Did Adam exist?

[PaulDA]

OK, I'll make one of my nitpicks. Evolutionists don't believe men came from apes, but rather that both evolved from a common ancestor. It's a subtle destinction but an important one if you want to use that as a hole in the idea.

My point is: Whatever they say humans evolved from, they have not found the missing link to that.
Nor have they found ANY missing link between any living thing, from one celled amaobas to mammals.

[MJanke]

So once again, if God could create mature humans, He could have also created a mature universe. He could have painted a complete picture and then set it in motion. By that I mean, he could have drawn in the light and gravity and such--this would not go against physical laws. It would simply mean that God kind started things already in motion.

He could have, of course. He could do a lot of things. But would he? Not if He is Truth, and His creation is a reflection of - and evidence for - Him.

[MJanke]

I understand that, but since science is continually discovering new things, and the universe doesn't work the same way we thought it worked 100 years ago, who's to say that we won't discover exceptions to these rules when they are applied on a grander scale? I love science and think it's quite useful for many things, but who's to say that these laws are as universal or as precise as we presume them to be? Not to say God didn't create the universe with a sense of order to it - I just find myself skeptical as to whether we fully understand that order. I think science is, at best, a very good approximation, and even a very good approximation will prove to be wildly inaccurate on a larger scale.

I totally understand where you're coming from here. And we shouldn't put our faith in science, because, as you point out, we are continually discovering new things and we are far, far from understanding the full of the universe that we live in.

However, there are some things that it is safe to form a sensible conclusion on. Things that we may not know 100%, but because of the sheer weight of evidence we can draw safe conclusions. Age of the universe is one of those things. Not because of any one measure or test. That would probably be pre-mature, since it would be concievable or even probably that we might not fully understand the factors involved in the test we are using. But the age of the universe is not being measured by any one thing. I pointed out a few of the ways that it is measured in an earlier post. Suffice to say it is not one thing that is pointing to the age of the universe being billions of years old - it is many, many things. There is significant evidence, from multiple means of testing, that indicates a universe that is billions of years old.

Could that be wrong? I suppose. And, again, that is why I do not put my faith in science. But we have learned enough about the universe around us to form reliable conclusions today. Conclusions that do not contradict the Biblical record.

Ultimately I am not holding to an old-universe as some sort of vital element of my faith. If it turns out the universe is younger, it wouldn't effect me one way or the other. All evidence now points towards an old universe and, since that does not contradict the Biblical record in any way, I accept it as true.

I simply approach the Bible and science in a way that respects truth for what it is - truth is truth and truth in one entity is not greater than truth in another entity. I understand the Bible to say that God's creation is a testimony of Him and gives evidence of Him. Thus, it will not lie to us and, as we search it, we will have a better understanding of Him. So an examination of His creation can only help enhance our faith - science is not our enemy. Science will then, when done correctly and when the facts can fully be understood, point to God and be in complete harmony with God's Word. If it appears to contradict the Bible then one of two things has happened: 1) we are mis-interpreting the Biblical passage and need to re-examine our interpretation. 2) our scientific method has led us to a bad conclusion and we need to re-examine the our facts and methodology.

All this to say science and faith are ultimitely friends. True science leads to the discovery of truth, and truth will always be a friend to the Christian faith.

Final note on the subject that I really like:

When you solve the equations of general relativity - and we can prove that those equations govern the universe - you discover that you are face to face with an ultimate origin for all matter and energy and even the dimensions of length width height and time that encompass the cosmos. There's only one holy book that teaches a doctrine that's consistent with that and that's the Bible. We believe in a God that's transcendent in bringing the universe into existence. As Hebrews 11:3 puts it, the universe that we can detect was made from that which we cannot detect. And that's why atheists in astronomy and physics have reacted so strongly to the big bang: because it establishes this ultimate creation event.

[MJanke]

[murlough23]

Not much time to reply to all of this today, but Janke and bloop, what you are both saying sounds fairly sensible to me.

[PaulDA]

1) God cannot lie
 

That's where we diagree about if God would be lying or not.
Just because man has devised certain ways to count time and distance, doesn't mean God has to work the way man does.
God created the speed of light, for instance, and if he wanted to create a universe as vast as this one surely is, He would have to place the stars billions of light years apart.
That is why the universe declares His glory: He created a universe that seems to be billions of years old in an instant.
 

[MJanke]

1) God cannot lie
 

That's where we diagree about if God would be lying or not.
Just because man has devised certain ways to count time and distance, doesn't mean God has to work the way man does.
God created the speed of light, for instance, and if he wanted to create a universe as vast as this one surely is, He would have to place the stars billions of light years apart.
That is why the universe declares His glory: He created a universe that seems to be billions of years old in an instant.

Well, I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about it. But suffice to say I cannot agree with you on this.

Think about if you were a scientist, or an astronomer to be more specific. You spend your whole life studying the cosmos. You are amazed at its vastness and in awe of the scope of it all - it makes you feel small and you wonder how it all came to be. Everything you test and measure about it points to a conclusion that it is billions and billions of years old.

Your life, meanwhile, seems to lack meaning. Your friend is a Christian and so on a whim you decide to attend chuch with him, where you are impressed with the message. He gives you a Bible. You read it. The very beginning of it makes you wonder though. While you were intrigued by the message at the church, the Bible seems to say things about the world and creation that do not line up with reality as you understand it to be. So you ask your friend - is this Bible really saying that your God created the universe in a six day period only a few thousand years ago? Your friend tells you yes, that is what it is saying. But how can that be, when all the evidence points to a cosmos that is BILLIONS of years old? You get into a debate and he refuses to budge. You, being a scientist and an intellectual, cannot shut off your brain and so you decide that the Bible must not be true, and you no longer are interested in knowing more about God.

Later you die. You are surprised to see that there is an afterlife. You end up at the judgement seat. God asks you why you did not accept Jesus as the Christ. You tell him, how could I? How could I trust that your Gospel - your Good News - was true? The very first thing I read was a lie!

It wasn't a lie, God says. I created everything. I created the universe and its laws. Therefore, I am allowed to break those laws in any way I see fit - my creation does not have to abide by them. Sure, the stars are billions of light years apart from each other.  Because of that, they should not be visible from the Earth, since the universe is only 6000 years old. But that's no matter - I decided they should be visible anyway.

But how can you say, in Romans, that creation itself gives evidence of you enough that we are without excuse, you ask God, when it turns out that all of the evidence we were seeing in creation contradicted actual truth?

I'm God. I can create a universe that SEEMS to be billions of years old even when it's only a few thousands of years old - because I'm omnipotent; I can do anything.

But isn't that deceptive? How can you hold me accountable? I examined the evidence! It was lacking, so I rejected it.... but... but... -- you repeat over and over as you head off to hell.


What you are saying, Paul, is actually a fallacy. God cannot lie. What you are describing IS actually a lie - for him to create a universe that SEEMS to be billions of years old but is actually thousands of years old - that is impossible for him to do, because he cannot decieve. He is omnipotent, but his all-powerfulness is limited by reasonability and his nature. So he cannot, in his omnipotence, do anything against his nature. Just like he cannot make a four-sided triangle. CS Lewis talks a lot about this in Mere Christianity so you might consider picking that up again for a read.

Anyway, again, I don't want to argue on and on, so if you still do not agree with me then more power to you. We'll agree to disagree.

[PaulDA]

^I will ALWAYS disagree on this.
The Bible says God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days and every animal, including dinosaurs, lived at the same exact time that man was created.

And.....just because some atheist scientist wouldn't come to God because he put his faith in what puny humans have come up with as tests for the age of something, is NOT the Christian's fault for took him to church. Let the pin fault exactly where it should be: on the unbelieving scientist who listened to the world over what God says.

I tried to read Lewis a few times but have never been able to get into his books.
He is too speculative and his writing style doesn't interest me.

[PaulDA]

Here's a book where 50 scientists show why they believe in a six day creation:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...566436?v=glance

Editorial Reviews

Roger Howerton, Acquisitions Editor, Master Books
This book is a great "weapon" in the hands of any creationist or Christian...

Book Description
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard professor, claims that "professionally trained scientists virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it." This book refutes that statement with essays from 50 doctorate-holding scientists from around the globe who give sound reasoning and evidence for believing in a literal six-day creation.

[PaulDA]

[PaulDA]

As far as I can see, among Christians who believe in an old earth, there are two kinds:

1. People who believe in theist evolution, that the whole universe evolved over billions of years and possibly began with a 'big bang' from God.

2. People who believe the universe is billions of years old but that there are billions of years in between Genises 1:1 and 1:2, and that God did in fact create all life that is common today in 6 literal days but the actual universe including the earth is billions of years old.
And many of these people believe He created dinosaurs in tha 'billion year' gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and they are not part of the actual creation in Genesis 1.

I would vehemently disagree with #1, and say that #2 would make more sense, but that it is still false because there is no proof that there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 beyond the speculation that the Hebrew word translated 'was' should be translated 'became'. (The earth 'was/became' formless and void), because they say God could not create anything 'formless and void'.

May I ask all of you 'old earth' people something?
Do ALL of you who subscribe to the 'old earth' theory in my # 1 example believe in macro evolution, and if you don't, how do you explain how life began?

[MJanke]

^I will ALWAYS disagree on this.
The Bible says God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days and every animal, including dinosaurs, lived at the same exact time that man was created.

That's the problem Paul, and why a further discussion will go nowhere. You're already convinced 100% with no room to re-examine.

But the Bible does NOT say that. It does not say "24 hour days." I says "yom," which 1) we have translated into English to mean "day," and 2) which we have then further determined must mean a literal 24 hour day. Do you see how we have taken what it actually says and determined it MUST actually mean, when it does not actually say that? MAYBE it means that - sure - but it does not ACTUALLY say that. So it is a fallacy to say that it actually says "six literal 24 hour days."

It also does not say that "every animal, including dinosaurs, lived at the same exact time that man was created." You are inserting your own interpretation into the text there and that is dangerous. What it does say is that on one day God created animals, and on another day God created man. And since YOU believe them to be literal 24 hour days it only THEN makes sense that the two MUST have lived at the same time. It does not SAY that, but you in your INTERPRETATION understand it must mean that.

Whether you are right or wrong on this issue is now beside the point. You have fallen into dangerous territory by insisting that the Biblical text actually says something that it does not say - simply because your prefered interpretation (right or wrong) extracts that meaning. We must never superimpose our interpretation over what the text actually says. It says THIS - we then interpret it to mean THIS.

[murlough23]

Whether you are right or wrong on this issue is now beside the point. You have fallen into dangerous territory by insisting that the Biblical text actually says something that it does not say - simply because your prefered interpretation (right or wrong) extracts that meaning. We must never superimpose our interpretation over what the text actually says. It says THIS - we then interpret it to mean THIS.

That's kind of the point I was getting at earlier. It's very easy to think we're reading something 100% literally... but in reality, I don't if it's actually possible to do that, or at least, not when you're not reading it in the original language with a full understanding of the nuances of that language.

[PaulDA]

Whether you are right or wrong on this issue is now beside the point. You have fallen into dangerous territory by insisting that the Biblical text actually says something that it does not say - simply because your prefered interpretation (right or wrong) extracts that meaning. We must never superimpose our interpretation over what the text actually says. It says THIS - we then interpret it to mean THIS.

The Bible, not PaulDA, says that Adam named ALL the animals.
That means he named every insect, every one celled animal, every mammal, every reptile, every amphibian, every dinosaur, etc.

[murlough23]

The Bible, not PaulDA, says that Adam named ALL the animals.
That means he named every insect, every one celled animal, every mammal, every reptile, every amphibian, every dinosaur, etc.

Hmmm. "All" is a tricky word. It could mean all of an entire category of something, or just all that were present. I don't see any fallacies with the notion that Adam named all that he saw at that time.

Also consider that there are species of animals which have come into being more recently - obviously Adam didn't name those. If he didn't have to name future animals, I don't see why he'd need to name past ones.

Depends on how you interpret the word "all", though. Just another example of thinking you're reading literally when you might actually not be.

[MJanke]

The Bible, not PaulDA, says that Adam named ALL the animals.
That means he named every insect, every one celled animal, every mammal, every reptile, every amphibian, every dinosaur, etc.

It also says things about men becoming famous over the whole earth, when we know that what it actually means is the whole of the KNOWN earth at the time - there were no people in, say, Antarctica, or their fame did not reach New Zealand or Chile. It's a literary figure of speach. And it's still telling the truth - to the writer it was the whole of the earth.

I think its reasonable and fair to acknowlege that the same idea applies here. And, actually, if you read the text it only says he named "the livestock, the birds of the air, and all the beasts of the field." That is hardly "all" animals.

A similar idea can go for Noah's ark. Clearly, "every kind of clean animal" and "every kind of unclean animal" had a reasonable actual meaning - Noah wasn't bringing sharks and whales onto the ark.

[murlough23]

^ Compelling points, Mike.

A lot of this goes back to the Bible. A lot of Christians view the Bible as the only source you'll ever need for any questions you could ever possibly ask. While it's true that regarding life situations we may face, the Bible has a wealth of knowledge and advice relating to pretty much anything, I don't think the Bible explains (or intends to explain) the intricate mysteries of the universe. I think it hints at them. I think it says true things about them (at least, true in the sense that they were expressed by the authors in a way that was true of how they understood what God was doing). It's not a question of what the Bible can do, but rather what it is supposed to do. While I believe that the Bible will prove to be consistent with whatever science discovers, and even hint at some of those discoveries before we fully understand what it's even referring to (the "circle of the Earth" thing would be a good example), I don't believe that the extent of our understanding of those things will come solely from the Bible. Does that make sense?

In other words, I believe that God uses the Bible to communicate to His people, but He does not only use the Bible. He uses other people, He uses situations, He uses the universe as its own non-verbal testimony. Thus, while human science is never going to grasp the behavior of the universe with 100% precision, I don't think it's wise to automatically write off scientific developments that appear to contradict our understanding of the Bible without further scrutiny. Sure, it's wrong to twist the Bible to mean what you want it to mean, but I don't think it's wrong to take emerging scientific theories and ask the question, "Could this line up with what we know from the Bible?"

NP: "When I Go Down", Relient K

[PaulDA]

The Bible, not PaulDA, says that Adam named ALL the animals.
That means he named every insect, every one celled animal, every mammal, every reptile, every amphibian, every dinosaur, etc.

It also says things about men becoming famous over the whole earth, when we know that what it actually means is the whole of the KNOWN earth at the time - there were no people in, say, Antarctica, or their fame did not reach New Zealand or Chile. It's a literary figure of speach. And it's still telling the truth - to the writer it was the whole of the earth.

I think its reasonable and fair to acknowlege that the same idea applies here. And, actually, if you read the text it only says he named "the livestock, the birds of the air, and all the beasts of the field." That is hardly "all" animals.

A similar idea can go for Noah's ark. Clearly, "every kind of clean animal" and "every kind of unclean animal" had a reasonable actual meaning - Noah wasn't bringing sharks and whales onto the ark.

Your points have validity.
Again I will say, of course I don't know for sure if what I believe is true.
That is just my take on the Bible.
As stubborn as I am, by no means does that mean I may never change in this area.
Now.....back to one of my questions earlier.
To all the peeps who believe in an old universe, do you subscribe to the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or do you believe in theist evelution?
.....From my understanding of the gap theory, people believe that the earth is very old and that a war between Satan, his angels and the good angels caused the earth to 'become formless and void' and then God recreated if you will, the earth as we know it today.
In this theory I have heard that dinosaurs were alive before the 'war' and that explains why they are so old. The Bible doesn't mention any creation before God rescuplted the earth, so the theory goes.
So.....gap theory or theist evolution?

[amygrantfan5875]

The Bible, not PaulDA, says that Adam named ALL the animals.
That means he named every insect, every one celled animal, every mammal, every reptile, every amphibian, every dinosaur, etc.

It also says things about men becoming famous over the whole earth, when we know that what it actually means is the whole of the KNOWN earth at the time - there were no people in, say, Antarctica, or their fame did not reach New Zealand or Chile. It's a literary figure of speach. And it's still telling the truth - to the writer it was the whole of the earth.

I think its reasonable and fair to acknowlege that the same idea applies here. And, actually, if you read the text it only says he named "the livestock, the birds of the air, and all the beasts of the field." That is hardly "all" animals.

A similar idea can go for Noah's ark. Clearly, "every kind of clean animal" and "every kind of unclean animal" had a reasonable actual meaning - Noah wasn't bringing sharks and whales onto the ark.

Your points have validity.
Again I will say, of course I don't know for sure if what I believe is true.
That is just my take on the Bible.
As stubborn as I am, by no means does that mean I may never change in this area.
Now.....back to one of my questions earlier.
To all the peeps who believe in an old universe, do you subscribe to the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or do you believe in theist evelution?
.....From my understanding of the gap theory, people believe that the earth is very old and that a war between Satan, his angels and the good angels caused the earth to 'become formless and void' and then God recreated if you will, the earth as we know it today.
In this theory I have heard that dinosaurs were alive before the 'war' and that explains why they are so old. The Bible doesn't mention any creation before God rescuplted the earth, so the theory goes.
So.....gap theory or theist evolution?

I'm an OEC but I subscribe to neither of the two you posted. Actually I haven't even heard about the war thingy you described before and well I don't see evidence for evolution ( even if it was true it still wouldn't shake my faith in God.)

Instead of going in to detail of what I believe I'll send you to a website that for the most part can give you my beliefs.

www.reasons.org  [-- Hugh Ross is a great OEC and this is his website

http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml  [-- This is what they believe

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologeti...ics/index.shtml [-- This is their FAQ. They explain it better than I.

[PaulDA]

^Thanks for the web site. I added it to my favorites to look at when I have time.
In the meantime, could you just summarize your belief in an old earth and universe, without evolution.
Thanks.

[amygrantfan5875]

^Thanks for the web site. I added it to my favorites to look at when I have time.
In the meantime, could you just summarize your belief in an old earth and universe, without evolution.
Thanks.

Basically I believe that God took his time in creating the universe. I see it like a master artist working on his masterpiece...making sure everything was in order for us to come along and survive. I believe the geological record and the stellar record are acurate in regards to age. There is nothing about the big bang that contradicts God. In fact it's the opposite. The Big Bang proves there was a beginning and something set of the spark (we know that was God ) I also believe there was death before the fall or Adam and Eve but only animal and plant death. I believe the scriptures only point to mans death ( the spiritual and physical) and animals did die before the fall of Adam and Eve.

Paul we are so set in the universe (the earth that is) that if we moved the planet a little too much in either direction we would either burn or freeze. God made sure everything was right for us. God is good!

I'm not very eloquent in my writings and I knoew I've probably left stuff out or didn't explain things well (that's why I directed you to Hugh's site.) So... the jist of it...

I believe the earth is 4.6 or so give or take billion years or and the universe is 14 or so giver or take billion years old.


In the end it really doesn't matter how old the earth/universe is as long as we all agree God in His infinite wisdom created everything with us in mind and most important of all for HIS glory!    

[murlough23]

The Big Bang proves there was a beginning and something set of the spark (we know that was God )

I kind of feel that way too. If a big cloud of dust came together and then it blowed up real good, how did the dust get there? The conventions of science say that everything is cause and effect, so what's the cause of the dust? And what's the cause of the cause of the dust? Speaking purely in terms of science, you can only go back so far before you have to realize that stuff couldn't just have magically appeared. There had to be some sort of an intelligent cause behind it (of course, that begs the question of what caused God, but science isn't intended to answer that).

[Josh]

This conversation is starting to remind me of Andrew Bird's album and the tension between science and faith that exists in many of those songs. "I saw you standing all alone in the electro-static rain/ I thought at last I'd found a situation you can't explain..."

[PaulDA]

This conversation is starting to remind me of Andrew Bird's album and the tension between science and faith that exists in many of those songs. "I saw you standing all alone in the electro-static rain/ I thought at last I'd found a situation you can't explain..."

At least we are all getting along nicely.....sheesh.....  

[murlough23]

This conversation is starting to remind me of Andrew Bird's album and the tension between science and faith that exists in many of those songs. "I saw you standing all alone in the electro-static rain/ I thought at last I'd found a situation you can't explain..."

That's funny, because it's been reminding me of a certain Gwen Stefani song about bananas.

[PaulDA]

That's funny, because it's been reminding me of a certain Gwen Stefani song about bananas.

Who is she and what is this about bananas?