Where do cavemen fit in the theory of Creationism?

Your first reference from AIG cited certain verses, in which God told people they could eat vegetables, as proof that all antediluvian diets were vegetarian. Just because God said "You can eat vegetables" doesn't mean He said "You can't eat meat."

I don't even understand what your second reference had to do with my point, but I still didn't like it because it took Mark 10:6 as saying that God created man and woman at the literal absolute beginning of creation, when in fact they were not created until the sixth day.

I'm considering just dropping this subject altogether. I don't have the time or energy to spend researching all this right now. This summer would have been a much better time to discuss this.
 
kraniac said:
Your first reference from AIG cited certain verses, in which God told people they could eat vegetables, as proof that all antediluvian diets were vegetarian. Just because God said "You can eat vegetables" doesn't mean He said "You can't eat meat."

I don't even understand what your second reference had to do with my point, but I still didn't like it because it took Mark 10:6 as saying that God created man and woman at the literal absolute beginning of creation, when in fact they were not created until the sixth day.

I'm considering just dropping this subject altogether. I don't have the time or energy to spend researching all this right now. This summer would have been a much better time to discuss this.
Click to expand...

One of the points brought up in the article is that there was no death before the Fall. If you don't have any death before the fall, then how do you get meat?
 
The paragraph asserting that there was no death before the fall of man was this one:

AIG said:
Clearly, there was no disease, suffering, or death of animals (nephesh creatures) before the Fall. This raises the question of just what is a nephesh animal. Do one-celled organisms like bacteria and yeast, or invertebrates like worms, insects, and prawns have nephesh life? Scripture gives us some clues. It tells us that ‘the life (nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood’ (Leviticus 17:11; also see Genesis 9:4). If we use this to classify organisms into those with or without such ‘nephesh life,’ it is helpful up to a point—this would exclude microorganisms from having nephesh-life. But there are still some difficulties as to what counts as blood. For example, insects and crustaceans have a form of blood, although it is somewhat different from the blood of animals with backbones. The presence of hemoglobin cannot be definitive, as it is found even in some plants.

Adam’s naming of the land animals in Genesis 2 may give us further clues. Adam named ‘each living creature (nephesh chayyah)’ (Genesis 2:19). What did he name? ‘Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field’ (Genesis 2:20).1 It may be significant at this point that the remes, the ‘creeping things’ of Genesis 1:24, were not included, as Leupold, the respected theologian, noted. If ‘creeping things’ included insects and worms, for example, then maybe they are not nephesh life. However, Scripture is not clear on this, so we should not be dogmatic.

It can be safely said, however, that there was no violent death, especially that involving bloodshed. In other words, creatures we would normally call ‘animals’ in everyday speech, were not fighting, killing, shedding the blood of others, and eating one another, as many do today.
Click to expand...

None of the verses they cite ever state that there was no death before the fall of man.
 
That one came closer. Their initial logic of "the wages of sin is death, therefore death is always the result of sin" is not necessarily correct, because the reversal of a cause and effect relationship is not always correct: one effect may have multiple causes and one cause may have multiple effects.

They made a better point, however, with this paragraph.
Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 clearly teach that human death came because of the Fall. The latter even contrasts the death of the first Adam with the Resurrection from the dead by the Last Adam, Jesus.
Click to expand...
Their statement that human death came because of the Fall, and their cited verses for support, hold true. Human death came because of the fall of man. But that does not preclude the deaths of animals or the death of pre-Adamite creatures. We can conclude that human death is because of human sin, but not that animal death is because of human sin.
 
From just reading the last few posts, I take it that you are trying to find biblical support for the fact that every creature was a vegetarian before the flood? Continuing on that assumption here is what I have found. I covered parts of this before in a post long ago, but Im sure it has long since been lost in the backlog.

Gen1:
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Click to expand...

Here is the first refrence to the fact that everything was only a vegetarian before the flood, this is also before the fall. There is a long space from this refrence up till after the flood and when Noah is emerging from the ark.

On a side note:
Gen9:
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Click to expand...

To me this sounds like God just made ALL the animals afraid of man, leading us to believe that before the flood this wasnt the case. Just an interesting bit a of trivia to mull over.

Gen9:
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Click to expand...

This is where God allows mankind to use animals as a food source, and not before then. Notice he also put the fear of man into the animals before he allowed man to eat them. I guess God didnt want to give anybody a free meal, so he made them all sport. Hence the rise of hunters. Hopefully this is the proof you are looking for. AiG has lots of good stuff, but when you sit down and really read through the Bible its amazing how much is in there and how easy it is to find proof to back your claims.
 
We've been over those bits before. I think you misquoted the first verse slightly. This link from AIG refers to that verse on BibleGateway from the NIV, in which it says:
NIV said:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Click to expand...

Note that it says "for food," not "for meat." If we're assuming that this verse supports exclusively vegetarian prediluvian diets, why would it say "for meat" anyway? That wouldn't make sense to a vegetarian, to say that you gave them something for meat.

Not only that, but just because God says "you can eat this," doesn't mean He disallowed everything else.

Also, the pre-Adamite creation I am suggesting is not one continuous with Genesis' seven days of creation, but instead one that happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Anyway, make up your own mind about AIG, but it's certainly not a site I put much stock in.
 
Why would God tell Noah that he is now allowed to eat the animals after the flood? What is the point in God saying this if it was already so? God didnt tell Adam twice to not eat of the tree of knowledge, He only told him once. This bit about a pre-Adamite creation is out there as well. There is no evidence to support it.
 
Arkanjel said:
Why would God tell Noah that he is now allowed to eat the animals after the flood? What is the point in God saying this if it was already so? God didnt tell Adam twice to not eat of the tree of knowledge, He only told him once. This bit about a pre-Adamite creation is out there as well. There is no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
No Biblical evidence to support it anyway. But I'm not ready to completely dismiss as a hoax every "caveman" skeleton ever found.

And just because God told Noah that he could eat animals, nowhere that I have seen does it ever say that they weren't able to before. There is simply not a direct logical connection disproving prediluvian meat-eating. Perhaps Noah was wondering if God was going to let him eat the animals he had been faithfully keeping on the ark for so long. That seems like a reasonable guess, but the reason why He said it isn't the point. The point is, it doesn't matter if He said it. You're assuming too much, just as I assumed too much with the fill/replenish bit.
 
kraniac said:
That seems like a reasonable guess, but the reason why He said it isn't the point. The point is, it doesn't matter if He said it. You're assuming too much, just as I assumed too much with the fill/replenish bit.
Click to expand...

WOW, you have floored me with this one. The WHOLE point is that God said it. From what I know of God he doesnt just go around saying things to hear Himself talk. He says things to give us insight into Himself and to provide us with direction. Im not assuming too much, Im just reading the scripture and interpreting it within the context it is written. Assuming too much is making claims that there were millions of years in between the 5th and 6th day. God gives us NO inclination that this should be or was the case. Why would God have a need to rest on the 7th day if he had just taken a several millenia break between the 5th and 6th? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should all try and shy away from our own understanding and seek what God has to say about the subject. Anytime you bring man into the mix, we are gonna screw it up. When God speaks we need to listen, not just read the cliff notes.
 
Arkanjel said:
WOW, you have floored me with this one. The WHOLE point is that God said it. From what I know of God he doesnt just go around saying things to hear Himself talk. He says things to give us insight into Himself and to provide us with direction. Im not assuming too much, Im just reading the scripture and interpreting it within the context it is written. Assuming too much is making claims that there were millions of years in between the 5th and 6th day. God gives us NO inclination that this should be or was the case. Why would God have a need to rest on the 7th day if he had just taken a several millenia break between the 5th and 6th? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should all try and shy away from our own understanding and seek what God has to say about the subject. Anytime you bring man into the mix, we are gonna screw it up. When God speaks we need to listen, not just read the cliff notes.
Click to expand...

Let's say I am an engineer working at Toyota. I build cars. Specifically, I am designing a car to compete with Audi and VW's 4-Motion transmission. I build this car so that you can toggle between automatic and manual transmission. Now let's say I give you one of the first production units of this car for free. I show you the car, and explain the features. If I'm sitting in the passenger seat, and you're taking my car for a spin, and you're using automatic transmission, I would probably say, "You can use manual transmission."

So what you're saying is, if I told you that, it would mean that you couldn't have used manual transmission before? As I stated in my previous post, in order to disprove antediluvian meat eating, you need a direct, deductive statement from the Bible where God says "Adam, Eve: don't eat meat, and don't let any of your children eat meat either."

There are many cases where it appears that God has repeated Himself without good reason. There are superfluous verses in Proverbs. A lot of the Gospels overlap ("correlate" is the usual term). A lot of structures from Isaiah are similar. All the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are preserved even when they deviate slightly in wording from the actual OT verse. To say that "God doesn't just talk to hear Himself talk"... God can repeat Himself all He wants and there's nothing you can do to say He's wrong for doing it. You aren't the judge of what's necessary to say. An omnimax being will often not have reasons for things that we will understand. He's too ineffable.

And realize that this is not even related to the original issue of a pre-Adam creation. Even if God DID outlaw meat-eating for humans before the flood, it says nothing of the dietary habits of pre-Adamites. Nor are their dietary habits of much interest to me.

I am not trying to show that the existence of pre-Adamite creatures is a necessary belief, and I am not even trying to show that it is likely one. I'm just showing that it's possible.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here but I am NOT claiming that there were millions of years between day 5 and 6, the way most Gap Theory does. I am claiming there were millions of years before day 1, between verses 1:1 and 1:2, in which God created a non-Homo-Sapien race on the earth. But even besides this, if God had taken a millenia or two break between day 5 and 6, I bet He still would have rested on the seventh. Why would God ever need to rest at all? That can probably go down in the "apparently superfluous action of God" category also.

I am interested in your thoughts on cavemen. Where do you think they came from, during what time period do you think they lived, and how do you explain their existence?
 
Last edited:
kraniac said:
I am claiming there were millions of years before day 1, between verses 1:1 and 1:2, in which God created a non-Homo-Sapien race on the earth.QUOTE]

So they lived with no sun or moon? The sun and moon were created on the fourth day.

Were they aquatic? God dried some land up on the third day.

Did they have infravision? It was very very dark til day one when light was created.

Are you saying that God put out the lights that you think were here before day one and 'recreated' light on day 1?

Are you saying that God snuffed out whatever heat and light generating object you think he might have had before he created the sun and moon on the fourth day?

Are you saying that Noah's flood was the second one?
Click to expand...
 
kraniac said:
I am interested in your thoughts on cavemen. Where do you think they came from, during what time period do you think they lived, and how do you explain their existence?
Click to expand...

Some of the skeletons called cave men were probably an extinct ape type creature.

Some were just men that they dress up in caveman clothes when they did their artists recreation.

Some are very very old men and women from the time when men lived hundreds of years.

We have had 'cavemen' on this planet for thousands of years and still do.

Primitive cultures still exist. They are still men. Not some other species. There are tribes of small men and tribes of big men on our planet today. There skeletons have some minor differences. This does not mean that they are not both men. It does not mean that they 'evolved' from a different breed of ape.

Our environment:

what we eat
the climate we live in
the technology we have
how much we have to eat
the medicine we have available
etc, etc, etc...

All have an impact on our size, shape, etc..but they do not change our species. The 'cavemen' you speak of are just a result of that.
 
So many questions. I'll do my best.
Didasko said:
So they lived with no sun or moon? The sun and moon were created on the fourth day.
Click to expand...
Possibly. It's possible they might not have needed light, or that there was another source of light (such as in heaven where "there is no shadow of turning" because the light source is the glory of God), or that they saw on a different frequency than we do. We see only a very small sliver of the radio (electromagnetic) spectrum.
Didasko said:
Were they aquatic? God dried some land up on the third day.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but if we assume similar rates of current geological processes, probably not, although the earth would have looked much different. God receded the seas on day 3, but not necessarily for the first time.
Didasko said:
Did they have infravision? It was very very dark til day one when light was created.
Click to expand...
I already answered the bit about darkness, but reading this, another subject occurs to me: how could God create matter and light at separate time periods even though they are both different forms of the same thing (E=mcc)? I certainly don't know.
Didasko said:
Are you saying that God put out the lights that you think were here before day one and 'recreated' light on day 1?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
Didasko said:
Are you saying that God snuffed out whatever heat and light generating object you think he might have had before he created the sun and moon on the fourth day?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
Didasko said:
Are you saying that Noah's flood was the second one?
Click to expand...
Worldwide flood, you mean? Maybe it was, or the third one, or the fourth, or the ten millionth.
 
kraniac said:
So many questions. I'll do my best.Possibly. It's possible they might not have needed light, or that there was another source of light (such as in heaven where "there is no shadow of turning" because the light source is the glory of God), or that they saw on a different frequency than we do. We see only a very small sliver of the radio (electromagnetic) spectrum. Possibly, but if we assume similar rates of current geological processes, probably not, although the earth would have looked much different. God receded the seas on day 3, but not necessarily for the first time.I already answered the bit about darkness, but reading this, another subject occurs to me: how could God create matter and light at separate time periods even though they are both different forms of the same thing (E=mcc)? I certainly don't know. Possibly. Possibly. Worldwide flood, you mean? Maybe it was, or the third one, or the fourth, or the ten millionth.
Click to expand...

Just to keep things clear for our resident non-christians:)

You would agree that all of this is pure speculation on your part correct kraniac? That non of this has any biblical support or is even hinted at in the Bible?
 
Yes. I find it more likely than every "caveman" fossil being a hoax and multiply concurrent radiometrically determined dates to be false. But that is opinion and there is no test for arguing that one is better than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top