Theory of Evolution exposed

[Byblos]

Philip, Even as an OECer who believes in a literal reading of Genesis, I'm not sure a literal fruit is necessary.

Rick, I might agree with that.

But the Genesis account states that Adam was the first of his kind (confirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:45), and of the only kind made in God's image. There is no indication whatsoever that Adam was the end result of parents of any kind, hominid or otherwise. And he was formed BEFORE receiving the breath of life from God, as he had nostrils that received God's breath. And as Eve was formed from Adam - so Theistic Evolutionists, SPIN THAT. How do you work evolutionary processes into THAT. You can't - UNLESS you deny the plain meaning of the wording in Genesis.

What is that image (God's) that man is made of? Is it a physical one? If not, why are you trying to interject that physical image has anything to do with it?

[Philip]

What is that image (God's) that man is made of? Is it a physical one? If not, why are you trying to interject that physical image has anything to do with it?

The physical is only part of it (meaning Adam and Eve's physical creation was unique and separate from animals) - and as they were imbued with certain attributes that God has and all animals do not. They were created to be eternal beings. And Scripture states Adam was made uniquely and separately from ALL of the animals. It reveals that Adam and Eve had no father but God. And Eve not only had no earthly father or mother, but she came FROM a portion of ADAM (his rib), used by God in her creation.

The text makes sure to point out a completion of all of the animals before God miraculously and instantly creates a new creature (man). So, one either believes what the text says or not. If, as a Christian, you reject this understanding, I'd say it's only because of one's belief in evolution. But my what a slippery slope you step onto whenever you dismiss the plain language meanings of their creation. Now, that is certainly not the case with everything in Scripture. But one must necessarily read into the text something quite different from what it expressly says, if one wants to believe that Adam sprang from a hominid line.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Note that the text doesn't say, "Let's now take an animal or hominid and WE will change him into a man, transform it into Our image." And the use of the word "Then" implies what came next in a sequence (you Hebrew scholars may weigh in on this). The use of "then" is inserted after the creation of the animals and before the creation of Adam. And it is also used a second time when it picks up the creation of man again, in Genesis 2:

"then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

I think it is interesting that the text indicates that Adam's body was created - as his nostrils existed BEFORE he received the "breath of life." This would seem to indicate that Adam's body existed BEFORE he was ever a living being - and to me, this rules out that he was previously some type of hominid/result of evolution that God embellished with soulish attributes (in His image). And the use of the word "became" would also seem to indicate that Adam had not previously been a living creature, but BECAME one.

"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

Here we apparently have man's first anesthesia and operation. Did this happen or not? Was Eve created from Adam's Rib or not? And if Eve was not taken out of Adam's body, why does Scripture reveal in the first known human declaration:

Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Note that "she was taken out of MAN," not out of a woman. And her bones are of "my bones" (of Adam's bones).

So, if this is all some wild fairy tale, or is it true? Why some crazy allegorical story about something so crucial as man's origins?

[PaulSacramento]

I have a question for creationalists:
If God created man as is ( Adam), is man the same NOW as He was (physically speaking) back then?
I mean, did God create Adam with all that we have physically right now?

[Philip]

If God created man as is ( Adam), is man the same NOW as He was (physically speaking) back then?

Paul, I would say the answer is no, as The Fall caused extensive corruption of the entire creation. And people often think of Adam and Eve as being these naive simpletons. I can't be sure, but I imagine it is quite possible that they were exceptionally intelligent - perhaps (and hopefully) significantly more so than we are. Almost certainly they were physically superior - just the tremendously long ages in Genesis suggest that.

[PaulSacramento]

If God created man as is ( Adam), is man the same NOW as He was (physically speaking) back then?

Paul, I would say the answer is no, as The Fall caused extensive corruption of the entire creation. And people often think of Adam and Eve as being these naive simpletons. I can't be sure, but I imagine it is quite possible that they were exceptionally intelligent - perhaps (and hopefully) significantly more so than we are. Almost certainly they were physically superior - just the tremendously long ages in Genesis suggest that.

But all humans are descendent ONLY of Adam and Eve, yes?

[Philip]

But all humans are descendent ONLY of Adam and Eve, yes?

I'm not sure what you're asking. But everyone in the world has a line of ancestors that can be traced back to A&E.

[PaulSacramento]

But all humans are descendent ONLY of Adam and Eve, yes?

I'm not sure what you're asking. But everyone in the world has a line of ancestors that can be traced back to A&E.

Yes, but ONLY Adam and Eve?
I mean, were there other Humans besides Adam and Eve?
The bible mentions them as the first but not the ONLY right?
Did their kids marry each other and propagate ALL the lands before the great Flood?
And then this was repeated after the great flood via Noahs' family?

[Philip]

If any humans were created and thus born independent of Adam and Eve, Scripture does not say so. Meaning, such musings are is pure speculation.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to ALL men ..."

So if all men did not come from Adam and Eve, then how did death spread to all? Was there a forbidden smoothie bar, and others "fell" for it's reputation for excellent servings? The entire issue of inherited sin nature has to do with our fleshly relationship to Adam and Eve.

[PaulSacramento]

If any humans were created and thus born independent of Adam and Eve, Scripture does not say so. Meaning, such musings are is pure speculation.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to ALL men ..."

So if all men did not come from Adam and Eve, then how did death spread to all? Was there a forbidden smoothie bar, and others "fell" for it's reputation for excellent servings? The entire issue of inherited sin nature has to do with our fleshly relationship to Adam and Eve.

LMAO @ forbidden smoothie bar !

[PaulSacramento]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to ALL men ..."

I think that Paul here was not speaking in a literal and concrete way, He was just contrasting Adam and Jesus and not making a statement on creation per say.
Sin did not enter the world through ONE man, but through Adam AND Eve and, in practice, it entered(s) the world through Eve and every other woman that conceives.
Some view that Adam's sin was greater than Eve's, but nowhere is that stated in Genesis.
As for death coming into the world via Adam and Eve, I think that this passage implies that Adam and Ever were KEPT from immortality, not that immortality was taken away:
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of (X)Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from (Y)the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So (Z)He drove the man out; and at the (AA)east of the garden of Eden He stationed the (AB)cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to (AC)the tree of life.

But that is another discussion.

My question is simply this:
Do we have enough time for Noah's family to populate the WHOLE world from after the flood?

[Philip]

And here's the other thing about theistic evolution and Adam:

"... but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him." Now, if Adam was merely one of many hominids that God transformed into a man, then why couldn't He likewise find a female of Adam's prior species to transform as well? Actually, it's a silly question, as the text says Eve came from Adam. Again, did someone make that up?

My question is simply this:
Do we have enough time for Noah's family to populate the WHOLE world from after the flood?

I think so. It would depend upon: WHEN/how long ago the flood was; Longevity (some of it considerable) of fertile years of populations since; plural marriages, and at least early on, perhaps marriages between siblings and between cousins; birth rates; available foods/crops and times of prosperity; avoidance/success in war/famine/abundance of crops, etc. Remember the long ages continued for quite some time. Noah made it to 950 and even as late as Abraham's (made it to 175) time, people lived to nearly 200 years of age. It would seem that they were likely fertile well into their sixties.

[PaulSacramento]

And here's the other thing about theistic evolution and Adam:

"... but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him." Now, if Adam was merely one of many hominids that God transformed into a man, then why couldn't He likewise find a female of Adam's prior species to transform as well? Actually, it's a silly question, as the text says Eve came from Adam. Again, did someone make that up?

My question is simply this:
Do we have enough time for Noah's family to populate the WHOLE world from after the flood?

I think so. It would depend upon: WHEN/how long ago the flood was; Longevity (some of it considerable) of fertile years of populations since; plural marriages, and at least early on, perhaps marriages between siblings and between cousins; birth rates; available foods/crops and times of prosperity; avoidance/success in war/famine/abundance of crops, etc. Remember the long ages continued for quite some time. Noah made it to 950 and even as late as Abraham's (made it to 175) time, people lived to nearly 200 years of age. It would seem that they were likely fertile well into their sixties.

I don't know...I don't know if you would find any anthropologist that would agree with you that there was enough time to populate the whole earth since the time of the flood.
Do you know of any?

[jlay]

With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth. That’s not very much. I think today's rate is about 1.7%
In the next generation after Noah, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total.
The Bible records longer life spans, so people would have been fertile longer, possibly having several 'families' over their life span.
Population growth is exponential.

Take the Duggars. They have 19 children. Let's suppose that each child has 3 children, which is pretty conservative. That will be 57 grandchildren. Then suppose that this trend continues. Some children may have no offspring and some more, but let's say they average only 3.
57x3=171
171x3=513
513X3=1,539

After that the numbers start to go up rapidly. exceeding hundreds of thousands in just a few more generations.

If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection, this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.

The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

[PaulSacramento]

jLAY,
Do those numbers take into account deaths also? by wars, famine, etc?
DO they take into account the issue of migration ?

[jlay]

I provided a link.