How old is our creation really?

[eternally-gratefull]

Expose what? Basic understanding of contextual analysis of scripture and science...

Expose your lack of understanding and your true motive,

 

[Skovand]

Expose your lack of understanding and your true motive,

You’re acting like I have been hiding something. My posts on this thread, and many others is very clear. Genesis 1-11 is not wrote in a manner to be taken literally. It’s wrote in a very ahistorical, mythological manner just like Revelation. It skips over 2,500 years of history in a few chapters and does that no where else in the entire bible. Genesis 1-11 is clearly not meant to be interpreted literally, and neither is the hyperlinks shot back at it. As a disciple of Christ and a seeker of truth my only motive is to harmonize theology with science and to expose the false teachings of literalist who reject true theology and true science for a weird position of interpretation.

 

[Dino246]

The same process for micro evolution is the same process for macro evolution. Same as adaptations. Micro evolution results in species variations and eventually subspecies. Then over time , as the fossil record shows, we see these gradual changes result into speciation which is called macro evolution.

As for being the least scientific post you’ve ever read let’s be honest. Many of y’all don’t even know what science is.

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last 150 years, there has not been any solid evidence found for transitional species. Evolution is dead in the water... in both senses.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

God warned us of mockers like you in the last days, saying all things are the same from the begining, forgetting about the flood,

that’s what your so called science is based on.

What is ironic is that what the Churches are doing too with their rainbow interpretation

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: Gen 9:14

Apparently it hasn't come to pass for you since you are not aware that the LORD had already brought a cloud over the earth before the days of Noah?

You have read where it is written, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" or else you wouldn't have read where the LORD said "when I made the cloud the garment of it and the darkness a swaddlingband for it. "

But is it written that you shall see the bow in the cloud?

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. Genesis 9:16

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: Isa 66:1

However, if not for the bow that the LORD set in the cloud then the multicolored band that appears in the sky as a result of light refraction would not not even curve.

While the ability to view the refracted light in the sky depends upon certain conditions to be present before it can even be seen whenever the LORD looks upon the earth, but then again that is what is written that when it comes to pass that a cloud is brought over the earth that the bow shall be seen in that cloud in perpetuity since the covenant is for perpetual generations.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last 150 years, there has not been any solid evidence found for transitional species. Evolution is dead in the water... in both senses.

So no reports of any creatures transitioning into a new an more complex state as a new creature?

 

[Skovand]

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last 150 years, there has not been any solid evidence found for transitional species. Evolution is dead in the water... in both senses.

ummmm have you checked any of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers from paleontology, evolutionary ecology, or genetics? Cause ..... thousands of them.

 

[bojack]

Each after its own KIND

Evolution is making new kinds. Not micro evolution across each kind

in fact. If you look at the genome, from what I remember, the changes were already their just just became more active. It’s called God made a perfect being, and even allowed for changes when needed,

I like it

 

[Fundamental]

As a Christian obviously I believe God did it too. Just not by making a pile of dust watered by mist that he breathed into and the golem became a living being and then it was split in half ( and it is split in half not rib. Look at it in hebrew. That’s the only place the word rib is translated from the word side. They did thst because even the earliest Christians knew being cut in half was to extreme and so they fudged it a bit.) Anyways the living mud was split in half and made into a woman. Now... that’s believing in magic.... but we can trace the scientific flow within the fossil record as I already pointed out.

Don’t forget that it says God makes it rain. It talks about making it rain way more than creationism. So does that mean you also don’t believe in basic meteorology? God clearly used evolution to create species and God clearly uses the moon, gravity, and rotation of the earth and it revolves around the sun and a mass of other things like forests to generate the weather.

Well that is all a mystery to me. I simply do not know. But I have faith in the Bible. What science is saying hydrogen and helium got to a big bang and those 2 elements added up to all matter we know today.
A creator taking genetic fabric to create another gene pool sounds more logical to me. Meaning taking Adams rib to create Eve. There is simply a lot of text not in scripture that would explain the details on how these events took place. Thus creating holes while we make leaps through time, leaving questions behind.

Am I fair to say you take some scientific answers as “real” when it comes to our origins? Or am I reading you wrong in this one? Things like evolution through mutation and pan spermia?

I really don’t see how God clearly used evolution. He created seacreatures, then birds, then mammals then humans to watch over it all. But given we have fallen for lies as evolution we completely forgot what a magical gift we were granted.

 

[Fundamental]

I suggest spending two months and an hour or two a day to read some books wrote on this topic.

These questions are why it’s so important, and why schools are now mandated to teach biological sciences including evolution in the classrooms.

I did and it made me disgust science when it comes to the theory of evolution
You would be suprised to find out how much I truly know about this theory and the history behind it. Meaning the men surrounding this idea and how it’s been corrupted.

The actual theory of evolution is because of Alfred Russell Wallace. He discoverd natural selection and Darwin stole that idea to overcome his writersblock leading up to “the origines of species”. We can only give Darwin credit for social Darwinism.

 

[Fundamental]

I was saying ''that's what they ''used'' to teach'' ..

I’m sorry bro, not myself lately

Are you saying kinds after their kinds or one kind plus another kind .. I'm saying breeders of animals can breed out traits according to the genetic information available but they can't produce new genes or a new kind .. You can even isolate genetic codes enough to where the same kind can't reproduce but that is due to too much loss of information not new information ....

Well that is what we see. We can take 2 different genetic variations and if they are interbreedable (sorry for that word lol) get a new genetic variation out of that.
We see with dogs for instance that evolution through selection is not caused by mutations but by interbreeding. This happens in ONE generation without needing millions of years.
Since “99” procent of earths bio diversity that ever existed has already gone extinct, it is fair to say we had different genepools being caused by interbreeding in the past.
chickens we eat today are selected out and breeded out of a specific genepool too and grow faster then any species in nature.

In nature genetic codes are only isolated through genetic drift, but that is a different story then natural selection. Those are practicly opposites.

 

[Dino246]

So no reports of any creatures transitioning into a new an more complex state as a new creature?

Reports? No. Such has not been observed.

 

[Fundamental]

ummmm have you checked any of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers from paleontology, evolutionary ecology, or genetics? Cause ..... thousands of them.

I have and though there is many interesting stuff out there. Many have fallen for lies and rather look good in a crowd lying then be fooled with the truth.

An honest scientist will tell you we do not know where we came from. Science was wrong in her theories all the time. But some men in suits telling how people should behave have convinced you how?
Which peer reviewed paper out of those thousands was the most profound to you?

 

[Skovand]

I did and it made me disgust science when it comes to the theory of evolution
You would be suprised to find out how much I truly know about this theory and the history behind it. Meaning the men surrounding this idea and how it’s been corrupted.

The actual theory of evolution is because of Alfred Russell Wallace. He discoverd natural selection and Darwin stole that idea to overcome his writersblock leading up to “the origines of species”. We can only give Darwin credit for social Darwinism.

That’s not accurate. Darwin did not steal the ideas. He was already independently working on it. He ran into many problems along the way including ships sinking and having to almost start over from the beginning.

He made very good observations. Even down to considering spiders use electricity to fly through the sky. Which they do.

Since then we’ve had thousands of scientists from every culture, race, faith, and nationality focus on specific areas of topic within dozens of scientific friends and they all support evolution.

 

[Fundamental]

That’s not accurate. Darwin did not steal the ideas. He was already independently working on it. He ran into many problems along the way including ships sinking and having to almost start over from the beginning.

He made very good observations. Even down to considering spiders use electricity to fly through the sky. Which they do.

Since then we’ve had thousands of scientists from every culture, race, faith, and nationality focus on specific areas of topic within dozens of scientific friends and they all support evolution.

Yes and no. Darwin was working on his own theories yes. But he got into a writersblock until he was confronted with Alfred Russell Wallaces writings on natural selection.
Darwin was indeed working on his own ideas but did so in a fashion which is to be labeled as social Darwinism. Darwin was more into human behaviour. Later in his book how species originated he used actual science to mix it with his ideas. Thus the actual science coming from Alfred Rusell Wallace and all the other mumbo jumbo making it psuedoscience of Darwin. You do know how Darwin looked at the evolution of wild tribes apart from the modern man aka whites? Darwin had it wrong all the time and if we would hear some speeches of him today he would be banned for hatespeech for sure!

 

[Bbrdrd]

You’re acting like I have been hiding something. My posts on this thread, and many others is very clear. Genesis 1-11 is not wrote in a manner to be taken literally. It’s wrote in a very ahistorical, mythological manner just like Revelation. It skips over 2,500 years of history in a few chapters and does that no where else in the entire bible. Genesis 1-11 is clearly not meant to be interpreted literally, and neither is the hyperlinks shot back at it. As a disciple of Christ and a seeker of truth my only motive is to harmonize theology with science and to expose the false teachings of literalist who reject true theology and true science for a weird position of interpretation.

I assume you're genuine because I used to be in a similar position, striking out at literal interpretations in order to maintain faith.

But something's going to give eventually. All your escape hypotheses, all the ways you distort both evolutionary science and theology to make them compatible, all of it. If you're honest you'll come to a point where one of them has to be discarded in favor of the other because they rely on different authorities.

So the question is, are you going to trust God and His word, or are you going to trust men? I know my answer.

God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[Skovand]

I have and though there is many interesting stuff out there. Many have fallen for lies and rather look good in a crowd lying then be fooled with the truth.

An honest scientist will tell you we do not know where we came from. Science was wrong in her theories all the time. But some men in suits telling how people should behave have convinced you how?
Which peer reviewed paper out of those thousands was the most profound to you?

Which paper was the most profound to me would be one about passionflowers and and butterflies and the development of mimicry. The paper about soft tissue in the T. rex was really cool. The evolution of fruit of the pawpaw trees related to the consumption of the mega fauna like the giant American ground sloth was really neat. The papers on the genetic influence of Homo neanderthalensis on early H. sapiens in Eastern Europe vs albinism resulting in the modern “ European” was very neat. But my favorite is definitely papers by Estefania Fernandez.

 

[Skovand]

I assume you're genuine because I used to be in a similar position, striking out at literal interpretations in order to maintain faith.

But something's going to give eventually. All your escape hypotheses, all the ways you distort both evolutionary science and theology to make them compatible, all of it. If you're honest you'll come to a point where one of them has to be discarded in favor of the other because they rely on different authorities.

So the question is, are you going to trust God and His word, or are you going to trust men? I know my answer.

God be true, and every man a liar.

I’m not in the same position as you. Even without the theory of evolution, disregarding it completely, contextual analysis of genesis 1-11 shows that it’s not literal history. It’s a mythology. Same as revelation is a end times mythology. It’s set up very clearly as an ancient Mesopotamian creation myth. The purpose of the story is not to tell history and science. It’s setting up the plot for the Jewish nation and those patterns set up the plot of his chosen people being led astray by setting themselves up as greater than God and in need of a savior. Then in chapter 12 the story suddenly takes on a totally different spiriting style.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I’m not in the same position as you. Even without the theory of evolution, disregarding it completely, contextual analysis of genesis 1-11 shows that it’s not literal history. It’s a mythology. Same as revelation is a end times mythology. It’s set up very clearly as an ancient Mesopotamian creation myth. The purpose of the story is not to tell history and science. It’s setting up the plot for the Jewish nation and those patterns set up the plot of his chosen people being led astray by setting themselves up as greater than God and in need of a savior. Then in chapter 12 the story suddenly takes on a totally different spiriting style.

You may not think it, but you're drawn by the same spirit I was. Fighting against what is plainly in Scripture and the theological conclusions that have to be tossed in order to maintain reasoning faculties and faith in Christ. The specifics of how you go about it, what reasoning you use to maintain and avoid the literal plain word of Scripture as truth is immaterial.

It's ultimately a question of authority. Evolutionary biology is necessarily atheistic because it says man is the measure, that our reasoning abilities are the key to truth. That if we just reason enough, have enough empirical studies, draw on sensory data enough we can come to every truth of the universe. It is an attempt to be our own masters.

Yet God says we cannot serve two masters, we will end up loving one and despising the other. So ultimately you're going to have to decide which authority you're going to love and which you're going to despise. Is reason your master, or is Christ?

 

[bojack]

Do you think that’s the question I was asking when I said look at their lineages? Because I asked also about their genealogy right? I imagine most wont even know what they are looking at when they read them though. ThTs why I asked instead of telling. To really learn you must be willing to study something out and be noble like the believing Berean jews.

This is how I explain this part if it comes up while witnessing to the lost and they're not usually girl scouts or the choir
Cain left/got kicked out his family and then took a wife in Nod to began his line . Lamech his gggggrandson took two wives and claimed that if Cain was avenged 7 times then he would be avenged 70 times 7 ''BA'' .. and also mentioned the first tent dwellers, metal workers, musical instruments and mentioned Lamech's daughter Naamah as being named beautiful .. If Cain knew/regarded God at one time then forsook the Lord that would possibly make him a progressively fierce and knowledgeable in sin, double dead man , Important info ...The men would learn and take on their own false gods honoring themselves as culture rotted geometrically like a plague ...

Seth and others from Noah's line ''sons of God who called on the name of the Lord'' would also be taking on and intermarrying these women until their own clan was established and afterwards . A direct line to all .. But Noah, his family ended up being worth saving and his paternal line traced direct back to Adam .. as sin and idolatry eventually consumed all of mankind.... These daughters of men (Cain's line) would have taken their idols into the marriages with Sethites and families would become worse and worse to God until only Noah and his family were the only ones worth saving . That imo is why Cain and his line are mentioned and it's plenty to explain what happened .....

Idolatry is bad , it will transform you into a different and nasty person normally ending in destruction... After the flood Israel was constantly warned and forbidden to take on idols .. I could probably explain it better but I hate to make long posts ...
Joshua said
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;

 

[Skovand]

You may not think it, but you're drawn by the same spirit I was. Fighting against what is plainly in Scripture and the theological conclusions that have to be tossed in order to maintain reasoning faculties and faith in Christ. The specifics of how you go about it, what reasoning you use to maintain and avoid the literal plain word of Scripture as truth is immaterial.

It's ultimately a question of authority. Evolutionary biology is necessarily atheistic because it says man is the measure, that our reasoning abilities are the key to truth. That if we just reason enough, have enough empirical studies, draw on sensory data enough we can come to every truth of the universe. It is an attempt to be our own masters.

Yet God says we cannot serve to masters, we will end up loving one and despising the other. So ultimately you're going to have to decide which authority you're going to love and which you're going to despise. Is reason your master, or is Christ?

Again, I’m not an atheist by any means. Before I even believed in evolution strongly or gave much thought to it by studying Hebrew and studying patterns of the Tanakh and seeing what other scholars teased out of the stories and studying literature analysis it became clear a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 was not an honest understanding of the story. Same for Job and Jonah. Both of those stories are clearly wrote as fictional tales to convey a truth. Jesus himself used many fictional parables and examples and finally in revelation we see it being really used to create a artistic tale.