Evidence for God from Science

First post by a new poster.

Quick bit of background.
I am a progressive creationist who has been a fan of Hugh Ross for years. I also find myself going to and recommending GodandScience.org on a regular basis.

I'm pretty much in sync with Ross on time and cosmology, but I've always struggled a bit with his position on anthropology, particularly the date of the Historic Adam.
So a few months ago I decided to deep dive the topic... focusing on two topics, anthropology in general, and the history of the Levant and ancient Mesopotamia.

In my studies I have come to three conclusions which in turn have led me to a fourth conclusion that to be honest I am struggling with. So I want to share where I am and get some additional perspective from some fellow progressive creationists.
1. Conclusion 1 - Using internal evidence from Scripture alone, the events of Genesis 2-4 take place in the 4000 - 6000 BC time frame.
2. Conclusion 2 - Using the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia, the events described in Genesis 2-4 take place during the Neolithic era and therefore would have to occur sometime after 10,000 BC. In this case the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia and the internal Scriptural evidence both point to a time frame for the historic Adam and Eve between 10,0000 and 5,000 BC.
3. Conclusion 3 - Human Beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) had populated the world prior to 10,000 BC. In the case of the Americas the land bridge to North America was gone around 20,000 BC.

Conclusion 4
If the historic Adam lived in Mesopotamia sometime between 10,000 and 5,000 BC
and
If Humans were in the Americas, Australia, Europe, and Asia long before 10,000 BC
Then the Adam of Genesis 2-3 could not be the progenitor of all humans... which causes all kinds of problems for the Augustinian view of The Fall of Man and Original Sin... and I'm a huge fan of Augustine.

Apparently the theistic evolutionists are also struggling with similar issues involving The Fall and Original Sin.
But Behe has convinced me that you can't get there from here using using mutation and Natural Selection alone, so even though I have some similar issues as the theistic evolutionists, my premises as a progressive creationst are very different.

So that's my dilemma...
I have been dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that the Historic Adam of Neolithic Mesopotamia could not have been the progenitor of all humans.
So, please feel free to let me know which of my conclusions listed above you believe to be incorrect.

Thanks

In Christ,
Dave

Hi Dave,

You just reminded me of another question I'd like to add to your post.

If Noah's flood was around 2400 BC, this would imply that the human population would have to double every 100 years or so for the world to end up with about 7 billion people of today. This assumes Noah and his family were the only survivors after the flood. Does this train of thought even sound feasible ?

Is Noah everyone's Great, Great, ......, Great Grand dad ?

LittleHamster wrote:Hi Dave,

You just reminded me of another question I'd like to add to your post.

If Noah's flood was around 2400 BC, this would imply that the human population would have to double every 100 years or so for the world to end up with about 7 billion people of today. This assumes Noah and his family were the only survivors after the flood. Does this train of thought even sound feasible ?

Is Noah everyone's Great, Great, ......, Great Grand dad ?

Not of everyone, not by a long shot.

LittleHamster wrote:Hi Dave,

You just reminded me of another question I'd like to add to your post.

If Noah's flood was around 2400 BC, this would imply that the human population would have to double every 100 years or so for the world to end up with about 7 billion people of today. This assumes Noah and his family were the only survivors after the flood. Does this train of thought even sound feasible ?

Is Noah everyone's Great, Great, ......, Great Grand dad ?

Based on the research I mentioned in my OP here's where I'm currently at on Noah's Flood.

If we use Septuagint time frames, then the Scriptural time frame for Noah's Flood lines up pretty well with a local Mesopotamian flood that occurred around 3000 BC. This Mesopotamian flood is attested to in both Mesopotamian written history and Mesopotamian archaeology.

If Noah's Flood was a local Mesopotamian Flood from around 3000 BC and humans had populated the earth by 10,000 BC then Noah could not be the physical progenitor of all humans.
However, I am convinced that at the very least Noah's Flood did wipe out all the direct descendants of Adam except for Noah and his sons...
But this does bring me into direct conflict with the position of Hugh Ross who believes that all humans are directly descended from both Adam and Noah.

So I have a similar dilemma with Noah as I do with Adam... except that my view on Noah doesn't relate to either The Fall or Original Sin which are the issues that I am currently struggling with.

In Christ

At best all we can get from bible chronology and lineages ( IF they are 100% sequential) is when Adam and Eve lived AFTER they were kicked out of the Garden in Eden.
I don't think that the lineages and Chronology are 100% though because I don't think the writer of Genesis was looking to establish a definite time frame of when Adam and Eve lives as much as he was establishing and lineage TO Adm and Eve.

LittleHamster wrote:Hi Dave,

You just reminded me of another question I'd like to add to your post.

If Noah's flood was around 2400 BC, this would imply that the human population would have to double every 100 years or so for the world to end up with about 7 billion people of today. This assumes Noah and his family were the only survivors after the flood. Does this train of thought even sound feasible ?

Is Noah everyone's Great, Great, ......, Great Grand dad ?

Not mine.

Audie wrote:

LittleHamster wrote:Hi Dave,

You just reminded me of another question I'd like to add to your post.

If Noah's flood was around 2400 BC, this would imply that the human population would have to double every 100 years or so for the world to end up with about 7 billion people of today. This assumes Noah and his family were the only survivors after the flood. Does this train of thought even sound feasible ?

Is Noah everyone's Great, Great, ......, Great Grand dad ?

Not mine.

Audie's great, great, ......great Grand Dad is Genghis Khan!


And her uncles are Pol Pot, and Emperor Mao!

Signed,

RickD wrote:Audie's great, great, ......great Grand Dad is Genghis Khan!

I would say Sun Tzu.

FL (we need a Chinese smiley)

So, I guess Noah's flood was either localized or many others were able to float around and survive (the fiction story 'Life if Pi' comes to mind).

As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.


.
.
.
.
.
.
(Why couldn't Noah catch many fish? ........He only had two worms!)

That is a very interesting question and I myself have some issues with OEC but I think this can be said of every progressive creation stance I am currently struggling with Noah's flood myself but from a different perspective and I do not believe AIG is the way to go.

I personally cannot deny a world wide flood in Noah's day just because of skeptics however I do not think it can be explained like YEC's do.I'm still looking for a better way to explain Noah's flood and I believe Adam and Eve were on this earth 6-10,000 years ago and I do not look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective which I feel is a real problem with progressive creationism,without realizing it the evidence accepted is because of scientists looking at everything from an evolution perspective.

I reject theistic evolution because of a lack of scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves,so there is no reason to look at the evidence in science from that perspective,yet a lot of people do.I believe even though it is the least understood creation theory makes the gap theory makes the most sense when looking at the evidence in science and you don't have to struggle biblically to see the scientific evidence fit.

Even though the gap theory makes the most sense to me OEC is more right than YEC and I'm not closed off to the other theories and could change my mind,I just haven't yet.But I'm open to all perspectives and think they all have something to offer when it comes to creationism.Change my mind if you can,if you don't like my perspective.

LittleHamster wrote:As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.

And if it is allegorical or "spiritual" (whatever that means), what would be its factual meaning? And how would you interepret Genesis 3:20.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

LittleHamster wrote:As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.

And if it is allegorical or "spiritual" (whatever that means), what would be its factual meaning? And how would you interepret <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%203.20" data-reference="Genesis 3.20" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 3:20</a>.

FL

Spiritually, Adam and Eve may represent archetypes of the male and female 'forms' created by God. Humans have always existed on earth for eons but, for the most part, not bearing a sinful nature. Only recently (as in the last 10000 years recently) have they transgressed and thus, been overcome by attachment to 'matter' (i.e. materialism). This is just a guess on my part.

Genesis 3:20. "Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

Again, Eve is the general female 'form' representing all women.

So...are Adam & Eve's children archetypes as well? What would they represent? Why would God give archetypes personal names?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:So...are Adam & Eve's children archetypes as well? What would they represent? Why would God give archetypes personal names?

FL

Probably because of the same reason he gives 'Satan' a single name, each 'Archangel' a single name, 'Christ' a single name etc., even though they can express themselves in many places at the same time. I reckon there are quite a few of versions of this interpretation out there on the net and in various books. If I find some that can better explain it, i'll post it here.

LittleHamster wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:So...are Adam & Eve's children archetypes as well? What would they represent? Why would God give archetypes personal names?

FL

Probably because of the same reason he gives 'Satan' a single name, each 'Archangel' a single name, 'Christ' a single name etc., even though they can express themselves in many places at the same time. I reckon there are quite a few of versions of this interpretation out there on the net and in various books. If I find some that can better explain it, i'll post it here.

OK...while you are looking for the correct interpretation, could you please explain how an archetype like Adam is said to have lived "800 years and had other children" (Ge 5:4)? How does an archetype have children? ...and what about the ages of all the other children/archetypes the Bible mentions? ...and how does an archetype have a limited lifespan anyway? ...and what is the meaning of this?

And what about Jesus' geneologies in the NT? How can archetypes be part of a geneological line (Luke 3:37, 38)?

I have so many questions!

FL