Please explain! Caveman, evolution etc

[Job 33:6]

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!

I believe that God created Man and Woman with use of evolution.

And Adam and Eve wouldn't have been two literally existing people. There just isn't any evidence to suggest that they were real people. Not in any literal way.

 

[coffee4u]

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

You see fossils. You did not witness this so called progression. Its assumed.
It is also just as easy to assume that God created each one just as they are.

The reason we believe the second scenario is because God tells us that it happened this way.

The one pretending is evolutionists who pretend they were there to see it! All you have is things you can see after the fact and evolution is the story woven around them.

All creatures changed at the fall. God literally altered them. It's quite possible that chickens had teeth before the fall. Nothing you see in the world today is as it was created. The entire world is groaning from the change that happened.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

 

[coffee4u]

I believe that God created Man and Woman with use of evolution.

And Adam and Eve wouldn't have been two literally existing people. There just isn't any evidence to suggest that they were real people. Not in any literal way.

scripture says they were.

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

In Luke 3:38 the ancestry of Jesus Christ is traced up to Adam, "Adam, the son of God,"

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Romans 5:19
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:22:
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

1 Timothy 2:13-14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

[Job 33:6]

scripture says they were.

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

In Luke 3:38 the ancestry of Jesus Christ is traced up to Adam, "Adam, the son of God,"

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Romans 5:19
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:22:
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

1 Timothy 2:13-14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

I don't base my world view only on what scripture says. Especially as a scientist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Agreed, there are some random mutations than can be beneficial.. but generally in a destructive/simplifying sense as you note

a little like making a stock car faster by taking off the doors or AC, helpful for a certain niche, but hardly the process that explains how they got there!

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

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.

So you believe in flat earth with firmament overhead, mustard seed being the smallest seed there is and all that jazz that has been proved wrong ?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

well yes there will always be trade offs either way.. but there is still a distinction to be made between constructive and destructive change

to use the car analogy above; removing the spare tire makes a car lighter and faster, with the downside of added risk of getting stuck with a flat, right?

adding a spare tire will have the opposite trade offs obviously- but this is not the same example- you need to 'buy' the tire, account for it's 'emergence', not just it's loss. The latter is much easier to account for by 'accident'

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

well yes there will always be trade offs either way.. but there is still a distinction to be made between constructive and destructive change

It is not the change itself but how it works with current environment that makes it “constructive or destructive”

At some point in time being a bear with mutation for white fur was beneficial in snowy environment and so successful that the descendants of those bears made a new distinctive species - polar bears.

Nowadays with climate change accelerating it looks like that branch is nearing extinction since the environment is changing faster than the polar bears can keep up with.

Adapt or die. Too bad cockroaches and rats are so much better at that then most species.

 

[coffee4u]

So you believe in flat earth with firmament overhead, mustard seed being the smallest seed there is and all that jazz that has been proved wrong ?

No I do not believe in flat earth. Might want to, I don't know... read someones posts before declaring what they believe.

Also you are on ignore just so you know. I decided to click see ignore content on this thread to see what I was missing. Appears to be nothing worth reading.

 

[Job 33:6]

well yes there will always be trade offs either way.. but there is still a distinction to be made between constructive and destructive change

to use the car analogy above; removing the spare tire makes a car lighter and faster, with the downside of added risk of getting stuck with a flat, right?

adding a spare tire will have the opposite trade offs obviously- but this is not the same example- you need to 'buy' the tire, account for it's 'emergence', not just it's loss. The latter is much easier to account for by 'accident'

Could you explain how your logic works with respect to fish gaining legs but losing gills?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Could you explain how your logic works with respect to fish gaining legs but losing gills?

Point being: losing anything is easy; blind fish or flightless birds, nobody debates the ability of random errors in DNA to destroy functional organs

random errors doing the exact opposite- giving sight to an animal that had none- is an entirely different proposition

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is not the change itself but how it works with current environment that makes it “constructive or destructive”

At some point in time being a bear with mutation for white fur was beneficial in snowy environment and so successful that the descendants of those bears made a new distinctive species - polar bears.

Nowadays with climate change accelerating it looks like that branch is nearing extinction since the environment is changing faster than the polar bears can keep up with.

Adapt or die. Too bad cockroaches and rats are so much better at that then most species.

not touching the anthropomorphic climate change here- there are other threads for that. But cold winters are terrible for polar bears, their biggest threat beyond that are natives practicing their ancient traditional hunting rights- going out on snowmobiles and picking them off with long range rifles...

Aside from that- pigment was one example brought up already, the change often comes from losing a gene, not gaining one- but either way it's a pretty superficial change

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe that God created Man and Woman with use of evolution.
.

Just curious about how you define evolution here- Darwinian?

 

[Job 33:6]

Point being: losing anything is easy; blind fish or flightless birds, nobody debates the ability of random errors in DNA to destroy functional organs

random errors doing the exact opposite- giving sight to an animal that had none- is an entirely different proposition

So in the case of losing gills and gaining legs, is gaining legs an entirely different proposition? Or do you view it as a loss too?

 

[coffee4u]

So in the case of losing gills and gaining legs, is gaining legs an entirely different story? Or do you view it as a loss too?

The eye was crafted as fully functional from the moment of it's creation. From the fall on information has been lost or corrupted. The snake created with legs lost its legs, a bird that could fly lost its ability to fly and a creature that had gills lost its gills. Pale skin is most likely a mutation or a loss of information as well, not something gained, same as blue eyes. Chaos does not order itself into complexity, complexity falls into chaos.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

not touching the anthropomorphic climate change here- there are other threads for that. But cold winters are terrible for polar bears, their biggest threat beyond that are natives practicing their ancient traditional hunting rights- going out on snowmobiles and picking them off with long range rifles...

Aside from that- pigment was one example brought up already, the change often comes from losing a gene, not gaining one- but either way it's a pretty superficial change

From what I remember the problem with polar bears is the receding ice cover making for longer hunting trips to after seals and increased difficulties in making lair to take care off their cubs.

The natives can be compensated after all.

As for being superficial change that’s how they often start with evolution.

As a bear you don’t have to suddenly evolve an ability to shoot bone spikes to get an edge. Getting 10 meters closer to prey because your camouflage color is better for your environment is enough to give those bears and edge to get ahead of competition.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

From the fall on information has been lost or corrupted. The snake created with legs lost its legs, a bird that could fly lost its ability to fly and a creature that had gills lost its gills.

Humans losing their tails along the way but we still have tail bone as remnant of that.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

No I do not believe in flat earth. Might want to, I don't know... read someones posts before declaring what they believe.

Just read a post where you said everything in The Bible is correct. No half way measures but now you don’t sound too sure after all.

Being consistent usually helps your case.

 

[Job 33:6]

So in the case of losing gills and gaining legs, is gaining legs an entirely different proposition? Or do you view it as a loss too?

Listens to crickets chirp*

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Listens to crickets chirp*

Sorry if I made you feel neglected! I do have other things to do like eat sleep and work! and my family requires some attention too sometimes.. bad habits I know

"So in the case of losing gills and gaining legs, is gaining legs an entirely different proposition? Or do you view it as a loss too?"

If we are to cut to the chase, this really boils down to the gain or loss of functional information.
Losing pigment, sight, flight etc, might be an advantage in some cases, but very easily explained by corruption, error, degradation in DNA- and hence not controversial re. evolutionary mechanisms

'legs' gets semantic because there can be some very simple examples of fins being 'used as legs' without much change. But somewhere between a simple fin, and a complex leg with multiple joints- yes there will be new specific functional information required, which cannot reasonably be explained by 'copying errors' in DNA that was meant to build a fin