You Say You Want An Evolution!

[tabibito]

OK - The flood occurred 787 years before Abraham was born (going on the genealogical records of Genesis)
POST FLOOD.jpg

Even allowing 1000 years between Abraham and Moses, and allowing 500 years between Moses and David would set the flood at less than 4500 years ago.
Is it possible to seriously contend that the total population of the world, less than 4500 years ago, was eight persons? that the world was subjected to a global flood less than 4500 years ago?

[JimL]

Edited by moderator: JimL is not allowed to post here

[seer]

Then you live in a fantasy world where you believe whatever you want to believe regardless of objective facts.

Jim you are not allowed on this board. Take your poison elsewhere.

[KingsGambit]

OK - The flood occurred 787 years before Abraham was born (going on the genealogical records of Genesis)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36117[/ATTACH]

Even allowing 1000 years between Abraham and Moses, and allowing 500 years between Moses and David would set the flood at less than 4500 years ago.
Is it possible to seriously contend that the total population of the world, less than 4500 years ago, was eight persons? that the world was subjected to a global flood less than 4500 years ago?

No. Presumably the Babel account would be the best explanation for the worldwide diaspora, but Mungo Man in Australia dates back over 42K years, for instance.

[Rushing Jaws]

This is for my Christian brothers and sisters. Do you believe in evolution, that all species came about from a common ancestor? Is that belief consistent with Scripture?

[Rushing Jaws]

Where exactly does it say that?

This notion of fixity of species (or "kinds") is actually based on the ideas of the pagan Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, who taught that the world is eternal and that species are fixed and nothing new could arise. This philosophy was brought into Christianity thanks to some of the Church Fathers -- primarily via Augustine and later through Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard -- but is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

IOW, the concept of fixity of nature including the flora and fauna originates not from Scripture -- Genesis does not say that species were created with forms fixed for all time -- but comes instead from Greek philosophy and was incorporated into Christianity.

Why even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) has begun to recognize that the concept of fixity of species is based on Greek philosophy and that "not contradictory of evolutionary theory which agrees that the child is always the same species as the parent. By any test of speciation (reproduction or morphology), the parent and the immediate child are the same species. It is only after many generations that we will notice a substantial change in the Biblical "kind."


I should probably note that obviously Genesis 1 is merely a very abbreviated description of God's creation, and nobody should expect it to exhaustively chronicle the biological changes that take place over periods of time much longer than any human lifetime. Genesis 1 is a hymn of glory to God's mighty works and a polemic against the cultures and pagan practices -- not a technical manual or science textbook. And it is a grave mistake (as history has shown us) when we insist on treating it like it is.

[tabibito]

As a complete non-scientist, I believe that:

4. homo sapiens sapiens (IOW, us human beings) is about 200,000 years old, and shares a common ancestor with the apes.

That's last year's information. Fossil remains found dating back 300,000 years show "mitochondrial Eve" to be no more than an evolutionary bottleneck.

[Rushing Jaws]

That's last year's information. Fossil remains found dating back 300,000 years show "mitochondrial Eve" to be no more than an evolutionary bottleneck.

Whatever the age is said to be by those best qualified to comment, that is the one I accept. The sciences investigate the matter - the Bible does not. So I go by what the sciences are reckoned to say on the subject. If the sciences were to proceed - by strictly scientific criteria - to adopt a set of conclusions compatible with YECism, I would accept those. Because they were legitimate as science, not because they were compatible with YECism.

The point at issue is not the precise conclusion, but the legitimacy, for the sciences and for the understanding of the Bible and of Christ, of the methods adopted for reaching the conclusion.

As I pointed out, the sciences are not something I know much about. So one tries to rely on those who *are* skilled in such matters.

[tabibito]

Whatever the age is said to be by those best qualified to comment, that is the one I accept. The sciences investigate the matter - the Bible does not. So I go by what the sciences are reckoned to say on the subject. If the sciences were to proceed - by strictly scientific criteria - to adopt a set of conclusions compatible with YECism, I would accept those. Because they were legitimate as science, not because they were compatible with YECism.

The point at issue is not the precise conclusion, but the legitimacy, for the sciences and for the understanding of the Bible and of Christ, of the methods adopted for reaching the conclusion.

As I pointed out, the sciences are not something I know much about. So one tries to rely on those who *are* skilled in such matters.

Agreed. It isn't "good", but it's the best we've got.
Everything pointed to 200,000 years, Omo River region. Every pointer was verified by the findings in the Omo River region - and but for a chance discovery on the western side of Africa, that would have settled the matter in almost everyone's mind.

[rogue06]

Right, that is why I said there are gaps. I have seen it possibly stretched out to 15,000 years at the outside. But we could get nowhere near what would be required for the first parents in the evolutionary sense which would be about 250,000 ago years from what I gather.

We already see human settlements far into the Americas from that time with places like Cactus Hill in Virginia likely dating from that time and Monte Verde way down in Chile being dated from this time and possibly even a good bit earlier. And then there is the evidence provided from genomes being sequenced as well.

As Charles Hodge, who wrote in What is Darwinism? that "Darwinism is atheism"^[1] (p.156), observed in his Systematic Theology: "The scriptures do not teach us how long men have existed on earth. Their tables of genealogy were [not] intended to prove ... how many years had elapsed between creation and the advent." He is far from alone what with a number of Biblical scholars (Green, Orr, Warfield etc.) also say that it is a mistake to attempt to use Genesis genealogies to determine the time at which Adam and Eve (or the first homo Sapiens, for that matter) actually lived.

And again, this all raises the possibility that there were what we would regard as humans living for along, long time. Cro-Magnons, now referred to as Early Modern Humans (EMH) date back to at least 48,000 years ago. This again leads us to the point that there could be a profound difference between what science calls human and what the Bible refers to human. "Biblical man" could have arose from when he was given a "God-breathed" soul and a type of consciousness (and conscience) that had not previously existed in any "pre-Adamic" man.

Of course Biblical man could still mate with others, and the the eternal souls could be passed down through their progeny. That there were other humans around would explain the Mark of Cain (why would he need an identifying mark when if there were no other humans just being an outsider would have been more than sufficient) and the fact that he founded a city.





1.Less well known is that in that work he did in fact allow for evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a process of evolution." (p.95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God (i.e., theistic evolution).

[seer]

We already see human settlements far into the Americas from that time with places like Cactus Hill in Virginia likely dating from that time and Monte Verde way down in Chile being dated from this time and possibly even a good bit earlier. And then there is the evidence provided from genomes being sequenced as well.

As Charles Hodge, who wrote in What is Darwinism? that "Darwinism is atheism"^[1] (p.156), observed in his Systematic Theology: "The scriptures do not teach us how long men have existed on earth. Their tables of genealogy were [not] intended to prove ... how many years had elapsed between creation and the advent." He is far from alone what with a number of Biblical scholars (Green, Orr, Warfield etc.) also say that it is a mistake to attempt to use Genesis genealogies to determine the time at which Adam and Eve (or the first homo Sapiens, for that matter) actually lived.

And again, this all raises the possibility that there were what we would regard as humans living for along, long time. Cro-Magnons, now referred to as Early Modern Humans (EMH) date back to at least 48,000 years ago. This again leads us to the point that there could be a profound difference between what science calls human and what the Bible refers to human. "Biblical man" could have arose from when he was given a "God-breathed" soul and a type of consciousness (and conscience) that had not previously existed in any "pre-Adamic" man.

Of course Biblical man could still mate with others, and the the eternal souls could be passed down through their progeny. That there were other humans around would explain the Mark of Cain (why would he need an identifying mark when if there were no other humans just being an outsider would have been more than sufficient) and the fact that he founded a city.





1.Less well known is that in that work he did in fact allow for evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a process of evolution." (p.95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God (i.e., theistic evolution).

If that is the case rogue than how is it that all men would be the offspring of Adam? They wouldn't be. Then you would have the specter of some men having eternal souls (offspring of Adam) and others being soulless (not being the offspring of Adam).

[rogue06]

If that is the case rogue than how is it that all men would be the offspring of Adam? They wouldn't be. Then you would have the specter of some men having eternal souls (offspring of Adam) and others being soulless (not being the offspring of Adam).

I really wish folks would actually read what I wrote

Of course Biblical man could still mate with others, and the the eternal souls could be passed down through their progeny.

This of course means that all humans around today are their descendants.

[seer]

I really wish folks would actually read what I wrote

Of course Biblical man could still mate with others, and the the eternal souls could be passed down through their progeny.

This of course means that all humans around today are their descendants.

But why would you say that? How would you know that the descendants of the soulless have not survived to today? If these other humans at the time of Cain were not Adam's previous offspring, where are their descendants today? Why think they died off?

[rogue06]

But why would you say that? How would you know that the descendants of the soulless have not survived to today? If these other humans at the time of Cain were not Adam's previous offspring, where are their descendants today? Why think they died off?

I'm surprised that you don't already know the answer.

[seer]

I'm surprised that you don't already know the answer.

Then school me...