The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

[Benson]

Let's chat about origins and creation.

It is not possible to explain the ancient geological evidence in the Earth, or the Massive numbers and size of Megalithic ruins all over the Earth with a Young Earth narrative. Additionally, recent discoveries of hominid bones and their retrieved DNA, recovered with crafted artifacts, from numerous sites do not support a theory of human evolution, but shows strong evidence of hominids on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago suddenly arising.

Even retrieved clay and stone records list kings and their populations living for many successive tens of thousands of years. The successively distinct categories of fossilized reptiles and lower life forms shows multiple repetitive appearances and extinctions, far apart from any do called Evolution unto modern creatures. The recently discovered incredible resilience of microlife denies its theorized creation only for today's low stress biome.

The only theory which gives sense to all of this is the following:

1.) Earth has for close to half a million years been a Petri dish for propagation of various carbon based species.

2.) Successive planetary catastrophies have each time wiped out most life, but have occasionslly left living survivors, and have left many physical artifacts.

3.) The creation and manipulation of the physical Earth and its life have been puposefully accomplished by various sentient agencies able to plan and execute with intricacy.

4.) The most recent recreation if the biome and life has been done by the Superior Great Creator YHWH/Elohim/God as recorded in Genesis, when God said "Let Us Make Man In Our Image," which had never before been done. After all of the previous experimentation by other beings, God then created a far superior Man in His own Image.

5.) Researched oral traditions and artifacts show every major ancient culture had an enduring narrative of both extra terrestrial action upon creation, and a world wide flood.

Today, we have a huge data base of non God supernatural beings tampering with the life forms and the DNA of God's superior humans, in order to corrupt and control us for their Satanic purposes. Large eye socketed and oversized humanoid skulls from Egypt, South America, Central Europe, and other recesses show there were greatly nontypical humanoids living in ancient empires. Even a very small nonhuman, nonape biped Egyptian mummy has been found.

Yes, the fallen angels and Satan can manipulate existing life forms, as shown in the Pre Noah accounts of Genesis and the Book of Enoch. It continues through today. Jesus will now return when the Earth again becomes "As The Days of Noah" were with its corrupted life forms.

Unfortunately, Christendom denies this all, as part of their high road to spiritual superiority and tidy Theology. Unfortunately as well, the corrupt Roman Catholic church being The Beast of Babylon actually has a leg up on the reality of some of this. They will use it as a tool of the emerging One World Order.

[William]

[Replying to Benson in post #7]

The progress here, rather than a question, is to demonstrate that both the standard model of species and societal "Evolution" by blind scientists, and the "Single Creation Young Earth" preached by deceived Religionists are both wrong.

The problem you have with this statement is that nothing has been "demonstrated." All you have done is to make statements which, by themselves, represent only personal opinions. If there is no desire to defend the OP claims with some sort of evidence or (non-biblical ... see the rules for the Science and Religion section), or debate them along those lines, then this thread is indeed probably best placed in the Random Ramblings section.

Yes - my bad - I should have made it clear - since the poster is new - that there was a section in this forum where such posts are placed.

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #7]

The progress here, rather than a question, is to demonstrate that both the standard model of species and societal "Evolution" by blind scientists, and the "Single Creation Young Earth" preached by deceived Religionists are both wrong.

The problem you have with this statement is that nothing has been "demonstrated." All you have done is to make statements which, by themselves, represent only personal opinions. If there is no desire to defend the OP claims with some sort of evidence or (non-biblical ... see the rules for the Science and Religion section), or debate them along those lines, then this thread is indeed probably best placed in the Random Ramblings section.

The greater problem with the response here is the claim that merely expressed words "demonstrate" any sort of reality. This is the arrogance and error of Theologians. In fact, all human words are opinion when they depart from the verbatim Word of God.

This cannot be refuted by any means.

[blackstart]

What is the question(s)?

The progress here, rather than a question, is to demonstrate that both the standard model of species and societal "Evolution" by blind scientists, and the "Single Creation Young Earth" preached by deceived Religionists are both wrong.

The Heavens which declare God's Glory and the Earth which displays His Goodness and Love upon Mankind are each ignored for what they plainly show when observed. Man's professional Scientists and professional Religionists all currupt their minds with traditions of arrogance.

I agree wholeheartedly with DrNoGods(post 5). Your opening post seems to consist of a confused mixture of half digested science and fanciful assertion. As a demonstration of the so called fallacy of Darwinian evolution, you bring no evidence to bear whatsoever.

As to your second paragraph, all this seems to be is an iteration of your faith position, no doubt sincerely held, but of no significance except to those of a like mind. Of course individual scientists can show arrogance and some may well be corrupt, but science itself is a discipline which seeks to explain and understand by accruing evidence by as objective a means as possible. That is why science is always open to new or improved understanding.

[Benson]

Science is not a "discipline" because the results of it are chaos and damage. Those who espouse and conduct science serve the deathly pursuits of arrogance and presumption. Even as they deny the relevance of a Godly human heart, they invariably admit to perceptional and material lack of resource. All their examination and study of the physical realm end with statements such as:

"More study upon this needs pursuit."
"At this time we cannot be certain of any significance."
"There appears to be no possible consensus at this point."
"Without further answers, a course of action is lacking."
"This research is limited in its breadth of data."
"This new avenue of inquiry with its preliminary assessment will require full review of the standard model."

Etc., etc. ...

True Discipline happens only through God, not through procedural rigor within human inquiry. Did you forget, "In Christ exists all knowledge?"

[Benson]

Has God directed anyone to identify Truth by means of reference to generalized human observations? Yes He has.

Has God validated every instance of logic upon human consensus? Not at all.

Has God commissioned a non Prophetic individual to dictate and edit statements which have been made upon issues of principle? No He has not.

Does God tell people to listen to what is said to them? He does.

[Purple Knight]

It was my understanding that the Bible very well admits that there was preadamic man, and when Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, it was from among those that he selected one. Also, that having not been created from Adam, Lilith was technically not human; she was a separate creation and hers a separate line.

These bits were never canonised but that doesn't mean it makes sense that we're supposed to assume that Cain's wife sprung up out of nothing.

It is also my understanding that if you are not a Jew, you're not from the line of Adam, but a Canaanite, child of Lilith, or some combination thereof.

There's a bit in the Talmud that essentially says only Jews are Human, and there is much disagreement over what this means. The word used which is often translated as Human means (again, my understanding) Adamic - Adamic Man, from the line of Adam.

Now, there are also Adamic men that are descendants of Adam but not descendants of Jacob/Israel, but putting them aside for the moment, if you are not a Jew, you are not Adamic.

Who were the pre-Adamites? Well, if we're allowed to sort of superimpose theology on scientific discovery and puzzle it in so it fits, Neanderthals. There's not really another good answer.

[William]

What is the question(s)?

The progress here, rather than a question, is to demonstrate that both the standard model of species and societal "Evolution" by blind scientists, and the "Single Creation Young Earth" preached by deceived Religionists are both wrong.

The Heavens which declare God's Glory and the Earth which displays His Goodness and Love upon Mankind are each ignored for what they plainly show when observed. Man's professional Scientists and professional Religionists all currupt their minds with traditions of arrogance.

I agree wholeheartedly with DrNoGods(post 5). Your opening post seems to consist of a confused mixture of half digested science and fanciful assertion. As a demonstration of the so called fallacy of Darwinian evolution, you bring no evidence to bear whatsoever.

As to your second paragraph, all this seems to be is an iteration of your faith position, no doubt sincerely held, but of no significance except to those of a like mind. Of course individual scientists can show arrogance and some may well be corrupt, but science itself is a discipline which seeks to explain and understand by accruing evidence by as objective a means as possible. That is why science is always open to new or improved understanding.

I agree. Science [as a process] is interested in discovering The Truth about things in the material world. Such Truth which has been discovered by that process has helped the world free itself from - whatever is the opposite of "Truth".

That said, not all scientists use science for that purpose, because science too can become corrupted when results are fudged, hidden or are proved harmful.

That is not science. That is scientists.

[Benson]

It was my understanding that the Bible very well admits that there was preadamic man, and when Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife, it was from among those that he selected one. Also, that having not been created from Adam, Lilith was technically not human; she was a separate creation and hers a separate line.

These bits were never canonised but that doesn't mean it makes sense that we're supposed to assume that Cain's wife sprung up out of nothing.

It is also my understanding that if you are not a Jew, you're not from the line of Adam, but a Canaanite, child of Lilith, or some combination thereof.

There's a bit in the Talmud that essentially says only Jews are Human, and there is much disagreement over what this means. The word used which is often translated as Human means (again, my understanding) Adamic - Adamic Man, from the line of Adam.

Now, there are also Adamic men that are descendants of Adam but not descendants of Jacob/Israel, but putting them aside for the moment, if you are not a Jew, you are not Adamic.

Who were the pre-Adamites? Well, if we're allowed to sort of superimpose theology on scientific discovery and puzzle it in so it fits, Neanderthals. There's not really another good answer.

There is much current evidence many groups other then Neanderthals have lived on Earth. Even contemporay races of Asian, African, and far flung Aboriginals cannot be explained. Unexpected red haired, blue eye giants are found at furthest sites. High volume and elongated craniums not formed from skull wrapping are found all over, not just in Peru. Humanoid skulls without the mid saggital suture exist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #15]

Science is not a "discipline" because the results of it are chaos and damage. Those who espouse and conduct science serve the deathly pursuits of arrogance and presumption. Even as they deny the relevance of a Godly human heart, they invariably admit to perceptional and material lack of resource. All their examination and study of the physical realm end with statements such as: ...

Science is what has brought us incredible understanding of "how things work" in many areas, from the (correct) heliocentric model of our solar system, how life evolved and diversified on this planet (even if we don't know details of the mechanism(s) for its orignation here), how to make life better for us humans in the areas of transportation, communication (such radio, telephone, television, computers, the internet which allows this dialog, etc.), treatments and cures for diseases, and on and on and on. To say that the result of science is "chaos and damage" is a gross mischaracterization of what science is and what it has accomplished for humankind.

Science can be conducted without any opinions or beliefs regarding the existence of gods or the perceived instructions of these entities, and there have been many great scientists spanning the spectrum from highly religious (eg. Newton, Planck, Maxwell), to devout atheists, who have worked to find answers to scientific problems using core scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc., then having their hypotheses confirmed via many iterations of observations and experiments that ultimately yielded solutions to a wide range of scientific problems.

The world we live in today has benefited immensely from scientific advancements which continue to improve our quality of life and viability on this planet. Reliance on ancient instructions from any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia has yet to yield anything even close.

[blackstart]

Science is not a "discipline" because the results of it are chaos and damage. Those who espouse and conduct science serve the deathly pursuits of arrogance and presumption. Even as they deny the relevance of a Godly human heart, they invariably admit to perceptional and material lack of resource. All their examination and study of the physical realm end with statements such as:

"More study upon this needs pursuit."
"At this time we cannot be certain of any significance."
"There appears to be no possible consensus at this point."
"Without further answers, a course of action is lacking."
"This research is limited in its breadth of data."
"This new avenue of inquiry with its preliminary assessment will require full review of the standard model."

Etc., etc. ...

True Discipline happens only through God, not through procedural rigor within human inquiry. Did you forget, "In Christ exists all knowledge?"

Your quotes(although you fail to show their links) far from showing arrogance and presumption, illustrate the honesty, balance and openness of science.

I'll simply add a couple more:

The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.

Karl Popper 'the Logic of scientific discovery'

and:

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

Hippocrates

The successes of science, and especially the scientific method, are vast, and increasing every day, whether you accept that or not. Of course all knowledge can be used for good or ill, as with many things available to mankind, and scientific knowledge is no different.

You finish with a question 'Did you forget, "In Christ exists all knowledge?" which I find a rather odd question to ask of an agnostic atheist. My answer would be this. You may believe it, but I have no reason to think that the accounts of Christ have any real validity. It is quite possible that such a charismatic leader and teacher actually lived, and much of what he is supposed to have said is worthwhile but there is no evidence of his divinity or any of the supernatural acts described in the Gospels, and the idea of him possessing 'all knowledge' is therefore highly dubious. I don't 'forget', I simply disagree.