It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DuceizBack
Man this site is full of retards...
Originally posted by Blaine91555
How about a question to answer your question?
Where is the conflict between Man being Created from the dust and Man being evolved from the dust. It's just terminology. Why would God not use Nature and it's Laws as a tool of Creation?
Few Christians have a problem with this and the idea you present is a result of illiteracy from another time. It is entirely rational to both believe we Evolved or were Created. They both describe the same process.
Jesus Himself, on six different occasions, refers to each one of the first seven chapters of Genesis, thus affirming His belief in their historical nature. He refers back to Adam and Eve to defend His position on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:3-6. He makes His argument a historical one when He says that "from the beginning" God created them male and female. Jesus affirms that Adam and Eve were real people. Jesus' comments are in an historical context.
Jesus affirms the historicity of Cain and Abel in Matthew 23:29-36. In this passage, Jesus connects the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of the prophet Zechariah. The murder of Zechariah at the door of the Temple was within the last 400 years and was clearly historical. If this was historical, then so was the murder of Abel!
Jesus confirms the historical nature Noah and the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39. The time before Noah is related to the time that Christ returns. If the flood is just a story to communicate a pre-New Testament vision of the gospel, then is Jesus return just another story to communicate some other spiritual truth? The historicity of Genesis 1-11 is tied to many aspects of Jesus' teachings.
In many ways it is difficult to separate the book of Genesis, even the first eleven chapters, from the rest of Scripture, without literally rejecting the inspiration of Scripture and the divine nature of Jesus. It is hardly possible to assume that Jesus was knowingly deceiving these pre-modern people in order to communicate the gospel in a context they understood.
How can the first 11 chapters be separated from even the rest of Genesis? The time of Abraham has been verified by archeology. The places, customs, and religions spoken in Genesis related to Abraham are accurate. The story of Abraham begins in Genesis 12. If Genesis 1 is mythology and Genesis 12 history, where does the allegory stop and the history begin in the first 11 chapters? It is all written in the same historical narrative style.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
No, it really isn't. And science says the universe is 15 billionish years old, with the Earth at around 4.5 billion. Give or take a bit. It's something we can actually measure. It's not a fairy tale.
Here's the other thing, even if it isn't 4.5 billion, it's still a lot older than 10,000 years old. We have human artifacts that are much older. We have human remains that are older still. We have prehistoric fossils that are older than those.
10,000 years is off by such a scale that it isn't even laughable, it's just sad.
And I know the Force well, it doesn't dwell on the side of ignorance.
Originally posted by thedeadtruth
So because the oldest person alive is only about 115, and all our genetic material is almost identical, then I could claim ( using your logic ) that humans have only been around for about that long.
PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE JOKING ??? GOD HELP YOU IF YOU ARE NOT.
Originally posted by Illustronic
Great breakdown of science and faith and the misunderstanding that differentiates the two.
It's a short read with easy to understand words.