Adam Didn't Do His Job

[Assyrian]

Not to mention defending a literal six day creation by stretching the sixth day...

 

[localz]

I did not say that God stretched the sixth day; I was merely using His long-day miracle as an example of what He is capable of, and that He could have assisted Adam in some other sort of miraculous manner.

I will also say, however, that aside from the fact that he formed all of these creatures "out of the ground" and "brought them" directly to Adam, I do not believe He provided Adam with any such time-saving miracle to aid him in the naming of the animals. I think that, at the time of the Creation, there were few enough of every "kind" that Adam had to name so that it did not consume any more time than the one day mentioned in the Genesis account.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you may be underestimating the complexity of the task. Firstly the Hebrew translated into English as 'bird', actually covers every winged creature, including bats and flying insects. So the God's favourites the beetles are included.

Secondly, we are not talking about a conveyor belt...
Longnosedbigears, next.
Stripey, next.
Shaggyhead, my what big teeth you've got I wonder what they're for, next.

Adam had to get to know the animals. He wasn't just naming them, he was looking to find a helper and partner.

Gen 2:18 ¶ Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Of course we can't look at his passage without asking when God formed the animals. Was it after he created Adam as we are told here, or was it before as we are told in Gen 1:25&26? And were bird formed out of the ground as Gen 2:20 says, or from the waters Gen 1:20?

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Actually I believe he named all the animals. It says he did that. It is possible that God put the animal before him, he named them and then God moved them to the proper climate. As well, man was meant to stay in the Garden of Eden. It could be possible that God created animals after the fall... for instance the people eating ones. It could also be possible that some animals were not created by God and those ones died in the flood. It says that God saved at least two of every one of his creations. The ones that were not his creations or perhaps the ones he did not want to survive did not make it on the ark (like the T-Rex and the Velociraptor) Just a thought. God bless!

 

[Mallon]

It could be possible that God created animals after the fall... for instance the people eating ones.

Is this not frowned upon by fundamentalism, as it amounts to adding to the Bible?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Actually I believe he named all the animals. It says he did that. It is possible that God put the animal before him, he named them and then God moved them to the proper climate. As well, man was meant to stay in the Garden of Eden. It could be possible that God created animals after the fall... for instance the people eating ones. It could also be possible that some animals were not created by God and those ones died in the flood. It says that God saved at least two of every one of his creations. The ones that were not his creations or perhaps the ones he did not want to survive did not make it on the ark (like the T-Rex and the Velociraptor) Just a thought. God bless!

Are you suggesting polytheism? In any case, the text says all of the animals, not just those that God created.

 

[localz]

I think you may be underestimating the complexity of the task. Firstly the Hebrew translated into English as 'bird', actually covers every winged creature, including bats and flying insects. So the God's favourites the beetles are included.

Secondly, we are not talking about a conveyor belt...
Longnosedbigears, next.
Stripey, next.
Shaggyhead, my what big teeth you've got I wonder what they're for, next.

Adam had to get to know the animals. He wasn't just naming them, he was looking to find a helper and partner.

Gen 2:18 ¶ Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Of course we can't look at his passage without asking when God formed the animals. Was it after he created Adam as we are told here, or was it before as we are told in Gen 1:25&26? And were bird formed out of the ground as Gen 2:20 says, or from the waters Gen 1:20?

He had to get to know them, but I'm sure it couldn't have taken more than five or ten seconds to determine if this animal or that animal would be of adequate help as a partner

Anyway, Genesis 1:25-26 does not specifically state that man was created after the beasts of the earth, it only lists him afterwards, just as it names woman alongside man even though we know from the account in Genesis 2 that she was created some time after he. The wording is changed to suit each chapter's purpose.

As for the bird-water/bird-ground thing, you got me. I never even noticed that before.

 

[Mallon]

He had to get to know them, but I'm sure it couldn't have taken more than five or ten seconds to determine if this animal or that animal would be of adequate help as a partner

Alright, I just did some calculations, for the sake of interest, to see how long it would have taken Adam to name all of today's living species (note: I'm excluding the 99% of remaining life that is extinct and known only sporadically from the fossil record).

Assuming 1 million species alive today:
1,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 7,500,000 seconds total = 2,083 hours total = 87 days total

Assuming 10 million species alive today (most likely):
10,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 75,000,000 seconds total = 20,833 hours total = 868 days total = 2.4 years total

Assuming 100 million species alive today:
100,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 750,000,000 seconds total = 208,333 hours total = 8,680 days total = 23.8 years total

It's also worth mentioning that none of this accounts for all the gardening that Adam had to do (Gen 2:4), and the above calculations assume Adam did not sleep.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Are you suggesting polytheism? In any case, the text says all of the animals, not just those that God created.

Actually it does say all His creations... I have concluded that means only the ones He created. No I am not suggesting Poly-theism. Just some thoughts, though.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Alright, I just did some calculations, for the sake of interest, to see how long it would have taken Adam to name all of today's living species (note: I'm excluding the 99% of remaining life that is extinct and known only sporadically from the fossil record).

Assuming 1 million species alive today:
1,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 7,500,000 seconds total = 2,083 hours total = 87 days total

Assuming 10 million species alive today (most likely):
10,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 75,000,000 seconds total = 20,833 hours total = 868 days total = 2.4 years total

Assuming 100 million species alive today:
100,000,000 species x 7.5 seconds for Adam to get to name and know them = 750,000,000 seconds total = 208,333 hours total = 8,680 days total = 23.8 years total

It's also worth mentioning that none of this accounts for all the gardening that Adam had to do (Gen 2:4), and the above calculations assume Adam did not sleep.

Though if we assume that Adam needs to sleep and at some point, those figures would be doubled at the least.

 

[localz]

Alright, I just did some calculations, for the sake of interest, to see how long it would have taken Adam to name all of today's living species.

I still believe that there are many, many more species living today than there were directly after creation, especially when you're only dealing with the animals "of the field," the "fowl of the air," and the "cattle." It wasn't until later that they began to speciate, and different subtypes began to branch off the base "kinds."

 

[Mallon]

I still believe that there are many, many more species living today than there were directly after creation, especially when you're only dealing with the animals "of the field," the "fowl of the air," and the "cattle." It wasn't until later that they began to speciate, and different subtypes began to branch off the base "kinds."

Fair enough. Just note that the sort of hyperevolution you're advocating here is reflected neither in the fossil record nor in any one "kind's" genome.

 

[localz]

Fair enough. Just note that the sort of hyperevolution you're advocating here is reflected neither in the fossil record nor in any one "kind's" genome.

Interesting, please elaborate.

I've read various articles and outlines on the theory of evolution, enough to know that I do not agree with it, but I can't say I'm very knowledgable on some of the smaller or more complicated details. How long would you say it takes for one species to evolve into another? How many years or generations before this species of wolf experiences enough changes to become that species of wolf or dog or whatever?

 

[mumluvsherboys]

I think you may be underestimating the complexity of the task. Firstly the Hebrew translated into English as 'bird', actually covers every winged creature, including bats and flying insects. So the God's favourites the beetles are included.

Secondly, we are not talking about a conveyor belt...
Longnosedbigears, next.
Stripey, next.
Shaggyhead, my what big teeth you've got I wonder what they're for, next.

Adam had to get to know the animals. He wasn't just naming them, he was looking to find a helper and partner.

Gen 2:18 ¶ Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Of course we can't look at his passage without asking when God formed the animals. Was it after he created Adam as we are told here, or was it before as we are told in Gen 1:25&26? And were bird formed out of the ground as Gen 2:20 says, or from the waters Gen 1:20?

This makes a lot of sense! Thanks for this!
God bless

 

[Mallon]

Interesting, please elaborate.

By your logic, in the 6,000 years or so since the creation of the various "bird", "cattle", and "fish kinds", the hundreds of millions of species the face of the earth has seen must have descended from those created "kind" ancestors -- again, in just under 6,000 years. This implies a rediculous amount of 'hyperevolution' that ought to be reflect in things like genetic molecular clocks (whereby scientists can test the longevity of certain lineages by how quickly their genes have changed over time) and the fossil record (assuming Steno's laws of superposition hold, the first birds, fish, and cattle should appear near the bottom of the fossil record). In neither case do these predictions hold.

I've read various articles and outlines on the theory of evolution, enough to know that I do not agree with it, but I can't say I'm very knowledgable on some of the smaller or more complicated details.

Ah, but the devil's in the details. Perhaps that's why you avoid them?

How long would you say it takes for one species to evolve into another?

IIRC, average speciation time as revealed by the fossil record is approx. 2 million years.

How many years or generations before this species of wolf experiences enough changes to become that species of wolf or dog or whatever?

However much time it takes for the two populations to become reproductively isolated.

 

[Melethiel]

It could also be possible that some animals were not created by God

Wait. God didn't create all the animals? Where did they come from then? Did they...evolve? Don't these kind of assumptions entail adding to the Scripture instead of taking it at face value?

 

[localz]

By your logic, in the 6,000 years or so since the creation of the various "bird", "cattle", and "fish kinds", the hundreds of millions of species the face of the earth has seen must have descended from those created "kind" ancestors -- again, in just under 6,000 years. This implies a rediculous amount of 'hyperevolution' that ought to be reflect in things like genetic molecular clocks (whereby scientists can test the longevity of certain lineages by how quickly their genes have changed over time) and the fossil record (assuming Steno's laws of superposition hold, the first birds, fish, and cattle should appear near the bottom of the fossil record). In neither case do these predictions hold.

In that case, then, the only other conclusion one can come to, if we're talking about creationism, is that when God created the animals, He made them in all their various species to begin with. While it would obviously take much, much longer than a day to give names to all of the animals in this situation, there are two possibilities that I can think of that make the idea seem more plausible:

1) Adam merely decided upon the names for the basic families, and these names applied also to each of their subtypes (from genera to species), or

2) he was only charged with naming those that lived in and around the garden and not those in any of the other parts of the world, such as different climate zones, etc.

I think a combination of these two could also be an option, and probably most likely since this had to have been done in a single day.

As for the fossil records, could it not have been the Flood of Noah's day that arranged them in such a manner? As the "fountains of the great deep" broke up, the first creatures to be affected would be those living deep within the ocean, as they would be buried by the magma released and the sediments disturbed; this would also carry over into more shallow waters, eventually overtaking the amphibians and other land-bordering creatures. Above these, the animals living on the lowlands such as the swamps and the marshes, most of which would be reptiles. Finally, the inland creatures such as the mammals, and the humans, who would be able to retreat the farthest of all the other beasts, would be buried last of all.

This is, of course, assuming a world-wide flood as opposed to the theory of a local catastrophe.

Ah, but the devil's in the details. Perhaps that's why you avoid them?

No, but it's only recently that I've become interested in studying the theologies surrounding Creation (as well as the many other theologies we have developed from the teachings of the Bible). Though I still disagree with evolution, I do try and keep an open mind when discussing it, as with anything else. Admittedly, it is an intriguing idea, and I fully intend on reading more about it, especially the sources provided in the TE sticky.

 

[Mallon]

In that case, then, the only other conclusion one can come to, if we're talking about creationism, is that when God created the animals, He made them in all their various species to begin with. While it would obviously take much, much longer than a day to give names to all of the animals in this situation, there are two possibilities that I can think of that make the idea seem more plausible:

1) Adam merely decided upon the names for the basic families, and these names applied also to each of their subtypes (from genera to species), or

2) he was only charged with naming those that lived in and around the garden and not those in any of the other parts of the world, such as different climate zones, etc.

I think a combination of these two could also be an option, and probably most likely since this had to have been done in a single day.

Sorry, but even this interpretation contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, since Gen 2:19 states that Adam had to name "each living creature."
Seems to me there was an awful lot of magic going on creation week, including the manipulation of time so that Adam could finish his chores. Don't know why God would resort to magic in some instances, though, and to naturalism in others (like the part Gen 2:5 where God didn't bother poofing the Garden into existence because there was no man around to tend to it yet).

As for the fossil records, could it not have been the Flood of Noah's day that arranged them in such a manner? As the "fountains of the great deep" broke up, the first creatures to be affected would be those living deep within the ocean, as they would be buried by the magma released and the sediments disturbed; this would also carry over into more shallow waters, eventually overtaking the amphibians and other land-bordering creatures. Above these, the animals living on the lowlands such as the swamps and the marshes, most of which would be reptiles. Finally, the inland creatures such as the mammals, and the humans, who would be able to retreat the farthest of all the other beasts, would be buried last of all.

Nope. Here's why:
Your (rather, Morris') model does not account for the distribution of:
1. Sea turtles (they appear long after fish in the fossil record, yet they're supposed to have lived in the same environment).
2. Sloths (they're slow. So why weren't they burried nearer the bottom of the terrestrial fossil record?)
3. Pterosaurs (they could fly, too. Why aren't they found near the top of the fossil record?)
4. Grasses (they can't run for higher ground, and yet they appear above terrestrial animal fossils in most cases).
5. Whales (they appear much higher in the fossil record, despite being in the same ecological zone as fish).
6. Coral, clams (they appear throughout the fossil record, not just near the bottom).
Etc., etc., etc.

No, but it's only recently that I've become interested in studying the theologies surrounding Creation (as well as the many other theologies we have developed from the teachings of the Bible). Though I still disagree with evolution, I do try and keep an open mind when discussing it, as with anything else. Admittedly, it is an intriguing idea, and I fully intend on reading more about it, especially the sources provided in the TE sticky.

In that case, keep asking questions!

 

[localz]

Sorry, but even this interpretation contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, since Gen 2:19 states that Adam had to name "each living creature."
Seems to me there was an awful lot of magic going on creation week, including the manipulation of time so that Adam could finish his chores. Don't know why God would resort to magic in some instances, though, and to naturalism in others (like the part Gen 2:5 where God didn't bother poofing the Garden into existence because there was no man around to tend to it yet).

Nope. Here's why:
Your (rather, Morris') model does not account for the distribution of:
1. Sea turtles (they appear long after fish in the fossil record, yet they're supposed to have lived in the same environment).
2. Sloths (they're slow. So why weren't they burried nearer the bottom of the terrestrial fossil record?)
3. Pterosaurs (they could fly, too. Why aren't they found near the top of the fossil record?)
4. Grasses (they can't run for higher ground, and yet they appear above terrestrial animal fossils in most cases).
5. Whales (they appear much higher in the fossil record, despite being in the same ecological zone as fish).
6. Coral, clams (they appear throughout the fossil record, not just near the bottom).
Etc., etc., etc.

All excellent points, Mallon. Until I can do some more digging on the subject, I don't even have a rebuttal!

In that case, keep asking questions!

Don't worry, I have plenty more. Some of them, however, would not fit with the topic here and would require moving the discussion either to another existing thread relating to my question, or the creation of a whole new one.

I will ask, though, do you believe Adam was a real man that truly existed at some definite point in history, or was he a representation of the human race as a whole in your view?

Also, many thanks to both you and Assyrian. This conversation has been incredibly enlightening thus far, and I'm sure it will continue to be so.

 

[Mallon]

All excellent points, Mallon. Until I can do some more digging on the subject, I don't even have a rebuttal!

If you find one, let me know. I've searched for years for an alternative explanation to the order of the fossil record, and have been able to find none. Suffice it to say that Morris' model fails on all accounts.

I will ask, though, do you believe Adam was a real man that truly existed at some definite point in history, or was he a representation of the human race as a whole in your view?

The way the Bible speaks, he's both.
I believe there was an Adam in the sense that there was a first human -- there had to be, even from an evolutionary POV. I believe the duties and qualities of Adam (the man) in Genesis, though, are representative of mankind.

Also, many thanks to both you and Assyrian. This conversation has been incredibly enlightening thus far, and I'm sure it will continue to be so.