Please explain! Caveman, evolution etc

[Bacey92]

Hi there,

I'm hoping someone can explain this to me so I can understand it better.

God created Adam and Eve, I'm guessing they looked like us? If that's the case where does evolution fit in?

If the very first creation looked like we do today, why are there so many different looking people. I don't mean different race, specifically tribal people.

I'm also just assuming Adam and Eve looked like we do today, if I am right, why did God also create very different looking people like Homo habilis and cavemen etc.

I'm sorry if it's a silly question, I'm very curious though.

Thank you!

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there,
I'm hoping someone can explain this to me so I can understand it better.

God created Adam and Eve, I'm guessing they looked like us?

You are referencing the bible doctrine on origins. And you are correct.

If that's the case where does evolution fit in?

There is an area of the board where we can discuss that topic.

 

[bottoWordx]

ur asking with the presumption that cavemen exist or existed
are you saying that was before Adam or one of his offspring

 

[Brightmoon]

There are about 26 protohuman species that are not chimp ancestors. Some are direct ancestors, some are just cousins ! Some are in genus Homo but there are other genera ! Most laymen are familiar with Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis )and Lucy’s species (Australopithecus afarensis)

I don’t know what species Adam and Eve we’re supposed to be

 

[coffee4u]

Hi there,

I'm hoping someone can explain this to me so I can understand it better.

God created Adam and Eve, I'm guessing they looked like us? If that's the case where does evolution fit in?

It doesn't. It's man striving to understand the natural world and coming up with ideas that cannot ever be proven or observed.
Scripture outlines exactly what God did and that he did it recently, 10-15 thousand years ago. Either the whole Bible is God's word and is trustworthy or none of it is. God isn't going to put his name onto a book with half-truths. Evolution is a very clever and worldly-wise lie of the enemy.

God made mankind as close to perfect as we can image, in the image of God with a spirit to commune with Him. That we were specially and wonderfully made and brought to life in an instant fully formed. Evolution could not be more opposite to this picture. It also has no answer for original sin, that sin brought in death or the spirit.

If the very first creation looked like we do today, why are there so many different looking people. I don't mean different race, specifically tribal people.

When God made the first people, he gave them a great variety of genes. A nose is still a nose no matter the shape or size, same with eyes and any other parts. Skin tone is simply a little or a lot of melanin, it isn't something intrinsically different. There is really only one race of people, the human race, which is why people of any 'race' can have children together.

God broke up the one mass of humanity into people groups with their own languages at the Tower of babel.

I'm also just assuming Adam and Eve looked like we do today, if I am right, why did God also create very different looking people like Homo habilis and cavemen etc.

'Cave men' are just smart people who know to use a cave as shelter when they find it. If you were lost in the bush/forest would you pick the open or a cave to sleep in?


There are apes, there are men and there are diseased and deformed men. Then there are people who find such things and claim they are ape men and missing links. You know when they first saw the Australian aboriginals they wanted to label them as the missing link? People with ‘Cave men features’ they exist. No doubt some ethnic groups have also died out due to war, disease or other natural events. Many also got absorbed into another ethnic group.

I'm sorry if it's a silly question, I'm very curious though.

Thank you!

Not at all. I don't mind answering any genuine seeking question.

 

[Brightmoon]

I agree with Coffee that race in humans is just different variations on a theme . There is only one race because humans don’t have enough genetic variation to have more than one race. The term is misapplied to humans as race to biologists just means subspecies . However, so called human races is evidence for evolution as lighter skinned peoples evolved from darker skinned ones as they went further from the equator . Colder climates with less sun select against darker skin and climates with high levels of sunlight selects against lighter skin . Modern humans cope with this by wearing clothes and building shelters. But the traits basically evolved .
Creationists repeatedly demonstrate that they just don’t know what evolution is!

 

[coffee4u]

Just so you know OP, myself and Brighmoon are polar opposites on this topic. I am a creationist and she is an evolutionist.

So while she sees variation and sees evolution at work, I see variation and see great genetic diversity given to Adam and Eve. They didn't need to evolve skin with less melanin it was there in their genetic structure right from the start. I believe the first siblings would have been every shade, eyes every colour, hair every shade and texture.
Now I am also not saying there are not gene mutations, some blue eyes are caused by one, but I do not believe mutations ever have the power to change one kind of creature into a completely different creature over time. No matter how many mutations occur fish have always and only been fish, dogs have always and only been dogs and humans have always and only been humans.

Creationists repeatedly demonstrate that they just don’t know what evolution is!

We do know what evolution is, and we refute it, strongly. We believe it is a complete deception. As I have repeatedly said, creation was a miracle, miracles cannot be scientifically analysed. And secondly God created the world outside of time, something that no one can understand or measure. What you see now is not how it always was, but you won’t consider that and continue to trust men with tests that can only show you things as they are now, while assuming this is how it has always been.

Which is why OP you have to decide if you will believe man's knowledge that says one thing or Gods word that says another, because they are oil and water.

 

[Brightmoon]

You DONT know what evolution is , you just think you do . You show up with these silly straw man versions of evolution that every one knowledgeable about the subject tells you is dead wrong and you just keep repeating them.
Creationists have their own ridiculous versions of evolution which mainstream scientists don’t use and pay no attention to. Creationists need to refute the mainstream version of evolution AND show evidence for their claims if they want their opinions to be accepted by the scientific community . And refute means demonstrate to be untrue . Complaining about evolution is not refuting it. Lying about evolution is not refuting it either.

 

[Brightmoon]

One of the lies commonly told is that this is “ man’s knowledge “ . No it’s not! The facts of science are what Nature tells us about itself . God created Nature . Nature doesn’t lie unfortunately creationists do.

 

[coffee4u]

One of the lies commonly told is that this is “ man’s knowledge “ . No it’s not! The facts of science are what Nature tells us about itself . God created Nature .

And as I keep saying but you always choose to ignore, the nature that we can see and test now is not the same as it was created. Science can only test the here and now.

Nature doesn’t lie unfortunately creationists do.

And tell me Brightmoon, where do we get our stance on creation from? Do you think we just decided it was a good idea to go against a world wide established view for fun?

We get our view from scripture, no matter how unpopular that is.
By calling us liers you are calling scripture a lie.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,

I didn't post here to have an argument with you over creation vs evolution, I am here to answer the OP.

 

[Brightmoon]

My stance on Creation as you call it, is because Nature itself says it didn’t happen like that . Scientists get their answers from Nature not holy books

the OP asked about evolution and cavemen . There are about 26 species of human ancestors and cousins that weren’t us .

the Nature we see and test now IS the Nature that’s showing us the past and this is what creationists lie continually about. They claim that we cannot know what happened in the past from examining the present . That’s not just wrong it’s a lie!

 

[coffee4u]

My stance on Creation as you call it, is because Nature itself says it didn’t happen like that . Scientists get their answers from Nature not holy books

the OP asked about evolution and cavemen . There are about 26 species of human ancestors and cousins that weren’t us .

the Nature we see and test now IS the Nature that’s showing us the past and this is what creationists lie continually about. They claim that we cannot know what happened in the past from examining the present . That’s not just wrong it’s a lie!

And I will continue to answer the OP as long as they ask questions as I am sure you will do too. I will share my views no matter what you have to say about it.
Now since you have nothing constructive to say I will quit responding to you.

 

[Brightmoon]

Ignoring facts isn’t a refutation of them either

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just so you know OP, myself and Brighmoon are polar opposites on this topic. I am a creationist and she is an evolutionist.

So while she sees variation and sees evolution at work, I see variation and see great genetic diversity given to Adam and Eve. They didn't need to evolve skin with less melanin it was there in their genetic structure right from the start. I believe the first siblings would have been every shade, eyes every colour, hair every shade and texture.
Now I am also not saying there are not gene mutations, some blue eyes are caused by one, but I do not believe mutations ever have the power to change one kind of creature into a completely different creature over time. No matter how many mutations occur fish have always and only been fish, dogs have always and only been dogs and humans have always and only been humans.



We do know what evolution is, and we refute it, strongly. We believe it is a complete deception. As I have repeatedly said, creation was a miracle, miracles cannot be scientifically analysed. And secondly God created the world outside of time, something that no one can understand or measure. What you see now is not how it always was, but you won’t consider that and continue to trust men with tests that can only show you things as they are now, while assuming this is how it has always been.

Which is why OP you have to decide if you will believe man's knowledge that says one thing or Gods word that says another, because they are oil and water.

Agreed, we see birds losing flight, fish losing sight, humans losing pigment-
natural selection from a pre-existing range to select from
There is very little evidence of any gradual attainment of new useful emergent properties.

Materialists like Hawking posited 'imaginary time' as a means for events to occur before/ in order to bring our 'time' into existence- i.e. the apparent first cause paradox applies either way- and is moot- because here we are

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh we see fish evolving walking limbs from fins . Dinosaurs evolving wings and beaks to become birds. An ape descendant evolving the ability to make a computer . You’re just blind to the real world and it’s actual miracles. Hawking would agree with me and say that we are stardust that understands that we were made of stardust

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh we see fish evolving walking limbs from fins . Dinosaurs evolving wings and beaks to become birds. An ape descendant evolving the ability to make a computer . You’re just blind to the real world and it’s actual miracles. Hawking would agree with me and say that we are stardust that understands that we were made of stardust

But we do not, we might speculate about such things, create artistic impressions, we don't see them

There are many clear examples of birds that obviously lost the ability to fly, and many other clear examples of devolution, none of them so clearly gaining flight or any significant incremental improvement
even birds from Dinos remains controversial - based on superficial morphology.

It is curious though, that we are the only means we know of, by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence. By chance?

 

[coffee4u]

Oh we see fish evolving walking limbs from fins . Dinosaurs evolving wings and beaks to become birds. An ape descendant evolving the ability to make a computer . You’re just blind to the real world and it’s actual miracles.

You don't see it. To see it means you have literally observed these things developing in real time with your own two eyes. You would need to see fish being born with some change and then more fish being born with some more change and so on until you see a new creature emerge. No one saw that happening, its assumed it happened.

Hawking would agree with me and say that we are stardust that understands that we were made of stardust

God says otherwise
Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[coffee4u]

Agreed, we see birds losing flight, fish losing sight, humans losing pigment-
natural selection from a pre-existing range to select from
There is very little evidence of any gradual attainment of new useful emergent properties.

Materialists like Hawking posited 'imaginary time' as a means for events to occur before/ in order to bring our 'time' into existence- i.e. the apparent first cause paradox applies either way- and is moot- because here we are

I agree, I think loss of skin pigment is what happened. Maybe it started with some harmful mutation, but being pale skinned is certainly no advantage apart maybe for extra vit D absorption. Our pale skin plus the sun is why we have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

 

[Brightmoon]

You don't see it. To see it means you have literally observed these things developing in real time with your own two eyes. You would need to see fish being born with some change and then more fish being born with some more change and so on until you see a new creature emerge. No one saw that happening, its assumed it happened.



God says otherwise
Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

you can see this in the fossils . The fish gradually losing the bone that holds the Scapula (shoulder blade) to the back of the skull so that Tiktaalik has a neck . Fish don’t . There are other gradual changes that we can see over progressive species as well. You’re forgetting something. Biologists know how genes work so we understand how these growth patterns change to accommodate the new body . Creationists like to pretend that we don’t have that information . It’s not just the fossils or just the genes , we know what they do and how they work to change phenotypes ( the body you see) . For example Chickens still have the genes to make teeth . It’s just shut off . If we turn it on they get teeth*.

* it deforms the face so they’re euthanized before they hatch . 100 million years is a long time

 

[Job 33:6]

Agreed, we see birds losing flight, fish losing sight, humans losing pigment-
natural selection from a pre-existing range to select from
There is very little evidence of any gradual attainment of new useful emergent properties.

Materialists like Hawking posited 'imaginary time' as a means for events to occur before/ in order to bring our 'time' into existence- i.e. the apparent first cause paradox applies either way- and is moot- because here we are

Some say that, when fish gained legs, they lose the ability to swim efficiently. Which is true. But the above has to be viewed with the understanding that having legs opened up new doors for fish that benefitted them greater than not having legs.

Yes, there was an trade off and fish that became tetrapods are no longer closely related to sharks which are kings of the sea and they lost their swimming efficiency traits. But that doesn't mean that they didn't gain benefits elsewhere by walking on land.