SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2190


 "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis"

So some of us men got together at the church the other night and watched a film titled "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis" and we had a discussion afterwards. Some things stuck out such as the fact that evolutionary scientists and this world view moves on the premise that chimpanzees and apes are 96 to 97% percent similiar to humans and since they resemble humans the most closely in physical appearance (two arms, two legs, the ability to walk etc.) then they must be those from whom we evolved. What we aren't told is that the 96 to 97% percent similarity is very limited in scope. They studies genes or whatever regarding the apes and their need to breathe, to eat, their ability to hear and make sounds and gestures and found these to be very similiar to humans who have the same needs and abilities. Therefore - we as humans are 96 to 97 percent similiar to apes. NOT! In fact, the similarities stop in the above mentioned areas. When humans are examined and analyzed more closely the internal mechanisms and DNA structure are much different and much more complex than those found in primates. The evolutionists have sold us a ruse and it has been established as a unquestionable archetype in civilization.

3 Major Evolutionary Flaws:

1) Creating life at its very intitial stages, bringing it into being, has not yet been duplicated in the lab.

2) If it takes thousands upon thousands or even millions of years for one species to evolve into another then who has been there to observe this process during these long years? Who was alive 150 million years ago to observe for the next 150 million years the evolutionary process? What we are told to take for granted never has and can't be observed because of the long periods of time involved.

3) Darwin said if his theory of many evolutionary changes adding up over a period of time to bring forth what the species were in his day breaks down at any one given point then his theories are unable to be maintained. The reality is that there's no proof that a evolutionary change here and a evolutionary change there resulted in the bringing forth of modern humans. Darwin said if his theory is wrong at even one point then it is untenable.

Meanwhile, what ape if you will, or any other animal, can write poetry or make mathematical formulations or use surgical tools to repair other human beings? What primate can write novels or engage in acts of charity to other human beings? A ape can be taught to make make a hand sign saying he wants a banana for instance but he can't think up a set of complex sentences and hand signals to signify he prefers apples next week over bananas.

Man was uniquely created in the image of God and created for intimate FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD.

Meanwhile, the error of Darwin hangs over and permeates the entire spirit and wisdom age.

That was a brief paraphrase of the film and some of its points. I hope I'm not appearing foolish here in my enthusiasm but the film made all this apparent and alive again. Much of it you likely already know. But the evolutionary statement that primates and humans are 96 to 97 percent similiar is one of the greatest manipulative shams ever fostered on a civilization. It ain't so! It doesn't hurt to be reminded again. And there are thousands upon thousands making up a vast multitude of scientists who believe in creation but yet are not covered by the media or textbooks.


_________________
David Winter

 2016/1/21 8:09Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5586
NC, USA

 Re: "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis"

To be 100% fair, modern evolutionists would not say that humans descended from chimps or gorillas. They would say that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. They would also say that humans and gorillas had a common "grand-ancestor." But technically humans did not descend from either (they would say).

That being said, I agree that humans had no primate "ancestor."

Although I still can't figure out where Neanderthals fit into the Bible.


_________________
Todd

 2016/1/21 9:53Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

TMK, docs:

The widespread acceptance and adherence, doggedly, to Darwinism is, I think, not so much because the theory is tenable or defensible, but rather because it is the only theory out there that is somewhat plausible to the human mind that is NOT Biblical. The evolutionist cannot accept that the Bible could be true, so he latches onto what is in his own mind the next best thing.

TMK: Could it be that Neanderthal was a man who lived fairly shortly after the dispersion of Babel? Perhaps he had a poor diet, lived in a cave for shelter, and suffered from rickets or some other bone disease do to poor nutrition and possibly a lack of sunlight from weather patterns and storms that would have necessarily followed such a cataclysm?


_________________
Travis

 2016/1/21 11:56Profile
JFW
Member



Joined: 2011/10/21
Posts: 1436
Dothan, Alabama

 Re:

Brother Todd,

Perhaps they were the people from the land of Nod...

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.


I've often wondered who these people were (who were not the descendants of Adam and Eve obviously) and how would they be aware that the mark/curse on Cain meant he was an "untouchable"?
I've read several theories but none that really seem legit...


_________________
Fletcher

 2016/1/21 12:22Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5586
NC, USA

 Re:

Hey Fletcher-

Why do you say the people in the land of Nod were not Adam and Eve's descendants? I think the traditional take is that they were simply descendants unnamed in the biblical record; i.e. they were sisters and brothers of Cain and Abel. Personally I have some issues with this but am curious what you think.

Hi Travis-

You may be right. I always pictured early humans as highly intelligent beings. Neanderthals are always depicted as grunting brutes. Of course that may be an incorrect depiction.

It does seem however that later humans (like in the ice age) were much less advanced than the early humans depicted in scripture. Not sure how to account for all this- very interesting topic however.


_________________
Todd

 2016/1/21 13:40Profile
JFW
Member



Joined: 2011/10/21
Posts: 1436
Dothan, Alabama

 Re:

by TMK on 2016/1/21 12:40:51

"Hey Fletcher-

Why do you say the people in the land of Nod were not Adam and Eve's descendants? I think the traditional take is that they were simply descendants unnamed in the biblical record; i.e. they were sisters and brothers of Cain and Abel. Personally I have some issues with this but am curious what you think."

Well I asked this to my COC pastor when I was a pre-teen and he gave a pretty good answer; "Who were the people that were full grown and smart enough to recognize that Cain had been marked by God and to not kill him and where did they come from? because if they were old enough to recognize this and were Cain's siblings they surely would've been mentioned like Able and Seth..".
His answer,"well the bible says Adam and Eve were the first people God created, not necessarily the only ones He created"

At the time that was sufficient for me but over the years I've wondered who these people were and where they came from... I've looked into it from time to time but again, never really found a solid answer. It (to me) would be a strange thing if these people were the descendants of A&E and not mentioned because they would've been older than Seth to be adult enough to live independent of their parents and to recognize the mark/curse of God as such...

I know that's not a very good answer but I honestly have way more questions about this one than answers


_________________
Fletcher

 2016/1/21 16:16Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4526


 Re:

Hi TMK,

Quote:

You may be right. I always pictured early humans as highly intelligent beings. Neanderthals are always depicted as grunting brutes. Of course that may be an incorrect depiction.

It does seem however that later humans (like in the ice age) were much less advanced than the early humans depicted in scripture. Not sure how to account for all this- very interesting topic however.



There are geneticists who view Neanderthals as a species that is distinct from human beings. However, there are many geneticists who view Neanderthals as being merely a type or subset of human beings -- just like every other race or ethnic group (just an old group that went extinct by either death or interbreeding). We know that most Europeans and Asians share a percentage of common DNA with Neanderthals.

If you ever take a DNA test from a company like 23andMe, they will list the percentage of your DNA that you share with Neanderthals. Now, this might sound frightening, offensive or even make one ponder the implications of our faith -- but it shouldn't be that way. This simply shows that your DNA is common with Neanderthal in the same way that it is likely common with other much more modern ethnic groups listed.

For instance, you might have a specific DNA profile that is shared with a particular ethnic group that is common or even unique to a specific region. Companies like 23andMe or AncestryDNA (from ancestry.com) will list the percentage of each ethnic group that your DNA shares similarity with. These companies will map out your DNA profile and the genetic components that are what makes you who you are (biologically speaking). Participants often find out surprises when it comes to their DNA. My wife is Mexican American (born in Mexico) but found that she had DNA that was determined to be about 70% European. She was also surprised to find sizable amounts of DNA determined to be Ashkenazi (Jewish), Northern European and Southern European.

Now, Neanderthals were the only supposedly early human genetic profiles that scientists are aware of. There are also Denisovans and others too. Whereas scientists might suggest that these are older types of man that predate modern man, there is much room for argument about this. In fact, there is now evidence that these were simply subsets of man -- like racial-ethnic groups -- that lived alongside modern men (sapiens).

AS for how advanced they were: I think that this could always be a problem of the small samples discovered. If people discovered the remains of a guy who was presumed lost in the Pacific but found living on an island, would he have been any more "primitive" from a guy who died with his iPhone in his hand? Yes, the archaeological record might reveal that his accessibility to or development of tools differed, but this doesn't mean that his mind was primitive or less developed.

I've been to places in the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico (among the Tarahumara) where many of the indigenous residents still live in caves that are far-removed from what we consider modern civilization. There is no electricity, running water or even modern advancements to be seen. Some of them are unaware that there is a place called "Mexico" -- because they only know of the geographic and indigenous areas immediately surrounding them. For the most part, there is no viable written language. However, these are still human beings created in the image of God.


_________________
Christopher

 2016/1/21 18:26Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Todd: I would bet that you would also appear much less advanced if you were living a pretty nomadic lifestyle after having left known civilization. You would probably have pretty basic food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc. It would not make you less intelligent. You would just be making do with what you had available.


_________________
Travis

 2016/1/21 21:12Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5586
NC, USA

 Re:

All very interesting. Thanks for the feedback.


_________________
Todd

 2016/1/21 21:18Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Fletcher: We also do not know how old Cain and Abel were when the murder occurred. Remember, they were living to 600 or 900 years of age at that time. My grandfather is 87, and there are 40 descendants, counting wives, grandkids, etc. that he is directly responsible for. Population growth is an exponential function. This means that by the time Cain and Abel were 150 or 200 years old, there would have been several thousand people on Earth. Jewish tradition says that Adam and Eve may have had upwards of 60 children total. This is entirely possible living that close to original creation and the corrupting effects of sin not having had generations to multiply in the human race. I believe the land of Nod was simply a nearby geographical area where some of Cain's other relatives lived. I think a plain reading of the Bible leaves us with only one option...that being that all humans on earth must have descended from Adam and Eve.


_________________
Travis

 2016/1/21 21:19Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy