Relative dating vs radiometric dating kostenloser flirt chat Dresden
the fossils have been interpreted correctly in both anatomy The Bible tells us that Adam was the first biological man—in Genesis 1–5; Deuteronomy 32:8; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke ; Romans ; 1 Corinthians , 45; 1 Timothy ; and Jude .
They accepted a relatively young age for the Biblical Adam (if they retained belief in him at all), but said that the ‘old’ human fossils came from pre-Adamite human-like creatures. He writes: “[M]y acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ seem to have existed for thousands of years previously. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. I think you may even call some of them The late Anglican cleric John R. Stott (1921-2011) unfortunately believed that God could have created Adam out of some supposed pre-Adamic ‘hominid’.
(Stott was one of the authors of the Lausanne Covenant, and in 2005 Pre-Adamism has thus been used by some Christians to try and harmonize science and the Bible.
And leading ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross teaches something similar when he says that “bipedal, tool-using, large-brained primates roamed Earth for hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) years”.
Ross does not believe in biological evolution, although he accepts cosmic and geologic evolution and the evolutionary timescale.
But human fossils are found ‘dated’ earlier than Adam’s genealogies could possibly allow.
This requires Ross to postulate the existence of creatures with human-like characteristics, but ‘spiritless’ (see Skull Wars). According to Ross, because the world was a place of death, violence and decay for hundreds of thousands/millions of years before the Curse recorded in Genesis –19.
Could there have been human creatures, commonly called ‘pre-Adamites’, living on Earth before God created Adam?
Many readers, no doubt, will think this a foolish question, but it is, in fact, the belief of many evangelicals.
He makes the extraordinary statement: “The step-by-step approach to bipedal primate creation that we can see in the recent fossil record may reasonably reflect God’s understanding of the difficulty other life-forms would encounter in adapting to sinful humans.” This is a classic example of the confusion that Christians get themselves into when they depart from the text of the Bible and allow outside influences, especially long-age naturalism, to dictate the meaning of Scripture.
In 1655, Frenchman Isaac La Peyrère published his theory that not only did Adam come from pre-Adamic stock (rather than being formed by God from the dust of the ground), but also Cain’s wife and the inhabitants of Cain’s city came from centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures.
Hugh Ross and his fellow progressive creationists, along with the other pre-Adamite proponents, are trying to rescue the Bible from a perceived conflict with ‘science’ by reinterpreting the Bible rather than by questioning the ‘science’.