VideoGameJunkie Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 What I mean by that is Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden around 6,000 B.C. Yet scientists have determined the earth is billions of years old, and have determined dinosaurs and primitive humans and other animals lived millions of years ago from fossil evidence and bones. So how do both work together to make it true? Are there just different epochs of time that happened, or is there a connection? My only educated guess is that the creation of the earth was very long and obviously not just 6 days, and that Adam and Eve were either in the garden for billions or millions of years since they wouldn't age, or Adam and Eve were not really the first people on earth, but the first people of the current epoch. Thoughts?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 23, 2015 Author Posted December 23, 2015 For the record I believe in both evolution and creationism and that Heavenly Father is the ultimate scientist and everything that happened was from His works. I'm just wondering how they all tie together because I love both science and religion.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 23, 2015 Author Posted December 23, 2015 Mainly I'm asking about timeframes.
CV75 Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 39 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: What I mean by that is Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden around 6,000 B.C. Yet scientists have determined the earth is billions of years old, and have determined dinosaurs and primitive humans and other animals lived millions of years ago from fossil evidence and bones. So how do both work together to make it true? Are there just different epochs of time that happened, or is there a connection? My only educated guess is that the creation of the earth was very long and obviously not just 6 days, and that Adam and Eve were either in the garden for billions or millions of years since they wouldn't age, or Adam and Eve were not really the first people on earth, but the first people of the current epoch. Thoughts? I think the Creation and Fall could have happened before the “Big Bang” and then everything played out in the natural world pretty much as scientists say, while Adam’s “natural” history as a mortal began some 6,000 years ago. Adam and Eve could have arrived in the mortal flesh from their home in Eden after their Fall in a number of ways, even if the Fall / Big Bang completely obliterated that reference point from the natural world / universe as we perceive it. Joseph Smith spoke of “fundamental principles” that belong to the human system, and that these never go into another system in this world or the world to come. Adam and Eve could have retained these principles and their bodies could have thus come to earth through mortal parentage (natural or surrogate) or through other divinely scripted means. So, while it may have taken many billions of years for nature to take its course to offset the effects of the Fall to the point where genetic material could match up to human specifications so that God could again covenant with His children, this proposal allows for a divine, terrestrial creation for Adam (and by extension his offspring) without relying on theories that our physical human attributes came about by chance or resulted from “a big bang somewhere.” Good article: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Origin_of_Man 1
JAHS Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Where's the connection between science and religion? Lots of duct tape?
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 24, 2015 Author Posted December 24, 2015 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Where's the connection? The Truth. And what is the truth and how does it explain dinosaurs and the earth being 4.5 billion years old, while Adam and Eve were 6,000 B.C. yet were the first people on earth, when you have bones of people who lived 50,000 years ago?
theplains Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Science relies on its own faith for things it cannot prove or reproduce. Jim
JLHPROF Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 11 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: And what is the truth and how does it explain dinosaurs and the earth being 4.5 billion years old, while Adam and Eve were 6,000 B.C. yet were the first people on earth, when you have bones of people who lived 50,000 years ago? We don't know. Despite what scientists tell you about the age of the earth or young earth creationists tell you about the age of the earth, we actually don't really know. But when the word of God says Adam and Eve were the first life on earth, I believe it. The details will come later.
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 29 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: And what is the truth and how does it explain dinosaurs and the earth being 4.5 billion years old, while Adam and Eve were 6,000 B.C. yet were the first people on earth, when you have bones of people who lived 50,000 years ago? All depends on how you define "human" (aka Adam)... a lot of those 50,000 year old "people" have different DNA than us modern Homosapians. Take the elongated skulls of Paracus Peru and other places in the world for example which cannot be explained by "skull deformation" techniques such as head binding. These skulls do not have the same DNA as us modern Adams. They also have 25% more brain capacity as us and they are missing 2 of the head bone plates that we modern Humans have.. Quote In Science speak: “It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.” In plain English: “I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree,” wrote Brien Foerster. He added that if the Paracas individuals were so biologically different, they would not have been able to interbreed with humans. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/02/dna-test-concludes-skulls-not-human-2892292.html Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
CV75 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 30 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: And what is the truth and how does it explain dinosaurs and the earth being 4.5 billion years old, while Adam and Eve were 6,000 B.C. yet were the first people on earth, when you have bones of people who lived 50,000 years ago? Adam and Eve were the first people in Eden, which was destroyed in the Fall and had to be replicated in a natural, telestial form in the manner typically explained by science. They were then the first people of the everlasting covenant once they appeared in their natural, telestial form. They are likewise the first people of our lineage. Any other earlier life form that science might identify as prehistoric human or even pre-human on this planet may have served as Adam and Eve’s conduit into this world, but not necessarily—our first parents could have been transported through other means. I would think that God certainly has a plan for these beings as well, but they are not relevant to Adam’s time, reckoning, history or covenant (Abraham 5:13; 6:5), even though it is conceivable that they could someday be brought into the fold through adoption and priesthood ordinance. Adam has dominion over all life on this planet, whether as parent (for us), link to the Lord (for other humans) or steward (non-human life).
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Take the elongated skulls of Paracus Peru and other places in the world for example which cannot be explained by "skull deformation" techniques such as head binding. These skulls do not have the same DNA as us modern Adams. They also have 25% more brain capacity as us and they are missing 2 of the head bone plates that we modern Humans have.. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/02/dna-test-concludes-skulls-not-human-2892292.html http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm-down-the-paracas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258 http://www.exposingtruth.com/truth-paracas-skulls/ You might want to wait on accepting this info til DNA results data along with the name of the person who tested them is actually published along with the info about the skulls and not just announced by a guide of paranormal tours. Edited December 24, 2015 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Your 6,000 year timeframe of course originates from Archbishop Ussher's famous calculation "...that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as 'the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004'; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 bc according to the proleptic Julian calendar." As an aside, by the way, if he was correct the 7th Millennium began at sundown on October 22, 1996, and we are now close to 20 years into The Millennium. Funny, it doesn't feel any different... <shrug /> I'm going to first of all call into question this chronology featuring 6,000 years ago. Somewhat surprisingly, the Archbishop gets some pretty good reviews from the scholarly community. In Archbishop Ussher's biographical article in Wikipedia, where it describes his chronology, it has this to say: Quote Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Ussher's last extra-biblical co-ordinate was the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and beyond this point he had to rely on other considerations. Faced with inconsistent texts of the Torah, each with a different number of years between Flood and Creation, Ussher chose the Masoretic version. Partly his reasons were sound scholarly ones — the Masoretic text claims an unbroken history of careful transcription stretching back centuries — but his choice was confirmed for him, because it placed Creation exactly four thousand years before 4 BC, the generally accepted date for the birth of Christ; moreover, he calculated, Solomon's temple was completed in the year 3000 from creation, so that there were exactly 1000 years from the temple to Christ, who was the fulfillment of the Temple. I think we can argue that the good Archbishop's calculations back to Alexander the Great are accurate enough. And if he errs about 4004 BC then he errs in good company, considering that such scientific luminaries as Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton came up with dates very close to his. If you read the Wikipedia article dealing with how the Archbishop calculated the year for Creation you can see that he wasn't just making things up out of whole cloth. I'd say that he did a creditable and credible job of it. Even if some of us are going to laugh out loud about the 6 pm on 22 October, he had valid reasons for these, too. But in my opinion the whole thing falls apart in the assumptions. The first assumption is a simple one: that the Patriarchs in Genesis really did live for the long times indicated, and that they didn't leave out any generations in those X begat Y begat Z chronologies. The second assumption is that Adam and Eve were barely ensconced in the Garden when they ate the fruit they weren't allowed to eat. Those are some mighty fine assumptions. I guess that for those who believe the Bible to be inerrant those assumptions are rock solid. But what if they aren't so rock solid? The one assumption that not even the Bible can confirm is how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they ate the fruit of "that tree." We all imagine that if, say, Adam popped into physical instance at 6:30 am on 23 October 4004, then Eve was brought forth at about 6:45 am. And by 4 pm they were being driven out of the Garden, now completely mortal. But what if it weren't like that at all? It is, after all, rather disrespectful of our Mother Eve to believe that she had such poor impulse control that it took barely five minutes of being out of Adam's sight before she would give in almost instantly to the sly persuasions of the devil and take a bite of that fruit. For all we know it was many months or years after Adam was brought to the Garden before he started to get a bit lonely -- he had God to talk with, after all. Not being Fallen yet, there was nothing to preclude him from regularly walking and talking with God as they discussed his assignment of dressing and keeping the Garden. God probably taught him to read and write, and many other things during this time. Years might have gone by before it occurred to Adam that there was something missing in his life, whereupon he asked God about it, and was given Eve. And then she immediately runs off and eats the fruit of that tree? Good grief, no! It might have been years later that she was sufficiently curious about the matter to succumb to the Devil's blandishments about that fruit. How many years? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? We have no idea. It is not outside the realm of possibility for Adam and Eve to have been happy and peaceful in the Garden for 120 million years without much in the way of disturbance to their existence. OK, perhaps that seems a little long, and I need to explain myself. The 120 million year figure comes from the belief among evolutionary botanists that it was about then that angiosperms (or flowering plants) first became widespread over the earlier gymnosperms (e.g. conifers), and the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are both angiosperms. Otherwise the Bible would have been talking about the Seed of LIfe or the Seed of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Angiosperms produce fruit; gymnosperms do not. I can summarize this entire thing with this: the Biblical Genesis story does not need to be literally true in every aspect. It does not need to be the case that the literal physical creation took 6 days, followed by a one day rest period. For that matter, Genesis 2 seems to say that it all took one day anyway, not 6 or 7. Genesis 1, therefore, seems to be the detailed planning stage, followed by Genesis 2, the execution phase, which, for all we know, took 4.6 billion years, with Adam and Eve being placed into the Garden some time around 22 October 4004 BC. Because if Genesis 1 was the execution phase, then God took a 1000 year break for the Sabbath after creating Adam and Eve. That might be it, you know. It was during the Sabbath when God wasn't watching that Eve snuck the first bite of that fruit. When God came back from his break on Sunday morning that's when He found out what they had been up to. I will very surprised if anyone actually reads all that which I have just written. TL;DR 1
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Calm said: http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm-down-the-paracas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258 DNA doesn't lie Calm. I'm not saying they are aliens. Their DNA is WAY out of the Norm for "Homosapiens" and head binding does not explain why they have: 25% larger brain capacity. One parietal plate instead of 2. And many other unexplained morphologies. And at 300 + skulls and growing from all over the world... (Russia Japan Egypt, Europe Africa and Peru) it also cant be explained as an "historical oddity" as your article claims. The Mangbetu Of Congo In Africa Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) People can lie about DNA. Like if there were really any tests done or if there were, what the results were. Without documentation provided, there is no way to see what the DNA actually was. And about tests for cranial capacity, etc. Did you read my links? There was no official paper and data released and no name given for the alleged geneticist who did the alleged testing. The tour guide announced it on his facebook page, that was pretty much it. No actual science in evidence. No data to check, just an guy who makes money off of paranormal rumors saying he got some results, but without actually any data in evidence. Please feel free to find actual documentation that demonstrates this is more than just a guy trying to make money by making a bogus claim without evidence of anything save that the skulls exist. Edited December 24, 2015 by Calm
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Yes I read it. And I can agree with you there with your assement for now. 17 minutes ago, Calm said: People can lie about DNA. Did you read my links? There was no official paper and data released and no name given for the alleged geneticist who did the alleged testing. The tour guide announced it on his facebook page, that was pretty much it. No actual science in evidence. I'm sure now he's got peoples attention much more stringent DNA testing will be performed on these skulls... Now Science knows of their existance. Thats what the Authors are claiming. http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-americas-opinion-guest-authors/elongated-human-skulls-peru-possible-evidence-lost More on the unamed Geneticist... Quote Geneticist won't come forward, for now According to Foerster, the geneticist in question, who apparently does contract work for the US government, is willing to go public, but does not want to come forward until the tests prove the theory conclusively. Peruvian archaeologist Julio Tello discovered the skulls in 1928 in a massive graveyard in Paracas, desert peninsula in the Pisco Province on the south coast of Peru. Over 300 skulls were discovered and are some of the largest elongated skulls to have been found in the world. It has always been thought that the skulls are elongated as a result of cranial deformation, whereby the head has been bound or flattened in order to achieve the unusual shape, however Foerster does not think this is the case with the Paracas skulls. "From the doctors that I have spoken to, they have said that you can alter the shape of the skull but you cannot increase the size of the skull. The skull is genetically predetermined to have a certain volume," he said. The Paracans might have migrated http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/are-paracas-elongated-skulls-new-species-aliens-or-hoax-1435980 Like I said... the Skulls have a 25% bigger brain capacity and only 1 parietal plate instead of 2. Guess we'll have to wait and see when the Geneticist Goes public and its proven Conclusivley. Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 You keep stating this, but where is the actual evidence that the capacity was any larger or the skull bones were naturally missing. Not impressed by just more of the same group making claims without any actual documentation of testing and results.
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: You keep stating this, but where is the actual evidence that the capacity was any larger or the skull bones were naturally missing. Not impressed by just more of the same group making claims without any actual documentation of testing and results. You don't watch the history channel much do you? Ive seen them pour a bag of bird seed into a normal averge Human skull and then pour the same volume into the paracas skull, and then have to poor in 25% more to fill the skull to capacity. Ive also seen the Dr. examine the skulls and talk about the 1 Peretial plate instead of 2 and how baffelled they are by it. I quite enjoyed the recent History Channel documentary where they finally where allowed by the Russians to do DNA ferensic testing on the DNA blood samples from Hitlers bunker and proved by DNA that the remains the Russians kept aren't Hitlers. The skull is from a woman. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/27/adolf-hitler-suicide-skull-fragment Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Wiki lists a source that looks a bit more reputable that states there is no statistical difference in cranial capacity in the Peruvian skulls: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Who were the people who did the testing and what was the show? The guys who did the testing that showed no difference: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10286/full
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Who were the people who did the testing and what was the show? The guys who did the testing that showed no difference: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10286/full Your telling me that these two skulls have the same brain capacity? The one on the left must have 4 inches of Bone that the one on the right doesn't have then. PS the one on the right is the skull of a modern Human, The one on the Left is from Paracas. Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Since you can't see how far back the skulls go, a frontal view is useless. Watched a video showing the holes...which amount to two small holes that could have resulted from drilling...the evidence given 'some investigators say they were born this way, oh gosh, these could be alien skulls!' is not that impressive. Haven't found the birdseed video yet but if it is the same people, no doctor What doctor are you claiming was involve? The host has a bachelor's degree in sports info, Childress appears from his wiki entry to have had one year of college (left at 19) and the other, Juan Navarro, does not appear to have any academic credentials either (see my first link above).
Calm Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Quote Ive seen them pour a bag of bird seed into a normal averge Human skull and then pour the same volume into the paracas skull, and then have to poor in 25% more to fill the skull to capacity. Ive also seen the Dr. examine the skulls and talk about the 1 Peretial plate instead of 2 and how baffelled they are by it. Not coming up on anything I can see, please provide a reference to the video and what time the birdseed experiment appears on it. Edited December 24, 2015 by Calm
Zakuska Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Not coming up on anything I can see, please provide a reference to the video and what time the birdseed experiment appears on it. Try this one... http://www.youtube.com/embed/4Qsj5QyB1bk?version=3_rel=1_fs=1_autohide=2_showsearch=0_showinfo=1_iv_load_policy=1_wmode=transparent Im not sure if its the one because our firewall where Im at blocks youtube media. Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska
Recommended Posts