Posted on 11/05/2015 2:03:48 AM PST by WhiskeyX
Can science prove Adam and Eve were real? Spirited Debate: Dr. Fazal Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross believe religion and science can prove how life began
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxnews.com ...
We just need to find a male & female pair of corpses without belly buttons.
:’)
Science can’t even prove God is real.
“Science can’t even prove God is real.”
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Grandmother often reminded everyone, “Can’t never did anything.” It may even be that scientists have in deed proven the existence of God and failed to recognize it so far.
> The whole Black Sea deal when the Mediterranean spilled over the Bosphorus was part of same sea level rise back 7600 years, or so, ago.
The sealevel rise had been going on for a long, long time before the Bosphorus gave way.
> Seems the spot between the Tigris and Euphrates River where two other rivers might have joined is under the Persian gulf at this time as sea levels rose.
If that were the case, where are the other two rivers? They’d be flowing into the Persian Gulf. That would work for your explanation, because the four rivers joined together to flow into Eden — in that case the submerged Persian Gulf seafloor would have been Eden at one time.
It would also work for an area well upstream, and still dry land. One problem is, the geographical description doesn’t make sense if Cush is taken to mean either Hindu Kush or Kush in Africa. A second problem is, bdellium is made from a tree sap, and that tree grows in Ethiopia. Luckily, in Josephus’ time, the source of the sap (and probably/possibly an entirely different tree) grew in Babylon.
10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Hav′ilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
There will always be scoffers--indeed, they will always constitute a majority, according to the Bible--but for those willing to look at the evidence, it certainly points to a real Adam and Eve. All the numerous Biblical creation accounts (Job, Genesis, Psalms, etc.) are being increasingly borne out by scientific discoveries as being literally true.
Despite scientists' often-rabid dedication to ignoring God altogether, they have indeed proven His existence in spite of themselves. Hubble's discovery of the Cosmic Creation Event, commonly and popularly known as the Big Bang, did that. It proved that the creation of matter, energy, space, and time could only have been brought about by a transcendant being; moreover, because of the extreme design observed, this being must be all-wise and beyond time.
This is one of many ways in which scientists have vindicated Romans 1:19-20:
...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Nobody will ever be able to *prove* God to an atheists or skeptics satisfaction because every bit of evidence brought to the table will be dismissed as not relevant or adequate.
They hold creationists to standards they don’t hold themselves to.
And as Abraham told the rich man in hell who said that his brothers would believe if Lazarus went back, *Even if someone were to rise from the dead, they wouldn’t believe*.
Lack of belief has nothing to do with lack of evidence.
It’s not *can’t* believe, it’s *won’t* believe.
It looks to me like Fazal Rana and Hugh Ross, scientists, are making statements that strongly support the Christian, Biblical view of human origins, and are suggesting that there is nothing from science that refutes this view. Indeed they suggest that, if anything, recent scientific findings lend support to the Biblical account.
These guys aren't any kind of Darwinian evolutionist....
Thanks so much for the ping, dear sister in Christ!
It is ever thus, and mere men cannot overcome such fanatical resistance. But the Holy Spirit can, and does, tame men, as He did me. Was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.
I know Hugh Ross isn’t any where near evolutionist by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not sure of the other guy but the debate part probably suggested it was between them not that they supported the same side.
The fact that this was presented as any kind of "debate" is misleading. IMHO.
It is very clear to me that Fazal "Fuz" Rana is on the "same side" as Hugh Ross here. Which is particularly lovely (IMHO) because he was born into a Muslim family, and later became a Christian convert.
I trust both these guys.
Considering sciences performance on global cooling/global warming/climate change, I say no.
Wait, I thought the Garden of Eden was found to be in Missouri.
Amen, Boop.
As you -- and those who have read my posts (and seen my graphics on the subject) are aware, I am very much a creationist and very much a physical scientist. So - this thread should be "right up my alley"... '-)
~~~~~~~~
The problem I find with the premise of this thread is that it deals with Adam and Eve as if they were unique physical creations -- and were the very first and only pair of their (physical) kind.
Obviously, (as will be shown below) they were not.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam and Eve were unique spiritual creations "ensouled" by the very Spirit of God to be in His likeness (God is Spirit) -- and the very first such of that kind.
Scripture is very clear that the physical bodies of the pair were NOT uniquely created ex nihilo (caused to exist where nothing had existed before). Scripture specifically and clearly states that their physical bodies were formed (made, shaped, fabricated, molded) from physical matter that was, instead, created "in the beginning" by God.
IOW, the physical materials from which their bodies were FORMED were "that which was just lying around" - i.e. "the dust of the ground":
~~~~~~~~~~~
(The clue to that "outlandish" statement is that humankind is extremely genetically diverse.)
~~~~~~~~~~~
In contrast, genetically, Adam and Eve were genetically IDENTICAL. (Eve was cloned from Adam.)
IF Adam and Eve were the very first two physical humans:
They had the following offspring: sons Cain, Abel and Seth, plus (at least) two additional sons and (at least) two additional daughters. [Validating that offspring count in Scripture is left as an exercise for the reader...]
Their offspring were genetically identical to their parents.
And, since the offspring managed to propagate the species, the only spouses that could have been available to them were their (genetically identical) SIBLINGS.
With that being the (genetic) outcome of Adam and Eve being the very first and only (physical) humans, humankind would be fortunate to even look this good:
As stated above, obviously, that is not the case that exists here on Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Adam and Eve were unique spiritual creations. "Science" (genetics) has no way of detecting that uniqueness.
The question of how the existing radical genetic diversity of humankind came to be (where Cain, Abel, and Seth and their other brothers and sisters got their [genetically different] spouses) is beyond the scope of this article and discussion thread.
I have my own answer -- but neither Hugh Ross, (with whom I agree on many points) nor other participants on this thread, would be expected to agree with it... ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.