Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have been totally mislead about the truth because of evolution.You see because of the belief life evolves they have us believing in one big world going back about 4.6 billion years when in fact we have two totally different worlds over billions of years. So when they find hominids or neanderthal they automatically see one big world so that life can evolve.And they have made up myths in order to make evolution more believable and I have brought up a few examples in the past. But even biblically I see no reason to believe humans are in anyway related to both hominids and neanderthal. Because it tells us that God created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before. There was some life God made and some life God created and with man and woman he created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before.Only the life God made was based on life God had created before. The former world perished completely and then there was a gap of time until God decided to make this world and so there is no way any life in the former world is related to the life in this world we now live in. This is why evolutionists are searching for Parasite Eve too.

As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have been totally mislead about the truth because of evolution.You see because of the belief life evolves they have us believing in one big world going back about 4.6 billion years when in fact we have two totally different worlds over billions of years. So when they find hominids or neanderthal they automatically see one big world so that life can evolve.And they have made up myths in order to make evolution more believable and I have brought up a few examples in the past. But even biblically I see no reason to believe humans are in anyway related to both hominids and neanderthal. Because it tells us that God created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before. There was some life God made and some life God created and with man and woman he created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before.Only the life God made was based on life God had created before. The former world perished completely and then there was a gap of time until God decided to make this world and so there is no way any life in the former world is related to the life in this world we now live in. This is why evolutionists are searching for Parasite Eve too.

As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

There is evidence that man and neanderthal mated but there are other biblical explanations to consider which scientists won't do.But angels always appeared to men as men in the bible and so it was angels that transformed themselves to look like man that mated with neanderthal in the former world.These angels kept on in this world too.In Genesis 6 we read about angels taking the daughters of men as wives and producing Giants.So angels were breeding with things in the former world and this world also.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have been totally mislead about the truth because of evolution.You see because of the belief life evolves they have us believing in one big world going back about 4.6 billion years when in fact we have two totally different worlds over billions of years. So when they find hominids or neanderthal they automatically see one big world so that life can evolve.And they have made up myths in order to make evolution more believable and I have brought up a few examples in the past. But even biblically I see no reason to believe humans are in anyway related to both hominids and neanderthal. Because it tells us that God created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before. There was some life God made and some life God created and with man and woman he created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before.Only the life God made was based on life God had created before. The former world perished completely and then there was a gap of time until God decided to make this world and so there is no way any life in the former world is related to the life in this world we now live in. This is why evolutionists are searching for Parasite Eve too.

As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

There is evidence that man and neanderthal mated but there are other biblical explanations to consider which scientists won't do.But angels always appeared to men as men in the bible and so it was angels that transformed themselves to look like man that mated with neanderthal in the former world.These angels kept on in this world too.In Genesis 6 we read about angels taking the daughters of men as wives and producing Giants.So angels were breeding with things in the former world and this world also.

I believe you are correct. Angels mated with geckos, which produced the T Rex. And angels mated with elephants which produced wooly mammoths. But the most interesting of them all, is when angels mated with great white sharks to produce Megalodon. All that is in the bible*, just like angels mating with humans.

And also, many people don't know that the Bible also says* that angels mated with Neanderthals, which produced a race of dwarves including Thorin Oakenshield and many others. The Hobbit is based off the true biblical story* of angels mating with Neanderthals.


*Not really found in scripture. Only in extrabiblical texts, and in the wild imaginations of some.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis

You are absolutely correct, kid!
(can I call you 'kid' or would you prefer something else?)

Species homo sapiens sapiens (our species) first appeared around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Neanderthals went extinct around 40,000 years ago.
That means species homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthals existed at the same time for between 100,000 and 150,000 years.

There is no 'gap' in the hominid fossil record.
There is no 'gap' in Scripture.

BTW...
Moses uses both "asah"/make (Genesis 1:26) and "bara"/create (Genesis 1:27) when describing the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.

Philip wrote:It's interesting that Hugh Ross thinks Adam could have lived as long ago as 50,000 years.

Since I used to agree with Hugh Ross on that, let me point out why I now reject that position...

1. It doesn't work Scientifically. Adam was a gardener. Adam's son Abel kept flocks. Adam's other son Cain tilled the soil and built a city.
50,000 years ago mankind were hunter/gatherers. There is no evidence of men gardening, keeping flocks, and building cities 50,000 years ago.

2. It doesn't work Scripturally. The nature of the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies does not allow for us to insert huge gaps into these genealogies.
When "father" had lived x years, he became the father of "son". After he became the father of "son", "father" lived y years and had other sons and daughters.
The format of the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies explicitly state how old the father was when he became the father of the son mentioned. This is different from the nature of genealogies with known gaps which only list names with no ages.
So there is no valid Scriptural reason to try to insert gaps into the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies. The nature of the text doesn't allow us that option.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have been totally mislead about the truth because of evolution.You see because of the belief life evolves they have us believing in one big world going back about 4.6 billion years when in fact we have two totally different worlds over billions of years. So when they find hominids or neanderthal they automatically see one big world so that life can evolve.And they have made up myths in order to make evolution more believable and I have brought up a few examples in the past. But even biblically I see no reason to believe humans are in anyway related to both hominids and neanderthal. Because it tells us that God created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before. There was some life God made and some life God created and with man and woman he created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before.Only the life God made was based on life God had created before. The former world perished completely and then there was a gap of time until God decided to make this world and so there is no way any life in the former world is related to the life in this world we now live in. This is why evolutionists are searching for Parasite Eve too.

As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

There is evidence that man and neanderthal mated but there are other biblical explanations to consider which scientists won't do.But angels always appeared to men as men in the bible and so it was angels that transformed themselves to look like man that mated with neanderthal in the former world.These angels kept on in this world too.In Genesis 6 we read about angels taking the daughters of men as wives and producing Giants.So angels were breeding with things in the former world and this world also.

I believe you are correct. Angels mated with geckos, which produced the T Rex. And angels mated with elephants which produced wooly mammoths. But the most interesting of them all, is when angels mated with great white sharks to produce Megalodon. All that is in the bible*, just like angels mating with humans.

And also, many people don't know that the Bible also says* that angels mated with Neanderthals, which produced a race of dwarves including Thorin Oakenshield and many others. The Hobbit is based off the true biblical story* of angels mating with Neanderthals.


*Not really found in scripture. Only in extrabiblical texts, and in the wild imaginations of some.

Really? Did you forget about the evil angels in Sodom and Gammorrah and what they threatened to do to Lot? They were going to drag him out and rape him.And he offered them his daughters instead. It is biblical.

DBowling wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis

You are absolutely correct, kid!
(can I call you 'kid' or would you prefer something else?)

Species homo sapiens sapiens (our species) first appeared around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Neanderthals went extinct around 40,000 years ago.
That means species homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthals existed at the same time for between 100,000 and 150,000 years.

There is no 'gap' in the hominid fossil record.
There is no 'gap' in Scripture.

BTW...
Moses uses both "asah"/make (Genesis 1:26) and "bara"/create (Genesis 1:27) when describing the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.

The hebrew word for "make" is not "asah" It is a different Hebrew word than "asah".Read Genesis 2:1-4 and study it out to know the difference between "bara" and "asah" and only focus on these two words,not other Hebrew words and you'll realize Gap Theorists are correct like I did.The NASB even tells you that God just did work in the 6 days,he just worked on what was already there and restored it,he did not create in the 6 days,only 3 times did God create things in Genesis 1 and it was certian kinds of life and man and they were new things he created.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have been totally mislead about the truth because of evolution.You see because of the belief life evolves they have us believing in one big world going back about 4.6 billion years when in fact we have two totally different worlds over billions of years. So when they find hominids or neanderthal they automatically see one big world so that life can evolve.And they have made up myths in order to make evolution more believable and I have brought up a few examples in the past. But even biblically I see no reason to believe humans are in anyway related to both hominids and neanderthal. Because it tells us that God created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before. There was some life God made and some life God created and with man and woman he created them and so they were new creations that had never been created before.Only the life God made was based on life God had created before. The former world perished completely and then there was a gap of time until God decided to make this world and so there is no way any life in the former world is related to the life in this world we now live in. This is why evolutionists are searching for Parasite Eve too.

As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

There is evidence that man and neanderthal mated but there are other biblical explanations to consider which scientists won't do.But angels always appeared to men as men in the bible and so it was angels that transformed themselves to look like man that mated with neanderthal in the former world.These angels kept on in this world too.In Genesis 6 we read about angels taking the daughters of men as wives and producing Giants.So angels were breeding with things in the former world and this world also.

I believe you are correct. Angels mated with geckos, which produced the T Rex. And angels mated with elephants which produced wooly mammoths. But the most interesting of them all, is when angels mated with great white sharks to produce Megalodon. All that is in the bible*, just like angels mating with humans.

And also, many people don't know that the Bible also says* that angels mated with Neanderthals, which produced a race of dwarves including Thorin Oakenshield and many others. The Hobbit is based off the true biblical story* of angels mating with Neanderthals.


*Not really found in scripture. Only in extrabiblical texts, and in the wild imaginations of some.

Really? Did you forget about the evil angels in Sodom and Gammorrah and what they threatened to do to Lot? They were going to drag him out and rape him.And he offered them his daughters instead. It is biblical.

I don't think the story goes how you remember.

It was the wicked men of sodom that wanted to rape the angels that were with Lot. Then Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of you rewriting scripture, and adding stuff to fit your narrative.

Here is why Hugh Ross says he came up with a date for Adam, of about 50,000 years ago:

In his book, "More Than A Theory," Ross states:

"Carbon-14 dating places the breaking of the Bering land bridge (that once connected Asia to North America) at about 11,000 years ago. Genesis 10:25 declares that the world was divided in the time of Peleg, a patriarch mentioned near the midpoint in the Genesis 11 genealogy. given that life spans declined geometrically from around 950 years for the earlier patriarchs to about 120 years for the latter, and given that each patriarch's life span listed in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies is proportional to the actual passage of time (a reasonable though unproved assumption), extrapolation from the fixed dates for Abraham and Peleg indicate that Adam lived approximately 50,000 years ago."

Ross further buttress his above speculation with the fact that technology and culture exploded from around that time.

You can read more of Ross' book here:https://books.google.com/books?id=UJRbB ... go&f=false

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: As I have said before, some of those "hominids and Neanderthals" fit into OUR WORLD based on genetic proof.
I already mentioned about the DNA admixture of Sapien sapiens and Sapien neanderthalensis - heck even you admitted it's possible they were a race of Cain. But, people will believe in what they want to believe in.

There is evidence that man and neanderthal mated but there are other biblical explanations to consider which scientists won't do.But angels always appeared to men as men in the bible and so it was angels that transformed themselves to look like man that mated with neanderthal in the former world.These angels kept on in this world too.In Genesis 6 we read about angels taking the daughters of men as wives and producing Giants.So angels were breeding with things in the former world and this world also.

I believe you are correct. Angels mated with geckos, which produced the T Rex. And angels mated with elephants which produced wooly mammoths. But the most interesting of them all, is when angels mated with great white sharks to produce Megalodon. All that is in the bible*, just like angels mating with humans.

And also, many people don't know that the Bible also says* that angels mated with Neanderthals, which produced a race of dwarves including Thorin Oakenshield and many others. The Hobbit is based off the true biblical story* of angels mating with Neanderthals.


*Not really found in scripture. Only in extrabiblical texts, and in the wild imaginations of some.

Really? Did you forget about the evil angels in Sodom and Gammorrah and what they threatened to do to Lot? They were going to drag him out and rape him.And he offered them his daughters instead. It is biblical.

I don't think the story goes how you remember.

It was the wicked men of sodom that wanted to rape the angels that were with Lot. Then Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of you rewriting scripture, and adding stuff to fit your narrative.

No! You're right! I totally messed up that bible story.I should not just go on memory because I totally got that story wrong.You're right about how it was the wicked men of Sodom and not the angels.

Still I am right about evil angels understanding genetics based on how they were able to take the daughters of men as wives and produce Giants.You must be able to understand genetics in order to be able to do this.And these evil angels are apart of Satan's kingdom and we know that Satan is able to clone/copy certian life that God created.It seems to be cold blooded life that Satan can produce.

Remember when Aaron threw down his rod in front of Pharoah it became a snake and the three Egyptian magicians threw down their rods and their's became a snake also? But then frogs were produced by Satan also Exodus 8:7 but Satan could not produce lice though Exodus 8:18. So Satan has the ability to clone certian life God created but not all,he is limited. But to be able to do this shows that he must know something about genetics.Satan's kingdom can clone certian life God created and also can produce hybrids also like the Giants in Genesis 6.

So he had to have learned how to do this and there is reason to believe it started in the former world. Remember God told Satan in Genesis 3:15 "I will put emnity between thee and the woman,and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,amd thou shalt bruise his head." So Satan knew something was coming from the woman's seed,he just did not know it would be Jesus like we do.But he knew something was coming and this is why in Genesis 6 he tried to alter humanity genetically by producing Giants or hybrids.

And so if angels can do these things they could do it to neanderthals too in the former world.This could have something to do with Lucifer rebelling against God also.Also I am right about angels appearing to men as men also.Lot even ate with the angels. So sorry I got the Sodom and Gammorah story wrong but I'm still right about the other things.I am totally against rewriting scripture,and adding stuff to fit my narrative. I can admit when I'm wrong about something too. Because this is God's word and not mine.Our opinions do not matter,it matters what God's word says to me.

ACB wrote:
No! You're right! I totally messed up that bible story.I should not just go on memory because I totally got that story wrong.You're right about how it was the wicked men of Sodom and not the angels.

So sorry I got the Sodom and Gammorah story wrong but I'm still right about the other things.I am totally against rewriting scripture,and adding stuff to fit my narrative. I can admit when I'm wrong about something too. Because this is God's word and not mine.Our opinions do not matter,it matters what God's word says to me.

I know you didn't do it on purpose. I was just giving you a hard time.

abelcainsbrother wrote: The hebrew word for "make" is not "asah" It is a different Hebrew word than "asah".Read Genesis 2:1-4 and study it out to know the difference between "bara" and "asah" and only focus on these two words

Been there done that...
We've had multiple discussions about the meaning of Hebrew "bara" and "asah" and what they mean. So I don't see any value in going there again in this thread.
All a person has to do is check out a handful of Hebrew/English Lexicons to see which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong.

Will you at least acknowledge that Moses uses both "asah" (Gen 1:26) and "bara" (Gen 1:27) to describe the creation of mankind in Gen 1:26-27?

Philip wrote:Here is why Hugh Ross says he came up with a date for Adam, of about 50,000 years ago:

Here's why I rejected Ross' premise on this particular topic.

In his book, "More Than A Theory," Ross states:

"Carbon-14 dating places the breaking of the Bering land bridge (that once connected Asia to North America) at about 11,000 years ago. Genesis 10:25 declares that the world was divided in the time of Peleg, a patriarch mentioned near the midpoint in the Genesis 11 genealogy.

Moses clearly describes the 'dividing' that is taking place in Genesis 10 and 11, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bearing land bridge. In fact there is no geographical location described in Genesis 10 and 11 that is remotely close to the Bearing land bridge. So from a Scriptural perspective the dividing that took place during the time of Peleg cannot be associated with the Bearing land bridge and be used as an excuse to insert tens of thousands of years of gaps into the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Coming back to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies...
As I mention in my previous post, here is the textual formula for these genealogies.
When "father" had lived x years, he became the father of "son". After he became the father of "son", "father" lived y years and had other sons and daughters.

If you examine this particular genealogical formula, there are no opportunities to insert gaps of any kind, much less gaps of tens of thousands of years.

This formula lists the age of the father when he became the father of the son.
The formula then lists the number of years the father lived after he became the father of his son.
This textual formula does not allow for any gaps at all.
Look at this formula and try to figure out where a gap of any sort can be inserted.
The Biblical text just doesn't allow it.

This is why Ross' premise that you can recalibrate the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies by inserting tens of thousands of years contradicts the Scriptural text.
The textual genealogical formula used in Genesis 5 and 11 simply doesn't allow for the insertion of gaps.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: The hebrew word for "make" is not "asah" It is a different Hebrew word than "asah".Read Genesis 2:1-4 and study it out to know the difference between "bara" and "asah" and only focus on these two words

Been there done that...
We've had multiple discussions about the meaning of Hebrew "bara" and "asah" and what they mean. So I don't see any value in going there again in this thread.
All a person has to do is check out a handful of Hebrew/English Lexicons to see which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong.

Will you at least acknowledge that Moses uses both "asah" (Gen 1:26) and "bara" (Gen 1:27) to describe the creation of mankind in Gen 1:26-27?

No as I do not believe the Hebrew word for the word MAKE is "asah" when "asah" is used when the word made is used and not make.It is probably a verb but still is not "asah".It might even be similar to "asah" like a past tense verb,but still is not "asah".However,even if it was,it still won't change the difference between the words "bara" and "asah" or "created" and "made".

Even if it was the Hebrew word "asah" it would just be God saying "Let us do some work to make man in our image" As I pointed out this is how the NASB translated the word "asah" in Genesis 2:2,it translates it "to work" which I have pointed out before is a way to translate the Hebrew word "asah". Like when it says "He MADE the stars also" it just means he worked on the stars and he did not create them new,it also implies they already exist or existed depending on the context of the verse.And it does not change the word "bara" in Genesis 1:27 that lets us know they were created and so were new creations.

As an Old Earth creationist it is important that you understand this even if you reject the Gap theory interpretation because understanding the difference,like for example,it will let you know certian life had already existed before but other life was created and made it was either new life or not new life.As even Day Agers agree with this and teach that there was life before certian life in Genesis 1,also Theistic Evolutionists also do too,they just have a different way of teaching it than Gap theorists do,but they still believe it.This is why they have hominids and Neanderthals before man was created too,just like Gap Theorists do.

It seems to me that you have been influenced by Young Earth Creationists who try to claim the Hebrew words "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable and mean the same thing,when they don't. You need to understand that Gap Theorists did not just make this up.It came from reading and studying Genesis 2:1-4 and then going through the entire OT and studying this out and then reading Genesis 1 again with this understanding in mind. Also if "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable and mean the same thing then why would Moses use both words in Genesis 2:1-4 instead of just "bara" or just "asah"? If they were interchangeable then he could've used either word,but he used both for a reason.

abelcainsbrother wrote: No as I do not believe the Hebrew word for the word MAKE is "asah" when "asah" is used when the word made is used and not make.It is probably a verb but still is not "asah".It might even be similar to "asah" like a past tense verb,but still is not "asah".However,even if it was,it still won't change the difference between the words "bara" and "asah" or "created" and "made".

I don't think we're terribly far apart on bara and asah.

Asah does mean "make", but it does not only mean make. It is a generic word that can mean 'to do something' or 'to make something'.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6213.htm

There is overlap between the meanings of bara and asah, but I do tend to agree with you that within the context of Genesis 1, Moses is most likely drawing some sort of distinction between when he uses bara and asa.
When I see "bara" in Genesis 1 I think of God creating something new.
When I see "asah" in Genesis 1 I think of God working on something or forming something.

Like when it says "He MADE the stars also" it just means he worked on the stars and he did not create them new, it also implies they already exist or existed depending on the context of the verse.

We agree

There is potentially a fascinating implication to the use of both bara and asah by Moses regarding the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.
If we want to draw a clear distinction between the meaning of "bara" and "asah" in Genesis 1, then that implies that when God created mankind in Genesis 1:26-27, he was creating something new and different in mankind (bara)... but the creation of mankind also potentially involved 'working on' something that was preexisting (asah).

It seems to me that you have been influenced by Young Earth Creationists who try to claim the Hebrew words "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable and mean the same thing, when they don't.

Then I would say you haven't understood my position regarding bara and asah. I believe there is potential overlap in the meanings of bara and asah, but I also believe that within the context of Genesis 1, Moses is contrasting between general forming/making (asah) and creating something new (bara).

You need to understand that Gap Theorists did not just make this up.

I really don't have a problem with drawing a distinction of some sort between bara and asah within the context of Genesis 1.
The two huge flaws that I see with the Gap Theory (and we have discussed this before) are:
- The mistranslation of 'male' as refill (Gap theorists are making that one up)
- On day 5, God created (bara) marine life and birds (Gen 1:21). Which according to your own definition of bara means that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5. This also means that every living thing that coexisted with marine life or birds also did not exist prior to day 5... Which pretty much directly contradicts the Gap Theory.