Bible vs. human evolution

UpperEschelon

Junior Member
Sep 8, 2010
283
5
✟15,443.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
So this is a second thread I wanted to open up, wanted to zoom in on the topic of human evolution in particular. Based on what I read, humans were God's special creation, "made in His image".

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

Man was created by God in His image. Where is there any reason to believe the creation of mankind was a culmination of various other species evolving, coming from humanoids who were debased and had no intellect. I see a contradiction.

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "

Hmm, no common ancestor, no evolution, no earlier/primitive humanoid forms. Yet another contradiction, I fail to see anything else.

Opinions?
 

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
So this is a second thread I wanted to open up, wanted to zoom in on the topic of human evolution in particular. Based on what I read, humans were God's special creation, "made in His image".

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

Man was created by God in His image. Where is there any reason to believe the creation of mankind was a culmination of various other species evolving, coming from humanoids who were debased and had no intellect. I see a contradiction.

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "

Hmm, no common ancestor, no evolution, no earlier/primitive humanoid forms. Yet another contradiction, I fail to see anything else.

Opinions?


*sighs wearily*

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0

UpperEschelon

Junior Member
Sep 8, 2010
283
5
✟15,443.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
*sighs wearily*

You completely miss the boat, I don't need a list of human evolution fossils. I am putting the biblical passsage to light and attempting to draw any sort of link with what it contains and what evolution tells us about humans. And all you can do is link me a wikipedia site on fossils? This is not a science forum. It is not using science to verify the bible, it is seeing if science is in accord with the bible. When it tells us "man became a living being", that would mean man in his full form (i.e. consciousness, cognitive faculties, intelligence, etc) came into existence the moment God breathed His breath into the dust. Please tell me where you can derive any sort of evolutionary gradient here. If I am wrong in seeing this contradiction please tell me why.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You completely miss the boat, I don't need a list of human evolution fossils.

You seemed to be indicating that you weren't aware of them.

I am putting the biblical passsage to light and attempting to draw any sort of link with what it contains and what evolution tells us about humans. And all you can do is link me a wikipedia site on fossils?

Its all I was willing to do. When you make statements like

Hmm, no common ancestor, no evolution, no earlier/primitive humanoid forms.
I am more inclined to hand them a handy list before I spend my time hunting down the original paleontology abstracts.


This is not a science forum,

Then stop discussing human evolution, a scientific topic.

it is not using science to verify the bible, it is seeing if science is in accord with the bible. When it tells us "man became a living being", that would mean man in his full form (i.e. consciousness, cognative faculties, intelligence, etc) came into existence the moment God breathed His breath into the dust.

That is your theological opinion.

Please tell me where you can derive any sort of evolutionary gradient here. If I am wrong in seeing this contradiction please tell me why.

Of course, Genesis isn't a literal narrative. It is allegorical. It tells us that God created, but not how.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So this is a second thread I wanted to open up, wanted to zoom in on the topic of human evolution in particular. Based on what I read, humans were God's special creation, "made in His image".

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

Man was created by God in His image. Where is there any reason to believe the creation of mankind was a culmination of various other species evolving, coming from humanoids who were debased and had no intellect. I see a contradiction.

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "

Hmm, no common ancestor, no evolution, no earlier/primitive humanoid forms. Yet another contradiction, I fail to see anything else.

Opinions?
The bible is full of references to God being the potter and us the clay, that we are all made of dust.
Gen 18:27 Abraham answered and said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
Psalm 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Eccles 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust,
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honoured use and another for dishonourable use?
Is Genesis the only one you take literally, is Adam the only one made of clay who cannot have had any ancestors?
 
Upvote 0

UpperEschelon

Junior Member
Sep 8, 2010
283
5
✟15,443.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Of course, Genesis isn't a literal narrative. It is allegorical. It tells us that God created, but not how.

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen.2:7)

Please tell me in what sense is this allegorical. Are you really trying to make sense or are you just trading everything off for the sake of preference of opinion? I really cannot see how I am being unreasonable here.
 
Upvote 0

UpperEschelon

Junior Member
Sep 8, 2010
283
5
✟15,443.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
The bible is full of references to God being the potter and us the clay, that we are all made of dust.
Gen 18:27 Abraham answered and said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
Psalm 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Eccles 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust,
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honoured use and another for dishonourable use?
Is Genesis the only one you take literally, is Adam the only one made of clay who cannot have had any ancestors?

So now you are trying to put in extra information in between the lines? We are told of when and how God created humans specifically, we are told of how the first human Adam shared a relationship with God. Genesis entails this. Now, all off a sudden, we are to assume Adam wasn't the first human, that the Bible was dishonest in informing us how humans came about, that humans began as primitive humanoids without reason or intellect. You cannot compliment the genesis narrative with evolutionary theory, you can only replace it (as far as humans are concerned to say the least).
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
I am reposting this portion of a post from the other thread, because it seems to have gone unanswered, and I think it provides some insight into the conversation.

Let's look at the chronology of the biblical account:

1: Light; day; night
2: Expanse to separate water from water; sky (water taken for granted)
3: a) Land/Seas;
b) Vegetation (“then God said”, implies order)
4: Daylight and nightlight (presumably sun/moon and stars)
5: Water creatures and birds
6: (a) Livestock, land creatures, wild animals
(b) Human beings (animals first, then human beings in no clear order)
7: God rested

And, then, to clarify, it says that everything was created in the following order:

First: Adam -- Man (No shrubs, no plants, no rain)
Second: The Garden of Eden
Third: Trees (incl. tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil)
Fourth: Animals (made so that man would not be alone).
Fifth: Eve-- Woman


Sadly, these two accounts cannot be reconciled -- unless, of course, one or both of them is symbolic and never was intended to be read literally. But, which one?
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
*sighs wearily*

There are so many flaws in this, that if you don't get it now I'm not even going to bother listing them.

I'm sorry for using a convenient list. I suppose I could have hunted down each individual study documenting each one of a couple dozen transitional fossils, but frankly this discussion isn't worth that much of my time and effort.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen.2:7)

Please tell me in what sense is this allegorical. Are you really trying to make sense or are you just trading everything off for the sake of preference of opinion? I really cannot see how I am being unreasonable here.

It's a theological proposition in opposition to the pagan creation narratives of the Middle East.

Genesis 1 begins similarly enough to narratives such as the Enuma Elish which begins,

"When the heavens above were not yet named, nor the earth below pronounced by name, Apsu, the first one, their begetter, and maker Tiamat, who bore them all, had mixed their waters together, but had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds; when yet no gods were manifest, nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed, then gods were born with them."

Apsu is the masculine personalization of the underground waters, whereas Tiamat is the [feminine] ocean, the chaotic depths.

Look at how Genesis 1 puts it,

"the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters." (verse 2)

However in the narrative in Genesis, the chaos and formlessness does not precede God, nor is He in any way identified with the current chaotic and formlessness.

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,"

Here the God is prior to and distinct from from the formless and chaotic waters.

God is above and prior to the Apsu and the Tiamat, and these do not have personalizations in the Genesis narrative. They are wholly demoted to impersonal things.

God is prior to these in Genesis, where in the Enuma Elish the gods come out from the chaotic and formless watery depths.

In the Enuma Elish the gods are borne out of this formless chaos, and they themselves are a violent, disorderly lot, and they must compete and fight amongst themselves to form a hierarchy of divinity. The creation of the world is disorganized and chaotic, land and luminaries and beasts and man are all part of this chaotic primeval war of the gods.

Contrast this with Genesis, "And God said, Let there be..." It is with purpose, this God who exists before anything proclaims by the power of His word all things into existence. In doing so Genesis dimisses the notion of creation as chaotic, it is summarily purposeful, direct and deliberate. Each stage of creation is an act of the one God done with purpose and deliberation.

It is a theological statement, a deliberate subversion of the creation motifs and narratives of the Canaanites and other cultures surrounding Israel, and forms the beginning of the grand pre-historic and pre-Abrahamic narrative, a mythos which turns well known motifs and narratives into a narrative prologue leading up to the Call of Abraham out from Ur. The whole of Genesis serves as a sort of Prologue, the real meat of Israel's story being told begins with Moses in the Exodus, but it has to be set up. We therefore need the Prologue, which tells us about this God who liberated Israel out from Egypt; He is the God who created all things, He is above and before all so-called gods. He, not any of the other so-called gods, was the One who sent the Deluge so prominant in Near East mythology; but He is also the One who called Abraham out from ur. He promised Abraham a son of promise, Isaac, and then chose Jacob among his sons, whom He renamed Israel. And Jacob's sons are the twelve patriarchs from whom the Childre of Israel are so named, and due to the work of this one God through the tragedy-turned-triumph of Joseph the Israelites found their way in the land of Egypt.

And here, here is where the story really begins, the defining moment for Israel. For this God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush, and subsequently liberates Israel out from bondage, and then gives them His Torah on Mt. Sinai, making His Everlasting Covenant with them. They are His people, He is their God.

That the ancient Hebrews combined history, legend and myth into an interwoven tapestry of narrative is far from unusual, all ancient people did this. What, for the Christian, makes this narrative stand out of single importance--indeed as the inspired and written word of God--is what these myths tell us about our God, the very God who came and revealed Himself through His Incarnate Son and Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, let's take the word of a convicted felon....:doh:

I don't know if that in and of itself discredits Hovind. The fact that even "mainstream" Creationists disavow Hovind, however, does speak volumes.

Not to mention that his 250,000 dollar offer for "proving" evolution demonstrates a wholesale lack of knowledge of what the theory of evolution actually states. Here are the conditions Hovind lists to "prove evolution":

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Even the well accepted theory of the Big Bang does not say that "time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves". It is, as such, a red herring.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Again, not at all related to the theory of evolution. Though in this case there is actual science behind the formation of stars and other celestial bodies.

3. Matter created life by itself.

For a third time, not at all related to the theory of evolution.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

Outside my field of knowledge, so I won't comment.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Here's a classic Creationist mistake. Because we have tidy little cladistic boxes into which we place living organisms "dog" "mammal" "lizard" the Creationist often makes the mistake of thinking of these as concrete and static. That just isn't so. Fish didn't just "become" amphibians; rather certain organisms which we identify as "fish" through a series of adaptations became able to support themselves on land and in air. There was no single jump, there are many minor adaptations. It required a skeletal structure able to support itself out of water (i.e. ribs), the adaptation of the air bladder to take in oxygen from the air into the bloodstream (i.e. lungs), the adaptation of fins to pull itself along the bank into structures capable of more efficient locomotion on land (i.e. legs). And that's just a few examples.

There's fossil evidence already there to demonstrate these adaptations, and we even have "living fossils" which demonstrate some of this. The lungfishes are an excellent example.

The coconut crab is unique among crustaceans, it is the only crustacean that has wholly adapted itself to living on land, it breathes air. If future paleontologists were to look at such fossils of the coconut crab, and if there were future generations of wholly land-living crustacean ancestors, it would be a "transition fossil". Every organism is a transition--because life is not static, it is fluid and active. It is adaptive.

As a Christian I consider this amazing process of adaptation to proclaim some of the genius and awesomeness of the Creator. Which, in and of itself discredits any claim that evolution <--> atheism. The two are not mutually co-existent, as should be obvious to anyone even paying a little bit of attention to conversations such as these.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Angelsword777

Regular Member
Sep 1, 2010
216
2
New York
✟15,361.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, let's take the word of a convicted felon....:doh:

Oh no tax evasion, thats some serious business right there man....

anyways I kinda laughed anyway, Kent Hovind is nothing compared to William Lane Craig...William Lane Craig is one of the few apologetics that are worthy enough to debate Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Oh no tax evasion, thats some serious business right there man....

anyways I kinda laughed anyway, Kent Hovind is nothing compared to William Lane Craig...William Lane Craig is one of the few apologetics that are worthy enough to debate Christianity.

Um, it's a felony, so yes it's serious business. Do you just ignore crimes if they are committed by an anti-evolutionist?
 
Upvote 0