Question about Creationism and history

[Natural Order]

Don’t forget it restarted with Noah!



It’s all a load of malarky.

 

[Slapjit]

Too early fi me to tink fam so mi chat with chat n affi chattin' him give me dis him better at English den me but I got di Canadan on broski ting was hella long at first tho so mi tell him mek ting easy like 1/4 of di lengf cuz nobody got tayum fi essays yuh zeeit:

The relationship between the biblical creation story and human history after Genesis is a fascinating topic, especially when you consider how it interacts with modern science. Some believers take a literal approach, arguing that Adam and Eve were real historical figures and the ancestors of all humans, with the Earth being around 6,000 years old. Events like the Tower of Babel are often used to explain the origin of different languages and races. As Ken Ham puts it, “All humans are descended from Adam and Eve… physical characteristics vary because of the sorting of genetic information” (Ham 105).

However, this interpretation faces pushback from genetics and archaeology. Research in genetics shows that human diversity couldn’t have come from just two individuals in such a short period of time. As biologist Dennis Venema notes, “human genetic diversity is far too great to have arisen from just two people within the last few thousand years” (Venema 43). Archaeological evidence also challenges the timeline; for example, tools discovered at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco date back around 300,000 years, well before the Genesis account. As paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey explains, “the fossil record shows that anatomically modern humans were present tens of thousands of years before any biblical records” (Leakey 87).

To address these issues, many theologians see Genesis as symbolic rather than literal. C.S. Lewis famously suggested that Genesis should be understood as “myth, not in the sense of being untrue, but as a poetic way of conveying fundamental truths about human existence” (Lewis 55). Some believers even take a theistic evolution stance, where God guides evolution. Francis Collins, a geneticist, argues that “science and faith are not in conflict… the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and we believe God is behind it” (Collins 99).

In the end, the way people interpret Genesis varies widely, from a strict literal reading to more symbolic or evolutionary frameworks. This ongoing discussion highlights the interplay between faith, science, and ancient texts.

Works Cited​

Collins, Francis. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Free Press, 2006.

Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. Master Books, 1987.

Leakey, Richard. The Origin of Humankind. Basic Books, 1994.

Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. Macmillan, 1940.

Venema, Dennis. Adam and the Genome. Brazos Press, 2017.


tl;dr

The debate over the biblical creation story and human history centers on whether Adam and Eve were literal ancestors of all humans or symbolic figures. Literal interpretations conflict with genetic and archaeological evidence, while more symbolic or theistic evolution views aim to reconcile faith with science. This ongoing discussion reflects diverse approaches to understanding ancient texts alongside modern discoveries.

 

[SirRealKiller]

Is it though?

Yes, it's something I have done a lot of reading on and the Catholic Church has been pretty consistent on it from the beginning. Evolution wasn't even a thing until 1850's , right so that's when the Catholic Church's earliest writings on it began and have been consistent from then forward. It was determined by the Church that evolution didn't go against the church's teachings or the bible for reasons given in my last post. The Church does not take Genesis as literal and Adam and Eve being the first two humans doesn't mean they didn't evolve from something else.

 

[Natural Order]

Abiogenesis and evolution are compatible fyi.

They’re two entirely different discussions.

 

[Natural Order]

Why did God screw up so bad and make his top creation the most sickly and imperfect?

Whoops!

 

[LEWIS540]

Yes, it's something I have done a lot of reading on and the Catholic Church has been pretty consistent on it from the beginning. Evolution wasn't even a thing until 1850's , right so that's when the Catholic Church's earliest writings on it began and have been consistent from then forward. It was determined by the Church that evolution didn't go against the church's teachings or the bible for reasons given in my last post. The Church does not take Genesis as literal and Adam and Eve being the first two humans doesn't mean they didn't evolve from something else.

Yeah, so as science moves on, they've moved goal posts and redefined earlier beliefs.

Not a stretch at all.

 

[LEWIS540]

Not an avid reader, but does the bible specifically state 6000 years or is it a misreading?

In the writing, god created the universe and earth. It was desolate.

Then, at some point, humans were created. It was super cool with lighting and everything.

People who say six thousand years miss the possible gaps between time, which leads to 6k instead of a much longer amount of time.

And what about the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe?

 

[Fedorgasm]

I wondered the same thing when I was 7, and the lady running my Sunday school said that after Adam and Eve, god created more people.

Then when I was older I had a friend that was a Baptist and he said everyone came from Adam and Eve but their genetics were pure back then so you could bang your sister and not have retarded children.

My own personal belief is that we ARE the retarded children. Who knows how smart we'd be if we weren't descendants of incest.

 

[SirRealKiller]

Yeah, so as science moves on, they've moved goal posts and redefined earlier beliefs.

Not a stretch at all.

No. The Church never believed Genesis to be literal. What part of this do you not understand?

Are you one of these militant atheists or something? Now there are a lot of protestant churches that do teach it to be literal but that has never been the position of the Catholic Church, ever.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

The point of my thread isn't to debate whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.
For the sake of the argument, let's say it is 6000 years old. But then how would you explain man-made tools and artifacts from all over the world that came out around the Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden? And how would you explain different races of people?

Oh ok sorry about that, I misunderstood what you said.

I don't know, it would be weird phenomenon at the least. So yeah hard to explain that happening with the tools/artifacts and different races.

It seems improbable to put it mildly.

 

[LEWIS540]

No. The Church never believed Genesis to be literal. What part of this do you not understand?

Are you one of these militant atheists or something? Now there are a lot of protestant churches that do teach it to be literal but that has never been the position of the Catholic Church, ever.

So they pick and choose which bits or literal and which are not?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

I hope this doesn't devolve into a shit show but I was just curious how believers of the Abrahamic creation story explain human history after Genesis?

The main contention against the bible is evolution but I always thought you don't even have to go back as far as dinos to start questioning it.
How did human history go from 2 people to how it is now within 5000-6000 years, or however old the earth is?

I'm wondering if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and I assume they started somewhere in the middle east, they must have looked like current day people from the middle east.
How did these two middle eastern people create all the people we have today who spread everywhere to the globe, some of whom are Indian, Scandinavian, Slavic, African, Asian, Aboriginal, Polynesian, Native American, and so forth?

And of course there are prehistoric tools that are dated to be way older than 6000 years. But around 6000 years ago, there were many bronze age civilizations popping up all over the planet. Did some of these people immediately invent boats after Adam and Eve birthed them and head to the Americas? Chinese people say their history is about 5000 years old. So did Chinese civilization just pop into existence around the same time as the events of the bible occurred? Did some descendants of Adam and Eve move to China, become Chinese looking somehow, and create a massive civilization? Or are other races of people not descendants of Adam and Eve?

I admit I'm totally ignorant of the events of the old testament. I went to sunday school as a kid but didn't really pay attention. I just remember the pastor talking about how evolution is fake and that the earth is 5000 years old, but not what happened between the Eden and the rest of human history.
I'm not trying to attack religious people, but genuinely curious how they explain this.

We are God and he is us, in the same way God is not us and we are not him.

All the rest are just stories explaining this.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[TheTickG]

And what about the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe?

It's detailed in the appendix.

 

[Berserker13]

 

[SirRealKiller]

So they pick and choose which bits or literal and which are not?

Yes, you clearly don't know shit about the types of writting.

Some of the books are clearly written to litteral such as the histories Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther (ours is the long version), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. If you read these you would tell that they are written as history , even non-Christian historians agree they are histories.

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Siarch are all poems. Poems by definition are not to be taken as literal.

The letters are literal as well, like the Corinthians... as they are letters written directly to people with teachings/instructions.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of literal, not sure you really understand.

 

[blaseblase]

Asking religious folks to explain human history is a pointless endeavor.

 

[blaseblase]

Not an avid reader, but does the bible specifically state 6000 years or is it a misreading?

There is no specific date. I think he's addressing specifically young earth creationists.

 

[BFoe]

Not an avid reader, but does the bible specifically state 6000 years or is it a misreading?

In the writing, god created the universe and earth. It was desolate.

Then, at some point, humans were created. It was super cool with lighting and everything.

People who say six thousand years miss the possible gaps between time, which leads to 6k instead of a much longer amount of time.

There is no specific date. I think he's addressing specifically young earth creationists.

No, the Bible nowhere states that the earth is 6000 years old. Some creationists get this number by counting the ages listed in the Bible of the generations from Adam to Jesus.

 

[Spam On Rye]

It's almost like 2000 years ago, when these "beliefs" evolved ( ), human knowledge couldn't help explain things that are relatively simple to explain now...........so human nature dictated we needed answers.


There is no logical reason to believe in those fairy stories outside of "faith", yet there is no way people who have faith can ever be convinced otherwise.


.........and it's impossible for a conversation like this not to devolve into a shit show.

Do you have an epistemological justification for your claim? You said there's no logical reason to believe, so would be interested to see if you can justify rank materialism using logic. I'm not arguing for religion here. It's just an internal critique.

 

[TheNinja]

Not an avid reader, but does the bible specifically state 6000 years or is it a misreading?

In the writing, god created the universe and earth. It was desolate.

Then, at some point, humans were created. It was super cool with lighting and everything.

People who say six thousand years miss the possible gaps between time, which leads to 6k instead of a much longer amount of time.

My understanding is that the 6000 years comes from the Bible timeline where some books of the Bible basically lay out a list like Bill son of Bob son of Jimmy son of Greg son of _____. So they'll take the estimated life span in a sense and put together a rough timeline based on the generations.

I do believe in Creation but I do not believe 7 "days" were days in the sense that we view them now. I also believe the earth was created "old" if that makes sense. So when you carbon date things or whatever , it's not totally accurate. I think the earth existed without humans for quite some time before they were created.

I also believe that things evolve constantly and that evolution of things/creatures/humans exist over time, this is obvious.

Finally......I also believe it is not a salvation matter so I don't actually worry about it all that much to be honest. Whether you believe it's 6000 years old or 600000000000 years old. Whether a "day" was a "day" back then. Ultimately doesn't matter.