Noah's Ark Found?

[Arpa]

It seems like that idiot Daniel Mcgivern is making some progress in his idiotic quest of the Ark. He is making the rounds of the network TV. This morning on ABC he was fetured with thet other idiot, Dr.(?) Arslan. What is noteworthy is that the commentator, Charlie Gibson did actually place the mountain as at the boder of Turkey, Iran and ARMENIA. That moron aka McGivern speaks on behalf of his organization fittingly named the SHAM-rock Trinity Corp(sham alright), whatever and whoever they may be. It is notable that those who have propagated the hoax of the Ark have been deafeningly silent about the whole fiasco.

I will stop here and invite you to another topic "Ararat Beckons" to see how we can benefit from this comedy.

 

I have not been able to locate a direct link to McGivern to see if we can "flood" him with comments and urge him to not forget the Armenian connection to the subject. For those who would rather be more Christian than Christ himself, wake up and see what the so called Christian world is doing joining forces with idiots the likes of that Dr(?) Arslan.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Arpa

[mx5]

honestly I dont believe in history,after thousand of years it sure will be distorted,if i cannot thrust CNN for its distortion of the news which have happened few hours ago in the middle east or Iraqe or somewhere else how could I for something that happened thousand of years ago.

 

yes I know you will reply there was no CNN then!!!...

[Anileve]

This man basically coined the term "one god" so how come no schalor takes his existence seriously?

Interestingly enough, the first person to adopt the idea of monotheism was Akhenaten, but somehow "The Bible" fails to mention that. However there are speculation that Akhenaten disappeared and came back as the leader of the Jews. In other words "Moses". Akhenatens body was never found either. I just can't understand what is so difficult in considering this holy book as just another book of legends. But to use it as an instruction booklet is just beyond my comprehension.

[Sasun]

Lets begin at the source...

 

In the past did a historical figure known as "Moses" truly exist? If you can prove to me that this figure actually existed than maybe everything else has some truth to it after all.

 

I just find it strange how the "elite media" has not already circulated it through the various media outlets. This man basically coined the term "one god" so how come no schalor takes his existence seriously?

The fact that there are no historically accepted records of Moses doesn't mean he didn't exist. Not everything gets preserved you know. Besides, this old an history is usually recorded only in instances where major events such a wars take place, or great emperors are described, and such things. Even in that case the preservation of such records is not at all guaranteed. Let alone Moses who was not a major historical figure at all, the record keepers who were working for kings and such would have no interest to pen down the biography of Moses. Of course he is a great religious figure, and there is a record of him in religion. Well, if historical standards do not accept the religious scriptures as evidence then there is nothing that can be done. Just remember that no matter at what age people are not stupid to believe in someone as a real person who never existed. And as far as I understand history is not about what did not happen or exist, but what did happen and exist.

[Arpa]

I find it extremely amusing, to say the least when people refer to those legends, and particularly to the Ark as "history". Many on this forum and in this thread have directly and indirectly implied it.

I have heard this from the mouths of Jewish scholars that there is no historical or physical evidence that either Moses or Abraham were actually historical figures, their best explanation is that Moses may be an amalgam of several people and law givers, just an invention to dramatize and romanticize. I have even heard from those same people questioning the historicity of David, once a again explaining that David may be a synthesis of several legendary or otherwise personnages all in one, as there really are no physical evidence of him. There are other examples of this phenomenon that can be found in many peoples' folklore. How about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? Not unlike our very own David of Sassun whom we know as an imaginary invention yet a combination of many characters to emphasize our trials and tribulations as well as our dreams and national aspirations. In this light, is the main character of Khent by Raffi a historical flesh and blood person? Probably not, yet he is used to express the authors frustrations, hopes and dreams which are very real.

Even if we compare some of our legends of Haik, Ara etc. at least there are some third party inscriptions and references to them, even if as secondary characters, in other peoples' history. I have yet to see any refernce to Moses or Abraham in any other historical records except the Bible.

 

As to the historicity and feasibility of the Ark, I will air some questions in another post.

[Sasun]

The stories in the Old Testament are not clear cut legends or clear cut historical records. They are rather a blurry mix of both.

[Arpa]

The stories in the Old Testament are not clear cut legends or clear cut historical records. They are rather a blurry mix of both.

Any more or less than our own legends and fables?

Edited April 28, 2004 by Arpa

[Arpa]

If we can lay aside the childish debate about Noah and the Ark being historical or not.

Assuming that most, all of us are half way intelligent and somewhat versed in the natural sciences of physics, mathematics and chemistry. I base the assumption on the fact that if we are adapt enough to manipulate the internet then we should be able to appreciate the facts attached to the Flood. As stated, at many occasions floods do happen all the time and everywhere, some bigger than others so it is not an absolute figment of someones imagination except that this particular one is blown so out of proportion that it borders on idiocy. Don't get me wrong, the prepetrators of the legend are not an idiots but they may have assumed everybody else was, including us, to believe it as an historical event.

When I said many of us are half way intelligent I am also aware that there are some math and physics geniuses among us, see if they can solve this dilemma.

According to the legend the Ark was as long and as wide as a football field, or even larger. It was eight stories high, made of wood. That is bigger than an average city block. What say you guys? Can a structure of that dimensions stand on its own? Will it not collapse under its own weight?

It is also suggested that the waters rose to cover the peak of Ararat. That is 5000 meters high. We all know that water does not pile up, it spreads and levels off, meaning that for water to rise that hight it had to also rise that high in Africa, Australia and all the oceans. Let's see how much water it takes to cover the entire globe. Never mind 5000 meters. Let's see how much water it takes the cover the globe with one inch of water. How about it our resident mathematicians and physicists? I understand the surface area of the Earth 197,000,000, that is 197 million square miles. How much water will it take to cover that area with even one millimeter of water? I give up, I don't know. The other problem is, how much water(moisture) there is in our entire atmosphere? Is there enough water in our atmosphere and stratosphere to even cover the Earth with one centimeter of water?

 

As to "miracles", please don't caricaturize God any more than we have already done. If He is the creator he is also the creator of all those laws of physics and chemistry as well and to insist that He wnet against his own laws is, in my view treating Him as a buffoon, a clown and a master practical joker.

[Sasun]

Any more or less than our own legends and fables?

That maybe the case but not necessarily, depends on the stories.

[Sasun]

If we can lay aside the childish debate about Noah and the Ark being historical or not.

May I note that you always have a lot of input in such debates.

 

As to the rest of your post, I personally am not interested in it as long as you keep ridiculing God and things religious.

[Arpa]

May I note that you always have a lot of input in such debates.

 

As to the rest of your post, I personally am not interested in it as long as you keep ridiculing God and things religious.

Sasun , please don't be so sensitive, nobody is insulting your god.

Please read my post again, particularly the last paragraph and see what I said about "ridiculing" God. Definitely not me. Yes, those idiots who treat Him like a "clown" and a Buffoon". You will note that I spelled His name with the Capital G and the capital H. My God may not be exactly like yours or that of others, He is certainly not the confused and self contradictory "clown" (there, I said it again) depicted in the OT. My God is say above that.

Now that we have hopefully settled as to who is "ridiculing" God let's talk like the intelligent people (that He created) we claim to be.

[Sasun]

Sasun , please don't be so sensitive, nobody is insulting your god.

Please read my post again, particularly the last paragraph and see what I said about "ridiculing" God. Definitely not me. Yes, those idiots who treat Him like a "clown" and a Buffoon". You will note that I spelled His name with the Capital G and the capital H. My God may not be exactly like yours or that of others, He is certainly not the confused and self contradictory "clown" (there, I said it again) depicted in the OT. My God is say above that.

Now that we have hopefully settled as to who is "ridiculing" God let's talk like the intelligent people (that He created) we claim to be.

Arpa, thank you for attempting to settle this issue. Actually, I never understood what your God is like. But that is besides the point. Whatever that is, I have no problem with it and will always treat your belief with due respect and tolerance, you will never hear me criticizing neither your God nor the followers of your God.

I will be blunt: what I have a problem with is your constant attack and belittling of other's God, Allah, Old Testament, this and that religious belief, etc. Tell me please, do you honestly think that you have figured out what is right and what is wrong, whose God maybe called "clown", "buffoon", "confused", whose God is good and whose God is bad. What seems contradictory to you makes perfect sense to someone else. You are saying that you are not the one ridiculing but the believers themselves. I have never heard any Old Testament believer say that he is ridiculing his God. I am sure he will have a good explanation of the contradictions that you see, in his own way. He is right in his way, you are right in your way. It only seems to you contradictory, you want to present it that way. Can't you finally have peace with other religions whatever they might be? People are free to believe and worship whatever they find fit without being called idiots and such.

You are asking me not to be sensitive. Well, I could shut up and not show any sensitivity. But can I also ask you to please show some respect to religious sensitivities?

 

Insults to anyone's God are insulting to me because I believe in only one God who is my God and everyone's God.

[Vigil]

People are free to believe and worship whatever they find fit without being called idiots and such.

 

I am not calling anyone that believes in a existence beyond life an idiot, however, I am just merly pointing out that the contemporary religions that are worshiped were originally created to benefit the ethnic group that created them.

 

For me to claim I am Christian means that I am below a Jew, however, for a Jew to state that he is closer to God because of that is actually fooling himself because the messiah he believes in, Moses, actually never existed.

 

With this being said I find it very strange that they have the audasity to place this well known lie in a history book and if you do not believe me I can scan the book so that you can actually see with your own eyes how far the lie goes.

 

Like I have said earlier when they label "the exodus" as a important historic date for the continent of Asia, it becomes very clear that the entire religion can also be fabricated.

 

Nevertheless, I do agree with you that I can not call somone an idiot for their beliefs, which I have not, but I can at least state my OPINION that any religion which steams from Judaism is a bunch of nonsense because if a God can communicate with a mortal 3000 years ago what is stopping him now? Absolutly nothing, in fact for 2000 years Armenians prayed to this "one god" and the only answer back was the attempted destruction of our race every century or so.

 

While the individuals that were responsible, today, are being hailed as "European" and welcomed by the fellow "Christians" we bled along side with. Tragically it was not too long ago they raped, pillaged, and butchered not just us, but the "Europeans" they now are dying to be like. We very well know what Mongrel ethnic group I am talking about, Turks, and evidently soon they will call themselves the first Christian nation as part of their propaganda.

 

So you see in the present this very idea of "religious unity" has no meaning and in fact is distorted at times to be profitable for those that have created this illusion using the media. The misuse of the media as a tool of manipulation instead of a tool of truth was stated very clearly by TAP in several of his articles.

 

I would rather believe in no God rather than a God that is deaf, blind, and certainly mute to everyone accept those that have created him.

 

You have a choice to agree or disagree, but let me remind you to be blind to this obvious fact is actually far worse than me calling you a moron, which again I would like to remind you I have not, don't make up statements I have never said.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Sasun]

I would rather believe in no God rather than a God that is deaf, blind, and certainly mute to everyone accept those that have created him.

Believe in what you want, but here you are parading your ignorance. God is neither blind, deaf, or mute.

 

Your beliefs are not facts. You are so sure Moses didn't exist, how can you be so sure? Is that one of your facts? Did you live in that era and knew everyone personally to conclude that there was no such a person?

 

You have a choice to agree or disagree, but let me remind you to be blind to this obvious fact is actually far worse than me calling you a moron, which again I would like to remind you I have not, don't make up statements I have never said.

 

Obviously you are confused. You see, you may be talking about TAP all the time, or you maybe talking about yourself all the time, but I don't talk about you all the time.

[Vigil]

Believe in what you want, but here you are parading your ignorance. God is neither blind, deaf, or mute.

 

When in my entire argument did I act pompously? Let’s assume I did act pompously. Would that make my argument any less important? No, it would not, so, for you to again personally state that I am being "pompous" has no relevance to the thread.

 

Let me elaborate further. Does not the Christian religion come from Judaism? Yes, it does, now ask yourself who gave them the "ten commandments" that was written by God? Moses, now ask your self how can this religion be accurate, when the original event that created the belief in the religion is inaccurately portrayed? It can not be accurate because the original man the religion stemmed from never existed.

 

Now you are right in that it could be many characters that combine and form the Moses, however, this is very much different than actually stating that he existed because for him to exist the entire events around his existence would have to be true, right? Yes, they would and thus, because these events are not true the very essence of the belief is false, which means that the entire religion is as well, including the ones that stem from it.

 

This relates to this topic because if the entire basis of the book that the story of Noah’s ark is written in is deemed false, than the story it self is also a lie.

 

Now do I believe there is an existence beyond life? Yes, I do, but to say that my version is more accurate than yours is inconsistent because at the very end the one "God" we all worship is very much a deaf, blind, and mute “super being” due to the fact that "bad things do happen to good people". How devout must a follower be to earn the court of his God?

 

This comes back full circle to my original point that a God is no more as "benevolent" as a human due to the inevitability fact that he, she, or it will not give up the better decision for the sake of not destroying a few mortal lives. He may be stronger, smarter, and more powerful, but in the very end he still has his own ambitions.

 

So in the very end this God that we all worships is more inclined to not care as opposed to actually give a dam because even a God employs ruthless tactics in order to achieve the greater good for himself.

 

No entity in the universe can actually be defined as "good", while the same can be said of being labeled the opposite or in this case "bad", nevertheless, a balance of both can be achieved to meet your goals. The underlying question is what the goal of God is? Is it to help humans or help himself because how could the very idea of God exist without his followers?

 

As much as a God likes to think he is a divine being, God, still needs followers to worship him in order for his divinity to be recognized and thus, in this case respected, however, if a God has no worshipers than the idea of his existence also diminishes.

 

Your beliefs are not facts. You are so sure Moses didn't exist, how can you be so sure? Is that one of your facts? Did you live in that era and knew everyone personally to conclude that there was no such a person?

 

Beliefs beyond the original events are not facts, which I agree with and have stated many times should be followed if you truly believe in your original religion, however, the original event that sparked the religion is indeed considered a fact. For instance the debate that Jesus performed miracles is what motivates individuals to choose Christianity because to them the underlying event was indeed a fact.

 

Nevertheless, the debate over the extent of prophet’s miracles is only valid if he truly existed. The sheep only follow a shepherd to salvation because they feel that his belief is strong enough to prove his faith true, however, if the original event is false the rest can be pretty much deemed false as well.

 

Obviously you are confused. You see, you may be talking about TAP all the time, or you maybe talking about yourself all the time, but I don't talk about you all the time

 

Maybe you should because it would save me a lot of time in that I would not have to restate what TAP already stated.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Anileve]

I am find this fascinating, and have believed the following theory for some time. Along with the rest of my theory of human creation. I do believe that the Bible is the key to decipher this theory, however many are fixated on taking it literally, rather than considering it an interpretation and a written record of the earlier civilization faced with something they couldn't comprehend at the time.

 

p.69: Fireballs and thunderbolts from the angry skies apparently wreaked a lot of havoc in Biblical times. Some scholarly scientists have suggested that these accounts sound suspiciously like atomic explosions. A Soviet physicist, Professor M. Agrest, has even proposed that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by an atomic bomb. Lot's wife, he asserts, did not turn into a pillar of salt but was reduced to a pile of ashes when she ignored a warning not to linger behind Lot's fleeing party. Furthermore, in an article in Moscow's 'Literaturnaya Gazeta' in 1959, Professor Agrest offered the startling theory that ancient Baalbek was the Cape Kennedy of its day, serving as a launching platform for spaceships from another civilization. His "proof" consisted of the tektites and fused crystals found there. Such substances are the by-products of atomic explosions.

[Sasun]

No, it would not, so, for you to again personally state that I am being "pompous" has no relevance to the thread.

I didn't call you pompous, read again and pay more attention.

 

Now you are right in that it could be many characters that combine and form the Moses

I can't be right in that because I didn't say that. Read again and pay more attention.

 

Maybe you should because it would save me a lot of time in that I would not have to restate what TAP already stated.

Let me remind you again, what TAP says does not constitute truth to me.

 

I have never insulted you, yet in your previous post you tried to insult me.

 

Now if you will excuse me, I will no longer waste my time on you.

[Vigil]

Now if you will excuse me, I will no longer waste my time on you.

 

The feeling is mutual, however, please do not prematurely turn me "sharing my opinions" into "me insulting you" because you put yourself in that position by bravely stating "Insults to anyone's God are insulting to me because I believe in only one God who is my God and everyone's God", so, now try and defend what you stated instead of hiding behind the "holier than thou" crux.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Sasun]

I am not hiding, however, I do wish to be left alone, so stop the cheap rhetoric. I see no point in debating with someone with such little attention span, such a superficial understanding of religion, and someone who lacks common decency to admit wrongdoing.

[DominO123]

This kind of debate leads nowhere.

 

Yet again, Vigil is right, Sasun is right... or both are wrong.

 

In Sasuns universe he is right, in vigils universe, Vigil is right.

 

End of the story.

[gamavor]

I hate to do this, since I'm absolutely impartial to that part of the Bible, but I would like to "help" the Ark "diggers" with a hint. The text from the Bible says:

 

"At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated; 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar'arat. 5 "

 

 

Note that it says the mountains of Ararat (who put this stupid apostrophe in the English translation I don't know). The mountains of Ararat, very well could be any hill, plateau, or just elevated part of the Armenian Highlands, since the whole area is too high above the see level. According to some, Ararat, was the name of the Ancient Armenian Kingdom, so practically the whole area of Ancient Armenia (occupied by the filthy turks with the help of you know who )could possibly be designated as a search place.

 

I know that the people that are involved in this are so fanatic, that if they didn't find anything they might implant an Ark, just to prove their theories.

 

I volunteered my two Golden Euros to this topic only because of Eve's notion about the interpretation, speaking of which, look in here to see the Biblical genealogy of the Armenians which I believed in few centuries back but not anymore.

 

 

БИБЛЕЙСКАЯ ГЕНЕАЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ТАБЛИЦА

 

1. Потомки Иафета.

 

| ГОМЕР - (пафлогонийцы)

| | АСКЕНАЗ (скандинавы - Швеция, Норвегия, Дания)

| | РИФАТ (французы, кельты, шотландцы - Франция, Англия, Шотландия)

| | ФОГАРМА (армяне - Армения)

|

| МАГОГ (скифы - Скифия)

ИАФЕТ -|

| МАДАЙ (мидийцы - Мидия)

|

| | ЕЛИСА (греки - Греция)

| ИАВАН | ФАРСИС (фарсийцы - Испания)

| | КИТТИМ (Кипр)

| | ДОДАНИМ (троянцы и родосцы - Троя, Родос)

|

| ФУВАЛ (иберы, грузины - Иберия, Грузия)

| МЕШЕХ (каппадокийцы - Каппадокия)

| ФИРАС (фракийцы, даки, геты - Фракия, Дакия)

 

 

2. Потомки Хама.

 

| СЕВА (африканцы - Мероэ)

|- ХУШ -| ХАВИЛА (гетулы)

| | САВТА

| | | ШЕВА

| |- РААМА -| ДЕДАН

| |

| | САВТЕХА (эфиопы - Эфиопия)

| | НИМРОД (вавилоняне - Вавилон)

ХАМ -|

| | ЛУДИМ

| | АНАМИМ

|- МИЦРАИМ -| ЛЕГАВИМ (север Африки)

| (египтяне - | НАФТУХИМ (земли возле Пелузия)

| Египет) | ПАТРУСИМ (Верхний Египет)

| | КАСЛУХИМ (филистимляне)

| | КАФТОРИМ (Крит)

|

|- ФУТ (ливийцы, Ливия)

|

| | СИДОН (финикийцы, Финикия)

| | ХЕТ (хетты, империя Хеттов)

| | ИЕВУСЕЙ (иевусеи)

|- ХАНААН -| АМОРРЕЙ (аморреи)

| ГЕРГЕСЕЙ (гергесеи)

| АРКЕЙ (аркеи - финикийский город Арка)

| СИНЕЙ (синеи)

| АРВАДЕЙ (арвадеи)

| ЦЕМАРЕЙ (цемареи)

| ХИМАФЕЙ (химафеи)

 

 

3. Потомки Сима.

 

|- ЕЛАМ (еламиты и персы - Елам и Персия)

|- АССУР (ассирийцы - Ассирия)

|

| |- ФАЛЕК (евреи, арабы, идумеи,

|- АРФАКСАД -|- САЛА -|- ЕВЕР - | аммонитяне, моавитяне)

СИМ -| |- ИОКТАН

|

|- ЛУД (лидийцы, Лидия)

|

| | УЦ (Трахонита и Дамаск)

|- АРАМ | ХУЛ

| ГЕФЕР (бактрийцы, Бактрия)

| МАШ (мисанейцы)

[Sasun]

The mountains of Ararat, very well could be any hill, plateau, or just elevated part of the Armenian Highlands, since the whole area is too high above the see level.

That's an argument I have heard before. I was too uninterested to point that out earlier

[Vigil]

I am not hiding, however, I do wish to be left alone, so stop the cheap rhetoric. 

 

You open a can of worms and now you just want to be "left alone"? If that is the case then from now on I suggest you either remain silent or if you do decide to speak, at least make sure you have the capacity to listen as well, even if you disagree.

 

I see no point in debating with someone with such little attention span

 

Maybe, in your opinion, I may have a "low attention span", but at least I can defend the statements that I make instead of just trying to destroy the credibility of my opponent.

 

such a superficial understanding of religion

 

How can a individual have a "superficial understanding" of religion when in fact it is based on each persons interpretation? They can't because no one, so far, has actually come back from the dead to describe if in fact there is a existence beyond death or are you telling me you know someone that has come back from the afterlife?

 

I am just trying to tell you that religion has no substance if there is no historical presence behind it. For instance, what would happen tomorrow if the world were to find out that Jesus, in fact, never existed? Wouldn't the underlying belief in the teachings that he preached also thus, never exist? Yes, they would not exist as well because Jesus never existed and due to this Christian beleif would lose their connection with God, which is the main reason to believe in religion in the first place.

 

I know as much about the afterlife as any priest, rabbi, or any other religious pastor and for you to actually state that I have a "superficial understand" goes to show, that you in fact, do not understand the meaning behind having a belief.

 

someone who lacks common decency to admit wrongdoing.

 

So, everybody should apologize to you for stating their opinions because that is what is at the very essence of your statement?

 

Listen, all I am trying to tell you is that the heart of Judaism, AKA "the ten commandments" is fabricated. Now, if you still choose to believe in it or anything remotely related to it it, so be it, but at least understand that because of this underlying fact, anything that has been recorded, before or after the incarnation of this religion, is quite possible fabricated as well because the historical accuracy has diminished.

 

Now, I understand that a religion never truly goes extinct, but rather is integrated into the next set of beliefs, however, because of this transition the accuracy of the historical events is also distorted, which causes the actual importance of the belief to go extinct as well because if Moses never existed how do followers of Judaism have a connection with God? They don't and would be better off worshiping idols.

 

So, with this being said, I am going to state that it is premature to try and link the events in any holy scripture to a historic date, which again, is impossible because you do not accurately know where the original belief ends and where the new one begins.

 

This directly relates to ark because most of the so-called "arkologists" are trying to do just that, which is to try and historically prove the existence of a ark.

 

For all we know the ark they refer to in the bible could very well have been a spaceship from Mars?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[mx5]

Your beliefs are not facts. You are so sure Moses didn't exist, how can you be so sure? Is that one of your facts? Did you live in that era and knew everyone personally to conclude that there was no such a person?

I think religion has become a civilisation more a culture a way of living to a many people or nations rather than a mean of comunicating with God.

 

we as Armenians fought too many battles to keep not I think just the Christianity but also our way of living our culture our identity,had Vartan not fought we would cetainly didnt exist now and were part of Persia,had we given in to the 1915 genocide we were surly part of Musliman big brother Turky by now.

 

Christians took the old Testament and cultivated it according to their religous needs and beliefes they left out whatever is not part of there beliefes bringing about the new Testament,and that the same was most probably done by Jews,must have taken the "Bible" from another civilisation and took whatever apropriate for them and left out what is not!!

 

if the same was also done by other preciding civilisations just imagine what a distorted (religious)world history would come to us.

Edited April 30, 2004 by mx5

[bellthecat]

I am find this fascinating, and have believed the following theory for some time. Along with the rest of my theory of human creation. I do believe that the Bible is the key to decipher this theory, however many are fixated on taking it literally, rather than considering it an interpretation and a written record of the earlier civilization faced with something they couldn't comprehend at the time.

I think I should put a load of worried-looking smilies here

 

Here is another theory for your personal collection. One Christian response to Darwin's theory of Evolution was the "second Adam theory" in which, basically, the descendants of the Adam of Genesis became extinct, and then our ancestors evolved from existing species according to Darwin's theory. This, for its proponents, had the merit of both keeping the Bible as truth and accepting the scientific fact that fossils showed that creatures had been around for millions of years before the emergence of modern humans.

 

I haven't actually read the book (it's from the 1860s, by a woman from Edinburgh) in which this "second Adam" theory was worked out, but might try to find a copy since it actually sounds rather like an early work of science fiction.