How did the earth get populated?

[forrestkc]

Which we know from modern science to be completely false. So if you are to argue that the story of creation in Genesis is a literal account, then you are disproving the creation story in Genesis because through simple genetics, we know that it the literal account in of creation in Genesis is impossible. However, if you argue that it is metaphorical, then the bible is in harmony with known science.

Wow...I guess I just cannot escape the evolutionists even in a Christian forum. forrestkc, you really need to start looking at science from the creationists point of view instead of from the evolutionists point of view. Allow me to clarify.

If you get an education in evolution theory based on modern text books or resort to scientific websites for their data your only being indoctrinated into their belief system.

There is a rather ridiculous argument floating around among fundamentalists that science has declared some war on faith. That is simply not the case. Instead what is happening is that literalists are declaring war on science by trying to treat the Bible and its accounts as literal science. It is a loosing battle. Faith must be in harmony with reason.

Actually what your witnessing is a battle between what our children going to be taught in school...will they be taught about God or will they be taught the theory that takes God out of the equation?

What you have to be clear on is Evolution theory is not science, individuals study science so that they can go and venture into the study of Evolution theory, it is a religion because in reality there are only six definitions for evolution theory and only one out of the six has been observed in nature but the other five have not been witnessed nor is there any proof to substantiate the other 5 definitions.

1. Cosmic Evolution (origin of Space and Matter ie; the big bang)
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Chemical Evolution (Origin of higher elements; if the big bang produced Hydrogen, how did the other 105 elements evolve?
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution: No one has ever seen a star form.
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Organic Evolution; No one has ever witnessed life starting from nothing.
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. Macro Evolution; changing from one kind to another (Not species related)
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Micro Evolution; more appropriately changes and or variational changes within species such as Darwins finch's on the Galapagos Islands.
   

Only the last definition Micro Evolution has been observed by mankind but a new species did not and cannot result from Micro Evolution. There are no intermediary species within the geologic column that support Micro-Evolution into Macro-Evolution.

Here is where the problem is, Evolutionists grab definition six, Micro-Evolution and assume that it can be translated across the board as proof for the other 5 definitions. The remaining five definitions have to be believed in order for the theory to be sound, the fact is, there is no proof.

Evolutionists are constantly trying to erase the line between their belief system and science in order to pass it off as fact.

Is the Earth Billions of years old?....I don't believe it is, to be perfectly frank, I believe that God spoke life into existance exactly like the Bible says he did. This is the main reason why people have such a hard time dealing with the miracle of Gods power, because they can't get past the ignorance of their own limitations and keep trying to place God below themselves because they are not capable of making such miracles happen, that there cannot be a God or yet better, somone greater than they are.

I believe that James Hutton and Charles Lyell made a mistake in determining that the Geologic column proves millions of years of evolution and it's fossils are being looked at incorrectly, if it were to be correct, in order to prove the theory of the geologic column and that the strata layers represent millions of years of earth settlement, where is all the erosion from weather patterns between the layers?...your gonna tell me that we went through periods of 10 - 100 millions of years without rain or snow, of which should be detectable in the strata but yet its not there?

If we were to find the Geologic Column in tact, you would have to dig in excess of 100 miles into the earth in order to find the complete column. I find it quite ironic that Genesis clearly states that God will destroy the inhabitants of the earth with a flood and we find literally trillions of fossilized creatures in this so called Geologic column but yet evolutionists use the same evidence in order to establish that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old...wow isn't that interesting and evolutionists also say that the flood of Noah never happened either.

Let's take a look at what the scripture says... 2nd Peter 3-6

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

I would suffice it to say that verse 5 is clearly in tune with verse 3 and that we are in the last days and people are actually arguing scientifically that the flood of Noah never happened and that they are willing ignorant that the Universe is Billions of years old because they have become blinded by science and philosophy...again let's take a look at what scripture says about philosophy...

Colosians 2:8

8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

Now I'm pretty sure your smart enough to realise that nearly 2000 years ago man wasn't contemplating that the earth was billions of years old and or were they trying to push the idea to others within their community the old age earth theory has only been around for about 150-175 years....I could go on and on and on about numerous topics which are being taught to our children in public schools that have been discovered as far back as 1869 to be fradulant discoveries which support evolution theory and are still in the text books today and no hard feelings but from what I am reading into from your posts...clearly you have become a victim of this educational system which pushes the envelope in order to try and get people to turn away from God...Evolution theory is a product of deceit masterminded by satan himself...do you have any idea how many children have learned to reject their faith after being taught evolution in school and never mind college and university...it's mind boggling.

The earth is not billions of years old...scientifically speaking.

Regards

Christopher_John

Ok, I am going to argue this from a strictly scientific perspective.

1. There is no science from the

[apothanein kerdos]

Actually, it's a false premise to say "earlier forms of man." All of these "earlier forms" led up to Neanderthal. The only problem with this is that man is genetically different from Neanderthal...too different to have been the next step in the evolutionary process. In essence, modern man, from a purely scientific standpoint, appeared out of no where.

Also, a Christian cannot believe in both Darwinian evolution and Christianity. Darwinian evolution teaches that man progresses in a state of chaos, in essence, man was corrupt from the start. As Christians we MUST believe we were created in the image of God or else we are not Christians. How dare I say this? Where is the scripture? Scripture says that we must confess our sins in order to be saved. The problem is, if we believe that our sins are an inherent part of who we are (i.e. we evolved this way) then we believe God created us sinful...thus there is no need to be forgiven for what is an inherent trait. It nullifies salvation.

We can believe in evolution (such as the earth and universe being billions of years old and the organic fossil record), but we cannot believe in the evolution of man. This is due to scientific, philisophical, and theological reasons.

[forrestkc]

Actually, it's a false premise to say "earlier forms of man." All of these "earlier forms" led up to Neanderthal. The only problem with this is that man is genetically different from Neanderthal...too different to have been the next step in the evolutionary process. In essence, modern man, from a purely scientific standpoint, appeared out of no where.

Also, a Christian cannot believe in both Darwinian evolution and Christianity. Darwinian evolution teaches that man progresses in a state of chaos, in essence, man was corrupt from the start. As Christians we MUST believe we were created in the image of God or else we are not Christians. How dare I say this? Where is the scripture? Scripture says that we must confess our sins in order to be saved. The problem is, if we believe that our sins are an inherent part of who we are (i.e. we evolved this way) then we believe God created us sinful...thus there is no need to be forgiven for what is an inherent trait. It nullifies salvation.

We can believe in evolution (such as the earth and universe being billions of years old and the organic fossil record), but we cannot believe in the evolution of man. This is due to scientific, philisophical, and theological reasons.

1. You are completely misinformed about Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man was simply a branch in the evolutionary tree that led up to man. We have common ancestors with Neanderthal man, and for a time we lived along side of Neanderthal man. However, about 30,000 years or so we out competed him and Neanderthal man became extinct. The common ancestor that we share with Neanderthal Man is Homo Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from Homo ergaster, which evolved from Homo rudofenis. The genetic evidence and the fossil record wholly supports this as well.

2. I would argue that if one views the story of creation as metaphorical, then one would conclude that early forms of man did not have the brain capacity to conceive of right and wrong. Just like a baby does not know right from wrong. However, at some point in the latter portion of our evolutionary timeline, we developed the mental capacity for advanced emotion and the concept of right and wrong. Once we had the mental capacity to know right from wrong, we fell into sin. Basically, early in our evolution we were innocent and completely dependent on our environment for our survival. Later, we developed the capacity for more advanced intelligence, started using tools, and developed the capacity to know what sin was and to sin.

[apothanein kerdos]

You are completely misinformed about Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man was simply a branch in the evolutionary tree that led up to man. We have common ancestors with Neanderthal man, and for a time we lived along side of Neanderthal man. However, about 30,000 years or so we out competed him and Neanderthal man became extinct. The common ancestor that we share with Neanderthal Man is Homo Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from Homo ergaster, which evolved from Homo rudofenis. The genetic evidence and the fossil record wholly supports this as well.

The problem with this is that it's not supported by scientific evidence. For one, it's a philisophical leap by scientists, not a scientific fact. The genetic make up, while similar, is still too different for many scientists to accept that we did infact evolve from these "predasessors." This is why we are still in search for the missing link. We want to find out where our evolutionary jump occured. Fact is, there is no evidence the fossil records or any other records of one species evolving into another species.

I would argue that if one views the story of creation as metaphorical, then one would conclude that early forms of man did not have the brain capacity to conceive of right and wrong. Just like a baby does not know right from wrong. However, at some point in the latter portion of our evolutionary timeline, we developed the mental capacity for advanced emotion and the concept of right and wrong. Once we had the mental capacity to know right from wrong, we fell into sin. Basically, early in our evolution we were innocent and completely dependent on our environment for our survival. Later, we developed the capacity for more advanced intelligence, started using tools, and developed the capacity to know what sin was and to sin.

This ignores the bigger picture that I painted for you. At base level, you still deny we were created in the image of God...this is essential to develop as a Christian. If we do not accept this then we cannot grow as Christians. Secondly, you're working from a false philisophical concept. You are saying we relied on nature, not on God, meaning you deny the existence of God. IF you do in fact believe in Him (you do, right?) then your belief is merely in a weak God who let things run its course. Thirdly, it still means that man was living in sin and was not created in a state of shalom (peace). This means that God's creation was not good and was, in fact, incomplete.

No matter which way you cut it, you hold an athiestic view of the world and not a Christian one.

[MrSealedEternal]

Hi!

Have you ever watched any of the presentations from 6 day creationists Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, or Whitcomb?

My hubbie & I have found them to be very informative and it has truly helped us to understand the many issues that are being raised in your hearts & minds concerning the matter. Highly recommended these!

Kent Hovind has not copyrighted his presentations and invites anyone to copy them for distribution as long as they are offered for free.

We will send you some if you are needing them. Just drop us a mailing address.

The Glory be to our Amazing Creator God,

Mrs. Sealed Eternal

[forrestkc]

You are completely misinformed about Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man was simply a branch in the evolutionary tree that led up to man. We have common ancestors with Neanderthal man, and for a time we lived along side of Neanderthal man. However, about 30,000 years or so we out competed him and Neanderthal man became extinct. The common ancestor that we share with Neanderthal Man is Homo Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from Homo ergaster, which evolved from Homo rudofenis. The genetic evidence and the fossil record wholly supports this as well.

The problem with this is that it's not supported by scientific evidence. For one, it's a philisophical leap by scientists, not a scientific fact. The genetic make up, while similar, is still too different for many scientists to accept that we did infact evolve from these "predasessors." This is why we are still in search for the missing link. We want to find out where our evolutionary jump occured. Fact is, there is no evidence the fossil records or any other records of one species evolving into another species.

I would argue that if one views the story of creation as metaphorical, then one would conclude that early forms of man did not have the brain capacity to conceive of right and wrong. Just like a baby does not know right from wrong. However, at some point in the latter portion of our evolutionary timeline, we developed the mental capacity for advanced emotion and the concept of right and wrong. Once we had the mental capacity to know right from wrong, we fell into sin. Basically, early in our evolution we were innocent and completely dependent on our environment for our survival. Later, we developed the capacity for more advanced intelligence, started using tools, and developed the capacity to know what sin was and to sin.

This ignores the bigger picture that I painted for you. At base level, you still deny we were created in the image of God...this is essential to develop as a Christian. If we do not accept this then we cannot grow as Christians. Secondly, you're working from a false philisophical concept. You are saying we relied on nature, not on God, meaning you deny the existence of God. IF you do in fact believe in Him (you do, right?) then your belief is merely in a weak God who let things run its course. Thirdly, it still means that man was living in sin and was not created in a state of shalom (peace). This means that God's creation was not good and was, in fact, incomplete.

No matter which way you cut it, you hold an athiestic view of the world and not a Christian one.

1. There is mountains of fossil evidence to support the evolution among species. We don

[abbershay]

Forest this is inner court are you claiming to be a christian?

[apothanein kerdos]

1. There is mountains of fossil evidence to support the evolution among species.

No, there aren't. Only the foolish believe such claims.

There is evolution to suppor that species evolve (grow and differenciate) but there is nothing to support one species evolving into an entirely different type of species. Such as a pre-ape creature evolving into a human.

However, every single scientific society in America wholly accepts evolution as fact.

And most are athiest or deist. You don't find that odd? Most "scientists" interpret their scientific findings through the worldview in which they have. If they do not believe there is a Creator then naturally they will interpret findings that nullify the need for a Creator. Any findings or inconsistencies within the finding that call for the need of a Creator will be aptly ignored as these do not fit within the worldview of the scientists. Generally, when expirience or evidence is presented against a person's worldview, either the person changes the worldview or ignores (or misintprets/deligitimizes the evidence). This is why we see many agnostic scientists heading towards Intelligent Design because it fills the inconsistencies left by Darwinian evolution.

One can support the scientific law of evolution and still believe that we were created in the image of God. If God is all knowing, and I believe that he is, then he of course knew that by combing rna molecules and creating the first form of life some 4 billion years ago, that it would eventually evolve into us and every form of life around us. God knows everything that ever happened or ever will happen. This knowledge extends more than just to human events. God knows every being, every cell, every piece of DNA, every molecule, every atom. He also knows every result from every interaction of every atom, every molecule, every genetic strain, every cell, and every life form. The more we learn about the origins of the universe, the more we learn about the origins of life, and the more we learn about how life evolves, the more remarkable we find that God is.

You haven't studied this, have you?

Image of God is a philisophical and theological belief. It can be summed up in imageo dei. This means that our physical image and as well as our emotional make up are unique to all creation. Looking to the creation story (which I accept parts of it as hyperbole and poetic interpretation) we see that it zips through the creation of everything else but takes special time with man. If man evolved from other species, man is no longer special. He is merely part of everything else, no better than a horse, rabbit, or any organic aspect of creation. Man, however, was created seperate, in the image of God. This means that we literally sprang forth from God, there was nothing before us BUT God. If we evolved, then this concept goes away and with it, the entire Bible.

Once again, you fail to explain how the fall of man could have occured if man was already in a state of chaos. Also, do you realize that you just bought into a Marxists view of creation (man developed a sense of morals and from this became corrupt)? Do you not realize how your worldview is contrary to Christ?

[MrSealedEternal]

Neb, you just beat me to this post. It is my understanding that all people have a single point origin of Mitochondrial dna......

What is that?

Thanks,

Mrs. SE

[MrSealedEternal]

We read something about Sons of God ... so thought maybe the angles had something to do with it. Then there was something about gaints.

The sons of GOD refers to the godly line of Seth(some would argue this point).JESUS said later in the new testament that we would be like the angels.....not given in marriage.This would indicate that the angels were "A" sexual(not male or female,once again some would argue this point).

I have heard three different viewpoints on this topic and am not sure if I can come to a conviction about the Seth vs fallen angels explanations. I think they both seemed plausable to me and I forget what the third one was so I must of disregarded it for some reason.

Perhaps someone can direct me to or start a thread on that and see if anything comes out that could convince me that there is a way to know for sure.

Until then, the juries still out on that one.

Thanks & God Bless,

Mrs, SE

Edited December 19, 2005 by Mr*MrsSealedEternal