Evidence for God from Science

must have been considerable genetic and physiological changes from then to our current form now. Of course they became extinct, there was a flood. This would have been followed by considerable genetic drift (stated clearly in the bible where it shows their decreasing lifespans, which were passed on to their children, and hence proves genetic change of a very large order). These much later much shorter lived people would have had generations of only 20 years, as today, and so would have greatly outbred and swamped out any of the old genetically pre flood race. Therefor, your artificial, not biblically supported, and in fact even biblically denied distinction between homo sapiens and non homo sapiens as humans is not warrented.

It is based on fossil records not on the Bible, the Bible is mute about it. Which flood are you talking about? be specific please. My question is, why did the genetic drift happened as you say. I am sorry i do not understand your mentioning of 20 years generation, what is your point by it?

As for ice ages, the actual timespans are ice ages of about 100,000 to 120,000 years with interglacials of about 10,000 to 12,000 years, at least "recently" (we are due for the end of one right now). Considering that Adam lived to be over 900 years old, as did many others pre flood, and that thus the timespan of a single genration could have been 200, rather than 20, years, your dates must be way off. The timespan from peoples who lived to be 900 to when they only lived to be 70 must be quite long, especially since they had to start over after a flood. Thus, you need to start over, Adam at only 5000 years ago, impossible!

As for the ice, of course the bible doesn't speak of it, they lived in the middle east, that is clearly stated, the ice was far north and south of them, in the temperate zones. The only real diference they would have noticed would be a far lower sea level (hundreds of feet), and a generally drier climate (as clearly stated in genesis account of the pre flood climate). When the ice age ends, as it has been recently discovered can happen with extreme suddeness, the result could be a sudden deluge of rain and a flood over them if they were living in a place which is now several hundred feet below sea level, sound familiar? As for language and writing, well, the most currently likely beleived site where they lived, starting with the genesis description of the area, is off the coast of the middle east and is now several hundred feet below the sea. Any language or writing those people did would be washed away when they were, and the evidence also washed away, possibly not once but as many times as there have been ice ages between then and now. And then there is the whole tower of babel thing, that would have muddied the laguage and civilization waters as well. Threfore, the whole "civilization started so many years ago" argument is moot, that only covers civilization since the end of the last ice age at most, and with the long lifespans of those ancient men, that simply does not leave enough time between Adam and modern, short lived humans. You may also wish to go to the the parent site http://www.godandscience.org/ and read up on it, the idea that the names given in the geneologies are the only ones is not true, the word 'father" can also mean grandfather or great great etc grandfather and thus the timespan covered could be VERY much longer http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ogies.html .

There are no

actual

timespans regarding ice ages, they are more like a ranges, some scientists think some are more accurate some think otherwise. Depends who you choose to support your theory.
I am aware what the word father could mean. your points are interesting, however even if you say about the ice age (which can be interpreted multiple way) I am not YEC, I just do not think Adam was the first human, I think there were humans before Adam and Adam is somewhere around 5000 or 6000 B.C years since it has to be in civilization not before.

I made a point in my post regarding language and written language with grammar and syntax since the humans you are putting at 100000 or before did carry language like we know and the Bible clearly says that the characters in genesis even the pre-flood human spoke language. If you put humans way back like you are putting them than I'm sorry, your arguments would not be concluded as they clearly would fail at language. language and modern speech in humans arose somewhere between 100000 - 50000 B.C but it was like the speech that apes have today. Language and speech as we know arose around when civilization arose. And this is backed up by scientific evidence, just google it up.

It is based on fossil records not on the Bible, the Bible is mute about it. Which flood are you talking about? be specific please. My question is, why did the genetic drift happened as you say. I am sorry i do not understand your mentioning of 20 years generation, what is your point by it?

The flood I am talking about is the flood of Noah, seen in Genesis. The genetic drift would have happened after that flood, due to the very small number of breeding individuals left alive. The time from Adam to Noah apparently did not see much drift possibly because the human genome was so clean and error free to start with.

20 years is the length of time for a current generation of humans, where a child grows from a baby to old enough to have children of their own. If it is 20 years for modern humansd who oly live on average 70 years, how long would a generation be for someone who can live 900 or more years? Conclusion, a lot longer than 20. My point is, with that true, to time frame from father to son would be MUCH longer EVEN IF (as is not true) the biblical geneologies were not using a word that does not just mean father only. Since they were, and since these generations must have been much more than 20 yours, quite likely a hundred or hundreds of years, the time fram from one name of a geneology to the next name would have been minimum hundreds of years, possibly thousands, possibly many thousands. That makes a 5000 year timeframe from Adam to now impossible. That means that those fossiles must be humans, and can be decended from Adam.

BTW, that place for the flood, look here http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html This fits the description of the place people lived pre flood, "east of Eden". During an ice age it would be above sea level, with any warming it would be below sea level. Therefore, it could have had humans living on it during the time of the flood, whenever that was, during a time when there were far fewer humans than today, living only or mainly in this area. Thus, when the water rises, they could all be killed, as described in Genesis.

I made a point in my post regarding language and written language with grammar and syntax since the humans you are putting at 100000 or before did carry language like we know and the Bible clearly says that the characters in genesis even the pre-flood human spoke language. If you put humans way back like you are putting them than I'm sorry, your arguments would not be concluded as they clearly would fail at language. language and modern speech in humans arose somewhere between 100000 - 50000 B.C but it was like the speech that apes have today. Language and speech as we know arose around when civilization arose. And this is backed up by scientific evidence, just google it up.

Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens . The quote: "Robin Dunbar has argued that Archaic Homo sapiens were the first to use language. Based on his analysis of the relationship between brain size and hominid group size, he concluded that because Archaic Homo sapiens had large brains, they must have lived in groups of over 120 individuals. Dunbar argues that it was not possible for Hominids to live in such large groups without using language, otherwise there could be no group cohesion and the group would disintegrate. By comparison, chimpanzees live in smaller groups of up to 50 individuals." And of neanderthals "Neanderthals were almost exclusively carnivorous[11] and apex predators,[12] however new studies do indicate that they had cooked vegetables in their diet.[13][40] They made advanced tools,[41] had a language (the nature of which is debated) and lived in complex social groups." Seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis. Conclusion, there is no reason to conclude that there was no language when modern scholorship can conclude that language existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Second, read Genesis and you see that Moses, it's writer, talked directly to God, and then wrote Genesis. There was no need for him to transcribe or copy any oral or written histories since he recieve the story from an eyewitnes, in fact, the creator of the events described. This MUST have happened anyway, since thefore Adam there were NO human witnesses, yet events are describes that happened before Adam.

The genetic drift would have happened after that flood, due to the very small number of breeding individuals left alive.

I do not think the number of human would so profoundly reduce the age. If for example the entire modern world is washed out in a flood like Noah's and only 8 people are left, saved in some way, do you think this would cause a genetic drift that might reduce the age span of modern humans less than it is, I hardly think.

BTW, that place for the flood, look here http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html This fits the description of the place people lived pre flood, "east of Eden". During an ice age it would be above sea level, with any warming it would be below sea level. Therefore, it could have had humans living on it during the time of the flood, whenever that was, during a time when there were far fewer humans than today, living only or mainly in this area. Thus, when the water rises, they could all be killed, as described in Genesis.

It basically depends if you think of the flood was local or global, however It may be the very place.

Conclusion, there is no reason to conclude that there was no language when modern scholorship can conclude that language existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I tend to disagree, this is not evidence, merely assumption. Evidence only exists for the dates I mentioned. Apes tend to live in large groups and so does the Gelada Baboons, yet there is no formal language. I do not think the group size of 50 or 120 would make a big difference when the need to communicate by language would be as imperative in a group of 50 as a group of 120. also can Mr. Dunbar elaborate what kind of language did those primitives use and how they did it. As I SAID, Language existed but in what form. If Adam talked to God and God to Cain and the serpent talked to Eve (100000 b.c), was he doing symbolic language, did he make signs, how did the serpent knew the language eve would understand as a matter of fact, if what the serpent said, was in words, it sure carried grammar, reason and logic as well as the words "God, fruit, tree, garden, good and evil, knowledge". what language did those words belong to and how were they communicated in first place. If it was language as we know then you are way off limits to credible evidence.

btw I have read these articles before but went and read them again just so that I may see any more points that may have skipped by me.

My point is, with that true, to time frame from father to son would be MUCH longer EVEN IF (as is not true) the biblical geneologies were not using a word that does not just mean father only. Since they were, and since these generations must have been much more than 20 yours, quite likely a hundred or hundreds of years, the time fram from one name of a geneology to the next name would have been minimum hundreds of years, possibly thousands, possibly many thousands.

Again, you are filling in gaps by very far fetched ideas (no offense intended). The max age Bible presents is less than 1000 years. and of course you are in error if you think that the calender for a year, back in that age i.e 100000 B.C would be 12 months a year, 30 months a day, 4 weeks a months???? it might be 15 days a month. who knows??? whatever it was, it was certainly not like today's calender. for all we know those people might have had lived not a very long age but probably around us, higher a little but still.

btw when i mentioned 5000 years, i meant 5000 yrs B.C

Second, read Genesis and you see that Moses, it's writer, talked directly to God, and then wrote Genesis. There was no need for him to transcribe or copy any oral or written histories since he recieve the story from an eyewitnes, in fact, the creator of the events described. This MUST have happened anyway, since thefore Adam there were NO human witnesses, yet events are describes that happened before Adam.

I am not sure as to exactly how Moses wrote all of genesis, but it is hard to imagine God dictating him word by word, still I am not saying it in not possible, it might be.

for all we know those people might have had lived not a very long age but probably around us, higher a little but still.

Quite a LOT higher! Note the ages to which they lived, it is not possible for anyone today to even come CLOSE to that, or to even have a chance of doing so. This is what I mean when I say that they were very different genetically and physiologically than we are, and how genetic drift MUST have happened to get from people who can live to be almost a thousand years old to ones that only live to 70 today. Also, God specifically told mankind that their ages would go down, on several occasions, he would not have done so unless it really was a change. Note also the quoted ages when they had their first child, in some cases these ages are as high as 187 years, or even higher in the case of Noah, and that was just for their first child, it does not even count the average age of all their children. Also, note that this is Genesis, written by Moses as dictated by God himself personally. It therefor would have used years as Moses and the Israelites would have known them, which is fairly close to the same as years today. years also tend to follow the seasons, one year for 4 seasons, thus it is unlikely that that would have changed. Also the word 'father" can be interpreted as grandfather or great great etc grandfather, the childrens names listed here could simply be the most notable in a long line of decendants, the first one who had a specific facial type which they passed on, say, or the inventor of something notable (fire, the wheel, something) or who did something else noteworthy (for good or ill). Also note the same sort of geneology in Gen 11, here the ages start out long, just like these, but then drop in a straght logerithmic curve to very lower ages both for total lifespan and for the age when their first child was born.
Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
Gen 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh.
Gen 5:7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan.
Gen 5:10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel.
Gen 5:13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared.
Gen 5:16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.
Gen 5:19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah.
Gen 5:22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years.
Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
Gen 5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech.
Gen 5:26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son.
Gen 5:29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
Gen 5:30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
Gen 5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Conclusion, these people defiatly lived to very much longer ages than we do, and had children at very much later ages as well.

btw when i mentioned 5000 years, i meant 5000 yrs B.C

The dated ages of the first city (at least amajor one) we know of (the first city we actually have evidence of, that is, other cities may have existed and the evidnece was destroyed over time or saimply not found yet) is Jericho. It's first appearence is dated at 8000 yrs B.C., this is well before 5000. Note that it is of some interest that in the thousand years prior to the city being destroyed by a fire that burned the graineries, the walls had been destroyed about a half dozen times by earthquake, At the fire time, it just happenes that an Israelite army had just finished marching around the city the seventh time, and were turning and prepering to charge the city, without any way to get over these walls, when the earthquake struck and brought them down once agian. Pretty exact timeing.
Conclusion, 5000 B.C. is definatly not long enough for it to be when Adam, or even Noah, was around, the date MUST have been very much before that. This is not even counting the many human fossiles, or possible human fossiles 9and tools and other stuff), that are dated very much before that.

I do not think the number of human would so profoundly reduce the age. If for example the entire modern world is washed out in a flood like Noah's and only 8 people are left, saved in some way, do you think this would cause a genetic drift that might reduce the age span of modern humans less than it is, I hardly think.

I suggest you actually find out what genetic drift is, and what it can do, here is a handy link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift ."The effect of genetic drift is larger in small populations", 8 total people is a pretty small population, therefore the chance of genetic drift is very much higher. "When a newly formed colony is small, its founders can strongly affect the population's genetic make-up far into the future." Therefore, if there really were only 8 people left alive after the flood, and only 3 of those were women of childbearing age, the chance of serious genetic drift, of loss of whole gene groups ("Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variation.") is quite high. Therefore, there is considerable justification to say that it is quite possible for genetic drift to have caused the life spans, and ages when they bear children, to decrease very signifigently. This is in agreement with what the bible says actually happened.

Second, you might check out Mitochondrial Eve, here is one handy place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve . This shows evidence that all women’s ancestry can be traced back to just one women, and even suggests a date for that women. There is also Y-chromosomal Adam which you can read some about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam . The suggested date for him is much later that Eve. The reason is, quite likely, that he is actually Y-chromosomal Noah, whose genes would have overwritten Adams, since in his time, Noah was the father of all three other men living. The dates given here are also probably very much shorter than actual, since it assumes a given amount of genetic mutation per generation, and assumes generations as short as we have today. However, the bible clearly gives much longer timeframes from one generation to the next pre flood and for some time post flood as well, which would slow the rate of mutation down considerably for Eves descendants, making that 200,000 years several times too small at least, and that 50,000 to 80,000 year timeframe given for "Adam" (Noah) at least somewhat too short. Conclusion, the evidence of single genetic ancestors of all women and all men here says that there is considerable chance that they lived many many tens, and more likely many hundreds, of thousands of years ago. It also provides actual scientific evidence for the story of both Adam and Eve, and of the flood of Noah and that it really did wipe out all but a small amount of humans. You might want to check out Rom 1:19 and Rom 1:20 again, see, the evidence really does back up what it says in the bible, just as God said it would. Perhaps you should not just assume that scientific evidence is all anti God after all. It also verifies that there were two periods of time when the population was small, times when genetic drift could have happened. If you take this evidence, plus the narrative of the bible, the case for considerable genetic drift, leading to much shorter life spans as well as other likely effects, during the time of "Y-chromosomal Noah" is pretty much proven.

BTW, the reason I say that God would dictate the Genesis account is simple, otherwise there could have been no way for much of it to even have been written.

I mean, "in the beginning", who, exactly could have witnessed the big bang, the time when the earth was too hot for the water to exist on the serface, the time when the atmosphere cleared up enough to be able to see through it, the time of the creation of dry land (continental creation by the earths crust wrinkling), and the times of all the life of verious kinds coming along? The bible, and science, clearly shows that these happened LONG before ANYONE would be around to see them. We can therefore clearly say with 100% confidence that that part of Genesis must have been dictated to Noah by God. Who else could have arrainged for such exact wording that matches so exactly the scientific facts we now know? Also, we know God dictated the commandments, why not other parts as well? We also know that God met Moses in his tent, such that Moses had to wear a veil when he came out because his face was shining, what do you suppose Moses and God were doing in there, playing cards?

As for language, perhaps the evidence for WRITTEN language is short (ish), but how exactly would you find out evidence of a SPOKEN language? How about evidence of ideas which could only be passed on through language? How about how to make stone tools, cave paintings, jewelry, cooked food (and something to cook it in, and fire, and gathering firewood), dig and bury people in actual graves, sometimes with cerimonial objects like a bed of flowers or a ritual object? Archeologists have dug up all these things, we therefore have actual EVIDENCE of them. As for evidence of written word, first, depending on what it is written on and how long ago, and where, it is quite possibe for that evidence to be lost. As for spoken word, you seem to be assuming that if there is no actual evidence of written word, that there is also no spoken word. There are peoples living today, and much evidence of peoples in the past, who had spoken words but no writing of any kind. It is also impossible to dig up evidence, either for or against, a word being spoken into the air, one would have to infere it from other evidences, like the tools and art and evidence of a beleif in an afterlife seen above.

Or are you saying that Moses did not write Genesis, that he copied form earlier writings? Whoes earlier writings, exactly, and what evidence do you have of it? Jesus said that Moses wrote Genesis, do you beleive him? "Mark 10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied". "Mark 12:26 Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the book of Moses" "John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Was there a bible before Moses wrote it, what evidence do you have of that? Conclusion, the evidence is only that Moses wrote Genesis, as such, it is only nessissary for Moses to be able to read and write, and for God to speak to Moses, even for long periods in his tent, evidence of which is clearly given.

Threfore I see no reason why the date for Adam must be tied only to the dates close to evidence of a written word. Only Moses need be able to read and write, and there is plently of evidence for that.

Your posts are detailed and helpful and I appreciate you doing it in such a way to answer.

I still do not think that Adam was way back where you place it, while it is true that the word father could also mean grandfather, it doesn't mean or at least there is no way to know if the list was made using the protocol you are saying. Also this would only occur if the name would be the same or in most cases but I personally do not think is the case in genesis, while it doesn't mention who else was born, it surely mentions who was born of who. also such a convention, if applied would be applied else where in the first five books to say the least. So that there is no confusion regarding it but it is not the case again. It would make rather poor implication that Moses wrote such an account and can you tell me on what basis he begun to eliminate names. also if as you say, god dictated him (since they were not playing cards) why would God leave out names even in a direct single line. why not name father instead of grandfather?

as a matter of fact Mitochondrial Eve is not about 1 woman who was the first it is a common problem that you should assume it as such, the very article you mentioned also says that it is not the case. which in effect supports what I am saying. That there were humans present before biblical Adam and eve. Humans/humanoids existed before Adam and eve. The Adam and eve in the bible were in the boundary of civilization, because there is no support but just specualtion that Noah wrote some of Genesis.

I'm not saying that scientific evidence is evil or anti God at all, no sir, what I am saying is that there is equal evidence to support what i am saying, there is a lot evidence but no actual absolute evidence, therefore it can be swung both ways. you are theorizing a lot of thing, how PERHAPS or Presumably they could have happened. In that it is a Tautological argument since the conditions you start with are not questioned by you and so otherwise it can't be held wrong since it is true to begin with. My question is how, how come are you 100% sure about this, you are integrating a lot by supposing it can't happen any other way, well it can and counter scientific evidence also exists. As I said, i take one theory above the other so do you. Bottom line, we both can be pretty wrong about it.

About the genetic drift, didn't God say in Gen 6:3 that the age of humans would be limited to 120 years, I'm in no way saying what you mentioned about genetic drift to be false or questionable. Just that my question was if modern world is swept away and only 8 people are left will the human age fall dramatically from 70 years to say 15 years. At least this is what it would imply wouldn't it?

The dated ages of the first city (at least amajor one) we know of (the first city we actually have evidence of, that is, other cities may have existed and the evidnece was destroyed over time or saimply not found yet) is Jericho. It's first appearence is dated at 8000 yrs B.C., this is well before 5000. Note that it is of some interest that in the thousand years prior to the city being destroyed by a fire that burned the graineries, the walls had been destroyed about a half dozen times by earthquake, At the fire time, it just happenes that an Israelite army had just finished marching around the city the seventh time, and were turning and prepering to charge the city, without any way to get over these walls, when the earthquake struck and brought them down once agian. Pretty exact timeing.

Are you implying that the walls came down by a sheer coincident and wouldn't have had happened if the earthquake never struck in the first place? This argument on the whole becomes null since I am not saying that humans didn't exist prior to Adam. May be Jericho was built before it.

We can therefore clearly say with 100% confidence that that part of Genesis must have been dictated to Noah by God. Who else could have arrainged for such exact wording that matches so exactly the scientific facts we now know? Also, we know God dictated the commandments, why not other parts as well? We also know that God met Moses in his tent, such that Moses had to wear a veil when he came out because his face was shining, what do you suppose Moses and God were doing in there, playing cards?

Well I'm not sure 100%. I said, may be God dictated all of it to Moses, or Moses wrote down much of it from oral tradition. The primary difference is in dates, I say it is well within civilization you say it is outside of it.

As for language, perhaps the evidence for WRITTEN language is short (ish), but how exactly would you find out evidence of a SPOKEN language? How about evidence of ideas which could only be passed on through language? How about how to make stone tools, cave paintings, jewelry, cooked food (and something to cook it in, and fire, and gathering firewood), dig and bury people in actual graves, sometimes with cerimonial objects like a bed of flowers or a ritual object? Archeologists have dug up all these things, we therefore have actual EVIDENCE of them. As for evidence of written word, first, depending on what it is written on and how long ago, and where, it is quite possibe for that evidence to be lost. As for spoken word, you seem to be assuming that if there is no actual evidence of written word, that there is also no spoken word. There are peoples living today, and much evidence of peoples in the past, who had spoken words but no writing of any kind. It is also impossible to dig up evidence, either for or against, a word being spoken into the air, one would have to infere it from other evidences, like the tools and art and evidence of a beleif in an afterlife seen above.

I am not assuming that there is no spoken word if not written, I am assuming that the dates in which you would put Noah, would not have had written or oral speech like a proper language. and that is based on scientific evidence. If a couple of scholars think otherwise than at best it proves an alternative which is assuming everything to begin with. and thus fitting everything from a scientific point of view.

As for Big bang, well, it might not have happened at all, and let me tell you why, because it determines the outcome once you have set the initial conditions. And it rules out any divine intervention, since it will outbalance the delicate conditions. You are going the other way around, fixing the Bible into Genesis and taking the liberties to interpret it how you see fit. which is fine by me, but I wouldn't be so sure about it as you are since a lot of counter arguments exists and one must always be careful about interpreting the Bible. In short you are assigning probabilities to every gap there is and then filling it with 100% assurance, just by saying that some theory could fit in. If you read the Bible carefully or at least Genesis you will find that God may not have started the universe the way Bang bang says.

God bless

For some reason I seem to struggle with god making every living thing magically poof into existence... poof a butterfly, poof a rhino, poof a human.

How about a more scientific approach where he creates an environment for us to evolve. You know like making a vacuum, maybe altering the course of a few asteroids here and there, maybe putting a loving touch on evolution. Seems like god made laws when he created the universe, tried to follow them the best he could, and only gave them a loving touch to help create humans, the perfect life form for him to give souls.

And to answer your question, no, Adam probably did not exist...... Genesis really just looks like another creation myth. Maybe he is symbolic, I don't know...... I like to have fact based beliefs, like historical Jesus. Adam is not historical, gene records are far to complex to have come from one person, maybe h was the first humanoid with a soul, but then again how do you explain the rib lady thing?

I'd prefer to stick with my beliefs on factual Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, ect....


Let the criticism fly at me

Murray, get your firesuit on buddy :p
Jk, lol, Well I forgot that i watched a video last night that is awesome!
It's only a few minutes long so if your wondering about Adam and OEC here it is
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036776/h ... hugh_ross/

If the bible and Genesis was inspired by God, then it depends on God's definition of "man" and not some other definition.
For example, when I was a boy, scientists used to define "man" as being those animals capable of higher reasoning like tool making ability, advanced communication skills, building fires, etc. But since back then, so many animals have been discovered with tool making ability and complex communications that their definition of humanity has changed. I can see that the time of the "first man" will never be clearly established by scientists who think the universe is an accident and the bible is a fable.
If your definition is that first earthly creature having the mental capability of relationship with the Creator and having been given the "breath" of eternal life, and if the bible is true, then Adam was that man.
Eve, genetics, human evolution and the flood are different issues.

Murray wrote:For some reason I seem to struggle with god making every living thing magically poof into existence... poof a butterfly, poof a rhino, poof a human.

How about a more scientific approach where he creates an environment for us to evolve. You know like making a vacuum, maybe altering the course of a few asteroids here and there, maybe putting a loving touch on evolution. Seems like god made laws when he created the universe, tried to follow them the best he could, and only gave them a loving touch to help create humans, the perfect life form for him to give souls.

And to answer your question, no, Adam probably did not exist...... Genesis really just looks like another creation myth. Maybe he is symbolic, I don't know...... I like to have fact based beliefs, like historical Jesus. Adam is not historical, gene records are far to complex to have come from one person, maybe h was the first humanoid with a soul, but then again how do you explain the rib lady thing?

I'd prefer to stick with my beliefs on factual Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, ect....


Let the criticism fly at me

While I think that Adam may indeed have existed, as the first Man to "find God" and being placed in Eden because of that, I have read how some view Adam as the "generic" name for MAN and even how some view the Genesis story as the story of Israel with Adam being the "symbol" for Israel.
Perhaps Adam was indeed the first man of the Hebrew lineage that the bible was written by/for or perhaps Adam was the first fully evolved Human or perhpas Adam was indeed created in Eden but after his banishment, He and his decendants became the dominate species and interbredding with the existing humanoids, got us to where we are now.
Who knows for sure right?
Still, it would be very cool to one day find out for sure.

Still, it would be very cool to one day find out for sure.

It is very exciting to know that one day all will be revealed.

For some reason I seem to struggle with god making every living thing magically poof into existence... poof a butterfly, poof a rhino, poof a human.

How about a more scientific approach where he creates an environment for us to evolve. You know like making a vacuum, maybe altering the course of a few asteroids here and there, maybe putting a loving touch on evolution. Seems like god made laws when he created the universe, tried to follow them the best he could, and only gave them a loving touch to help create humans, the perfect life form for him to give souls.

And to answer your question, no, Adam probably did not exist...... Genesis really just looks like another creation myth. Maybe he is symbolic, I don't know...... I like to have fact based beliefs, like historical Jesus. Adam is not historical, gene records are far to complex to have come from one person, maybe h was the first humanoid with a soul, but then again how do you explain the rib lady thing?

I'd prefer to stick with my beliefs on factual Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, ect....


Let the criticism fly at me

Murray,

if you would, I'd ask you that the amount of historical evidence that is on Adam is perhaps no more than there is for Moses, still you prefer an actual Moses but not an actual Adam?

Genesis is not a creation myth, it is a fact, which you don't have any proof of, simple. You don't have to slide by it and say oh well, I beleive the Bible in parts. As for the rib lady, it is as astounding, as is walking on water, healing the blind and the deaf, tuning water to wine and raising the dead. You don't have to assume some parts are nonsense. It is either all true or all untrue, nothing inbetween.

Let the criticism fly at me

I've heard an argument from a couple christian scientist that states the human gene pool is far to complex to have been descended from 2 people.

I tend to look more as Adam and eve as symbolic not literal

Murray wrote:I've heard an argument from a couple christian scientist that states the human gene pool is far to complex to have been descended from 2 people.

I tend to look more as Adam and eve as symbolic not literal

Murray, if Adam and Eve were symbolic, then how do you explain 1 Corinthians 15:45? Was Jesus symbolic, as well?