Adam and Eve vs. the Theory of Evolution

[CrowCross]

If it were possible for you to trace your genealogy back, (family tree) at some point the branches will become shorter and shorter and you will find Noah and his wife to be your ancestors, unless you also deny a global flood?

It is easy to trace your ancestry back from Noah to Adam.

If there was no flood I would imagine there would still be some of these souless people around today.

 

[CrowCross]

From what I know is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

From what I know there is MASSIVE evidence of a global flood.

 

[Manfred]

I am among the majority of Christians who do not for the very simple fact that it defies logic

Nonsense statement.

The majority of people who call themselves Christians deny the word of God?
Scripture is revealed by God. Moses received divine revelation. You have to discount Abraham et al under this false statement.

 

[CrowCross]

You are interpreting the OT as literal. I am among the majority of Christians who do not for the very simple fact that it defies logic to do so. On the other hand, I have no objections to others believing that the OT is to be taken literally.

Yikes....I now have to correct my bible.

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39 And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man......DID JESUS SPEAK OF AN EVENT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN?

According to you what Peter spoke of never happened...because it defies your logic.
.....because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

....all of this defies your logic. Soooooooooooooo, it didn't happen. Let me ask you this, does the account of a dead man rising from the grave on day 3 also defy your logic? How about the same guy creating Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib prior to His incarnation?

Oh, but you claim to be part of the majority of christians who believe that way....so it must be true.

 

[Carbon]

Nope, cannot mean more than one:
Then God said, Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Genesis 1:26, 2:7).

Would have been "their" nostrils

How long after Adam did the rest evolve and did God breathe life into all their nostrils?

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Carbon]

So do you think all these people evolved outside of the garden?

Never said anything abut evolving. Try again?

 

[Carbon]

If it were possible for you to trace your genealogy back, (family tree) at some point the branches will become shorter and shorter and you will find Noah and his wife to be your ancestors, unless you also deny a global flood?

It is easy to trace your ancestry back from Noah to Adam.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Frank Robert]

From what I know there is MASSIVE evidence of a global flood.

The is evidence for a flood for a flood but not a global flood.

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

I read some of the apologetics at AIG and some of the other creationists sites, unfortunately, apologetics is not scientific evidence.

 

[CrowCross]

The is evidence for a flood for a flood but not a global flood.

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

I read some of the apologetics at AIG and some of the other creationists sites, unfortunately, apologetics is not scientific evidence.

Face-palm....come on you can do better than that. If the flood was that small....WHY BUILD AND ARK? You really need to think about that answer.

The bible said the flood was world wide. That means it covered the face of the earth.

Perhaps you would like to actually read what the bible has to say....and this doesn't sound like the Black Sea flooding:

17The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubitsd deep. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nonsense statement.

The majority of people who call themselves Christians deny the word of God?
Scripture is revealed by God. Moses received divine revelation. You have to discount Abraham et al under this false statement.

I understand why you believe that, it's likely I would also if it were a faith or morals issue, but it is not considered a faith issue for the majority of Christians.

Face-palm....come on you can do better than that. If the flood was that small....WHY BUILD AND ARK? You really need to think about that answer.

You believe there was an ark and a global flood, many Christians don't because there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

The bible said the flood was world wide. That means it covered the face of the earth.

You believe in a literal reading of the bible, most Christians do not.

Perhaps you would like to actually read what the bible has to say....and this doesn't sound like the Black Sea flooding:

Yet, that is the only actual evidence for a such a flood.

17The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubitsd deep. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

There are four major ways that Christians interpret the OT: moral, allegorical, literal and anagogical and literal. Perhaps there is a bit of each in the OT. I believe that the best approach of most denominations which don't consider it a matter of faith or morals.

 

[EarlyActs]

Scientific evidence for a global flood is everywhere. All the continents have major indications of plate collisions which would necessarily make for massive slurry transfers and doming and buckling. We must think on such a large scale that it sounds ridiculous:
that all surface and subsurface systems were disturbed: the atmosphere, the land, the mantle, the crust, magnetosphere, and subterranean waters
that 4 corners NM is simply what's left after a 'bulldozer' of rapidly moving sediment came through.
that Monterey canyon has material transported from much of the US
that the Centralia theory of Australia is sediment from other continents that bent Ayers rock into a J shape upon collision; the little tip of the J is all that shows above the surface
that SE Alaska down through the Coast and some of Rockies is one collision upon another
that astrogeologically, we were probably hit like Velikovsky said, and thus there are crater impacts on everything only missing Pluto, that the ice of Pluto and Saturn can not last more than a few thousand years, that a collision probably slowed the rate of earth's spin, which is why some longevity counts in narratives around the world are so high
that Enlightenment science suppressed Pellegrini and Bretz as long as they could, a really dishonest crime, to make gradualism get the upper hand as a narrative by mass-repetition
that there are about 500 narratives around the world with unusually overwhelming flood segments to them, the world turned upside down, the collision of ice over a mile thick with lava.
that the state museum of AK casually reports that 'mile thick ice suddenly encased mega-flora and fauna.' That's quite a hydrological statement!

(I could go on for hours).

"No one has really refuted Whitcomb and Morris"--U Washington's Montgomery on the history of the geology as preserved by the church

 

[EarlyActs]

The is evidence for a flood for a flood but not a global flood.

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

I read some of the apologetics at AIG and some of the other creationists sites, unfortunately, apologetics is not scientific evidence.

This last is a very odd statement. All of those articles are both facts presented and conclusions or observations rendered. It doesn't matter whether it is "apologetics."

For ex., there is only one way to have opisthotonics take place. That is the feature of many dinosaur bone piles where things are smashed, crushed, piled, bent over impossible on each other: major slurry movement and force! This is a fact beyond any individual instance. It is worldwide.

To refuse this is to impose a view on things; the refusal has nothing to do with evidence. It is just as possible for gradualists to do "apologetics" for gradualism--provided they actually have facts. But that would ruin the word, because the writers are defending the whole narrative laid out in Genesis, not just one bit piece. Gradualism that pushed its tenants instead of agreed-to facts like opisthotonics would be propaganda, not apologetics.

 

[CrowCross]

I understand why you believe that, it's likely I would also if it were a faith or morals issue, but it is not considered a faith issue for the majority of Christians.

You believe there was an ark and a global flood, many Christians don't because there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

Considering you don't believe and trust the Bible.....I'm not God, but I'm now doubting if you are actually saved.

You believe in a literal reading of the bible, most Christians do not.

Yet, that is the only actual evidence for a such a flood.

There are four major ways that Christians interpret the OT: moral, allegorical, literal and anagogical and literal. Perhaps there is a bit of each in the OT. I believe that the best approach of most denominations which don't consider it a matter of faith or morals.

 

[Manfred]

NT

 

[Manfred]

Never said anything abut evolving. Try again?

My apologies.

Assumptions were made by me in error.

 

[Manfred]

Thanks for your opinion.

You think it an opinion only?

When tracing genealogy back, there is a point where the amount of ancestors become less, and not greater.
There are more people on earth today than any other period. It is logically sound that the earth was not full of people.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I am keen to learn.

 

[Manfred]

You believe there was an ark and a global flood, many Christians don't because there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

Do you think Jesus and Peter were ignorant?

Mat 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

You think the majority of "Christians" believe Jesus was in error and that the flood did not occur?

Heb_11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
1Pe_3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
2Pe_2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

 

[Wordsmith]

You believe there was an ark and a global flood, many Christians don't because there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

Where is the scientific evidence for the existence of God? Heaven? Jesus?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Frank Robert]

"No one has really refuted Whitcomb and Morris"--U Washington's Montgomery on the history of the geology as preserved by the church

Evidence for a Flood

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

The Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther

An old-earth creationist explains how he changed is mind, surveying the shifts in young earth arguments over the last 50 years.​

​

The Current State of Young-Earth Models​

​

Whitcomb and Morris inspired a generation of young-earth creationists, and I counted myself in their number. As a pastor during the 1980’s, I invited a number of young-earth advocates to my church—Clifford Wilson, Carl Baugh, and Kent Hovind, to name a few. My church also served as an extension center for Clifford Wilson’s creation studies institute headquartered in Australia. During this time two things became apparent to me: some within the young-earth camp lacked integrity and the model presented by Whitcomb and Morris had serious problems.​

​

These issues were noted by others within the young-earth community. To their credit, organizations such as Answers in Genesis have attempted to address honestly the integrity issue. And some YEC scientists have attempted to provide an updated young-earth model. One such scientist is Australian geologist Andrew Snelling. Snelling wrote the 1100 page, two-volume Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, and the Flood for the express purpose of updating the flood model presented in The Genesis Flood. But in many ways Snelling’s work is a total revamp. Snelling, along with other YEC researchers such as paleontologist Kurt Wise and astrophysicist Russell Humphreys, recognize that the case argued by Whitcomb and Morris needed significant retooling.​

​

​

GSA Today - The evolution of creationism

Creationism Today

...Of course, there were significant holes in conventional geological theories when Whitcomb and Morris laid out their biblically inspired views on earth history. Plate tectonics did not yet provide an explanation for the origin and distribution of mountains and other geological problems, such as the presence of fossils of temperate and tropical creatures entombed in rocks at high latitudes. But when the plate tectonics revolution swept through the earth sciences and explained previously perplexing observations, creationists ignored what they considered yet another misguided geological theory.​

​

Emphasis added.​

 

[Frank Robert]

Considering you don't believe and trust the Bible.....I'm not God, but I'm now doubting if you are actually saved.

Then you also doubt that the 51% of Christians that are Catholics and at least half of the 37% that are Protestants are not saved either.

How Should we Interpret the Genesis Flood Account? - Common Question - BioLogos

The Flood story proclaims God’s grace and love for his people, but how should we interpret the genesis floods?

biologos.org

The Flood story proclaims God’s grace and love for his people.

Interpreting the flood story​

​

The Genesis Flood story contains many literary clues that its writers (and original audience) were not intended to narrate an actual series of events. The story employs the literary device known as “hyperbole” throughout, describing a massive ark which holds representatives of “every living creature on Earth”, and a flood which flows over the tops of the highest mountains in the world. These are not meant to challenge readers to figure out the practicality of such descriptions, but rather they are important clues that we are dealing with a theological story rather than ancient journalism.​

​

There are other clues that the writers are not intending to relate a literal series of events. One is the command given to Noah to treat “clean” animals differently than “unclean” animals, even though those categories were not given to the Hebrew people until the time of Moses, much later in the biblical story. Another clue about how to interpret the Flood story comes from its place in the book of Genesis and specifically in the “primeval narratives” of Genesis 1-11.​

​

Biblical scholars almost universally see these chapters as having a different purpose than the rest of the book of Genesis. The primeval narratives cover a huge swath of cosmic history and are highly figurative in their language. They serve as the grand and poetic “introduction” to the story of God’s people which commences with the call of Abraham in Genesis 12. While they speak of real events (such as the creation of the universe and the special calling of humankind), they do so in rhetorical and theological ways that have more to do with the purposes of the story than a plain narration of facts. This is completely typical of how ancient people (including the Israelites) wrote historical accounts, especially concerning “primeval” events near the beginning of history.​