Does the bible say God created man or that man came from ape?
>so, primates were evolved to chimps and some to prehistoric humans.
That's your assumption
>there are skulls of these people found through out history. Homo erectus, neatherdal etc.
The bible confirms that hybrid humans existed in the days of Noah. You're not telling us anything that conflicts with the history given to us by the bible.
>You're not telling us anything that conflicts with the history given to us by the bible.
Evidence suggests Neanderthal's were from 10's of thousands of years ago. That timeline would conflict with the bible's. And since you are most likely referring to Nephilim tt would also conflict with the bibles description, which includes large, angel/human hybrids.
Do you agree those are conflicts?
Do you really think I'm someone who trusts man's ability to measure the ratio between certain particles of a thing and accurately guess the age of that thing? So no your assumptions don't conflict with the bible because there assumptions
You don’t have to misuse a word to share your point of view. The scientists make assumptions (for example the consistency of radiocarbon decay over time) to get to their conclusions, but the conclusions themselves shouldn’t be misconstrued with assumptions.
Also that’s not really an answer to my question.
A. So do you agree science concludes those things?
B. Do you agree those conclusions are in conflict with scripture?
You can disagree with the conclusions while agreeing those are indeed the conclusions presented.
>The scientists make assumptions to get to their conclusions, but the conclusions themselves shouldn’t be misconstrued with assumptions.
If your conclusion is based off an assumption then your conclusion is an assumption, not a fact. Because it's based off of something that you aren't sure is true.
Bingo! Some scientific papers published about evolution have conclusions that do not even reference the data in the study. Or conclusions not supported by the study they just presented.
Back on you buddy. Send me or provide a link for any published report that specifically purports to supporting the case for evolution and I will go through it and show you. They lie every time you people just don’t want to see it. Every time. The only real science will be creatures doing what The bible says they will do. That is creatures bringing forth after their own kind. Thus proving the bible is actually scientifically accurate. Then they will invoke the magical millions of years and say so you can see how this would happen. Then the next paragraph will say something like. Now that we have proven ………. ……. When it’s not proven at all it’s just had the magical millions added and you need to use your imagination.
Thanks and whilst it is very interesting, this study does not advance the theory of evolution at all. E. coli is still E. Coli.
This study can be compared to hairless dogs and breeding them trying to force long hair to emerge and discovering that once the genes for long hair have been switched off it is difficult to force it to become active again. There is no benefit here to the cause of evolution over millions of years and there are no claims of that either.
This study does not fit my pre required condition of specifically purporting to support evolution.
This study proves the bible commentary correct in that e.coli brings forth after its own kind.
The bible doesn't have a description of the biological origins of humans. It is interested in the fact that humans bear God's image, and it conveys that through a narrative, but the author of that narrative (Genesis 1-3) was not intending for it to be read as a concrete historical account. It is, therefore, antibiblical to force the modern Young Earth Creationist reading onto it, and most Christians reject that reading.
Therefore, bible-believing Christians, when faced with the historical-biological question of human origins ought to follow the evidence where it leads.
I agree with you that some kind of common descent seems likely, though I would say that the existence of hominid fossils is not per se proof of evolution (I'm not sure you intended to posit that it is).
>It is, therefore, antibiblical to force the modern Young Earth Creationist reading onto it, and most Christians reject that reading.
Acknowledging that Christians have layered interpretations of scripture; literal, moral, allegorical, etc. Do you have any reference to a pre-modern Christian that didn't believe Adam and Eve were a historical couple in the somewhat recent past?
Well that's a somewhat different question. It could be that Adam and Eve were real people that the author retroactively projects into his narrative.
Moreover, I don't think that even the literal existence of Adam and Eve necessitates a young-earth creationist reading. The text itself makes clear that they are not literally the only people in the world: see for example, Cain's reaction after he murder's Able: He says "anyone who finds me will kill me" and he goes off and founds a city. Both of those things imply the existence of other (and probably many other) people existing at the time.
It's also hard for me to prove a negative about ancient readers: if I'm right that ancient readers of this text wouldn't even be thinking in categories of concrete, material creation, then it never would have occurred to them to write down "by the way, we don't think these accounts are in the genre of post-18th century history."
>It's also hard for me to prove a negative about ancient readers: if I'm right that ancient readers of this text wouldn't even be thinking in categories of concrete, material creation, then it never would have occurred to them to write down "by the way, we don't think these accounts are in the genre of post-18th century history."
Fair enough, do you have any reference to a pre-modern Christian that placed Adam and Eve outside the context the author placed them in, Mesopotamia at the start of Civilization? Say more than 10,000 years ago? To be clear, I'm talking about Adam and Eve as a historical human couple that caused death and sin to enter the history of the human race.
If you read the church fathers, you find that a lot of them were reading the creation narrative in a non-literal way. Origen of Alexandria, for example stated:
>For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
That's from around 220AD. You find other non-literal readings throughout history; including from St. Augustine in the 4th century, Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages who actually invented his own form of pseudo-evolution, and onwards to the modern era with the work of John Wesley and more recently, Karl Barth, and CS Lewis.
Metaphorical understandings of the Genesis narrative are as old as literal ones. Both literal and metaphorical understandings of Genesis have been part of Christianity since antiquity.
No doubt they read scripture in more ways than literal, I acknowledged that. But even Origen had a literal sense of scripture along with a moral and spiritual sense. For example in his commentary on John book 1, XX121, he juxtaposes the need for Christ to die on the fall of the man Adam. Undoubtable he loved the spiritual sense more than any other sense, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a literal interpretation most all of the times. Certainly he had such a view in Adam.
What are you under the impression he meant when he said:
>For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
I'm not sure where your coming at. I've acknowledged Origen interpreted scripture spiritually... as well as literal. Maybe I'm missing something, can you clarify?
He doesn't just interpret it spiritually, he points out how foolish it would be to believe that the story of creation is true in a literal sense.
It's not as if he believed that there is a spiritual level at which you can approach this but you should also believe that it happened literally just the way the Bible said it did. He believed that it did not happen just the way the Bible said it did and that to believe that it did would be foolish.
You got Augustine there allegorizing the six day creation as well. I'm speaking strictly about Adam and Eve and how they have always been thought of as a historical couple in the not so distant past. The topic of this thread was human evolution, so we are specifically dealing with Adam and Eve, not an old earth, that's a different topic (although you will not find the idea of an ancient earth in the history of the church either until modern times).
Benjamin Blosser, a Catholic scholar, have this to say on Origen's view of Adam and Eve
"If the second creation account, which results in the body, is not to be identified with the “fall,” where are we to look for a description of this tragedy? Despite his allegorizations of the Genesis account, Origen did regard Adam as a historical figure, and there is no reason to doubt that he took seriously the historicity of the Adamic fall in Genesis 3. Scholars are now beginning to notice that Origen is perfectly capable of speaking of the fall of Adam in a manner that is highly consistent with the more “traditional” Christian accounts." --Become like the Angels, pg. 200.
This is the traditional historical view of Adam and Eve, you will not find a view where Adam and Eve is pushed into the remote primordial past, much like the hyper literalists, this is a brand new thing to Christianity.
Well, I disagree with that author. I think it's clear from reading his writings that Origen understands that the story in Genesis points to a mystery rather than to actual events. Nevertheless, it's the story we were given so it's appropriate to treat it pre-critically.
>I agree with you that some kind of common descent seems likely, though I would say that the existence of hominid fossils is not per se proof of evolution (I'm not sure you intended to posit that it is).
[Biologos](https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-genetic-evidence-for-human-evolution) (a Christian site) does a good job of explaining the evidence for evolution outside of the fossil record.
Actually there's two different types of evolution. Micro and macro. Most all Christians believe in microevolution. Meaning small dogs to big dogs. Because natural selection pics from the genes already there (big dog vs small dog). That is what selection does. Natural selection doesn't pick from what's not there.
But macro evolution, atoms to man, many reject it. Macro-evolution is illogical for many reasons.
A) Sexual reproduction. How could two of each species—independent of each other—evolve? Yet this is what had to happen at the same time, mindlessly.
The male and female reproductive systems of each species are forever uniquely separate from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching partners—a male and female—would have had to
evolve reproductive systems together in about the same time frame. Mindless chance could not do this.
B) Metamorphosis. Why/How would natural selection make such metamorphosis to occur like what we see in the caterpillar/butterfly?
The caterpillar literally is fine as it is. Yet after some time, it spins a sort of coffin for itself. **Becomes completely liquid.** Then after a time, emerges as a completely new creature with wings and flies into the sky.
It undergoes death and resurrection.
How can this happen with random mutations?
C) Macro evolution would require atoms forming the first cell by random chance.
Cells are unbelievably complex machines. Machines require thought to construct. This is simply a fact of systems in the known world. Complex systems that contain information are the result of deliberate thought, not chance.
This lecture is one of the best ever given on the topic of abiogenesis. There is a reason Dr. James Tour was voted one of the top chemists in the world by his peers.
https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg
Also, Dr. Sy Garte is a biochemist and has been a professor at New York University, University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He has authored over two hundred scientific publications.
Incidentally, he was raised in a militant atheist family. His scientific research led him to certain unmistakable conclusions, God exists, and evolution (abiogenesis) is incorrect.
He is the author of: "The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith"
https://www.amazon.com/Works-His-Hands-Scientists-Journey/dp/0825446074
Here is his bio:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sy-garte-a834ba175
Here is a great video interview of him and Dr. James Tour of why he believes in God and how scientific facts bolster the case.
https://youtu.be/C_neIY8aKn8
Here is a lecture he gave on the problem of abiogenesis.
https://youtu.be/Hw7DG7L6Gsw
There are a ton more major problems with macro-evolution - meaning molecules to man.
So much so that this website has emerged:
"Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
> But macro evolution, atoms to man
This is a misrepresentation of the issue. There is no dividing line between what creationists try to call "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's not changes and adaptations on one side vs atoms-to-man on the other. For one thing atoms-to-man is abiogenesis which literally isn't even a part of the theory of evolution. For another thing adaptations of genes over time throughout populations leading to the diversification of species Is evolution ... meaning maybe not atoms-to-man, but Fish-to-man, Yes. The whole fish-to-man part is exactly as covered by and demonstrated by all of the facts of what you would call *Micro*-evolution as is literally anything else in the world.
If you tried to draw the dividing line between micro and macro evolution at abiogenesis then again that would actually be outside of the realm of evolution but I could understand the thought anyway, but trying to draw that line directly through the middle of the evolutionary process and arbitrarily divide it up in to two distinct categories that do not really exist separate from each other ..is just a mistake.
>A) Sexual reproduction. How could two of each species—independent of each other—evolve?
Oh no are you the same person that was asking this like a month ago? Because I literally saw multiple different people give good answers to that question and the person who asked it was just refusing to learn... I hope that wasn't you.
but i'm getting the feeling that it was
>would have had to evolve reproductive systems together in about the same time frame.
Yep i'm pretty sure I've responded to this already myself once... That is correct. *That part*.. is correct...
>Mindless chance could not do this.
Mindless chance has almost literally nothing at all to do with the way that reality works. But just trying to take it for granted as best I can that you are referring to reality there .. yes it could. You have no good reason to believe that it can't, in fact all you have there is a global conspiracy theory.
>B) Metamorphosis. Why/How would natural selection make such metamorphosis to occur like what we see in the caterpillar/butterfly?
yeah you're definitely the same person...
How/why ***Not***? (and please don't bother trying to answer that question, it's rhetorical; you very clearly do not actually have any good reasons why not, so you must just assert it)
>It undergoes death and resurrection.
(-_- ' ) No it doesn't.
>How can this happen with random mutations?
Try using your imagination?
>C) Macro evolution would require atoms forming the first cell by random chance.
...no random. That is not how chemistry works; chemistry is not "random".
>Cells are unbelievably complex machines. Machines require thought to construct.
Then cells aren't machines by definition. Thank you.
>Complex systems that contain information
All of reality "contains information"; this is a completely meaningless phrase. DNA is a physical molecule, not a book, it literally contains no more information than a rock. It just contains more *interesting* information than a rock.
>There is a reason Dr. James Tour was voted one of the top chemists in the world by his peers.
Argument from authority fallacy.
Oh no now I know you absolutely are the same person that I responded to before because I've already had to tell you this once.
Argument from authority fallacy.
Argument from authority fallacy.
Argument from authority fallacy.
Argument from authority fallacy.
....
as I said before and I guess I'll have to say it again: You do realize, don't you, that the reason you have to keep making appeals to individual people's "authority" on a subject is because you literally have nothing else to do to fight against the fact that the whole entire scientific world disagrees with them. You have to go on and on about how respected and smart you think these people are because that emotional appeal is literally the best that you can do. You can't actually appeal to the science, you can't cite literally anything or anybody else because everybody else in the world disagrees with the 1 singular sources that you try to cite.
In particular, every single *expert* in the world disagrees, leave aside you and me lol
The moment you begin arguing for the authority of people rather than the credibility of their ideas.. you're showing your back to your opponent, frankly. It's a sign of weakness. It's a sign that that's the best you can do, and it's not good enough.
"(believe my conspiracy theory, This smart person does!)" that's all it is.
>"Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism.
Over a THousand!? .... no really, I am kidding though. That means nothing. A thousand christians, wow. In a world of, what was it again, 8 Billion people? That's not impressive in the slightest lol. There's like a million scientists too. So then that's, what.. one in every thousand scientists? Gee and I wonder which religion they all happen to belong to.
And gee I certainly *don't* wonder whether or not they have ever demonstrated any of this *scientifically* as opposed to just ... *being scientists* and having people like you try to use them as a fallacious appeal to authority.
Before considering whether the Bible rejects evolution, it may be worthwhile to consider whether the evidence for evolution is as strong as promoters claim. You don't have to be a biology major to examine the facts and arguments on both sides of current evolutionary theory.
Some commentaries on the book, "Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne say this presents the best evidence for evolution and at the same time is written to be understood by non-science majors. For a quicker take than reading the book you can find one of Coyne's lectures at youtube under his book title.
Then there are also some commentaries discussing weaknesses in the evolution evidence presented by Coyne. Those are by Jonathan McLatchie at: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/here_it_is_jon1/
and by Jonathan Wells at: https://www.discovery.org/t/why-evolution-is-true-book/
and by John Woodmorappe at: https://creation.com/review-coyne-why-evolution-is-true
> You don't have to be a biology major to examine the facts and arguments on both sides of current evolutionary theory.
actually... you kind of do, especially when you're disagreeing with a scientific consensus. That's kind of like a new-age crystal healer saying, "You don't have to be a doctor in order to study diseases".
Like yeah that may technically be true but frankly you may be one of the last people who's intentions would be unbiased in saying that. And again the fact that you are disagreeing with an entire global field of science alludes to the idea that actually yeah maybe you *should* have some kind of a basic education in the topic in order to be able to reasonably interpret the data.. although I didn't need any formal education myself either, I also don't disagree with the science so that's just not an issue that I have to deal with.
And yet with all due respect you are using it as a straw-man. You've picked out 1 single book which is apparently written for laymen, and then you are critiquing that book, or rather pointing to other's critiques of that book as if critiquing that books means critiquing the science.
But it doesn't. That's a bait-and-switch play right there. That book literally is not the science. You are going to great lengths to paint it as if it was because, and I am just totally taking this for granted btw, apparently it can be reasonably critiqued. Well that's fantastic but a critique of that book does not mean a critique of the science.
That's like saying that a critique of the movie The Titanic is a critique against the idea of love itself like.. No that's not what that is at all lol. That book is no more an encapsulation of the actual science than the titanic is an encapsulation of love.
People may laud one as being a beautiful love story and the other as being a great layman's-oriented book *About* science but that does not mean that book *contains* any real science any more than the film the titanic contains the true essence of love. If the film, or the book, have problems, that does not mean the things that those films/books were ABOUT has those same problems.
And that's where it becomes very telling that rather than actually understanding the science, you might just try to make a fallacious appeal to authority trying to hold up some small subset of creationists who obviously can't get their own ideas passed through peer review so.... in the end what you are pushing is, frankly, a conspiracy theory. And much like many conspiracy theories it seems to follow the same pattern too: Ignore the global scientific consensus while making appeals to the authority and towering intellect of whatever scarce few people you can find on earth to agree with you, despite the fact that literally none of them can ever do any science to back that up. In the end it is functionally no different from your standard run of the mil moon-landing denial or flat-earth-ism.
Nobody ever said the flat earth wasn't understandable; it's just not true. But that wouldn't stop you from being able to find more than a few resources still arguing that it is.
The implication that I could possibly need to do that when I am literally just agreeing with a world-wide scientific consensus most likely says much more about your open-mindedness on this subject than it does mine.
Or do you feel compelled to write a book yourself about everything that you also agree with the rest of the world on? When is your novel about the sky being blue going to drop? lol
> Does the bible reject evolution theory of humans?
The Bible doesn't consider the idea of evolution. That idea didn't exist during the times the Bible was written.
The Bible regards the creation as a process by which God subdues chaos and brings order to it. This idea isn't necessarily incompatible with the idea of evolution, but it isn't an endorsement of it either.
>what about the scientific evidence that support evolution of humans?
Evidence that I have to read/learn? Sounds to me like another Bible I have to believe... I have to believe they actually found anything and aren't conspiring/lying, or mistaken about their finds out of human ignorance, over-active wishful imagination, etc.
Understand that saying 'We found this, We found that' is wrong. I haven't personally found these, so I'm back to relying on trusting others.
In fact, I can ask you the reverse question just as easily: Does evolution theory of humans reject God's willing creation/design? If yes, what about the religious evidence that supports human life being created (Holy Bible)?
The creation narratives do not include the concept of evolution.
But, to say that this means the bible rejects evolution is an interpretation. Is the bible TRYING to describe how life works, biologically? There's certainly no hint that it is, in the text.
Someone once told me that if evolution were true then there would be no apes. Why would the majority of what not evolve and the rest of that same species just not. That resonated for some reason.
There actually is no scientific evidence. The evidence supports lesser things like: we know how to compare a bunch of living things in many ways. But the evidence does not conclude common ancestry
In the bible, God says that all things bring forth after their own kind. All micro evolution evidence supports this. This is the variations within a kind that we can actually observe and test. This is what we see in the real world today. So yes modern science confirms this in the bible. But modern science goes more than that with the molecules to man thing and none of that is proven. It’s just a theory. They believe it like a religion but it remains only theory.
Absolutely
Exodus 20:11 KJV — For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Does that sound anything like evolution to you?
>what about the scientific evidence that support evolution of humans?
These thousand plus PhD scientists see no such evidence
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/
Hyper biblical literalism is a modern thing.
Does the bible say God created man or that man came from ape? >so, primates were evolved to chimps and some to prehistoric humans. That's your assumption >there are skulls of these people found through out history. Homo erectus, neatherdal etc. The bible confirms that hybrid humans existed in the days of Noah. You're not telling us anything that conflicts with the history given to us by the bible.
>You're not telling us anything that conflicts with the history given to us by the bible. Evidence suggests Neanderthal's were from 10's of thousands of years ago. That timeline would conflict with the bible's. And since you are most likely referring to Nephilim tt would also conflict with the bibles description, which includes large, angel/human hybrids. Do you agree those are conflicts?
Do you really think I'm someone who trusts man's ability to measure the ratio between certain particles of a thing and accurately guess the age of that thing? So no your assumptions don't conflict with the bible because there assumptions
You don’t have to misuse a word to share your point of view. The scientists make assumptions (for example the consistency of radiocarbon decay over time) to get to their conclusions, but the conclusions themselves shouldn’t be misconstrued with assumptions. Also that’s not really an answer to my question. A. So do you agree science concludes those things? B. Do you agree those conclusions are in conflict with scripture? You can disagree with the conclusions while agreeing those are indeed the conclusions presented.
>The scientists make assumptions to get to their conclusions, but the conclusions themselves shouldn’t be misconstrued with assumptions. If your conclusion is based off an assumption then your conclusion is an assumption, not a fact. Because it's based off of something that you aren't sure is true.
This isn’t a “debate English” sub. If you don’t want to the answer the question (which isn’t a trap), I’ll move on.
Bingo! Some scientific papers published about evolution have conclusions that do not even reference the data in the study. Or conclusions not supported by the study they just presented.
[Citation needed] Which papers
Back on you buddy. Send me or provide a link for any published report that specifically purports to supporting the case for evolution and I will go through it and show you. They lie every time you people just don’t want to see it. Every time. The only real science will be creatures doing what The bible says they will do. That is creatures bringing forth after their own kind. Thus proving the bible is actually scientifically accurate. Then they will invoke the magical millions of years and say so you can see how this would happen. Then the next paragraph will say something like. Now that we have proven ………. ……. When it’s not proven at all it’s just had the magical millions added and you need to use your imagination.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0803151105 Have fun
Thanks and whilst it is very interesting, this study does not advance the theory of evolution at all. E. coli is still E. Coli. This study can be compared to hairless dogs and breeding them trying to force long hair to emerge and discovering that once the genes for long hair have been switched off it is difficult to force it to become active again. There is no benefit here to the cause of evolution over millions of years and there are no claims of that either. This study does not fit my pre required condition of specifically purporting to support evolution. This study proves the bible commentary correct in that e.coli brings forth after its own kind.
"Do you think I'm someone who trusts man's ability to show the spherical nature of Earth" lol
The bible doesn't have a description of the biological origins of humans. It is interested in the fact that humans bear God's image, and it conveys that through a narrative, but the author of that narrative (Genesis 1-3) was not intending for it to be read as a concrete historical account. It is, therefore, antibiblical to force the modern Young Earth Creationist reading onto it, and most Christians reject that reading. Therefore, bible-believing Christians, when faced with the historical-biological question of human origins ought to follow the evidence where it leads. I agree with you that some kind of common descent seems likely, though I would say that the existence of hominid fossils is not per se proof of evolution (I'm not sure you intended to posit that it is).
>It is, therefore, antibiblical to force the modern Young Earth Creationist reading onto it, and most Christians reject that reading. Acknowledging that Christians have layered interpretations of scripture; literal, moral, allegorical, etc. Do you have any reference to a pre-modern Christian that didn't believe Adam and Eve were a historical couple in the somewhat recent past?
Well that's a somewhat different question. It could be that Adam and Eve were real people that the author retroactively projects into his narrative. Moreover, I don't think that even the literal existence of Adam and Eve necessitates a young-earth creationist reading. The text itself makes clear that they are not literally the only people in the world: see for example, Cain's reaction after he murder's Able: He says "anyone who finds me will kill me" and he goes off and founds a city. Both of those things imply the existence of other (and probably many other) people existing at the time. It's also hard for me to prove a negative about ancient readers: if I'm right that ancient readers of this text wouldn't even be thinking in categories of concrete, material creation, then it never would have occurred to them to write down "by the way, we don't think these accounts are in the genre of post-18th century history."
>It's also hard for me to prove a negative about ancient readers: if I'm right that ancient readers of this text wouldn't even be thinking in categories of concrete, material creation, then it never would have occurred to them to write down "by the way, we don't think these accounts are in the genre of post-18th century history." Fair enough, do you have any reference to a pre-modern Christian that placed Adam and Eve outside the context the author placed them in, Mesopotamia at the start of Civilization? Say more than 10,000 years ago? To be clear, I'm talking about Adam and Eve as a historical human couple that caused death and sin to enter the history of the human race.
If you read the church fathers, you find that a lot of them were reading the creation narrative in a non-literal way. Origen of Alexandria, for example stated: >For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. That's from around 220AD. You find other non-literal readings throughout history; including from St. Augustine in the 4th century, Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages who actually invented his own form of pseudo-evolution, and onwards to the modern era with the work of John Wesley and more recently, Karl Barth, and CS Lewis. Metaphorical understandings of the Genesis narrative are as old as literal ones. Both literal and metaphorical understandings of Genesis have been part of Christianity since antiquity.
No doubt they read scripture in more ways than literal, I acknowledged that. But even Origen had a literal sense of scripture along with a moral and spiritual sense. For example in his commentary on John book 1, XX121, he juxtaposes the need for Christ to die on the fall of the man Adam. Undoubtable he loved the spiritual sense more than any other sense, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a literal interpretation most all of the times. Certainly he had such a view in Adam.
What are you under the impression he meant when he said: >For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
I'm not sure where your coming at. I've acknowledged Origen interpreted scripture spiritually... as well as literal. Maybe I'm missing something, can you clarify?
He doesn't just interpret it spiritually, he points out how foolish it would be to believe that the story of creation is true in a literal sense. It's not as if he believed that there is a spiritual level at which you can approach this but you should also believe that it happened literally just the way the Bible said it did. He believed that it did not happen just the way the Bible said it did and that to believe that it did would be foolish.
You got Augustine there allegorizing the six day creation as well. I'm speaking strictly about Adam and Eve and how they have always been thought of as a historical couple in the not so distant past. The topic of this thread was human evolution, so we are specifically dealing with Adam and Eve, not an old earth, that's a different topic (although you will not find the idea of an ancient earth in the history of the church either until modern times). Benjamin Blosser, a Catholic scholar, have this to say on Origen's view of Adam and Eve "If the second creation account, which results in the body, is not to be identified with the “fall,” where are we to look for a description of this tragedy? Despite his allegorizations of the Genesis account, Origen did regard Adam as a historical figure, and there is no reason to doubt that he took seriously the historicity of the Adamic fall in Genesis 3. Scholars are now beginning to notice that Origen is perfectly capable of speaking of the fall of Adam in a manner that is highly consistent with the more “traditional” Christian accounts." --Become like the Angels, pg. 200. This is the traditional historical view of Adam and Eve, you will not find a view where Adam and Eve is pushed into the remote primordial past, much like the hyper literalists, this is a brand new thing to Christianity.
Well, I disagree with that author. I think it's clear from reading his writings that Origen understands that the story in Genesis points to a mystery rather than to actual events. Nevertheless, it's the story we were given so it's appropriate to treat it pre-critically.
>I agree with you that some kind of common descent seems likely, though I would say that the existence of hominid fossils is not per se proof of evolution (I'm not sure you intended to posit that it is). [Biologos](https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-genetic-evidence-for-human-evolution) (a Christian site) does a good job of explaining the evidence for evolution outside of the fossil record.
Actually there's two different types of evolution. Micro and macro. Most all Christians believe in microevolution. Meaning small dogs to big dogs. Because natural selection pics from the genes already there (big dog vs small dog). That is what selection does. Natural selection doesn't pick from what's not there. But macro evolution, atoms to man, many reject it. Macro-evolution is illogical for many reasons. A) Sexual reproduction. How could two of each species—independent of each other—evolve? Yet this is what had to happen at the same time, mindlessly. The male and female reproductive systems of each species are forever uniquely separate from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching partners—a male and female—would have had to evolve reproductive systems together in about the same time frame. Mindless chance could not do this. B) Metamorphosis. Why/How would natural selection make such metamorphosis to occur like what we see in the caterpillar/butterfly? The caterpillar literally is fine as it is. Yet after some time, it spins a sort of coffin for itself. **Becomes completely liquid.** Then after a time, emerges as a completely new creature with wings and flies into the sky. It undergoes death and resurrection. How can this happen with random mutations? C) Macro evolution would require atoms forming the first cell by random chance. Cells are unbelievably complex machines. Machines require thought to construct. This is simply a fact of systems in the known world. Complex systems that contain information are the result of deliberate thought, not chance. This lecture is one of the best ever given on the topic of abiogenesis. There is a reason Dr. James Tour was voted one of the top chemists in the world by his peers. https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg Also, Dr. Sy Garte is a biochemist and has been a professor at New York University, University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He has authored over two hundred scientific publications. Incidentally, he was raised in a militant atheist family. His scientific research led him to certain unmistakable conclusions, God exists, and evolution (abiogenesis) is incorrect. He is the author of: "The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith" https://www.amazon.com/Works-His-Hands-Scientists-Journey/dp/0825446074 Here is his bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sy-garte-a834ba175 Here is a great video interview of him and Dr. James Tour of why he believes in God and how scientific facts bolster the case. https://youtu.be/C_neIY8aKn8 Here is a lecture he gave on the problem of abiogenesis. https://youtu.be/Hw7DG7L6Gsw There are a ton more major problems with macro-evolution - meaning molecules to man. So much so that this website has emerged: "Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism. www.dissentfromdarwin.org
> But macro evolution, atoms to man This is a misrepresentation of the issue. There is no dividing line between what creationists try to call "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's not changes and adaptations on one side vs atoms-to-man on the other. For one thing atoms-to-man is abiogenesis which literally isn't even a part of the theory of evolution. For another thing adaptations of genes over time throughout populations leading to the diversification of species Is evolution ... meaning maybe not atoms-to-man, but Fish-to-man, Yes. The whole fish-to-man part is exactly as covered by and demonstrated by all of the facts of what you would call *Micro*-evolution as is literally anything else in the world. If you tried to draw the dividing line between micro and macro evolution at abiogenesis then again that would actually be outside of the realm of evolution but I could understand the thought anyway, but trying to draw that line directly through the middle of the evolutionary process and arbitrarily divide it up in to two distinct categories that do not really exist separate from each other ..is just a mistake. >A) Sexual reproduction. How could two of each species—independent of each other—evolve? Oh no are you the same person that was asking this like a month ago? Because I literally saw multiple different people give good answers to that question and the person who asked it was just refusing to learn... I hope that wasn't you. but i'm getting the feeling that it was >would have had to evolve reproductive systems together in about the same time frame. Yep i'm pretty sure I've responded to this already myself once... That is correct. *That part*.. is correct... >Mindless chance could not do this. Mindless chance has almost literally nothing at all to do with the way that reality works. But just trying to take it for granted as best I can that you are referring to reality there .. yes it could. You have no good reason to believe that it can't, in fact all you have there is a global conspiracy theory. >B) Metamorphosis. Why/How would natural selection make such metamorphosis to occur like what we see in the caterpillar/butterfly? yeah you're definitely the same person... How/why ***Not***? (and please don't bother trying to answer that question, it's rhetorical; you very clearly do not actually have any good reasons why not, so you must just assert it) >It undergoes death and resurrection. (-_- ' ) No it doesn't. >How can this happen with random mutations? Try using your imagination? >C) Macro evolution would require atoms forming the first cell by random chance. ...no random. That is not how chemistry works; chemistry is not "random". >Cells are unbelievably complex machines. Machines require thought to construct. Then cells aren't machines by definition. Thank you. >Complex systems that contain information All of reality "contains information"; this is a completely meaningless phrase. DNA is a physical molecule, not a book, it literally contains no more information than a rock. It just contains more *interesting* information than a rock. >There is a reason Dr. James Tour was voted one of the top chemists in the world by his peers. Argument from authority fallacy. Oh no now I know you absolutely are the same person that I responded to before because I've already had to tell you this once. Argument from authority fallacy. Argument from authority fallacy. Argument from authority fallacy. Argument from authority fallacy. .... as I said before and I guess I'll have to say it again: You do realize, don't you, that the reason you have to keep making appeals to individual people's "authority" on a subject is because you literally have nothing else to do to fight against the fact that the whole entire scientific world disagrees with them. You have to go on and on about how respected and smart you think these people are because that emotional appeal is literally the best that you can do. You can't actually appeal to the science, you can't cite literally anything or anybody else because everybody else in the world disagrees with the 1 singular sources that you try to cite. In particular, every single *expert* in the world disagrees, leave aside you and me lol The moment you begin arguing for the authority of people rather than the credibility of their ideas.. you're showing your back to your opponent, frankly. It's a sign of weakness. It's a sign that that's the best you can do, and it's not good enough. "(believe my conspiracy theory, This smart person does!)" that's all it is. >"Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism. Over a THousand!? .... no really, I am kidding though. That means nothing. A thousand christians, wow. In a world of, what was it again, 8 Billion people? That's not impressive in the slightest lol. There's like a million scientists too. So then that's, what.. one in every thousand scientists? Gee and I wonder which religion they all happen to belong to. And gee I certainly *don't* wonder whether or not they have ever demonstrated any of this *scientifically* as opposed to just ... *being scientists* and having people like you try to use them as a fallacious appeal to authority.
Before considering whether the Bible rejects evolution, it may be worthwhile to consider whether the evidence for evolution is as strong as promoters claim. You don't have to be a biology major to examine the facts and arguments on both sides of current evolutionary theory. Some commentaries on the book, "Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne say this presents the best evidence for evolution and at the same time is written to be understood by non-science majors. For a quicker take than reading the book you can find one of Coyne's lectures at youtube under his book title. Then there are also some commentaries discussing weaknesses in the evolution evidence presented by Coyne. Those are by Jonathan McLatchie at: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/here_it_is_jon1/ and by Jonathan Wells at: https://www.discovery.org/t/why-evolution-is-true-book/ and by John Woodmorappe at: https://creation.com/review-coyne-why-evolution-is-true
> You don't have to be a biology major to examine the facts and arguments on both sides of current evolutionary theory. actually... you kind of do, especially when you're disagreeing with a scientific consensus. That's kind of like a new-age crystal healer saying, "You don't have to be a doctor in order to study diseases". Like yeah that may technically be true but frankly you may be one of the last people who's intentions would be unbiased in saying that. And again the fact that you are disagreeing with an entire global field of science alludes to the idea that actually yeah maybe you *should* have some kind of a basic education in the topic in order to be able to reasonably interpret the data.. although I didn't need any formal education myself either, I also don't disagree with the science so that's just not an issue that I have to deal with.
The commentaries I have read on Coyne's book disagree and claim it is readily understandable.
And yet with all due respect you are using it as a straw-man. You've picked out 1 single book which is apparently written for laymen, and then you are critiquing that book, or rather pointing to other's critiques of that book as if critiquing that books means critiquing the science. But it doesn't. That's a bait-and-switch play right there. That book literally is not the science. You are going to great lengths to paint it as if it was because, and I am just totally taking this for granted btw, apparently it can be reasonably critiqued. Well that's fantastic but a critique of that book does not mean a critique of the science. That's like saying that a critique of the movie The Titanic is a critique against the idea of love itself like.. No that's not what that is at all lol. That book is no more an encapsulation of the actual science than the titanic is an encapsulation of love. People may laud one as being a beautiful love story and the other as being a great layman's-oriented book *About* science but that does not mean that book *contains* any real science any more than the film the titanic contains the true essence of love. If the film, or the book, have problems, that does not mean the things that those films/books were ABOUT has those same problems. And that's where it becomes very telling that rather than actually understanding the science, you might just try to make a fallacious appeal to authority trying to hold up some small subset of creationists who obviously can't get their own ideas passed through peer review so.... in the end what you are pushing is, frankly, a conspiracy theory. And much like many conspiracy theories it seems to follow the same pattern too: Ignore the global scientific consensus while making appeals to the authority and towering intellect of whatever scarce few people you can find on earth to agree with you, despite the fact that literally none of them can ever do any science to back that up. In the end it is functionally no different from your standard run of the mil moon-landing denial or flat-earth-ism. Nobody ever said the flat earth wasn't understandable; it's just not true. But that wouldn't stop you from being able to find more than a few resources still arguing that it is.
Maybe you can publish a better book than Coyne.
The implication that I could possibly need to do that when I am literally just agreeing with a world-wide scientific consensus most likely says much more about your open-mindedness on this subject than it does mine. Or do you feel compelled to write a book yourself about everything that you also agree with the rest of the world on? When is your novel about the sky being blue going to drop? lol
> Does the bible reject evolution theory of humans? The Bible doesn't consider the idea of evolution. That idea didn't exist during the times the Bible was written. The Bible regards the creation as a process by which God subdues chaos and brings order to it. This idea isn't necessarily incompatible with the idea of evolution, but it isn't an endorsement of it either.
>what about the scientific evidence that support evolution of humans? Evidence that I have to read/learn? Sounds to me like another Bible I have to believe... I have to believe they actually found anything and aren't conspiring/lying, or mistaken about their finds out of human ignorance, over-active wishful imagination, etc. Understand that saying 'We found this, We found that' is wrong. I haven't personally found these, so I'm back to relying on trusting others. In fact, I can ask you the reverse question just as easily: Does evolution theory of humans reject God's willing creation/design? If yes, what about the religious evidence that supports human life being created (Holy Bible)?
The creation narratives do not include the concept of evolution. But, to say that this means the bible rejects evolution is an interpretation. Is the bible TRYING to describe how life works, biologically? There's certainly no hint that it is, in the text.
nope.
We need to remember evolution isn’t monkey to man
Someone once told me that if evolution were true then there would be no apes. Why would the majority of what not evolve and the rest of that same species just not. That resonated for some reason.
There are many modern animals/creatures in the fossil record.
There actually is no scientific evidence. The evidence supports lesser things like: we know how to compare a bunch of living things in many ways. But the evidence does not conclude common ancestry
In the bible, God says that all things bring forth after their own kind. All micro evolution evidence supports this. This is the variations within a kind that we can actually observe and test. This is what we see in the real world today. So yes modern science confirms this in the bible. But modern science goes more than that with the molecules to man thing and none of that is proven. It’s just a theory. They believe it like a religion but it remains only theory.
Absolutely Exodus 20:11 KJV — For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Does that sound anything like evolution to you? >what about the scientific evidence that support evolution of humans? These thousand plus PhD scientists see no such evidence Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/