Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Archivist]

They’re not allegories. That was my point.

And you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well He made Baalams donkey to speak. And Satan possessed the serpent so why not? Do you believe God parted the REd Sea? Do you believe that a man drained of blood could self rise in three days?
Do you believe a man can take 5 loaves and two fishes and feed as many as 20,000 people???

Is anything to difficult for God?

Your post starting with Lazarus is history.

I don't know about the beginning part....
There are different interpretations from solid Christians.

 

[Jonaitis]

Just out of curiosity do you believe that the elements of Holy Communion are the Body and Blood of Jesus?

In illustration, yes. I think I know where you are going with this.

 

[coffee4u]

I think people have to acknowledge that when they say "God can do anything, so why can't he make earth in 6 days?", they should also acknowledge that God can make an old earth as well.

This is true, he could have.

If he did there would be some scriptural backup to this.

Please show some.

The age of the earth does not have to correlate to the age of the creation. God could have left it sitting void a million billion years if he so chose, a simple lump of rock. This does not negate that he took literally 6 days to form his creation upon it.

 

[NBB]

Some say that the days could be periods of time, so i think is not good to discard the whole genesis maybe because one technicality like days being periods of time etc.

As christians we agree that God created the universe and the humans/animals right?, if he can do that, he can make a donkey talk, resurrect someone, etc, etc, part the sea. So its not crazy at all to believe he could do those things.

 

[coffee4u]

Some say that the days could be periods of time, so i think is not good to discard the whole genesis maybe because one technicality like days being periods of time etc.

As christians we agree that God created the universe and the humans/animals right?, if he can do that, he can make a donkey talk, resurrect someone, etc, etc, part the sea. So its not crazy at all to believe he could do those things.

They can't be periods of time because Adam was made on day 6 and he died 930 years later. They were also told to be fruitful and multiply. They were young, supremely healthy adults, but they had not had any children or become pregnant by the fall so the fall must-have occurred shortly after creation.

 

[NBB]

They can't be periods of time because Adam was made on day 6 and he died 930 years later. They were also told to be fruitful and multiply. They were young, supremely healthy adults, but they had not had any children or become pregnant by the fall so the fall must-have occurred shortly after creation.

Maybe those were like 'stages' and not days, why it has to be literal 24 hour period?, also day 1 there was no sun i think it was like that? so days didn't exist yet. So?

 

[Job 33:6]

This is true, he could have.

If he did there would be some scriptural backup to this.

Please show some.

The age of the earth does not have to correlate to the age of the creation. God could have left it sitting void a million billion years if he so chose, a simple lump of rock. This does not negate that he took literally 6 days to form his creation upon it.

I'm not a theologian. I am a geologist and really only speak on what I see in the field. This is the burning question we face. A question for resolution.

 

[Chris35]

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Jesus is the cornerstone, the foundation of Christianity, not so much genesis. It is much more important to build your faith around Jesus then the book of genesis.

While saying that, as your faith grows in Jesus, well what science says or dont says wont matter so much.

You can see it from some people who started believing in God, because they believed that the world was created rather then evolution or what not

Later down the track, science will come up with something, or they will read an article that causes them to doubt, and will turn away from Christianity.

Hence their foundation had been shaken, because their faith wasnt built on the rock, Jesus, but something else.

 

[NBB]

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Jesus is the cornerstone, the foundation of Christianity, not so much genesis. It is much more important to build your faith around Jesus then the book of genesis.

While saying that, as your faith grows in Jesus, well what science says or dont says wont matter so much.

Thing is, Jesus and Paul took scriptures seriously in the gospels and letters...

 

[aschnyder26]

A common, but misguided objection.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Response: The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

I hear what you are saying @expos4ever. However I think what you are describing, at least in your example of hominin creatures, is actually adaptation not evolution. Evolution, at least the Darwinian definition as I understand it is a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism. This would indeed mean that something like an ape evolved into a human, but I can't find any scientific evidence out there that shows that a fossil record indeed has been found showing that. We see lots of examples of adaptation in fossil records but there is still no direct link to new species evolution. IF there is please cite it for me so I can check it out.

 

[coffee4u]

Maybe those were like 'stages' and not days, why it has to be literal 24 hour period?, also day 1 there was no sun i think it was like that? so days didn't exist yet. So?

What point would stages give?

If Adam died 930 years after he was created the days could not be millions of years or thousands of years and doubtfully hundreds of years. If each day were hundreds of years what would that help with? You need millions for the theory of evolution not hundreds or thousands.

There was evening and morning so the earth was turning and a light source was shining upon it. What that light source was we are not told, perhaps it was God himself or some other temporary light.

God is outside of time and time on the earth did not come into existence until that first 'evening and morning'. Perhaps away from the earth there is no time.

 

[aschnyder26]

Briefly, as a geologist with published research in paleontology, I just wanted a briefly touch on two items above.

The first being the following statement:
"It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation."

Some might say that geology deals with earth history and therefore is not subject to experimentation. But in actuality, the rocks of today, and observation of them, do allow us to understand the past with use of experimentation.

And I'll give an analogy.

The study of mountains for example, in geology, is actually very similar to studying vehicle collisions.

View attachment 278017

Imagine if there are vehicles smashed against one another. And you can see this. This is kind of how geologists look at mountains.

And the physics and chemistry of how a car breaks when it collides, is similar to chemistry and physics of how mountains and rocks break and collide.

And just as someone can use a model to reverse engineer a car that is broken, you can actually do the same with mountains.

And when it comes to testing, rocks break in very specific ways. Pull them apart and they break at high angles (60 degrees) in a normal fault Horst/graben fashion. Press them together and they break at low angles (30 degree) and tend to ride on top of one another.

Certain rocks also only form at certain temperatures. Some rocks only form at literally several hundred degrees while others only form at extremely high pressures (like having the weight of a mountain on top of it).

Rocks also have brittle and ductile points of change/failure. Just like a plastic ruler, you can bend it only so much before it fails, and if you put a ruler in an oven, it can bend much more before failing. Rocks work the same way, and by examining how much rocks have bent, broken or were heated, we can further discern details about their history.

View attachment 278018

And so, we can actually do many experiments looking at things like: this is how these rocks break, this is their melting point, this is the angle they're fractured at and this is the direction they have moved (and continue to move at), and with that, we can actually use experiments to understand the past.

Just as we can run experiments on car parts and can see: here is the temperature that car parts melt at here are the angles that they're broken, here are temperatures that they formed at.

We can even look at things like fossil foot tracks to determine what direction was historically "up". Which can tell exactly how certain rocks turned or flipped, and we can collectively use this information to "rewind time" to reconstruct geologic historical events with extremely high precision.

Obviously we can also look at fossils to learn a lot. Find a field of 50 plus dinosaur nests and burrows and it becomes quite clear that a passage of time occurred at the particular layer being observed. And it isn't hard to replay history of nest building or burrowing in your head.

And there is just one other item I wanted to comment on:

"In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. "

Michael Denton actually isn't a paleontologist and his works on paleontology are actually quite limited in the extent of information he provides, particularly in the book noted above. I suppose the same goes for anatomy. You're much better off reading books written by paleontologists on the topic, such as Donald Prothero, Neil Shubin, or Spencer G. Lucas.

Ultimately what I am trying to say is that, a time machine isn't necessary to understand what happened in the past. A time machine would help with murder forensic investigations, but it's not actually mandatory to conduct testing and investigation and to come to a conclusion about how past events occurred. Especially in cases where evidence for who committed the crime is overwhelming.

As geologists, we are very confident in our understanding of what we see. Very confident both in an ancient earth an in the fossil succession, to the extent that we would simply refer to it as "certainty". Just as we are certain that rocks are hard and pillows are soft, or that water freezes at 0 degrees, or that aluminum crumbles when squeezed. We know what we see and what we see is very clear.

So then we are left with this burning question. How does this "appearance" of an ancient earth fit in with scripture? Is the appearance false, like a veil pulled over our eyes? Was earth created to look old, like a trick? Or do we need to investigate our interpretation of the early chapters of the book of Genesis?

@KomatiiteBIF I am going to try and respond as best I can, there is a lot of information that you have provided here so forgive me if I miss a few things. In response to what you are addressing concerning the statement "...history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation." I agree with you in that you can observe how things are formed and broken down and make pretty accurate predictions about formations and environmental conditions as well as many other things.

In addition also I agree with you that you can also experiment with your theories in order to reproduce a result providing a snapshot or deeper of how things work. I also agree that if God wanted to make an old earth he could. I haven't read your Old Earth posts yet but I plan to as it looks super interesting. My largest concern is people using science as a way to disprove the word God. (I am not by any means saying that's what you have done.) I always propose to believe what the word says and then look for the science to prove it.

Now you may say that is biased and in a way it is. But I say either we believe or we don't what the word of God says. God also does not work by or is limited by natural laws, in fact he created them for a purpose. This could mean that creation falls outside the category of the laws of science and its understanding. For example the big bang is still a mystery to science yet it could have been that God spoke everything into existence and BANG! IN fact the bible tells us he did. Science actually makes me laugh on this one because it really proves that God said Let there be light and there was.

My original point was to not say that all of science is wrong but only to say that what God's word says is true is in-fact true. EVEN if we don't yet understand the how. We may never understand the how concerning creation because it was done by someone outside of our realm of understanding and dimension.

Thanks for this reply I really thought it was put together well and hope to discuss other topics with you sometime.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm not a theologian. I am a geologist and really only speak on what I see in the field. This is the burning question we face. A question for resolution.

Yes, I can tell. It's not a question that bothers me at all. I am far more into theology and barely give science a passing glance.

Reason why:

When God created the core or bare earth time as we know it probably did not exist.

The Bible does not say how long the earth sat. Now maybe it didn't sit at all or it could have sat far longer than 4 billion years, it could have sat for infinity. But since there may have been no time on the earth yet, saying how long it sat for probably isn't even what happened. I don't believe the age of the earth can be measured at all. I am not saying scientists can't do experiments but I don't believe the results are true.

Creation week does not have to be connected to whatever age rocks give back at all. I don't believe time started on the earth until the first 'evening and morning'.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
No time mentioned because it probably didn't exist.
Creation week does not start until verse 3.

Next, we are not told how the world looked or how developed it was by the seventh day but we assume it was fully grown. Adam and Eve were fully grown speaking adults not infants. The world could have included mountains, valleys, whatever else God wanted.
Creation was a supernatural event, you can't take natural events and compare them to it. If you as a geologist observe erosion and have calculated it will take 100 thousand years for this canyon to form, well good for you, that is probably true, but that means nothing against creation. If God wanted a canyon he would have made a canyon instantly. God doesn't need natural events.
Isaiah 64:8
8 But now, LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter. All of us are the work of your hand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I can tell. It's not a question that bothers me at all. I am far more into theology and barely give science a passing glance.

Reason why:

When God created the core or bare earth time as we know it probably did not exist.

The Bible does not say how long the earth sat. Now maybe it didn't sit at all or it could have sat far longer than 4 billion years, it could have sat for infinity. But since there may have been no time on the earth yet, saying how long it sat for probably isn't even what happened. I don't believe the age of the earth can be measured at all. I am not saying scientists can't do experiments but I don't believe the results are true.

Creation week does not have to be connected to whatever age rocks give back at all. I don't believe time started on the earth until the first 'evening and morning'.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
No time mentioned because it probably didn't exist.
Creation week does not start until verse 3.

Next, we are not told how the world looked or how developed it was by the seventh day but we assume it was fully grown. Adam and Eve were fully grown speaking adults not infants. The world could have included mountains, valleys, whatever else God wanted.
Creation was a supernatural event, you can't take natural events and compare them to it. If you as a geologist observe erosion and have calculated it will take 100 thousand years for this canyon to form, well good for you, that is probably true, but that means nothing against creation. If God wanted a canyon he would have made a canyon instantly. God doesn't need natural events.
Isaiah 64:8
8 But now, LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter. All of us are the work of your hand.

I respect the effort to consider ideas for why the earth or universe might display an appearance of age. Though it reflects the idea of "last tuesday-ism". The idea that, yes we could calculate that a hundred thousand years would be needed for a canyon to form, and yet, God actually just instantaneously made it be.

I think that the problem with this line of reasoning, is that, events that are estimated to have occurred over extremely long ages, are also entwined with things like animal foot tracks and burrows and...feeding traces and nests etc.

Some say well, Adam was made instantly in an old age form. But what if Adam had...say...a scar? The only reason Adam might have a scar, logically, is if an event occurred in space and time, to create that scar. And when we look at earth, if we see complex burrow networks and nests and foot tracks and feeding traces...these features do not suggest an instantaneously created earth.

But I guess it's possible. God can indeed do all things. If God wanted to, he could instantaneously create animal burrows and trackways. I just don't think this line of reasoning can really thrive, given how contentious such an idea is. If we see animal trackways, this suggests not instantaneous appearance, but a passage of time as an animal walked. And if these traces are then within the strata which is calculated to have taken x amount of time to form, now you're in an odd bind because the number of independent temporal events begins stacking. It's no longer a timeless void, but a ticking clock.

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF I am going to try and respond as best I can, there is a lot of information that you have provided here so forgive me if I miss a few things. In response to what you are addressing concerning the statement "...history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation." I agree with you in that you can observe how things are formed and broken down and make pretty accurate predictions about formations and environmental conditions as well as many other things.

In addition also I agree with you that you can also experiment with your theories in order to reproduce a result providing a snapshot or deeper of how things work. I also agree that if God wanted to make an old earth he could. I haven't read your Old Earth posts yet but I plan to as it looks super interesting. My largest concern is people using science as a way to disprove the word God. (I am not by any means saying that's what you have done.) I always propose to believe what the word says and then look for the science to prove it.

Now you may say that is biased and in a way it is. But I say either we believe or we don't what the word of God says. God also does not work by or is limited by natural laws, in fact he created them for a purpose. This could mean that creation falls outside the category of the laws of science and its understanding. For example the big bang is still a mystery to science yet it could have been that God spoke everything into existence and BANG! IN fact the bible tells us he did. Science actually makes me laugh on this one because it really proves that God said Let there be light and there was.

My original point was to not say that all of science is wrong but only to say that what God's word says is true is in-fact true. EVEN if we don't yet understand the how. We may never understand the how concerning creation because it was done by someone outside of our realm of understanding and dimension.

Thanks for this reply I really thought it was put together well and hope to discuss other topics with you sometime.

Thanks. Yea I agree, it is concerning that some try to use science to disprove God's word. I think that's why it's important for Christians not to shy away, but to actively work with contemporary scientific scholars, to basically claim the territory.

If you do read my old earth geology posts, I'd start with part 1. Part 2 needs refinement (it's not user friendly), part 3 I think is good again though.

The key factor between each part is basically to give a "big picture" kind of view. And to try to imagine how much time a single event might take (like a single ice age for example). And then I expand the discussion to talk about more and more and more "single independent events". Then to return the reader to the question of, given X number of events, how much time would the reader guess these events would collectively take?

The posts are rooted more in fundamental logic rather than abstract discussions throwing around giant numbers and trying to explain things that nobody understands.

 

[coffee4u]

I respect the effort to consider ideas for why the earth or universe might display an appearance of age. Though it reflects the idea of "last tuesday-ism". The idea that, yes we could calculate that a hundred thousand years would be needed for a canyon to form, and yet, God actually just instantaneously made it be.

I think that the problem with this line of reasoning, is that, events that are estimated to have occurred over extremely long ages, are also entwined with things like animal foot tracks and burrows and...feeding traces and nests etc.

Some say well, Adam was made instantly in an old age form. But what if Adam had...say...a scar? The only reason Adam might have a scar, logically, is if an event occurred in space and time, to create that scar. And when we look at earth, if we see complex burrow networks and nests and foot tracks and feeding traces...these features do not suggest an instantaneously created earth.

But I guess it's possible. God can indeed do all things. If God wanted to, he could instantaneously create animal burrows and trackways. I just don't think this line of reasoning can really thrive, given how contentious such an idea is. If we see animal trackways, this suggests not instantaneous appearance, but a passage of time as an animal walked. And if these traces are then within the strata which is calculated to have taken x amount of time to form, now you're in an odd bind because the number of independent temporal events begins stacking. It's no longer a timeless void, but a ticking clock.

I didn't mention animals tracks or nests. I believe things like that happened after God created the world, and a lot of change happened during and after the flood. I was just talking about the age of rocks or a canyon that you can look out upon. God created a canyon, the flood made it larger, natural events changed it subtly some more until we see what we see today. So a combination of things.

Adam would have been created as perfect as possible, a young adult in his prime ready to have children. If Adam got scares, he got those during his lifetime.

 

[DebbieJ]

Nobody can disprove what has been proven, obviously. Proof is everywhere that the whole world and all of nature evolved over billions of years, not less than a week. Mass extinctions including the biggest flood in world history are known to have occurred hundreds of millions of years prior to the existence of humans, especially homo sapiens - the last remaining species. I simply cannot for the life of me believe what the Bible says about the Creation and timing of the Great Flood, at least in terms of being the worst ever, is more accurate than what scientists discover. But in my heart I believe the Bible is God's Word and believe in miracles, so I don't want to feel like I am betraying Him in favor of sinners. Am I screwed up about my religion?

A day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day (not sure about the verse). A day in Genesis is not really a literal 24hrs. It's hundreds of millions of years. The physical evidence shows it.

The problem here is people's limited understanding of time. Time is relative. It's not uniform. Our time on the ground is different from the person on the 24th floor. Our time in a Boeing 747 airline is different from a person who is standing still. If go near a blackhole and watch a clock on Earth, 1 minute near the blackhole can mean 1 million years on Earth.

Since the creation started at the big bang, which can be akin to a blackhole, we can be certain that 1 day in Genesis is relative to the blackhole since the Earth hasn't been created yet. Therefore 1 day in Genesis can mean hundreds of millions of years.

Take careful note that it mentioned "there was evening and there was morning" the first day. But the Earth, Sun, and the Moon have yet to be created. From this we know that the evening and morning wasn't on Earth. It's somewhere else.

I also believe that the creation of humans took hundreds of years of evolution until it produced ADAM. Otherwise, who can explain the various human like skeleton the exist before Adam.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We are not ultra literalists. Just literalists. And yes we are the minority amongst christians. Most believing Christians believe in some form of theistic evolution. But empirical science shows BB/TOE is scientifically impossible and gives more support for special divine young creation.

If this was true, every human being with an education would believe it. The reasons people do not believe in a young Earth are obvious unless you decide without knowing anything only the Bible matters.

 

[coffee4u]

A day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day (not sure about the verse). A day in Genesis is not really a literal 24hrs. It's hundreds of millions of years. The physical evidence shows it.

Exactly what evidence convinced you of this?

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

but it doesn't stop there.

4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

These verses are not referring to Genesis or any other time frame mentioned in the Bible, but rather to the fact that time matters to us but not to God because he is outside of time.
God thought the time frame in Genesis important enough to us to not only number each day but to add 'evening and morning' to each one as well. What would be the point of doing that if each day was really millions of years? If you feel the text is talking about millions of years, what scriptural backing do you have for that interpretation?

The problem here is people's limited understanding of time. Time is relative. It's not uniform. Our time on the ground is different from the person on the 24th floor. Our time in a Boeing 747 airline is different from a person who is standing still. If go near a blackhole and watch a clock on Earth, 1 minute near the blackhole can mean 1 million years on Earth.

You said "A day in Genesis is not really a literal 24hrs." You said this as a firm fact.
What are you basing that fact on?

If we have a limited understanding of time then how do you know it is not a literal 24 hour time period? or do you think it would be impossible for God to create in this time frame?

Since the creation started at the big bang, which can be akin to a blackhole, we can be certain that 1 day in Genesis is relative to the blackhole since the Earth hasn't been created yet. Therefore 1 day in Genesis can mean hundreds of millions of years.

How do you know it started as a big bang? Do you have some scriptural backing for that?

If the sixth day really meant hundreds of millions of years and we know that Adam was made that day, how did he live for only 930 years?

Genesis 5
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

Take careful note that it mentioned "there was evening and there was morning" the first day. But the Earth, Sun, and the Moon have yet to be created. From this we know that the evening and morning wasn't on Earth. It's somewhere else.

Evening and morning on the earth is created by the earth turning and the light shining on it. Obviously there was a light source.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Only we are not told what that light source was.
This was not some other planet, this is said to be the first day of creation week upon the earth. This is when God created time for us. We are given no details to any other creation or if there is any other at all.

I also believe that the creation of humans took hundreds of years of evolution until it produced ADAM. Otherwise, who can explain the various human like skeleton the exist before Adam.

Evolution scientists believe that took approximately six million years not hundreds.
So while these millions or only hundreds of years were going past with man evolving, none were sinning and none were dying then? Since we know that Adam's sin brought in death.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

Also how did Adam appear? If God really didn't make him from dirt as he said he did, did an advanced ape-man wake up one morning able to talk to God and dubbed him Adam?
What scriptural backing do you have for this doctrine?

"human like skeleton"

You mean like Piltdown Man? Which was the jawbones and tooth from an orangutan and the skull from medieval human.

Or maybe Nebraska Man which was later found out to be a tooth from a peccary, an animal closely related to pigs.

or maybe those poor exploited humans that they used in circuses including Julia Pastrana (1834–1860) said to be “semi-human, "between a human being and an Ourang-outang”, “Darwin’s missing link”. While in reality the poor woman suffered from several genetic diseases.
Another Darwinian ‘missing link’ was a little girl named Krao Farini (1876–1926) She was first 'exhibited' in Europe in the early 1880s when she was only about six or seven years old. First, she was called an “ape-child”, then as she grew an “ape-girl”, and last an “ape-woman” What a lovely life. To better convince the public of her ape-human status she was fraudulently presented as having pouches in her mouth, prehensile toes, cartilage in her nose, and other simian features. She was photographed in a jungle setting in poses that deliberately reinforced the public perception of her as an ape-human hybrid.
Lionel the lion-faced man born in Poland in 1890, Grace Gilbert (billed as “the woolly child”) Jo-Jo, the dog-faced boy who was born in Russia as Fedor Jeftichew. He was described in advertisements as a “savage” that he could not be civilized. In fact, he was very civilized and spoke Russian, German, and English. Probably far more civilized then his jailers.