That is true, but to attach dates to events implies assumptions about the
constancy of fundamental constants, in particular, the speed of light. There
is a distinction between what you think happened and what actually happened.
Such difficulties do not arise when doing science as an experimental
endeavor. I believe the same difficulties also arise in studies of the
origin of man.
>>As a Christian I have one concern that perhaps you can answer. How does an
>>evolutionary development of man brings the Fall of Man into the picture? The
>>Fall of Man is necessary in the Christian faith and is essential for the
>>understanding of who Christ is and what He did on the cross for us.
>
>I absolutely agree with you that the Fall (a historical Fall of 2 people) is
>essential. This was the most difficult item. But there are pseudogenes,
>broken genes located at the same place in apes and man. Since a designer
>would be unlikely to make a broken gene at the same place in 4 separate
>species, this data are strongly indicative of common descent. The reply I
>have heard from anti-evolutionists is that we will find a function for these
>broken genes in the future. Of course they may be correct, but how long
>must one wait?
When you say "since a designer would be unlikely," aren't you placing
constraints on the Creator?
>Anyway, here is how one can unite evolution and the Fall. This is from my
>web page.
>
>begin***
>"This is the tricky place. Everybody says that it is impossible to
>account for the origin of Adam and Eve by means of evolution and
>yet still have the Biblical account be true. This is false.
>People have not put enough effort into solving this problem. Here
>is what the evidence says.
> The apes have 48 chromosomes; we have 46. If we arose from
>the apes, there must have been a chromosomal fusion (there are also
>other differences like inversions of certain segments etc). The
>biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to the apes is
>a) the extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence of
>pseudogene insertions at the same locations in man, chimp, gorilla
>and gibbon. (part of this insertion has been removed in the case of
>chimpanzee but enough remains to know that it was there at one
>time). Since the pseudogene does not work, it can not be claimed
>to be there by the mechanism of common design. Why would the
>Designer make the same mistake at the same location in 4 species?
You say: "If we arose from the apes." Could the converse be true? Is that
nonsensical? Could that point of view also be argued just as you do yours? I
am curious.
Thank you,
Moorad