[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Cygnus]

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

The author of the Gospel of Barnabus had this to say......

15:3 He speaketh, too, of the sabbath in the
beginning of the creation: And God made in six days
the works of his hands, and finished them on the
seventh day, and rested in it and sanctified it.
15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,
He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in
six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all
things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And
he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold
this day a day shall be as a thousand years.
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six
thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.

The above is not in the bible....but it does show the thinking of the early christian time periods....and the earth was believed by them to be young.

 

[Barbarian]

For example...this missing brow ridge?

Not missing. In fact, it's larger than the vestigial ridges on adult modern humans. I'm a bit more Neandertal-shaped than most modern humans, and my brow ridges are only noticeable by touch. And notice that as humans get older, chins get more prominent, and certainly there is no simian shelf in humans, but adult Neandertals never develop a chin, and older ones have increasingly robust simian shelves.

 

[Barbarian]

The author of the Gospel of Barnabus had this to say......

15:3 He speaketh, too, of the sabbath in the
beginning of the creation: And God made in six days
the works of his hands, and finished them on the
seventh day, and rested in it and sanctified it.
15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,
He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in
six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all
things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And
he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold
this day a day shall be as a thousand years.
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six
thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.

The above is not in the bible....but it does show the thinking of the early christian time periods....and the earth was believed by them to be young.

Because they had no evidence for an ancient Earth, they had no problem with it being young. The point is, that early Christians didn't consider Genesis to be literal history. When St. Augustine pointed this out, he was the most widely-read Christian theologian, and no one contradicted him.

St. Augustine himself supposed the Earth to be a few thousand years old, even though he knew Genesis wasn't about a literal six days of creation. But he did say that where the Bible isn't explicit, we should be willing to revise our interpretations as new evidence appears.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Because they had no evidence for an ancient Earth, they had no problem with it being young. The point is, that early Christians didn't consider Genesis to be literal history. When St. Augustine pointed this out, he was the most widely-read Christian theologian, and no one contradicted him.

St. Augustine himself supposed the Earth to be a few thousand years old, even though he knew Genesis wasn't about a literal six days of creation. But he did say that where the Bible isn't explicit, we should be willing to revise our interpretations as new evidence appears.

I am pretty sure that the whole of the Jewish and Christian belief was of the YE standard....

That is until "science" came into the picture and had the weak and undecided doubting the capabilities of God.With the "wisdom" of men and women who were determined create a history that needs no God or to bend the word of God.

Face it. If evolution were true, the ONLY thing you need God for is that little elusive and unexplained first spark of life. Which, how fitting, the evolutionists quite predictably avoid and hide from even admitting that they need to explain it.

Every theory of the start of mankind, the universe, every life form, NEEDS to explain the beating heart, the force that causes trees and plants to push up through the earth and grow to be what they are. EVERY theory. This is the ONLY thing that you need from a god......

 

[Barbarian]

I am pretty sure that the whole of the Jewish and Christian belief was of the YE standard....

YE creationism is no older than the last century. Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists. That was the sort presented at the Scopes trial, for example. Only when the Seventh Day Adventists began to evangelize their new doctrines, did fundamentalists change their beliefs.

That is until "science" came into the picture and had the weak and undecided doubting the capabilities of God.

Seems to me, that an omnipotent Creator, who creates a world to do His will, is far more capable than the little "designer" deity, who must create things separately. As St. Augustine wrote, Genesis shows a seamless creation by an omnipotent Creator.

YE creationists reject God's word and substitute their new doctrines.

Face it, if evolution were true, then there would be no alternative to the one and only God. YE creationism would fit Baal, Cronus, and a host of other less-than-omnipotent Gods. God is a lot wiser and a great deal more competent than YE creationists would like Him to be.

And as you know, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If (as Darwin suggested) God just created the first living things miraculously, evolution would still look exactly as it does now.

Which, how fitting, the evolutionists quite predictably avoid and hide from even admitting that they need to explain it.

In science, theories are only about things they make claims about. Since evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began, Darwin's suggestion that God just did it, is as compatible with evolution as abiogenesis. However, the evidence for abiogenesis is accumulating, and it appears that God had it right when He said the Earth brought forth living things. And yes, that does directly contradict the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

Every theory of the start of mankind, the universe, every life form, NEEDS to explain the beating heart,

No. For example, hearts long preceded humans. The universe long preceded hearts. And most living things don't have hearts. But there's no mystery to why hearts beat. Would you like to learn about it?

the force that causes trees and plants to push up through the earth

Geotropism is not a mystery, either.

Gravitropism is an integral part of plant growth, orienting its position to maximize contact with sunlight, as well as ensuring that the roots are growing in the correct direction. Growth due to gravitropism is mediated by changes in concentration of the plant hormone auxin within plant cells.


Differential sensitivity to auxin helps explain Darwin's original observation that stems and roots respond in the opposite way to the forces of gravity. In both roots and stems, auxin accumulates towards the gravity vector on the lower side. In roots, this results in the inhibition of cell expansion on the lower side and the concomitant curvature of the roots towards gravity (positive gravitropism). In stems, the auxin also accumulates on the lower side, however in this tissue it increases cell expansion and results in the shoot curving up (statolithic gravitropism).


Upward growth of plant parts, against gravity, is called "negative gravitropism", and downward growth of roots is called "positive gravitropism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitropism

The distribution of auxins is affected by statoliths, that accumulate in the lower side of roots, inhibiting growth there, causing the root to grow downward.

and grow to be what they are. EVERY theory. This is the ONLY thing that you need from a god......

If you think so, you're selling God short. In a world where nature itself is His creation, every particle must be directly supported and observed by God. This is why YE creationism fails.

 

[brother Paul]

deleted

 

[Cygnus]

Not missing. In fact, it's larger than the vestigial ridges on adult modern humans. I'm a bit more Neandertal-shaped than most modern humans, and my brow ridges are only noticeable by touch. And notice that as humans get older, chins get more prominent, and certainly there is no simian shelf in humans, but adult Neandertals never develop a chin, and older ones have increasingly robust simian shelves.

That sorta fits the theory. As the human age...the head morphs. The theory goes on to say that older people....well over 100 take on the form of a neanderthal.

 

[Cygnus]

Because they had no evidence for an ancient Earth, they had no problem with it being young. The point is, that early Christians didn't consider Genesis to be literal history. When St. Augustine pointed this out, he was the most widely-read Christian theologian, and no one contradicted him.

St. Augustine himself supposed the Earth to be a few thousand years old, even though he knew Genesis wasn't about a literal six days of creation. But he did say that where the Bible isn't explicit, we should be willing to revise our interpretations as new evidence appears.

 

[Cygnus]

Because they had no evidence for an ancient Earth, they had no problem with it being young. The point is, that early Christians didn't consider Genesis to be literal history. When St. Augustine pointed this out, he was the most widely-read Christian theologian, and no one contradicted him.

St. Augustine himself supposed the Earth to be a few thousand years old, even though he knew Genesis wasn't about a literal six days of creation. But he did say that where the Bible isn't explicit, we should be willing to revise our interpretations as new evidence appears.

The early church didn't consder Genesis as literal history???? What are you talking about? Paul based how women should act in church SQUARELY on a literal historical Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

The early church didn't consder Genesis as literal history????

Right. The consensus was that the "days" of Genesis were categories of creation. St. Augustine, for example, showed that there was no logical way to make the days into literal ones.

What are you talking about?

Genesis. The idea that it was a literal history is a very modern one.

Paul based how women should act in church SQUARELY on a literal historical Genesis.

Ironic that you would think so; YE creationism is largely the invention of a woman.

 

[Barbarian]

That sorta fits the theory. As the human age...the head morphs. The theory goes on to say that older people....well over 100 take on the form of a neanderthal.

No, that's wrong. Bones get less robust as we age, not more robust as they are in Neandertals. We don't get a receding chin as we age; it gets more prominent. And no simian shelf forms. Nor do our shoulders reconfigure to Neanderal form.

It was a rather silly idea, but then Cuozzo really didn't know what much about Neandertals. The configuration of the chin, for example, completely escaped him. And it shouldn't have. The mandible should be no mystery to an orthodontist.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

YE creationism is no older than the last century. .

So, Moses was a theistic evolutionist? or an OE creationist..... I highly doubt it. Just because the term YE creationist was not formed until later does not mean that there weren't YE creationists. The only reason for the term YE creationism is due to the arrival of an OE view. Otherwise YE was just the truth.........and still is.

Seems to me, that an omnipotent Creator, who creates a world to do His will, is far more capable than the little "designer" deity, who must create things separately. As St. Augustine wrote, Genesis shows a seamless creation by an omnipotent Creator.

So, a God who made each kind of plant and animal, individually, is less capable than a creator that creates one life and says "there ya go let's watch this"? That's a joke.


Also, I put as much stake in what St Augustine says, if that's what he meant, as I do in the Pope with his apostate statement that evolution is true...

YE creationists reject God's word and substitute their new doctrines.

Theistic evolution and bio logos is an apostate doctrine meant to water down the truth of God's word, attract the minds of the naive and deviate from the truth of the scriptures. It is the lie of Satan who deceives the world and causes many to question the true omnipotence of God.

Face it, if evolution were true, then there would be no alternative to the one and only God.

You face it, evolution could be perfectly happy and possible without God... Oh, except for that one tiny hiccup of where life all started. Then it's crash the gates doing 98 and let those truckers roll....10/4

YE creationism would fit Baal, Cronus, and a host of other less-than-omnipotent Gods. God is a lot wiser and a great deal more competent than YE creationists would like Him to be.

I'm pretty sure that Elijah put to rest the difference in the power of all those man made god's which were all wishful thinking and hopes and dreams of the spiritually bankrupt.

Ya, God burned Elijah's alter, all the water and all the other alters on mount Carmel....So if you mention the likes of Baal, Cronus or any other "god" in the same sentence as the one true God..... I will once and for all understand the depth of your knowledge, integrity and wisdom as far as the truth about God and count it as bankrupt to the same extent as all those "priests" that were killed as a result of Gods display at mount Carmel.

And as you know, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If (as Darwin suggested) God just created the first living things miraculously, evolution would still look exactly as it does now.

Thank you. I was hoping you would state the biggest cop out of the modern explanation of the existence of all life.

This "ya, all life started from one and evolved into all the wondrous life forms we have today, over billions of years" is always backed up by fascinating imaginative epic stories based on the pathetically disappointing fossil record and then propped up by the best bait and switch ever perpetrated by stating "well, we don't know where the first life form came from, so we won't go there". Pathetic.
You can say which animal morphed from which all the way down to the one solitary life that you won't touch with a ten foot pole.

What a joke. If you can't say where it started or how it started, you cannot state where it went after that.

In science, theories are only about things they make claims about. Since evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began, Darwin's suggestion that God just did it, is as compatible with evolution as abiogenesis. However, the evidence for abiogenesis is accumulating, and it appears that God had it right when He said the Earth brought forth living things. And yes, that does directly contradict the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

More of the same... Show me where life began, then get back to me.

No. For example, hearts long preceded humans. The universe long preceded hearts. And most living things don't have hearts. But there's no mystery to why hearts beat. Would you like to learn about it?

Is this the heart of your argument? I'm done. Not even going to comment on the rest of this absurd thought process.

Geotropism is not a mystery, either.

Gravitropism is an integral part of plant growth, orienting its position to maximize contact with sunlight, as well as ensuring that the roots are growing in the correct direction. Growth due to gravitropism is mediated by changes in concentration of the plant hormone auxin within plant cells.


Differential sensitivity to auxin helps explain Darwin's original observation that stems and roots respond in the opposite way to the forces of gravity. In both roots and stems, auxin accumulates towards the gravity vector on the lower side. In roots, this results in the inhibition of cell expansion on the lower side and the concomitant curvature of the roots towards gravity (positive gravitropism). In stems, the auxin also accumulates on the lower side, however in this tissue it increases cell expansion and results in the shoot curving up (statolithic gravitropism).


Upward growth of plant parts, against gravity, is called "negative gravitropism", and downward growth of roots is called "positive gravitropism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitropism

The distribution of auxins is affected by statoliths, that accumulate in the lower side of roots, inhibiting growth there, causing the root to grow downward.

If you think so, you're selling God short. In a world where nature itself is His creation, every particle must be directly supported and observed by God. This is why YE creationism fails.

 

[brother Paul]

Many in the early church saw each day as 1,000 years....but Barb...I know I already asked but I can only find one example labelled Neanderthal that has this tiny simian shelf....it does not APPEAR to be representeed in the others....can you show me some examples? This makes me consider that one example may be the exception not the rule....thanks

 

[Cygnus]

Right. The consensus was that the "days" of Genesis were categories of creation. St. Augustine, for example, showed that there was no logical way to make the days into literal ones.



Genesis. The idea that it was a literal history is a very modern one.



Ironic that you would think so; YE creationism is largely the invention of a woman.

Barbarian...you know, you really didn't say anything.

I showed you where Paul took Genesis as literal. Then you "ironically" tied it into a modern woman? You failed to answer the question.

The question for you is...WHY did Paul instruct women BASED upon the events in Genesis if they were not literal and historical?

 

[Cygnus]

No, that's wrong. Bones get less robust as we age, not more robust as they are in Neandertals. We don't get a receding chin as we age; it gets more prominent. And no simian shelf forms. Nor do our shoulders reconfigure to Neanderal form.

It was a rather silly idea, but then Cuozzo really didn't know what much about Neandertals. The configuration of the chin, for example, completely escaped him. And it shouldn't have. The mandible should be no mystery to an orthodontist.

Currently we don't live as long as those mentioned in Genesis.
I presented you with the measurements....you disagree. That's OK. You are allowed to be wrong.

 

[Cygnus]

Theistic evolution and bio logos is an apostate doctrine meant to water down the truth of God's word, attract the minds of the naive and deviate from the truth of the scriptures. It is the lie of Satan who deceives the world and causes many to question the true omnipotence of God.

How true. Another way we can know Theistic evolution and bio logos is apostate concerning our beginning is their theology on how we became sinners.

To be honest, they don't have one that will stand up to what the bible declares about our sin nature.

 

[Barbarian]

How true. Another way we can know Theistic evolution and bio logos is apostate concerning our beginning is their theology on how we became sinners.

If you think so, you're outside of orthodox Christian belief. Most of the world's Christians accept the fact of evolution as consistent with God's word.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian...you know, you really didn't say anything.

Odd then, that you're trying to find a way to refute it.

I showed you where Paul took Genesis as literal.

I notice that he doesn't say it's a literal history. On the other hand, if you can show where St. Paul, when he cites a figurative part of the Bible, converts it to a literal history, you might have something

Then you "ironically" tied it into a modern woman?

The irony was that you tried to shoehorn a literal history into Genesis by Paul's reference to women in Church, when an Adventist "prophetess" actually invented YE creationism.

You failed to answer the question.

No, you just didn't expect the answer you got.

The question for you is...WHY did Paul instruct women BASED upon the events in Genesis if they were not literal and historical?

Now you're assuming that anything in the Bible that isn't literal history, can't be authoritative. What's your evidence for that?

 

[turnorburn]

If you think so, you're outside of orthodox Christian belief. Most of the world's Christians accept the fact of evolution as consistent with God's word.

No they don't you have it backwards... the world loves evolution because it eliminates Jesus..

 

[Jacks Bratt]

If you think so, you're outside of orthodox Christian belief. Most of the world's Christians accept the fact of evolution as consistent with God's word.

Remember, the ones who conspired to crucify our Lord were "orthodox" for their time.... If I am unorthodox by being a YE creationist then Hallelujah praise God.