Was Adam 200,000 years ago?

[Job 33:6]

Interesting your bring up the Cambrian layer as this seems to be a layer of life with no precursor - just "poof" complex life from nowhere. Scientists taught under the conventional paradigm of deep time recognize this and have called it the 'Cambrian explosion'.
"Reepicheep"

@NobleMouse

Did you know that the cambrian explosion occurred over at least 15-20 million years, and there are a good number of fossils that predate it, at least 20 million years prior, and even beyond that if you include fossils like cloudina, sinotubulites and the ediacaran, these go back some 80 million years prior to the explosion?

Even if you didnt recognize the ages of these rocks, it could still be said that there are a good number of fossils that are in rocks, superpositionally below rocks of the cambrian explosion.

So this idea of them just "poof"ing into existence in the cambrian explosion is just a misconception.

Also, there are both biological and geologic explanations for its occurrence.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

Did you know that the cambrian explosion occurred over at least 15-20 million years, and there are a good number of fossils that predate it, at least 20 million years prior, and even beyond that if you include fossils like cloudina, sinotubulites and the ediacaran, these go back some 80 million years prior to the explosion?

Even if you didnt recognize the ages of these rocks, it could still be said that there are a good number of fossils that are in rocks, superpositionally below rocks of the cambrian explosion.

So this idea of them just "poof"ing into existence in the cambrian explosion is just a misconception.

Also, there are both biological and geologic explanations for its occurrence.

Hi K-BIF, thank you for all of the replies. As you have pointed out, and I will admit, I am not an expert in geology. In fact, I am not a scientist at all (ta-da). One thing we do have in common is both you and I cannot be experts in all things - if for no other reason than we simply haven't made enough revolutions around the sun. I do always appreciate your knowledge and insight on geology - it is both interesting and educational and so thank you for that! So, both of us rely on the research done by others to form our worldview, and our way of interpreting the body of evidence. This is an active process of choosing what we commit to believe. This is not so dissimilar to you and I choosing to believe in the God of the Christian Bible, though approx. 5/7th of the world does not share this same belief.

Now, I have chosen to rely on scientists whose research is done within the broadly defined framework and paradigm given in the word of God - yes the Bible is not a scientific text, but it is the truth from God and He gives us some information of events that took place around creation and the flood of Noah. These scientists (educated, earning PhD's from many of the same universities under the same professors as their secular colleagues) aren't left after graduating to attempt doing a type of pseudo science with crayons and coloring books, avoiding details as it would only prove them wrong at every turn. They are doing credible, meaningful research, producing models, papers and material that explains our origins within a Biblical world view - they recognize God as the creator, that He is the source of all things and that all things were created by and through Him, ex nihilo. You telling me their work in incorrect is just your word against theirs and they are operating from a model and framework that originates in the word of God.

Now, I do understand that the paradigm you are operating from makes different assumptions (yes, both paradigms have their own sets of presuppositions and assumptions) and this paradigm was created with the understanding that all material and events are the result of natural causes/processes. I am sure everything you are telling me is consistent with what you have been taught and how you have been taught to interpret the body of evidence that is before us - no doubt. Knowing that God operates supernaturally (but can also use natural means to His plans), I personally don't like this naturalistic model because it does not allow for supernatural explanations ("because God did it that way as we're told in the Bible" is not an acceptable answer to support causality). For your Atheist counterparts in the scientific field you and I cannot really convince them of God being the source of all events seen as they simply do not believe a god exists at all and this paradigm shows a creator god is not needed... though I think we're seeing more and more today where, ironically, Atheist scientists are finding issue with and rejecting the evolutionary model, along with Christians who, like me, also do not accept it (for different reasons, I suspect).

As for me, I am a process guy - I design financial forecast models within a large corporation and build in logic/automation - working with tools like SQL, VBA/VBS script, Oracle, MS Office products, etc.... As I reflect on the simplistic nature of what I do, I do see parallels that when I create and design a process, the process of creating does not look like the end result, the objects within the model I am creating do not behave the way they do when finished - that is, one could not arrive at how I created it on the basis of how it operates in the end. In a similar way, I don't believe we can accurately determine how and when the things of the present were created based upon how things currently operate (least of all because the naturalistic model does not allow for supernatural causes, except to the extent you and other OEC/theistic evolutionists have to one degree or another inserted God into the picture it where it seems logical to fill the holes or dysfunctional aspects of the conventional model). The only way to have any sense of how and when I created the forecast model would be if I told you how I did it and how long it took me, and similarly God has told us how He created everything and how long it took Him - speaking everything into existence and resting on the 7th day after a 6-day creation week.

Please know I always appreciate the amount of effort, time and intellect in your responses and I very much enjoy these discussions with you and others here on the topic and hope to continue doing so! In wrapping up the very long note (sorry for the rambling) I want to make you aware of the following that will be coming out soon, a book called Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique.

Video (synopsis)
https://www.crossway.org/articles/t...-critique-of-theistic-evolution-yet-produced/

I suspect this may spark additional discussion and debate here within the forum... just a heads-up.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi K-BIF, thank you for all of the replies. As you have pointed out, and I will admit, I am not an expert in geology. In fact, I am not a scientist at all (ta-da). One thing we do have in common is both you and I cannot be experts in all things - if for no other reason than we simply haven't made enough revolutions around the sun. I do always appreciate your knowledge and insight on geology - it is both interesting and educational and so thank you for that! So, both of us rely on the research done by others to form our worldview, and our way of interpreting the body of evidence. This is an active process of choosing what we commit to believe. This is not so dissimilar to you and I choosing to believe in the God of the Christian Bible, though approx. 5/7th of the world does not share this same belief.

Now, I have chosen to rely on scientists whose research is done within the broadly defined framework and paradigm given in the word of God - yes the Bible is not a scientific text, but it is the truth from God and He gives us some information of events that took place around creation and the flood of Noah. These scientists (educated, earning PhD's from many of the same universities under the same professors as their secular colleagues) aren't left after graduating to attempt doing a type of pseudo science with crayons and coloring books, avoiding details as it would only prove them wrong at every turn. They are doing credible, meaningful research, producing models, papers and material that explains our origins within a Biblical world view - they recognize God as the creator, that He is the source of all things and that all things were created by and through Him, ex nihilo. You telling me their work in incorrect is just your word against theirs and they are operating from a model and framework that originates in the word of God.

Now, I do understand that the paradigm you are operating from makes different assumptions (yes, both paradigms have their own sets of presuppositions and assumptions) and this paradigm was created with the understanding that all material and events are the result of natural causes/processes. I am sure everything you are telling me is consistent with what you have been taught and how you have been taught to interpret the body of evidence that is before us - no doubt. Knowing that God operates supernaturally (but can also use natural means to His plans), I personally don't like this naturalistic model because it does not allow for supernatural explanations ("because God did it that way as we're told in the Bible" is not an acceptable answer to support causality). For your Atheist counterparts in the scientific field you and I cannot really convince them of God being the source of all events seen as they simply do not believe a god exists at all and this paradigm shows a creator god is not needed... though I think we're seeing more and more today where, ironically, Atheist scientists are finding issue with and rejecting the evolutionary model, along with Christians who, like me, also do not accept it (for different reasons, I suspect).

As for me, I am a process guy - I design financial forecast models within a large corporation and build in logic/automation - working with tools like SQL, VBA/VBS script, Oracle, MS Office products, etc.... As I reflect on the simplistic nature of what I do, I do see parallels that when I create and design a process, the process of creating does not look like the end result, the objects within the model I am creating do not behave the way they do when finished - that is, one could not arrive at how I created it on the basis of how it operates in the end. In a similar way, I don't believe we can accurately determine how and when the things of the present were created based upon how things currently operate (least of all because the naturalistic model does not allow for supernatural causes, except to the extent you and other OEC/theistic evolutionists have to one degree or another inserted God into the picture it where it seems logical to fill the holes or dysfunctional aspects of the conventional model). The only way to have any sense of how and when I created the forecast model would be if I told you how I did it and how long it took me, and similarly God has told us how He created everything and how long it took Him - speaking everything into existence and resting on the 7th day after a 6-day creation week.

Please know I always appreciate the amount of effort, time and intellect in your responses and I very much enjoy these discussions with you and others here on the topic and hope to continue doing so! In wrapping up the very long note (sorry for the rambling) I want to make you aware of the following that will be coming out soon, a book called Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique.

Video (synopsis)
https://www.crossway.org/articles/t...-critique-of-theistic-evolution-yet-produced/

I suspect this may spark additional discussion and debate here within the forum... just a heads-up.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

Thanks for the post Mouse.

It's tough. I watched the video there in your link, and you hear things like "theistic evolutionists are deists" and "theyre ignoring or abandoning alternative explanations", and things like this.

The difficulty is that...ya know, its not that I am afraid that I would lose my job as a geologist if I were a young earther. It isnt that I am deliberately ignoring alternatives to uniformitarianism.

Its just that...uniformitarian, methodological naturalistic geology, is just, honestly full proof. Just as a car being made of metal, or the fact that we breath oxygen, are full proof. It just is the way that it is, and creation exists...as it exists, and thats just the way it is.

The one guy in the video made a statement about theistic evolutionists believing that God created, then stepped away and let creation continue on without his intervention. But I simply ask this. Yesterday, did God come in and alter physical reality in some blatently bizarre way? No, but creation continued on as it was created to do. And this is all that theistic evolution proposes. Just that, Gods creation existed in the past, just as it exists today. And it doesnt mean that God is absent, just because we do not see God transforming reality in physics defying ways. But this is how they were framing theistic evolution.
-------------------------------------------
The one guy had a good point though, he stated that, putting things like physics in a position of..."higher reality" than our personal interpretations of scripture, can damage our historic understanding of scripture.

This is, I think what people are afraid of. I think people are afraid that God would somehow disappear if they were to ever consider that a global flood did not happen. And that is probably a really hard feeling.

But, it doesnt have to be that way. God doesnt need to disappear for something like the earth to be old. God doesnt need to disappear just because life evolved. There is no reason God couldnt create the old earth or life through evolution, as He has power over all things.

And so it comes down to a question for many of us scientists. Will we trust our interpretation of scripture over demonstrable truth? That is to say, will we trust our interpretation and our human perception, over physical reality? And as methodological naturalists, aka scientists, we dont let human interpretation stand before what is physically real.

And thats really what it comes down to. Its why I ask questions about physical reality. And if no valid response is given to explain that physical reality aside from common descent, then it is what it is. No matter how hard it is to swallow, it just is what it is.

 

[Job 33:6]

That and toward the end, the one guy said something like, "we put scripture as our authority of a science text book", and he mentioned science as something like "the latest version", as if it would somehow change next week and would be something entirely different.

But the founders of uniformitarianism, proposed their ideas in the late 1700s. And in the 200+ years of trial and error and challenges, it is more understood than ever, just as it is understood that the sun is hot, or that the ocean is deep. And so, he says that its not that he rejects science, but that he puts scripture before it. But, what if it meant putting scripture before something like the sun being hot? Just because geology is a more complicated subject than something like the sun being hot, doesnt make it less real. And so, contrary to his claim, he is rejecting science and reality. And more importantly, he is rejecting Gods creation. But he doesnt know it, rather he is letting his human perception and interpretation, rule over his ability to judge reality, and he is misunderstanding reality in areas where it is most complex. Which is easy to do when you arent say...a geologist.

 

[Grandliseur]

This still doesnt really answer the question though. You have a fish, then a fish with legs, then an amphibian with fish traits. Later you have reptiles, then bird like reptiles, then reptile like birds, then birds. If God created these animals in this order, if not by common descent, then why would they form the order as if one descended from the other? You appeared to answer with "I have no idea".

I would say that the evidence demonstrates that God did so through common descent.

Its not like the birds came first, or came directly after the fish. The birds didnt come before the feathered theropods, and the tetrapods didnt come simultaneously with the fish. The reptiles and birds also did not come about simultaneously, but rather, one came after another, after another, after another.

If God simply created them instantaneously, you would think that birds would appear simultaneously with reptiles, or that amphibians appeared simultaneously with fish or reptiles, or that reptiles appeared simultaneously with amphibians etc. Rather again, they appear step by step in an order that appears to depict common descent.

And to conclude, if you have no idea why God would create in this order...well, I would say that my idea, which I think makes sense, seems to be a reasonable explanation of why God created in that order. It is because God created through common descent.

The method has not been disclosed. If God tweaked the embryo of some of the animals to change them is unknown. All we have been given is that God created each kind, and that is what we see. We do not see half formed animals, but complete with gills, or teeth, with eyes where this was desired. There are no half formed eyes, livers, kidneys, or animals with heads where their feet should be, and some such randomness.

This is truly the point. We have been given the fact that God created, but not the way he did it. It is your choice and prerogative to try to investigate how he did it. Here the miracles of Jesus should not be excluded because he healed impossible things in but moments, but at times, he used several tries to judge how much healing to administer. (He did not want to make the person perfect in this world)

Clearly his healing at times must have included the manipulation, even correction of that person's DNA.

Just because Christians think Goddidit doesn't mean that they shouldn't try to investigate how he did things. Thus, biological studies do not become forbidden, etc.

The difference in approach should be obvious. If one thinks something made by pure chance, such as Abiogenesis, the study might try by random to find different solutions that would work. This would waste a lot of time.

If however the conviction is that it is intelligent design, the approach becomes radically changed. One begins by trying to see how an intelligence would go about implementing any design, in cellular matters, in matters that relate to complex organs, etc. How could the cellular wall be implemented, is this the first thing to make? Or, is it needed to make the cellular machinery first, and in this what should be first?

 

[Job 33:6]

The method has not been disclosed. If God tweaked the embryo of some of the animals to change them is unknown. All we have been given is that God created each kind, and that is what we see. We do not see half formed animals, but complete with gills, or teeth, with eyes where this was desired. There are no half formed eyes, livers, kidneys, or animals with heads where their feet should be, and some such randomness.

This is truly the point. We have been given the fact that God created, but not the way he did it. It is your choice and prerogative to try to investigate how he did it. Here the miracles of Jesus should not be excluded because he healed impossible things in but moments, but at times, he used several tries to judge how much healing to administer. (He did not want to make the person perfect in this world)

Clearly his healing at times must have included the manipulation, even correction of that person's DNA.

Just because Christians think Goddidit doesn't mean that they shouldn't try to investigate how he did things. Thus, biological studies do not become forbidden, etc.

The difference in approach should be obvious. If one thinks something made by pure chance, such as Abiogenesis, the study might try by random to find different solutions that would work. This would waste a lot of time.

If however the conviction is that it is intelligent design, the approach becomes radically changed. One begins by trying to see how an intelligence would go about implementing any design, in cellular matters, in matters that relate to complex organs, etc. How could the cellular wall be implemented, is this the first thing to make? Or, is it needed to make the cellular machinery first, and in this what should be first?

google crockaduck when you get a chance. otherwise i agree.

 

[pat34lee]

Umm.... Maybe you were thinking of posting on a different thread? Nothing in the OP mentions radioactive decay based dating methods. If you want to talk about radioactive decay and dating methods, there are already a bunch of threads on that, or of course you can start a new one.

You mentioned fossils and ancient DNA in the OP.
Did those start coming with mfg date tags now?

"fossilized 10/13/22,000 BC"
Inspector 10

 

[pat34lee]

Thank you for your comments.

I wish Christians in general were not so troubled by the results of modern scientific inquiry; but for many, it disturbs them and they have to deny its truths.

That is only because they buy into the big lie:
That science knows anything about the past.
They have theories, guesses, but even if they
could prove that evolution was possible, which
it isn't, and they can't; they could never prove
that it ever happened, or how.

Evolution is not science. It is a religious belief.

 

[pat34lee]

Also, there are both biological and geologic explanations for its occurrence.

No. There are fairy tales that weave fact and fantasy
to form a religious belief that is in direct opposition
to God and the bible.

 

[pat34lee]

Its just that...uniformitarian, methodological naturalistic geology, is just, honestly full proof.

How do you think that when even recent history shows
that the past is anything but uniform. Earthquakes, floods,
tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, meteors, landslides, etc.
Change is the rule, not stagnation. Some lands turn to desert
while others become fertile. Some sink into the ocean while
mountains and islands rise up.

 

[Job 33:6]

How do you think that when even recent history shows
that the past is anything but uniform. Earthquakes, floods,
tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, meteors, landslides, etc.
Change is the rule, not stagnation. Some lands turn to desert
while others become fertile. Some sink into the ocean while
mountains and islands rise up.

Uniformitarianism encompasses earthquakes, floods, tornadoes etc.

But, this is still far different from the idea of a catastrophic flood forming all the layers of the grand canyon and beyond.

Uniformitarianism is superior in its flexibility and explanatory capabilities.

 

[pat34lee]

Uniformitarianism encompasses earthquakes, floods, tornadoes etc.

Uniformitarianism is superior in its flexibility and explanatory capabilities.

Only if you add millions of years that aren't there.
Like evolution, it requires more building up than
tearing down, when nature does the opposite.

 

[Job 33:6]

Only if you add millions of years that aren't there.
Like evolution, it requires more building up than
tearing down, when nature does the opposite.

Of course nature builds up. Look at the himilayas, they are growing right now.

You should take a look at my old earth geology part 1 and part 2 posts.

 

[Ancient of Days]

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. The evidence of this is:

1. fossils
2. analysis of DNA and genetics from ancient remains

1. 
   
   Wow, at least two logical fallacy's in that statement. Why don't you try this again from the top...

 

[Dan Brooks]

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. The evidence of this is:

1. fossils
2. analysis of DNA and genetics from ancient remains

Biblical genealogies put Adam here about 6,000 years ago. So, if it isn't true, we might as well just throw it in the garbage. (Which I would never do, because it IS true!)

 

[Dan Brooks]

I personally can't understand how theistic evolutionism is a Christian topic. Is it because it has the word "Theistic" in it? Evolutionism, whether "Theistic" or not, COMPLETELY DISAGREES with the Bible. A Christian is supposed to COMPLETELY AGREE with the Bible.

 

[jhwatts]

Humans are much older than 6000 years.

Genesis 2:4 declares when the events described in the next few chapters take place. These took place prior to Genesis 1:2 in earths distant past. That is, In the beginning when God created of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

Eden was created much earlier than 6000 years. Notice there is no mention of Eden in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3. Thats because it occurred later. Notice the difference in genealogies in Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. Thats because they are two different creations. The Genesis 4 occurred long before the Genesis 5 genealogy. The Genesis 5 genealogy corresponds the the one that occurred 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

 

[NobleMouse]

This thread seems to have grown a little quiet. Just to clarify, everyone here is under the agreement now that Adam was real and existed approximately 6,000 years ago, yes?

Adam had a sin nature, anyone here have that trait skip them? Maybe it skips a generation, I don't know...

The Bible gives the genealogy from Adam to various patriarchs as well as from Adam to Christ. Are we (Christians) saying the Bible is erroneous on this?

grin

 

[Jadis40]

This thread seems to have grown a little quiet. Just to clarify, everyone here is under the agreement now that Adam was real and existed approximately 6,000 years ago, yes?

Adam had a sin nature, anyone here have that trait skip them? Maybe it skips a generation, I don't know...

The Bible gives the genealogy from Adam to various patriarchs as well as from Adam to Christ. Are we (Christians) saying the Bible is erroneous on this?

grin

Sure, I agree that Adam might have been the first in the family line to lead up to Christ. Was he the very first man on the planet earth? No. Given that humankind was around in some form or another for much longer than that, at least 200,000 years ago, if not more.

Not to mention I reject the idea that dinosaurs and mankind lived on the earth at the same time (they died out 65 million years ago), and I reject the idea that there was any sort of planet wide flood in the past 6000 years. I have a

That is only because they buy into the big lie:
That science knows anything about the past.
They have theories, guesses, but even if they
could prove that evolution was possible, which
it isn't, and they can't; they could never prove
that it ever happened, or how.

Evolution is not science. It is a religious belief.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -Theodosius Dobzhansky

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)

 

[NobleMouse]

Sure, I agree that Adam might have been the first in the family line to lead up to Christ. Was he the very first man on the planet earth? No. Given that humankind was around in some form or another for much longer than that, at least 200,000 years ago, if not more.

Thank you for the reply! Hopefully we can get some good dialog going again in this topic from others as well. The Bible claims Adam was the first human - God formed him from the dust of the ground - that is, Adam did not have an earthly mother or father. In fact, Eve was given her name as she would be the mother of all living. Do you agree the Bible makes this claim?

Not to mention I reject the idea that dinosaurs and mankind lived on the earth at the same time (they died out 65 million years ago), and I reject the idea that there was any sort of planet wide flood in the past 6000 years. I have a

Do you reject these ideas on a scriptural basis or on the basis of what secular science asserts?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -Theodosius Dobzhansky

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)

"I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is not true." - Dr. Jerry Bergman (2006)

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,..." - Jesus of Nazareth (~30)