Oldest rock in the world 2 days after creation (embedded age)

[truthpls]

I expect most churches do. The story of Adam and Eve is an important and meaningful story told by God and should be taken seriously whether it is literal history or not.

It was not taught as a fairy tale. I believed it. No teacher said it was a big joke and lie.

 

[truthpls]

According to you. But more people realize that the authority of the story stems from its divine authorship, --

So if God wrote it, in many many places in His book, and Jesus confirmed it, what authority has the 'story' if it is a crock?

 

[truthpls]

Then I should be glad my parents wouldn't waste money paying for an "education" that was already covered by their taxes.

I think you are saying that you are glad you were never taught God was real and created the world and man. If so, that seems negative to me

 

[Frank Robert]

The story of Adam & Eve throws a monkey wrench into the story of evolution.

NOT AT All. We should not limit ourselves as to how God created humans. There are several ways that A&E could have been created. They could have been the first humans that evolved.There is also an interesting theory that could be our genealogical parents who all future humans evolved from. When you take this in light of the numerous instances of seemingly illogical events in the bible, genealogical A & E. parents seems logical.

 

[BCP1928]

So if God wrote it, in many many places in His book, and Jesus confirmed it, what authority has the 'story' if it is a crock?

It's authority lies in its divine inspiration. Isn't that enough for you?

It was not taught as a fairy tale. I believed it. No teacher said it was a big joke and lie.

Who said it was a big joke and a lie? You did. Only you.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are several ways that A&E could have been created.

But evolution is not one of them.

Evolutionists claim that populations evolve -- not individuals.

 

[Frank Robert]

Fundamentalists don't elect leaders who change morals.

You appear to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black which could be an example of psychological projection or hypocrisy.

Morals evolve and are not fixed

See: Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience

 

[Frank Robert]

But evolution is not one of them.

Evolutionists claim that populations evolve -- not individuals.

Correct, an individual organism itself cannot evolve biologically, but its descendants can evolve over time as the genetic makeup of a population changes across generations, leading to potential variations in future offspring.

In other words: Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundamentalists don't elect leaders who change morals.

You appear to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black which could be an example of psychological projection or hypocrisy.

Morals evolve and are not fixed

See: Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience

Fundamentalists ... DON'T ... ELECT ... LEADERS ... who change morals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, an individual organism itself cannot evolve biologically, but its descendants can evolve over time as the genetic makeup of a population changes across generations, leading to potential variations in future offspring.

In other words: Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.

And if you reverse engineer evolution, you'll find it can't go back to the Biblical Adam & Eve.

The only way you're going to get only two humans on the earth with evolution, is to insert a bottleneck catastrophe into the picture that reduces the population down to two people.

And even then, evolution says they would go extinct after that.

You cannot ... cannot ... cannot force fit evolution into Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[BCP1928]

And if you reverse engineer evolution, you'll find it can't go back to the Biblical Adam & Eve.

The only way you're going to get only two humans on the earth with evolution, is to insert a bottleneck catastrophe into the picture that reduces the population down to two people.

And even then, evolution says they would go extinct after that.

You cannot ... cannot ... cannot force fit evolution into Genesis 1 & 2.

You're right. Those Genesis stories are about something else, anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right. Those Genesis stories are about something else, anyway.

Yes, indeed.

They're about a series of miracles called creatio ex materia.

 

[truthpls]

It's authority lies in its divine inspiration. Isn't that enough for you?

Your idea of Divine inspiration is a result where most of the content is to be rejected as truth.

Who said it was a big joke and a lie? You did. Only you.

If Jesus talked about the first man and woman in that time of the beginning and you are telling us He was wrong or talking out of the side of His mouth with a wink and a nod, then that makes His word a joke and a lie. If John who was personally told by Jesus that He would be sent God's Spirit to bring back to remembrance what Jesus said while on earth, said that all things were created by Jesus, was speaking falsely, then the bible is a joke and a lie. Do you confirm here and now that what Jesus said about the beginning and what Jon wrote about Jesus making everything was truth or not? Yes or no?

 

[Frank Robert]

disregard

 

[truthpls]

One does not need to expel God from the creation.

So if Jesus made it all, how would saying He really did not make it all not expel Him? Do you think He settles for being on the sidelines as a not too bright author who didn't really do what He said?

Christians often explain the discrepancy between the scientific explanation of the Earth's age and the religious creation story in the Bible by interpreting the "days" of creation in Genesis as metaphorical time periods, not literal 24-hour days, allowing for a much older Earth while still believing God created everything; this view is called "Old Earth Creationism"

Yes they do. So what would such a person say about John saying all things were created by Jesus?
Or this, the very words of Jesus?

Matthew 19:4 -- And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'

That makes evolution an absolute lie. Why bother trying to hammer the days into place to fit the billions of imaginary years when the whole story of science on where we came from is false? (if you are a believer)

Excellent observation.

 

[Frank Robert]

And if you reverse engineer evolution, you'll find it can't go back to the Biblical Adam & Eve.

NO one is claiming that evolution is reversible.

The only way you're going to get only two humans on the earth with evolution, is to insert a bottleneck catastrophe into the picture that reduces the population down to two people.

Who in in particular is arguing that only two humans on the earth started evolution?

And even then, evolution says they would go extinct after that.

You cannot ... cannot ... cannot force fit evolution into Genesis 1 & 2.

Who is trying to force evolution into Genesis? Genesis describes a direct creation by God, which directly contradicts the scientific theory of evolution that life developed through natural selection over long periods of time, making them incompatible views on the origin of life.

"Theistic evolution" allowing for God to have used the process of evolution to create life, is not universally accepted by all Christians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think you are saying that you are glad you were never taught God was real and created the world and man. If so, that seems negative to me

Nope, not at all. The only reason I believed in God was that they taught me so. It certainly wasn't based on evidence.

What I was saying, is that in our weekly Catechism classes we were not taught that there was only just two people or that the Earth was young, etc. There was the story of Adam and Eve, but as best I could tell, it was the reason we had "original sin" that needed to be baptized away and if not a dead baby would end up in limbo. (That the priest did preach on for several weeks, but I think it was mostly because my little brother's baptism kept getting delayed by winter weather.)

If they were teaching the young age of the Earth and not what is backed by geology and other sciences, *that* is what I'm glad I wasn't taught in parochial school. (I do know people who became scientists who were taught such things as children, but they recovered from them.)

 

[Frank Robert]

So if Jesus made it all, how would saying He really did not make it all not expel Him? Do you think He settles for being on the sidelines as a not too bright author who didn't really do what He said?

Explain in explicit detail what your mean by "Jesus made it all

Yes they do. So what would such a person say about John saying all things were created by Jesus?
Or this, the very words of Jesus?

John rightly puts Jesus in a position of deity and emphasizes his role in creation:

Matthew 19:4 -- And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'

The simple meaning is that his decision to give us gendered bodies wasn't arbitrary. Nor was it just for practical reasons like making babies. It was necessary so that we could have the capacity to bear his image.

That makes evolution an absolute lie.

There is no Christians barrier to accept the science of evolution nor is there a barrier for you not to accept the science. There are infarct many Christian biologists such Francis Collins who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project.

Why bother trying to hammer the days into place to fit the billions of imaginary years when the whole story of science on where we came from is false? (if you are a believer)

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, and the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, meaning there is widespread agreement that both are billions of years. If you disagree, go for it. Here is a good site that will help you out. Personally I think it is a BS site but who am I to judge?

 

[truthpls]

Nope, not at all. The only reason I believed in God was that they taught me so. It certainly wasn't based on evidence.

It actually was. Just not the kind of natural only evidence you came to revere.

What I was saying, is that in our weekly Catechism classes we were not taught that there was only just two people or that the Earth was young, etc. There was the story of Adam and Eve, but as best I could tell, it was the reason we had "original sin" that needed to be baptized away and if not a dead baby would end up in limbo. (That the priest did preach on for several weeks, but I think it was mostly because my little brother's baptism kept getting delayed by winter weather.)

There are lessons to the things that happened. However, your school must have been in a different time and place. In no way was I ever taught in Catholic school that the creation in six days or Adam and Eve in the garden was not true. I believe that all curriculum for the school was approved by some higher up clergy or some such as well.
What they teach now is opposite.

If they were teaching the young age of the Earth and not what is backed by geology and other sciences, *that* is what I'm glad I wasn't taught in parochial school. (I do know people who became scientists who were taught such things as children, but they recovered from them.)

I do not recall any ages being taught. But if God really made the world and the first man and then woman, that means the teachings of science are all wrong on the matter.

 

[Frank Robert]

But evolution is not one of them.

Evolutionists claim that populations evolve -- not individuals.

If you agree great, it not, what impels you to differ.