Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

[Neogaia777]

Proven "scientifically impossible" really?

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Now seeing how this is a secular science article; their interpretation of the time line is not a Biblical one; yet - Gee! Look at what science found! That sounds an awful lot like Genesis!



Well at least, you are humble enough to confess that maybe you really don't know the whole truth?

Now the question becomes; what does the Bible tell us about how we are to interpret it? We are suppose to compare Scripture with Scripture. That will tell us how to interpret Genesis; not some theory we concoct in our own minds because we don't like what we are reading!

Yet, "in light of the evidence" depends on how you interpret the evidence you're looking at! I've said this before. At that point it boils down to "world views". What are we going to believe in the light of what the Scripture actually says.



No, I change my mind base on what I find after digging around in the Scripture. Not "my own perceptions in life of the evidence to go along with" (what I think) "is evidence or obvious truth"

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

Look, the earth is much older, and has been in existence, with other life on it previously, and prior to us, that died physically, etc, for more, a lot, lot, lot, lot, "more", than just 6,000 years, or than was popped into existence in six literal one of ours days, etc...

So if God made it or popped it into existence in a much, much shorter period of time than the very clear evidence suggests (and actually very clearly proves IMO), (proves that it (this earth) is much, much older than that), (and that should be accepted as fact by now) (millions and billions of years, etc) Anyway, if he did create it all, and created it all literally as it says here on earth or this earth or in this place, or is meant to be about this place only, etc, in a very short period of time, relatively speaking, and it is all meant to be taken very literally; then He made it (the earth, us, and all of it in it) in a way that was intended to deceive us, or that was intentionally deceptive, on purpose, etc...

Or, our interpretations of the truth and what is the actual or real truth (our interpretations of the Bible and Genesis, etc) are off... way, way off...

And I go with the last one...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

deleted...

 

[Neogaia777]

Your a retard, or are retarded, and your making Christianity look bad and very ignorant, stupid, dumb, etc, if you believe the earth is relatively "very young" (in comparison) (in comparison to what is or should be very clearly evident, by the very clear evidence we now have by now, etc) (that is the earth is much more far older than that, and has been around a lot longer that) etc...

Anyway, your pretty dumb if you deny that by now...

God Bless!

Either the Biblical Truth is wrong, and God is a liar or a deceiver, or our interpretations of the Biblical Truth are wrong, and have been wrong and very, very "off" for a very long time...

So, which is it...?

Because I don't believe the former...

God Bless!

 

[ilovejcsog]

Don't call names neo and 'Your' should be you are or you're. Retard is a negative against those less fortunate
We all have a right to our opinions even if it doesn't agree with yours and you are not always right.

 

[Neogaia777]

Don't call names neo and 'Your' should be you are or you're. Retard is a negative against those less fortunate
We all have a right to our opinions even if it doesn't agree with yours and you are not always right.

To Retard means, your retarded, or you are being a retarded, when/and/or you are "held back", or are holding back something, like forward progress, etc... Or that's what I meant anyway...

Like you'd retard the timing on an engine, ect... Your "set back", or are being or actually are "held back" (from some kind of knowing, etc) or are going a little slow or slower, or are slower, etc...

It does not have to be derogatory, it is just simply the right term to describe it...

And I don't know any other kind of word to actually describe it, etc...

Here is the defintion and maybe that will give you a general idea of what I meant or really mean...?

re·tard

verb
/riˈtärd/

1. 1.
   delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.
   "our progress was retarded by unforeseen difficulties"
   synonyms: delay, slow down, slow up, hold back, set back, keep back, hold up, postpone, put back, detain, decelerate, put a brake on;
   hinder, hamper, obstruct, inhibit, impede, handicap, hamstring, curb, check, restrain, restrict, arrest, interfere with, interrupt, encumber, clog;
   informalthrow a spanner in the works of;
   informalthrow a monkey wrench in the works of;
   literarystay, trammel, cumber
   "the worst thing that governments can do is to retard this admittedly painful process"

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Neogaia777 - Why are you so nasty? Someone doesn't believe in your version of the creation account (which you don't even have any Scripture verses to back up) and you start calling people names and saying they're a bad example of Christianity? ......

Like that's a good example and ..... fine fruit of the spirit you're showing there!

Ehh.....

If you don't cut out that nonsense and have a civil conversation; I'm going to report you.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Neogaia777 - Why are you so nasty? Someone doesn't believe in your version of the creation account (which you don't even have any Scripture verses to back up) and you start calling people names and saying they're a bad example of Christianity? ......

Like that's a good example and ..... fine fruit of the spirit you're showing there!

Ehh.....

If you don't cut out that nonsense and have a civil conversation; I'm going to report you.

Check my definition of "retard" please, and you'll find I did not mean too insultingly, or at least as insultingly as you might take it, etc... It is just the right word to describe it, and can't think of one that's any better (or more accurate, etc), and other than that, I just said your making Christianity look bad...

And is that really "so bad" or that bad really...?

Anyway, I do apologize though, and I'll stop with that, K...?

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

"Retarded" was actually a medical term at one point that labeled someone as having an IQ between 50 and 70.

"Idiot" was a person with an IQ between 30 and 50.

"Imbecile" was a person with an IQ under 30.

These terms go back to before WWII.

"Retarded" was used to describe the intellectually disabled into the 1990's. That's when they changed the terminology to "intellectual disability".

 

[The Righterzpen]

And is that really "so bad" or that bad really...?

Yes it is really "that bad" when you know where the terminology originally came from!

 

[Neogaia777]

"Retarded" was actually a medical term at one point that labeled someone as having an IQ between 50 and 70.

"Idiot" was a person with an IQ between 30 and 50.

"Imbecile" was a person with an IQ under 30.

These terms go back to before WWII.

"Retarded" was used to describe the intellectually disabled into the 1990's. That's when they changed the terminology to "intellectual disability".

Well, I only meant it in the definition I gave, but I do really do sincerely apologize though OK, and I'll stop with that K...?

"To retard something", is what I actually meant, K...?

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

I just said your making Christianity look bad...

And why am I making Christianity look bad? Just because you don't agree with me? That's awfully arrogant!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes it is really "that bad" when you know where the terminology originally came from!

The original and most old definition, or where it originally came from, meant to retard something or a thing, and that is what I meant, but I'll stop and drop it now, OK, sorry...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And why am I making Christianity look bad? Just because you don't agree with me? That's awfully arrogant!

People "like you" are, I did not mean it directly at you specifically, and that's why I didn't quote anyone's posting specifically in it either...

I am sorry though... anyway, let's drop it now, K...?

I believe that it should be very very evident that the earth is very old, and all should agree that it is very, very old by now, you disagree...?

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

The original and most old definition, or where it originally came from, meant to retard something or a thing, and that is what I meant, but I'll stop and drop it now, OK, sorry...

God Bless!

OK. You need to think about what you say though. You also called me "delusional" earlier on this thread.

 

[Neogaia777]

OK. You need to think about what you say though. You also called me "delusional" earlier on this thread.

Sorry man, I truly am, not very Christian of me is it...?

I'll try not to let my emotions get the better of me from now on, OK...?

Anyway, to get back to the discussion, I believe that it should be very very evident that the earth is very old, and all should agree that it is very, very old by now, you disagree...?

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

I believe that it should be very very evident that the earth is very old, you disagree...?

And why do you think it should be evident? I've stated before, things like that become a matter of perception when two people are looking at the same evidence.

It becomes and argument of a perception based on a world view; and what makes you so convinced that your world view is correct? If you are going to claim the God of the Bible and obey Him; than you have to let that Bible be your guide.

And this may sound weird; but it's really an all or nothing proposition. Because if you've already predetermined that one part of the book is wrong; how do you know the whole book isn't wrong?

Now I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but I don't believe it's billions (or even millions) of years old either. I don't claim to understand the aging process of this universe; nor do I automatically say that just because I don't understand it; well it can't be. Well why not? Because I believe I'm too smart to...... ?

I'm a "research junkie" and I will never stop learning!

If you (and I am talking to you specifically) have enough humility to admit that -hey, there's stuff I don't understand; then you can come to a point of learning; but God resists the proud!

 

[Neogaia777]

And why do you think it should be evident? I've stated before, things like that become a matter of perception when two people are looking at the same evidence.

It becomes and argument of a perception based on a world view; and what makes you so convinced that your world view is correct? If you are going to claim the God of the Bible and obey Him; than you have to let that Bible be your guide.

And this may sound weird; but it's really an all or nothing proposition. Because if you've already predetermined that one part of the book is wrong; how do you know the whole book isn't wrong?

Now I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but I don't believe it's billions (or even millions) of years old either. I don't claim to understand the aging process of this universe; nor do I automatically say that just because I don't understand it; well it can't be. Well why not? Because I believe I'm too smart to...... ?

I'm a "research junkie" and I will never stop learning!

If you (and I am talking to you specifically) have enough humility to admit that -hey, there's stuff I don't understand; then you can come to a point of learning; but God resists the proud!

I took Geology in college, and have been taught evolutionary theory, and just see or rather "think" that it is true and pretty accurate, for the most part anyway... but I also fully believe in the Bible also, so I think it is ours, or yours and mine's perceptions or interpretations that have to be off is all...

God Bless!

 

[The Barbarian]

Proven "scientifically impossible" really?

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Let's take a look...from your link:

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate. [The 10 Biggest Mysteries of the First Humans]

"Those two people didn't know each other," said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.

That's what you're trying to tell us? Here's a hint:
"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" lived long, long after the real Adam and Eve.

That sounds an awful lot like Genesis!

Except there were lots of other people before those two, and they didn't live in the same time place, and so on. You might want to go check Genesis.

 

[GodLovesCats]

"Retarded" was actually a medical term at one point that labeled someone as having an IQ between 50 and 70.

"Retarded" was used to describe the intellectually disabled into the 1990s. That's when they changed the terminology to "intellectual disability".

The word retarded is socially equivalent to calling black people a word that naturally is censored on this forum. If I ever see anyone use the word here (except in the Mental Health Recovery Forum), I will click on the word Report.

 

[Neogaia777]

And why do you think it should be evident? I've stated before, things like that become a matter of perception when two people are looking at the same evidence.

It becomes and argument of a perception based on a world view; and what makes you so convinced that your world view is correct? If you are going to claim the God of the Bible and obey Him; than you have to let that Bible be your guide.

And this may sound weird; but it's really an all or nothing proposition. Because if you've already predetermined that one part of the book is wrong; how do you know the whole book isn't wrong?

Now I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but I don't believe it's billions (or even millions) of years old either. I don't claim to understand the aging process of this universe; nor do I automatically say that just because I don't understand it; well it can't be. Well why not? Because I believe I'm too smart to...... ?

I'm a "research junkie" and I will never stop learning!

If you (and I am talking to you specifically) have enough humility to admit that -hey, there's stuff I don't understand; then you can come to a point of learning; but God resists the proud!

I took Geology in college, and have been taught evolutionary theory, and just see or rather "think" that it is true and pretty accurate, for the most part anyway... but I also fully believe in the Bible also, so I think it is ours, or yours and mine's perceptions or interpretations that have to be off is all...

God Bless!

And I don't believe where it says one of God's days "is as" a thousand years to ancient man, to whom a thousand was a lot back then, most of them couldn't even count that high, etc, anyway, I don't think it is literal, but is meant to convey that one of God's days is a very, very, very very very, long, long time... The fact that it says "is as" means to me that it is not meaning to be exact at all...

I think it is meant to represent and epoch or an "age"... The term of a "thousand years" was meant to be symbolic and not literal in a lot of other places in the Bible as well, and was meant to denote an incredibly long time or an age, or another era, etc... I don't think Christ's thousand year reign is meant to be a literal thousand years either, but is a new, very long era, or new epoch or age also, after this fallen one, etc...

God Bless!