[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science  (Read 35035 times)

Layla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2003, 04:58:09 PM »
Greetings

The article, David, is not suggesting that there is no God nor denying that God is creator, nor that all is not of His design.  If you cared to read the conclusion, he is suggesting that the possibility exists for evolution after the creation.  In other words, are you suggesting that the landscape is exactly as it was the day of creation?  Think about it.

Is it that people are so weak in their faith that they cannot contemplate ideas that are outside of what they currently know or believe.  If you use the Word of God as your guide to testing all things, then we should fear nothing.

Peace,
Layla

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2003, 08:22:40 PM »
Hi Layla,

I haven't read the full article, but want to comment on some of the excerpts you presented:

Article excerpt1:
Quote
Some people's belief is that the bombardier beetle's defense, whether reflexive or not, shows God's purpose. But claiming to know the mind of God is a form of hubris. The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8 ) that we can't understand God's ways.

The author is implying that those in support of creatism, profess to  'know the mind of God'.  This type of 'illogical' logic,  presumption, or whatever you want to call it, makes me want to grit my teeth.   It's a given that no one can fully know the mind of God.... what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?  :)

Also, the term 'evolution' can mean different things depending on how it's defined.  The 'built in' ability to adapt to environmental conditions over time was provided by God from the beginning (which is why we see wide varieties of the same species depending on things like location/climate, altitude, preditors, ecological system etc.   I think that this  type of adaptation is referred to as micro evolution,  which by no means denies God as the creator of all things.  This same time of 'natural change' can be seen in the  environment  &
landscape.  But this matter of new creations arising, or becoming something different from what it started out being, by some accident or chance, is a different matter altogether, which goes contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

From a scientific standpoint, the overriding flaw of the evolutionist viewpoint, is that  even the simpliest, smallest organism is so complex, that the chances of it coming into being by accident (without iintelligent design) is nill.  This is something that the earliest propronent of evolution did not understand ... they didn't understand the harmonious complexity of not only a single cell, but of even the atoms that make up a single cell, which falls outside the realm of chance.


Article except 2:
Quote
Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it. But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable. There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance.

This author seems to be forgetting that nothing recorded in the Bible has to be 'proved', it just 'is'.  Read carefully...., He's actually questioning whether or not God's Word is true.  Moreover evolution is not a fact (although some treat is as though it is),but merely a theory.  And like all scientific theories, the burden of proof is on those who expouse such theories... not the other way around.  I find it interesting also, that this man, who I find arrogant in his assertions, makes the charge of arrogance against  those who choose to believe that God's Word is true, and every man a liar. 

Although this man claims creatism and evolutoin can exist together (although it's not clear just what his definition of 'evolution' is) his comments all seem to be in defense of evolution. 
Based on the excepts presented,  this author reminds me of those 'luke warm' Christains who try to straddle the fence, as well as those who deny the Power of God:

Rev 3:15-16

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

1 Cor 2:4-5

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

2 Tim 3:4-7

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.



Excerpt 3:
Quote
Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.

Who does he think he's fooling?  What he's really saying is that he does not feel 'constraints' from what the Bible declares.    I wonder for example what he would do with such verses as these:

Heb 11:3, 6-8, 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. …

Isa 40:21, 26, 28

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?  …
26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. …28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Eph 3:9

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Rev 4:11

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


It's also clear what the underlying 'purpose' for all creation is -- for God's good pleasure.

As you know, there are numerous Scriptures of this nature.  I didn't even quote  from the book of Genesis, but let's make no mistake about it....  Being the self-centered creatures that we are, the focus of evolution has always centered around the origin of man. 

Layla, I want to make it clear, that I'm commening on the excerpts presented from this article, which bears no reflect on your beliefs, which you stated at the beginning of your post.  I think you would agree that 'thus saith the Lord' -- the authority of God's Word, take precedence over any man's 'worldly wisdom' or theories.

judy

'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

Baerchild

  • Guest
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2005, 10:23:47 PM »
Dear MR,

We only need one reason:  It Is Not The Word Of God.

But nonetheless, here are some others.
=

25 Reasons to Doubt the Theory of Evolution

(With acknowledgement to Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation)

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"…a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these . organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design", not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3˝-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.

11. Species are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.

15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".

16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.

17. Human speech and languages did not evolve; in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.

18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks; but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).

20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.

22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.

25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".


andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2005, 02:13:16 AM »
<<<We only need one reason:  It Is Not The Word Of God.>>>


Hebrews 11:3,  says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 The positive confession, "the worlds were made by the word of God," but also the negative, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." We believe the first: God made the world. We reject the second.
 We deny, by faith, that things made themselves, that things which are seen were made of things which do appear, that things evolved from other things.

andreas. 8)
kai ean diabainhs di˘ udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

Beechwood

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Fishers of Men
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2005, 04:28:09 AM »

Here's the best reason of all. It doesn't make any sense! You have to have real blind faith to believe in evolution, because it just doesn't make sense that things more complex and self sustaining than a 200 billion dollar computer could create and improve themselves over time. It's just stupid!

Baerchild

  • Guest
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2005, 11:31:18 PM »

It's just stupid!

Beechwood,

Yes, we see this by The Grace of God...but those who are deluded actually think they're smart.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Even without context it sounds perfect to me.

Jim

Raven Bloodrain

  • Guest
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2005, 10:32:43 PM »
Hey guys,

I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?

Thanks for listening
Raven

andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2005, 01:05:10 AM »
<<<I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?>>>

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1:5

 And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the subsequent days, it must clearly define the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day.
 The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning in the Bible is always clear when read in context. The first reference to day in the Bible is in the context of a full rotation of the Earth, a full cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day"

When the word day (yom) is used with a number,  it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. 

 The bible is meticulous in recording the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham.We are told how old each was when his first child was born,how long each lived after the birth and when they died.
 
And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  And Seth lived a hundred and five years and begat Enos .Genesis 5:3-6

Of Noah’s three sons,

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.Genesis 5:32.

 Although Shem the son in the covenant line is mentioned first, Japheth is described as the elder Genesis 10:21, so presumably Japheth was born when Noah was 500; Ham is called the younger. Genesis 9:24.   

 Shem was one hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood’.Genesis 11:10

 Shem was 100 in AM ( Ano Mundi)1658, and so would have been born AM 1558, when Noah was 502.

God is very precise about time.There is no biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis, than it is throughout the rest of the book.

His way of thinking is greater than your family's way of thinking, and His ways are greater than your family's ways..

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=112.0

andreas.
kai ean diabainhs di˘ udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

dsouzaanthony

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2005, 03:56:10 AM »
God is very precise about time.There is no biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis, than it is throughout the rest of the book.


No doubt Andreas. We know from Gen 1 that God created this world in 6 literal days and man was created on the 6h day, the 7th day being the Sabbath Day. The ages of patriarchs given in the Bible is precise. If the Bible says that Methuselah lived 969 years, it is exactly that.  God has given their ages on purpose. God has a timetable of His own as revealed in the Bible:

Eccl 3:1
3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
KJV

God Bless,

DSOUZAANTHONY

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2005, 12:28:13 PM »
Hey guys,

I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?

Thanks for listening
Raven


Raven,

In addition to andreas's response (which I agree with), it sounds like your question also deal with how long a man lives and why men of old lived much longer than men do today?  If so, I believe the reason goes back to two things... the curse that fell upon man and this earth with the Fall, as well as the changes that occured with the Flood. 

Before the Fall, everything was created perfectly and there was no death.

Gen 2:17 
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:17-19
17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


This 'death' was both physical and spiritual with the separation of God's Spirit, replaced with a 'sin nature' that all are born with.


It's interesting that Noah's name reflects the curse that was put on the earth, yet Noah was chosen to begin a new generation of men following the flood:

Gen 5:29 
And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.



Consider also, that the world was a different placed prior to the flood when waters were released above and below the earth, killing all creatures save those in the ark. 

Gen 1:6-7
6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 6:12-13
12  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:11 
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


Although we can only speculate, with the release of waters above the 'firmament' there was perhaps less atmospheric protectection against the sun's damaging rays which we know attribute to aging.  And conditions after the Flood, coupled with sin, allowed for increasingly more types of diseases  Even in our day we hear about 'new' diseases such as AIDS, as consequence of sin.


Now Noah was 950 years when he died (600 years before the flood and 350 years afterwards (Gen 7:6, 9:28-29).  Thereafter, when the Bible records the ages of men when they die, we see an increasingly lower life-span:

Gen 11:10-32
10  These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11  And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12  And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13  And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14  And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15  And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16  And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17  And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18  And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19  And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
20  And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
21  And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
22  And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
23  And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
24  And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
25  And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
26  And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27  Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28  And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
29  And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
30  But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31  And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
32  And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.


So then we see... Shem lived to be 600 (350 less years than his father Noah),  down to Terah who lived to be 205 yeras.  And at some point, God established the average life-span of 70 years (which I can't seem to locate the verse for, so if someone does, please post it).

Men not only suffered physically and spiritually, but (it stands to reason) intellectually as well.  The evolutionist have it all backwards.

I hope this helps answer your question.

judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

Raybob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a Lamma
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2005, 04:23:15 PM »
Psa 90:10  The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

I've heard an explanation that made perfect sense.  Before the flood, the earth could have been surrounded by a solid canopy of ice (waters above the waters) and that the mist watered the ground so there was no rain before the flood.  With the earth surrounded by the ice canopy, the ice would give UV protection so aging took much longer.  Also with this canopy, the earth could have been like a hyperbaric chamber with the air pressure many times higher than what we have now.  Hyperbaric chambers are used to heal athletes quickly today.

Raybob

Erik Diamond

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2529
  • Gender: Male
  • We are to God the aroma of Christ. (Eph 5:2)
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2005, 05:45:17 PM »
Raybob,

Pre-Noahic people live longer because they did not have McDonald's and fast foods.   ::)

Yes, the "water canopy" was one of the reasons why many people live for a long time. It is pressuring down upon the atmosphere of our earth caused the blood cells in people and animals to function much more efficiently and age slowly. Not to mention better nutrient quality in the food they ate.

However, after the flood, when God used the water canopy as part of judgment, the canopy was gone. All mankind, plants, and animals decreased in size, stature, and lifespan.

Erik
 
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

whitedove

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2005, 03:55:24 PM »
According to the Bible, God created Adam and then put him into a deep sleep and created Eve from Adams rib.  So, wouldn't Adam and Eve have the same DNA?    Another question is ...Cain was jealous and killed his brother, making him the first murderer in the world.  God was angry that Cain killed Abel and he told him he would send him out into the world and put a mark on him for everyone to see and to know what he had done.

My question is...who was "everyone"?   Where are these others mentioned in the Bible? Are we just to assume there were other Adams and Eves thoughout the world?

I am not trying to be a fresh in asking this..although I am a Christian, I have always wondered about this and also how to anwser another person who may ask ME those questions..  Since science has made this remarkable discovery about DNA, it certainly raises alot of questions.


andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2005, 11:32:37 PM »
<<<According to the Bible, God created Adam and then put him into a deep sleep and created Eve from Adams rib.  So, wouldn't Adam and Eve have the same DNA?>>>

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Genesis 2:21-23

It is clear that God created Eve out of Adam, from tissue taken from his rib. I think the strong implication is that Eve was genetically identical to Adam except for her sex chromosomes.

In other words, Eve would have had all of Adam's chromosomes (and genetic material) except his Y chromosome. God would have simply doubled Adam's X chromosome to form a generative cell with which He made Eve.

andreas.
kai ean diabainhs di˘ udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2005, 01:52:30 AM »
Another question is ...Cain was jealous and killed his brother, making him the first murderer in the world. God was angry that Cain killed Abel and he told him he would send him out into the world and put a mark on him for everyone to see and to know what he had done.

My question is...who was "everyone"? Where are these others mentioned in the Bible? Are we just to assume there were other Adams and Eves thoughout the world?

Gen 4:12  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13  And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14  Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Gen 4:15  And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


Please note verse 14 - "it shall come to pass" refers to some future time.   Adam and Eve were formed perfectly (a far cry from men of today who are subject to diseases and birth defects), and were commanded to "multipy and replenish the earth".  And as you may know, in those days people lived to be hundreds of years old. 

Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So at some point, Cain would have married a relative.

Gen 4:16  And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


It was only after many generations at the time of Moses that marraige between close relatives was forbidden:

Lev 18:6  None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7  The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:8  The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 18:9  The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Lev 18:10  The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Lev 18:11  The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:12  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:13  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:14  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

etc.

judy



'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]