Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

[The Righterzpen]

But there is... Or one has to wrong over the other...? And are you saying that all the science is wrong then...?

Cause it can't be both, etc...?

Some think it can be both, what would you say to them...?

God Bless!

Think about the question your asking. How can earth be both 13000(ish) years old and 6 billion years old at the same time? Does that make any sense? An object is either one age or it's another. It can't be both.

As far as "all science being wrong"; with science, you have to delineate between what is "material evidence" (or fact) of what science has discovered and what is "theory" over what (some) scientists claim about the facts they found.

DNA is real. Dinosaurs were real. An asteroid hit the earth at some point in the past and caused a mass extinction event. We have the evidence of this asteroid in the fossil record. We know developing organisms go through certain stages. That's real we can observe it. Certain principles of the laws of physics can be proven via mathematical formulas that are used for things such as launching satellites. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared light etc. we know are all real because we've found ways to demonstrated a use of or harnessing of.

Then we have things that are working theories based on (or extrapolated from) things we can duplicate on earth. For example:

The theory that the sun burns by fusing hydrogen atoms. Now we can't get close enough to the sun to test this; but based on nuclear fission that we are able to duplicate on earth, the nuclear fusion theory for the sun was created. (The theory is that the sun fuses hydrogen atoms as opposed to blowing them apart.) Thus fusion concluded to be a much more stable action than fission. And we conclude this from other things on earth that if you fuse them together it makes the bonds stronger and the element or compound stable. Stability creates greater longevity. So the theory on how the sun burns is reasonable to be likely as far as elements that we are aware of go. Is there some element in the sun that does not exit on earth that accounts for how it burns? That's possible. Yet as far as things we can duplicate on earth, that is how that hypothesis was formed. Could that theory be wrong? It could, based on the fact that the environment on earth is obviously different than the environment in space. If someone were to ask me if it's true that the sun burns by fusing hydrogen molecules; I'd say that based on what we know, it's a reasonable hypothesis.

Now where you have theories that based on current evidence could not be possible (even if you're not looking at it from a theological application) like "the big bang theory". (Not the TV show - that's 100% real - LOL.) Nowhere in the current environment do we see chaotic explosions create organization from random elements floating through space and bumping into each other and mysteriously organizing into something else. That just doesn't happen. The theory is silly.

The evidence we do see though, is that there is a great deal of organization in the structure of this universe. So we do know the organization is originating from something. Did it organize by random chance? And here is where when you pull in the mathematical application of statistical probability; your answer has to be "no".

From there, you then ask; well, why would "scientists" say that? And from there it becomes a philosophical / theistic argument because the alternate theory of origin is intelligent design. Intelligent design obviously implies the idea that something other than random chance created the universe. And so if it was intelligently designed, that obviously could only imply a designer. So at this point it becomes a theistic question; who is that Designer?

Now here's the clincher; with a theistic base to science eventually comes the philosophical dilemma of both identifying and being accountable to that Deity. Man by nature does not want to be accountable to anything and here is why you have this conflict of theories in the interpretation of observable material evidence.

Now, when you realize this is actually the core issue; you have to come to the realization that what you are being presented as evidence to support other than intelligent design theory; very well could be inaccurate, possibly an honest mistake or (most often) a flat out fraud.

For example: humanity and apes coming from a common ancestry. They tell you they have "links" in the fossil record. That's a lie. They don't. Many of them know they don't; yet they perpetuate the lie and it "ends up" printed in your high school science text book because those who perpetuate this theory don't want to be accountable to God.

Now for a school district to declare that they will teach intelligent design as the theory of origin, brings them all kinds of legal problems on account of what's stated as being "separation of church and state". Now "separation of church and state" in the Constitution was never intended to exclude theological discourse from the public arena; but it's been used to do so. It's gotten so bad that teachers now aren't even allowed to present intelligent design to students in a public high school.

Interestingly though, courts have ruled that students can. Students can present in class the theory of intelligent design to other students. That actually happened in my 10th grade biology class back in 1987. Unfortunately, the students who presented it, did not have the knowledge base that we have today of intelligent design research. So their presentation was lacking a lot; but the teacher did allow them to put a presentation on. That (probably) would not happen in a pubic high school today.

Now my son was in a public school self contained special education program where every Friday they had movie day where students could pick a movie that either a student could bring in, or they had in the program's movie library. The movie had to be PG and could not contain gun violence. (Living in a rural community where we see hunters all the time and is pretty much pro-gun; there was sum "fudging" on that policy.)

Well, my son wanted to bring in "God's not Dead". Which that movie is exactly about theology in a public school setting. The movie's setting is at a college where there is one professor who is very hostile to the concept of God. Well it comes out in the end, that his hostility is solely based in his personal feelings about God; not fact. Any student that made favorable mention of God or intelligent design in their paper; he failed. (Which penalizing them for their beliefs is a violation of their right to free speech.) So the plot of the movie was the challenge students brought before the college against this professor for that.

So, other kids in my son's class wanted to see the movie. The teacher called me and we all sat down and had a discussion about this. The teacher was personally in favor of the movie. She said she'd seen it. It was a very good movie. The teacher was a Christian, the classroom aide was a Christian and so was my son's social worker. He had a very interesting class that year! A couple of the student's were Christians also. There were only 6 students in the classroom.

It was an interesting situation because of the type of program it was; (Intensive therapeutic) it was heavily psychology based and there were frequent conversations in class about dealing with stress, loss and traumatic life events. (My son has had a lot of them.) And he would frequently bring up God; how he dealt with these events was by praying and belief that God would take care of him. Well, being in an environment were there was a lot of emotional emptiness; other students would ask my son about his beliefs. And he would explain to them, what he believed and why; not only in generic terms of "God" but also; "I believe in Jesus Christ."

Well, the teacher had to be really careful about how to navigate these kinds of conversation because there was one kid in the class who's parents were atheists and another girl who's parents were Wiccans. Now where it got sticky is that the kid from the atheist background was the one who asked my son the most questions and was doing so from a position of interest, not adversarial. So we sat down and had our conversation and the teacher said: I would show this movie if I could; but if we show this movie we will all get in trouble with the school.

So, there was a lesson in this for my son in learning that the public school educational environment is not really one that is open ended where all are free to exchange ideas. And I explained to him that on one level; that is valid, because what if a kid wanted to bring in a movie that glorified Satanism? It was a difficult thing for him to grasp and I think it was several years before he understood the principle of the position.

And here is where the question really lies, as it applies to questions raise by this thread. Can a science curriculum be invented for a public school that effectively eliminates the teaching of both theories of origin as "fact"? I suppose it's possible to teach a course stating that here is the material evidence we have; here are two theories of interpreting that evidence; you the students decide which one you want to believe.

 

[The Righterzpen]

die as in stop respiring, stop DNA and cellular repair and decay away , you know, Cell death , the same death all life suffers even when most of the organism stays alive. Even with normal skin the outer layer is dead . I always thought that story of death appearing after Adam and Eve’s disobedience was a little silly when thought of as a literal history . But then I think that whole story is fanciful when taken literally anyway .

Well, here's another question? in a world where there is no death period; is there a need for cellular regeneration? If decay is a result of death; than there would be no decay prior to the fall. That would be a reasonable conclusion.

Now maturation as an organism develops is a different process than regeneration. Which this brings up another interesting question. In a world where cellular regeneration isn't needed; would organisms grow faster? Seems to me that's a reasonable possibility.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well, here's another question? in a world where there is no death period; is there a need for cellular regeneration? If decay is a result of death; than there would be no decay prior to the fall. That would be a reasonable conclusion.

Now maturation as an organism develops is a different process than regeneration. Which this brings up another interesting question. In a world where cellular regeneration isn't needed; would organisms grow faster? Seems to me that's a reasonable possibility.

If your outer skin layer weren’t dead you’d dehydrate. And the exposed nerve endings would be painful . Remember the last time you got a blister and took off the top by accident ? Ouch!
You can’t look at any part of Nature honestly and think genesis describes an accurate literal history .

 

[Brightmoon]

Think about the question your asking. How can earth be both 13000(ish) years old and 6 billion years old at the same time? Does that make any sense? An object is either one age or it's another. It can't be both.

As far as "all science being wrong"; with science, you have to delineate between what is "material evidence" (or fact) of what science has discovered and what is "theory" over what (some) scientists claim about the facts they found.

DNA is real. Dinosaurs were real. An asteroid hit the earth at some point in the past and caused a mass extinction event. We have the evidence of this asteroid in the fossil record. We know developing organisms go through certain stages. That's real we can observe it. Certain principles of the laws of physics can be proven via mathematical formulas that are used for things such as launching satellites. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared light etc. we know are all real because we've found ways to demonstrated a use of or harnessing of.

Then we have things that are working theories based on (or extrapolated from) things we can duplicate on earth. For example:

The theory that the sun burns by fusing hydrogen atoms. Now we can't get close enough to the sun to test this; but based on nuclear fission that we are able to duplicate on earth, the nuclear fusion theory for the sun was created. (The theory is that the sun fuses hydrogen atoms as opposed to blowing them apart.) Thus fusion concluded to be a much more stable action than fission. And we conclude this from other things on earth that if you fuse them together it makes the bonds stronger and the element or compound stable. Stability creates greater longevity. So the theory on how the sun burns is reasonable to be likely as far as elements that we are aware of go. Is there some element in the sun that does not exit on earth that accounts for how it burns? That's possible. Yet as far as things we can duplicate on earth, that is how that hypothesis was formed. Could that theory be wrong? It could, based on the fact that the environment on earth is obviously different than the environment in space. If someone were to ask me if it's true that the sun burns by fusing hydrogen molecules; I'd say that based on what we know, it's a reasonable hypothesis.

Now where you have theories that based on current evidence could not be possible (even if you're not looking at it from a theological application) like "the big bang theory". (Not the TV show - that's 100% real - LOL.) Nowhere in the current environment do we see chaotic explosions create organization from random elements floating through space and bumping into each other and mysteriously organizing into something else. That just doesn't happen. The theory is silly.

The evidence we do see though, is that there is a great deal of organization in the structure of this universe. So we do know the organization is originating from something. Did it organize by random chance? And here is where when you pull in the mathematical application of statistical probability; your answer has to be "no".

From there, you then ask; well, why would "scientists" say that? And from there it becomes a philosophical / theistic argument because the alternate theory of origin is intelligent design. Intelligent design obviously implies the idea that something other than random chance created the universe. And so if it was intelligently designed, that obviously could only imply a designer. So at this point it becomes a theistic question; who is that Designer?

Now here's the clincher; with a theistic base to science eventually comes the philosophical dilemma of both identifying and being accountable to that Deity. Man by nature does not want to be accountable to anything and here is why you have this conflict of theories in the interpretation of observable material evidence.

Now, when you realize this is actually the core issue; you have to come to the realization that what you are being presented as evidence to support other than intelligent design theory; very well could be inaccurate, possibly an honest mistake or (most often) a flat out fraud.

For example: humanity and apes coming from a common ancestry. They tell you they have "links" in the fossil record. That's a lie. They don't. Many of them know they don't; yet they perpetuate the lie and it "ends up" printed in your high school science text book because those who perpetuate this theory don't want to be accountable to God.

Now for a school district to declare that they will teach intelligent design as the theory of origin, brings them all kinds of legal problems on account of what's stated as being "separation of church and state". Now "separation of church and state" in the Constitution was never intended to exclude theological discourse from the public arena; but it's been used to do so. It's gotten so bad that teachers now aren't even allowed to present intelligent design to students in a public high school.

Interestingly though, courts have ruled that students can. Students can present in class the theory of intelligent design to other students. That actually happened in my 10th grade biology class back in 1987. Unfortunately, the students who presented it, did not have the knowledge base that we have today of intelligent design research. So their presentation was lacking a lot; but the teacher did allow them to put a presentation on. That (probably) would not happen in a pubic high school today.

Now my son was in a public school self contained special education program where every Friday they had movie day where students could pick a movie that either a student could bring in, or they had in the program's movie library. The movie had to be PG and could not contain gun violence. (Living in a rural community where we see hunters all the time and is pretty much pro-gun; there was sum "fudging" on that policy.)

Well, my son wanted to bring in "God's not Dead". Which that movie is exactly about theology in a public school setting. The movie's setting is at a college where there is one professor who is very hostile to the concept of God. Well it comes out in the end, that his hostility is solely based in his personal feelings about God; not fact. Any student that made favorable mention of God or intelligent design in their paper; he failed. (Which penalizing them for their beliefs is a violation of their right to free speech.) So the plot of the movie was the challenge students brought before the college against this professor for that.

So, other kids in my son's class wanted to see the movie. The teacher called me and we all sat down and had a discussion about this. The teacher was personally in favor of the movie. She said she'd seen it. It was a very good movie. The teacher was a Christian, the classroom aide was a Christian and so was my son's social worker. He had a very interesting class that year! A couple of the student's were Christians also. There were only 6 students in the classroom.

It was an interesting situation because of the type of program it was; (Intensive therapeutic) it was heavily psychology based and there were frequent conversations in class about dealing with stress, loss and traumatic life events. (My son has had a lot of them.) And he would frequently bring up God; how he dealt with these events was by praying and belief that God would take care of him. Well, being in an environment were there was a lot of emotional emptiness; other students would ask my son about his beliefs. And he would explain to them, what he believed and why; not only in generic terms of "God" but also; "I believe in Jesus Christ."

Well, the teacher had to be really careful about how to navigate these kinds of conversation because there was one kid in the class who's parents were atheists and another girl who's parents were Wiccans. Now where it got sticky is that the kid from the atheist background was the one who asked my son the most questions and was doing so from a position of interest, not adversarial. So we sat down and had our conversation and the teacher said: I would show this movie if I could; but if we show this movie we will all get in trouble with the school.

So, there was a lesson in this for my son in learning that the public school educational environment is not really one that is open ended where all are free to exchange ideas. And I explained to him that on one level; that is valid, because what if a kid wanted to bring in a movie that glorified Satanism? It was a difficult thing for him to grasp and I think it was several years before he understood the principle of the position.

And here is where the question really lies, as it applies to questions raise by this thread. Can a science curriculum be invented for a public school that effectively eliminates the teaching of both theories of origin as "fact"? I suppose it's possible to teach a course stating that here is the material evidence we have; here are two theories of interpreting that evidence; you the students decide which one you want to believe.

you’re misunderstanding of the Big Bang isn’t a solid basis for scientists to reject it. AND the fossil record is only one facet of the evidence for common descent and why scientists accept it as a fact. Your rejection of these major scientific theories is based on your misunderstanding them and the evidence for them . What are we supposed to do with that?
Creationists think their dislike and misunderstanding of a fact disproves it. ‘Fraid not!

 

[Halbhh]

Ha, ha, ha, that one makes me laugh, LOL, thanks sister, I like it much better when I behave too... Sorry about when I don't behave so well sometimes...

Ok, so how do you or how does one reconcile millions of years with the world being made in six days or six thousand years, if one does, or for those that do, how do you reconcile them...?

God Bless!

That God chose not to reveal in scripture how much time passed in verse 1 before the moment in verse 2:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

His much time passed during verse 1?

When people answer, it's with assumptions. (even though they are sure if their assumptions) 1 second. 1,000 years. 9 billion years.

God didn't say because a definite amount of time could be tested eventually in astronomy, removing faith as how we come to Him. You don't need faith to know the distance to Europe. After its measured, even a skeptic can know.

 

[Darkhorse]

And here is where the question really lies, as it applies to questions raise by this thread. Can a science curriculum be invented for a public school that effectively eliminates the teaching of both theories of origin as "fact"? I suppose it's possible to teach a course stating that here is the material evidence we have; here are two theories of interpreting that evidence; you the students decide which one you want to believe.

When I was in 7th grade in public-school, both Creation and Darwinian evolution were presented as theories, and the teacher made it clear that which one to believe (if either) was our choice.

Of course, that was in 1967; things have become more combative now.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see "millions of years before Adam and Eve came into existence" in the Scriptures.

We shouldn't expect it to, as the biblical writers weren't aware of the sheer amount of geological time that has occurred. There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't mention. But then the point of the Bible isn't to contain all possible information, the point of the Bible is Jesus Christ and the salvation we have in Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not addressed to me, but thought I'd tackle the subject anyway.

Let me guess, you also believe that all life on earth originated from a single cell?

All the evidence points to a universal common ancestor.

Oh, and that came from a random meteor from space?

That refers to the panspermia hypothesis. The panspermia hypothesis is one of several hypotheses that tries to address the natural origins of life on earth. It's not that widely accepted however, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that life originated here on earth through some process of abiogenesis. Without more data and evidence there isn't a proper scientific consensus though, and so is still ultimately unknown.

Do all animals, including humans, have a common ancestor?

Yes.

You want to talk about what "everyone knows," most people believe in human evolution, do you believe that?

The evidence for human evolution is bountiful. We have tons of intermediate hominid fossils from numerous hominid species showing human evolution.

Most people believe in a big bang, do you believe that?

All the current evidence points to the big bang.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Brightmoon]

When I was in 7th grade in public-school, both Creation and Darwinian evolution were presented as theories, and the teacher made it clear that which one to believe (if either) was our choice.

Of course, that was in 1967; things have become more combative now.

you teacher was actually wrong . Creationism is a religious belief not a theory. It has no facts to support it. At best creationism is an unsupported hypothesis. Theories have to be supported by facts otherwise they are just unverified opinions. Evolution is a group of theories and is a valid field of scientific study. Abiogenesis ( life starting from chemicals) does have facts which support it but the field is just starting .

 

[GodLovesCats]

OK, so how do you or how does one reconcile millions of years with the world being made in six days or six thousand years, if one does, or for those that do, how do you reconcile them?

Finally you figured out asking a quetion is better than making a wrong statement.

Read the third word of the Bible. Beginning. God did not tell Moses when the beginning was because the timing is not important to know. What matters is the simple message that God is the Creator of all things. He kept it simple for Moses and all Jewish readers to understand this. So Genesis 1 was written to make that message clear, not teach them science.

 

[JackRT]

Finally you figured out asking a quetion is better than making a wrong statement.

Read the third word of the Bible. Beginning. God did not tell Moses when the beginning was because the timing is not important to know. What matters is the simple message that God is the Creator of all things. He kept it simple for Moses and all Jewish readers to understand this. So Genesis 1 was written to make that message clear, not teach them science.

What does Moses have to do with this?

 

[GodLovesCats]

What does Moses have to do with this?

He wrote Genesis.

 

[JackRT]

He wrote Genesis.

Thank you, I was aware of that legend. I find it quite a stretch.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Thank you, I was aware of that legend. I find it quite a stretch.

Why don't you believe Moses wrote Genesis? He reportedly wrote all five Torah books.

 

[JackRT]

Why don't you believe Moses wrote Genesis? He reportedly wrote all five Torah books.

Yes, that is the legend. However most modern bible scholars believe that Moses did not write the Torah. Based on their quite different writing styles and use of vocabulary, at least five authors (J,E,P,D and R) have been tentatively identified . "J" used the word Jehovah exclusively for God and may have been a person, perhaps a woman, in the court of Solomon about 950 BC. “E” used Elohim for God and wrote in the Northern Kingdom about 200 years later. "P" was concerned primarily with ritual and law and were probably priests writing during the Exile. "D" wrote the entire book of Deuteronomy about 625 BC. "R" were the redactors or editors who cobbled it all together. This whole process took place over some 500 years. The type of scholarship that led to the above conclusion is known as "critical biblical scholarship". In this context the word "critical" carries a narrow meaning ---- analytical and objective and not necessarily literal. It does not imply that this scholarship regards the Bible in any sort of pejorative way

 

[Jonaitis]

This thread went into so many directions.

 

[JacksBratt]

Why can't God have been out there for thousands of years before he decided to create earth?

He was.... Got has been around eternally.. past and future.

 

[Jonaitis]

Not addressed to me, but thought I'd tackle the subject anyway.



All the evidence points to a universal common ancestor.



That refers to the panspermia hypothesis. The panspermia hypothesis is one of several hypotheses that tries to address the natural origins of life on earth. It's not that widely accepted however, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that life originated here on earth through some process of abiogenesis. Without more data and evidence there isn't a proper scientific consensus though, and so is still ultimately unknown.



Yes.



The evidence for human evolution is bountiful. We have tons of intermediate hominid fossils from numerous hominid species showing human evolution.



All the current evidence points to the big bang.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry, I need to see this evidence for myself.

 

[Neogaia777]

Finally you figured out asking a quetion is better than making a wrong statement.

Read the third word of the Bible. Beginning. God did not tell Moses when the beginning was because the timing is not important to know. What matters is the simple message that God is the Creator of all things. He kept it simple for Moses and all Jewish readers to understand this. So Genesis 1 was written to make that message clear, not teach them science.

Yet it gives an order to creation, that is in line with the ToE for the most part, and the geological timeline and order, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yet it gives an order to creation, that is in line with the ToE for the most part, and the geological timeline and order, etc...

God Bless!

And where some would think it might not, I give some explanation for here:

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

God Bless!