Thoughts on Evolution and its compatibility/incompatibility with Christianity?
- Thread starter XavierJesusLovesIndia
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Cell division is a process in which a cell suddenly divides into two cells of the same size in a flash, and these two cells are twice the size of the previous cells. If the law of conservation of energy is used to explain, the energy required to create a cell is almost unimaginable, and this also violates the law of thermodynamics.
They turned over the genealogy and added up the time. It seems that there is so much time, but the genealogy is not comprehensive. I tried to count the time, but it seems that it has been more than 2000 years since Adam arrived at Noah...I forgot what it was. I only remember that I calculated 2500.
But I'm not sure how to calculate 6000?
Whether it is 6000 or tens of billions of years, God exists. If it is tens of billions of years, it shows that God is immortal.
But I'm not sure how to calculate 6000?
Whether it is 6000 or tens of billions of years, God exists. If it is tens of billions of years, it shows that God is immortal.
Your referring to the genealogy, which of course is abbreviated. Genesis is in the Hebrew scripture with the express purpose of linking, the Jews to their Patriarch Abraham. Then ultimately to Adam and to the creation event itself. That's why Genesis was written.
Genesis is a book written in Hebrew.
No one cares whether there are missing links (and there are) in the genealogy, that is not the purpose of Genesis.
The characters in Genesis are authentic people but Genesis is not a history book.
Genesis is solely focused on establishing the link between Adam and Abraham.
Genesis is a summary of a vast period of time, condensed into a simple narrative for a simple people.
The age of the earth is another matter entirely.
In Genesis, the earth exists and is formless and void, before the first day even begins.
There is no doubt the earth is much older than 6000 years.
Even Biblical Archaeology will date ancient towns such as Jericho beyond 6000 years.
We accept Genesis on the grounds of faith. Genesis is not a scientific journal or an accurate history of humanity.
That was never the purpose of Genesis.
Genesis is a book written in Hebrew.
No one cares whether there are missing links (and there are) in the genealogy, that is not the purpose of Genesis.
The characters in Genesis are authentic people but Genesis is not a history book.
Genesis is solely focused on establishing the link between Adam and Abraham.
Genesis is a summary of a vast period of time, condensed into a simple narrative for a simple people.
The age of the earth is another matter entirely.
In Genesis, the earth exists and is formless and void, before the first day even begins.
There is no doubt the earth is much older than 6000 years.
Even Biblical Archaeology will date ancient towns such as Jericho beyond 6000 years.
We accept Genesis on the grounds of faith. Genesis is not a scientific journal or an accurate history of humanity.
That was never the purpose of Genesis.
On the fixed kinds.. I mean that in the bible you have an early set of seperate types of animals.. like a cattle type.. horse type.. etc.. and then variations on these as you see now. But you don't have a whale evolving into a cow, or a fish to a man. You've got man as a seperate species to apes.. with variation in mankind, not apes becoming men.. or a seperate line from other apes becoming men.
As to the catastrophic changes.. the flood is the main one. But there are also many disasters and changes in nature that uniformitarianism that gets coupled with macro evolution don't really address.
I think many scientists changed their way of thinking to account for catastrophes and disasters.. calling it 'punctuated equilibrium'.. they still had long ages.. but in between ages.. these periods of upheaval and catastrophe. This is getting closer to the bible account anyway.
As to the catastrophic changes.. the flood is the main one. But there are also many disasters and changes in nature that uniformitarianism that gets coupled with macro evolution don't really address.
I think many scientists changed their way of thinking to account for catastrophes and disasters.. calling it 'punctuated equilibrium'.. they still had long ages.. but in between ages.. these periods of upheaval and catastrophe. This is getting closer to the bible account anyway.
Dr. Carl Werner gives a very good argument against evolution below: one of the claims of evolutionists is "time+micro-evolution=macro-evolution". In other words, that given enough time, monkeys can turn into men, or even particles can evolve into people. Now, what if it can be shown that, even across allegedly "350 MN" or "3.5 BN" years, some particular animal phyla did not change at all, but look exactly like their modern living descendants. That would strongly suggest the kind of macro-evolutionary changes evolutionists claim never actually happened. Sure, you have small changes within kinds, but never apes giving birth to human beings, nor microbes turning into microbiologists over so-called billions of years. Here's the source. They're called "Living Fossils".
"Dr. Carl Werner: 2:02 onwards "We went to 60 museums and we took 60,000 photographs. At the dinosaur dig sites, we found samples from every major animal phyla living today buried with the dinosaurs, and those animals look the same.
Interviewer: Say that again ... it's incredible.
Dr. W: At the dinosaur sites, we found fossils and samples of modern animals from every major animal phyla buried with the dinosaurs and they look the same ... it's worse than that, not only did we find this for animals, then for the plants, we found samples from every major plant phyla - of plants living today, buried along the dinosaurs, fossilized, and it looked the same as as plants living today."
Another source: https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils
"Many modern animals in dinosaur rock!
I asked Carl just how many modern types of animals he had found in the dinosaur rock layers.
“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”
Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles
“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms"
"Dr. Carl Werner: 2:02 onwards "We went to 60 museums and we took 60,000 photographs. At the dinosaur dig sites, we found samples from every major animal phyla living today buried with the dinosaurs, and those animals look the same.
Interviewer: Say that again ... it's incredible.
Dr. W: At the dinosaur sites, we found fossils and samples of modern animals from every major animal phyla buried with the dinosaurs and they look the same ... it's worse than that, not only did we find this for animals, then for the plants, we found samples from every major plant phyla - of plants living today, buried along the dinosaurs, fossilized, and it looked the same as as plants living today."
Another source: https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils
"Many modern animals in dinosaur rock!
I asked Carl just how many modern types of animals he had found in the dinosaur rock layers.
“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”
Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles
“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms"
-
2
- Show all
More Info: https://creation.com/living-fossils-enigma
"A New Scientist article1 ponders a baffling enigma to evolutionists—‘living fossils’. These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilised forms, believed to have lived ‘millions of years ago.’ Examples include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old2), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years).
This poses a conundrum for evolution: ‘Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?’ New Scientist quotes several evolutionists who say ‘chance’ and ‘luck’ are the answer. Unsatisfied with this, other evolutionists look for alternative explanations. They believe the cockroach (reputed to have survived for 250 million years) demonstrates that the key to success is to ‘be abundant and live everywhere’,1 i.e. to be an opportunistic generalist, not fussy about food and habitat. However, many ‘living fossils’ are in fact highly specialised, such as the coelacanth, superbly suited to living in deep-sea caves. New Scientist suggests that the coelacanth remains unchanged because its habitat has not changed. But this applies also to many other species, living and extinct.
Some evolutionists think the ‘evolutionary straitjacket’ of long generation times (e.g. at least 15 years for the tuatara) ‘slows evolution’ of living fossils, but this cannot apply to the rapidly reproducing (but unchanging) cockroaches and archebacteria (the latter multiplying in minutes, yet believed by evolutionists to have been on Earth for 3.5 billion years) ...
To Christians, however, there should be no mystery about these so-called ‘living fossils’. We have an eyewitness account (God’s Word) of how these creatures were created to be fruitful and multiply after their kind. So the fact that modern creatures have ‘stayed the same’ as their fossilised ancestors is no surprise at all. (And we also know from the Bible that they were created thousands, not millions, of years ago.)
Why, then, do evolutionists cling to their beloved old-age theories despite paradoxical inconsistencies and other glaring evidence to the contrary? As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4"
We know what evolution is and what it should predict if it were true. The fact is evolutionists refuse to admit any evidence that falsifies it, because they want to run from God the personal Creator. Some of them even frankly admit as much.
Start with archaebacteria (which multiplies in minutes, yet is believed by evolutionists to have been on Earth for 3.5 billion years) - it is a perfect example of a living fossil. Either it proves (1) evolution will never happen even in 3.5 billion years, and therefore the absurd theory is moot anyway, or (2) archaebacteria are not in fact 3.5 billion years old, but much younger. Then we can work our way up to "350 million" year old coelacanth fish. These species did not evolve, over the alleged millions of years they lived. This is totally contrary to what evolution expects.
The most logical inferences from this are (1) either the vast majority of plants and animals do not really change significantly (i.e. macroevolution never takes place no matter how much time is thrown in) even over millions and billions of years, or (2) all those plants and animals, and the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils, are much, much younger than is commonly believed. And in either case - it does not really matter which - evolution did not happen and man was created.
"A New Scientist article1 ponders a baffling enigma to evolutionists—‘living fossils’. These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilised forms, believed to have lived ‘millions of years ago.’ Examples include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old2), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years).
This poses a conundrum for evolution: ‘Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?’ New Scientist quotes several evolutionists who say ‘chance’ and ‘luck’ are the answer. Unsatisfied with this, other evolutionists look for alternative explanations. They believe the cockroach (reputed to have survived for 250 million years) demonstrates that the key to success is to ‘be abundant and live everywhere’,1 i.e. to be an opportunistic generalist, not fussy about food and habitat. However, many ‘living fossils’ are in fact highly specialised, such as the coelacanth, superbly suited to living in deep-sea caves. New Scientist suggests that the coelacanth remains unchanged because its habitat has not changed. But this applies also to many other species, living and extinct.
Some evolutionists think the ‘evolutionary straitjacket’ of long generation times (e.g. at least 15 years for the tuatara) ‘slows evolution’ of living fossils, but this cannot apply to the rapidly reproducing (but unchanging) cockroaches and archebacteria (the latter multiplying in minutes, yet believed by evolutionists to have been on Earth for 3.5 billion years) ...
To Christians, however, there should be no mystery about these so-called ‘living fossils’. We have an eyewitness account (God’s Word) of how these creatures were created to be fruitful and multiply after their kind. So the fact that modern creatures have ‘stayed the same’ as their fossilised ancestors is no surprise at all. (And we also know from the Bible that they were created thousands, not millions, of years ago.)
Why, then, do evolutionists cling to their beloved old-age theories despite paradoxical inconsistencies and other glaring evidence to the contrary? As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4"
We know what evolution is and what it should predict if it were true. The fact is evolutionists refuse to admit any evidence that falsifies it, because they want to run from God the personal Creator. Some of them even frankly admit as much.
Start with archaebacteria (which multiplies in minutes, yet is believed by evolutionists to have been on Earth for 3.5 billion years) - it is a perfect example of a living fossil. Either it proves (1) evolution will never happen even in 3.5 billion years, and therefore the absurd theory is moot anyway, or (2) archaebacteria are not in fact 3.5 billion years old, but much younger. Then we can work our way up to "350 million" year old coelacanth fish. These species did not evolve, over the alleged millions of years they lived. This is totally contrary to what evolution expects.
The most logical inferences from this are (1) either the vast majority of plants and animals do not really change significantly (i.e. macroevolution never takes place no matter how much time is thrown in) even over millions and billions of years, or (2) all those plants and animals, and the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils, are much, much younger than is commonly believed. And in either case - it does not really matter which - evolution did not happen and man was created.
P
To say or even suggest that evolution was part or all of creation undermines the very first verse of the bible.
The evidences of the spoken creation were witnessed by our first parents adam and eve.
Scripture explains the earths atmosphere was different from what it is now causing rapid growth and very Little if any deterioration.
The evidences of the spoken creation were witnessed by our first parents adam and eve.
Scripture explains the earths atmosphere was different from what it is now causing rapid growth and very Little if any deterioration.
I know some want to take a "6000 years or nothing" position, but imo it is not necessary to take such a view. We can allow for the view Inquisitor was mentioning above (that there are some gaps in the genealogies etc) and the Earth might be slightly older than 6000 years (though not as old as what the evolutionists claim). I personally believe Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago. But whether one believes in YEC or Old Earth/Intelligent Design, imo the important thing is to strongly oppose evolution.
Now, here are some other facts from the fossil record most evolutionists don't popularize, because if people knew it, they would suspect most fossilization arose from Noah's Flood, not "millions of years" of evolutionary myths: 95% of all fossils are Marine.
"95% OF ALL FOSSILS ARE MARINE
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even to the highest mountain tops. 95% are all marine. The majority of the living organisms on earth are from the oceans as remains true with fossil volume.
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even found on the highest mountain tops. 95% of all fossils are marine (oceanic). Of the remaining 5% about 4.75% consists of algae and plant fossils. The remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insect fossils. The remaining 0.0238% of fossils include all vertebrates, mammals, however most are fish. Finally, dinosaur fossils represent a tiny fraction of 1% with only 0.013% of fossils being dinosaur which most consist of only a few bones or fragments. https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/95-of-all-fossils-are-marine/
Continued here:
"Fossil Record Is Complete
The fossil record can be deemed essentially complete. Darwin was concerned about its lack of transitional forms, hypothetical creatures that demonstrate one type changing into another over time. He was hopeful they would be found one day.
But extensive exploration and fossil discovery in following years have not brought such in-between forms to light. The vast majority of taxonomic orders and families which live today are also found as fossils, yet without fossil transitions. We can be certain the record is substantially complete.
All Phyla Present at the Start
The "Cambrian explosion" constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life, then increase to two, and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start, each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive. Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian.
Some phyla have gone extinct over subsequent years, but most have continued into the present. There is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils, as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather, it is more like a lawn than a tree."
From: https://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/
Now, here are some other facts from the fossil record most evolutionists don't popularize, because if people knew it, they would suspect most fossilization arose from Noah's Flood, not "millions of years" of evolutionary myths: 95% of all fossils are Marine.
"95% OF ALL FOSSILS ARE MARINE
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even to the highest mountain tops. 95% are all marine. The majority of the living organisms on earth are from the oceans as remains true with fossil volume.
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even found on the highest mountain tops. 95% of all fossils are marine (oceanic). Of the remaining 5% about 4.75% consists of algae and plant fossils. The remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insect fossils. The remaining 0.0238% of fossils include all vertebrates, mammals, however most are fish. Finally, dinosaur fossils represent a tiny fraction of 1% with only 0.013% of fossils being dinosaur which most consist of only a few bones or fragments. https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/95-of-all-fossils-are-marine/
Continued here:
"Fossil Record Is Complete
The fossil record can be deemed essentially complete. Darwin was concerned about its lack of transitional forms, hypothetical creatures that demonstrate one type changing into another over time. He was hopeful they would be found one day.
But extensive exploration and fossil discovery in following years have not brought such in-between forms to light. The vast majority of taxonomic orders and families which live today are also found as fossils, yet without fossil transitions. We can be certain the record is substantially complete.
All Phyla Present at the Start
The "Cambrian explosion" constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life, then increase to two, and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start, each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive. Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian.
Some phyla have gone extinct over subsequent years, but most have continued into the present. There is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils, as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather, it is more like a lawn than a tree."
From: https://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/
-
1
- Show all
I think about how God works.I've seen people lose their life while God spared mine.Did God treat them like the one on the cross when he was on the cross,or were they clay jars meant to be shattered?
So I'll think about how he works sometimes,and to me it's like how a programmer works.God will work within the boundary of his creations.The rules he set,he will not step outside those rules himself.
On earth, as it is in heaven.Things will evolve on earth just like we do in the spirit.The more we trust in God and walk in the spirit,the more we change into a new creature.
The things of the world will adapt to their surroundings just like we do in the spirit.But it isn't evolution like society teaches but the word of God.It will be by his word that things will change.Everything seen and unseen was created by his word.
So I'll think about how he works sometimes,and to me it's like how a programmer works.God will work within the boundary of his creations.The rules he set,he will not step outside those rules himself.
On earth, as it is in heaven.Things will evolve on earth just like we do in the spirit.The more we trust in God and walk in the spirit,the more we change into a new creature.
The things of the world will adapt to their surroundings just like we do in the spirit.But it isn't evolution like society teaches but the word of God.It will be by his word that things will change.Everything seen and unseen was created by his word.
This a good example about how your talking points in many cases are targeted against atheistic metaphysical naturalism and do not actually address God guided evolution.
I don't think there will be a single Christian proponent of evolution that would claim "God had nothing to do with it"
I don't think there will be a single Christian proponent of evolution that would claim "God had nothing to do with it"
-
1
- Show all
Hi Jocund. Ok, fair enough. I agree there are many Theistic Evolutionists and Christians who believe God used evolution, and of course that statement wouldn't apply to them.
But most of the professional evolutionists, including the one cited in that Creation.com article, do say expressly, that part of their motivation for adhering to evolution is avoiding God.
"As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4 ...
4. Lewontin, R., ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, 9 January 9 1997, p. 31."
But most of the professional evolutionists, including the one cited in that Creation.com article, do say expressly, that part of their motivation for adhering to evolution is avoiding God.
"As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4 ...
4. Lewontin, R., ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, 9 January 9 1997, p. 31."
-
1
- Show all
Here is more evidence that fossils are younger than commonly believed.
Soft tissues, collagen and red blood cells present in fossils believed to be "70 Million Years old"!
Now, if there is anything certain, it is that red blood cells, soft tissue etc cannot survive 70 million years.
So which inference is better? (1) Soft Tissue, RBC etc in fossils somehow "miraculously" survived 70 MN years?
or (2) those fossils in fact are not 70 Million years old, but much younger than that, and that's why RBC etc is there?
"Dinosaur soft tissue in fossil bones!? Nearly every CMI speaker has watched incredulous looks on people’s faces as pictures from a 2005 Science magazine article flash on-screen. These show transparent, branching flexible blood vessels and red blood cells alongside soft and stretchy ligaments from a supposedly 68 million-year-old T.rex bone. The remarkable discoveries by palaeontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer have rocked the scientific world.
Time and time again
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.2 They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin,3,4 actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.
Not only that, but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. And Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.5
Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.6
Taken from: https://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Soft tissues, collagen and red blood cells present in fossils believed to be "70 Million Years old"!
Now, if there is anything certain, it is that red blood cells, soft tissue etc cannot survive 70 million years.
So which inference is better? (1) Soft Tissue, RBC etc in fossils somehow "miraculously" survived 70 MN years?
or (2) those fossils in fact are not 70 Million years old, but much younger than that, and that's why RBC etc is there?
"Dinosaur soft tissue in fossil bones!? Nearly every CMI speaker has watched incredulous looks on people’s faces as pictures from a 2005 Science magazine article flash on-screen. These show transparent, branching flexible blood vessels and red blood cells alongside soft and stretchy ligaments from a supposedly 68 million-year-old T.rex bone. The remarkable discoveries by palaeontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer have rocked the scientific world.
Time and time again
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.2 They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin,3,4 actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.
Not only that, but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. And Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.5
Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.6
Taken from: https://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Is that a reliable way to calculate the age of humanity or the age of the nation of Israel.
The subject of the Old Testament appears to be the history of the nation of Israel, not the history of civilization.
The number of generations from Adam to Abraham is approximately 20 generations. But Abraham eventually travels to Egypt and Egypt is a booming empire. Abraham probably lived around 2100 BC. Yet Egypt has a history of Neolithic settlements as far back as 6000 BC.
So people were moving and settling long before 6000 BC.
As I said before, the genealogy in the Old Testament is an overview, not an exact record of generations.
The subject of the Old Testament appears to be the history of the nation of Israel, not the history of civilization.
The number of generations from Adam to Abraham is approximately 20 generations. But Abraham eventually travels to Egypt and Egypt is a booming empire. Abraham probably lived around 2100 BC. Yet Egypt has a history of Neolithic settlements as far back as 6000 BC.
So people were moving and settling long before 6000 BC.
As I said before, the genealogy in the Old Testament is an overview, not an exact record of generations.
I know some want to take a "6000 years or nothing" position, but imo it is not necessary to take such a view. We can allow for the view Inquisitor was mentioning above (that there are some gaps in the genealogies etc) and the Earth might be slightly older than 6000 years (though not as old as what the evolutionists claim). I personally believe Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago. But whether one believes in YEC or Old Earth/Intelligent Design, imo the important thing is to strongly oppose evolution.
Now, here are some other facts from the fossil record most evolutionists don't popularize, because if people knew it, they would suspect most fossilization arose from Noah's Flood, not "millions of years" of evolutionary myths: 95% of all fossils are Marine.
"95% OF ALL FOSSILS ARE MARINE
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even to the highest mountain tops. 95% are all marine. The majority of the living organisms on earth are from the oceans as remains true with fossil volume.
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even found on the highest mountain tops. 95% of all fossils are marine (oceanic). Of the remaining 5% about 4.75% consists of algae and plant fossils. The remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insect fossils. The remaining 0.0238% of fossils include all vertebrates, mammals, however most are fish. Finally, dinosaur fossils represent a tiny fraction of 1% with only 0.013% of fossils being dinosaur which most consist of only a few bones or fragments. https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/95-of-all-fossils-are-marine/
Continued here:
"Fossil Record Is Complete
The fossil record can be deemed essentially complete. Darwin was concerned about its lack of transitional forms, hypothetical creatures that demonstrate one type changing into another over time. He was hopeful they would be found one day.
But extensive exploration and fossil discovery in following years have not brought such in-between forms to light. The vast majority of taxonomic orders and families which live today are also found as fossils, yet without fossil transitions. We can be certain the record is substantially complete.
All Phyla Present at the Start
The "Cambrian explosion" constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life, then increase to two, and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start, each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive. Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian.
Some phyla have gone extinct over subsequent years, but most have continued into the present. There is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils, as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather, it is more like a lawn than a tree."
From: https://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/
Now, here are some other facts from the fossil record most evolutionists don't popularize, because if people knew it, they would suspect most fossilization arose from Noah's Flood, not "millions of years" of evolutionary myths: 95% of all fossils are Marine.
"95% OF ALL FOSSILS ARE MARINE
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even to the highest mountain tops. 95% are all marine. The majority of the living organisms on earth are from the oceans as remains true with fossil volume.
Massive sedimentary layers cover the entire earth, even found on the highest mountain tops. 95% of all fossils are marine (oceanic). Of the remaining 5% about 4.75% consists of algae and plant fossils. The remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insect fossils. The remaining 0.0238% of fossils include all vertebrates, mammals, however most are fish. Finally, dinosaur fossils represent a tiny fraction of 1% with only 0.013% of fossils being dinosaur which most consist of only a few bones or fragments. https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/95-of-all-fossils-are-marine/
Continued here:
"Fossil Record Is Complete
The fossil record can be deemed essentially complete. Darwin was concerned about its lack of transitional forms, hypothetical creatures that demonstrate one type changing into another over time. He was hopeful they would be found one day.
But extensive exploration and fossil discovery in following years have not brought such in-between forms to light. The vast majority of taxonomic orders and families which live today are also found as fossils, yet without fossil transitions. We can be certain the record is substantially complete.
All Phyla Present at the Start
The "Cambrian explosion" constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life, then increase to two, and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start, each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive. Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian.
Some phyla have gone extinct over subsequent years, but most have continued into the present. There is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils, as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather, it is more like a lawn than a tree."
From: https://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/
On another topic, the lack of transitional species within the fossil record is a major problem. The fossil record should be overflowing with transitional species, but that is not the case. All we have is these rather abrupt appearances of species in various epochs. On the surface there are similarities between different species but the fossil record. Seems to conceal these transitional species.
Evolutionary theory is a powerful scientific theory but there is something wrong at the deeper levels.