Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_subgenius]

Subby, do you believe that Adam was the first man and he lived from 4,000 bc as the Church states in its chronology?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

what do yo mean by "first man"?

and what do you realize about inductive vs. deductive?

[_Drifting]

Subby, do you believe that Adam was the first man and he lived from 4,000 bc as the Church states in its chronology?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

what do yo mean by "first man"?

and what do you realize about inductive vs. deductive?

From LDS.org

The first man created on earth.

Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth.

[_Themis]

Science is but a tool. Any tool can be misapplied.

And I bet you won't be able to articulate how you think it is being misapplied to the issue mentioned.

I disagree with your interpretation because I know there is a God and He said there was a Flood.

Did God tell you personally?

[_Themis]

That's right. When given the choice between two explanations, always choose the one based on stories written down by superstitious tribes thousands of years ago, over the one developed through research and scientific inquiry.

they "observed", and "examined", and through thousands of years of "peer review" determined their results to be valid......too bad about those blinders about your head
but hey, atheists have that great creation story that goes like this:
first there nothing
then nothing exploded and made dinosaurs
and now nothing may either be expanding or contracting
...awesome!

It's not an atheist story. I suggest you and gd, jo, and frank get together and take a tour of BYU. Make sure you visit the science department and talk to all those wayward LDS scientists and maybe you can get some of them to repent or you could threaten to tell the church on them. I always love the turtles all the way down thinking.

[_LittleNipper]

Science is but a tool. Any tool can be misapplied.

And I bet you won't be able to articulate how you think it is being misapplied to the issue mentioned.

I disagree with your interpretation because I know there is a God and He said there was a Flood.

Did God tell you personally?

Uniformitarians/evolutionists see what is observable today, expound on their theories and then project these backwards through time. They ignore any possibliity of a Creation or original perfection. They expect only natural processes at work and they compute these to be consistant and continuous.
God wrote the Bible through the God selected and inspired prophets. When the Lord Jesus Christ came, He taught from the entire canonized Hebrew Old Testament. The selected Old Testament is the very same one Jews read from today. If there was some terrible scientific error, Christ would have said as much.

[_Themis]

Uniformitarians/evolutionists see what is observable today, expound on their theories and then project these backwards through time. They ignore any possibliity of a Creation or original perfection.

Many of them are Christians, and I doubt you understand the science.

They expect only natural processes at work and they compute these to be consistant and continuous.

It more complex and again I doubt you know much about it and why. Dating of things like the mid Atlantic ridge can be done with three different and independent dating methods. I doubt you understand how significant that is.

God wrote the Bible through the God selected and inspired prophets. When the Lord Jesus Christ came, He taught from the entire canonized Hebrew Old Testament. The selected Old Testament is the very same one Jews read from today. If there was some terrible scientific error, Christ would have said as much.

So in answer to my questions are you saying no you have not had God tell you this personally. I have to ask how you know God said these things?

[_Samantabhadra]

If there was some terrible scientific error, Christ would have said as much.

Biblical literalism is an invention of the so-called "Enlightenment." So is "science" in the sense you mean. There was rational investigation into the structure of nature, but they called it "natural philosophy" and it wasn't considered a separate discipline from other kinds of philosophy.

The point is, the Hebrew Bible was never intended to be, nor understood as, a "scientific" document. You are reading your own ideas into the text. That's not just bad exegesis; it isn't even exegesis at all. It's eisigesis. Please get educated, in anything: Biblical criticism, physics, geology, whatever, I don't care. Just please get educated in something.

[_ludwigm]

Doggerland, northern Europe's own lost city of Atlantis, discovered off Scotland ( July 3, 2012 10:06 AM)

British scientists scouring the bottom of the North Sea have begun piecing together a picture of life in Doggerland, what they believe was the "heart of Europe," connecting modern day Britain to continental Europe, until about 7,000 years ago.

Among fossilized evidence of mammoths and large game animals, divers have found harpoons, flint tools and suspected burial sites they say belonged to residents of the submerged settlement more than 12,000 years ago.

The Old World is really that old...

[_subgenius]

...I always love the turtles all the way down thinking.

Themis, once again your provide a great example of how you are yet another spoon fed "thinker" . As is the case with the "turtles", people such as yourself rely on a misrepresentation or distortion of actual facts (or worse, their own 'interpretation' of what something must surely mean).

But "think" about it this way...not turtles "all the way down" but rather the common 'clarification' of the first cause argument.... that a buzzard, with little strength, holds a snake in its beak for hours with nothing to rest upon...so it is not unreasonable for God to hold the earth in the sky for billions of years.

Now go sip your milk, meat disagrees with your digestion.

[_Drifting]

Themis, once again your provide a great example of how you are yet another spoon fed "thinker" . As is the case with the "turtles", people such as yourself rely on a misrepresentation or distortion of actual facts (or worse, their own 'interpretation' of what something must surely mean).

Oh the irony...