There is a conflict between Old Testament's Adam existing circa 6,000 years ago and Science's evidence of man existing way over 6,000 years ago.

Is science a selective subject, where it is accepted for medicine and technology by believers of the Old and New Testament, and where it is not complying as in carbon dating theory it is not accepted.

Does it set a characteristic of believers whereby it is not accepted that man existed before the religious calender of Adam's creation circa 6,000 years ago.

Believers belief Adam is the first man created, believers accept modern technology for instance Electrcity, but believers do not accept the existence of man prior to the existence of Adam.

Is the science of regarding early man's existence prior to Adam faulty, something not scientific about it, and even deceitful?

Why would a branch of science present the existence of mankind before the religious founded man named Adam was created?

Hindusim informs that mankind existed years before Adam was created, and does not have any record of Adam in it's religion. It informs that Manu was the first mankind created. Hinduism even speaks of a diety Shiva existed circa 10,000 years ago.

One Christian leader Mr. Jack Van Impe had said that the world is really as old as the scientist say, but ignores the existence of mankind before the religious Adam was created.

I have not read any web page of Christian belief that addresses this issue.
It does raise a character assasination issue of the Christian clergy.

How do you see this sort of belief creeping in society, thriving, and is against science?

Clergy's present mode of ignoring science when it's inconvenient is showing disrespect to the science profession, while the clergy reaps in 10 percent from it's parishners. It's extortion.

---

Light of Night.

Au contraire Pedro. The texts are neither fossilised nor is the fossil record in favour of evolution. As to rationality, well, is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

What Pedro, is rational about the declaration that life just sprung from a mass of soup-like stuff of it own accord? Life from non-life... my what irrational faith you have. Let us apply a little rational to the matter shall we?

The fossil record in fact supports creation and not evolution. Even Carl Sagan said in his book Cosmos: “The fossil record could be consistent with the idea of a great designer.” Page 29.

Life appears suddenly and in the order related in Genesis.

Even the dating systems used by evolutionists are questionable. For example:

The radiocarbon dating method used to determine the age of fossils can’t be relied upon. This measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the death of an organism.

Quote: Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” Science and Technology Illustrated. unquote

When the fossil is thought to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can only be detected with great difficulty. Two: Even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Three: Scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation, but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

With the use of radiocarbon for dating fossils or other methods, like radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, it is not possible to establish the original levels of those elements.

Quote: Professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth. Unquote

Geologists Charles Officer and Charles state: “We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously. . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.” Unquote.

So it is plain that disruptions of that nature may well be responsible for unknown fluctuations in radioactive emissions.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Pedro, I am not sure what your purpose is in copying my use of brown text and repeating your previous post, so I'll leave it at that.

Except to say that a mantra is a commonly repeated word or phrase and I note you have just repeated yourself.

PS: I don't deny you your right to your views, and suspect you hold them honestly. Why denigrate those who think differently to you?

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Peter, this is another one of those statements, plucked from thin air, that I suspect you won't have the honesty or integrity to support. Just like your airy pronouncement on the scientific consensus in cosmology, which was also the complete reverse of reality. Are you willing or able – with reason and without lashing out – to support any one of your beliefs? If not, why raise them in a public forum?


Apart from the strawman (which I suspect will also be lacking any supporting backbone), and apart from your inaccurate Watchtower depiction of abiogenesis, why do you insist on repeating the same thing over and over and over and yet refuse to discuss it when challenged?


Are you denigrating faith, Peter? Or is it just faith other than yours that you arrogantly dismiss as irrational?

You're correct of course, faith is irrational, but fortunately the science that produces safe and effective medication and puts food on your table – and also explains a great many things, from gravity to the complexity of life – relies on methods more rigorous.

Whereas you are proposing – without a scrap of supporting evidence – that a specific deity 'formed man [as we are today] from the dust of the ground', some six thousand years ago – spontaneous generation, from nothing, of a supernatural deity who in turn creates life from dirt... and on this basis you chose to dish out condescension?


So one the one hand you merrily dismiss scientists as 'ignorant ants' , with little knowledge and whose opinions cannot be trusted, while on the other hand you seek to add some credibility to your dogma by quote mining those you seek to disparage.

That in itself is lamentable enough, but you couldn't even be bothered to check for yourself the context. Here is what Sagan said:



Not exactly the clincher you'd hoped for, eh?

The reason Jehovah Witness publications work at all is that some people are (unfortunately) too gullible or too lazy to do their own thinking; I doubt that applies to many people around here... you are going to have to try harder than that.


What does your car run on, Peter?

You've messed up the quotes in the next bit, Peter, it's not clear who or where you are quoting. It's basically all cut and paste from this article, I'll focus on the bits you chose, although the main thrust of the piece seems to be a defence of the great flood myth and that dinosaurs could conceivably have walked the earth along side Adam and Eve.


The method of carbon dating (C14) described is not used to date fossils (certainly not those that the article goes on to explain with the immutable truth in genesis); fossils don't contain organic compounds and are generally too old. The argument used is like saying microscopes don't work because you can't use them to observe the moon.

The article repeatedly states that methods 'can’t be relied upon', but it doesn't say why. Within it's range carbon 14 dating is remarkably accurate and has been consistently confirmed against other methods, such as ice core sampling . There are other methods to date older specimens, methods that are equally accurate and supported by multiple fields.


Some facts... flawed conclusion.

Curious how creationists are so ready to claim there is no way of knowing things like past levels of carbon or other element (although there are), but have no problem with 'adapting' the past speed of light or radioactive half-life to fit their dogma.

Which is it, Peter, is science not to be trusted or can we trust science to support Genesis?.. talk about wanting your cake and eating it.


Again, who / what are you quoting? It's my understanding the Prof Cook is an 'old earth creationist', which wouldn't fit with a global annihilation scenario (a mere 1,700 years after creation was declared 'good'). Is that your (or someone else’s) opinion tacked on the end, between the quotes, or has Cook changed his mind?.. those creationists, changing their minds like a teenager changing fashions.


Is the work of Charles Officer peer reviewed?.. no, I thought not.


It's not at all plain. You see, Peter, this is the problem with pseudo-science; it starts with a conclusion and attempts to work the facts to fit. But once you tamper with, for example, radiometric dating, you then need to adjust geological records to match, which puts another field out of kilter. Before you know it (and probably as a result of not understanding 'it') you've rewritten the basis of every scientific law – the laws you've attempted to use to prop up the conclusion already formed.

Again I doubt you'll address any of the above, but will continue to trot out the same fundamentalist dogma. It's been pointed out to you that, while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to make up your own facts. It is because your 'facts' are so untenable that you are unable to respond; don't whinge that others are censoring you, especially while simultaneously displaying such hubris.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

Maggie, it was a pre-emptive strike. It failed.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

"Life appears suddenly and in the order related in Genesis" is contrary to the beliefs of just about current scientific view of the order of events.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

From my point of view:

1. Recall that by the time what Christians call the "Old Testament" was actually assembled and written down, it was by Priests, and later by Rabbis that had a mission: to enhance and use the myths and stories at hand to support morality. Thus, stories used by ancestors to explain the world around them were recast as lessons in ethics and morality.

2. It's a shame that the literalists (and their detractors) get caught up in the minutiae:

a. As a believer, you insist that every iota, every jot and tittle, is literally truth, even though if you insist on that standard, the text tends to contradict itselt: eg. Eve not the first woman, Lilith was.

b. As a non-believer, you gloat about the mountain of empirical evidence that refutes the literal interpretation of the Bible.

It's a shame because:

3. Broadly speaking, the deeper truths in Genesis are accurate once you get past the monk that worked his way back through all the "begets" to Adam and came up with 6000 years and change for the start of everything:

That is, that at some point, true human consciousness was born. The divine spark. Our ancestors became aware of self, of right and wrong, they chose to be (or not) their brother's keeper. They ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

Jeech,
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/homo+sapiens
and the predecessors along the last million years were not stupid animals either.
But no one knows the exact time of noogenesis.

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

I second you

and thank you JJ

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*

There seems nothing unreasonable about what you say, HWNN1961, until you reach your third point:


Whose 'truths'? Isn't that the problem?

Presumably you mean your truths, at least as you see them – and I suspect I wouldn't disagree to any large degree with most of them (except perhaps the general principle and specifically the 'big one'), I'm guessing most will be rational, based on the empirical and / or benign in their nature. Specifically in this example, there clearly are no universal unambiguous truths in Genesis.

What may be undeniable (a personal truth) to one person will surely be anathema to another. Without empirical reason there is no balance. In my opinion there is something rather insidious about this fluffy idea of a right to personal truths.

Take morality as an example:


Most people, theist or not, accept that societies and values change, and that the morality in ancient scriptures is not universally relevant today. Lessons in ethics and morality, as you put it, need constantly to be recast, and this needs to be done for the collective good (although it isn't always so). Many things that were considered right and true a couple of thousand years ago are considered just plain repugnant today.

In short, 'personal truths' are at best a benign but flawed methodology, at worst they are a flawed methodology that permits malign beliefs to persist (you can't have one without the other). In the case of religion this flawed methodology makes the ultimate appeal to authority: this version of morality (this personal truth) is sanctioned at the highest level. Our history and the present is littered with examples of what a pernicious meme this can be.

To be clear, although some people try to conflate personal opinion with (personal) truths, they are not the same thing. Anyone is welcome to any opinion, but truth demands a more rigorous standard. The Stones were a far better band than the Beatles, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take that as the truth on my say so.


That is of course just your opinion, and you are very welcome to it.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

The problem is that there is a strange suggestion that the Bible must be literal truth. Most of the folks who will tell you that the Bible is the literal word of God seem to have a very strange understanding of what the word "literal" means, not to mention a strangely selective and poorly developed ability to read the actual Bible. Jesus himself uses metaphor regularly in his sermons, yet this capacity seems to be beyond Jesus' Father when he guided the hands of Moses or the other authors of the texts. Texts that would later be translated into at least once into Greek and/or Latin, edited by the Romans, translated again into later forms of Latin, edited a second time, translated into various vernacular languages, and then rewritten two, three sometimes four and more times from the vernacular. Literal becomes less likely with each step in that process, even were it the case to begin with.

Rather than the literal word of God, the Bible is the metaphorical word of... well, somebody. Probably not God, but let's say God for the sake of making the actual point, which is that it is a metaphorical work rather than a literal one. There's no disagreement between science and religion if the Bible is a metaphor, Adam a character in a myth and the moral constructs which the Bible illustrates are created by allegory.

Of course, the counter argument is that God guided all the hands SINCE the writing of the Bible as well as the actual 1st edition(s) of the various books, letters and meanderings that would eventually be gathered together and presented as a single text. It was the hand of God that translated the Aramaic word meaning "young woman" into "virgin" in the King James version that has led to so much trouble ever since. That seems a little unlikely having read my share of history. The Lord may work in mysterious ways, but Constantine worked in very predictable and self-interested ways when he picked and chose what to include. The Vulgate isn't any more or less vulgar (same root word--don't blame me...) than was the KJ version.

But if it is the literal word of God, I can't help but wonder which literal word? The modern English, the 17th century English, the 4th century Latin, the earlier versions of Latin, the Greek or the Aramaic? (Note: I'm not including Coptic or Hebrew so that nobody's head will explode.)

Isn't it easier to think of Adam as the figure associated with the birth of Judeo-Christian culture and civilization itself rather than as the guy miracled into existence? Couldn't his creation be a metaphor for the creation of all culture: dust from dust? Wouldn't the Bible jibe more cleanly with reality and with truth itself if it were read as an expression of the Creator's creativity rather than his inability to use language--an ultimately metaphorical construct in and of itself--in a way that a typical child can understand?

Metaphore abruply changes entire the religion. The son of God turns into servent of God and virgin turns into young lady and crusifixion turns into an escape goat or giving up and on and on. There has been illusion when to percieve a verse applying metaphorical understandings and when not to. Muslims are guided with hadiths though.

Still above for my limited understandings. I study religion for faith and peace of mind. Otherwise religions are just some archaic political parties.

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*

Ghazali, in the first century, being one of the most studied scholars of Islam onces turns an atheist in the mid of his scholarly life. I think people who work honestly and logically always go through the way. Perhaps it's because... in the phropet's words, 'one who recognises himself actually recognises God.'

Wonderfully, persuing all the logical questions religions get into their shapes. So, I beleive it's more a conquest of logic than any other madness.

PS yes Geeman, as you say, we a tad digressed.

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*