Were Adam and Eve Real People?
Posted: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
by Allan Gordon
Face The Facts
Why do so many people have doubts regarding the Adam and Eve Story in the Bible?
In my experience the situation has come about because of two reasons. One reason is the widespread belief in the theory of evolution as an alternative explanation for creation. The second reason is the prevailing ignorance of the Bible and its history. This ignorance is largely due to the failure of the religious clergy, who have basically abandoned their flocks to atheism and the evolution theory.
The Clergy and Evolution
A further investigation of the subject indicates that many of the clergymen of those early days of the 20th century started out as God-fearing Bible believers, but they were exposed to a form of scholarship at their respective seminaries known as the "Higher Criticism." The proponents of this school of biblical criticism, because of their belief in the evolution theory, believed that religion simply evolved from what they called animism, (the primitive worship of the forces of nature) then to polytheism (the worship of many Gods) and then to monotheism (the highest form of worship, the worship of one God). These evolutionists assumed that the Bible is merely a record of man's evolutionary development. Although teachers of religions God did not enter their equation. They accepted the evolution theory as fact and because of the anti-Bible bias in their teaching, destroyed the faith of their students. Thus many sincere men that at one time had faith in the Bible, had their faith destroyed at these seminaries. After all one is supposed to believe what the teacher teaches. As all this occurred during the early part of the 20th century, today many of those men, now clergymen are of little use in building faith in the Bible. They are being looked up to, as representing Christianity, God and the Bible, but do not whole-heartedly believe in the Bible preferring to believe that man's religion today is just part of his evolutionary development. Thus the Adam and Eve Story becomes a quaint mythological story, and the Bible merely a reflection of what men in ancient times believed. That is why these men meddle in politics, looking for materialist solutions to human problems. they further introduced confusion into the equation because of merely using selected scripture texts to support their own traditional church teachings instead of allowing the Bible to explain itself.
Science and Creation
As I have stated in some of my other articles on this site the first question that should be considered in regard to a religious discussion is the question of whether one believes in God or not. The answer is fundamentally very simple to answer. That the universe and ourselves exist is not open to question, but the question is were they always here or did they have a beginning.
The view that modern science has with regard to the universe is that it is expanding. It is almost as if the universe exploded into existence and we are now somewhere in the middle of this explosion with regard to time. Imagine if the explosion were recorded on film and we reversed the film it would ultimately come to a point where matter came into existence and exploded. This is fundamentally as far back as science can go from a scientific point of view. This iswhat the evidence shows. Anything else is conjecture without evidence. Another strong proof of creation lies in the fact that from the evidence we notice that matter came into existence at that time and exploded. Now the stars are at present converting matter into energy, therefore the logical conclusion is that if the universe was infinite then all the matter would have been converted to energy and the universe would be dead. So science is forced to accept creation.
However evolutionist are still trying to find alternative theories to counter the scientific evidence. The most recent alternative theory was "the oscillating universe theory". This theory proposes that gravity is slowing down the expansion so it will ultimately stop expanding and because of gravity begin to collapse on itself. However this theory has been disproved by more recent evidence that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and not slowing down as the theory requires.
Now once you have a creator you cannot put limitations on his creative powers. The wisdom, power and creative ability to create a universe is so great that our creator could not be human or suffer from human limitations. Our Creator must lay outside creation and because matter only came into existence at creation, he must exist in a form higher than matter. That is why we refer to God as a spirit being. Questions like "who created God" are irrelevant because logic shows that nothing can arise from nothing and so the original cause of creation had always to be there, That question is only asked to create doubt in God's existence, and so once we have established that the creation had a beginning, and that God's existence is established, the question becomes irrelevant. Once our science has led us to the existence of a creator, with the power at his proposal the universe could have been created having the appearance of being very old. This simply means that creation could have occurred at any time with the appearance of age and thereafter genuinely aged and this factor is not taken into account when estimating the age of the universe .
Adam and Eve & Population Increase With regard to the Adam and Eve story, one has only to consider the rate of population growth to see that this not only supports the idea of one perfect human pair at the beginning but it also becomes a problem for the evolutionist.
If we consider the time available for population growth, Bible time allows for a little over 6000 years whereas the evolution time scale allows for millions of years. Which do you think is the most reasonable in the light of facts?
In 1975 according to the Bible's count of time approximately, six thousand years have passed counting from man's creation.
At present in 2008 the world population is just under seven billion.
In 1975 the population was about three and a half billion.
The population reached about one billion by 1830 C.E.
Now if the population rose from one billion to minus seven billion in a little over 170 years, and yet, the first billion was only reached after 5830 years (in bible time) then the rate of growth was very slow at the beginning and is escalating today. Bear in mind that this growth rate was in spite of the occurrence of wars and epidemics, which might have slowed the growth somewhat. Still with all these factors considered the growth rate is still 5830 years to reach 1,000,000,000. This indicates that 5830 years is still a very long time to reach 1,000,000,000 compared to the latest increases.
How does this fit in with evolutionary reasoning? It has been scientifically ascertained from archaeology that humans have been capable of writing and producing a civilization in the region of 6000 years. This indicates that according to the evolution theory man has evolved very little during the past 6000 years. With mankind evolving so slowly it becomes apparent that the first true men could have arrived many thousands or perhaps a million years earlier. Which period of time is the most reasonable to arrive at for the first billion? The 5830 years, which already appears to be a very slow population increase, or the many more thousands or even millions of years provided by the evolution theory.? Also remember that evolution claims that man's speech arose from grunts and growls and gradually evolved into more complex languages. The presence of the many ancient complex languages like ancient Hebrew and others also indicates that according to evolution theory, intelligent humans should have developed much simpler languages a long time earlier and therefore the evidence is clear that if evolution was true then the population growth would have been so great that we would probably have populated the entire solar system by now.
@pagebreak
Genetic Damage
It has been discovered that the human race in general is experiencing genetic damage. Apparently we are being bombarded by cosmic rays and other forms of radiation. As these rays pass through our bodies, they occasionally collide with genes. If they collide with genes in our sex cells then the damage is passed on to succeeding generations. This is one of the reasons why intermarriage with close relatives is dangerous. If both parties in such a marriage both have the same damaged genes the problem is intensified. This means that contrary to the theory of evolution which maintains that the human race is evolving upwards, science has actually established that the human race i s deteriorating. This is one of the reasons that the Bible shows that humans lived to far greater ages prior to the global flood of Noah's day. According to the Bible humans have been exposed to this deteriorating effect for about 6000 years. However according to evolution theory humans have been around for a much longer time. Even if one conservatively estimates that man has been around for about 60.000 years instead of a millions years, can you imagine how much worse this deterioration would have been compared to the Bible's 6000 years. Surely the present physical state that humans find themselves in favors mankind being 6000, years rather than the longer time periods demanded by the evolution theory.
The present population therefore favors the biblical count of time which would make it reasonable for the Adam and Eve story to be the more logical beginning for population growth. Obviously one has to have two matched humans, male and female to start population growth. Recently an evolutionist proposed that the presence of male and female is not necessary because some creatures can reproduce alone. My argument is that some creatures can lose a tail or a limb and can immediately grow a replacement but they are not humans.
Adam and Eve and DNA What would be the chances of a blind mindless force like natural selection evolving two humans completely different in emotional and physical makeup and yet matched genetically so well as to be able to reproduce? Humans cannot reproduce with apes. The genetic code in the DNA does not allow it, The genetic match must be perfect. That is why the Bible's statement in Genesis is a scientific fact. Creatures only produce after their kind. Dogs only reproduce with dogs. Humans can only reproduce with humans. That is why it is logical to understand that the genetic factors in humans show that we are all related to one another no matter what racial characteristics are in evidence. Evolutionists only theorize that the "kind barrier" can be overcome, however it has never ever been observed to actually occur. Any attempt to bridge the "kind barrier" results in sterility. Therefore we may ask which is the more scientific explanation, the Bible's observation regarding the reproduction being limited to "kinds" or the evolution theory of unlimited reproduction that is necessary for evolution to be true? Which of these two explanations fits the actual facts. I would venture that the Bible is more scientific. In fact the evolutionist version is purely religious, being an article of faith and evolutionists are still searching for proof whereas the Bible provides statements of scientific truth,
By going back into the past we logically come to a time when the human race came from a single human pair. However some persons question how all human kind with all the different races could have originated from one human pair, but this is perfectly in harmony with science. The racial characteristics are merely caused by the fact, that as people moved to different areas of the earth their gene pool shrank and certain characteristics were emphasized.
What was Adam? Genesis records that God created Adam from the earth. The problem with the religious teaching regarding this is the definition of man that the religions have ascribed to man. Nearly all professed Christian religions teach that man is composed of an immortal soul that cannot die and a fleshly body that is subject to death. However this is not a Bible teaching. Genesis 2:7 says that the man " became a soul " and not that a soul was put into him. Logically if a person becomes a doctor then he is a doctor and so if a man becomes a soul then he is a soul. By examining an Analytical Concordance like Young's we find that the word immortal only appears i n the Bible four times and is never used with regard to the Hebrew and Greek words for soul.
By contrast when God judged Adam for his sin God explained what Adam was. He said "f or dust you are and to dust you will return. " (Gen. 3:19 ). The Bible hope for the future of man is a resurrection or recreation of the individual rather than survival of an immortal soul. Such an achievement would be child's play for the God who created this universe. Furthermore, the findings of medical science agree with the Bible's definition of man. Scientists have never found any entity that survives the body. Religions regard the soul as the real you, capable of thought and capable of influencing the living. However the thinking ability does not exist apart from the body and this is shown by the fact that if persons suffer brain damage it affects their thinking ability.
@pagebreak
Were Adam and Eve real people?
Evidently, the writer of Luke's Gospel believed that Adam was real because when tracing Jesus ancestry at Luke Chapter 3 he tracers it right back to Adam ( Luke 3:38 ) the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
The Jews at that time recorded very accurate records of their ancestry in their temple archives because their priests were selected from the tribe of Levi and the royal line was traced through Judah and David. Therefore when we read that Luke traced all things with accuracy (Luke 1:1-3) we can be certain that he was able to consult those records. As it was important for Jesus to have come from the line of David, both Mary and Joseph, his parents had to fulfill this requirement. Any Jew at any time in their history could check the manuscripts with the records at the temple and so confirm that the genealogies were correct, this also provides circumstantial evidence of the Bible's truthfulness and accuracy. Furthermore any Jew living at the time when Jesus was on earth would have been able to check the ancestry of Jesus for himself. As the three and a half years of Jesus' ministry, and the first three and a half years of the apostle's ministry after Pentecost was only to the Jews, we can be sure that the vast increase of Jewish converts confirm that the genealogy of Jesus was correct. It was only after the year 70 CE with the destruction of their temple and their genealogical records, that Jews today cannot trace their ancestry.
Once we deny Adam's existence then we might ask who was Seth's father? At what point in the Jew's genealogical records did myth become reality? Furthermore Jesus himself obviously believed that Adam and Eve were real people because in his discussion on divorce he used their reality as a factual example. (Mark 10:6-12) . . .However, from [the] beginning of creation He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh'; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart." 10 When again in the house the disciples began to question him concerning this. 11 And he said to them: " Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her , 12 and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery."
I seriously question a person's claim to being a Christian, if he doubts that Adam and Eve were real people, because the founder of Christianity accepted it and could trace his lineage back to Adam. Furthermore the whole teaching regarding why Jesus Christ had to die to redeem mankind is based on the fact that Adam was the progenitor of human race. Anyone that believes that Adam was not an actual person and considers himself to be a Christian is cutting the ground from under his feet. As many clergymen accept that the Adam and Eve story is allegorical, they do not appear to realize that they are denying the ransom of Christ by their belief and teaching. According to the Bible anyone that adopts that position is not covered by the ransom of Jesus and remains dead in their sins.
(Hebrews 10:26-31) . . . For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment ---- -29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? 30 For we know him that said: "Vengeance is mine; I will recompense"; and again: "Jehovah will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God.
Were Adam and Eve Married? With regard to the question of whether Adam and Eve parented the whole human race, the scripture tells us at Gen 3:20 that Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was to " become the mother of all living ". Furthermore Jesus himself said "Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.""
Gen, 2:22-24 and Gen. 3:19 also answer the question of who married Adam and Eve. When God created the woman, Gen, 2;22-24 says that God brought the woman to the man . Then it says that man showed his joy by composing a poem in which he showed that he understood that the woman was of his flesh and bone and named her woman which means a man with a womb. He also referred to her as his wife and at Gen 3:19 said that he called his wife's name Eve . This means that God's bringing the woman to the man constituted the marriage ceremony at that time.
How about the first humans marrying their own relatives? From a scientific perspective this is also scientifically correct. Science has discovered that the genes in the DNA get damaged periodically by cosmic rays and other radiation collisions. When this damage occurs within the reproductive cells this damage is passed on to generation after generation. This has resulted in the deterioration of the genetic code causing individuals to have a predisposition to certain diseases. Logically if we go back in time we find less and less damage done to the DNA until we should arrive at a time when the first humans had very little or no damage to their DNA. At this stage there would have been no danger for humans to marry close relatives.
About Marrying Relatives
Some persons are under the impression that Adam and Eve had only two sons Cain and Abel, and so the question arises as to who they married. However once again this demonstrates the failure of the religious clergy who have not taught their flocks the truth. Gen. 4:25 says that Eve also bore Seth . At Genesis 6:3,4 the Bible states that Adam had " sons and daughters " and that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. Adam is further reported as living to 930 years old. Some have problems with the vast ages that the Bible supplies, but again it is scientifically perfectly reasonable. If our genes have been damaged physically so that today we are mere shadows of what we used to be it is quite reasonable to comprehend that the damaged genes are also responsible for the short lengths of our lives. In fact there are experiments being conducted today because some scientist think that they have discovered which genes control the lifespans of an individual. Of course there are also other factors which bear on this.
At Leviticus 18:7-18 God showed that with the introduction of his law to the nation of Israel through Moses, close relatives were not to marry each other. So God provided the first basic safeguard against genetic degeneration . Remember that the microscope had not been invented nor was there any scientific knowledge of genetics at that time yet God gave the Israelites a law that protected them from genetic degeneration. In this way the Israelites were protected from an increase of inherited diseases. Another example of Divine guidance as the Israelites had no way of knowing this fact without God's help.
@pagebreak
Adam's Rib
Why did God fashion the woman from one of Adam's ribs? This was important to God's purpose. It meant that all other humans basically came from Adam. God made Eve from Adam's rib and the rest of the human race came from Adam and Eve's body through the normal process of procreation.
(1 Timothy 2:14) Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. . .
God held Adam responsible for the problem. If Adam had refused to follow Eve in her foolishness, the human race would not have been affected. We are affected because Adam was the progenitor of all humans and including his own wife.
So the act of forming the woman from Adam's rib also fulfilled two other functions. The first was that Adams and Eve's DNA were basically the same. Secondly, God introduced the principle of headship to man. Adam was created first, then the woman came to be out of the man and was formed to be his helper. or helpmate. Adams conduct could therefore affect all the members of the human race, which it did. If Adam had remained faithful he could have passed on perfection to his offspring. God withdrew his protection from Adam and so he began to succumb to the 2nd law of thermodynamics As he was now dying albeit being a slow process, we could only inherit the same dying process in our bodies. As he sinned before any of his children were born we all inherited imperfection and death from him. By Adam sinning he squandered our life rights and condemned us to this sorry condition that has been aggravated by thousands of years of falling away from perfection. If God in his mercy wanted to legally return those lost rights to us, so that we could have the same opportunity to live forever, Justice demanded a price of equal value to Adam. This was the ransom provision. How could God provide such a price without creating a new man and so conceding that the human race was a failure.? God accomplished this by selecting a faithful spirit son who was willing to perform this service for his father by coming to earth and providing the sacrificial offering. To accomplish this the son would have to be human. God performed a miracle by transferring the son's life pattern into the womb of a faithful Jewish virgin. As a perfect human son with God for his father Jesus now possessed the same rights that Adam had had when perfect. This included the right to have a perfect human family. His death as a faithful son balanced the scales of justice. After being resurrected to heaven he also now possessed the right to a perfect human family. The ransom provided Adam's children with the opportunity to be judged in perfection.
Once one accepts that God exists and has created the universe, it should be a simple matter to understand that before God created the universe he had already created other creatures in the same form as himself which is spirit. As the details concerning the rebellion that broke out in the universe have been discussed in other articles on this site, I will not go into details. Apparently one of these spirit creatures developed a bad spirit (attitude), rebelled and tried to use Adam and Eve's creation to challenge God's authority. God's way of handling the matter was to give the rebel a full opportunity to prove his case. His failure would then prove God true and vindicate God's universal sovereignty. Unfortunately we humans have been made the center of the issue by this rebel whom God labeled Satan, which means "Adversary" or "opposer".
Without the Bible we would never have understood why mankind suffers today, however God fully intends rectifying the matter once certain issues have been settled. Unfortunately Satan has introduced false ideas to get humans to disobey God just as he did to Adam and Eve.. It is necessary for us all to get accurate knowledge so as to combat these deceptions. I strongly suggest that one reads the two articles on my site entitled "The Origin of Religion" and " the Scientific Accuracy of Genesis" which are a logical followup to this subject.
contacted e-mail - info@facethefacts.co.za.
This Article has been viewed 1,489 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsBen Merrish
Intellectual Balderdash is the technique used by evolutionists. I don't play their game anymore, they were a part of my life that belongs to the past, now I but prefer to rely on common sense. I am perfectly aware that there are some who will argue differently and that is their privilige and right. When I went to the Bible I found something more logical, satisfying than evolution. My article were not written to start and enter into debates, Jesus Christ was the greatest teacher that ever lived and the results of his work never died with him by are still here today. He never convinced everybody and I am not trying to beat his record. If you wish to know what I believe and know read m article, most of your arguments are discussed in those article
anyhow. I would like to put on record that I am not prepared to argue points with persons. I will answer questions and explain as best I can butmpersons are at liberty to believe what they choose.
Allan Gordon
Mr Ben Merrish
I apologise for my snotty answer to your letter. I reacted emotionally possibly like you did when you read mine. I thank you for taking the trouble to read my letter, My article reflects my opinion and time will tell which one of us is correct., The readers of my article will judge for themselves as to whether the articles make sense or not. What I said still stands as regarding debates. However, what you might do is to read your own article very carefully again and make a note of how many times you turned to theory to explained certain facts. Plausibility is not proof. In my experience if a cat has a long tail an evolutionist has a theory to explain it and if the cat has a short tail he will have a theory to explain that. Evolutionists are theorists that ride on the work of others. When it comes to producing the living evidence of evolution it fails. What the evidence requires is millions of in-between forms that are changing from one kind to another, not a theoretical explanation of how it could be done. Evolutionists have to produce millions of fossils that are in the obvious stages of changing from one kind into another not a theory on how this could have happened. Evolution is a theory, that means it is an imaginative explanation designed to explain how the various forms of life got here. However we know how they got here they were produced by parents of the same kind and it happens all around us. As regards population, the facts show that the population is expanding and the reasons that evolutionist supply are simply more theories. What is a fact is that if one follows the trail back all the way to their beginning, it starts with a pair male and female. and that is a scientific fact that can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Take a number of mice and place them in a container. They can reproduce and experience population growth, but take all out except one, little by little or all at once it does not matter. When there is only one then reproduction will stop. Evolution may be an attractive theory, but it does not work in the real world. The most basic law is the principle of cause and effect. Laws are only accepted as long as they agree with ALL facts. I accept facts and there is not one living example of one life form changing into another. That is why I used the expression intellectual balderdash. Its all words and theory. When you can DEMONSTRATE in reality and not explain how intelligence can arise out of non-intelligence and how living creatures can arise from non-living matter. If you can show me how this universe can arise from nothing then you have a case.
Thank you but that is my opinion.
Allan GordonApology accepted, and my apologies if you were offended by what I wrote - that was not my intent!My comment was not an emotional response, it was really only intended to clarify some misunderstandings about evolution and evolutionary theory, because it seems those same misunderstandings are unfortunately quite widespread and oft repeated.If people want to be critical of evolutionary theory that is great - if it can't stand up to scrutiny then it needs to be thrown out. That is part of the process by which science makes advances - it tries to break existing theories, and if they do fall apart then room is made for better ones to take their place (a good example is Newtonian gravity, now replaced with Einsteinian Relativity, which is more accurate).However to attack the theory one first has to understand it - time spent attacking a version of evolutionary theory that little resembles the real one is time wasted.Fossil evidence supports evolution, but is not necessary for it, especially with the evidence from molecular biology.One of the simplest ways in which the fossil record supports evolution is the fact that certain species are only found in certain layers. If creatures, or "kinds" were created as the first instances of life we'd expect to see the same "kinds" all the way back through the fossil record, and we simply don't.With regard to your point about mice, you're right that a single non-pregnant mouse cannot reproduce on its own, but "evolutionists" don't claim otherwise. Some species can reproduce alone though - not all species require sexual reproduction.I don't quite understand why you seem to demand far more from evolutionary theory than you do from Creationism - you deride evolution as "all words and theory" and want a demonstration of intelligence arising from non-intelligence, yet you don't demand a demonstration of fully formed, living, intelligent humans being spontaneously created from non-intelligent, non-alive dirt.You say "evolutionists" need to produce millions of fossils to prove their point (and millions of fossils have been found that perfectly fit predictions made with evolutionary theory), yet for Creationists to blow evolution out of the water, all they need to produce is one - just one - fossil of a contemporary complex species (e.g. a rabbit, a human, a badger...) found in ancient (e.g. pre-Cambrian or Cambrian) rock.Anyway, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment, it is appreciated!
Mr Ben Merrish
You misunderstand my letter,
I have not altered my opinion in the slightest. However i detect that you are very dogmatic in your religious belief in evolution. You say all "reputable " scientists are evolutionists. Who decides who are reputable?. Your ignorance of the many scientists who have published material showing evolution to be a fallacy shows that either you are unaware of the other side of the story or else that your belief in your religion is so strong that you treat their work with disdain. Most persons are not aware that their are even evolutionary scientists who were once in the forefront of education in evolution who have switched sides because of the failure of evolution to to live up to their expectations.
As to fossils proving evolution. Nonsense. It is the only evidence that we have as to what happened in the past. All the rest is theory and imagination. The fossils show all the present groups of animals with slight variations in size etc. and also animals that are extinct. The intermediate forms that are needed to show transitions from one group to another are all missing . All the fossils are complete with fully formed structures and none in the process of being formed. Missing links are all missing. Occasionally a fossil is found and evolutionists bend over backward to try and interpret it as an intermediate form until careful examination of its structure show that they are all fully formed and not intermediate.
Evolution has no starting point. natural selection can only proceed by inheritance. If a modification can not be inherited then it ends there. The cell itself is a complicated system and is the first step relating to inheritance. This means that the inside structure could never be passed on before the cell was complete.so evolution ends before it began.
The first step in life is crossed by imagination to the evolutionist.
The present atmosphere of the earth does not permit the development of the chemistry of life therefore evolutionists have to imagine without any proof that at one time the earth had an atmosphere completely different to the present to account for a theoretical explanation of life. Scientists have worked for years and never been able to develop with their scientific knowledge and intelligence what evolutionists believe happened by accident.
All the scientific evidence points ro creation. The expansion of the universe, The application of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. and the common sense principle of cause and effect. To say that evolution is a fact demonstrates a strong faith in the religion of evolution that ascribes the creative power to a word like "nature" but an ignorance of the facts.and also the Bible. do yourself a favor and look into some of the articles on my site that have to do with prophecy and maybe your eyes may be opened to the reality of matters.
I also suggest that you consult the creation research scientific sites on the web and maybe you will realize that evolutionists are theorists and not necessary scientists,
I had a discussion with a paleontologist in the 1950's he was an evolutionist, but after a few minutes confessed that he new very little about evolution. Yet he was a scientist whose words would have been regarded as authoritative. Scientist are not necessarily evolutionists, evolution is simply what the majority believe. Specialists in one field does not necessarily make them specialists in another field.
I hope that this comment will give you the incentive to look into the other side of the story. I had to take that route. One further comment. How can belief in evolution improve your life. Its survival of the fittest so-called law only provides freedom from restraint and no wonder that our world is experiencing more crime, a moral breakdown with the resulting increase of disease that it generates. the breakdown of marriage and the honor of believing that one can behave like an animal because according to the theory that is what one is is small compensation..
Allan Gordon
I'm hardly dogmatic or religious in my acceptance of evolution. I even presented an example of what evidence would prove it wrong. Should such evidence come to light I would have to change my position as it would no longer be compatible with the evidence. Willingness to change position based on the evidence is quite the opposite of a dogmatic stance!As to who decides which scientists are reputable, that is primarily the scientific community as a whole that decides that, and you seem to have respect for scientists in general, and claim on several occasions that science supports your belief.I'm curious about which scientists you are referring to when you say "many scientists who have published material showing evolution to be a fallacy".I am aware of the work of several, of whom I think Michael Behe is probably the most well known. The main argument he put forward, irreducible complexity, was refuted even before he was born, and in the 2005 "Dover Trial" the court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".Another would be William Dembski, whose ideas have been rejected by, among others, The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.If there's some more credible scientists, or scientists with less flimsy arguments, arguing against evolution I would love to hear about them.I didn't say fossils prove evolution, proof doesn't apply in science, it is specific to logic and mathematics. However, all fossils so far found fit with evolutionary predictions.The fossil record does not fit with what a Creationist model would lead us to expect (e.g. all "kinds" appearing at the same time in the fossil record, and there being very few fossils in existence since 6,000 - 10,000 years is not a long enough time for many to have formed, given the rare circumstances fossil formation requires). There are no fossil humans in pre-Cambrian rocks. If we find just one such fossil, current evolutionary theory will have to be thrown out, or at least severely altered.You are right in saying that evolution does not explain the origin of life. It was never intended to, theories that explain the origin of life are theories of abiogenesis, not evolution. There are currently several such theories, although no one is significantly better supported by the currently available evidence than the competing theories, so until more evidence comes in there's no way to know which is the most likely to be right.Thermodynamics does not conflict with evolutionary theory, since the Earth is not a closed system (most obviously, extra energy is added from the sun).It requires no faith at all to make the statement that evolution is a fact. It is - it has been observed on many independent occasions - evolution happens.It is the *fact of evolution* that any *theory of evolution* (such as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection) must explain, just as it is the fact of gravitational attraction that must be explained by theories of gravitation.You suggest I look at the "creation research scientific sites" on the web. I have seen many. Answers In Genesis for one. They make many scientific errors that are obvious even to me as a layman.Scientists are not necessarily "evolutionists", but the vast majority are, and this is true of scientists of all faiths and those of no faith - the vast majority of Christian scientists are "evolutionists". While we're talking about "evolutionists", it's worth mentioning again that Pope is one, and so are the heads of many other Churches.Believe me, I have already looked into the other side of the story....I take the position I take because I have looked at both sides and found one lacking, in terms both of evidence and explanatory power.Finally, whether accepting evolution can improve your life or not has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Acceptance of evolution does not provide freedom from restraint because it says nothing at all about what is right and what is wrong (it is amoral, not immoral). Evolution does not say that it is good that the fittest survive, merely that it happens to generally be the case that they do survive.Those who take evolutionary theory as a guide for determining right and wrong are committing the naturalistic fallacy (equating "natural" with "good")
Ben Morrish
I am glad to hear that you have examined both sides. I disagree with you completely but respect your right to have a different opinion. I just would like to set you straight on your idea of what the Bible teaches. I should have mentioned that although I accept the creation research I do not agree with their understanding of the bible which is simply a reflection of the churches they represent. Many believe that the Bible can be interpreted any way but this is not so Jesus used a method as reported in Luke 24:27 that could be described as a topical study. All the scriptures are checked on a subject and the meaning that harmonizes with all references is the correct meaning. Creation scientist because of their church background claim that the universe was created in 6 twenty four hour days. This is incorrect. At Hebrew 4:1-5 the apostle shows that God's seven day rest was still in existence during his time and pointed to it as continuing into the future. As there is no evidence showing that it has ended yet, according to Bible time it is already more than 6000 years long already. As the preceding 6 days stand each in relation to the 7th day then the preceding 6 days should be at least 36 000 years and this does not include the fistr two verse of Genesis chapter one which allows for the creation of the universe to be any number of years,even millions.
I have discussed this in scientific accuracy of Genesis on my web site :"Face the Facts"
You claim that all these life forms were created at the same time. Not so each of those long days of creative activity introduced a new phase of activity and they continued on. until completed. Genesis 2 shows that even when Adam was created God was still forming animals even though their creation had begun at least 6000 ears earlier. The sequence is found to agree with the fossil record, namely vegetation, sea life and a animal life and man last. This your understanding that they were all created at the sme time is incorrect. I suggest that you have a look at my articles on the scientific accuracy of genesis and perhaps some of the other articles .It is possible that you might consider the Biblical information in a different light. I would also like to point out that if your evolutionary scientific community disrespect the findings of the creation research scientists is that not what you would expect? Its like asking the Palestinians what they think of the Israelies. What else to you expect. When I was an evolutionist I read all the evolutionary viewpoints and accepted them but when I subsequently read the creation research it made more sense to me. We all have to make our choices. In my website I try to present the other side of the story and rely on common sense to be the judge,
Everyone does not all agree but in the end we pay the price for what we believe just as the japanese kamikze airman paid for their worship of the emperor. That is why you should consider the articles on bible prophecy which I have discussed. The temple of Jerusalem destruction and the fact that it has never been rebuilt was foretold by the prophet Daniel at least 500 years before Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ then referred to Daniel's prophecy and explained what the Jews should do to escape the destruction. History and the arch of Titus in Rome testifies to the truthfulness of Jesus' words. The thousands of Jews that ignored the warnings ended up dead or as galley slaves whereas the Christians that fled to mountains of Pella were safe and started off the Christian movement. As the apostles warned however an apostasy set in starting within the latter part of the first century so don't judge the Bible by Christendoms' religious systems that are characatures of real Christianity. So you and I will stand or fall on the basis of what we believe and if scripture is correct very soon.
We are both entitiled to have different views and I would not try to force my opinion upon you but both you and I must do as the Bible says at" (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) .21. .Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 22 Abstain from every form of wickedness.
Allan Gordon
Thanks for clarifying your position.I certainly think the "older Earth" model you describe, with the "Days" of Creation being far longer than 24-hour days is far more viable than the "young Earth" model.I still don't see that the Biblical ordering of the creation matches the fossil record though - it puts grass and fruiting trees first, then birds and sea creatures (including whales), then land animals (including cattle) and then finally man.Even if we simplify down these categories, the orders don't quite match - the fossil record shows that land animals (of various sorts) existed long before birds, and that whales arose relatively recently, as did grass.Although we disagree on much, I can certainly agree with your last comment - "21 - Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 22 - Abstain from every form of wickedness".I try and abstain from wickedness and live a good life....I think that is something everyone should strive to do, regardless of their faith (or lack of it)!
(Double posted...doh!)
Ben Moorish
I am glad that you like it.
I think you should check "Evolution's Time Scale" on my site.. This should straighten out the matter of the fossil sequence.
There are two sequences in existence. 1. The actual order in the rocks.The oldest at the bottom and the latest at the top.
2. The artificial order known as the "Geologic Column." This column is the imaginative sequence artificially created by the evolutionists.
If you want to know more about it check "evolution's time scale" on my site..When they tell you that the whale appeared contemporary with land animals, that is just theory and not fact.and the way that they have artificially arranged the sequence.
In evolutionary reasoning the whale is a mammal and mammals are only supposed to have evolved last. Because evolution proceeds in stages, creatures are not supposed to miss out all the stages of evolution otherwise why do we need those stages at all? How did a mammal adopt all the characteristics of a fish, when according to evolution similarity proves evolution?. Here we have an enigma. A whale is similar to a fish on the outside and similar to an animal on the inside. Which similarity proves relationship? Similarity is used to prove an evolutionary relationship so why should a mammal be similar to a fish?.To the Bible believer similarity proves design for a similar purpose.Evolution maintains that design is only apparent, Then why to they send out signals into space hoping that intelligent life in space would recognize these signals as being the product of intelligent life and in the hopes that they will reply?.I think that I deserve an answer to these questions.
Here are a few more questions that as an evolutionist you should be able to answer.
1. When fossils are found, why are they always complete and fully formed?
2. Why are the very first life forms in the fossil record so very complicated.where are their ancestors?
3. Although transition takes millions of years according to evolution theory, millions of years during which fossils are continually been formed, why are there no transitional forms?
4. Why do we find no fossils in the pre-cambrian layer.
5. Why do we never find fossils showing the beginnings of body parts? The beginnings of limbs, bones, organs etc.
6. why is the earth covered all over with sedimentary rock?
7. If strata takes millions of years to develop how would a single dinosaur become a fossil?
.
You might also check "The scientific accuracy of Genesis", bearing in mind that that when Genesis was written no telescopes were available, no microscopes were available and the Bible's purpose was to explain God's purposes for man and to help him cope with the bad conditions that he had brought on himself. Yet it was way ahead of its time when It said the earth was hung in space, that the earth was a sphere, that God had already recorded all the body parts in the embryo. Now don't you think that the oldest book on earth deserves some respect. Furthermore it has never been proven wrong although challenged many times. .For example, the 24 hour day mistake. Its professed teachers have been in error many times which have misled certain ones to doubt its authenticity but investigation has always untimitly shown it to be correct. For example:- If you study the first chapter of Genesis you will see why the rainbow appeared after the flood and these people had no knowledge of modern science. The people had no knowledge of germs and bacteria yet the laws God gave them helped prevent infection and even introduced quarantining of certain highly infections diseases. The application of the laws regarding the handling of sewerage could improve the life of many peoples in the modern world/, where ignorance of the facts has been the cause of infectious disease. Yet a book thousand of years could give moderns practical. That means something.I'm a bit limited for time at the moment but I'll do my best to answer your questions and some of the other points you raise:1. When fossils are found, why are they always complete and fully formed?They aren't. The vast majority of fossils are not complete.
2. Why are the very first life forms in the fossil record so very complicated.where are their ancestors?The first life forms in the fossil record are quite simple...they're microbes. Such fossils are rare of course, because microbes don't fossilize easily for obvious reasons. Stromatolites (accretionary structures produced by microbes) are more common, although these are indirect evidence (like a dead coral reef is indirect evidence of the polyps that built the reef)."Evolutionists" wouldn't expect to see many fossils from the very earliest living things because these living things were generally tiny, soft, and simple. Large, hard things fossilize more easily (shells, bones, teeth etc), and according to evolution, creatures with these attributes didn't arise until later on.
3. Although transition takes millions of years according to evolution theory, millions of years during which fossils are continually been formed, why are there no transitional forms?Under the evolutionary view, all forms are transitional - the change over generations is gradual, a smooth continuum rather than discrete jumps. Each living thing exists in its own right, no particular individual is any more or less transitional than any of its ancestors or its descendants.
4. Why do we find no fossils in the pre-cambrian layer.We have actually found fossils there. Not many, but evolution would not lead us to expect to find many, for the reasons given above (i.e. the lifeforms evolution expects to have existed at that time were tiny and soft, very unlikely to fossilize).The fossils that have been found support the evolutionary view that only very simple creatures existed at this time - there are no complex fossils found in the Pre-Cambrian.5. Why do we never find fossils showing the beginnings of body parts? The beginnings of limbs, bones, organs etc.We do. We have fossils of ancient fish fins, which were the beginnings of limbs (although evolution doesn't look ahead, it always operates in the now - it can never make something worse now to make it better later, so there's never a useless "half-formed" part - some parts may look "half formed" *when compared to more modern versions*).Cartillage structures preceded modern bones, certain animal's scent glands are modified sweat glands etc.
6. why is the earth covered all over with sedimentary rock?Well, it isn't covered all over, but there's certainly a lot of it - I think coverage is about 75% of the land. Much of it comes from the constant erosion of rock by water (the oceans, seas, rivers and rains), and a lot comes from accumulation of dead microscopic living things.7. If strata takes millions of years to develop how would a single dinosaur become a fossil?There's many types of fossil formation, one is Permineralization. For this to happen, the creature must be covered in sediment shortly after death (perhaps collapsing in a swamp or riverbed for example). Minerals in the sediment can then, over time, permeate through the remains, creating a fossil.
While it can take a long time for the fossil to form, the fossilization process is quite rapid when looked at on the geological time scale of millions of years. However, since it is not instant, and since living things are not completely flat, it is impossible to determine the EXACT age of a fossil from its position within the strata, but its position gives us a fairly tight window of estimation (which can be further refined by other dating methods).Apparent similarity is not the primary means of determining relatedness in modern biology, and convergent evolution leads us to *expect* certain similarities in species that are not closely related but fill a similar niche. Molecular biology is the main method by which modern science determines relatedness between species."To the Bible believer similarity proves design for a similar purpose" - if this is the case, why do whales and sharks have such a fundamentally *different* design yet a cosmetic similarity?You say the Bible is the oldest book on Earth, but it isn't. Even if you are referring to the old Hewbrew Bible, rather than the modern Christian one including the New Testament, there are still many books and writings that are older.Here's a couple:The Precepts of Ptah-hotep (between 2300 BCE and 2150 BCE)The Epic of Gilgamesh is dated to the Third Dynasty of Ur or between 2100 and 2000 BCEThe Bible doesn't clearly indicate a spherical Earth (and makes no mention of the fact that Earth is actually an oblate spheroid, although perhaps that minor aspect can be forgiven, although if it was divine revelation absolute precision would be expected!).Some parts imply a flat, circular disc. Circle =/= sphere.Isiah 40:22 refers to God "dwelling above the circle of earth" (Hewbrew word "hug" rather than "dur", meaning "ball" or "sphere".Also, ancient peoples had a lot more know-how that you seem to give them credit for - e.g. in Egypt many Pyramids had been constructed centuries before the Bible was written. The Greeks had described the Earth as spherical in ~600 BC, and ancient Indian culture may have done so centuries earlier.Inconsistent and mostly ambiguous hints at a spherical Earth don't do much to convince me that the Book of Genesis consists of divine revelation.If it was a divine revelation, I'd expect much more consistency, and much less ambiguity.And I'd expect it to reveal knowledge or practical traditions that were not already known or practised by other cultures at the time, rather than just being a repository of the tribal wisdom of the day.
Ben Moorish
I'm sorry but I give up
Its like trying to prove that white is white.
I am sorry but I do not intend pursuing this discussion any further as I can see that it could go on for ever and it appears that it is just the evolutionist reasoning that I left behind when I the left evolution.theory.
As I have said before my site attempts to show another side of the story. You have selected the side that you have taken. I give them my side of the story in my articles. The Bible has a saying that we should not cast our pearls before swine, meanng that we should not waste time trying to convince somebody that we see will never be convinced. Jesus never convinced the majority in the first century.His example shows that people choose to believe what they want to believe. Obviously you prefer to believe in evolution. I don't. The Bible warned that people in later times would accumulate teachers to tickle heir ears. In cases like this we just have to let time show up who is right. Jesus said wisdom is proved righteous by its works. In Jesus' case it took 37 years for those who chose to ignore his words to find out who was right. Unfortunately for them it meant destruction because of their failure to act on his warnings so I think we will have to allow time to decide who is right. Thanks for reading my material but you have made your choice so the purpose of the material was achieved. It was intended for people to make up their minds one way or another by showing them a side of the story that they might not have known about..Thanks for the discussion - I appreciate the time you've spent responding to me!I think between us we've presented our two sides and provided some reasons why we each take the positions we do, and hopefully given readers some food for thought too!thanks again,-Ben
Here’s a couple
If you check other articles on my site you will find that I have mentioned that when Bible writers received visions they described them in their own words, God also expects us to be reasonable. If I tell you that I am going to pick you up in town, I expect you to be reasonable and realize what I mean. You certainly won't expect me to drive to town and get out of my car and pick you up. So why not read the Bible with the same reasonableness. What was written was for ordinary people to understand, now even today people speak about the earth as being round so why should we expect the writers to be writing a scientific manual. However it is just as miraculous when we consider that they realized that the earth was round. Furthermore some Bible translators actually translate the words as a "sphere" What the astronaughts saw from space was a circle. although they knew that it was a sphere. Furthermore Job said it was hung on nothing..
In the case of the epic of Gilgamesh and all other ancient writtings they were all written after the flood.. “New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis” by J. P. Wiseman reveals that Moses probably copied the pre-flood accounts from earlier documents. He says that the account breaks down into eleven documents with the colophon naming the name of the writer or writers. He explains that the writing style is more ancient than the later accounts that Moses wrote. They are written in the style that very old clay tablets used. When Moses wrote about the time before the flood, he had to add an explanatory note to help his comtempories identify places that were now longer in existence.
At any rate the Genesis account is the only ancient document that takes us from the creation of the universe to populating the earth with animals and humans. Whether it was inspired by divine revelation or copied and edited by Moses. Nevertheless the account is so logically written that anyone who is critical of it has to prove that the writer was dishonest or ignorant.. Furthermore Moses was educated in all the wisdom of Egypt. It would be very difficult for any critic to question his honesty because he had no hesitation in mentioning his own faults and failures.Furthermore the Israelite nation accepted Moses writings as a truthful account even though its is largely an exposure of the nation as being disobedient and it records their defeats which it ascribes to God withdrawing his protection from them. This is the honesty that the surrounding nations do not manifest. In fact they rarely record their defeats and at times even dishonestly grab accomplishments of their predecessors. So why should we prefer to believe their accounts in preference to the Bible.
Therefore when we read that Luke traced all things with accuracy (Luke 1:1-3)we can be certain that he was able to consult those records.its not Luke 1:1-3. it should be matthew 1:1-3. heheheheLuke 1:1-3 was cited to back up statement that Luke traced all things with accuracy
Luke 3:23-38 shows genealogy of Jesus through Joseph
Matt 1:1-3 trace genealogy of Jesus through Mary
This all established Jesus' Messianic legal qualifications
Allan
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.