Dinosaur Propaganda

"'Neanderthal Man' suffered from arthritis and rickets
About the time of Darwin in 1860, 'Neanderthal Man' was discovered and was declared to be a sub-human ancestor. A famous anatomist Dr. Rudolph Virchow pointed out that the bones were not sub-human but were old people suffering from arthritis and rickets. This was eventually acknowledged by other scientists."

Hmmmm. If you have not been lied to you have at least been misled. Virchow said that the FIRST Neanderthal found had suffered from rickets. In childhood. He also found that the individual had a head injury in middle age and arthritis in old age. The rickets WERE NOT claimed a the cause of the difference in physical appearance and only were about the ONE sample.

Think about it. Rickets is caused by poor nutrition and lack of calcium. The bones of Neanderthals were about 50% thivker than those of modern humans. Poor nutrition and lack of calcium will not cause you to grow a heavy, thick, powerful skeleton!

Plus, the physical differences are not the sorts of things that would be caused by rickets, even if you imagine somehow that it infected the entire population. For example, could you explain just how rickets would cause a skull to have brow ridges? What about a low forehead? What about the occipital bun?

One final thing is that DNA has been obtained from some Neanderthal samples. The DNA is well outside of that of modern humans.

So, the claims you have been told are an example of false YE claims afterall. But, for good measure, lets give another false YE claim.

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.

Morris based this on a legitimate paper [Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607. ] thatwas fdoing testing on some rocks from a recent lava flow in Hawaii.

Now, when rocks are heated to a sufficiently high temperature and are melted, the argon in the rocks escape. When the lava hardens into rock, the potassium-40 begins decaying into Ar-39. By measuring the ratios, a date can be determined. Now if the rocks are not heated sufficiently, the argon does not escape and the rocks will date older than they really are.

Funkhouser and Naughton were purposely removing xenoliths from the rocks that did not melt to see how much older they would date. Of course they dated as old because they had not been reset by melting. They also tested the bulk rocks and found that the ages were zero, as expected.

So Morris takes the data that measured too old, ignores the known reason that it dated too old, and then claims that radiometric dating does not work. If he actually read the paper, he should know better. It was easy to see and was even the purpose of the work. He lied about the true results of the study. Properly selected samples dated correctly. Samples that the geologsts could tell did not fully melt did not date correctly.

 

Since evolutionists outnumber creationist by more than 100 to 1, if there is the same degree of dishonesty among both groups, one would expect to find 100 times as many fraudulent evolutionist studies and you would fraudulent creationist studies. But just the opposite is the case. We find 100 times as many fraudulent creationist studies as be do fraudulent evolutionist studies. Do the simple math and you find that the creationists, who are supposed to be Christians, are 10,000 times more dishonest that the evolutionists who are accused of being atheists.

I may be a bit off on my statistics, but I believe that you get the point.

 

UTEOTW,Have you studied the inflation of the earths age?Do you really think your 4.6 billion will stand for long,someone if they haven't aready has hard scientific PROOF that the world is older.Do you know how many P.H.D.s it takes to sign off on a theory to make it a scientific fact?Could you with out printing the book,tell us how you come by 4.6 billion?

 

If there had been no rationalist period and the Church had continued to regulate . . . alchemy we would be stuck where? in the steam engine age?

 

I haven't got ready answers to your fake/hoax claims. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence that the earth is young and we could debate these things until God's Kingdom comes, but we are told not to:

"...avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9)

I believe the bold parts above are distinct from the statement about 'strivings about the law' but just in case someone would like to knitpick this verse and say that it relates only to the law, I would point out that Genesis is a part of the Pentateuch, which is the Jewish 'Torah', which word means 'instruction', or in other words 'law'.

I notice that no-one commented on my statement below.

Could you evolutionist Christians tell me what you base your faith on? For example:

1. What did Jesus die for? He died on the cross to pay the penalty of sin (yours and mine - He didn't have any Himself). Lots of Scripture could be quoted here, but for the sake of space I have just quoted two, especially since I would be very surprised if genuine Christians would dispute this point!

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29)

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

2. Where did sin come from? Obvious question isn't it? Sin entered the world when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as recorded for us in Genesis chapter 3 (if you are not familiar with this you really ought to read it - it is absolutely foundational - it is the very reason why the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died).

3. What was the consequence of sin?

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12)

Basic Christian teaching isn't it? OK, next question for you evolutionists; well more of a statement really, but I invite your comments.

4. The fact that there wasn't any death before sin entered the world, immediately tells us (i.e. Christians - we wouldn't expect the unsaved to accept this) that any theory which says that there was death before Adam sinned is wrong. So, that rules out the theory of evolution, since it claims that we, and all other living things, gradually evolved from other lifeforms, which have since died. To come back to the dinosaur topic, the theory of evolution teaches us that dinosaurs lived and died before man even existed (and so the theory of evolution says death existed before man and before sin). The Bible tells us just the opposite (for example Romans 5:12, quoted above). Who are you going to believe - God or man?

UTEOTW, Daisy, Craigbythesea, I have given you my answers to these questions and I specifically invite you to answer/comment on questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Be very careful how you answer - the Lord Jesus Christ Himself played a part in the Creation of the heaven and earth.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

Those who deny that this world was created (as opposed to having evolved) are saying that God's word lies to us. If we can't trust one part of God's word, why should we trust any of it. It's all God's word and we should accept ALL OF IT. Build your house upon the Rock, not upon the sand (Matthew 7:24-27).

In answering, please also note my comment at the top between the quote lines.

 

Once we get started on something, we might as well continue.

"'Ramppithecus' was an orang-utan!
About 60 years ago, part of a fossilized jaw and a few teeth became known as belonging to a creature called 'Ramppithecus'. Apparently these remains proved that this creature was well on the way to becoming human. Recently however, enough of this creature has been found to show that it was in fact, an orang-utan."

Rampithicus was a very early ape. It did not follow too long after the first ape, Proconsul. It was most likely a dead end side branch. Very hard to tell for sure as it is only known from a couple of very partial remains. Whoever told you that it was merely an orangutan misled you. Surprise. One possibility would be that is was near the start of the line that lead to orangutans, though it is more likely a side branch from there.

Another claimed fraud seems to be a fraud perpetrated on you by those you trust. Let's give another YE fraud for good measure. We'll stick with the big names.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm

"The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. The discovery of an "old age" in an obviously "young" series of lava flows has encouraged further research at ICR."

Basically what Austin is claiming is that isochron dating does not work because it yielded a date for a lava flow older than a lava flow that was underneath it. But there are some things that he is not telling the reader.

When selecting samples for isochron dating, they must be cogenetic, that is they must have been isotopically homogeneous. Austin selected samples that did not meet this requirement. Instead they came from four different flows and a phenocryst, a grain that was not melted when the lava flowed but that likely solidified in the magma chamber from which the flows came.

Even better is that geologists will sometimes deliberately choose non-cogenetic samples. Why? Because they can be used to determine the age of the common source material for the different flows. Austin is aware of this possiblity because he cites an article on this very thing. ( http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-178.htm , C. Brooks, D.E. James, and S.R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism," Science, 193 (17 Sept. 1976): 1086-1094.)

So what this means is that he was dating the lithosphere under the older flow. This was already known to be older than the other flow (it is underneath for the obvious one).

Austin incorrectly carried out an isochron dating, knew what his mistakes were, knew what he was actually dating, and still submits this as evidence that isochron dating does not work. He lied about the meaning of his results

 

"More recently a skull cap found in Spain was hailed as the oldest fossil man found in Europe. Later, French experts confirmed that it was the skull cap of a six month old donkey!"

I think you have been misled. Again. Nothing surprising there.

The creature you mention is Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. Here is a news article on the discovery.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/great.apes/

I searched and could not find a reference to anyone disputing the find as a donkey. Perhaps you have a reference for us.

It is not much of a contrast at this point, but lets go forth with another current YE fraud.

Austin did a similar thing with samples of rock from Mt. St. Helens.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm - link to YEC article on "Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research" collecting rocks from Mt. St. Helens and having them dated.

This is a typical example of the trickry involved with some YEC claims. The dating method involved was K-Ar and the guys at ICR claim that excess argon caused the rocks that were only a few years old to date to millins of years old. Big problem for radioisotope dating, right. WRONG. As it turns out, the rate of decay to Ar is so slow that it is not possible to date things less than about two million years old, older if you want better accuracy. They submitted the material to a lab which states up front that they cannot date things younger than 2 million years. They submitted it without telling what it was. And of course the dates came back within the noise of the method. The actual age was much less than the accuracy of the method so the given dates are just noise. The problem is not that radioisotope dating does not work, it is that it was misapplied in this case. I find it disturbing that the ICR would deliberately put out misinformation in their quest. Unfortuneately, there are YECers out there who are experts at picking samples that they know will not date correctly and dishonestly passing that off as problems with geology.

Comments I had on this in another post:

Dr. Austin seems to have made a few mistakes. One, is that it appears from his own report that the samples contained phenocrysts that would have formed long ago and would therefore be expected to show an age older than the known age of the bulk rock.

He also reported ages that were much below the minimum age of the laboratories detection limit. Like it or not, the half life of K-40 is very long and in just a few years, you cannot accumulate enough Ar to measure reliably. Any small background or contamination swamps the measurement. It works quite well in older rocks. This is just an example of the error bars in any measurement. For K-AR, those happen to be tens of thousands to maybe a million years. Fine if your age is 100 million years. Not fine if it is 10 years. But we know this from experience. Try measuring the width of a hair with a standard tape measure. Now use the tape measure to see how long the desk is that your computer is on. See the difference?

There are methods to measure younger rocks, and they can be quite accurate. I belive the Ar-Ar date for Pompeii missed a roughly 2000 year old date by 7 years, much less than the error bars for the measurement.

 

"In 1973 Dr. Donald Johanson found a fossilized skeleton and called it 'Lucy'. However when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than 2 miles away!"

I think it has already been pointed out to you that this is another fraud perpetrated upon you by the YE leaders. Nothing new there. I'll add a reference fir you if you wish to learn more about it. The knee refered to was from a different specimen and was never claimed to be "Lucy." Thought I would repeat that bit.

We'll follow that YE fraud with another currently used YE fraud. Let's use the RATE group. They seem to be one of the current heros of the YE leaders.

The RATE group has proposed that C14 dating was inaccurate because they were able to obtain a young date from a diamond in a supposedly hundreds of millions of years old formation.

A little digging reveals that the age they got was about 57000 years. This is significant. Why? Because this is beyond the range of accurate ages possible for C14 dating. For a perfectly preserved sample, about 50000 years is the limit. Beyond that, it becomes impossible to separate the C14 signal from the background radiation no matter how well shieled the lab. So a date older than 50000 years only means that it is older than 50000 years. No way to tell how much older.

The RATE people were clear to point out that the C14 found could not have been from contamination because it was locked inside a diamond. Whay they did not tell you was that background radiation will form small amounts of C14 even in a diamond.

So if you were to ask a geologists what date to expect if you were to carbon date a diamond (after he picked himself up off the floor from his laughing fit) I would expect him to predict that you would get the meaningless age of about 50000 years. When RATE gets this predicable answer, they turn around and claim that it means that dating does not work. Me thinks they are hiding something.

 

"What it boils down to is: do we believe what God has said, or do we believe the theories of man?"

I bet you actually have no problems with using science to influence how you interpret the scriptures when it is science with which you are comfortable. An example would be that it would be fairly difficult to make a case that the earth orbits the sun using just scripture. It would be much easier to make the geocentric case. This is exactly what WAS done up to and through the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Yet you have no trouble reinterpreting those same scriptures to fit with what science has told you about the way the orbits really work. You are willing to pick and choose where you allow outside knowledge to influence your interpretation. And you condemn those who are only slightly different in their use than you.

How about an analogy. Your driving down the highway. Someone 5 MPH slower than you that holds you up is a slowpoke. Someone 5 MPH faster who passes you is a speed maniac. You are the only driver going the right speed. (Yes, I am painting with a broad stroke. Not everyone thinks that way but I bet you know people who do.)

Now, you willingly use a little science to reinterpret some things. Someone who uses a little less than you would be looked down upon. Truthfully, what would you think of a geocentrists or a flat earther? They exist. And they make arguments that sound a lot like yours. By the same token, someone who uses a little more than you and accepts God's creation when it says that He used long periods to create is similarly condemned. You are the only one, it seems, who is able to strike that balance correctly.

 

"UTEOTW,Have you studied the inflation of the earths age?Do you really think your 4.6 billion will stand for long,someone if they haven't aready has hard scientific PROOF that the world is older.Do you know how many P.H.D.s it takes to sign off on a theory to make it a scientific fact?Could you with out printing the book,tell us how you come by 4.6 billion?"

I am not quite sure what your object is here. Pb/Pb isochron dating has fairly well established the age of the earth as 4.6 billion years for several decades now. The estimate has not changed in my lifetime.

 

"I haven't got ready answers to your fake/hoax claims."

Of course not, They are not answerable. You are more than willing to make claims of scientific fraud. But, as we saw, most of your examples were cases of those with whom you agree pulling fast ones on you. The fraud was your own sources. The two legitimate hoaxes you could find are very old, were figured out by science on its own, one was not ever widely accepted, and most importantly are not even used by anyone to support evolution today.

The strong contrast is that there is no trouble finding problems with the current material spewed out by YE leaders. And I was careful to give examples that are not merely cases of them being wrong. Anyone can innocently be wrong. These are cases of deliberate misrepresentation.

What does it tell you about your position when your sources, the ones you trust, the ones who are supposed to know the most about your position cannot treat the data in an honest manner and make a case? When I was in your shoes it told me that they did not have a case.

"There is plenty of hard scientific evidence that the earth is young and we could debate these things until God's Kingdom comes, but we are told not to:

"...avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9)

I believe the bold parts above are distinct from the statement about 'strivings about the law' but just in case someone would like to knitpick this verse and say that it relates only to the law, I would point out that Genesis is a part of the Pentateuch, which is the Jewish 'Torah', which word means 'instruction', or in other words 'law'."

Nice out. It does not work.

First, there is NO evidence for a young earth. If you disagree, give me your five best evidences for a young earth. We'll see.

Second, you are really having to twist your interpretation to get it to fit what you want. An obvious reading shows that the whole verse is talking about the law. If you wish to divorce the parts of the verse from each other then what are you even doing on a debate board if you really believe tha the meaning is to avoid ALL "contentions?" And when you put them back together, the most reasonable interpretation of "the law" is the specific giving of the law, not of the larger text with the histories and such.

"I notice that no-one commented on my statement below."

You did not wait for me to get down that far. I have commented now.

 

"Could you evolutionist Christians tell me what you base your faith on? For example:"

Are you questioning the faith of those who do not agree with you?

The foundation is the same for you or me. We are all sinners and Jesus paid the price for that on the Cross. I believe that "death" here is separation from God. They were told that they would die that day they ate of the fruit. Did they physically die? No, there were kicked out of the garden, out of God's presence. What is the second death for unbelievers? Do their souls simply cease to exist or are they permanently separated from God?

"Those who deny that this world was created (as opposed to having evolved) are saying that God's word lies to us."

Nope. God used evolution as part of His creation. His creation declares this for us in unmistakable terms. You set up a false dilemma that can only be effective at separating believers.

 

Methinks UTEOTW is trying to put words into my mouth that aren't there folks - Please note, these are his accusations, not my words. He thinks he knows me through and through, and yet he has never met me.

You've blinded us all with science - have you actually approached these Creation Scientists with your concerns - I expect they would tell a different story from yours, and I would be interested to hear their answers, so please do it, so that we can hear their side of the story.

Now, about what really matters:

Where are your answers to my Scripture questions? I am really interested to know what you base your faith on.

since this is a Christian forum, I assume you can answer these important questions?

Yours, calmly,
PlainSense

 

UTEOTW,

I thought you had finished. You send so many posts one after another that it is hard to get a word in edgewise.

You seem to be very hostile to me in your posts. This is not necessary. I meant what I said about you contacting Creation Scientists with your concerns. You seem to be well-qualified to do so.

I sincerely would like to hear both sides of these things, if you feel that this is something you could do. Whether you win or lose such a debate is immaterial, you would be providing a service and valuable information for other Christians.

PlainSense

 

This is a bold statement, but where are the Scripture references?

My Bible doesn't say that "God used evolution".

 

I do not mean to come across as hostime towards you. I apologise if I did. I am very hostile towards the so called creation scientists. When I was YE and when I went to their material for support I found things that shocked and horrified me.

There are plenty of examples out there, if you wish to look, where these guys have been called on thier problems. They are dismissed and not corrected. It seems better to just expose the problems. Too many people believe these guys and that brings harm when they find the truth out or try to tell someone about these things who is not blinded.


"I thought you had finished. You send so many posts one after another that it is hard to get a word in edgewise."

Sorry. It only takes a sentence or two to make an accusation. It takes much more than that to make a case for why that accusation is wrong. When I decided to not only show the accusation was wrong but to also show that the opposite was the true case, it became longer still.

"Where are your answers to my Scripture questions? I am really interested to know what you base your faith on."

As I said above, I don't see much of a difference on how we view those things other than the difference I pointed out on what I think is meant by "death."

 

"This is a bold statement, but where are the Scripture references?"

The scriptures tell us He created. The Creation tells us how.

Where is the scripture that tells us the earth orbits the sun?

 

Hi UTEOTW,

Thanks for the tone of your last two replies.

Sorry, I have just come back to the question you asked, to quote it before my answer, and for some reason I had it in my mind that you had asked a "flat earth" question, so that is what I have "answered". I will have to look at the earth rotating around the sun question another day (It's great to have your beliefs challenged in a calm, measured debate like this, but I really must do some work - it's a good job I work for myself and write my own pay-cheque!) I hope you'll find this "flat earth" reply interesting anyway.

This is a complicated answer. If it were simple to answer then there would be no reason to ask the question.

Firstly, it does not matter one iota what people in antiquity believed. For example, the fact that Daniel wrote things that he didn't understand (12:8), doesn't mean that what he wrote was not Divinely Inspired. It doesn't matter if Isaiah, or anyone else, believed that the earth was flat, round, triangular, or whatever shape. The important thing is what Scripture actually says, because if we believe that Scripture is infallible (and I do), then it must be seen to be correct in all things.

"...I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth..." (Isaiah 11:12)

This verse is often taken by skeptics to indicate that the Bible says that the earth is flat. According to my Young's Concordance, the word 'corner' is 'kanaph' which literally means 'wings'. This word is usually taken to mean the four points of the compass, or four quarters of the earth (I don't have the book myself to check this, but I am told that one source that says this is Gesenius' 'Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures'. If you have the book you can check this for yourself if you want to - otherwise take it or leave it - I am being honest here - if you check this and find that it is not so, then come back and tell me).

The same word is used in Ezekiel 7:2, "the four corners of the land". No one then living in the land would have believed that the country was a perfect geometrical square! It is simply a way of designating the land by referring to its four quarters, as the Jews today refer to the books of Moses as the "Five Fifths of the Law".

A different word 'gonia' (lit. angle, corner) is used in Revelation 7:1, and should be understood in the same way,

"...I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth... (Rev 7:1)"

We come now to Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"

The word circle is 'chug' which my concordance says means 'circle, arch, vault, compass'.

OK, it still doesn't sound like a shere but (with the same qualifications as above) I am told that Gesenius, Davidson and Davies all define the word as signifying either a circle or sphere.

We find the word 'chug' used again in Job 22:14 "...he walketh in the circuit of heaven". And again in Proverbs 8:27 "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above".

The thing to notice here is the same word, 'chug', is used to describe the shape of the earth, and its atmosphere. This says that both the earth, and the sky or atmosphere is the same shape.

Job 26:10 uses this same word, 'chug'. In the AV it reads:

"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."

The meaning is clearer in Young's Literal Translation:

"A limit He hath placed on the waters, Unto the boundary of light with darkness."

What does this mean?

As the earth is spherical, only one hemisphere is illuminated by the sun at any given time; the remainder of the earth’s surface is in darkness. The boundary between the illuminated and darkened portions of the earth must form a ring, or circle, around the sphere of the earth. As the earth rotates on its own axis, this circular boundary between daylight and darkness silently sweeps over the earth.

Here is a case then, where 'chug' is correctly translated as 'compass' with the meaning of 'circle' rather than 'sphere', as it refers to the boundary between day time and night time. However, the boundary of twilight between day time and night time is only circular because the earth is spherical! No such circle of twilight would form upon a flat earth. A flat earth would either be completely illuminated, or completely darkened. Yet upon a spherical earth the ring of twilight is a permanent feature. Thus the shape of the earth and the effect this shape produced when illuminated by the sun is shown in this verse.

In this same chapter of Job there is another verse describing the form of the earth.

Job 26:7 says “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.“

To those in 'civilised' areas of the world, the “North” is a horizontal direction, just like each of the other points of the compass. If the world were flat we could not go to a spot where the "North" would change direction from the horizontal to the vertical plane. Why does the Bible not say the East? - Because we may travel as far East as we like on this spherical earth, and never find a spot where the East can be said to be “over” us: but if we travel to the North we do come to a spot (the North Pole) where the North ceases altogether to exist as a horizontal direction and becomes a vertical one. All horizontal directions, at the North Pole, point South; and so does the direction vertically downwards. The North, however, is overhead; and this is a because the earth is a sphere!

Job also says that the North is stretched out over the “empty place”. The word 'empty' is 'tohu', meaning 'emptiness, ruin, vacancy, vanity'. This seems to me a pretty good description of the desolate icy wasteland of the North Pole.

The second part of the verse states that the earth is hung upon nothing, or, in other words, it is to be found in free space, which of course we know to be true.

OK so far...

Sorry UTEOTW, this sounds like a kop-out to me, where's the Scripture that tells us that "God used evolution"? I don't think there is any. To simply say that "The Creation tells us how" might be OK in this day and age (if you accept evolution, which I don't), but the Scriptures have been around in various forms for thousands of years. It sounds like you are implying that God allowed former generations to believe that He created everything in six literal twenty-four hour days, but that He actually has saved the "real truth" for 20th/21st century scientists! If this is what you mean it is a very arrogant and elitist stance. Please tell me that I have misunderstood you here (the scriptures would be nice too).

PlainSense

 

Yes, you are right that the Fall involved separation from God, though not complete separation - God talked with Adam after the Fall (Genesis 3:9 ff.). God also talked with Cain after he murdered Abel (Genesis 4:9 ff.) It seems that separation from God is not absolute, otherwise how could the Holy Spirit convict people of their sin today? It seems that it is the quality of our communion with God that was affected by the Fall.

There is more to "death" than this though - it meant immediate spiritual death - a similar thought to that which you expressed in the above quote I believe. It also meant physical death - not immediate physical death, but the process of physical death started. Let's look at this:

Genesis 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (KJV - my emphasis)

Adam did not immediately fall down and die, so obviously this is not what is meant. Let's look at a literal translation of these same verses:

Genesis 2:16-17 "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.' (Young's Literal Translation - my emphasis)

The proper meaning is clearer now - God didn't say that Adam would physically die immediately, but that the process of dying would immediately start. In other words, Adam would change from being immortal (as originally created) to being mortal (dying thou dost die - the process of physical dying would start and eventually would lead to his physical death).

We can easily test this against Scripture too, because this is exactly what happened. Adam lived to a ripe old age and then died (dying thou dost die).

It is important to notice that this would only happen as a direct consequence of sin - God said that this would happen if Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17). Adam's disobedience to God (sin) in this matter would lead to his eventual physical death.

The problem with evolution is that it teaches that there have been millions of years of death before the Fall (before Adam sinned). This is at complete variance with what the Bible says - that physical death is the direct consequence of the Fall.

Both positions cannot be right:

Either evolution is right (death before the Fall) or The Bible is right (death only after the Fall)

I am not questioning the fact that those who do not agree with me have faith. I cannot judge that - that is between each individual and the Lord.

What I am questioning is whether that faith is properly grounded in a correct understanding of Scripture. I don't want to make this too long by repeating myself, so I'll just say that this based on what I have said about "death" above.

If we can't accept what the Bible says about (the process of) physical death being a direct consequence of the Fall (because of Adam's sin), then what basis do we have to accept what the Bible says about the remedy for this condition (Jesus' death on the cross to give us everlasting life)?

PlainSense