Adam was born how many years ago?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolution is not true because death is alien to Gods original creation
That’s not what Paul says. He talks about human death entering the world, following human sin. If we’re talking about unensouled hominins, then we’re not running afoul of that passage!
“No evidence that you will accept” is not the same thing as “no existing evidence.”
👍 This!
Check yourself for confirmation bias. You are starting with a belief and seeking evidence to support it while rejecting contrary evidence.
I think this happens on both sides of the debate…!
 
If Adam did not have a mother and was not born, then there is a conflict with evolution &
1 We know evolution is true because it has been proven over and over again.
There has never been an instance were the general concept of evolution has been shown to be false.

2 Why do you believe it necessary to have Adam be a real person for Christianity to be true?
There are two questions here, and I’ll come back to 2 later.
Evolution is called a theory, but it is not even that. It is a mere hypothesis, 161 years old, which has failed to demonstrate its only scientifically proposed origin (abiogenesis), and failed to explain its timeline.
 
The problem with that is that if God created death for animals, that would make God evil because just like humans, animals don’t want to die, and death is painful to them.
No, that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. God created the universe and filled it with physical beings. Physical beings decay and die. Now, Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts, one of which was freedom from death. They lost that gift in the Fall, through their sin. The Church doesn’t teach that animals ever had preternatural gifts. Animals were meant to be merely physical beings. That’s their nature.

So… ‘no’ to “there was a time when animals didn’t die”, and ‘no’ to “…and if there weren’t such a time, then God would be evil.”
why would God create animals with a sinful nature to want to compete and eat each other as well as humans
That’s not ‘sinful’, since they aren’t moral actors. They don’t have free will, and they are incapable of sin.
This contradicts the notion that animals where vegan and peaceful until some point after the fall of mankind.
Yeah. So why is that a problem? (After all, that notion is mistaken.)
We don’t worship a God of death, death is a consequence of sin not part of Gods creation.
So, you would seem to be making Jesus out to be a liar. He speaks of the nature of creation, and the cycle of life that’s part of that creation: " Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit." (John 12:24)
 
Last edited:
Some of the most important understanding to me is this.

In his image, he created them.
He created them to have dominion and rule over the creatures of the Earth.
A literal Adam and Eve is essential to giving credence to the geneoligies.

Earliest man, in evolutionary terms, came after the animals of the world were evolved and apparently during a period of life when all creatures were already killing each other and earliest man certainly would not have had dominion over the creatures for a loooooooong time. There would have been no garden of Eden from an evolutionary journey.

Earliest known man, in evolutionary terms, absolutely would not have been “in the image” of God. Either morally, physically, or any other way.

If the account of Genesis is allegory, then it’s based upon a very flexible history of sin and the purpose of Jesus as a saviour.

*all of this is my opinion of course…
 
Last edited:
ADAM AND EVE, DESIGNED DIVERSITY, AND ALLELE FREQUENCIES

We cannot know how God created Adam and Eve, nor exactly how Adam and Eve gave rise to the current human population. However, the genetic argument that there is no way that a literal Adam and Eve could have given rise to the observed human allele frequencies is clearly over-reaching and appears to be theologically reckless. There is no compelling reason to reject Adam and Eve based on modern allele frequencies

https://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/20 Sanford et al Adam and Eve final.pdf
 
Last edited:
That is a young earth organization with an agenda.
Study the life of its main author. He was converted by the evidence.

But OK, do as most do, never argue the merits of the paper, always try to discredit the person or affiliation. Nice…
 
Since God is eternal, any measure of our time compared to Him is divided by infinity, therefore approaching zero. So whether the universe is only 10000 years old or 13.6 billion, either one divided by infinitely is essentially instantaneous from God’s “viewpoint.”

I am fine with viewing time and creation from both scientific and theological viewpoints. For instance, heliocentrism is established by science since it can be shown that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet theologically, Earth can be seen as theocentric, the center of God’s creation since it is home to man made in His image. In this sense, the Sun is a servant to the Earth, providing its heat, light, and gravitational pull. So just as the Church, the Bible, and Christ are fully human and fully divine, Earth in the same manner is fully natural yet theologically God’s centerpiece of Creation.

Likewise, the earth may naturally be 4.5 billion years old; but theologically, from man’s perspective of acknowledging the Earth as God’s creation, it is much younger. Therefore Earth as Earth, i.e. a planet consisting of elements and minerals formed in a specific way by God, is billions of years old. But Earth as man’s home until heaven is much younger, perhaps the 6000-10000 years a reading of Genesis can calculate. The theological perspective, marked by man’s awareness of himself amidst a home created by a higher being, is much younger than the planet’s scientifically calculated age.

That said, I hold to the special creation of our first parents. Any passage in Scripture mentioning creation of Adam implies this, along with the teaching of the Fathers. In other words, the consensus of Scripture and Tradition never implies some type of pre-human getting “infused” with a soul. Furthermore, if God can create an entire physical universe out of nothing, I’m pretty sure He could have created man from the dust of the earth.
 
I actually don’t doubt evolution (and I believe Adam and Eve were real, historical people) , but that’s actually about right. Not including pro-writing, the earliest writing system we know of, is the Sumerian cuneiform, which dates back to around 3,200 BC. What’s even more interesting, is that Sumerian is a language isolate, unknown to be related to any other language. When you consider that Hebrew is part of the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic languages, there may be something to the Tower of Babel as well. I think modern man is too quick to dismiss truths of the Bible, not because there is no evidence,but because he has been programmed to dismiss the evidence.
 
And we know evolution is true because it has been proven over and over again.
You sounded like one of the “it’s settled science” type of person, and anyone who questions your contention is mocked as ignorant and uniformed.

So please enlighten us by showing us—to begin with—one of the proofs. I trust that your proof would pass scientific scrutiny and would also satisfy scientific methods…

…Or is it more correct (true to science) to say “science has yet proven evolution, but there are evidences that support this theory”?
 
Last edited:
The term “macroevolution” was invented by creationists and others as “plan B”.
Uh no. An evo guy coined the term about 100 years ago.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

You do have the dogma talking points down, I will give you that.
 
Science is based on predictions. Some examples of Evolution predictions include:

The existence of earlier, less complex fossils as precursors to more modern lifeforms. In fact, for awhile, Darwin thought the lack of certain fossils indicated his theory was flawed. Turns out he just needed a better microscope, and the missing fossils were found to be abundant.

The prediction of DNA.

The prediction that lifeforms would be genetically similar the closer they are geographically.

I can go on and on. Really, its 2020. If you still don’t believe in Evolution, don’t. The evidence is overwhelming, and you still don’t care. It’s not worth convincing the few people left who deny it.
Yes, it’s 2020. Science is still science. I believe in science. I care about science. People like you in your own self righteousness make false claims based on what you think science is about, and jam it down people’s throat. What you just presented are at best evidences—not proof. Evolution has not come even close to meet the scientific rigor and methods for proof.

Indeed, there are evidences supporting evolution. But, in the language and rigor of science, it is a still theory. It is far from being proven as you falsely advocated.

Believe me, and you should know this too. If you can prove evolution (human evolution) from fossil organisms some 4 billion years ago to modern day humans, believe you/me, you would not be commenting from a forum like this. You would have already received the Nobel prize, person of the year/century/millennium, more famous than Einstein, one of the most famous persons ever trots the earth, etc…

Don’t kid yourself, and spew falsehood that you don’t understand. I support science. Human evolution is still a theory in the eye of science. You, like may others, can believe in human evolution. I don’t deny human evolution. It’s within the realm of possibility. In fact, I am anxious to see more evidences for it, and eventually possibly proof of evolution. Maybe, one day it can be proven scientifically. But not yet…
 
Last edited:
New theories need to be validated. Evolution is almost 200 years old now and it has NEVER been falsified and every piece of evidence uncovered, every fossil, every experiment, even including radical discoveries that Darwin couldn’t have even dreamed of (like genetics) have proven evolution as true. I mean come on. The score on this one is like 10,000 to zero. How about trying to rationalize Christianity WITH evolution instead of denying the obvious?
What you just presented is not science. They were just your opinions, analyses or interpretations.

Guess what!! You don’t need to convince me or people here at CAF. If you can scientifically prove (settled science as you put it) human evolution as you are so adamantly you can do, you should stop whatever you are doing now and present you proof to the Nobel committee, all the science institutions and publications, all the news and media network, etc…

If you are right, your greatest and ingenious proof would capture the highest praises from all scientists and people from all walks of life around the world. You would change the course of humanity and the world forever and would really stick it to those creationists—which I am not. Your name would go down in history as the greatest scientist…

For the sake of science, please do it and prove me wrong…
 
Last edited:
Creationists often misapply the term “theory” as if it some wildly unsupported concept. Well gravity is also a “theory”. Here is the definition:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world
I am not a creationist. To be fair, scientific theory is also mis-understood and mis-applied by people who are not creationists. I am open to human evolution theory (as it stands right now). For something to become a theory, there must be substantial evidence to support it. In this case of human evolution, I believe the answer is yes. But being true to science, and therefore the scientific methods—which science requires—human evolution has yet to be proven—far from it. Maybe, someday it will be proven—-or not. Or in time, science will point to something quite different. The many different/changing/conflicting/evolving theories/ideas about the origin of the universe, our solar system and our earth have shown that we have known very little about the universe and how humans came about.

For reference, below are the 6 steps of scientific methods:
  • Purpose/Question. Ask a question.
  • Research. Conduct background research. …
  • Hypothesis. Propose a hypothesis. …
  • Experiment. Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. …
  • Data/Analysis. Record observations and analyze the meaning of the data. …
  • Conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Can you clarify your position? Are you a creationist and believe all life, including Adam, was created at the same time (as in Genesis)? Or do you believe humans evolved and God ‘declared’ one human at some point in history to be ‘Adam’ and gave that human the first soul?
Neither.
There are at least two varieties of creationist–Young Earth and Old Earth. I am an Old Earth Creationist. I believe God created the universe about 15 billion years ago, and the earth about 5 billion years ago.

He created Adam and Eve some unknown number of thousands of years ago.

Some form of evolution may be true, in which case animal life has been evolving for many millions of years.

BUT

God created the first man and the first woman as individuals a few thousands of years ago. All the other animals might be products of evolution. The first man and the first woman were specifically created. No evolution involved.

There were no ‘pre-adamite’ humans or pre-humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top