Was Adam 200,000 years ago?

[1213]

Modern Science demonstrates that anatomically modern humans appeared in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago and migrated to every continent by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.

I don’t believe humans existed 200,000 years ago, therefore I don’t think Adam was 200,000 years ago.

Why I don’t believe? There is no good and reasonable evidence for it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don’t believe humans existed 200,000 years ago, therefore I don’t think Adam was 200,000 years ago.

Why I don’t believe? There is no good and reasonable evidence for it.

What difference would it make? We know that Adam and were real Historical people that lived in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago. There are many - many things that they were first at. What difference would it make if a cave man or ape man lived 200,000 years ago. That would have no impact on the Historical Adam and Eve that lived in the Tigris - Euphrates river valley around 6,000 years ago.

 

[Job 33:6]

This even proves my point more. You came up with much more, not accounting for causes of death, average lifespans, etc., but we are talking about 60 generations or so. A lifespan was about 70 years during King David's rule which was about 3,000 years ago, will use that as an average. Keep in mine some families are having 20 kids, some 10 kids, some are having 2, some not and then some families, towns or entire kingdoms are being wiped out by plagues or wars, etc. It's not easy to get exact populations in early times, but main point is man has been on this planet for a very short time.
Population estimates for 1AD are anywhere from 170 - 400 million. We now more accurately for sure in 1800 there were about 1 billion.
So going 2300 BC, is how long it took to multiply 170-400 million - 33 some generations.

If you double your family in every generation for 5 generations then just sustain them for the next 5 and repeat that for 60 generations, you'll come up with 7+ billion in 4300 years give or take. It averages out to 3 kids per family and allows for various causes of death.

The point is, you're just sort of arbitrarily making up numbers to fit your pre-conceived idea. This is evident in how easily you gave up on the statements of your initial post.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If the rate of decay is cumulative, then it is possible that the elements that we measure time with have also decayed, and that time flow today is not the same as timeflow 200,000 years ago. Therefore inconclusive.

If your claim can be proven, then that person will win a nobel prize. Good luck with that.

 

[Ronald]

The point is, you're just sort of arbitrarily making up numbers to fit your pre-conceived idea. This is evident in how easily you gave up on the statements of your initial post.

The numbers are fairly accurate back to 1800 and with further research an estimate of 170 - 400 million in 1 AD. A couple can multiply and have 50 - 100 great grand- children or they could have 2. I just gave examples and 3 children per family times 60 generations will produce 7+ billion on 4300 years - You just don't like it, rational as it is, you would side with evolution, which is entirely made up.

 

[Job 33:6]

The numbers are fairly accurate back to 1800 and with further research an estimate of 170 - 400 million in 1 AD. A couple can multiply and have 50 - 100 great grand- children or they could have 2. I just gave examples and 3 children per family times 60 generations will produce 7+ billion on 4300 years - You just don't like it, rational as it is, you would side with evolution, which is entirely made up.

They could have 100 great grandchildren or they could have two.

Thank you for clarifying on your position, it all adds up now...

 

[Ronald]

They could have 100 great grandchildren or they could have two.

Thank you for clarifying on your position, it all adds up now...

3 kids per family times 60 generations.
Well, you are young, maybe the math is too difficult. Maybe you can't conceive of some families having 20 kids and some having two. I know some things just don't compute.
Stick to studying rocks, you don't have to count them, just apply flawed dating methods to them and come up with fictitious astronomical numbers. Then you can assume the age of the universe, earth, life on earth and discard Biblical scriptures that just don't work with your rocks.

 

[kwame1]

If the rate of decay is cumulative, then it is possible that the elements that we measure time with have also decayed, and that time flow today is not the same as timeflow 200,000 years ago. Therefore inconclusive.

very true.....you cant measure accurately anything on this our planet earth with an instrument or chemicals derived from this same earth because they have to age together......just trust your creator and don't listen to this evolution crap from scientist....

 

[RadiantGrace]

Scientific theories have also been believed, and defended, only to be LATER modified or rejected; i.e., the Flat Earth theory that ruled for several generations prior to being disproved, not just altered or rejected.

There never was a flat Earth theory. People just assumed the world was flat until they made rational observations that it was not.

 

[RadiantGrace]

Modern Science is not the best judge of Modern Science.
RESULTS will always outrank theories. Remember the "Flat Earth" fiasco? "The Earth is flat" was the "Scientific Theory" of its day. AND it was protected by the church because most of the Elite Teachers were either priests or members of a clergy, and the clergy were doing most of the teaching at that time.

Galileo (17th century) was one who denied the "FLAT EARTH" scientific fact, and was tried by inquisition, placed under house arrest for life, and his books were withdrawn from public access.

No, Europeans at that time knew the Earth was a sphere and it had been circumnavigated and colonized. He proposed that the planets orbited the Sun in elipical orbits. It had already been accepted that the Earth revolved around the Sun, but he proposed that the other planets orbiting the Sun did not do so in perfect circles.

 

[RadiantGrace]

Galileo was not tried for teaching that the earth was not flat. The spherical earth had been accepted for a great many centuries before him. What he denied was the cosmology of Ptolemy which envisioned a spherical earth at the centre of the universe with everything else in orbit around it.

That's the common myth, but that idea was supported by Copernicus a century before that.

Copernicus believed that the planets orbited the Sun in perfect circles. God, of course, would put the planets in perfect motion. Galileo proposed the planets orbited the Sun imperfectly, which suggests God is sloppy, which suggests God is flawed. He failed to provide sufficient evidence of his claim and was put on house arrest.

 

[RadiantGrace]

That is included in the figuring. My wife had 9 siblings. Within only two generations, 35 grandchildren. Population growth has slowed in the last 50 years especially with abortion and this fear of over population in countries like China, limiting 1 child per family. But before that it was common to have 6 - 8 kids per family. Jacob had 12 sons and I'm sure at least that many daughters. One couple would multiply into 80 great-grandchildren in 100 years. 40 x 40 x 40 x 40 = 2.5 million. Of course half of those people die due to numerous causes and if not the population today would be 10 times or more. It really doesn't take long to exponentially grow the population to the totals we see today, even with death knocking it down.

No, you are using personal examples to extrapolate human population growth patterns through linear math.

Early humans lived in hunter gather societies. Their populations were limited by what food was available by nature within their territorial range. When you had too many people, they starved to death or died trying to claim new terrority to collect food.

People then learned how to farm. Their populations were limited by climate. They went to war, starved to death, and/or died of disease trying to find new land to farm.

Only in recent centuries have we made advances in science that prevent disease and produce greater yield. We have, fortunately, also found ways of controlling birth rates. Animal populations are controlled by what is available to them. They don't reproduce exponentially.

 

[Ronald]

No, you are using personal examples to extrapolate human population growth patterns through linear math.

Early humans lived in hunter gather societies. Their populations were limited by what food was available by nature within their territorial range. When you had too many people, they starved to death or died trying to claim new terrority to collect food.

People then learned how to farm. Their populations were limited by climate. They went to war, starved to death, and/or died of disease trying to find new land to farm.

Only in recent centuries have we made advances in science that prevent disease and produce greater yield. We have, fortunately, also found ways of controlling birth rates. Animal populations are controlled by what is available to them. They don't reproduce exponentially.

Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!

3 kids per family for 60 generations accounts for all the tragedies, famines, diseases, hardships, hurricanes,,tornados, asteroids, catastrophic events, wars.
Families were large, this accounts for half or more of the population dying by all these causes.
When you distort the Genesis account to fit evolutionary theories, then the rest of the Bible is at risk of suffering the same misintepretations.

 

[sfs]

Let's be clear.
There is Operational Science and Historical Science.

No, there's just science. "Operational science" is an idea made up by creationists to avoid dealing with science they don't like. All science involves testing hypotheses with empirical data. Sometimes that's done via experiment, sometimes not. Either way, it's still science.

Evolution is very much science because it explains and predicts empirical data. If you want to overthrow it, you have to come up with a model that explains the data at least as well. Good luck with that.

 

[RadiantGrace]

Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!

Starvation and disease, often caused by changes in climate is what keeps populations within certain limits. This has been observed throughout history and is readily observed in nature. The planet and any particular area cannot support and infinite amount of any lifeform.

Even children can understand such a simple concept.

3 kids per family for 60 generations accounts for all the tragedies, famines, diseases, hardships, hurricanes,,tornados, asteroids, catastrophic events, wars.
Families were large, this accounts for half or more of the population dying by all these causes.
When you distort the Genesis account to fit evolutionary theories, then the rest of the Bible is at risk of suffering the same misintepretations.

No one is distorting Genesis. Genesis actually has two different accounts of the order of creation. One is from the northern tribes, the second is from the southern tribes. Both were included when compiling the Torah.

 

[NobleMouse]

No, there's just science. "Operational science" is an idea made up by creationists to avoid dealing with science they don't like. All science involves testing hypotheses with empirical data. Sometimes that's done via experiment, sometimes not. Either way, it's still science.

Evolution is very much science because it explains and predicts empirical data. If you want to overthrow it, you have to come up with a model that explains the data at least as well. Good luck with that.

New model (no luck needed, thanks to God):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God said He directly created the different kinds of sea creatures and birds on day 5, then land animals and man on day 6 (Genesis 1:20-27). This model perfectly supports the life forms (and fossils) we see today (and why wouldn't it, God said this was how he did it). It all fits within the framework and timeline given in the entirety of God's word (which in no unclear terms does not support billions of years or evolution - find the passage that does if you wish to object).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your issue isn't with Creationists, your issue is with God and His word, so you should direct your barking towards Him (playing off your picture : ) Believe in God and trust in His word, He is not deceiving you. If you believe accepting what God says in His word somehow makes Him 'deceptive' in contrast with what you believe to be true from science then it is YOU who have deceived yourself in believing ideas that have never been observed, cannot be proven, and were just made up in the minds of people who largely do not believe in the God of the Bible.

First, we have scientists telling us we evolved from molecules, then the molecules came from non-life matter, then the non-life matter came from a giant bang - sigh. These ideas all originated absent of the thought, "Oh, hey I wonder if this hypothesis jives with the Bible? Hmmm... better check." Then again, most of these men and women were not particularly religious and today nearly 70% of scientists do not believe in the God of the Christian Bible (see Scientists and Belief). This was as of 2009, so I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers who believe are actually lower now.

So out of this largely 'anti-God' machine, we should not be surprised that these ideas to 'fill in the holes and tell the story of how we got here' by in large do not mesh well with the Bible. Now here in this forum we have good men and woman of faith, who either work in some discipline of science or just accept what it says as truth, trying to reconcile what they believe, with the Bible (note the order: first ideas from secular science are accepted as truth, then the Bible is 'retro-fitted' to corroborate the same story... twisting and redefining scripture to be something other than how Jesus understood it - Matthew 19:4 - no molecules there, man was created from the dust of the ground and life breathed into his nostrils).

Scientific theories are often wrong, edited, modified and sometimes rejected (history tells us this); God's word is never wrong (again, history tells us this). Yet we have fellow brothers and sisters arguing with those who do accept God's word as ultimate truth, on the basis of what is almost 100% accepted within secular science as fact (though never observed, which I spell as: s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not science). Thank you for telling us we came from a big bang ...and non-life ...and and slowly evolved over billions of years, and for trying to make the sacred word of God say something it doesn't, but NO THANK YOU (!). As for me and my house, we will serve (and faithfully believe in) the Lord.

In Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[sfs]

New model (no luck needed, thanks to God):

When you have a model that predicts genetic data, let me know. Those fallible scientists can predict what they'll see when they look at new genomes. You, with your infallible Bible, can't. Why is that? Have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of how the Bible acts as God's word could be mistaken?

 

[NobleMouse]

When you have a model that predicts genetic data, let me know. Those fallible scientists can predict what they'll see when they look at new genomes. You, with your infallible Bible, can't. Why is that? Have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of how the Bible acts as God's word could be mistaken?

The way the Bible is written, being affirmed by OT and NT authors and affirmed by Jesus himself does not make a good argument in the favor of evolution and an Adam from 200,000 years ago. No, God made it pretty clear how and when He created all things. His word is true and can be trusted - believing is seeing, not the other way around. All his life up until Jesus called him Simon Peter was a fisherman, spending his days in a boat out at sea. The laws of nature told him a boat was needed if he was to remain out on the water all day and be successful in that trade. Yet when he was with the other disciples and a storm came up, he saw Jesus and called out to him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." Jesus said, "Come." Now before Simon Peter became afraid and started losing his faith, what was he doing? He was standing on the water with Jesus wasn't he? Which word was holding Peter up on the surface of the water, was it the word of God or the word of nature? Which word was true, the word of God or the word of nature. The word of God was, is, and will forever stand when all else falls away. Don't go looking for naturalistic answers to that which was clearly created supernaturally. When Jesus speaks it happens, and all things were made through Him (John 1:1-3). How long did each of the miracles performed by Jesus take to become manifest? At the moment they were spoken, right? Certainly not billions of years - doesn't seem to be consistent with the nature of God's supernatural spoken word.

Back to the model and it's 'predictive' ability... in this model, God created different kinds. He also allowed for adaptation to the environment for these different kinds to thrive (to be fruitful and multiply... and behold, it was very good indeed!). How can you say the Bible cannot predict what will be seen in genomes? When a new variation shows up in a given species, understanding the Bible would lead one to believe most of the genetic DNA will resemble that from the species as a whole... and it does. Your DNA and my DNA will be similar, because we're both descendants from Adam. God created all life, so with a biblical perspective, our DNA will even have some similarities with that of birds, cats, horses and fish too... because God created all life to be fruitful and multiply and so yes it is fruitful to have a brain, lungs, bones, muscles, organs for digesting food and reproducing, etc.... These similarities don't exist because we have a common ancestor, they exist because we have a common creator that created us to be fruitful and multiply in a shared, common environment. Is this not what we see today? 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 states "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." Are these not also true? We have sickness and disease (despite all that medical science has to offer), and we have eternal life only through Jesus Christ... also true. God gave us the ability to think and discern, there is great joy to discover in science I'm sure, but what fruit does one hope to bear by trying to uphold ideas that contradict God's truth of creation, least of all ideas that have never been seen and cannot be proven? Seems to me that God's word is a pretty good model for all areas of life (science included) - 2 Timothy 3:16.

I'll bet you'd fight me tooth and nail regarding the accuracy of God's word when it came to having eternal life through Jesus Christ, pointing out that a plain reading of God's word makes this apparent, that it is spoken and affirmed by Jesus, as well as others in the OT and NT - word-for-word verbatim is absolutely true. And why wouldn't anyone here stand behind that, who doesn't want to spend eternity with the one who created them and loves them perfectly? Yet, you'll deny the words from the same God that shows who He is in relation to us, how we were created, and when - because it is in contrast to events you've never seen, cannot prove, and cannot replicate?? There are a little over 50 scripture references to eternal life in the Bible, but literally hundreds that refer back to the events of creation. Now, I don't know if your a scientist, but you CAN still do good science to the glory of God and believe His word is true about creation.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!

3 kids per family for 60 generations accounts for all the tragedies, famines, diseases, hardships, hurricanes,,tornados, asteroids, catastrophic events, wars.
Families were large, this accounts for half or more of the population dying by all these causes.
When you distort the Genesis account to fit evolutionary theories, then the rest of the Bible is at risk of suffering the same misinterpretations.

Mostly people starved because we could not produce enough food to feed them. Then when we could produce the food we had a distribution problem. By the time we got the food to them it was rotted. Now we can produce the food and process it so that it lasts longer. The problem in the cities is they have to many people. A few missiles would straighten that out but then we would end up with a zombie apocalypse with a world full of walking dead. At least if we look at Hollywood's version of the future.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was Adam 200,000 years ago?

No.