Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: Land bridges to Australia?
Sure but AT LEAST 40K years ago from India / Indonesia.

Paul's right. No land bridges made it all the way to Australia. Some boat travel over the ocean was required.

What about land bridges though? If there were land bridges then it explains how they got to Australia. The depths of the oceans may not always have been as deep as they are now. There are others here who are more knowledgeable than me regarding the migration of humans to Australia. I'll use approxi...

And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human? How exactly can we be certain they are NOT descendants of A&E? After all, science purports that not only homo sapiens but all living t...

Some thoughts... as I've been working my way through the implications of my conclusion that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. There's another explanation. TE does not necessarily entail Adam and Eve are the first of Chirst's lineage. The more generic understanding is that they were the first t...

I always have to read between the lines Paul concerning the links you posted and I don't agree they are transitional fossils but still I'm glad you posted it.These are the pre-Adamites that lived in the former world until it perished and God made this world. :esurprised: The term pre-Adamites usual...

I assume that human physical death existed before the Fall, because of what Scripture says in Genesis 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 above. I assume that humanity and human physical death existed beyond just Adam and Eve because history and anthropology clearly show that humans existed and had populated th...

Rick, Thanks for the dialogue. This is exactly the kind of interaction that I was looking for to help me work through the implications of my OP. :) DBowling wrote: There are a number of reasons that I believe that the death Paul refers to in Romans 5:12 is spiritual death. 1. Scripture indicates tha...

Let me expand a little on my answer to Rick, because my response doesn't do a good job differentiating between physical death and spiritual death. And I do think that distinction is key to understanding what Paul is discussing in Romans 5. DBowling, If Adam wasn't the first human as you say, and oth...

DBowling, If Adam wasn't the first human as you say, and other humans lived in other parts of the globe, before Adam, how do you explain sin being the cause of mankind's death? I would refer to exactly the same passage you do, Romans 5:12. Again we need to differentiate between what Paul says and w...

DBowling wrote: The Biblical record indicates that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere around 6,000 BC, which is over 10,000 years after mankind had populated the planet. That's not true. An interpretation of scripture, arrived at by a literal and concrete interpretation of genealogies, sho...

I don't think anybody is asserting that there were other men and populations outside the flood zone. Oh... Phillip's right on that one... that's exactly what I'm asserting. :) Here's what I'm asserting/exploring in this thread: Anthropology and history tell us that mankind had populated the planet ...

One problem I see with trying to assert there were other men and populations outside of the flood zone, is that they aren't commented on as such. The Bible may not explicitly comment on humanity outside the 'flood zone' but we do know they existed. The Biblical timeline places Noah's Flood at aroun...

Where does the text say that the covenant with Noah was a covenant with all mankind? The Biblical text explicitly says that the covenant is with Noah and his descendants. Nothing more, nothing less. All mankind are descendants of Noah. Chapter 10 records the genealogies of his descendants and ends ...

I am following this and I have a question. Sorry if it's off topic or perhaps a silly question :) I understand that Mesopotamia was located in between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers but why would every animal need to on the ark? Was it mainly his livestock, like cattle, sheep, goats ect, unclean a...

I am following this and I have a question. Sorry if it's off topic or perhaps a silly question :) I understand that Mesopotamia was located in between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers but why would every animal need to on the ark? Was it mainly his livestock, like cattle, sheep, goats ect, unclean a...