Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Very well, let us begin here. Genesis tells us that God created man as a being like himself, in His image. To understand what this implies we must first allow scripture to define for us the image or nature of God. God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us in scripture defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, size, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and the type of soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.
The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God He is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. The singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance. (We will talk about theophonic manifestations later).
1. The essence is what I regard as signature traits. These traits qualify God as God.
Intrinsically, the essence of God is:
* Spirit * Ever-present * Immortal
* Holy * Eternal * Self-existing
* All-powerful * Invisible * Self-sustaining
* All-knowing * Unified * Transcendent
2. The character of God is what I would regard as attributes that define His moral
integrity.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
These are only some of the qualities we find ascribed to God in the scriptures. Every attribute of essence and character that scripture assigns to God are assigned also to man yet in limiting degrees. So, what is there about man then that bears the likeness of his Creator? Scripture has much more to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. Scripture tells us that man also possesses a spirit. Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree. Man was created as a holy and righteous being. He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice. Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God He is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. The singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance. (We will talk about theophonic manifestations later).
1. The essence is what I regard as signature traits. These traits qualify God as God.
Intrinsically, the essence of God is:
* Spirit * Ever-present * Immortal
* Holy * Eternal * Self-existing
* All-powerful * Invisible * Self-sustaining
* All-knowing * Unified * Transcendent
2. The character of God is what I would regard as attributes that define His moral
integrity.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
These are only some of the qualities we find ascribed to God in the scriptures. Every attribute of essence and character that scripture assigns to God are assigned also to man yet in limiting degrees. So, what is there about man then that bears the likeness of his Creator? Scripture has much more to say about the image of God than just the simple fact that he is Spirit. Scripture tells us that man also possesses a spirit. Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree. Man was created as a holy and righteous being. He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. He was created with the capacity to love, to dispense mercy, kindness, goodness, compassion, and justice. Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
The problem with the above view is that it does not take into account that the world that then was perished, being inundated in the flood which changed the whole landscape and accounts for the fossil record and the destruction of the dinosaurs, exotic plant life and resulted in the earth appearing older than it actually is.......
When Genesis says God created man is not talking about Adam but all humanity.
According to your explanation, as God has not image man can not be physical image of God, then man is and image of God's character.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
....
Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree.
Man was created as a holy and righteous being. (this is why was destroyed in time of Noa)
He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. (So wise it eat the forbidden fruit)
He was created with the capacity to love, (as long as you not a Canaanite)
Dispense mercy, (so Merciful that rape, and give wife to rape instead of risking his life, story of levite, Lot)
Kindness, (kind enough to give woman 30 days to mourn, before being raped)
Goodness, (So good that turn into sin as soon as he can)
Compassion, and justice. (compassion, justice, man is the more uncompasionate and salvage being, only after renacement humanity has now changed)
Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. (irrelevant it has bigger brain)
This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
Now you have done the same as me..... you did not have taken the old testament in literally and done the same as me, but with different purpose. you see what I mean. you just can not take the old testament word by word. your have to figuratively accommodate it some how.
Your explanation is a testament to my hypothesis.
And actually is more acceptable that men is the image of the physical attributes of GOD, but the contrary has terrible implications has the character of men is horrible, then GOD is horrible.
According to your explanation, as God has not image man can not be physical image of God, then man is and image of God's character.
The character of God is:
* Holy * Good * Faithful * Patient
* Righteous * Honest * Loving
* Just * Fair * Forgiving
* Pure * Consistent * Merciful
....
Man also possesses the same intrinsic qualities that define the nature and character of God, yet limited in degree.
Man was created as a holy and righteous being. (this is why was destroyed in time of Noa)
He was created as an eternal being endowed with wisdom. (So wise it eat the forbidden fruit)
He was created with the capacity to love, (as long as you not a Canaanite)
Dispense mercy, (so Merciful that rape, and give wife to rape instead of risking his life, story of levite, Lot)
Kindness, (kind enough to give woman 30 days to mourn, before being raped)
Goodness, (So good that turn into sin as soon as he can)
Compassion, and justice. (compassion, justice, man is the more uncompasionate and salvage being, only after renacement humanity has now changed)
Man was given transcendence – he was placed over all God’s creation to ruler over it. (irrelevant it has bigger brain)
This is what defines man as one created in the image and likeness of God. As such, man is the closest thing to God that exists in creation.
Now you have done the same as me..... you did not have taken the old testament in literally and done the same as me, but with different purpose. you see what I mean. you just can not take the old testament word by word. your have to figuratively accommodate it some how.
Your explanation is a testament to my hypothesis.
And actually is more acceptable that men is the image of the physical attributes of GOD, but the contrary has terrible implications has the character of men is horrible, then GOD is horrible.
You did not understand one thing I just explained to you. What I am showing you is how scripture represents the nature of God. Scripture does not represent God as a physical being. Do not confuse anthropomorphic theophanies with the unseen nature of God. Revelation is limited because of the limited capacity of the human mind to comprehend things it cannot envision and because of the inability of human language to explain things of the non-natural world. Revelation about God is very often anthropomorphic. This is because man can only understand that with which he has an experiential frame of reference. In order for God to reveal himself in scripture, he uses human language to present himself to us in terms with which we are all familiar and to which each of us can relate based on our own individual experiences. For example, in his relationship to man God speaks of himself as father, friend, shepherd, master, judge, king, and husband. He speaks of such physical traits as hair, wings, thigh, hand, arm, heart, and bosom. He speaks of character traits such as love, knowledge, wisdom, hate, will, anger, mercy, tenderness, and compassion. We are all familiar with these terms and can relate to them based on our own experiences, but only to a limited degree. We can only understand these terms to the degree that each of us experiences them at the personal level. This means that each of us will have developed different levels of understanding about each of these concepts. Regardless of one’s level of understanding of these terms, we can never fully understand them to the degree that they relate to God. I am not sure I need to go any deeper with you on this matter because yo do not seem to understand what I talking about. Ifu you are not getting this you are certainly not going to grasp what follows.
Macro evolution assumptions:
1) Uniformitarianism... the rate of growth/change is the same now as it has always been. I think it was Charles Lyell who got in to this idea.
Problem: Start putting catastrophic events in this please! It doesn't allow for what happens with disasters and such when landscapes are drastically changed within weeks and possibly days.
So maybe a mountain is changing at such and such a rate-- and projecting that back would give millions of years.. but this would not account for the very high possibilities of earthquakes.. volcanoes etc.. causing rapid change to that same mountain.
Maybe this mountain rapidly grew and then settled at the rate it is now at? Or grew slow.. then rapid.. then slow...?
2) One species actually becoming a different species. Adapation-- that is real.. this is variations in species... different dogs.. different cats.. different horse etc...
But there are no COGS or DATS
3) To begin with, when people were postulating millions of years.. they didn't have the tools to measure it! It was a GUESS. They were assuming things and then looking for what would confirm it.
4) Most evolutionary theory would eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention from the very outset. So the assumption is that the supernatural can't happen before even looking at the science. Is this fair?
There are also others.. but don't come to mind right now.
1) Uniformitarianism... the rate of growth/change is the same now as it has always been. I think it was Charles Lyell who got in to this idea.
Problem: Start putting catastrophic events in this please! It doesn't allow for what happens with disasters and such when landscapes are drastically changed within weeks and possibly days.
So maybe a mountain is changing at such and such a rate-- and projecting that back would give millions of years.. but this would not account for the very high possibilities of earthquakes.. volcanoes etc.. causing rapid change to that same mountain.
Maybe this mountain rapidly grew and then settled at the rate it is now at? Or grew slow.. then rapid.. then slow...?
2) One species actually becoming a different species. Adapation-- that is real.. this is variations in species... different dogs.. different cats.. different horse etc...
But there are no COGS or DATS
3) To begin with, when people were postulating millions of years.. they didn't have the tools to measure it! It was a GUESS. They were assuming things and then looking for what would confirm it.
4) Most evolutionary theory would eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention from the very outset. So the assumption is that the supernatural can't happen before even looking at the science. Is this fair?
There are also others.. but don't come to mind right now.
A
As far as I know, only one knows exactly how old all this is, and God hasn't told any of us. He's told us how. He hasn't told us when.
And, yeah, I know some have done the math by the age of the generations in the Bible, but did God bring to mind every father and son, or was it only the ones he kept in his mind? Maybe Adam's great-great grandson was insignificant in God's plan, so no mention is given. We do know that FIL, SIL, MIL, and cousins weren't terms used, so there is room for having more generations between the lists of the significant ones. I could be wrong, but one thing for sure. Only God knows.
From my life experience, I've seen evolutionists make the earth older and older and now creationists are making it younger and younger. It's just not important how old it is, or God would have told us.
And, yeah, I know some have done the math by the age of the generations in the Bible, but did God bring to mind every father and son, or was it only the ones he kept in his mind? Maybe Adam's great-great grandson was insignificant in God's plan, so no mention is given. We do know that FIL, SIL, MIL, and cousins weren't terms used, so there is room for having more generations between the lists of the significant ones. I could be wrong, but one thing for sure. Only God knows.
From my life experience, I've seen evolutionists make the earth older and older and now creationists are making it younger and younger. It's just not important how old it is, or God would have told us.
You Right, we think in different ways and we envision God in different way too, I am grateful for you effort in trying to transmit your message, please note I have no desire to just contradict for contradicting, I am seriously trying to understand your possition and frame of thinking to understand your explanation.
After much thinking I have realized that maybe for people like you the actual God is the scripture itself. as the scripture has to be explained no matter what, that is why there is so convoluted and abstracts way to explain simple things, because if two simple things contradict each other then the matter will need a really complicated theory to explain it.
So how you explain that God rule how to sell your daughter as a slave (in practical terms I believe is a sex slave/maid), in times where is not needed, because they are in the desert, and eating food from heaven, and they will be nomads for another 40 years.
Thank, lots for your answers,
After much thinking I have realized that maybe for people like you the actual God is the scripture itself. as the scripture has to be explained no matter what, that is why there is so convoluted and abstracts way to explain simple things, because if two simple things contradict each other then the matter will need a really complicated theory to explain it.
So how you explain that God rule how to sell your daughter as a slave (in practical terms I believe is a sex slave/maid), in times where is not needed, because they are in the desert, and eating food from heaven, and they will be nomads for another 40 years.
Thank, lots for your answers,
Macro evolution assumptions:
1) Uniformitarianism... the rate of growth/change is the same now as it has always been. I think it was Charles Lyell who got in to this idea.
Problem: Start putting catastrophic events in this please! It doesn't allow for what happens with disasters and such when landscapes are drastically changed within weeks and possibly days.
So maybe a mountain is changing at such and such a rate-- and projecting that back would give millions of years.. but this would not account for the very high possibilities of earthquakes.. volcanoes etc.. causing rapid change to that same mountain.
Maybe this mountain rapidly grew and then settled at the rate it is now at? Or grew slow.. then rapid.. then slow...?
2) One species actually becoming a different species. Adapation-- that is real.. this is variations in species... different dogs.. different cats.. different horse etc...
But there are no COGS or DATS
3) To begin with, when people were postulating millions of years.. they didn't have the tools to measure it! It was a GUESS. They were assuming things and then looking for what would confirm it.
4) Most evolutionary theory would eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention from the very outset. So the assumption is that the supernatural can't happen before even looking at the science. Is this fair?
There are also others.. but don't come to mind right now.
1) Uniformitarianism... the rate of growth/change is the same now as it has always been. I think it was Charles Lyell who got in to this idea.
Problem: Start putting catastrophic events in this please! It doesn't allow for what happens with disasters and such when landscapes are drastically changed within weeks and possibly days.
So maybe a mountain is changing at such and such a rate-- and projecting that back would give millions of years.. but this would not account for the very high possibilities of earthquakes.. volcanoes etc.. causing rapid change to that same mountain.
Maybe this mountain rapidly grew and then settled at the rate it is now at? Or grew slow.. then rapid.. then slow...?
2) One species actually becoming a different species. Adapation-- that is real.. this is variations in species... different dogs.. different cats.. different horse etc...
But there are no COGS or DATS
3) To begin with, when people were postulating millions of years.. they didn't have the tools to measure it! It was a GUESS. They were assuming things and then looking for what would confirm it.
4) Most evolutionary theory would eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention from the very outset. So the assumption is that the supernatural can't happen before even looking at the science. Is this fair?
There are also others.. but don't come to mind right now.
File:Ferrariofsanfrancisco/0587/86583c663d121f51e2feaa3d7724ededx.jpg A "Zonkey", a zebra/donkey hybrid
Hercules, a "Liger", a Lion/Tiger hybrid
A "Jaglion", a Jaguar/Lion hybrid
A mule, a Domestic Canary/Goldfinch hybrid.
- Hybrid Iguana, a single‐cross hybrid resulting from natural interbreeding between ben ten alien wildmut and a Australian feather serpent since the late 2000s.
- Equid hybrids
- Bovid hybrids
- Dzo, zo or yakow; a cross between a domestic cow/bull and a yak.
- Beefalo, a cross of an American bison and a domestic cow. This is a fertile breed; this along with genetic evidence has caused them to be recently reclassified into the same genus, Bos.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
- Zubron, a hybrid between wisent (European bison) and domestic cow.
- Sheep-goat hybrids, such as the Toast of Botswana.
- Ursid hybrids, such as the grizzly-polar bear hybrid, occur between black bears, brown bears, and polar bears.
- Felid hybrids
- Savannah cats are the hybrid cross between an African serval cat and a domestic cat
- A hybrid between a Bengal tiger and a Siberian tiger is an example of an intra-specific hybrid.
- Ligers and Tiglons (crosses between a lion and a tiger) and other Panthera hybrids such as the lijagulep. Various other wild cat crosses are known involving the lynx, bobcat, leopard, serval, etc.
- Bengal cat, a cross between the Asian leopard cat and the domestic cat, one of many hybrids between the domestic cat and wild cat species. The domestic cat, African wild cat and European wildcat may be considered variant populations of the same species (Felis silvestris), making such crosses non-hybrids.
- Fertile canid hybrids occur between coyotes, wolves, dingoes, jackals and domestic dogs.
- Hybrids between black and white rhinoceroses have been recognized.
- Hybrids between spotted owls and barred owls
- Cama, a cross between a camel and a llama, also an intergeneric hybrid.
- Cetacean hybrids
- Wholphin, a fertile but very rare cross between a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin.
- In 2014, DNA analysis showed the clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) to be a naturally occurring hybrid species descended from the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). [SUP][1][/SUP]
- A fertile cross between a king snake and a corn snake.
- At Chester Zoo in the United Kingdom, a cross between an African elephant (male) and an Asian elephant (female). The male calf was named Motty. It died of intestinal infection after twelve days.
- Cagebird breeders sometimes breed hybrids between species of finch, such as goldfinch x canary. These birds are known as mules.
- Gamebird hybrids, hybrids between gamebirds and domestic fowl, including chickens, guineafowl and peafowl, interfamilial hybrids.
- Numerous macaw hybrids are also known.
- Red kite and black kite: five bred unintentionally at a falconry center in England. (It is reported[SUP][weasel words][/SUP] that the black kite (the male) refused female black kites but mated with two female red kites.)
- Hybridization between the endemic Cuban crocodile (Crocodilus rhombifer) and the widely distributed American crocodile (Crocodilus acutus) is causing conservation problems for the former species as a threat to its genetic integrity.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][clarification needed]]][/SUP]
- Saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) have mated with Siamese crocodiles (Crocodylus siamensis) in captivity producing offspring which in many cases have grown over 20 feet (6.1 metres) in length. It is likely that wild hybridization occurred historically in parts of southeast Asia.
- Blood parrot cichlid, which is probably created by crossing a red head cihclid and a Midas cichlid or red devil cichlid
- A group of about 50 hybrids between Australian blacktip shark and the larger common blacktip shark was found by Australia's East Coast in 2012. This is the only known case of hybridization in sharks.[SUP][3][/SUP]
- The mulard duck, hybrid of the domestic pekin duck and domesticated muscovy ducks.
- Killer bees were created in an attempt to breed tamer and more manageable bees. This was done by crossing a european honey bee and an african bee, but instead the offspring became more aggressive and highly defensive bees that had escaped into the wild.
- In Australia, New Zealand and other areas where the Pacific Black Duck occurs, it is hybridised by the much more aggressive introduced Mallard. This is a concern to wildlife authorities throughout the affected area, as it is seen as Genetic pollution of the Black Duck gene pool.
[h=2]References[/h]
DNA Discovery Reveals Surprising Dolphin Origins
- Voloder, Dubravka (3 January 1012). "Print Email Facebook Twitter More World-first hybrid sharks found off Australia". ABC News. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Categories:
i think you might benefit from taking a class in basic astronomy.
especially stellar evolution / life-cycles.
is the sun shrinking?
especially stellar evolution / life-cycles.
is the sun shrinking?
T
Biblical creationists have always argued for around 6,000 years. It's evolutionists who keep changing the time-frame.
The Bible records roughly 3,700 years of history (Genesis to some of Revelation. This doesn't include the 400 years of silence between the OT and NT). Roughly 2,000 years have passed since Christ came to earth. We're still living some of the book of Acts and much of Revelation is still to come. That's 6,000 years of history there. Finally, God's Word tells us that mankind existed from the beginning of creation. Therefore, long-ages (billions, millions of years) aren't a side issue. If they were true, we would have death and suffering long before the Fall of Man and that would make God a liar. And God can't lie, for He is Truth incarnate.
As for the biblical genealogies, they would have little value if they weren't complete records of the heads of families.
The Bible records roughly 3,700 years of history (Genesis to some of Revelation. This doesn't include the 400 years of silence between the OT and NT). Roughly 2,000 years have passed since Christ came to earth. We're still living some of the book of Acts and much of Revelation is still to come. That's 6,000 years of history there. Finally, God's Word tells us that mankind existed from the beginning of creation. Therefore, long-ages (billions, millions of years) aren't a side issue. If they were true, we would have death and suffering long before the Fall of Man and that would make God a liar. And God can't lie, for He is Truth incarnate.
As for the biblical genealogies, they would have little value if they weren't complete records of the heads of families.
Apes with human-like physical features does not cry out evolution. Sperms and embryos may appear alike but they don't develop in to the same creatures. What comes from a human and ape (aids?) ? Though a human and another human from an entirely different ethnicity can reproduce. Age doesn't always matter anyways like others have said before.
T
AtWhatCost, please check out these links for more information concerning the Genesis genealogies:
Genealogy gaps - creation.com
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/new-answers-book-2/gaps-in-the-genesis-genealogies/
Genealogy gaps - creation.com
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/new-answers-book-2/gaps-in-the-genesis-genealogies/