Why it is important to accept that Adam was a historical person

Faith & Science Conversation
42

@Dredge

  1. Your reference to “certain paleontologists” is disingenuous. The fossil record has not been interpreted by “a certain” (implicitly suggesting a small group) of paleontologists. It’s the product of thousands of experts over several generations.

  2. As for my study of the matter, short of going into the field myself, I have been reviewing the pattern of fossil evidence for decades. So I guess the answer to your question is Yes.

  3. Your distrust of scientists is duly noted, and a convenient dodge, just like your post has been. You have not answered my question about how you justify your supposed “Old Earth” position (which requires you to contradict the plain meaning of the word “day”), instead you just used your response as another chance to impugn the reliability and/or the integrity of anyone who works with fossils.

Dredge, ,the plain truth of the matter is there is no Creationist interpretation of the fossils that:

A) Can explain the sudden appearance of several classes of large mammal bones in the fossil record, always in newer rock layers than the several classes of large dinosaur bones … which suddenly disappear from the record just before a global layer of iridium was laid down by an intergalactic object.

B) This pattern cannot be explained by whether the large mammals are vegetarian or carnivorous, nor whether the large mammals are terrestrial or marine. Even whale fossils suddenly appear out of nowhere in the fossil record, rather than being jumbled up with the bones of either terrestrial or marine dinosaurs.

C) There is no Creationist scenario that can explain how the marsupial survivors of the Ark managed to get to Australia just before it rapidly separated from the other continents, and ahead of the placental mammals - - many of which are faster than the slowest marsupials.

D) The fossil evidence is global in nature, and does not rely on peculiar results from just one or two regions. The fossil evidence is comprehensive and is reinforced by several other disciplines having nothing to do with fossils - - from physicists, chemists, anatomists … and dozens of other categories of knowledge.

Dredge, you know you and your small army of non-experts are in over your heads when you say you would have to study fossils yourself for fifty years . . . while simultaneously relying on the opinions of Creationist experts in their own fields who have consistently failed to come up with a workable Creationist interpretation of the the world’s fossils or even of Australia’s fossils.

When I was in college, I wrote a letter to Henry Morris himself. I asked him about the fundamental interpretation problem regarding the global findings of fossils. Do you know what his answer was?: he said that he didn’t have an answer to my questions, but hoped that I would devote time to helping to find answers to these questions instead of using the questions “as a sledge hammer against Creationism.”

It would seem Henry Morris and I ultimately became mutually disappointing.

2 Likes
43

“Intergalactic,” oh my! That’s a very strong claim; care to comment further on it?

44

@Lynn_Munter

Gosh … you know how shy I am.

I say “intergalactic” Dinosaur killer for two reasons:

  1. the notable aspect of the Iridium layer is that it represents a sudden density of an element that is quite rare in the Earth’s crust - - approximately 100 times its normal level:

From: Alvarez L.W., Alvarez W., Asaro F., Michel H.V. (1980) Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction, Science 208, 1095-1108. [link to PDF below]

This suggests that the Dinosaur Killer was not only from beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, but probably from outside of our solar system, since it represents an anomaly to anything we have been able to identify within our system.

and

  1. Christian Evolutionists always have a choice whether to imagine God created (“poof”) the asteroid in the neighborhood of, say, Saturn, and then threw it at the Earth (with the compensating “lead” required to intercept Earth at the correct angle on the other side of its orbit) … or that God may have arranged for that Killer at the very moment of creating the entire Universe… arranging for the rock to be knocked into its fatal trajectory light years away from the Earth.

Frankly, I love that rock! Going out to the garden while T-Rex was ambling around would not be my idea of a “weekend well spent”. Speaking of which, I hope you had a splendid weekend with friends or other loved ones.

George

45

Oh, George.

My astonishment was at your claim that the object came from between galaxies (‘intergalactic’). Of course it may have, but it’s much more probable that it came from within our own galaxy. You could say ‘intragalactic’ and you would be pretty safe.

I skimmed the article, which uses the very safe choice of ‘extraterrestrial’ meaning it was from outside of Earth, but didn’t see any speculation about whether it was ‘intra-Solar System’ (within the Solar System) or ‘interstellar’ (between stars) in nature. It’s my impression that the asteroids have more iridium than the earth’s crust though, and this is the first I’ve heard anyone claim it was ‘extra-Solar’ in nature.

My weekend was great, thanks! :smile:

46

@Lynn_Munter

Duly noted!!!

Intra-galactic, instead of inter-galactic.

I feel much better now. :slight_smile:

1 Like
47

It appears that in these verses, “morning” and “evening” are used in figurative sense - which means that you have shot down my claim in flames. Therefore, Wayne, I have no choice but to remove you from my Christmas card list. : )

1 Like
48

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:42, topic:35794, full:true”]
3)Your distrust of scientists is duly noted, and a convenient dodge, just like your post has been. You have not answered my question about how you justify your supposed “Old Earth” position (which requires you to contradict the plain meaning of the word “day”),[/quote]
i don’t know what you’re talking about. My “old earth” belief doesn’t depend on the length of a “day”. The creation of the earth is described in Genesis 1:1 - before the six days.

  • Yes, George, and you know all about what happened during and after the Flood bcoz you were there and saw it all!

  • the Peleg theory has a lot of merit, I think, with respect to explaining present day patterns of animal dispersions around the world.

  • … as if relative speeds of foot can be used to determine animal migration rates! Just imagine it … Noah lined up all the animals at the start line outside the ark and then said, “On your marks … Get set … Go!”, and all the animals raced each other to see who could get to the ends of the earth first. (Besides that, you have obviously never seen a kangaroo in full flight - they’re fast! I dare say they could easily outrun a dingo - plus they can motor for several miles without needing to stop. I’m Australia, by the way.)

  • Marsupials aren’t confined to Australia.

You’re dead right; I readily admit that in any area of evolutionary science I’m in other my head! I’d be a fool to pretend otherwise. I don’t even qualify as a “non-expert” - I’m well below that level. But it seems to me there are experts on either side of the fossil debate, so I don’t know who to believe.

49

@Dredge,

I didn’t say it did depend on the meaning of the word “day”.

I said that if you are an Old Earther, then the logical deduction is that science has persuaded you that the “plain sense of the word Day” is not sufficiently persuasive to overturn generations of hard science.

However, since the time of that posting we are discussing, you have since declared that you aren’t convinced the Earth is older than what the YEC’s say it is.

Which leads the reasonable person to conclude that you are not really an Old Earther.

50

Good morning, @Dredge, I hope all is well with you. The conversation is straying a bit far from Adam, but I think the flood account is a good demonstration that the Bible simply does not explain everything we observe, even though it is the Holy Word of God. I’m going to address a few of the points you’ve made with Australia and marsupials. [quote=“Dredge, post:48, topic:35794”]
Yes, George, and you know all about what happened during and after the Flood bcoz you were there and saw it all!
[/quote]
I agree, our lack of direct observation of the Flood (and Creation, for that matter), does make drawing conclusions more difficult. So we are left using clues left behind that we can observe now. This actually works a lot better than many YEC and ID adherents are willing to admit. After all, criminal justice systems work in much the same way – observe clues and draw conclusions, hopefully with an extremely high degree of accuracy![quote=“Dredge, post:48, topic:35794”]
the Peleg theory has a lot of merit, I think, with respect to explaining present day patterns of animal dispersions around the world.
[/quote]

Be careful using the word “theory” around scientists and the science-minded! Remember that a theory is something that has been tested extensively over long periods of time. Here are the Biblical references to Peleg:

“To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.” Genesis 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19 (NKJV)

It’s clearly quite a stretch to use this single sentence as an explanation for the unusual fauna of the Australian continent. I find it difficult to use the term “Peleg hypothesis”, let alone “Peleg theory”.[quote=“Dredge, post:48, topic:35794”]
… as if relative speeds of foot can be used to determine animal migration rates! Just imagine it … Noah lined up all the animals at the start line outside the ark and then said, “On your marks … Get set … Go!”, and all the animals raced each other to see who could get to the ends of the earth first. (Besides that, you have obviously never seen a kangaroo in full flight - they’re fast! I dare say they could easily outrun a dingo - plus they can motor for several miles without needing to stop. I’m Australia, by the way.)
[/quote]

Being from Australia (should I have said “g’day” earlier?), I’m sure you are aware of the unusual fauna of the continent. Again, a much more plausible explanation (compared to Noah starting the footrace) is evolution occurring on a different trajectory than much of the rest of the planet due to its geographic isolation.

[quote=“Dredge, post:48, topic:35794”]
Marsupials aren’t confined to Australia.
[/quote]This is definitely true. In fact, I think the prevailing hypothesis is that marsupials actually originated in South America at a time when Australia, Antarctica, and South America were all part of the same Gondwana land mass. But this is really not the point. The point, as @gbrooks9 stated, is that it is extremely difficult to explain the unique fauna distribution on your continent in the context of a Global Flood that killed all land animals that were not on the Ark. To explain the Australian fauna requires direct, divine re-population of the entire continent. If we accept this explanation, we are again left with God allowing the appearance of evolution, but sneakily pulling off miracles that have no Biblical basis.

51

@Dredge

Wow… that’s a lot you don’t know!

  1. The funny thing about science is you don’t have to be an “eye-witness” to understand what is possible and what isn’t. You have zero explanation for the Marsupial hegemony on Australia. I don’t have to be there on the beach when you think the marsupials from the Ark all headed down to get on board the “Good Ship Australia” … before any of the placentals (especially the predators!) had a chance … and then Australia just "power-boated hundreds of miles off the coast … so the other mammals could never catch those marsupials. It’s a ridiculous scenario… and it’s the most reasonable one of the YEC position. So, the YEC position isn’t looking very good at this point.

  2. What is the Peleg Theory? I’m not up on all the latest YEC fantasies.

  3. You mock my mention of foot speeds … but really … how could all those marsupials get to Australia 3000 years ago … without a bunch of placental mammals being mixed in with them? It’s rather preposterous - - as you have noted with your own words.

  4. The marsupials known in Australia are virtually unknown any other place. New Zealand has some unique species.

The point of the story, my dear @Dredge, is that even the marsupials we do know in the rest of the world, like possum, never made it to Australia either!

But if we put the Australia scenario into an Evolutionary context, all of a sudden it makes a lot of sense. Instead of a virtual race to get to Australia before it moves off into the middle of the ocean (just 3000 years ago!) … animals have millions of years to move around… including millions of years ago when Australia really was attached to another continent.

Small placental mammals existed during this time, but not in a region close enough to the future Australia that they could migrate there. But the marsupials were there… on Australia and next to Australia … and when the island continent started to separate from the rest of the world’s land masses … anyone who hadn’t caught the bus on time … were left to fight it out amongst themselves.

And the few marsupial types that were on their own in Australia began to radiate out and speciate … exploiting new ecological niches… creating parallel marsupial versions of creatures that were going to be dominated by the placentals every place else.

Australia is a nail in the YEC Hypothesis coffin. Maybe half a dozen nails…

1 Like
52

[quote=“cwhenderson, post:50, topic:35794, full:true”]

Be careful using the word “theory” around scientists and the science-minded! Remember that a theory is something that has been tested extensively over long periods of time. [/quote]
You quite right - I am showing my amateurishness by using “theory” in this company. Perhaps “hypothesis” would have been a better choice of word.

No, but the Bible isn’t primarily a book of history. The Lord only included the necessary details.

53

Ah… a specific answer on Australia.

God made it loooooook like the marsupials evolved there over millions of years … It was like God’s laboratory … until the humans arrived anyway. And they arrived 50,000 years ago or so …

But how do we convert that to the YEC timeline? What scientists say is 50,000 years is, on the YEC framework, something like 3000 years ago? After the fall of dozens of Egyptian dynasties? And a pretty old Indian culture too … which never saw any of these aborigines … coming or going …

54

I agree, the Bible isn’t primarily a book of history, and it is even less of a book of science. Great Christian minds throughout history have recognized the importance of both the Bible and our ability to observe and make sense of our world. In the words of Francis Bacon:

“To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or the book of God’s works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.”

Both of the “two book” should be used together. And where the Book of God’s Word is silent, it is certainly appropriate to use the Book of God’s Works.

1 Like
55

Did you really just open that door? So how do you figure out which details He left out?

Actually I think starting with Abraham the OT is primarily a book of history. Maybe not quite in the style of Western histories, but closer to recording what actually happened. It is only Genesis 1-11 where you get in trouble trying to tie it closely to actual history.

1 Like
56

There isn’t any substitute for just doing the hard work of study and reading others who have so studied for all the various passages in all the different books of the Bible. It may still be a modern hangup that we want to fall back on: “well --okay if it isn’t historical record of the sort we want it to be, then let’s figure out when it becomes so and draw a neat dividing line.” The problem of understanding just doesn’t lend itself to that kind of simplicity. Genesis 11 may make some sort of break in the most course short hand, but probably passages both before and after (certainly after!) will not neatly conform to the expectations governed by that one alleged dividing line.

57

@Bill_II, (and @Dredge too):

So, you are one of those “all or nothing” people?

Let’s talk about a real book … a real book about a real person!

Itinerant Minister & Bookseller, Mason Locke Weems, wrote a book about George Washington, titled
“The Life of Washington”, published in 1800 which sold very well. The book’s 5th edition, published in 1806,
was the first time the myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree - - and saying “I cannot
tell a lie.”

Using your Evangelical logic that if we reject some stories and not all, you are instantly on the slippery slope
to damnation, touching on three literary problems, held to be real, but in fact spurious:

  1. If you reject one part, where does one draw the line?
  2. People differ on where to draw the line, introducing another inducement to heresy.
  3. With so many people disagreeing on the line, it will foment disunity within the Church,
    the Earthly body of Christ.

Total baloney.

(1) Answer: You draw the line where the evidence tells you to draw the line.

(2) Answer: Like everything else that is real in the world, people are not supposed
to swallow 100% of the story, because otherwise, everything is a lie. That is a
ridiculous proposition - - and Christian Evolutionists need to start pushing back
on the obvious Sophistry of such an allegation. Just give 3 examples of a story
that is partly true … and ask your YEC friend or colleague, wouldn’t they Have
to Believe the untrue parts of the story - - otherwise the whole thing is a lie?

(3) Answer: Even amongst the Evangelicals that all agree that nothing should be rejected,
there is an incredible lack of disunity, just as much because the Bible is full of
poorly described ideas (buried amongst the well-described ideas). And that is
exactly why some of the poorly described ideas should be part of the vetting
process.

Addenda On Weems

In this source (footnote 2 in the linked article):

Mason Locke Weems to Mathew Carey, January 12, 1800, in Paul Leicester Ford, Mason Locke Weems: His Works, His Ways: A Bibliography Left Unfinished, 3 vols. (New York: Plimpton Press, 1929), 2: 8-9.

we can find Weems’ proposal to the publisher about his book (January 1800)!

“Washington you know is gone! Millions are gaping to read something about him…My plan! I give his history, sufficiently minute…I then go on to show that his unparalleled rise and elevation were due to his Great Virtues.”

Weems’ motivations were certainly well-intentioned. The article says this:

“Although there were other myths about Washington in Weems’s book, the cherry tree myth became the most popular. Weems had several motives when he wrote The Life of Washington and the cherry tree myth. Profit was certainly one of them; he rightly assumed that if he wrote a popular history book about Washington it would sell. Weems was also able to counter the early tradition of deifying Washington by focusing on his private virtues, rather than his public accomplishments. A Federalist admirer of order and self-discipline, Weems wanted to present Washington as the perfect role model, especially for young Americans.”

No doubt the writers of the Bible also had good intentions. But intentions don’t make fiction into history.

58

Actually no I am not. It is @Dredge who wants to take all of Genesis as actual literal history. In fact i am currently reading Dr. Collins’ book Discovering the City of Sodom. It appears he has found the correct location but he catches flak because that makes the dating not match Genesis. Hence my comment about “It is only Genesis 1-11 where you get in trouble trying to tie it closely to actual history.” Perhaps I should have said “tie history to the dates in Genesis.”

Not my logic at all.

Genesis 1-11 covers time before recorded history. There wasn’t a written record of any kind. While the authors had access to oral history how accurate would that history be after 4000 years? Since the authors of scripture weren’t just taking dictation from the Holy Spirit the only thing the Spirit had to work with was the stories with which the authors were already familar.

1 Like
59

Probably important to note that this is Steven Collins, not Francis Collins.

60

I often relate it to how oral history, and even written history regarding say, Abraham Lincoln or the JFK assassination is suspect after such a short time. Lincoln is also an example of myth intertwined with history.

Ultimately, we have to have faith that God has preserved those things we wants revealed to us in the Bible despite the fog of time and translation.

61

@Bill_II

Thank you for your clarifcations. I stand corrected.

But I will offer you one of my favorite pet theories - - about the dating of the various books of the “Primary Historical Timeline” of the Old Testament:

I have always felt that the so-called return of the Ark of the Covenant seemed genuine older than Exodus, I have tended towards my working hypothesis that:

Exodus was written to provide a Back Story for the early books of Kins (so-called 1 & 2 Samuel?) - - where the it is told how the Ark first originated.

But then there was a need for yet another Back Story - - this time for the source of the 12 tribes … which takes us to the Patriarchal narrative, and ultimately to the Creation epic.

So, ironically, when you start looking for points of contact and influence between the Hebrew or Jewish priesthood, and the surrounding cultures … you start to notice that the book about the Earth’s deepest past may in fact be the book that was last written…

I bring it up because of your sentence, “Genesis 1-11 covers time before recorded history. There wasn’t a written record of any kind.” < !!!

In fact, there seems to be lots of touch-points of inspiration from Babylonian and Sumerian traditions sustained by Babylon, from the Creation of humanity, the Divine Flood against humanity, and even the towering Ziggurat of Babylon!