The bible cannot mention everything in complete detail, or we'd never finish the book. I believe there is enough in there that we require to believe. I know that God forbad marrying ones close relatives later on, but it was not forbidden in the beginning, as the DNA was without flaw.

There is definitely a natural type of disgust at considering the idea now, which I believe is deeply intrenched in every human being for good reason. Although, again you will always get deviants! But it is for our protection that this instinctive aversion is there.

Variations within every kind is not limited to animals as we can see. Two fully developed adults having all the information in the DNA required to allow for such variation down through the generations, as we see with any other creature.

Also, the life span of these people was according to the bible, was absolutely incredible......which makes sense, God did not create a sick planet (we did through disobedience), so I cannot even imagine how many babies they would have been able to continue producing throughout these long lives. The ones mentioned were the standouts (whether in good or evil).

DNA ADAM AND EVE NOT SO ANCIENT?

a) DNA Eve:
By sequencing mitochondrial DNA in human cells, scientists have found similarities which indicate that all people from earth descend from a single, human female. This mitochondiral DNA is only inherited through the mother's line. Scientists claimed proof that she lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows mitochondrial DNA mutate faster than originally thought. If this new evidence is applied to Mitochondrial Eve' it indicates she would have lived only 6000 - 6500 years ago, which is consistent with the biblical chronology for Eve.

b)DNA ADAM:

Interestingly there is a parallel account with males. Evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. The date is also consistant with a recent date for this 'Y-chromosome Adam' This likewise fits in with the bible chronology for Adam.

So the evidence for a young earth is definitely compelling.

Are we really evolving (improving)? Or are we deteriorating (devolving)?

(DNA DECAY?)

Dr. Ian Macredie is Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research INstitue of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research organisation (CSIRO). He has won some of his nation's leading award for research in his field. Dr. Macreadie (who claims no offical CSIRO endoresement for his views on origins) says: "All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information) that might help a bug to survive - e.g., by not binding to an antibiotics as effectively. But you never see any NEW information arising within a cell. "Evolution would argue for things improving, wheras I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations (mistakes as DNA is copied each generation) causing an increasing community burden of inherited diseases. All things were well designed intially.

EVOLUTION OR DEVOLUTION? (Zoologist):

Dr. Walter Veith is holder of the Chair of Zoology at the University of the Western Cape (Republic of South Africa), and a former evolutionist and atheist. Professor Veith became interested in the Bible after finding out about its many explicit prophecies which were fulfilled in amazing detail (unlike the vague prognostications of later seers and soothsayers). He says "In my own field, I realised that natural selection (a fact, incidentally) does not increase the number of variants, it decreases them. I ask, 'How can a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more?' To believe in chance mutations as the source of the new information required for evolution requires a lot of faith. It's certainly not something I see in my work as a zoologist."

DOES RADIOMETRIC DATING PROVE AN OLD EARTH?

There are in fact, many dating methods which give upper limits to the age of the earth and universe far less than evolution requires. Some point to an age of a few thousand years at the most. Naturally, evolutionists will automatically, even unconsiously, prefer methods (e.g. most radiometric methods) which allow enough time to make their transformist belief seem possible.

Contrary to popular belief, carbon-dating has nothing to do with millions of years (even with the best analytical equipment today, its upper limit is around 100,000 theoretical years). It is a method which can only date things which still contain organic carbon (unlike most fossil bones, for example). when the method and all its assumptions are understood, and checked against real-world data, it is actually a powerful argument for a young world. Another popular belief is that radiometric methods generally agree with eachother. Perhaps this belief has arisen because of an unconscious 'selection' process; as evolutionist Professor Richard Mauger says:
"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are discrepancies fully explained".

Carbon-dating of wood under lava that was erupted from Rangitoto (an island volcanoe near Auckland, New Zealand) indicates that the eruption was around 200 years ago. The name is said to mean red sky', suggesting that the Maoris, who have been there for 1,000 years at the most, witnessed this event.........

yet...potassium-argon dating of the lava has given ages of up to half a million years! Incidentally, this method is used on occassions to 'date' fossils by their associated lava flows.

Circular reasoning Deceptive!

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils...."And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldredge, 1985). Such circular reasoning is neither logical nor acceptable, let alone scientific!

Evidence of dinosaurs/man living at the sametime, check this link out and scroll down the list:
http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html#dinos&humans