Genesis 2:7 Adam was made from the dust of the ground. His name in and of itself suggests that he is made from the earth. Eve was made from the rib of Adam. This all is suggestive on a plain level that they were the first created humans. If one believes in an Adam and Eve as humans that came secondarily from other humans or humanoids, the question we must honestly ask is are they coming dangerously close to believing in a non biblical Adam and Eve who are not Adam and Eve at all…Could this false Adam and Eve be the one that conforms more to historical science guesses in text books and less to reliable God’s spokemen?
If one cannot trust God’s spokesmen in such a simple level due to their phd in science, then why would I believe that they can appreciate the possibility of the second and better Adam who is Christ performing miracles of changing water into wine and raising the dead that serves as proof that He did indeed forgive sins and indeed did raise from the dead on the third day to be seen by more than 500 men at the same time?.
can anyone verify that there have indeed been human fossils found within the carboniferous period that do indeed date more than 250 million years old? Apparently a scientist from Taiwan determined that the skull cap found in PA within this period was indeed a human skull cap. Since fossils are so hard to come by, scientists should handle these situations with serious concern as to how they affect current stream of thinking…yet these cases seem to always slide under the radar. I did not learn about this situation from AIG or similar. I learned about it on CNN that linked to a secular science websight.
By definition, if you need faith to believe something, it cannot be “determined by scientific means.” If it could, it would be a fact not a faith claim. So obviously, none of what any of us believes about God can be “determined by scientific means.”
Can you “wrap your mind around” God creating fully formed somethings out of nothing? Since when has the ability to wrap one’s mind around the miracle of life been a decisive factor in anything for Christians?
ARRGGGHHHH! We are not defending the tenants of atheist ideology more than the theme that God created! That is the most ridiculous statement I’ve read all day! Do you even read anything we publish?
I don’t understand your statement. The more we convince folks to accept THEISTIC evolution … the more Christ becomes impotent?
This is rather against expectation. If you were convincing folks in ATHEISTIC evolution … it would make sense. But we are convincing people of God’s role … and you say that this would be terrible?
I think you are going to re-design your logical path for your reason for opposing GOD-guided natural selection. Folks say Behe believes that evolution is possible … AND that God is involved at key steps in the rise of life.
It is a totally false that “If Adam and Eve were not literally the first humans, then the whole Bible is untrustworthy.” The Bible’s trustworthiness and authority comes from the fact that it is God’s self-revelation, something testified by the Holy Spirit, not from some kind of “plain meaning” fact corroboration test. We don’t put our faith in the perfect Bible, we put our faith in the perfect God the Bible reveals by his Spirit. It is exactly this kind of simplistic all or nothing thinking that is so destructive.
The link is a few replies above. The observation I found most telling was the "other articles by Lin Liangtai, "the so called scientist who penned that article. They are things like moon rocks are fake, brain cells on Mars rocks, brain tissue in meteorites? Etc. CNN states it is unverified. It would be funny if it were not so sad that these things are presented as representative of Christian thought, when googled.
If I’m not mistaken, it seems that you fear that the acceptance of science is undermining the “Christian worldview” in some way, but I’m not sure what you mean by that term. What do you think of the Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants who recognize evolution as a biological reality of our universe? A majority of them believe that Adam and Eve were real historical human beings.
The acceptance of evolution and plate tectonics as scientific facts is one thing, but it is a completely different thing when someone believes that God doesn’t exist and the universe has no meaning. The latter is philosophical. People who accept scientific evidence and facts don’t have to subscribe to any reactionary atheist philosophy. There is a difference in accepting scientific facts and believing in scientism.
You and I were made from the dust of the earth as well. Ecclesiastes 3:20. But you would agree, I’m sure, that this doesn’t mean we are the first humans.
did you read the link I sent about Conrad’s skull cap? It was not pro young earth or pro evolution. It scientifically determined that this was indeed a human skull cap dating 350 million years old. And supposedly evidence in other parts of the world find human fossils in the same carboniferous period.
I realize that it is an uphill battle for me to suggest that the scientific community as a whole and as a generalization, will tend towards bias towards their existing views and away from others when it comes to evidence like this. The response will be similar to yours-a side issue that the internet is not reliable.
I will continue to seek info about this to share with you.
Accepting Scientific “facts” can be undeniably skewed with scientism. It must assume that all that we see in say the fossil record for example, is not influenced by God and the miraculous. Can you admit this? Science based on a naturalistic perspective cannot allow miracles because of the definition of science. If it sees periods in the fossil record, the language it uses to describe are from naturalists and not thesists. (Although naturalism is indeed a belief system) Your view is that God chooses to do his major works on a small level and not on any large level say in flooding the world and filling the ark with animals or creating in a few days not too long ago. This assumption will necessarily skew discovering of “facts” toward the pre ordained view.
I choose to trust God and His Word more that stand outside of what science can explain. This does not make me question the validity of science. Science is valuable where value is valid. Historical science that makes grandious statements about what occurred billions of years ago is something different.
This all causes me to question why scientists do not get themselves tied into knots and why they are not going into convulsions with discovery of human fossils in the carboniferous period. If fossils are hard to create and we find some-even if it is 3, then this should cause for extreme reactions so findings of humans in carboniferous yet this is never the case because much of the science classroom is comfortable with their preconceived notions.
The link you posted is from CNN iReport. It is problematic because it is like Wikinews: anyone can post fake information. Even the video says it is unverified by CNN. The user, Lin Liangtai, also posted questionable articles titled “Moon Rocks Are Fakes” (cited with blogs) and “Unmistakable Brain Tissue Remains in Meteorite”.
It’s not strong evidence for Evolution that makes people lose their faith. It’s this all or nothing thinking that doesn’t allow for questions or critical thought. I’ve heard more than one story in which that has happened and it’s sad.
So what if some Christians are angry with me because I came to my beliefs from looking at the evidence?its not my job to appease them. Nor am I trying too. I don’t need to explain myself to anyone.
Thank you all who continue to make your point using reason.
So did anyone engage any reputable science institutes to determine if the skull truly that of a human? I also read some news about excavators being subject to lie detector tests over the issue of this find those many years ago in PA so apparently (if that was not fake news) this was a pretty significant find…surely there would have been testing of the fossil.
Related to this topic indirectly, I have found myself amazed at the lengths a current customer of mine is taking to diminish me as a reputable businessman… and it has come down to this customer both wanting to stiff me for payment combined with his swelled ego not willing to admit an egregious error on his judgement that started the ball rolling (long story) of his efforts to tarnish my name and reputation. I have actually been really at peace through this even considering that there is a lot at stake… I feel like I am being tested to depend on our God through this situation, the very thing I have encouraged others to do for weeks, months and years. If He says that He will care for his children even more than the birds and flowers, then so I must trust.
The point is, even those who claim to be so objective in their conclusions in the realm of science, if their livelihood or reputation is on the line when encountering a differing position that indeed contains evidence contrary to their opinions, then it will tend to be buried or overlooked so that ones pride or well being not be damaged.
I have read numerous articles that point to the occurrence of this type of thing. Not to say that this represents all scientists but it could be representing an established group of scientists that will tend to put pressure on all to abide by their opinion or else. Can any of you relate?
Did you do any of these things? Did you visit a natural history museum and chat with a curator of physical anthropology? Or did you speak with a college professor of physical anthropology? Talk to a reference librarian?
There is always excitement when scientists unearth fossils of ancient humans or their ancestors, such as Homo naledi. These days scientists work on site supervising the excavation of their fossils to prevent fraud. And scientists write papers on their findings and attempt to publish their work in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals so other scientists can weigh in.
So who excavated Conrad’s skull? Was it examined by a professional? Is there any literature on it? Where is it now?
This doesn’t happen in the real world. The way science works is people try very hard to prove something is false. The people who are successful in this become famous. Think Einstein who proved Newton wrong. You need to do a little reading on the way science actually works.
BTW, the links on the ireport page you provided now appear to go to some Korean honey pot web site. Strange.
I did notice this in the “report”, “Coal miners had dumped the fossil and other wastes between the coal veins there, where the discoverer found it and thousands of other fossils.” What this means is the fossil was not documented in situ before it was removed. Which is why the lie detector tests were mentioned. Once the providence of the fossil is in question then anything found relating to the fossil is in question. How do you date a fossil if it is just found laying in a pile of rubble? If you want to see how paleontology works look up Homo Naledi and find the original papers that were published. They are available on the net and are quite interesting.
actually I did and I do. And I have read way too much on the subject as I am deeply concerned for the church so quick to adopt naturalistic paradigms before miraculous paradigms from the whole of scripture.
I see troubling evidence for what some scientists call sub human species when they could very well be human in every sense of the word according to how God created them. Or these species could be in the Ape/monkey category like we find them today. I have a question for you: Were you there when God created the earth and life?. Are you privy to understanding exactly what HE planned and performed? And what about others in historical science. Where they there?
So, yes, where is Conrad’s skull? Is it buried in some vault, all evidence hidden that man possibly did exist during the carboniferous period a supposed 350 million years ago? And where are the other human fossils that were found in this same carboniferous period?
I just cannot find any logical proof that the mainstream science institutes are truly engaged towards finding truth of ancient history. Perhaps there are many who want to but I believe that they are going to be on an uphill stream against those who disallow any form of the miraculous and disallow “creation” from entering the science classroom. Assuming a certain presumption and testing how it fairs through science is not enough because if the presumption is such that science cannot discover, the results will always be skewed.
It is a shame because when it comes to historical science, all options are in play. Since matter cannot be created in nature, so must it logically be in play the option of CREATION by God!
For this, I find it strange that theistic evolutionists are so quickly adopting some of the main tenants of secular historical scientific conclusions and pasting some religious semantics to them. I know that I am supposed to be loving and kind. I say these things with an edge because I know no other way than to promote truth that is a necessary element of lovingness according to 1 Cor 13.
But the tools we have in science which are naturalistic by their very nature make the “proving” or disproving impossible because the tools used may be pushing against a paradigm of great mystery and miracle that render them useless. I have said this before. It would be like trying to describe verbally the color blue to the ears of someone color blind from birth in their eyes.
Can you appreciate what I am getting at here? I believe that God give science to make discovery within what is already created, but did not give it a chance to truly figure out how it got here which is by default complete and total miraculous.