point in their life. They hated the truth and created lies to suppress what they already had come to realize was the only logical conclusion. Its their hatred of God that blinded them.

2 Timothy 3:13
"while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse,
deceiving and being deceived."




link >Without Form and Void - Chapter 1


.
​

 

[GenemZ]

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']As I have listened to debates on evolution before there have been questions that to me are never asked. Maybe I wasn’t listened at that time. Maybe someone could help me in these areas. I have heard the different laws brought up but has anyone asked “Why”. If everything came from a primordial soup, with everything the same, why would something change? What would cause it? [/qoute]

Elemental diversity; carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen; they all do different things. Life would be the same constant if everything was made up of hydrogen, and thats it. But, no; life is essentially diverse




Evolution follows the rules of certain mechanics. Genetic mutation is one. Descent with modification is another. Population isolation, gene flow, gene drift, etc. Look up these terms, take the cphysical anthropology class at your local university.

Many insects look very different today than in the past; millions of years ago there were centipedes the size of large dogs, and dragon-flys the size of large birds. Insects have changed; sure they have the same six-legs, three-segmented bodily parts, but, yes, they have changed.

A crocodile and a shark are good example of how evolution works; theyre perect killing machines. theres little reason for crocs and sharks to modify a whole lot over the years because mother nature pretty much perfected them a loooong time ago. BUT, we have ALL kinds of sharks and crocs. Gav crocs, salty-crocs, freshy crocs. Aligators, caimans, gavril(sp?) crocs. ALL with different features, but essentially the same. Sharks again; hamerheads, bull, white, reef, black tip, white tip, lemon, nurse. ALL different from the next. What do you mean the croc has changed very little over the years? It has twenty cousins that all look distinguishable!

Animals and insects diverged not from trees. lol This is crazy.

Please, go ahead and read inyour local library. What else are our tax dollars for? Go get a scholarship at a local university; you can take the class on evolution for free.

Descent with modification.

Genetic flow.

Genetic drift.

Population isolation.

Genetic mutation.

Look these up; understand them, comprehend them, and then understandthem some more.

Thats when it'll make sense.

All that? You still do not get it? We all know. Evolution takes place.

Get that though the door, please? Evolution takes place. We know.


It simply is not the answer as to how we got here. Man did not come from a chimp, though chimps evolve.

Evolution did not answer where the fossils came from. It was only a theory that has become a new religion for those wish to reject the old religion. LOL! These men ran from the arms of one religion into the arms of another.

Evolution explains an adaptation feature that the all knowing God designed into his creation. It does not explain creation itself. That is where evolutionists lost control and leaped over the cliff hoping to escape religion.

I escaped religion. I found Christ. I can see God's hand in evolution, too. But, not as a replacement theology.




.

 

[mpok1519]

had enough with the irrelevant out-your-last-word-in-there-bash-our-faces-in-with-irrelevant-scripture-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-science speech?

creationism=metaphorical theological terminology

evolution=objectively real scientific terminology

 

[fwwid]

All that? You still do not get it? We all know. Evolution takes place.

Get that though the door, please? Evolution takes place. We know.


It simply is not the answer as to how we got here. Man did not come from a chimp, though chimps evolve.

Evolution did not answer where the fossils came from. It was only a theory that has become a new religion for those wish to reject the old religion. LOL! These men ran from the arms of one religion into the arms of another.

Evolution explains an adaptation feature that the all knowing God designed into his creation. It does not explain creation itself. That is where evolutionists lost control and leaped over the cliff hoping to escape religion.

I escaped religion. I found Christ. I can see God's hand in evolution, too. But, not as a replacement theology.




.

Yet again, Genez fails to (1) make the disconnect between the classical evolutionist and the evolutionist who believes in God and (2) understand that chance/random = realm of reality in which only God can only comprehend and that man as of yet cannot.

IOW, just because man does not understand something, and therefore label said "thing" as occurring by chance or random means, this does not equate to a lack of full participation by God's part. To say or assume such a thing is to suggest that God is NOT omniscient, which is of course ridiculous.

Genez feels that just because something is random then that equates to God being less powerful, not involved, or non-existant; all three of which are wrong. Genez will use words like "chimp", "ape", "monkey", or "primate" in attempt to discredit those who believe in the evolution of current hominids from our primitive ancestors, knowing full well that such words more often then not carry a NEGATIVE connotation in english vernacular. Nice try, we're not falling for it, nor will I let you get away with using such tactics without a challenge. Consequent to Genez's belligerant expression of his beliefs is more often then not followed by personal attacks on those who happen to disagree with him. This is supported by his ranting which includes taking the Lords name in vain and personally attacking those who do not wish to support his "according to me" / "because I said so" / "Lo, here is Christ" theories of interpretation. Has anybody here ever heard Genez suggest that he may be wrong in this matter? Or on any matter - for that matter? I hate to say it but Genez is most-assuredly reinforcing the old-man stereotype of being imperious and unyielding.

 

[mpok1519]

yes, genez is what is known as a disformer; he takes real information and makes it "unreal".

 

[GenemZ]

yes, genez is what is known as a disformer; he takes real information and makes it "unreal".

Hey! I'm Genez. Not you!

 

[mpok1519]

yes; you're genez, the disformer.

 

[GenemZ]

.

Evolutionists...


I have a question:

Could it be said? That homosexuality is evolution's way of keeping defective, or undesirable, DNA out of the continuing gene pool?


I would be curious as to how those with a Evolutionist perspective may see that. Could it be seen as a valid theory?




.

 

[LightSeaker]

.

Evolutionists...


I have a question:

Could it be said? That homosexuality is evolution's way of keeping defective, or undesirable, DNA out of the continuing gene pool?


I would be curious as to how those with a Evolutionist perspective may see that. Could it be seen as a valid theory?




.

Nope, that's not how evolution works.

.

 

[GenemZ]

Nope, that's not how evolution works.

I believe it is. Not only that, I believe millions of people would readily agree with that theory. For, it only makes sense in regards to how most do view the evolutionary theory process.


Just the same.. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative answer.




.




.

 

[fwwid]

I believe it is. Not only that, I believe millions of people would readily agree with that theory. For, it only makes sense in regards to how most do view the evolutionary theory process.


Just the same.. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative answer.




.




.

Hahahaha, oh my word, just when I thought he'd stop he does it again; the old "according to me" / "my word only" / "because I said so" / "Lo, here is Christ" argument, brought to you by Genez et al.

Genez, it's not all that black and white. Scientist are still trying to pan out the selective pressures both for and against homosexuality. Some have suggested that it's a glich in nature, some suggest that it is a means for providing additional (non-proliferative) individuals into a family to participate in the rearing of offspring, some suggest that it is a result to an increased sex-drive, and some for emotional stability. There are also other reasons - none of which are as definitive as we'd like them to be.

What is clear is that homosexuality is observed across many species and that it has it's roots in both genetic and an upbringing etiology (i.e. nature and nurture).

 

[GenemZ]

As we can see by the responses (and in other posts in this forum).

Pro evolutionists tend to also be also pro-gay. I have long known this to be the case.

Interesting how they both are seen as being anti Bible in outlook to those who believe in Creation by God.



Evolution should teach us... That is, if we are to remain consistent with the cold hard facts of science, and do not try and shelter anyone's feelings when confronting the facts. When left alone on their own, and free of social pressures and mores, homosexuality is definitely a drive to cause people to not reproduce. It explains why homosexuals will smugly refer to normal people as "breeders."

It would be the case if evolutionary theory remained consistent with what it has proclaimed in the past. This modern 'glitch' has apparently sent them scrambling back to the drawing boards to spin a new way of looking at evolution.

Animals do not practice homosexuality as a norm. Its the result of having no normal outlet for their sexual drives. A dog grabbing your leg is an example of such a drive. Does that mean dogs are attracted to people as a norm? No. Animals do not think. Have drive - relieve drive.

God will be the judge. I'm just an observer.




.

 

[GenemZ]

Some here are obviously under the notion that Bible believing Christians are anti-education and have an inferior comprehension ability. Unlike science that discriminates and requires a certain type of mind, Christ saves all. The genius and the slow person are all included. It seems they have only been exposed to a limited scope of what Christianity offers.

So, I thought this might help break up some of the stereotypical thinking that many of the evolutionists here are locked into.

http://tinyurl.com/per2x4




.

 

[fwwid]

As we can see by the responses (and in other posts in this forum).

Pro evolutionists tend to also be also pro-gay. I have long known this to be the case.

Interesting how they both are seen as being anti Bible in outlook to those who believe in Creation by God.



Evolution should teach us... That is, if we are to remain consistent with the cold hard facts of science, and do not try and shelter anyone's feelings when confronting the facts. When left alone on their own, and free of social pressures and mores, homosexuality is definitely a drive to cause people to not reproduce. It explains why homosexuals will smugly refer to normal people as "breeders."

It would be the case if evolutionary theory remained consistent with what it has proclaimed in the past. This modern 'glitch' has apparently sent them scrambling back to the drawing boards to spin a new way of looking at evolution.

Animals do not practice homosexuality as a norm. Its the result of having no normal outlet for their sexual drives. A dog grabbing your leg is an example of such a drive. Does that mean dogs are attracted to people as a norm? No. Animals do not think. Have drive - relieve drive.

God will be the judge. I'm just an observer.




.

Genez = "my word only", "according to my belief", "Lo, here is Christ", "because I said so".

Which arguments Genez on our behalf led you to believe that just because we're pro-evolution, means we're also pro-gay? We have made no such argument. The fact that you jumped to this conclusion about our beliefs furthers the argument that you bring to the table only what you believe is true, not humility or the intent to learn beyond that which you already know.

The "glitch" argument was only one of many arguments that some scientists SUGGEST as a possible explanation for homosexuality. Do you want to have a religious or scientific discussion? You asked a scientific question, so you got the secular, scientific answer. Had you asked it in a religious fashion, you would realize quickly that while I do hold human evolution to be a true fact, I still acknowledge that the Bible in no way shape or form condones homosexuality - it is an "error" according to...GOD.

Romans 1: 26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[mpok1519]

I believe it is. Not only that, I believe millions of people would readily agree with that theory. For, it only makes sense in regards to how most do view the evolutionary theory process.


Just the same.. Thanks for your thoughtful and informative answer.

You shoud look up on it more then. The truth isn't too hard to understand. =)




.




.[/quote]

 

[mpok1519]

.

Evolutionists...


I have a question:

Could it be said? That homosexuality is evolution's way of keeping defective, or undesirable, DNA out of the continuing gene pool?


I would be curious as to how those with a Evolutionist perspective may see that. Could it be seen as a valid theory?




.

homosexuals reproduce all the time.

So, no.

 

[An Arch Angel]

homosexuals reproduce all the time.

So, no.

Homosexuals reproduce all the time. That is worth repeating.

Male DNA and Female DNA are the same. It is not hard to see how such a little bit of information can cross over sexes.

The Plains Indian had a nice saying:

The spirit of a warrior put into the body of a squall.
The spirit of a squall put in to a warrior Body.

I think that Christian, that do not understand nature, should not take the bible literally.

 

[fwwid]

Homosexuals reproduce all the time. That is worth repeating.

Male DNA and Female DNA are the same. It is not hard to see how such a little bit of information can cross over sexes.

The Plains Indian had a nice saying:

The spirit of a warrior put into the body of a squall.
The spirit of a squall put in to a warrior Body.

I think that Christian, that do not understand nature, should not take the bible literally.

That is, of course, unless Genez says so ...psssht

 

[Assyrian]

That is because the commentators did not give the chapters and verses they found to make their conclusion. Its an early indicator that something was there to be found. Most likely, it was something when it was written it was taken for granted. Like if someone writes about some inalienable right given in the Constitution. He does not have to give chapter and verse if those reading already know what it contains.

If the commentators did not give chapter and verse, and we can't find any scriptural basis, what makes you think there was any? The mere fact some Jewish commentators believed this stuff? Why would Paul warn about Jewish myths (Tit 1:14) if everything Jewish teachers taught was based firmly in scripture?

If you go to and read the link? You will find that a good number of latter scholars drew the same conclusion. Some from universities. There problem was, they could not make sense of how we now live in a new creation. That understanding only came later with the classification and categorizing of the discovered fossils. In the scholars' case? What was seen in the Word of God predated the data needed to know why the Bible contained such information. Which only proves, the information about a previous creation was not put in Scripture because someone knew there was one.

If you read more from the link, you will find out that the scholars simply took what it said without any sense of needing to be dogmatic. For there was no reason to be so, other than to see that the Bible reveals a past creation and a replacement of a newer creation. Try reading what the link has to say and you will see this.

I have looked at that stuff a number of times and it was never terrible convincing. His reference to The Targum of Onkelos seem to play the same game of reading more into the text than is actually there. According to my copy of the Targum it says (J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch) In the first times the Lord created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss. Custance takes seemingly straighforward translation of the Targum on Gen 1:2 and retranslates "was waste" as "was wasted", with no indication in the Targum that Onkelos believed in previous civilisations, sin judgement and destruction between verse 1 and 2, we are supposed to take a dubious and at best ambiguous meaning as a hint at judgments and destruction Onkelos never mentioned, when the simplest explanation is that Onkelos meant waste as a simple Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew tohu.

Custance tries to suggest the Gap interpretation he quotes in the Zohar 'the Book of Light' is late first century, when the Zohar is much later than that, thought a product of a kabbalistic school with traditions that probably date back to Simeon ben Jochai. It is very illuminating to read what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about both Simeon ben Jochai and the Zohar.

Simeon combined with his rationalism in halakah a strange mysticism in his haggadic teachings, as well as in his practise...

Thus his name became connected with mystic lore, and he became a chief authority for the cabalists.

the Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch
​

The Zohar assumes four kinds of Biblical exegesis: "Peshaṭ" (literal meaning), "Remez" (allusion), "Derash" (anagogical), and "Sod" (mystic). The initial letters of the words "Peshaṭ," "Remez," "Derash," and "Sod" form together the word "PaRDeS" (Paradise), which became the designation for the fourfold meaning of which the mystical sense is the highest part. The mystic allegorism is based by the Zohar on the principle that all visible things, the phenomena of nature included, have besides their exoteric reality an esoteric reality also, destined to instruct man in that which is invisible. This principle is the necessary corollary of the fundamental doctrine of the Zohar. The universe being, according to that doctrine, a gradation of emanations, it follows that the human mind may recognize in each effect the supreme mark, and thus ascend to the cause of all causes.
​

So when Custance quotes the Zohar's analysis of Genesis, you really need to ask yourself if this was meant as a literal analysis of the plain meaning of the text or mystical allegorism.

The Jewish encyclopedia throws interesting light on your question of where these Jewish writers got their idea of previous worlds destroyed and recreated.

To determine the country in which the work originated and the time at which its teachings began to develop, it is necessary to ascertain where and when the Jews became intimately acquainted with the Hindu philosophy, which more than any other exercised an influence on the Zohar.
​

So that is where they got their Gap from, it isn't in the bible but it certainly is found in the Hindu cycle of creation.

You need to remember Jewish exegesis ranged from the plain meaning of the text, things they thought were just hinted at, allegorical interpretations, and hidden codes.

I see.. That is why Jeremiah shouted out those words found in Genesis 1:2? To try to put fear in the hearts of the hard headed rebellious Jews? With allegory and metaphorical language?

The warning their land would be rendered formless and void as it was at the beginning of creation is reason enough to be afraid. But that uses a plain meaning of the text in Genesis. You seem to be getting confused here. I am not saying Jeremiah's interpretation is allegorical, it is the kabbalistic mysticism that read a Hindu cycle of creation into Genesis 1:1&2 that uses supposed hints and allegories.

 

[GenemZ]

If the commentators did not give chapter and verse, and we can't find any scriptural basis, what makes you think there was any?

Because of all the other Bible scholars (some from universities) who later on did. Read the link? Lots of information there. It was just another example of this reality being found from knowing the original languages. I believe what could not be determined was how the rabbis concluded that there were other worlds (plural). The book's theme is about there having been a previous (prehistoric) creation. How the rabbis determined there were other "worlds" (more than one) is not stated.

The mere fact some Jewish commentators believed this stuff? Why would Paul warn about Jewish myths (Tit 1:14) if everything Jewish teachers taught was based firmly in scripture?

Paul alluded to this teaching in one of his Epistles! Read the link?

I have looked at that stuff a number of times and it was never terrible convincing. His reference to The Targum of Onkelos seem to play the same game of reading more into the text than is actually there. According to my copy of the Targum it says (J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch) In the first times the Lord created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss. Custance takes seemingly straighforward translation of the Targum on Gen 1:2 and retranslates "was waste" as "was wasted", with no indication in the Targum that Onkelos believed in previous civilisations, sin judgement and destruction between verse 1 and 2, we are supposed to take a dubious and at best ambiguous meaning as a hint at judgments and destruction Onkelos never mentioned, when the simplest explanation is that Onkelos meant waste as a simple Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew tohu.

Stop using this one point as a place to set up camp. Read what other Bible scholars over the centuries concluded as well. That's what counts. The consensus of those who did read the Bible in the original languages. What you are now doing is like speaking on the history of the automobile, and one mentions some pioneer inventor who only believed it could be done, and then halted right there to take their stand which is made to appear to be in his favor.

Custance tries to suggest the Gap interpretation he quotes in the Zohar 'the Book of Light' is late first century, when the Zohar is much later than that, thought a product of a kabbalistic school with traditions that probably date back to Simeon ben Jochai. It is very illuminating to read what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about both Simeon ben Jochai and the Zohar.

OK... get away from the references he makes mention of in passing? After all, they did include traditional teachings mixed in with their own brand of fruit. Get to where the University scholars are quoted and make your point there. Get to the church scholars and make your point there. You are simply straining out a gnat to avoid mounting the camel in this caravan that intimidates you.

The warning their land would be rendered formless and void as it was at the beginning of creation is reason enough to be afraid.

That was not the impression that those knowing the meaning of the words spoken saw. You keep missing that. Maybe its because you have tenaciously set anchor at only one point in that book that you can make use of, and refuse to advance to where more details are given that would clarify this all for you. I can see why you want to do that. But, you are not dealing with all the facts. You are not dealing with the full context. You are dealing with some of the wall posters Custance puts on display, but refuse to see what it was leading to.



I wish all things were as predictable.



.