[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Cygnus]

There was a creationist orthodontist who had that hypothesis, but it doesn't work. Even Neandertal children had the characteristics Cuozzo assumed to be indicators of great age.

I don't think you couls say it doesn't work...you do know our skull does change with age?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Nope. There are a huge number of differences between gorillas and H. sapiens. A Neandertal, groomed and dressed in modern fashion, would look a little unusual, but everyone would recognize him as a human.

Yes, I agree.
Computers are reshaping the way people think today.

 

[Cygnus]

I have heard this too.

Ther's a bit out there on the net. It might make a great topic for new thread.

But, a few years back I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.
The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.
Dr. Cuozzo talked about the neanderthal man and their appearance. One of his points were that studies show that the human head does not stop growing as we age. He cited references from a study done by a Dr. Rolf Gordon Behrents, from the U of Michigan while he was working on his Ph.D.
Dr Behrents work involved the measurement of people heads when they were 19, late 40’s and some at age 80.
What was discovered was that the head changed in this fashion;
the brow ridge came forward
the jaw came forward
the nose got bigger
the chin came forward
the cheeks came forward and flattened out
the teeth came forward
the back of the head started to point out
Some of the measurements show that the nose moved 1.3 mm in 30 years while the browridge moved forward and upward 1.5 mm and the cheek bone moved 1.1 mm in the same 30 year period.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You know, I was just thinking.
About monkey man.
Lol, I went into Lowe's and ask for some monkey glue.
The person thought about that for a second and then said, "oh, you mean gorilla glue".
I laughed and felt embarrassed, but you know, when you don't think about it, it's easy to mix up monkeys and gorillas.

So now tell us Barbarian, how do you mix up neaderthal man with Adam and Eve?

 

[Barbarian]

Ther's a bit out there on the net. It might make a great topic for new thread.

But, a few years back I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.
The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.

The whole story falls apart when you come to skeletons of Neandertal children. They have the same anatomical differences that adults do, adjusted for age. So a Neandertal child would also look human, but a bit odd, because of the anatomical differences.

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/neander.jpg

 

[Barbarian]

So, it states that "God made" and "after their kind". Yes, it does say "'Let the earth bring forth", however to stretch that into the ground sprouting out animals, is quite a claim.

Of course. It's a figurative thing. The earth does bring forth living things, as God intended when He created the universe. From that initial creation, things developed according to His will. And none of it would even exist without his active participation in maintaining ever part of nature.

As you see, the creation story uses the concept of the four elements to explain His purposes. Earth, Air, and Water bring forth living things, but fire is only given to man, in the form of an immortal soul. Fire and spirit are commonly equated in Hebrew writing. The spirit of God, for example, manifests to Moses in the form of flames about a bush that is not consumed by the flames. And he is very aware of what the fire means.

Well, when you think of it the bible mentions Eve was the first woman...mother of all living. Created from Adams rib. Now, that sounds pretty much in contrary to evolutionism to me. I would think that's not even a modern revisions to scripture

No more than the notion of God having hands. Because there are logical absurdities in reading Genesis as a literal history (which is a modern revision), we know that it is figurative in many respects.

There is for example, the issue of a Y chromosome in every cell of Adam's rib, which would not have produced a woman. We could just suppose yet another nonscriptural miracle to cover it up, but as I said, that's not a good way to interpret the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

You know, I was just thinking.
About monkey man.
Lol, I went into Lowe's and ask for some monkey glue.
The person thought about that for a second and then said, "oh, you mean gorilla glue".
I laughed and felt embarrassed, but you know, when you don't think about it, it's easy to mix up monkeys and gorillas.

Can't for the life of me understand how. It's like mixing up horses and rhinos.

So now tell us Barbarian, how do you mix up neaderthal man with Adam and Eve?

By the time there were Neandertals, it seems Eve had been dead for a long time. Neandertals, Denisovans, and Cro-magnons were all genetically the same species. Most likely, Eve was before any of those three subspecies evolved.

It is possible, of course, that God at some point, chose two humans of some population, gave them an immortal soul, and they gave rise to all modern humans. But it doesn't seem likely. There are too many reasons not to do it that way.

But I wouldn't absolutely rule it out.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Can't for the life of me understand how. It's like mixing up horses and rhinos.



By the time there were Neandertals, it seems Eve had been dead for a long time. Neandertals, Denisovans, and Cro-magnons were all genetically the same species. Most likely, Eve was before any of those three subspecies evolved.

It is possible, of course, that God at some point, chose two humans of some population, gave them an immortal soul, and they gave rise to all modern humans. But it doesn't seem likely. There are too many reasons not to do it that way.

But I wouldn't absolutely rule it out.

Okay, sounds reasonable.
Now let's get down to specifics.
How old is the earth since God closed the Garden of Eden to mankind?

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Of course. It's a figurative thing. The earth does bring forth living things, as God intended when He created the universe. From that initial creation, things developed according to His will. And none of it would even exist without his active participation in maintaining ever part of nature.

As you see, the creation story uses the concept of the four elements to explain His purposes. Earth, Air, and Water bring forth living things, but fire is only given to man, in the form of an immortal soul. Fire and spirit are commonly equated in Hebrew writing. The spirit of God, for example, manifests to Moses in the form of flames about a bush that is not consumed by the flames. And he is very aware of what the fire means.



No more than the notion of God having hands. Because there are logical absurdities in reading Genesis as a literal history (which is a modern revision), we know that it is figurative in many respects.

There is for example, the issue of a Y chromosome in every cell of Adam's rib, which would not have produced a woman. We could just suppose yet another nonscriptural miracle to cover it up, but as I said, that's not a good way to interpret the Bible.

You know, the more I listen to the way and what you read into scripture, the more I see that it is due to the fact that you have to twist, assume, interpret and justify the fossil record and the TOE and align it with the word of God.

If the TOE and all the falsehoods that go with it, did not exist, people could and would read the word of God and it would have no reason to be altered.

The reason you don't believe that God created all animals as fully formed adult animals of each kind is due to some white coat saying that the fossil record has all these different animals in it. One must have changed into the other. To do this there would have needed to be a vast amount of age to the earth and if the earth is way older then the conclusion that they gradually changed over the billions of years works. Both assumptions compliment each other but if you say the Bible is right, it contradicts both of them. So you change your interpretation of the Bible.

If you finally understand that the fossil record is very small in relation to the number of animals that have lived on this earth. Even Darwin was hoping that more and more fossils would be found. The fossil record never amounted to what they wished it did.
The fossil record is not fluid, it is not exclusive, it is not exhaustive. It is a static view of a small number of creatures bones. Man take these and develop stories of grandeur in order to support the old age of the earth and therefore there is no need for God, no need to repent, no need for forgiveness and no need to answer for your wrong doings.

If God is who He say's He is....... the Bible can be read literally, believed literally and accepted as the Gospel truth.

Thus, I have no need for billions of years. No need for some spontaneous unexplained life form. No need for animals sprouting from the ground. No need for one animal changing to another to another to another until we ended up with what God wanted in the first place, A being of His image.

No need at all because My God is an Awesome God. He spoke the universe into place and all the animals and creatures and Formed one man from who's rib He made the first female human. He did this in six literal days. There is no need to doubt it because some scientist couldn't handle the truth.

 

[AGustOfWind]

Are you saying we should take the words of the scientist concerning the age of the earth....despite all the evidense that says their dating methods are less than desirable?

You also made up a list of "things" ...then presented them as if they could not be accomplished in 6K years. Can you support that?

Dinosaurs, the ice age, development of the earth through tectonic plates, Pangea, the list goes on.

Yes, we do take the words of a scientist, because they are trying to figure out how the heck this universe works.

How could Pangea split apart within 6000 years? How could dinosaurs go extinct within 6000 years? How could a zebra, and a dinosaur, live in the same timeframe? How?

You see, evolution could have happened. I'm neutral on it, God could have planned evolution. Do I believe we evolved from Neanderthals? Nope. Do I believe animals could've evolved from other animals? Perhaps. God was never specific on what these "Creatures" were, for all we know, they could've been tiny organisms, or creatures so ancient we'd not be able to comprehend their existence. You see, God wasn't specific, and thinking that zebras and tigers or things of that nature are what God made at first, is silly and an assumption. So far, the only support I can find for evolution is when God made it so the serpent would have to be on its belly, now of course, we all assume it was a snake, as is depicted in many people's minds and art. But this is false, he didn't say snake, he said serpent, therefore, this "serpent" could've been a giant snake monster for all we know (Yes I know, quite a silly thing to say, but we simply don't know).

There's nothing in the bible that goes against evolution, there's nothing in the bible that supports a 6000 year old earth, absolutely nothing.

Adam could not have named all of the animals within a day, it's not likely, because, there are so many species that haven't been discovered, and probably never will be, that, Adam taking only a day to name all of this is simply a ridiculous statement. Hebrew culture places a HUGE emphasis on how important names are, Adam wouldn't have just stopped, and looked at the animal for five seconds and then name it, no, he would've spent a long time thinking of what to name it, which completely debunks the 7 literal day creation.
When Adam was given eve, he said "At last" in the accurate translations, as if he had been searching for a suitable companion. Traveling across the garden of Eden searching for one, and the words "at last" must imply that he has been waiting a long time. But if it has only been a short amount of time, why would he say "at last"?

 

[Barbarian]

You know, the more I listen to the way and what you read into scripture, the more I see that it is due to the fact that you have to twist, assume, interpret and justify the fossil record and the TOE and align it with the word of God.

Notice that when I just took Genesis as it is, it fits the evidence very well. Only when you add modern creationist doctrines, does it become difficult to reconcile with evidence.

If the TOE and all the falsehoods that go with it, did not exist, people could and would read the word of God and it would have no reason to be altered.

You've got it backwards. There was no need to adjust scripture until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

The reason you don't believe that God created all animals He did, is because you're locked into a modern revision of the Bible that adds "fully formed adult animals" to creation because some "prophetess" wrote that God told her about it.

The fossil record does show that all organisms evolved from others. But the ancient Christians already knew that Genesis was not a literal history; they didn't need scientific evidence to show that.

To do this there would have needed to be a vast amount of age to the earth and if the earth is way older then the conclusion that they gradually changed over the billions of years works.

Because the fossil record, physics, geology, and other sciences all show the same ancient Earth through diverse sources of evidence, even most Christians now acknowledge that the world is very old. If you admit that the Bible is right as it is written, there is no conflict with any of this.

If you finally understand that the fossil record is very small in relation to the number of animals that have lived on this earth.

Well, let's test your assumption. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form between them.

Even Darwin was hoping that more and more fossils would be found.

Especially Darwin. In his day, we had few transitionals. Interestingly, his associate, Huxley, hypothesized that dinosaurs had given rise to birds, and not long afterwards, a transitional between the two was located. Even in my lifetime, a very large number of transitionals has been found. Would you like to learn about some of them?

The fossil record never amounted to what they wished it did.

Name me those two major groups, and we'll test that belief. Pick several such pairs, if you like. It will be a revelation for you.

The fossil record is not fluid, it is not exclusive, it is not exhaustive.

It's constantly changing, as we find more and more transitionals. It's by no means exhaustive, but it's much better than you've been led to believe it is.

It is a static view of a small number of creatures bones.

Much more than bones. We can learn about all sorts of things. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios can tell us if a creature lived in fresh water or salt water. Haversian canals (or the lack of them) in bones can tell us much about physiology of the animal. And so on.

Man take these and develop stories of grandeur in order to support the old age of the earth and therefore there is no need for God,

No one really says "the Earth is old, so there is no God." You've been completely misled about that.

If God is who He say's He is.......

Then the Bible can be literal or figurative in different places as He sees fit. Let Him be God.

Thus, I have no need for billions of years.

God doesn't care if you accept the way He did things. That is not what will decide your eternal home. But it does matter if you add the new doctrines of YE creastionism and claim that they are essential to Christian belief. That is wrong and has never been the case. Let God decide how creation should be handled, and worry about the things that He wants you to be concerned about.

 

[Barbarian]

Okay, sounds reasonable.
Now let's get down to specifics.
How old is the earth since God closed the Garden of Eden to mankind?

Hard to say. Was Adam an archaic H. sapiens, or some other species of human like H. ergaster? We just don't know. And it doesn't matter. Trust God.

 

[AGustOfWind]

Notice that when I just took Genesis as it is, it fits the evidence very well. Only when you add modern creationist doctrines, does it become difficult to reconcile with evidence.



You've got it backwards. There was no need to adjust scripture until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

The reason you don't believe that God created all animals He did, is because you're locked into a modern revision of the Bible that adds "fully formed adult animals" to creation because some "prophetess" wrote that God told her about it.

The fossil record does show that all organisms evolved from others. But the ancient Christians already knew that Genesis was not a literal history; they didn't need scientific evidence to show that.



Because the fossil record, physics, geology, and other sciences all show the same ancient Earth through diverse sources of evidence, even most Christians now acknowledge that the world is very old. If you admit that the Bible is right as it is written, there is no conflict with any of this.



Well, let's test your assumption. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form between them.



Especially Darwin. In his day, we had few transitionals. Interestingly, his associate, Huxley, hypothesized that dinosaurs had given rise to birds, and not long afterwards, a transitional between the two was located. Even in my lifetime, a very large number of transitionals has been found. Would you like to learn about some of them?



Name me those two major groups, and we'll test that belief. Pick several such pairs, if you like. It will be a revelation for you.



It's constantly changing, as we find more and more transitionals. It's by no means exhaustive, but it's much better than you've been led to believe it is.



Much more than bones. We can learn about all sorts of things. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios can tell us if a creature lived in fresh water or salt water. Haversian canals (or the lack of them) in bones can tell us much about physiology of the animal. And so on.



No one really says "the Earth is old, so there is no God." You've been completely misled about that.



Then the Bible can be literal or figurative in different places as He sees fit. Let Him be God.



God doesn't care if you accept the way He did things. That is not what will decide your eternal home. But it does matter if you add the new doctrines of YE creastionism and claim that they are essential to Christian belief. That is wrong and has never been the case. Let God decide how creation should be handled, and worry about the things that He wants you to be concerned about.

You're an amazing debater, absolutely.

I agree with most of this,

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Notice that when I just took Genesis as it is, it fits the evidence very well. Only when you add modern creationist doctrines, does it become difficult to reconcile with evidence.



You've got it backwards. There was no need to adjust scripture until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

The reason you don't believe that God created all animals He did, is because you're locked into a modern revision of the Bible that adds "fully formed adult animals" to creation because some "prophetess" wrote that God told her about it.

The fossil record does show that all organisms evolved from others. But the ancient Christians already knew that Genesis was not a literal history; they didn't need scientific evidence to show that.



Because the fossil record, physics, geology, and other sciences all show the same ancient Earth through diverse sources of evidence, even most Christians now acknowledge that the world is very old. If you admit that the Bible is right as it is written, there is no conflict with any of this.



Well, let's test your assumption. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form between them.



Especially Darwin. In his day, we had few transitionals. Interestingly, his associate, Huxley, hypothesized that dinosaurs had given rise to birds, and not long afterwards, a transitional between the two was located. Even in my lifetime, a very large number of transitionals has been found. Would you like to learn about some of them?



Name me those two major groups, and we'll test that belief. Pick several such pairs, if you like. It will be a revelation for you.



It's constantly changing, as we find more and more transitionals. It's by no means exhaustive, but it's much better than you've been led to believe it is.



Much more than bones. We can learn about all sorts of things. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios can tell us if a creature lived in fresh water or salt water. Haversian canals (or the lack of them) in bones can tell us much about physiology of the animal. And so on.



No one really says "the Earth is old, so there is no God." You've been completely misled about that.



Then the Bible can be literal or figurative in different places as He sees fit. Let Him be God.



God doesn't care if you accept the way He did things. That is not what will decide your eternal home. But it does matter if you add the new doctrines of YE creastionism and claim that they are essential to Christian belief. That is wrong and has never been the case. Let God decide how creation should be handled, and worry about the things that He wants you to be concerned about.

So, you think that Moses, Abraham, King David all believed the earth was billions of years old. Because their God, that parted the red see, gave Sarah, a barren woman a child, helped David kill Golliath and the numerous other supernatural events in this period of history, this God couldn't have done it is six days?

Modern YE creationism is like saying I have a cell phone from 10 BC

 

[Barbarian]

So, you think that Moses, Abraham, King David all believed the earth was billions of years old.

Why would you think that? The Bible is consistent with great age, but it doesn't say how old the Earth is.

Because their God, that parted the red see, gave Sarah, a barren woman a child, helped David kill Golliath and the numerous other supernatural events in this period of history, this God couldn't have done it is six days?

Could have done it in a microsecond. But the evidence shows He took His time.

Modern YE creationism is like saying I have a cell phone from 10 BC

It's not that absurd, but close. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, which was invented in the early 20th century, rejects God's word in Genesis.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You're an amazing debater, absolutely.

I agree with most of this,

I don't.

 

[Cygnus]

The whole story falls apart when you come to skeletons of Neandertal children. They have the same anatomical differences that adults do, adjusted for age. So a Neandertal child would also look human, but a bit odd, because of the anatomical differences.

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/neander.jpg

For example...this missing brow ridge?

 

[Cygnus]

Dinosaurs, the ice age, development of the earth through tectonic plates, Pangea, the list goes on.

Yes, we do take the words of a scientist, because they are trying to figure out how the heck this universe works.

How could Pangea split apart within 6000 years? How could dinosaurs go extinct within 6000 years? How could a zebra, and a dinosaur, live in the same timeframe? How?

You see, evolution could have happened. I'm neutral on it, God could have planned evolution. Do I believe we evolved from Neanderthals? Nope. Do I believe animals could've evolved from other animals? Perhaps. God was never specific on what these "Creatures" were, for all we know, they could've been tiny organisms, or creatures so ancient we'd not be able to comprehend their existence. You see, God wasn't specific, and thinking that zebras and tigers or things of that nature are what God made at first, is silly and an assumption. So far, the only support I can find for evolution is when God made it so the serpent would have to be on its belly, now of course, we all assume it was a snake, as is depicted in many people's minds and art. But this is false, he didn't say snake, he said serpent, therefore, this "serpent" could've been a giant snake monster for all we know (Yes I know, quite a silly thing to say, but we simply don't know).

There's nothing in the bible that goes against evolution, there's nothing in the bible that supports a 6000 year old earth, absolutely nothing.

Adam could not have named all of the animals within a day, it's not likely, because, there are so many species that haven't been discovered, and probably never will be, that, Adam taking only a day to name all of this is simply a ridiculous statement. Hebrew culture places a HUGE emphasis on how important names are, Adam wouldn't have just stopped, and looked at the animal for five seconds and then name it, no, he would've spent a long time thinking of what to name it, which completely debunks the 7 literal day creation.
When Adam was given eve, he said "At last" in the accurate translations, as if he had been searching for a suitable companion. Traveling across the garden of Eden searching for one, and the words "at last" must imply that he has been waiting a long time. But if it has only been a short amount of time, why would he say "at last"?

I see the need for you to disqualify a lot of what is written in Genesis.
The bible mentions nothing about searching across the garden to find Eve. This is just one of the required changes to scripture to make evolutionism work.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Why would you think that? The Bible is consistent with great age, but it doesn't say how old the Earth is.



Could have done it in a microsecond. But the evidence shows He took His time.



It's not that absurd, but close. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, which was invented in the early 20th century, rejects God's word in Genesis.

YE Creationism is the truth that was known for the ages. Until the TOE and all the falsehoods of it caused people who believe the bible to warp and twist the scripture to fit with the thoughts and teachings of man.

The Bible was written so it can be read and understood by the layman. Genesis was and always will be literal and the simple truth of the genesis of this universe.

You can press it and cut it and form it to fit the cookie cutter pattern of the TOE but:

1 Corinthians 1:25New International Version (NIV)
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

1 Corinthians 3:19New International Version (NIV)
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

 

[Barbarian]

YE Creationism is the truth that was known for the ages.

In reality, it was the invention of an Adventist "prophetess" who added all the existing young Earth stories to the Biblical account.

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth’s antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah’s flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this “flood geology,” Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement’s tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various “creation science” think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a “peculiarly American” phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally—and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674023390


Many evangelicals in America believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically

biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.

The fundamentalist movement takes its name from an ambitious project called The Fundamentalspublished between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola) that defined the fundamentals

of Christianity. In response to modernist preachers and theologians who rejected many

traditional Christian ideas, including miracles, the resurrection and the reality of heaven, the authors of the 90 tracts that became

The Fundamentalsaffirmed traditional biblical beliefs. The project was so successful that it produced an entire wing of Christianity, known as fundamentalism, which persists to

this day…

Ellen White (1827-1915) was a prophetess whose writings have been widely translated. She

experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844 when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch of Christianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries. Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books.Among White’s influential writings is Patriarchs and Prophetsin her series “Conflict of the Ages,”

first published in 1890. In this text White offers an expanded vision of Bible stories such as the Genesis creation accounts, the fall, and Noah’s great flood. In a curious twist of history, modern young-earth creationism can be traced to her visionary expansion of the Genesis flood narrative.
https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf

Until the TOE and all the falsehoods of it caused people who believe the bible to warp and twist the scripture to fit with the thoughts and teachings of man.

See above. YE creationism is a man-made doctrine in opposition to Genesis. All your "wisdom" is for naught compared to God:

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”