Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The God of Science

    Well, the God of Science has spoken. Let's all bow down to it! LOL

    Actually, in our search for the ultimate truths some have blindly accepted the age old concept of the athiest in that if I can't see it or hear it it must not exist.

    Simple, and perhaps in most minds actually gives them peace.

    The ability to reason is not seen in any of the other species. This concept is lacking in every one but man. In fact, without the concept of religion and the morality that comes with it there would be no civilization today. The world would not be a better place, there would not be a utopia civilization.

    In fact there would be no civilization because man would not exist. He would have destroyed himself already. Contrary to popular opinion, animals do not treat each other well and live in harmony. Man actually treats his fellow humans way, way more better than any other species on the planet. Man does however treat his fellow species rather severely although mostly not with intent (IMO we will pay for it later)

    It is only the few who decide to go outside the bounds of morality that harm there fellow humans. They have made the choices of grey logic, that there is no right and wrong. Then there are the others who use the good teachings found in religion and philosophy for there own selfish and greedy ambitions that have killed millions. Truly evil.

    Yet, we bash the religions of the world for a God of Science which is not full proof and has many, many flaws. Let's just take for example dna testing, enough said. Science is a cold lover, it has no warmth and ultimately you may lose the essence of what makes us human. The ability to choose, the ability feel, the ability to love and the ability to live for more than ourselves and when we lose that we become exactly the opposite.

    I have seen this in the world and in my own life. That's why I just don't trust people anymore because religion, real religion, is almost dead.

    So long live the God of Science and his children of closed minded machines.

    "Science is a tool, but just like other tools sometimes it does not work."

    Sorry about this, know this is dna posting so I will stop the soap box

    Comment


    • #32
      http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/

      Julius Evola, "Revolt Against the Modern World", p. 333

      The myth of evolutionism is nothing else but the profession of faith of the upstart. If in recent times the West does not believe in a transcendent origin but an origin "from below"; and if the West no longer believes in the nobility of the origins but in the notion that civilization arises out of barbarism, religion from superstition, man from animal (Darwin), thought from matter, and every spiritual form from the "sublimation" or transposition of the stuff that originates the instinct, libido, and complexes of the "collective unconscious" (Freud, Jung), and so on--we can see in all this not so much the result of a deviated quest, but rather, and above all, an alibi, or something that a civilization created by lower beings and the revolution of the serfs and pariahs against the ancient aristocratic society necessarily had to believe in and wish to be true. There is not one dimension in which the evolutionary myth has not succeeded in infiltrating with destructive consequences; the results have been the overthrow of every value, the suppression of all sense of truth, the elaboration and connecting together (as in an unbreakable magical circle) of the world inhabited by a deconsecrated and deluded mankind.

      Comment


      • #33
        derinos

        When an honest person finds a discrepancy between a concept , and new real evidence, what does he or she do?
        Hide the evidence?
        Or change the concept to fit the evidence?

        The material in Genesis comes from about 4000 years ago, the time of Abraham. It was a satisfactory poetic concept for the evidence they had then. We found much more evidence, and the concept may now need adjustment.

        Check the fossil and geologic record of Earth; cosmologic physics, the Hubble material; the way DNA and environment have interacted as designer, and how "design" has moved. Intelligent design?
        Yes, but by self-evident programs of "intelligence".
        Now, that does not mean you cannot speculate as to how the programs came to be!
        But that would be poetry, not science.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BlackWolf
          "Adam" - Original Man; first human being created by G-d. He is created "B'tzelem Elokim," "in the image of G-d." One of the meanings of this is that he has "bechirah chof****," free will, and therefore the ability to choose between "Tov," that which is good, and "Ra," that which is evil.

          You must remember that the Torah and the Jews see Adam as not of the body That only comes after leaving Paradise and "falling out" of the Garden of Eden/Paradise

          Rebbe Meir comments on Genesis 3:21 (l5) (based on the homonymity of the word for light, ohr, and the word for skin, 'ohr): Originally Adam's body was made of light (Ohr [with an Aleph]). But after he sinned G-d clothed his body [in a thick, opaque covering called] skin (Ohr [with an Ayin]). (16)

          And further:

          The heels of Adam's dead body were like two radiant suns." (l7)

          Rav Dessler elaborates: If his heels shone thus, imagine the light of his head...and even more before his death. . . and even more, before he sinned. This is the Midrashic way of teaching (in about 200 C.E., and approximately 1700 years before Einsteinian relativity) that Adam and Eve were bodies of light.

          The first human being spanned from the heavens to the earth, and from one end of the world to its other end. (18)
          the change you speak of is not of the genes
          when life was breathed into a body it might not of changes the dna.if it didnt good luck trying to find that blimp in the development of lines

          one of my favorate saying is show me in the bible where it says god chose the smartest animal.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by M.O'Connor
            I thought the creation time-line was 8000 years or so?

            Why are we calling this ancestor Adam?

            Is this a cruel joke by the discoverer?

            I think he should have a Cool name..like Michael..hehe

            is the name confusing people?


            aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

            I have faith in science as it unfolds.
            I think Religion is a science of the time it was written.
            That's what we were given.
            ------------------------------------------

            Bishop ushur did the 6000 yrs but he did t assuming the bible use of father and grand son was the same as his they werent. he didnt know stuff


            i tell you all this ,what i want to teach is the pee reese [not the ball player] map A turkish sea captain drew a map form source maps in a library in the mid east and it showed the shore line of antartica.
            and i would teach a building built in 2400 bc that used cement between stones the size of street cars that was 1/50th of an inch. and never cracked .and the stones cut as if opticly cut
            the arabs that forced their way into the building couldn't break the cement so they built fires next to the building and pored cold vineger on the stones and the stones broke. this same building was built in the ratio of the distance from the earth to the moon. and used pie 2000 years before it was discovered
            you can go to the area of iraq and see painted inside the domes in scale paintings of the solar planets [in scale]

            yeah antarica has been under ice for 10,000s of years.the u.s. army corps of engineers had documented it as exact . they just got the technology to do this with in the last 30 yrs.

            i would teach these things in schools and let the students figure out if man was dumber back then or smarter .2400 years ago was stone age . fred flintstone. like the ice man who when he was discovered to be a tool salesman people droped him .magazine stories stopped cold [ i couldnt resist the pun]
            thats what i would do

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BlackWolf
              Well, the God of Science has spoken. Let's all bow down to it! LOL

              Actually, in our search for the ultimate truths some have blindly accepted the age old concept of the athiest in that if I can't see it or hear it it must not exist.

              Simple, and perhaps in most minds actually gives them peace.

              The ability to reason is not seen in any of the other species. This concept is lacking in every one but man. In fact, without the concept of religion and the morality that comes with it there would be no civilization today. The world would not be a better place, there would not be a utopia civilization.

              In fact there would be no civilization because man would not exist. He would have destroyed himself already. Contrary to popular opinion, animals do not treat each other well and live in harmony. Man actually treats his fellow humans way, way more better than any other species on the planet. Man does however treat his fellow species rather severely although mostly not with intent (IMO we will pay for it later)

              It is only the few who decide to go outside the bounds of morality that harm there fellow humans. They have made the choices of grey logic, that there is no right and wrong. Then there are the others who use the good teachings found in religion and philosophy for there own selfish and greedy ambitions that have killed millions. Truly evil.

              Yet, we bash the religions of the world for a God of Science which is not full proof and has many, many flaws. Let's just take for example dna testing, enough said. Science is a cold lover, it has no warmth and ultimately you may lose the essence of what makes us human. The ability to choose, the ability feel, the ability to love and the ability to live for more than ourselves and when we lose that we become exactly the opposite.

              I have seen this in the world and in my own life. That's why I just don't trust people anymore because religion, real religion, is almost dead.

              So long live the God of Science and his children of closed minded machines.

              "Science is a tool, but just like other tools sometimes it does not work."

              Sorry about this, know this is dna posting so I will stop the soap box

              Well said BlackWolf. You have made some excellent points.

              Comment


              • #37
                3 stories of how we got here

                there 3 stories of how we got here the first 2 are well known
                1 is evolution we started small adapted and became us
                2 is creation somewhere along the way god made man out of stuff and we became us
                3 two planets collided and every 36,000 years the big one returns on an oval orbit going the wrong way and people on that planet have come here .in their stays they needed workers so they created by dna the animals and eventually man and then women [the 12th planet by stichken] this is the sumarian /babylonian story [stargate is based on this]

                actually the last makes more sense but i can buy it. due to cicumstances i wont go into

                just thought i would say what the options were

                Comment


                • #38
                  Black Wolf if you wanted to stop the "Soap box" you wouldn't have hit the post button.

                  God of Science??
                  Last edited by M.O'Connor; 23 December 2005, 04:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jim Denning
                    actually the last makes more sense but i can buy it. due to cicumstances i wont go into

                    just thought i would say what the options were


                    correected as
                    actually the last makes more sense but i can't buy it. due to cicumstances i wont go into

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by jdchess
                      I am just curious what other Creation believers think about the timeline back to the theoretical Eurasian "Adam." DNA doesn't lie. There is no doubt about that and it one of the most effective tools in the genealogist's toolbox. I find it interesting that it is stated that this "Adam" DID have human ancestors, but that there was NO proof since the genetic trail stopped with him. Now the obvious question (for me anyway) is if there is NO genetic trail back of him, how do they know for a fact that he had human ancestors??

                      Anyway, I'm not trying to start a big debate, but I find myself somewhat torn between knowing that the DNA research is basically proof positive and believing that the earth is not as old as what is implied in the GP results. I suppose in a way the two really aren't related as the DNA research can obviously exsist and can assist us in our genealogy research without the GP, but I am very curious to know what others think. I wish I could have stated all this a little better, but oh well...
                      Adam and Eve is 4004 BC, and the Bible clearly writes about man and woman earlier. After much examination of the Creator God and Lord God issue and the original sin, I feel as if Adam and Eve were not the man and woman of the hunter-gather phase of mankind. So, genetic tests agree with my point of view.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        derinos

                        jdchess- there have been some intersting posts on the excellent question you raised; it comes up on numerous discussion sites, with various religious and/or scientific biases revealed in the postings!

                        One needs to start with some ball-park numbers to debate a subject like that.
                        There is a huge difference of scale between isotope, ice-core, and geological findings; and Bishop Ussher's generation counts obtained from the early English translation of the Bible that he owned.
                        So, why not give an idea of what timelines we are discussing: the Human DNA timeline is measured against other sources for a true calendar. For looking at your question,

                        A. How old do you believe the Earth to be, say back to the first appearance of our human or Homo Sapiens life-form?
                        and
                        B. How were those dates obtained, so as to convince you of their accuracy?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by derinos
                          jdchess- there have been some intersting posts on the excellent question you raised; it comes up on numerous discussion sites, with various religious and/or scientific biases revealed in the postings!

                          One needs to start with some ball-park numbers to debate a subject like that.
                          There is a huge difference of scale between isotope, ice-core, and geological findings; and Bishop Ussher's generation counts obtained from the early English translation of the Bible that he owned.
                          So, why not give an idea of what timelines we are discussing: the Human DNA timeline is measured against other sources for a true calendar. For looking at your question,

                          A. How old do you believe the Earth to be, say back to the first appearance of our human or Homo Sapiens life-form?
                          and
                          B. How were those dates obtained, so as to convince you of their accuracy?

                          look bishop usher didnt have all the translations found after he died . thats why the king james isnt in stone the septauqint wasnt available to help translate. he took son of to be son of but the bible allows it to be ggrandson with as many g's as you want. the greek hebrew and arabic allows for alot of thing that people dont know it does. there actually is a difference in adam [man] and adam long a and m rhymes with madam .one is the man before the breathe and the other the man after gods breathe . this stuff is as complicated as the science can be
                          and to think we know the whole story is naive. again that applies to the science and religion.
                          it doesnt matter to me the age of the earth because the religion says that this isnt the first time earth was like this. god told adam to replenish the earth not to populate it for the first time. the first time was under the rule of the angels with satan atop it until he fell
                          so as you take the stories, we have it that all three can be gotten from that
                          1]maybe satan created thru dna all the obtacles we think science has as proof
                          and bacteria survived post a earth destruction
                          2]maybe the sumatrian story of mardoc returning as the planet that smashed the original earth and the came here and caused the evolution thru dna
                          or
                          3]god destroyed the satan reign and took adam as his replacement

                          and or
                          there maybe something no one knows so what does it matter.i know at the end the truth will probably prove all three somehow

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            are you trying to fit god and the bible into dna science?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by M.O'Connor
                              are you trying to fit god and the bible into dna science?
                              the whole world interacts history ,science, religion, comerce,art, all interact. to think they dont is to make a serious mistake


                              if i told you last jan that there was a small race of humids to be found you ;'de ask me if i was hung up on the lord of the rings. well?
                              today the world of science is shaking by the clovis people coming across the alantic.
                              who knows whats ahead the one bet i can have is that change is ahead.
                              the smart people are awaiting it.others will dig in to fight it


                              in the end all the fields i mentioned will come together

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by derinos
                                jdchess- there have been some intersting posts on the excellent question you raised; it comes up on numerous discussion sites, with various religious and/or scientific biases revealed in the postings!

                                One needs to start with some ball-park numbers to debate a subject like that.
                                There is a huge difference of scale between isotope, ice-core, and geological findings; and Bishop Ussher's generation counts obtained from the early English translation of the Bible that he owned.
                                So, why not give an idea of what timelines we are discussing: the Human DNA timeline is measured against other sources for a true calendar. For looking at your question,

                                A. How old do you believe the Earth to be, say back to the first appearance of our human or Homo Sapiens life-form?
                                and
                                B. How were those dates obtained, so as to convince you of their accuracy?
                                At the fear of sounding cliche, I believe in a "young earth," and for the most part that implies an age of roughly 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Obviously my faith plays a big role in my believing the Bible, but I also feel that there is a LOT of evidence (both scientific and archeologic) to support its claims and stories. I also feel that there are a lot of problems with scientific dating methods concerning their accuracy. That being said, I don't feel that evolutionary theory is complete BS like some do. Some parts of evolutionary theory, such as survival of the fittest, are obviously correct, and there are obviously variations among organisms of the same species; however, there is no evidence what so ever of one species evolving into an entirely different species. I do not believe that we evolved from apes, chimps, or any other organism into what we are today.

                                I do not believe that belief in parts of evolutionary theory undermine a belief in God the Creator. I do however, think that to believe that something as complex as a human being could be a totally random happening with no design or designer, is pretty absurd, and I would have to admit that anyone who can truly believe that has stronger faith than I have. Imagine dumping a bucket full of legos into the floor and them falling in such a way as to create a model of a house, or a vehicle, or better yet a person. Who here really belives that something like that could happen? Now multiply the randomness of an event like that times 1,000,000,000,000,000 (or so...) and you would have the randomness of what natural selection is asking us to believe. I'm sorry, I just can't buy it. I have to admit that the Bible, even when taken 100% literally, seems easier to digest and believe.

                                I do agree with Mr. Denning in that in the end all the different fields will be in harmony...

                                Is there an evolutionary process in play? Yes.

                                Is God the one who set it into motion? Yes.
                                Last edited by jdchess; 27 December 2005, 07:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X