Cavemen and Dinosaurs

[CryptoLutheran]

It is true that our philosophical perspective affects how we interpret evidence. But if we assume that science accurately describes the world we live in, then we must believe that evidence provided from the scientific method is accurate.

so in that case, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the earth had a very long history to its point in time now, which took billions of years of geological processes.

to say this is false, is to say a whole branch of science (geology and archeology) is flawed. And it is bold to say that one branch is flawed, and other branches (like physics or chemistry) are not flawed, since they all follow the same method in the end.

Not to mention that they are mutually dependent upon one another. Physics (as an example) doesn't exist in a vacuum. Either the scientific process is an accurate means of ascertaining truth about the observable, natural world and how it functions or it is not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[heritage36]

I would have to agree with some of those earlier guys, there isn't room for interpretation of Genesis, it is a literal account. If not, how would we have any way of knowing when it stops being literal? Really, if you believe in God and his Word, you should have thoughts that revolve around that as the truth, not science which as someone said earlier depends on interpretations which can have biases. There is competely no basis for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis unless you are really trying to work in outside beliefs. All the other references in the Bible make that clear that it is a literal 6 days that creation takes place, not that there is room for millions or billions of years. Those of you who speak of these long spans of Earth life also should realize the flaws in dating methods which are said to date things back that old, because there are many flaws.

 

[heritage36]

I should have answered the question at hand a bit too, because one thing that is good to consider about "cavemen" is that those were likely some of the earlier humans that just had incredibly longer lifespans than us now. Their strange skull shapes make sense when you consider that, because the forehead area does not stop growing as you age, much like ears, so if you consider that, then someone who lived to be 900+ years old would have a very different skull than one of us now. Also for the languages, as it was stated earlier, Babel is a competely logical explanation and the confusing of the languages.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I would have to agree with some of those earlier guys, there isn't room for interpretation of Genesis, it is a literal account.

A literal interpretation is still interpretation. And there's plenty of room for a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, and Christians have been able to read it non-literally for almost two thousand years, from Origen to St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas.

This isn't some reactive position based upon a ideological compromise with modernity, but about being able to take the text as seriously as possible without denying the reality of God's created world.

If not, how would we have any way of knowing when it stops being literal?

Through study, by examining the text in light of authorial intent, grammar, literary style, etc. That's how we take Scripture seriously.

Really, if you believe in God and his Word, you should have thoughts that revolve around that as the truth, not science which as someone said earlier depends on interpretations which can have biases.

There's no such thing as non-biased interpretation.

There is competely no basis for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis unless you are really trying to work in outside beliefs.

The text of Genesis 1 has a systematic framework, it's poetic and clearly has parallels with other near eastern creation narratives but does such in a theologically polemical way in order to proclaim the superiority and orderliness of Israel's God over and against the chaos of the gods of the nations; while simultaneously providing a cosmically relevant basis for the seven day week and the sanctity of the Sabbath.

There is the additional problem that a literal reading of Genesis 1 posits pre-existing matter prior to the days of creation; God does not create water and land, they're already there, what God does is separate the waters and separate water from dry land. Such that a literal reading of Genesis means that the material universe already existed in some primordial form prior to God saying, "Let there by light!"

All the other references in the Bible make that clear that it is a literal 6 days that creation takes place, not that there is room for millions or billions of years.

It simply means that it's referenced, not that we have to take it literally as such. I fail to see how such wooden, literal readings without consideration to the nuances and complexities of human communication and writing does the Bible, which is the inspired written word of God, the justice it deserves.

Those of you who speak of these long spans of Earth life also should realize the flaws in dating methods which are said to date things back that old, because there are many flaws.

That's a fairly cliche' Young Earth Creationist stock-response. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

A literal interpretation is still interpretation.

This is true. However, I prefer to practice exegesis rather than eisegesis when dealing with biblical texts such as Genesis one.

The main reason why people tend to doubt that the days of creation are literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says. This non-literal interpretation typically comes from outside influences.

Augustine suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science. If this is true, then it doesn't matter how the text naturally reads. What matters is what science tells us.

And there's plenty of room for a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, and Christians have been able to read it non-literally for almost two thousand years, from Origen to St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas.

As mentioned above, they read it non-literally because of outside influences and introduced their own fallible logic.

This isn't some reactive position based upon a ideological compromise with modernity, but about being able to take the text as seriously as possible without denying the reality of God's created world.

If you are practicing eisegesis than how serious are you taking the text?

Through study, by examining the text in light of authorial intent, grammar, literary style, etc. That's how we take Scripture seriously.

Do outside influences have a place in this process?

The text of Genesis 1 has a systematic framework, it's poetic and clearly has parallels with other near eastern creation narratives but does such in a theologically polemical way in order to proclaim the superiority and orderliness of Israel's God over and against the chaos of the gods of the nations; while simultaneously providing a cosmically relevant basis for the seven day week and the sanctity of the Sabbath.

Even if you wish to state that the text is poetic and that it was meant to be understood allegorically, it still would be improper to suggest it supports an old Earth model. Augustine understood Genesis 1 as allegory but thought that God created in less than 6 days.

There is the additional problem that a literal reading of Genesis 1 posits pre-existing matter prior to the days of creation; God does not create water and land, they're already there, what God does is separate the waters and separate water from dry land. Such that a literal reading of Genesis means that the material universe already existed in some primordial form prior to God saying, "Let there by light!"

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Seems to me that you'd have to assume that water and land were not created in verse one to be correct. However, verse 2 seems to suggest both were present on this unformed and barren planet. It is safe to say that when God created the Earth - this was the land and water.

That's a fairly cliche' Young Earth Creationist stock-response. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

As a "young" Earth creationist I do not doubt the results and calculations of such dating methods. I come to the same conclusions when using the same set of assumptions.

 

[Jig]

It is true that our philosophical perspective affects how we interpret evidence. But if we assume that science accurately describes the world we live in, then we must believe that evidence provided from the scientific method is accurate.

It is accurate under natural circumstances.

so in that case, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the earth had a very long history to its point in time now, which took billions of years of geological processes.

Unless there was a past supernatural event - such as a divine being promptly creating a mature Earth. In which case science would assuredly come to false conclusions unknowingly.

A scientist looking at Adam two days after he was formed would come to the wrong conclusion of his age. Not because science is wrong, but because science doesn't deal with supernatural events.

 

[pgp_protector]

Read Sig.

 

[solarwave]

Unless there was a past supernatural event - such as a divine being promptly creating a mature Earth. In which case science would assuredly come to false conclusions unknowingly.

A scientist looking at Adam two days after he was formed would come to the wrong conclusion of his age. Not because science is wrong, but because science doesn't deal with supernatural events.

I hope you don't mind if I try to point out the difference.

It really depends how mature compared to worn the earth and Adam are. I think it is fair to say that not only does the earth look old, it also have evidence of a long history that isn't necessarly to show the earth to be old or necessarly to make a nice looking earth. What I mean is letting us see the stars is nice of God and He could have created the universe with the light already being close to us, but other evidence of oldness is pointless unless the oldness is actually real.

For example it would be like God making Adam with scars He never got and a memory of past events that never happened. The older age of Adam makes sense because a baby couldn't care for himself, but scars and memories would be pointless. So I think scientists could tell the difference between Adam and a human who actually lived that many years.

 

[freezerman2000]

I should have answered the question at hand a bit too, because one thing that is good to consider about "cavemen" is that those were likely some of the earlier humans that just had incredibly longer lifespans than us now. Their strange skull shapes make sense when you consider that, because the forehead area does not stop growing as you age, much like ears, so if you consider that, then someone who lived to be 900+ years old would have a very different skull than one of us now. Also for the languages, as it was stated earlier, Babel is a competely logical explanation and the confusing of the languages.

And just how long is one of God's days? Are you going to be so presumptuous as to assign God a set period of time for one of HIS days?

 

[Leimeng]

~ There are other things to consider with this.
~ There is NO indication in the Bible as to how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before their explusion. We do not know how many hundreds or thousands or millions or even billions of years they existed in paradise before their fall. NOT ONE STATEMENT out of the ENTIRE Scripture record. Big whoops for those who claim want to try to claim young earth creationism AND at the same time be faithful to the Biblical record.
~ There is NO indication as to what processes or events transpired outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam and Eve were residing their-in. NOTHING in the Bible talks about any of this in any sort of detail.
~ While it might be logical to say that it has been around 6000 years or so since the fall of man and the expulsion from Eden using Biblical evidence, there is no logic using Biblical evidence to say that man was created and a few days later ate the eggplant and got kicked out! It might have happened that way, but it is supposition and not stated in Scripture.
~ It is amazing what happens when one reads the Bible in context and does not add or subtract anything from it.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves....

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

 

[Brad Watson Miami 1]

I understand that Dinosaurs existed with adam and eve and there were some in noahs ark. After that some Dinosaurs became extinct, ok I get that.

Lindros09,

Hey there! This universe is 13.7 billion-years-old. Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old and dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million-years-ago. Humans began to appear in their 'modern form' about 2 million-years-ago. The 'God-guy' in the beginning of Genesis (I mean no disrespect) appeared in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley about 6,000 years ago or c. 4,000 BC. He cloned himself to "create Adam in His image" (Gn 1:27) and cloned Adam while changing a chromosone to create Eve (Gn 2:21-23). The Genesis story goes on to state that there were other people around besides Adam, Eve, and Cain - Gn 4:14-17.


There was a historical Noah23/38 and he was told by God to build a large boat23/38 c. 2400 BC. There was a large flood in that area that seemed like it covered the entire Earth, but it certainly did not! Noah and his family had domesticated food animals only on the Ark: chickens, cows, (pigs?), sheep, goats, and they fished. There were no non-necessary animals on the Ark. The boat did not contain any lions, tigers, bears, elephants, zebras, monkeys, gorillas, hyienas, aardvarks, kangaroos, koalas, platypus, buffalo, wolves, and certainly not any extinct dinosaurs!


I AM well aware that this teaching is different than the strict Bible account of those events. And yet, it is not only much more logical and scientific than the strict Genesis story, it is the 'word of God' as oracled by myself. Highly fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims will probably dismiss this bridge between religion and science, and most scientists will probably dismiss it as they dismiss any mention of religion and science agreeing.


- Brad Watson, Miami
teacher



Non-coincidental synchronic reaction: 7/18/11 11:11 SyFy "Here's a myth..." - Allstate ad

 

[Jig]

~ There is NO indication in the Bible as to how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before their explusion. We do not know how many hundreds or thousands or millions or even billions of years they existed in paradise before their fall. NOT ONE STATEMENT out of the ENTIRE Scripture record. Big whoops for those who claim want to try to claim young earth creationism AND at the same time be faithful to the Biblical record.

No indication? In Genesis 1:28 after God created Adam and Eve He told them to be fruitful and multiple - to fill the Earth. How long do you think it would take two perfectly healthy created humans to reproduce offspring? Surely not billions of years. We know from Scripture that Adam and Eve had their first child AFTER the Fall. Today it takes a healthy couple on average about 4 months of "trying" to get pregnant. It is logical to infer that Adam and Eve did not exist within Eden for millions of years. Most likely only a few weeks at most.

 

[stevevw]

ive wondered about this question as well. as the bible says that Adam and eve were made perfect and from what i can understand were fairly intelligent. their offspring's would have been able to make things, grow crops and use tools in a fairly modern way i would expect. i would think they looked middle eastern as people look today.

yet here we have discoveries of skulls that have a different look, they look a bit like apes and their posture and gate seems to be half like an ape. they are found with simple tools which seem to say they are not apes which cant use tools. they were primitive and hadn't developed a lot compared to how i would imagine the decedents of Adam or Noah would be.

so why would a group of people regress into a more basic lifestyle giving up the more modern ways. surely what they had learnt would have been better to maintain as it allowed them to live a better life. how does an upright human with a shape similar to how we are today then become a completely different shape, posture with the protruded brow, smaller brain cavities, shorter brows and larger jaws. the more complete skeletal remains show a lot of difference with positioning of hips, longer arms suggesting they were more ape like and their walk was more ape like. not just that there are natives around today that look and live similar to this. if you look at the Australian aborigines and say the people from papau new guinea they look similar to cavemen or ape-men.

 

[pshun2404]

Horite means cave dweller...caves are a natural habitat with only one entrance for defensive purposes...there is ZERO evidence of hump back hairy trogladitish club carrying half monkeys...zip, zilch, nada....but there is plenty of evidence of peoples dwelling in caves from time immemorial until after Qumran...so what...!

 

[stevevw]

i am being the devils advocate here but what about these discoveries they have made with the skulls that look not quite human and not quite ape. was there another animal that once existed or are they maybe humans that had strong features and were natives. possibly the natives of today are their decedents. ive wondered how the aborigineses of australia got to where they are today and how they look so different. we also have many mammals and marsupials in australia that are unique to australia such as the ducked billed platypus.

i believe that we were created how else could it explain how we came into being from what would appear in the world around us from nothing. only an almighty creator could do that. but still you have to question as a person as you would with any subject.

it just interests me to find out more. you can say there is no evidence but then others will say yes there is. i can see for myself that some of it does make sense and fits an evolutionary pattern. whether that's the case is up for debate as there is no definite evidence to say it is or it isn't. i try to keep an open mind and sometimes that can mean the jury is out until i find out more.

evolution says that we evolved over a long period and there were many branches, that's why we have so many different features and colors. i guess the question is how did we get so much variation. if we all come from noahs extended family and they all had similar features then how do we get from that to say the papau new Guineans. they have very unique features which are very different from say a Mongolian.

there has to be some form of evolution at least within the same kind. but i do seriously question that we came from apes as i believe we were made with a soul and that cannot be evolved.

 

[gungasnake]

Sorry if I posted this in the wrong place but here it goes.

Well I can't seem to find an answer to this. I understand that Dinosaurs existed with adam and eve and there were some in noahs ark. After that some Dinosaurs became extinct, ok I get that. But what about cavemen? What about the paintings of horses and buffalo I am learning about in school?

There are two basic human groups on the planet and it has nothing to do with color or "race"; either group is capable of producing any color or feature found in modern humans. The difference is in the original cultures and technologies.

The familiar Bible antediluvians originated pretty much as you read in Genesis. Their descendants include Indo-European groups, Hamitic, and Semitic groups.

The other group used to be called Cro Magnon and that's still probably the best word for them. That group got here some 20K - 40K before the Adam/Eve group did and include "cave people" and the people who created the artwork which you see in Southern European cave systems.

Cro Magnon people were modern humans like us and could certainly interbreed with modern humans. Their descendants include the Spanish Basque, the Japanese Ainu, native Australian groups, the people of the Canary islands, many if not most or all Amerind groups, and a few others.

If you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended from Cro Magtnons, there is a list of things which Jewish literature and the Bible would have to know about, and that test totally fails. The most obvious thing would be stone tools; the people of Genesis were metal technology people from day one.

 

[gungasnake]

I am learning about in school? I was thinking that maybe Noahs descendants were forced to live in caves ....

To read more about this sort of thing, get on Amazon and search on "Cosmos in Collision", authors names are McLachlan and Holden.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Excuse but the word used does not speaking of d Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs in the Bible: Why Aren't They Mentioned?

 

[SayaOtonashi]

ive wondered about this question as well. as the bible says that Adam and eve were made perfect and from what i can understand were fairly intelligent. their offspring's would have been able to make things, grow crops and use tools in a fairly modern way i would expect. i would think they looked middle eastern as people look today.

yet here we have discoveries of skulls that have a different look, they look a bit like apes and their posture and gate seems to be half like an ape. they are found with simple tools which seem to say they are not apes which cant use tools. they were primitive and hadn't developed a lot compared to how i would imagine the decedents of Adam or Noah would be.

so why would a group of people regress into a more basic lifestyle giving up the more modern ways. surely what they had learnt would have been better to maintain as it allowed them to live a better life. how does an upright human with a shape similar to how we are today then become a completely different shape, posture with the protruded brow, smaller brain cavities, shorter brows and larger jaws. the more complete skeletal remains show a lot of difference with positioning of hips, longer arms suggesting they were more ape like and their walk was more ape like. not just that there are natives around today that look and live similar to this. if you look at the Australian aborigines and say the people from papau new guinea they look similar to cavemen or ape-men.

Maybe by perfect modern humans and not exist people

 

[gungasnake]

Maybe by perfect modern humans and not exist people

There were originally four groups of creatures which resembled humans in any way, i.e. monkeys, apes, hominids (Neanderthal, Homo Erectus etc.) and humans.

Hominids are extinct (we killed them all) and we are not related to them at all, nor was Adam or any of the people of Genesis nor were the Cro Mgnon people.

Again, on Amazon, "Cosmos in Collision".