Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I guess now is as good as time to introduce into the discussion that Adam was actually formed on the seventh day and was placed on the earth before any of the animals were formed from the earth. Kind of turns evolution directly on its head!

BTW, Merry Christmas

The fowls were the fourth day. The animals and beasts of the field were the fifth day. Those made in the image of God were the sixth day. The seventh day was when God rested from his labor, thus the Sabbath - Moses 2.

Where are you getting this information regarding man on the seventh (maybe a misspelling, miss thought, of the sixth) day, when God rested, that we were placed on the earth?

And yes, Merry Christmas!

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The fowls were the fourth day. The animals and beasts of the field were the fifth day. Those made in the image of God were the sixth day. The seventh day was when God rested from his labor, thus the Sabbath - Moses 2.

Where are you getting this information regarding man on the seventh (maybe a misspelling, miss thought, of the sixth) day, when God rested, that we were placed on the earth?

And yes, Merry Christmas!

The Scriptures. Look in Moses ch.3 vs. 7-

"7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word"

God explains that whereas everything was before created, it was a spiritual creation and there was not yet any physical life on the earth. God had not even caused it to rain yet. God then causes it to rain and then forms man as the first living creature for the earth. This was done on the seventh day. This doctrine is backed by the D&C section 77-

 

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

[Rob Osborn]

Also, once one understands that the earth had to first be sanctified (set apart for holy use) before life could be placed on it then it makes perfect sense. Its the same with temples, the sacrament, etc. It first had to be set apart for holy use before the holy process of that pertaining to life can take place.

[Jane_Doe]

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

I have a lot of respect for all that has been shared here.

Hi @Chrisberockin, welcome to the forum!

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

 It's a topic I've been intensely interested in studying. I'm currently studying biology at BYU.

Ah, have you taken the required biology course yet?

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

 But it definitely depends in large part on what counts as doctrine to you.

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."  -- https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

 To make a long story short, I believe what revelation teaches over what man teaches.

I think everyone here would say "amen" to that, including myself who is a evolution LDS scientist.  

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

 Learning what man has hypothesized does not equate to "learning the means and methods of God's creation" or "learning the unrevealed details of Genesis" as LDS evolutionists claim.

Why do you say that?

21 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

One more thing. There is a certain argument that really bugs me. LDS evolutionists often say, in a sad attempt to reconcile religion and science, "the human bodies could have been formed for Adam and Eve through evolution, and then God could have breathed souls into them, making them children of God." Please just think about this. All animals already have spirits. Read the book of Moses. Please don't think that we humans have animal bodies that sprouted up spontaneously through natural processes and that the thing that sets us apart from animals is that we have souls. This is just such an inconsistent idea. We all have souls, or spirits, and the spirit is in the image of the body, and the body in the image of the spirit. 

Animal spirits aren't the topic here, so I'm not seeing the connection here.

[brlenox]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I would be interested in reading this statement, where can it be found?

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, "What about the pre-Adamic people?" Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.
I asked. "What about the pre-Adamic people?"
She replied, "Well, aren't there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?"
I said, "Have you forgotten the scripture that says, 'And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also....' " (Moses 3:7.) I asked, "Do you believe that?"
She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error. (Harold B. Lee, "First Presidency Message: Find the Answers in the Scriptures," Ensign, Dec. 1972, 2.)

 

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

One of the interesting angles to this is that if one were to take a poll about the relation of the flood with the creation, amongst LDS, those who disbelieve in evolution will readily believe in a global flood in Noahs day whereas those believing evolution will disbelieve in the flood being global.

The paramount issue here of course is that if the flood were indeed global the evidence for evolution is nonexistant as the fossil layers are merely just the global flood sediment. 

Evolutionists thus have to jump through four hoops here- 1. That death occured before the fall. 2. That man is the product of a lower order of animal species. 3. The flood was a localized event. 4. God has broken his covenant about never flooding the earth again.

Interesting that in order to deny these four things is to deny scripture in the face of mans understanding.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

One of the interesting angles to this is that if one were to take a poll about the relation of the flood with the creation, amongst LDS, those who disbelieve in evolution will readily believe in a global flood in Noahs day whereas those believing evolution will disbelieve in the flood being global.

The paramount issue here of course is that if the flood were indeed global the evidence for evolution is nonexistant as the fossil layers are merely just the global flood sediment. 

Evolutionists thus have to jump through four hoops here- 1. That death occured before the fall. 2. That man is the product of a lower order of animal species. 3. The flood was a localized event. 4. God has broken his covenant about never flooding the earth again.

Interesting that in order to deny these four things is to deny scripture in the face of mans understanding.

What about this: 1. Adam, created physically on the morning of the seventh day, fell by partaking of the forbidden fruit, thus replacing paradisaical law with natural law, which entails all the physical laws of the universe, including death and evolution. 2. Expansion of the universe and evolution on earth played out as the scientists observe, and after multiple extinctions and restarts, Adam was ready as promised through the merits of Christ to come into this world 6,000 years ago among a people evolved to his stature to begin his own posterity and carry out his temporal mission, with all other preceding, contemporary and future life on earth (human and otherwise) under his stewardship. 3. The flood was a global event. 4. God has not broken His covenant.

[Guest Godless]

 

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The paramount issue here of course is that if the flood were indeed global the evidence for evolution is nonexistant as the fossil layers are merely just the global flood sediment. 

I'm no scientist, but I think it's a reach to suggest that a global flood could manipulate fossil records to make them appear to be millions of years old rather than merely thousands. If anything, I could see the opposite being the case (though still very unlikely). If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd love to see it. 

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolutionists thus have to jump through four hoops here- 1. That death occured before the fall. 2. That man is the product of a lower order of animal species. 3. The flood was a localized event. 4. God has broken his covenant about never flooding the earth again.

I'm not sure where you're getting #4 from. Could you expound on that?

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Interesting that in order to deny these four things is to deny scripture in the face of mans understanding.

It's important to remember that, even if the Bible is divinely-inspired as you believe, the authors were mortal men and as such would have written their accounts based on their flawed mortal understanding. For example, a regional flood in the Middle East (or Jackson County, Missouri, depending on who you ask), if large enough, could be seen as a global flood by someone with a very limited sense of global scale, which was the case for virtually everyone in Old Testament days.  To them, the flood covered the world as they knew it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the story of the rise of human consciousness might also take hyperbolic and allegorical turns when told through the eyes of ancient man. 

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What about this: 1. Adam, created physically on the morning of the seventh day, fell by partaking of the forbidden fruit, thus replacing paradisaical law with natural law, which entails all the physical laws of the universe, including death and evolution. 2. Expansion of the universe and evolution on earth played out as the scientists observe, and after multiple extinctions and restarts, Adam was ready as promised through the merits of Christ to come into this world 6,000 years ago among a people evolved to his stature to begin his own posterity and carry out his temporal mission, with all other preceding, contemporary and future life on earth (human and otherwise) under his stewardship. 3. The flood was a global event. 4. God has not broken His covenant.

No, the fall didnt encompass a billions of years play out.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

I'm no scientist, but I think it's a reach to suggest that a global flood could manipulate fossil records to make them appear to be millions of years old rather than merely thousands. If anything, I could see the opposite being the case (though still very unlikely). If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd love to see it. 

I'm not sure where you're getting #4 from. Could you expound on that?

It's important to remember that, even if the Bible is divinely-inspired as you believe, the authors were mortal men and as such would have written their accounts based on their flawed mortal understanding. For example, a regional flood in the Middle East (or Jackson County, Missouri, depending on who you ask), if large enough, could be seen as a global flood by someone with a very limited sense of global scale, which was the case for virtually everyone in Old Testament days.  To them, the flood covered the world as they knew it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the story of the rise of human consciousness might also take hyperbolic and allegorical turns when told through the eyes of ancient man. 

Except that Moses, who wrote the account saw not only the whole earth but also the universe. His understanding was greater than what the Hubble telescope gives us. Its so lame of us to believe the ancient patriarchs were dimwits.

If the flood was only localized then God didnt keep his promise to never flood the earth again. 

Its rather lame to keep trying to shoehorn the bible into modern "scientific" understanding.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No, the fall didnt encompass a billions of years play out.

Why not? Moses saw the universe.

Edited December 26, 2017 by CV75

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Except that Moses, who wrote the account saw not only the whole earth but also the universe. His understanding was greater than what the Hubble telescope gives us. Its so lame of us to believe the ancient patriarchs were dimwits.

Perhaps Moses did see more of the universe than even we have seen. However, and at the risk of criticizing one of God's great prophets, he sure did a horrible job trying to describe the universe. I am not quite sure how Moses, as smart as he may have been, could see the vast numbers of decentralized "island universes" with more stars in each galaxy than can readily be counted and the Earth whereon we live is one non-descript rocky planet orbiting (along with several other bodies) a rather non-descript star in a rather ordinary spiral arm of a rather ordinary spiral/barred-spiral galaxy in a rather ordinary not really special part of the vast universe, and then record his description of the universe as a geocentric "flat-disc earth with waters above and waters beneath". If Moses really did know as much or more about the universe as we do, then he failed miserably at communicating that knowledge.

I don't really know what Moses and the other patriarchs did or did not know, but I have a hard time believing that they conceived of the universe in the same way that I conceive of the universe, based on what has survived of their records to the present day.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Why not? Moses saw the universe.

Because, the temporal age of the earth is only to be 7,000 years. Temporal means "relating to time".

[Rob Osborn]

43 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps Moses did see more of the universe than even we have seen. However, and at the risk of criticizing one of God's great prophets, he sure did a horrible job trying to describe the universe. I am not quite sure how Moses, as smart as he may have been, could see the vast numbers of decentralized "island universes" with more stars in each galaxy than can readily be counted and the Earth whereon we live is one non-descript rocky planet orbiting (along with several other bodies) a rather non-descript star in a rather ordinary spiral arm of a rather ordinary spiral/barred-spiral galaxy in a rather ordinary not really special part of the vast universe, and then record his description of the universe as a geocentric "flat-disc earth with waters above and waters beneath". If Moses really did know as much or more about the universe as we do, then he failed miserably at communicating that knowledge.

I don't really know what Moses and the other patriarchs did or did not know, but I have a hard time believing that they conceived of the universe in the same way that I conceive of the universe, based on what has survived of their records to the present day.

Well, thats your worldly understanding of Moses and the bible speaking. Of course its not going to be correct.

[Guest Godless]

35 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps Moses did see more of the universe than even we have seen. However, and at the risk of criticizing one of God's great prophets, he sure did a horrible job trying to describe the universe. I am not quite sure how Moses, as smart as he may have been, could see the vast numbers of decentralized "island universes" with more stars in each galaxy than can readily be counted and the Earth whereon we live is one non-descript rocky planet orbiting (along with several other bodies) a rather non-descript star in a rather ordinary spiral arm of a rather ordinary spiral/barred-spiral galaxy in a rather ordinary not really special part of the vast universe, and then record his description of the universe as a geocentric "flat-disc earth with waters above and waters beneath". If Moses really did know as much or more about the universe as we do, then he failed miserably at communicating that knowledge.

I don't really know what Moses and the other patriarchs did or did not know, but I have a hard time believing that they conceived of the universe in the same way that I conceive of the universe, based on what has survived of their records to the present day.

Perfectly stated. Seeing isn't the same as understanding. 

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its so lame of us to believe the ancient patriarchs were dimwits.

"Dimwits" is a bit harsh. The ancient patriarchs were products of their time, and they lived in a time that lacked the level of observation and understanding of the universe that we have in modern times. It's not a slight on them, just something that should be considered when analyzing their writings. Context is important. 

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

If the flood was only localized then God didnt keep his promise to never flood the earth again. 

The biblical flood wiped out an entire civilization, possibly mulitple civilizations. Even non-believers like me will concede that such a thing is theoretically possible on a regional scale, certainly more so than a literal global flood. There has not been a civilization-ending flood event at any point in post-biblical history. We've seen localized floods, but nothing to the scale that Moses describes. So, entertaining the idea that the biblical account is true, albeit regional, your God kept his promise. He has not wiped out civilizations with a flood since Noah. 

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its rather lame to keep trying to shoehorn the bible into modern "scientific" understanding.

No offense, but I think the idea of a God that takes on the creative role of glorified magician is a bit lame. And that's exactly the kind of God you would have us believe in. I much prefer the idea of a God that is a master scientist, the greatest physicist and biologist the world has ever seen. The type of God who can write and set in motion all of the complex cosmic mechanics that led us from exploding stars to where we are now. Obviously I don't believe that such a god, or any god, exists. But if I were theistically-inclined, it is the latter God that I would prefer to put my faith in. 

[Anddenex]

51 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps Moses did see more of the universe than even we have seen. However, and at the risk of criticizing one of God's great prophets, he sure did a horrible job trying to describe the universe. I am not quite sure how Moses, as smart as he may have been, could see the vast numbers of decentralized "island universes" with more stars in each galaxy than can readily be counted and the Earth whereon we live is one non-descript rocky planet orbiting (along with several other bodies) a rather non-descript star in a rather ordinary spiral arm of a rather ordinary spiral/barred-spiral galaxy in a rather ordinary not really special part of the vast universe, and then record his description of the universe as a geocentric "flat-disc earth with waters above and waters beneath". If Moses really did know as much or more about the universe as we do, then he failed miserably at communicating that knowledge.

I don't really know what Moses and the other patriarchs did or did not know, but I have a hard time believing that they conceived of the universe in the same way that I conceive of the universe, based on what has survived of their records to the present day.

Or simply Moses wrote down exactly what he was told, and may have been forbidden to write all he saw and in the manner in which he saw it (much like Nephi). As Nephi mentions also, they have a limited amount of space to write what they had seen and heard. We don't know if Moses experienced the same.

He didn't fail at anything, nor did he do a horrible job, especially since we probably do not have his full account. Why even begin to "criticize" a prophet on the basis of what we know very little of?

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 

I'm no scientist, but I think it's a reach to suggest that a global flood could manipulate fossil records to make them appear to be millions of years old rather than merely thousands. If anything, I could see the opposite being the case (though still very unlikely). If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd love to see it. 

I'm not sure where you're getting #4 from. Could you expound on that?

It's important to remember that, even if the Bible is divinely-inspired as you believe, the authors were mortal men and as such would have written their accounts based on their flawed mortal understanding. For example, a regional flood in the Middle East (or Jackson County, Missouri, depending on who you ask), if large enough, could be seen as a global flood by someone with a very limited sense of global scale, which was the case for virtually everyone in Old Testament days.  To them, the flood covered the world as they knew it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the story of the rise of human consciousness might also take hyperbolic and allegorical turns when told through the eyes of ancient man. 

Research ringwoodite and a global flood is not such an impossible consideration under the correct circumstances.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/ 

 

[Rob Osborn]

56 minutes ago, Godless said:

Perfectly stated. Seeing isn't the same as understanding. 

"Dimwits" is a bit harsh. The ancient patriarchs were products of their time, and they lived in a time that lacked the level of observation and understanding of the universe that we have in modern times. It's not a slight on them, just something that should be considered when analyzing their writings. Context is important. 

The biblical flood wiped out an entire civilization, possibly mulitple civilizations. Even non-believers like me will concede that such a thing is theoretically possible on a regional scale, certainly more so than a literal global flood. There has not been a civilization-ending flood event at any point in post-biblical history. We've seen localized floods, but nothing to the scale that Moses describes. So, entertaining the idea that the biblical account is true, albeit regional, your God kept his promise. He has not wiped out civilizations with a flood since Noah. 

No offense, but I think the idea of a God that takes on the creative role of glorified magician is a bit lame. And that's exactly the kind of God you would have us believe in. I much prefer the idea of a God that is a master scientist, the greatest physicist and biologist the world has ever seen. The type of God who can write and set in motion all of the complex cosmic mechanics that led us from exploding stars to where we are now. Obviously I don't believe that such a god, or any god, exists. But if I were theistically-inclined, it is the latter God that I would prefer to put my faith in. 

Your post shows the near sightedness of mans thinking. Why must it be a local flood? Is it because if it was global then the whole of evolution is a wash? I believe so.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I am not quite sure how Moses, as smart as he may have been, could see the vast numbers of decentralized "island universes" with more stars in each galaxy than can readily be counted and the Earth whereon we live is one non-descript rocky planet orbiting (along with several other bodies) a rather non-descript star in a rather ordinary spiral arm of a rather ordinary spiral/barred-spiral galaxy in a rather ordinary not really special part of the vast universe, and then record his description of the universe as a geocentric "flat-disc earth with waters above and waters beneath".

A non-exhaustive list of possibilities:

1. Moses did not see any such vision as you describe. He saw every particle of the earth, but not the entirety of creation (which would certainly be impossible for any mortal man). Even then, there is nothing to strongly suggest that he witnessed the actual process of creation of the earth. He was being given a lesson in our relationship to God, not a lesson in the mechanics of planetary formation.
2. Moses did not have context to understand the relevance and implications of everything he saw. For example, Lehi's vision shows that a prophet may not see and interpret every element of his own vision, as Nephi had to clarify that Lehi did not recognize the fountain of filthy water for what it was, because his mind was caught up in other things. If Moses had no inkling of a spherical earth orbiting a star in Keplerian terms, seeing an overpowering vision of it might simply not register on his mind -- he would dismiss it as we dismiss foreign words or Chinese characters, as something we just don't understand and therefore mostly ignore.
3. Moses was commanded to record and explain his vision to his people, and his people weren't well-versed in orbital mechanics. Since the point of Moses' vision was to establish our relationship with God rather than to clear up how planets and stars work, he did not worry about the irrelevant details of what we today might think of as "the scientific view". Rather, he described in language that could be understood by both ancients and moderns the relationship between man and God.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If Moses really did know as much or more about the universe as we do, then he failed miserably at communicating that knowledge.

Whether or not Moses had a modern view of the universe, I am convinced that he had no intent or even desire to communicate any such thing. I think Moses did a great job of communicating what he was tasked to tell.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Your post shows the near sightedness of mans thinking. Why must it be a local flood? Is it because if it was global then the whole of evolution is a wash? I believe so.

I don't believe that a global flood disproves evolution. You seem to believe that, and have yet to explain your reasoning. Is a literal global flood possible? Sure. Highly HIGHLY improbable, but possible under the right climatic circumstances. What I don't believe is that, around 5000 years ago (according to literalists, and it may be even less than that), every living civilization and natural ecosystem was wiped off the face of the planet and fully recovered in a ~5000 year span. And I don't believe that a 900 year old man built a huge boat and put a zoo on it.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Because, the temporal age of the earth is only to be 7,000 years. Temporal means "relating to time".

I take D&C77:6 to refer not to the age of the earth but to the reckoning given to Adam, or the seven seals placed under under His stewardship, within which the will, mysteries and works of God are to be carried out in the earth. God's economy exists or continues within this 7,000 year temporal period, which is fulfilled at the end of the short season folowing the Millennium.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, thats your worldly understanding of Moses and the bible speaking. Of course its not going to be correct.

Perhaps, though I don't think it is just my worldly [mis]understanding of Moses. Recognizing that, as near as I can tell, none of our surviving texts pre-dates the Babylonian captivity, this [mis]understanding of Moses's cosmology seems to extend back through history. As far as I know, there is no evidence (outside of special revelation) of anything that resembles a modern cosmology among ancient Israel. If my worldly understanding of Moses is wrong, there are many others who have similarly been wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Whether or not Moses had a modern view of the universe, I am convinced that he had no intent or even desire to communicate any such thing. I think Moses did a great job of communicating what he was tasked to tell.

You won't get any argument from me. Any variation of the disclaimer "any similarity between Biblical cosmology and modern, 21st century cosmology is purely coincidental", for any number of valid reasons like you have suggested, makes good sense to me.

As has been mentioned a couple of times in this string, the thing I find interesting in this is not so much about the cosmology, but what does this string show about the different ways that we read and interpret scripture. What parts of scritpure are intended to present historically and scientifically factual (as we in the 21st century would understand them) truths, and where does it not.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I take D&C77:6 to refer not to the age of the earth but to the reckoning given to Adam, or the seven seals placed under under His stewardship, within which the will, mysteries and works of God are to be carried out in the earth. God's economy exists or continues within this 7,000 year temporal period, which is fulfilled at the end of the short season folowing the Millennium.

It refers to the age of the earth since time was appointed to man and death has been on the earth.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I don't believe that a global flood disproves evolution. You seem to believe that, and have yet to explain your reasoning. Is a literal global flood possible? Sure. Highly HIGHLY improbable, but possible under the right climatic circumstances. What I don't believe is that, around 5000 years ago (according to literalists, and it may be even less than that), every living civilization and natural ecosystem was wiped off the face of the planet and fully recovered in a ~5000 year span. And I don't believe that a 900 year old man built a huge boat and put a zoo on it.

A global flood disproves evolution because evidence for a global flood would be sediment layers all over the earth with fossils mixed in those layers. Strangely, thats actually exactly what we see! Imagine that!

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

One of the interesting angles to this is that if one were to take a poll about the relation of the flood with the creation, amongst LDS, those who disbelieve in evolution will readily believe in a global flood in Noahs day whereas those believing evolution will disbelieve in the flood being global.

The paramount issue here of course is that if the flood were indeed global the evidence for evolution is nonexistant as the fossil layers are merely just the global flood sediment. 

Evolutionists thus have to jump through four hoops here- 1. That death occured before the fall. 2. That man is the product of a lower order of animal species. 3. The flood was a localized event. 4. God has broken his covenant about never flooding the earth again.

Interesting that in order to deny these four things is to deny scripture in the face of mans understanding.

 

There is a very big and glaring problem for those that do not believe in evolution but do believe in a global flood at the time of Noah (5,000 years ago?).  Given the dimensions of the Ark – it would not be big enough to hold just two all the known species of worms.  If evolution is not a part of our history there could not have been a global flood and an Ark to save the vast species that exist currently.

Even if one believes in evolution there is a lot of missing links needed to justify the vast species evolving so rapidly since the flood.  There are some definite problems with evolution but be very careful in criticizing the flaws that can just as easily erode the claim that the Bible is correct and science is wrong.

 

The Traveler