Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[4WD]

Besides, can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that?

God's purpose in doing what?

Regarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night

Yeah, that is what it says: Ecc 1:5  The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises.  So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises.   I don't know how you could read it any other way.  But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.

[4WD]

I agree, let's introduce the writers perspective to this discussion.

That would most certainly be the rabbit that runs into the woods and wanders around there forever. 

[Michael2012]

God's purpose in doing what?

I was coming from what Johnb said, remember? That "If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture."

So, as scientists wanted us to believe, that God made man from an initial creation (which is another question to ask what is that), say a one cell creature. That God have it evolve for millions of years to become man. If you agree that God in everything He does, is with purpose, I ask the question "can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that?" 

Quote from: Michael
Regarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night nor does it say the opposite. What it says is from the writer's experience of things and perspective. And we can all relate to that, don't we? From where we are, our perspective and experience of the sun is the same as Eccl. 1:5 tells us.

Yeah, that is what it says: Ecc 1:5  The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises.  So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises.   I don't know how you could read it any other way.  But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.

That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down. 

[4WD]

That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.

So prove from Scripture that is precisely what happens; that is that the writer of Ecclesiastes explained it as it actually happens.  Prove from Scripture that it is the rotation of the earth that produces just the appearance of the sun moving across the sky.

You might get together with AVZ on this.  Perhaps he could help you nail down the truth from Scripture.  Although I rather doubt that he will be of much help on this one.  He probably thinks the sun does actually revolve around the earth.  He certainly wouldn't believe that such a description could be anything other than a literal presentation of the actual process.

[Johnb]

Alan
Barbarian claims that scripture does not give an accurate description of how God  created both the universe and man.  We did not evolve from something that was an animal or less than man.  God created man in His image He did not create some lower form of life and wait for millions of years for it to become man.  Yes I believe to take that position is denying both scripture and God.  He is all powerful and has no need to wait for evolution to work to finally make His creation.  That is my view and do not care if one agrees or if it offends.  God created live and gave it the ability to adapt within limits that He set.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 12:25:54
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.

So prove from Scripture that is precisely what happens; that is that the writer of Ecclesiastes explained it as it actually happens.  Prove from Scripture that it is the rotation of the earth that produces just the appearance of the sun moving across the sky.

You might get together with AVZ on this.  Perhaps he could help you nail down the truth from Scripture.  Although I rather doubt that he will be of much help on this one.  He probably thinks the sun does actually revolve around the earth.  He certainly wouldn't believe that such a description could be anything other than a literal presentation of the actual process.

I have nothing to prove sir. As I said what the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote is not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that, to be the truth, as you know it now. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Now, if that is not the case for you, or that you see the opposite of that, I could understand that it will be a problem in your case.   

[The Barbarian]

So I guess when Jesus spoke in the future and said at the last supper take and drink this is my blood which is poured out and take eat this bread id my body which is broken for you then the crucifixion is not literal because He had not been put on a cross or had any injuries yet?

I really don't know what led you to that conclusion.

Your explanation of God speaking of what He was putting into place makes little sense.

It's consistent with His word in Genesis.   Which is enough for me.

You believe in a God that tells us lies

So you think when Jesus told parables, those were lies?   No, that doesn't make sense.

That is not the God I believe in or the God of the bible.

No, it isn't.   And no one here believes that.  So let's not  be doing this kind of thing.

God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed.  If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.

I understand you believe that.  But it's not something scripture says.     As I said, it's not a salvation issue. and we should not try to make it so.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian claims that scripture does not give an accurate description of how God  created both the universe and man.

I just pointed out that it is an accurate description.   It's not an accurate description of YE creationism, but that's another thing, entirely.

We did not evolve from something that was an animal or less than man.

We are animals, of course.   And the evidence shows we evolved from other primates.   

God created man in His image

Since God is a spirit, the "image" is not in a body; God dosen't have elbows or ears.   It is, as God says, in our souls and minds.

He did not create some lower form of life and wait for millions of years for it to become man.

God is eternal.  There is no "wait" for Him.   

Yes I believe to take that position is denying both scripture and God.

It is denying some men's personal interpretation of scripture, which is an entirely different thing.

He is all powerful and has no need to wait for evolution to work to finally make His creation.

I think it's mistake to argue that if God can do something, then he has done it.

That is my view and do not care if one agrees or if it offends.

Well, of course I don't agree, but I'm not offended.   You aren't going to hell for being a creationist, nor will you sin, unless you try to separate people from God for having a different opinion than you on this matter.   You're still a Christian, as much as anyone else is, YE or not.

God created live and gave it the ability to adapt within limits that He set.

That's what Darwin said.   The major difference you have with it, is how wide those limits are.   

[The Barbarian]

It was not mentioned by Barbarian that the view that man evolved from a "retarded monkey-fish-frog" was not held by Spurgeon.

If so, he was in agreement with Darwin on that, too.

[Michael2012]

Quote
In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.

The only difference is, you don't approve of the way he did it.

I think no Christian disapproves that, for it is scriptures.

We differ in that, you take that to be by science's theory of the evolution of man. A product of man's wisdom. On the other hand, I take it simply as it was told by God in scriptures. There is where we differ.

By the way, how do you take scriptures that says Eve was created by God by taking from Adam's rib and out of it made Eve? That would imply that Eve was created only after the evolution of Adam, does it not? When do you think was that, when man begun to have a mate, the female. And does that not mean that Eve did not evolve, or did she?

What is your theory on that, if you have one? I'm excited to hear it.

[Michael2012]

Barbarian,

I have some questions for you for which I wish to know your answers.

1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?

2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?

3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?

Here's a couple of questions (silly as they may get) related to the ages of different things:

4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?

5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?

[AVZ]

Barbarian,

I have some questions for you for which I wish to know your answers.

1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?

2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?

3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?

Here's a couple of questions (silly as they may get) related to the ages of different things:

4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?

5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?

Michael,

Barbarian believes that man evolved from apes.
Once the ape was evolved sufficiently, God gave it a soul and it became a human being.

[AVZ]

As I said, it's not a salvation issue. and we should not try to make it so.

Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
I know homosexuals who claim God's statement about homosexuality is to be taken allegorical and its not a matter of salvation.

[Johnb]

Barbarian one last thing then I will go the thread has gone on way to long.  Believing in the scriptural account of creation does not mean I am a proponent of the young earth theory. 

The reason I used the example of Jesus speaking of His blood being poured out and body broken in the present tense even though it had not happen is no different than God speaking of day and night before they existed.


Yes not everything is scripture is literal.  However, trying to compare parables to the creation is apples and oranges.  Jesus clearly labels them and explains them to His apostles.  bye 

[Texas Conservative]

If so, he was in agreement with Darwin on that, too.

No.  Spurgeon believed man was created directly by God.  Not evolved from a primate.

You are very good and parsing words and meanings to back up your false beliefs.

Here are some quotes from Spurgeon regarding evolution and man evolving rather than being created:

"If God's word be true, evolution is a lie."

"The age is getting worse and worse, and man, by a process of evolution, is evolving a devil."

"Within fifty years children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them."

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon 'Hideous Discovery', preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

'In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God's Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.'

[Alan]

Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal.  Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts. 

[Texas Conservative]

Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal.  Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts.

It isn't a fact that we evolved from monkeys.  I brought him up because Barbarian used him as a reference, and I was pointing out what Barbarian intentionally did not.  While Spurgeon did not believe in YEC, he also did not believe that humans "evolved" from other creatures.

Also, today the philosophy that Jesus Christ is God and came down to earth as a human to die and resurrect from the grave in order to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind for all those who believe would "be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge."  Therefore, your assertion doesn't hold much water.

[Alan]

It isn't a fact that we evolved from monkeys.  I brought him up because Barbarian used him as a reference, and I was pointing out what Barbarian intentionally did not.  While Spurgeon did not believe in YEC, he also did not believe that humans "evolved" from other creatures.

Also, today the philosophy that Jesus Christ is God and came down to earth as a human to die and resurrect from the grave in order to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind for all those who believe would "be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge."  Therefore, your assertion doesn't hold much water.

The reason I say that Spurgeon's thoughts would be considered antiquated by today's measure is simply because he believed that all of these various creatures in their relative era's existed over the course of millions of years, his theology doesn't point to where scripture supports species becoming extinct and replaced with new species, in an non-evolutionary fashion that is.


I say Spurgeon was just a man, I do not claim the same for Jesus Christ.

[AVZ]

The reason I say that Spurgeon's thoughts would be considered antiquated by today's measure is simply because he believed that all of these various creatures in their relative era's existed over the course of millions of years, his theology doesn't point to where scripture supports species becoming extinct and replaced with new species, in an non-evolutionary fashion that is.

I say Spurgeon was just a man, I do not claim the same for Jesus Christ.

Spurgeon would be considered a great theologian, whose work and writings have always been and still are directed to Gods glory.

Darwin on the other hand, whose works and writings are in fact considered antiquated by today's measure, has done exactly the opposite and established the framework on which many have abandoned faith and put Gods Word out with the trash.

I say Spurgeon was just a man in service of Gods Kingdom, and I say Darwin was just a man in service of the adversary.

[The Barbarian]

1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?

If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.

2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?

Of course.

3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?

As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo.   Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.

4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?

Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it.   Why do you ask?

5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?

Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself.    A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.

[The Barbarian]

Spurgeon would be considered a great theologian, whose work and writings have always been and still are directed to Gods glory.

Even though he agreed with Darwin that a creator made the Earth many millions of years ago?

Darwin on the other hand, whose works and writings are in fact considered antiquated by today's measure

Which of the five basic points of Darwnian theory have been "antiquated?"    As you should know, they are all still validated by observation.

has done exactly the opposite and established the framework on which many have abandoned faith and put Gods Word out with the trash.

You have that backwards.    I have seen many young people, raised in the modern belief of YE creationism, lose their faith as a result of it.  Here's the testimony of Glenn Morton, a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research's graduate school:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

As you know, Darwin asserted that God created life on Earth.

I say Spurgeon was just a man in service of Gods Kingdom, and I say Darwin was just a man in service of the adversary.

I never thought of God as an adversary.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian one last thing then I will go the thread has gone on way to long.  Believing in the scriptural account of creation does not mean I am a proponent of the young earth theory.

Indeed, believing Genesis as it is, would require you to not be a proponent of YE creationism.    However, you are right if you are saying that there are some forms of OE creationism that are not inconsistent with Genesis.

[Alan]

Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
I know homosexuals who claim God's statement about homosexuality is to be taken allegorical and its not a matter of salvation.

Pretty simple discussion when you're dealing with "sin" or "interpretation".  Do I risk sinning due to my belief?

[The Barbarian]

Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.

That's demonstrably untrue.  YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation.

However, Jesus clearly tells us in Matthew, what is necessary for salvation, and one's opinion of they way He did creation is not part of it.   To insist that it is, is adding one's own desires to scripture.

[Jean74]

Just like God the Bible never makes mistakes or is just a book. It is the Daily Word and Scripture of God the Author. It applies back in the past, here in the present, and for future generations.

[AVZ]

Do I risk sinning due to my belief?

You could be if you believe the wrong thing.
False beliefs and false interpretation most definitely can lead to sin.

[AVZ]

YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation.

As a matter of preference, I prefer people who say their message is a matter of salvation over people who say their opinion doesn't matter.
If you debate with such a YE Creationist, you would know where you stand and where they stand.

People who claim "You can safely believe my theories and you can safely drop what scripture says, because its not a matter of salvation" are of the dangerous kind.
Satan will always say his views are not a matter of salvation.

[The Barbarian]

Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.

Barbarian notes the obvious counterexample:
Many YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation.   Many, not all.  Perhaps not even a majority.   I know many YE creationists who openly acknowledge that one's salvation does not depend on one's view of evolution.

As a matter of preference, I prefer people who say their message is a matter of salvation over people who say their opinion doesn't matter.

God doesn't want men adding new requirements.  Best to leave that to God. 

If you debate with such a YE Creationist, you would know where you stand and where they stand.

Actually, there's far more variation in belief among YE creationists than there is among traditional Bible-believing Christians.

People who claim "You can safely believe my theories and you can safely drop what scripture says, because its not a matter of salvation"

Don't exist, except as stories YE creationists make up.   As you know, traditional Bible believing Christians recognize that scripture is consistent with evolution, but that Jesus never made an opinion on the subject a requirement to be saved.   People of either side who say it is, are doing Christianity grave damage.

Satan will always say his views are not a matter of salvation.

You shouldn't care about what Satan tells you.

[Alan]

You could be if you believe the wrong thing.
False beliefs and false interpretation most definitely can lead to sin.

With that you've encompassed every person that reads and adheres to biblical doctrine. Obviously some things are pretty cut and dry but others are certainly debatable and are addressed in Romans 14. 

[Michael2012]

1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?

If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.

Are you not a Christian? But you say you are and so you believe that God created out of nothing.

2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?

Of course.

So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse? And so, is that creation by evolution or what?   

3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?

As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo.   Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.

You speak of life here as something produced. I could sense that we don't share the same understanding of 'life'.

You speak of the soul. Are you speaking about it scientifically or what?

As a scientists, I'm sure you are some expert in dating things. When would you say was  the first human being came into being, having been created as having sufficiently evolved into a human, perhaps Adam? And in relation to that, would you not be saying that it was the same time that God created the first human soul? 

4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?

Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it.   Why do you ask?

Just wondering what your answer is. For it seems to me that scientists seems to put each thing that exist to have different age determined by scientific calculations invented by scientists. As for a man, they take the age to be reckoned from his time of birth. I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be.

Scientists, who don't believe in the creation of something from out of nothing, are the obvious ones who can't and won't believe that earth nor man was created other than by evolution. To them, they theorize that everything came to be, not from nothing, but from something, whatever that may be to them. Even while they don't know what that original something is, they hold on to that. They have faith in themselves that they will, by science, will come to discover what that is within some predicted near future.

But, in all of this, what I can say is that, the most intelligent of man knows and can know, if at all, only so little of any truth, even a shadow of the truth, about the what, why and how's of the creation of the infinitely wise and intelligent God.

5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?

Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself.    A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.

You speak of 'accretion'. Accretion of what to what? When was the initial accretion that you are referring to? And you say "after the initial accretion". When did the accretion you are saying ended?

Granting, for the sake of argument, that the earth was formed by evolution, when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"? And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?

[4WD]

So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse? And so, is that creation by evolution or what?

Procreation is not creation ex nihilo, i.e., from nothing.

[Michael2012]

Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal.  Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts.

With that, I suppose you find man, particularly the scientists, as true, righteous, and trustworthy, in that regard. Such faith, I could see you have in them.

But I want to take you back to Genesis.

Gen. 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate..

Be careful on what is being presented to you, especially those that pleases you through your eyes, of things that gives rise to desiring them as that will make you wise. For that is welcoming deception. We ought to learn from scriptures and be wise, that we may not be deceived and sin, as was in the beginning with Eve. 

[Michael2012]

Procreation is not creation ex nihilo, i.e., from nothing.

Perhaps you can say that, if you are referring to the flesh. But your flesh is not the man you are.

What do you believe about Jesus? Was Jesus created or not?   

[The Barbarian]

1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?

Barbarian explains: 
If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.   Are you not a Christian? But you say you are and so you believe that God created out of nothing.

Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?

Barbarian observes:
Of course.

So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse?

Not merely by natural means.   God only produces the bodies of living things using nature.    Our souls did not evolve, but are given immediately by God, and exist before our bodies do.   Consult scripture for the details.   Hint:

Jerermiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you

And so, is that creation by evolution or what?

As you now see, only your body.   You have a body.   You are an immortal soul. 

Barbarian explains further:
As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo.   Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.

You speak of life here as something produced.

According to God, yes.   Brought forth by the earth, waters, and air.

I could sense that we don't share the same understanding of 'life'.

Perhaps not.  Try reading Genesis.

You speak of the soul. Are you speaking about it scientifically or what?

One can't speak scientifically of the supernatural.   Science only applies to the physical universe. 

As a scientists, I'm sure you are some expert in dating things. When would you say was  the first human being came into being, having been created as having sufficiently evolved into a human, perhaps Adam? And in relation to that, would you not be saying that it was the same time that God created the first human soul?

According to Him, souls pre-exist our bodies.   See Jerimiah 1:5. 

Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?

Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it.   Why do you ask?

Just wondering what your answer is. For it seems to me that scientists seems to put each thing that exist to have different age determined by scientific calculations invented by scientists. As for a man, they take the age to be reckoned from his time of birth. I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be.

All cells in your body are from a single cell.   Thought you knew.   

Scientists, who don't believe in the creation of something from out of nothing,

What makes you think that?   How odd.

are the obvious ones who can't and won't believe that earth nor man was created other than by evolution. To them, they theorize that everything came to be, not from nothing, but from something, whatever that may be to them.

Well, the ones who are Christians, Jews, or Muslims think it came from God.   Probably a lot of the others do too.   You seem to not know any scientists.

Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?

Barbarian observes:     
Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself.    A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.

Accretion of what to what?

Dust and gases from a collapsing cloud.   Would you like to learn how we know that?

When was the initial accretion that you are referring to?

After a nearby supergiant went supernova.  Would you like to learn how we know that?

And you say "after the initial accretion". When did the accretion you are saying ended?

Sometime after the moon formed, it seems.   Because there is very little erosion on the moon, the scars of that accretion remain there.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that the earth was formed by evolution

It wasn't.  What an odd misconception!

when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"?

You're a bit confused.  Populations of living things evolve.   Perhaps you'd be less confused if you used Darwn's term: "descent with modification."  Let's do that so you don't get mixed up in the discussion.

And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?

Why is that a concern?   Science isn't about the supernatural.   Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens?    Why would that matter?

Science can't support your faith for you.   If faith isn't enough, you're pretty much out of luck.

[4WD]

Perhaps you can say that, if you are referring to the flesh. But your flesh is not the man you are.

What do you believe about Jesus? Was Jesus created or not?

The flesh is the only part of man that came by way of sexual intercourse.  The spirit was formed in man by God Himself having nothing at all to do with procreation.

And no, Jesus was not created in any sense, flesh or spirit.