Evidence for God from Science

Came across this question only a few moments ago and thought I would seek your opinions on this.

The oldest cavemen bodies date back to be around 100,000 years old, how does this fit in line with OEC? Do you reject the age of the bodies of the cave men or is there something that I am missing here? Did the cavemen only really arrive after the tower of Babel account?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

SB

Sam1995 wrote:Came across this question only a few moments ago and thought I would seek your opinions on this.

The oldest cavemen bodies date back to be around 100,000 years old, how does this fit in line with OEC? Do you reject the age of the bodies of the cave men or is there something that I am missing here? Did the cavemen only really arrive after the tower of Babel account?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

SB

Sam, do you have a specific link in mind here? I ask because usually when an article like this pops up, Reasons.org has a response to it.

Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) assert that Adam and Eve lived as much as 100,000 years ago. And it all depends upon what someone is asserting a caveman actually was. There were hominids, high-functioning primates that are much older, yet did not have our same DNA, and that also were not human (weren't embellished with a spirit or made in God's image), and that are in no way linked to us. They made crude tools, buried their dead, and may or may not have had a simple language. There were quite a few hominids (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html), and thus evolutionists have always been eager (desperate?) to find a link between them and man.

RickD wrote:

Sam1995 wrote:Came across this question only a few moments ago and thought I would seek your opinions on this.

The oldest cavemen bodies date back to be around 100,000 years old, how does this fit in line with OEC? Do you reject the age of the bodies of the cave men or is there something that I am missing here? Did the cavemen only really arrive after the tower of Babel account?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

SB

Sam, do you have a specific link in mind here? I ask because usually when an article like this pops up, Reasons.org has a response to it.

Nothing specific, simply thought provocation

SB

Sam1995 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Sam1995 wrote:Came across this question only a few moments ago and thought I would seek your opinions on this.

The oldest cavemen bodies date back to be around 100,000 years old, how does this fit in line with OEC? Do you reject the age of the bodies of the cave men or is there something that I am missing here? Did the cavemen only really arrive after the tower of Babel account?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

SB

Sam, do you have a specific link in mind here? I ask because usually when an article like this pops up, Reasons.org has a response to it.

Nothing specific, simply thought provocation

SB

Then what Philip said here is from an OEC perspective:

Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) assert that Adam and Eve lived as much as 100,000 years ago. And it all depends upon what someone is asserting a caveman actually was. There were hominids, high-functioning primates that are much older, yet did not have our same DNA, and that also were not human (weren't embellished with a spirit or made in God's image), and that are in no way linked to us. The made crude tools, buried their dead, and may or may not have had a simple language.

Came across this question only a few moments ago and thought I would seek your opinions on this.

The oldest cavemen bodies date back to be around 100,000 years old, how does this fit in line with OEC? Do you reject the age of the bodies of the cave men or is there something that I am missing here? Did the cavemen only really arrive after the tower of Babel account?

Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) assert that Adam and Eve lived as much as 100,000 years ago

The reason Dr. Hugh Ross says that Adam and eve existed 100,000 years ago is because, from the evolutionary point of view, counting the molecular clock and comparing the DNA, we know that our Mitochondrial, most recent common male ancestor(MCRA) lived about 60,000 years ago and the female MRCA lived about 140,000 years ago. This means that the lines diverged somewhere in the middle and also that these two ancestors were not only ones living, we just happen to have their DNA.

The reason Dr. Hugh Ross says that Adam and eve existed 100,000 years ago is because, from the evolutionary point of view, counting the molecular clock and comparing the DNA, we know that our Mitochondrial, most recent common male ancestor(MCRA) lived about 60,000 years ago and the female MRCA lived about 140,000 years ago. This means that the lines diverged somewhere in the middle and also that these two ancestors were not only ones living, we just happen to have their DNA.

Hugh Ross and RTB do NOT believe that Adam and Eve were the results of any evolutionary process, but that they were created instantly and miraculously - Adam first and then Eve from Adam, just as Scripture says they were.

If Ross doesn't believe that the molecular/genetic estimates are truly accurate, then why does he suggest a beginning of the human race that coincides with the genetic evidence? That seems like an awkward way to go about things.

If Ross doesn't believe that the molecular/genetic estimates are truly accurate, then why does he suggest a beginning of the human race that coincides with the genetic evidence? That seems like an awkward way to go about thing

There is a huge difference between accepting DNA evidence that correlates with early HUMANS/those sharing our exact DNA, and with agreeing with those who would postulate that humans are an evolutionary branch from various hominids and other species even further back, etc. And Ross doesn't say specifically how long ago Adam lived, but gives an approximate range. Clearly, the genealogies in Scripture are incomplete and designed to show the lineages between Adam and Christ.