[_ Old Earth _] rejecting evolution is NOT a requirement to be a Christian

[John]

Is this a true statement?

1Titus 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

That could be used both ways.

1. Adam was the first human followed by Eve.

or

2. Even though there was other humans made first, God Made Adam before Eve.

I still argue in defense of #1

 

[Rick W]

Either way Adam is still a real person.

 

[John]

Time to dig in my heels

The answer is that the Scripture makes this fact very clear and it is stated in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Genesis is the book of beginnings. It is the place where we find the truth of the beginning of man and that man is Adam. The word "Adam" comes from a Hebrew word that means red or ruddy. The word “Adam†is translated as; first man, mankind, man or human. God made Adam from the "dust of the ground", which is the Hebrew word "adamah" and therefore Adam's name comes from the ground from which God created him.

The Genesis record of God's creation of the first man is found in Genesis 1:28 and it is reiterated in Genesis 2:7. This record, as compiled by Moses, was part of the Pentateuch or the first five books of the law and therefore it is the basis for all future doctrine. The fact that Adam was the first man is not an issue of question in God's Word and we find that holds through all of Scripture, including the New Testament.

It is interesting to note that lineage of the foster father of Jesus begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph (Matthew chapter 1) while the lineage of His mother begins with Joseph and ends with Adam. However, the lineage of Mary does not come from her husband. There is a phrase "as was supposed" found in Luke 3:23 that needs explanation. It was a common custom in that time to reckon a woman's linage from her husband because a woman could not inherit under normal circumstances. However, the lineage listed in Luke chapter three is not Joseph's linage at all but Mary's as the carrier of the "Seed" that was promised in Genesis 3:15. The phrase "as was supposed" accommodates that fact. So the first mention of Adam in the New Testament is listed the line of Jesus through His mother. All of the other generations of our LORD are listed as the "son of a human father." However, only Adam is listed as the "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and that is because he had no human father. He was created first.

The Apostle Paul presents the doctrine of the "headship" of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 state “So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, Adam, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man, Christ. Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life."

1 Corinthians15:45-49 state, “The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’ But the last Adam -- that is, Christ -- is a life-giving Spirit. What came first was the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam's, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ's. Just as we are now like Adam, the man of the earth, so we will someday be like Christ, the man from heaven.â€Â

This doctrine is that all men are born in the first Adam and they all die, not only physically but they are separated from God and therefore spiritually dead as well. However, the second and last Adam is Christ and through Him we can be obtained a spiritual "new life." Man will still die physically, but when we believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, we are given His resurrection life, which is eternal, and we are then reconciled with God spiritually.

In answer to the question, "Was Adam the first man," the answer is yes. There is ample proof in Scripture that answers the question.

 

[Rick W]

Nor can Paul compare Christ who is real to a fictitious person.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If Adam is fictitious that degrades the analogy Paul writes here.

"who is the figure of him that was to come."

Is Christ based on fiction, a myth or just a story character?

I certainly hope not. :o

 

[JMM]

Rick, John, you have both made really good points. However, there is still a way for hypothetical evolutionary fact to co-exist with Biblical fact. Perhaps Adam was the first fully formed man on the evolutionary chain. Adam was 100 percent human; his “father†could have been only 98 or 99 percent. This could explain why the Bible refers to Adam as “the first manâ€Â. Since Adam’s ancestors were not technically “human†(because they were still evolving INTO human-hood), they could be the “dust of the groundâ€Â, metaphorically speaking, from which Adam was formed. Since his earthly “father†was technically not human (almost, but not quite), then Adam had no human father.

So it IS still possible for evolution to be fact, AND for Adam to be a real man, as well as “the first manâ€Â. I know it sounds like a bit of a stretch, but IF evolution turns out to be fact, then that would be a great way for us to try to understand how it squares with the Bible. Because if this is the case, then it means that God used evolution to make us. If it still doesn’t make sense to us, that’s okay, because we know that God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Rick W]

I agree. Evolution would allow Adam to be real.
But as one goes further into Genesis ultimately away from that book into others then things can begin to get really sticky.

 

[BigDMcGee]

I think it depends on how you define "evolution". When most people hear 'evolution' they think of the non-Christian belief that man evolved from a single cell and all life just happened by chance.

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

The Bible was not meant to be used as a time line... if we work backwards according to who beget who...the Earth would prove to be between 3 and 5,000 years old. I think most Christians can agree that this simply is not accurate. (See carbon dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)

Therefore.... was Adam the first 'man' and how do we define M A N? Did God perhaps create a living thing...let's call him Neanderthal... who eventually 'evolved' into a 'man'.

"Well...that's not possible because Genesis tells us that God created man in his image and Adam was the first man."

Is it possible that Moses wrote Genesis through the words of God... and God didn't feel it necessary to tell him everything? No need to go into great detail about how He did what he did.

Cain slew Able and was sent away.
"Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch

Where did Cains wife come from? If the only forms of man were Adam, Eve, Cain and Able.... where did this wife come from? Was this wife a developed 'wo-man'?

It appears I am straying from the OP...but my point is that I feel we can accept evolution as a viable explanation to some of these questions.
I don't think it is blasphemy or non-Christian to accept that we may not have all the answers and the Bible may not be a complete book of answers pertaining to the formation of man and/or the universe.

I am a Christian because I accept Jesus as my savior. Accepting that some form of evolution could be possible and still the work of God has no bearing on my faith.

 

[John]

The Bible states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Cain merely married his sister.

And as for the carbon dating poo:

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only of the original C-14. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

 

[BigDMcGee]

Thanks for your explanation of the carbon dating "poo".... it further validates the idea that the Earth is, in fact, older than the time given for Adam and Eve.

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].â€Â

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

Ergo...according to the Bible...the earth is about 6000 years old.

The radioactive decay of carbon-14 follows an exponential decay. Willard Libby worked out a carbon-14 half-life of 5568 years, give or take 30 years.. Later a more accurate figure of 5730 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life. This is, however, not relevant for radiocarbon dating. If calibration is applied, the half-life cancels out, as long as the same value is used throughout the calculations, hence exponential decay.
Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.


As for the notion that Cane married a sister... the bible only refers to other siblings after he left and went to Nod.

"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him."

Now this isn't to say Cane didn't wander around for years alone until he eventually came across his sister..... I don't know. If the order of the Bible was meant to be taken literally and on a time line of some sort... it implies that he left... established a town and took a wife. THEN... Eve had her third child.

Quick background on me before I leave the wrong impression... I am a Christian and do not struggle with my faith. I just think there may be room for some evolution within the Bible. I think perhaps God didn't feel it was necessary to tell Moses everything. When you think about it... the information he gave Moses was pretty heavy. Was there any real need to go into exactly how He made man from dust? How is it possible to make a woman from a mans rib? I think not.

 

[John]

I apologize if i come off as militant.

The Bible states that death occurred because of Adam, if the earth is millions of years old then... God lied...

I am pretty sure the Flood would have some effect on C-14 ratios..contamination perhaps.

Evolution happens for sure but it has its limits. Bacteria to man is one of them ,lol

I still say that no matter which way anyone twists it evolution and Christianity mix like oil and water.

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science clearly understood that science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgment of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had stamina to proceed with scientific inquiry only because of their confidence that an orderly universe had to have had a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation upon which to proceed with scientific inquiry.
Today’s intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of ‘science’ has been altered from “acknowledged truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation†(1934 edition of Webster’s New School dictionary) to “knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena†(1983 edition of Websters Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that “truth†exists and relies solely on “natural phenomena.†By this modern definition, God’s intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.
Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man, just as gravity operates independent of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God; then man’s opinions and interpretations cannot change this truth.
The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus, evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical worldview in the following ways:
Þ The Bible states ten times that life reproduces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, and people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
Þ The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. “...whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.†(Matthew 20:27) Would this same God use a method of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us?
Þ Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the primary justification for disbelief in God. Although believers in evolution attempt to distance themselves from taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the undeniable result of taking evolution to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces; why not extend these forces into our dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn’t we be the same; if we are just part of an evolutionary process which formed us? Creation is the event which ultimately gives life value because it links every human’s value to our Creator who loved us enough to die for us. Evolution is the opposite.
Abundant scientific evidence exists that microbe to man evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals. The chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural processes. Also, there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which undermines the possibility that evolution could have happened.
Evolution is a religious philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations. Its power to influence society has been a detriment to true scientific advancement.

 

[BigDMcGee]

You don't come across as militant... even if you did... it's something I'm familiar with.

OOO-RAH !


I don't think it's a matter of "God lied" if the earth is scientifically proven to be older than what Moses interpreted God as saying in Genesis. Once again... I think God may have not gone into great detail regarding time and everything to Moses.
I hope I'm not implying that I believe Darwins theory of evolution has any place in the Bible... I'm referring to the word 'evolve' and will accept that it's possible that God put things in motion and allowed them to evolve and adapt.

Explaining this in great detail may have been more than God felt Moses could understand and chose to keep it simple.

 

[John]

You don't come across as militant... even if you did... it's something I'm familiar with.

OOO-RAH !

Do i detect another bullet slinger amongst us :eyebrow

I don't think it's a matter of "God lied" if the earth is scientifically proven to be older than what Moses interpreted God as saying in Genesis. Once again... I think God may have not gone into great detail regarding time and everything to Moses.
I hope I'm not implying that I believe Darwins theory of evolution has any place in the Bible... I'm referring to the word 'evolve' and will accept that it's possible that God put things in motion and allowed them to evolve and adapt.

Explaining this in great detail may have been more than God felt Moses could understand and chose to keep it simple

Fair enough.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Did I miss the fun of this thread?

 

[John]

Did I miss the fun of this thread?

It can be re ignited I'm sure ;)

 

[JMM]

Did I miss the fun of this thread?

It can be re ignited I'm sure ;)

Re-ignition underway! In defense of that carbon dating "poo":

http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.

2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

Using carbon dating to estimate the age of the earth is another example of the "misuse" the above quote speaks of. The age of the earth is currently estimated at 4.54 billion years, and that is NOT determined by carbon dating, but by radiometric dating and other techniques.

 

[John]

Using carbon dating to estimate the age of the earth is another example of the "misuse" the above quote speaks of. The age of the earth is currently estimated at 4.54 billion years, and that is NOT determined by carbon dating, but by radiometric dating and other techniques.

I never said that carbon dating gave us the estimated age of the earth.

 

[JMM]

Sorry John. Looking back through the thread, you're right. You never specifically said that. What happened was that BigDMcgee said this:

The Bible was not meant to be used as a time line... if we work backwards according to who beget who...the Earth would prove to be between 3 and 5,000 years old. I think most Christians can agree that this simply is not accurate. (See carbon dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)

.....and then you launched into what looked like a scathing attack on the reliability of carbon dating. I think I must have misunderstood WHY you were trying to convince us that carbon dating was "poo". My bad...

 

[BigDMcGee]

Hee heeee.... I never meant to imply that carbon dating was "NASA accurate" in determining the exact age of the Earth.... just that through science I believe it has been proven that the Earth is older than what may be implied in the Bible if we take the Bible literally as a dated time line and assume that nothing ever happened before Moses began to document.
(Did that even make sense? lol)

Part of why I enjoy having these conversations is that I was never allowed to ask these things or even entertain these thoughts as a child. Being raised strict Southern Baptist, a thought provoking question like this would be considered blasphemous and not allowed.
Don't dare ask "If God created everything...who created God" or.... "How do you explain dinosaurs?"

I have explained to my children that, even though we as humans feel we should/could be able to understand and/or explain everything... we simply can not. Imagine if you put a DVD into your VCR. The DVD is, in fact, containing information and data and the VCR is able to read and understand information. It can not, however, extrapolate the data on the medium inserted.
Our brains are not capable of understanding a question about "Who created God" if God created all. The law of conservation of mass/matter says matter can not be created nor destroyed... our brains can understand that. But since God isn't matter ... how can this be explained to us?

Wow...I just rambled....
In summery... IMO the earth is older than 6,000 years and has nothing to do with my faith that Jesus is my Lord and savior. Ta-DA ! ! :crazy

 

[Free]

Just thought I would bring this back to life.

In regards to the title of this thread, I agree, at least philosophically. However, much of this discussion has incorrectly equated evolution with the book of Genesis. Even if the Creation account is considered allegorical, this doesn't mean the rest of Genesis is allegorical.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

The Bible was not meant to be used as a time line... if we work backwards according to who beget who...the Earth would prove to be between 3 and 5,000 years old. I think most Christians can agree that this simply is not accurate. (See carbon dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)

You must be kidding? The Bible is so meant to be used as a timeline. If you do the proper math you arrive at the age of the earth (according to scripture) to be somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 years old. A true Christian will trust what scripture says over anything that science has to offer. And, when it comes to "carbon dating", I wouldn't trust anything that Wikipedia says let alone any science text book.

If Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life as well as the Word (John 1:1) then why is it so hard for Christians to trust the Word as Truth? Especially when it means Life? Is it so far fetched to believe that God created all of this in six literal days (thus rejecting evolution altogether) that we have to allow an old warn-out, sceptic scientist (Darwin) to invent an idea that takes God right out of the picture just so we can reason it all in our finite human minds? God is God and we are not. He knows what He did and He told us what He wanted us to know. He has said what He said and He meant it, but what do we humans do? We question it. We question God's Word. Even though He has told us it is Truth. If we question the Word, do we not also question Jesus since He is the Word? And if we question Jesus regarding the Creation, will we continue to question Him regarding salvation? If we deny the literal account of Creation, are we not also denying Christ Himself? Isn't there a danger in that?