Need help with ongoing Creation v evolution debate

[Omacron]

Hi all....


This is the original question possed :

“OK, in the bible we are led to believe way back when humans lived outrageously lengthy lives, like hundreds of years or whatever.

I find this absolutely ridiculous. If that is so, how come we have not found ancient human bones showing eight hundred yrs of wear? Bodies are often id'd from bones only, and using bones we can determine a reasonable estimate of age.

I think the people who wrote the bible used outrageously long ages to beef up their stories, like adam and eve. It is NOT HUMANLY possible to live hundreds of years!”

I beleave this part of Genesis has been missinterpted for a very long time. So I will explane what I beleave to be the truth. I will use the below as an example.

Genesis 5
12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
(This is how long Cainan lived. During that time he begat Mahalaleel.)



13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

(This is how long the family line continued after the death of Cainan.)

14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
(This is the totel number of years Cainan's family line lived. 70+840=910)

I hope this helps to bring some understanding to those who seek wisdom.

 

[john crawford]

This is the original question posted :

“OK, in the bible we are led to believe way back when humans lived outrageously lengthy lives, like hundreds of years or whatever.

I find this absolutely ridiculous. If that is so, how come we have not found ancient human bones showing eight hundred yrs of wear? Bodies are often id'd from bones only, and using bones we can determine a reasonable estimate of age.

We have found fossil remains of some of our biblical ancestors whose amazing life spans gradually declined over 10 generations from Noah's 950 years to less than 200 years during the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Over 400 of them have been found in traditional cave burial sites throughout Western Asia, Europe and the Middle East. They are called Neanderthals.

 

[john crawford]

I beleave this part of Genesis has been missinterpted for a very long time. So I will explane what I beleave to be the truth. I will use the below as an example.

Genesis 5
12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
(This is how long Cainan lived. During that time he begat Mahalaleel.)

13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

(This is how long the family line continued after the death of Cainan.)

14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
(This is the totel number of years Cainan's family line lived. 70+840=910)

I hope this helps to bring some understanding to those who seek wisdom.

Those who already have wisdom and only seek further knowledge and truth in biblical history point to Genesis 7:6 and 9:28-29 as evidence of Neanderthal Noah's marvelous individual life span and exceeding longevity on earth.

 

[Omacron]

We have found fossil remains of some of our biblical ancestors whose amazing life spans gradually declined over 10 generations from Noah's 950 years to less than 200 years during the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Over 400 of them have been found in traditional cave burial sites throughout Western Asia, Europe and the Middle East. They are called Neanderthals.

Current theory holds that Neandertals became extinct only 30,000 years ago and co-existed with modern humans in Europe. Neandertals and modern humans diverged genetically 500,000 to 600,000 years ago, suggesting that though they may have lived at the same time, Neandertals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans. Even though I beleave God did indeed create the universe, I find that the life spans given in Genesis to be greatly exaggerated by the authors. It is an intresting topic for conversation, but please do not let it cause anyone to over look the basic message of these texts.

 

[john crawford]

Current theory holds that Neandertals became extinct only 30,000 years ago and co-existed with modern humans in Europe. Neandertals and modern humans diverged genetically 500,000 to 600,000 years ago, suggesting that though they may have lived at the same time, Neandertals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans.

Yes, we are well aware of "current theory" regarding our Caucasian descent from Neanderthals, and consider it neo-Darwinist racism.

Even though I beleave God did indeed create the universe, I find that the life spans given in Genesis to be greatly exaggerated by the authors. It is an intresting topic for conversation, but please do not let it cause anyone to over look the basic message of these texts.

As Christians though, we would like to trace our ancestry back through Noah to Adam and Eve just like Jesus Christ and his apostles did as well as all of the Patriarchs. We feel it our religious duty to confront neo-Darwinist race theorists who would impose their chosen ancestry from African ape and monkey ancestors on the rest of the world.

 

[Omacron]

Yes, we are well aware of "current theory" regarding our Caucasian descent from Neanderthals, and consider it neo-Darwinist racism. .

neo-Darwinist (Ne·o-Dar·win·ism)
n.
Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.

racism (rac·ism)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I fail to understand how that can be considered neo-Darwinist racism as the comparative study of Neanderthal and modern European mitochondrial DNA was the source of these conclusions. Please enlighten me as I am a seeker of truth.

As Christians though, we would like to trace our ancestry back through Noah to Adam and Eve just like Jesus Christ and his apostles did as well as all of the Patriarchs. We feel it our religious duty to confront neo-Darwinist race theorists who would impose their chosen ancestry from African ape and monkey ancestors on the rest of the world.

I think the activity of tracing your ancestry is an admirable and noble pursuit. Your desire to do as the apostles and the patriarchs is as well. According to moderian theory we are not decended from African ape, but rather that man and African ape have a common ancestry. That being said, I detests the imposition of ideas or theory on anyone. God gave all of us a free will and the imposition of thought is diametrically opposed to that tradition. Also your religious duty is not to confront others in any wise. It is your choise to do that. Your religious duty is to love God with all your mind and your heart and all your soul. Also it is to love your brother as you would love yourself. To obey the laws and commandments and to forgive those who have wronged you. I would be happy to discuss this topic with you, my brother. I do not wish to have a confrontation with you or to impose my will on you.

God bless you.

 

[john crawford]

I fail to understand how that can be considered neo-Darwinist racism as the comparative study of Neanderthal and modern European mitochondrial DNA was the source of these conclusions. Please enlighten me as I am a seeker of truth.

All neo-Darwinist theories and mtDNA claims of human evolution are inherently racist according to modern creationists who dispute genetic claims that mtDNA could still be alive to be tested in so-called fossil specimens from 40tya.

According to moderian theory we are not decended from African ape, but rather that man and African ape have a common ancestry.

Yes, but that is just a racist technicality since man is originally classified as an ape in the superfamily of Hominoidea by neo-Darwinist race theorists to begin with. Creationists demand Human Family status at the outset when creating taxonomic categories in the order of primates. Then we won't end up being labeled as Homo.

I would be happy to discuss this topic with you, my brother.

That's the purpose of having a creationist forum.

 

[disciple777]

Chemical evolution is impossible. For life to initiate the cellular functions, a prior well organized cellular architecture is necessary. Amino acids do not form proteins naturally. This is next to impossibility. If proteins are not there, cell cannot be formed and , life cannot begin. If a cell cannot be formed how can life come into existence? We have struggled to create a living cell for the past 200 years. We have not succeeded. Why? Our Scientists (Except Christians) do not understand what is life.

 

[Omacron]

Chemical evolution is impossible. For life to initiate the cellular functions, a prior well organized cellular architecture is necessary. Amino acids do not form proteins naturally. This is next to impossibility. If proteins are not there, cell cannot be formed and , life cannot begin. If a cell cannot be formed how can life come into existence? We have struggled to create a living cell for the past 200 years. We have not succeeded. Why? Our Scientists (Except Christians) do not understand what is life.

It is true that amino acids have not been observed to form proteins by them selfs, ( that I know of ). RNA is responcable for the synthesis of protines in cells. Finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky business. Each requires the other for its own systhesis. That is where RNA may solve this chicken and egg conundrum.
When proteins are made from the information in DNA, a working RNA copy of the gene is made for use by ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell. Therefore RNA, like DNA, stores genetic information, and, like proteins, it also performs chemical reactions.
Bringing RNA into the picture solves the chicken and egg problem. RNA can be both chicken and egg.
What this means to evolutionary biologists is that life could well have BEGUN with organisms made largely of RNA.
This idea of an 'RNA world' has been debated since the 1960's, but Cech and Altman's ( http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/17_62.html ) discovery has convinced most scientists that it is at least possible.
It is now known that RNA is at the heart of many of the basic functions in the cell, and probably evolved in the RNA world. Amino acids were available in the primordial earth. So it stands to reason that free RNA most likely synthesized proteins from these amino acids.
And to answer you on the quest to create a living cell, the three-dimensional structure of DNA, was first proposed by James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick only about 50 years ago. Humans would be hard pressed indeed to create a living cell prior to then. Truly our knowledge of the functions of the cell are not complete. We have just recently mapped out the human genome. Your expectation that christians are the only ones that understand what life is, is ill founded.

God bless you with the wisdom you seek.