There are stories of that nature somewhere out there. Sort of like how people in industrial societies occasionally pine for the "simple lives" of country folk.

Exactly

I've heard various story branches to that tale tree. Ever notice how the immensely popular/rich celebrities seem to isolate themselves from the rest of us? They don't get to interact, enjoy the simple things as easily. Some put themselves on islands with other popular/rich celebs, I've seen a couple of these islands and, though you might think it would be a party, it seems awefully lonely.

Maybe it's sour grapes, but I think it's lonely at the top.

Like Cavanherk said, the earth wasn't created in 6 days. The word "day" can be used for any amount of time (Old Testament Hebrew - SearchGodsWord.org), so most likely the earth is almost exactly as old as scientists believe.

Anyways, that is very interesting, at Genesis 9:8-15, God speaks of the rainbow being a symbol of the covenant between man and God, it says: "and no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin." So God will never use a flood to eradicate wicked man again.

So, since there had never been a rainbow before, that suggests that there had never been rain until the flood being that a rainbow is the natural occurrence after rain and sun coincide. But, how could vegetation and life exist without rain? It is believed that in Genesis 1:7 the water beneath the expanse (the sky) and the waters (sea) was a water canopy that blocked a large amount of UV rays from the sun

From wikipedia: "Evolution of early reproductive proteins and enzymes is attributed in modern models of evolutionary theory to ultraviolet light. UVB light causes thymine base pairs next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand which reproductive enzymes cannot copy (see picture above). This leads to frameshifting during genetic replication and protein synthesis, usually killing the organism."

This portion states that UVB rays disrupt DNA strands, this could be why back before the flood people lived longer due to the water canopy blocking the majority of them and why the human lifespan went from hundreds of years to 70 to 80.

Now onto the evolution topic.

Man did not evolve. Nor did any other species, according to the Bible, God created Adam the man, not Adam the fish. So, evolution and Bible do not mix. Also, the Bible says that the animals and man were created in their kind, not what they would eventually be.

I may revise this if it is confusing or an error is found.

lol

Ewww.

That's very cool to hear.

And who was witness to and recorded this "historical" fact. It's a mythology.

"One of the difficulties of Dillow's model, as with most of the other canopy models, is the heat load or heat energy content of the canopy. The canopy must be somehow cooled from approximately 100 degrees C to the condensation point, the latent heat of condensation must then be removed at the same temperature, and then the liquid must be cooled to the present atmospheric temperature of about 25 degrees C. The potential energy (mgh) of the canopy must also be removed. Dillow shows that if all this energy were released in a short period of time, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise to 2,100 degrees C, an obviously impossible value. Dillow's model also does not deal with winter darkness near the poles."
Gary Morris - The Genesis Record



To use an ancient manuscript such as the book of Genesis as an authorative biological text on the origin and development of any species is an absolute and total absurdity. Genesis 1 is the Hebrew creation myth, NOT an objective account of the biological origin of our and other species.

If I get this right, day could mean any amount of time so if God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, that could mean he worked hard for ~650 million years x 6 then took it easy the last ~650 million years .. and somewhere within the very last few hundred thousand years from now, he makes humans.

There's still the problem of all the pre-homo sapien fossils. How do they fit into this? Were they failed attempts at humans then? What about the other 99 point something percent of earth's history when there were other organisms around?

Can you see how just these two points would rather point towards Genesis not being a literal account of how our earth was created?

The water canopy "hypothesis" is just mumbo jumbo and - nothing personal - but it takes a certain kind of dull mind to not see how it is incredible - as in unbelievable. The flood was said to cover most moutains across our planet and our atmosphere simply can't hold that much water vapor and support life at the same time and that's just one of the angles you can disprove that hypothesis from.

Congratulations on discovering that UV radiation may cause mutations. About UV radiation and how that explains how people didn't get older, well - that doesn't hold up even slightly as a biological argument. There are other things than mutations that will cause problems with age such as the shortening of our telomerases (buffer sequences of DNA at the ends of our chromosomes) giving most of our cells a limited amount of life, cancer which is an inevitable consequence of a very long life and the fact that there are literally thousands upon thousands of other mutagens out there aside from UV rays that can disrupt our DNA. We don't even need external mutagens, sometimes cells just don't do such a great job at fixing errors caused by their own proteins.


If you reject evolution then you have to reject all modern science starting with what we've learned from biology because it's scientifically proven and if you can't believe that, then by default you can't believe in anything else science has proven by the very same methodology. Modern biology is all thoroughly based on our understanding of evolution. It's a foundation and it works - we can observe it, we can use it and it helps us understand the very earth we live on and all the other organisms around us. Dismissing evolution would be like dismissing the theory of atoms which all of chemistry is built up on if not worse because evolution gives us so much insight and understanding of ourselves, something knowing atom theory can't be fully compared to.

Another point here is then that if you reject evolution, then you might as well reject "scientific" attempts at giving credibility to the bible.

That's very interesting, I've always dismissed this part of the religious studies because science didn't support it.

The bible is storys and symbolism. You can't take some of the terms they use literally. On one hand, the bible is really basic, it had to be made this way. To get the "message" to people who could not read or write, the "message" had to be put into storys. It's what is called "oral tradition". The bible can also be complex, in the sense that there can be alot of interpretation involved in understanding it. I don't believe there is "one true Religion", which is what some Christian religions believe (and of course, THEIR religion is the "right" one). My feeling is that if you have faith in something and it makes you a better person without being unfair to those who believe in other things, you have found the "right" one. Everyone really wants pretty much the same things in life. Acheiving it without stepping on others is what we should strive for.