Overwhelming evidence of life on earth before Adam

[MorningGlory]

On 3/25/2018 at 6:45 AM, enoob57 said:

I learned everything I know from you all  

Worthy has a way of doing that to a person, Steven.

[Quasar93]

On 3/20/2018 at 12:24 PM, Still Alive said:

I don't think the bible says there wasn't a world of life before Adam. I think people just infer that. And reality does not support that inference.

 

 

The Bible does not teach us that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it contains coal and oil in it either.  As well as countless other things about it.  Because it is specifically intended to teach us about God and His plan of how He reconciles man to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  Open your mind to things the Bible does not teach nor was it intended to do so.

 

 

Quasar93 

[Still Alive]

7 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

 

 

The Bible does not teach us that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it contains coal and oil in it either.  As well as countless other things about it.  Because it is specifically intended to teach us about God and His plan of how He reconciles man to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  

Exactly! 

[Quasar93]

15 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Exactly! 

 

As I previously posted: 

>>>The Bible does not teach us that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it contains coal and oil in it either.  As well as countless other things about it.  Because it is specifically intended to teach us about God and His plan of how He reconciles man to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ<<<

 

I had not finished and had to post what I intended to inform you of, which I will complete at this time.

 

As such, the research sand study of unexplained text, does not mean information from further research and study of it should not be shared with all others who are interested and have a desire for the knowledge discovered from it.  That the Bible says nothing much about an old age, does not ban the subject from discussion, any more than the subjects of Trinity and Rapture, that are also absent from being found in the Bible.

 

 

Quasar93  

Edited April 2, 2018 by Quasar93

[Still Alive]

8 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

 

As I previously posted: 

>>>The Bible does not teach us that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it contains coal and oil in it either.  As well as countless other things about it.  Because it is specifically intended to teach us about God and His plan of how He reconciles man to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ<<<

 

I had not finished and had to post what I intended to inform you of, which I will complete at this time.

 

As such, the research sand study of unexplained text, does not meaninformation from further research abd study of it should not be shared with all others who are interested and have a desire for the knowledge discovered from it.  That the Bible says nothing much about an old age, does not ban the subject from discussion, any more than the subjects of Trinity and Rapture, that are also absent from being found in the Bible.

 

 

Quasar93  

Again, we are in complete agreement on this subject! It's actually become a subject near and dear to my heart of late, as I'm allowed to listen to the bible on my 3 hour round trip commute (via thumb drive in the dashboard) going on four years now. Listening brings a different perspective than reading. One surprising benefit is no verse annotations. Just chapters. But one perceives it almost as though from a different part of the brain than when reading. There is so much the bible doesn't say that people think it says.

And a side note: I was just mentioning the other night that Paul addressed a LOT of stuff that Jesus didn't even touch on. And some of it is CLEARLY cultural. It makes me wonder just how literally we are to take Paul's instructions as they apply to our current culture. I'm still trying to work that one out.

[other one]

52 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Again, we are in complete agreement on this subject! It's actually become a subject near and dear to my heart of late, as I'm allowed to listen to the bible on my 3 hour round trip commute (via thumb drive in the dashboard) going on four years now. Listening brings a different perspective than reading. One surprising benefit is no verse annotations. Just chapters. But one perceives it almost as though from a different part of the brain than when reading. There is so much the bible doesn't say that people think it says.

And a side note: I was just mentioning the other night that Paul addressed a LOT of stuff that Jesus didn't even touch on. And some of it is CLEARLY cultural. It makes me wonder just how literally we are to take Paul's instructions as they apply to our current culture. I'm still trying to work that one out.

actually you do perceive with a different part of your brain....   and I agree that one picks up more of the context by listening instead of reading for it is much more difficult to pull single verses out and make things out of them that isn't really the context of it all.   I would also agree that one should understand the cosmology of the people when the Bible was written and in the New Testament who it was written to.    Paul's stand on Women preaching in one letter doesn't seem to match up with what was going on in Rome that he accepted....   Some people see that as a discrepancy and others apply it to everyone today....   It seems to me that neither are correct.

[Still Alive]

52 minutes ago, other one said:

actually you do perceive with a different part of your brain....   and I agree that one picks up more of the context by listening instead of reading for it is much more difficult to pull single verses out and make things out of them that isn't really the context of it all.   I would also agree that one should understand the cosmology of the people when the Bible was written and in the New Testament who it was written to.    Paul's stand on Women preaching in one letter doesn't seem to match up with what was going on in Rome that he accepted....   Some people see that as a discrepancy and others apply it to everyone today....   It seems to me that neither are correct.

One of the discrepencies of modern interpretation that I've always found kinda comical is that Paul preaches that men should have short hair, yet every picture I've seen of "Jesus" has him with long hair. 

BTW, I was listening to Ecclesiastes this morning and 2:14-16 just jumped out at me: For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

That completely aligns with Jesus saying he completed the law. 

 

[other one]

7 hours ago, Still Alive said:

One of the discrepencies of modern interpretation that I've always found kinda comical is that Paul preaches that men should have short hair, yet every picture I've seen of "Jesus" has him with long hair. 

BTW, I was listening to Ecclesiastes this morning and 2:14-16 just jumped out at me: For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

That completely aligns with Jesus saying he completed the law. 

 

yes, but he did give us a couple more and some instructions like being baptized...   Even the ten commandments are put away but only if you live under his big two.

 

[Realist]

On 3/18/2018 at 7:15 AM, Quasar93 said:

All the geological and paleontological evidence PROVES beyond the slightest scintilla of a doubt that THERE WAS A WORLD BEFORE ADAM. Most of the dating techniques of scientists -- uranium-argon, potassium-thorium, racemization and thermaluminescence -- as well as observation and logic conclusively show that the rocks under our feet, the bones of ancient animals, and even the charcoal campfires of Paleo-Indians, Neanderthal man, and other ancient hominid remains, are MUCH OLDER than 6,000 years

You are just regurgitating your indoctrinated hypothesizes with little or no real research or experience of these sciences.  Some of these theories  and dating techniques have already been challenged and proven to be flawed.  "Observation and logic conclusively show" that if man cannot predict, with accuracy, what the typical weather pattern will actually be, from day to day, that he cannot be trusted with regressing back 6000 plus years in time and dictate anything that transpired in that age.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Realist

[Quasar93]

4 hours ago, Realist said:

You are just regurgitating your indoctrinated hypothesizes with little or no real research or experience of these sciences.  Some of these theories  and dating techniques have already been challenged and proven to be flawed.  "Observation and logic conclusively show" that if man cannot predict, with accuracy, what the typical weather pattern will actually be, from day to day, that he cannot be trusted with regressing back 6000 plus years in time and dictate anything that transpired in that age.

 

 

Oinion is meaningless without supporting evidence, which I have provided.  Here is more for you to find adequate response to:

The oldest human DNA ever recovered is throwing scientists for a loop: The 400,000-year-old genetic material comes from bones that have been linked to Neanderthals in Spain — but its signature is most similar to that of a different ancient human population from Siberia, known as the Denisovans.The researchers who did the analysis said their findings show an "unexpected link" between two of our extinct cousin species.

Follow-up studies could crack the mystery — not only for the early humans who lived in the cave complex known as Sima de los Huesos (Spanish for "Pit of Bones"), but for other mysterious populations in the Pleistocene epoch."Ancient DNA sequencing techniques have become sensitive enough to warrant further investigation of DNA survival at sites where Middle Pleistocene hominins are found," the research team, led by Matthias Meyer and Svante Pääbo of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, wrote in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. ("Hominin" is the currently accepted term for humans and our close evolutionary cousins.)As anthropologists are getting better at extracting DNA from ancient bones, genetic mysteries are cropping up more frequently: Last month, researchers at scientific meetings talked about not-yet-published findings that hinted at interbreeding among Neanderthals, Denisovans and previously unknown populations of early humans.A new standard

The age of the mitochondrial DNA analyzed for the Nature study sets a new standard: Researchers used statistical analysis of the DNA and other samples to estimate that the material was roughly 400,000 years old. That meshed with the estimated age for similar DNA extracted from bear bones found in the same cave.More than 6,000 human fossils, representing about 28 individuals, have been recovered from the Sima de los Huesos site, a hard-to-get-to cave chamber that lies about 100 feet (30 meters) below the surface in northern Spain. The fossils are unusually well-preserved, thanks in part to the undisturbed cave's constant cool temperature and high humidity.


For the complete article:  http://www.nbcnews.com/science/400-000- ... 2D11690925


Quasar93