Problems with the evolutionary debate.

Status
Not open for further replies.

bullietdodger

Active Member
Jan 17, 2006
82
1
50
✟15,209.00
Faith
Christian
Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology. This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture. It’s one thing to hold on to the tail of an elephant and say it is a rope (assuming blindness), it is another to stand back and look at the whole picture and truly see that the “rope” is the tail of an elephant.

Problem two is the evolution side presumes Genesis to be figurative. Sorry TE’s you can’t have Genesis 1-11 figurative and 12 to the end of Genesis as literal.

Problem three is that in Genesis God gives mankind dominion over all animals.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

It is not possible for humans to have dominion over animals if humans came from animals.

Problem four is that humans have souls, animals do not.

Problem five mankind was made in God’s image/likeness. None of the animals were created in God’s image/likeness. This means that humans are special.

Problem six God desires relationship with humankind, not with animals. Jesus died for mankind, for our salvation, not for the animals. Humankind cannot come from animals because of this.
 

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
All of those problems are rediculous.

1 is hypocritical
2 is a logical fallacy
3 is psuedoscience
4 is wrong, since the Bible says animals have souls
5 is a logical fallacy
6 is wrong, since the Early Church taught exactly the opposite
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
bullietdodger said:
Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology.

The problem with evolutionary theory, a theory based on biology, is that its focused too much on biology.:scratch:

What, pray tell, ought it to be focused on if not the very field of science from whence the theory originates?

This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture. It’s one thing to hold on to the tail of an elephant and say it is a rope (assuming blindness), it is another to stand back and look at the whole picture and truly see that the “rope” is the tail of an elephant.

Again, :scratch: If by big picture you mean all of the evidence from all of the other fields of science that help support evolutionary theory either directly or indirectly, the, yes, we have been looking at the big picture in these forums.

Problem two is the evolution side presumes Genesis to be figurative. Sorry TE’s you can’t have Genesis 1-11 figurative and 12 to the end of Genesis as literal.

Evolutionary theory presumes nothing about Genesis. Evolutionary theory continues on whether or not Genesis exists or is true or false.

However, since this is in the OT forum, I'll go on to say that this particular Christian TE looks upon all of Genesis at mythological and legendary. Whether or not the Creation account is allegory is another matter, but that Genesis is not intended as indicative historical and scientific fact is the matter. Genesis is most certainly not intended as such.

Problem three is that in Genesis God gives mankind dominion over all animals.

And again :scratch: So? That God chose to bless us with dominion over animals and stewardship over Creation impacts evolutionary theory how exactly?

It is not possible for humans to have dominion over animals if humans came from animals.

Why? Dominion is a blessing from God, not a trait that is passed along genetically.

Problem four is that humans have souls, animals do not.

I'll assume you are correct on this for the moment, the question remains, so what? Are souls biological? If they are, as your propisition implies, then we ought to be able to test for them. What's the test? How does one measure for soulfullness?

Problem five mankind was made in God’s image/likeness. None of the animals were created in God’s image/likeness. This means that humans are special.

We actually have this discussion going on in another thread. What is the image of God? Is is physiological and biological in a nature? Is God a bilaterally symmetrical hominid?

The image of God is a matter of our relationship with God and the purpose of our function within that relationship. We are in God's image because God chose us to be, not because he can play 'Eyes, Ears, Knees and Toes' with us.

Problem six God desires relationship with humankind, not with animals. Jesus died for mankind, for our salvation, not for the animals. Humankind cannot come from animals because of this.

Yet despite our animal nature, which you cannot deny, God still chose a relationship with us. This part of your argument is moot. We are seperated from the animals because God chose us for dominion, but being chosen for dominion does not make us non-animal.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
bullietdodger said:
Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology. This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture. It’s one thing to hold on to the tail of an elephant and say it is a rope (assuming blindness), it is another to stand back and look at the whole picture and truly see that the “rope” is the tail of an elephant.
Evolution is biology. But the debate also looks at physics geology astronomy... If you want a bigger picture than that any TE will tell you that it was God who created everything.

Problem two is the evolution side presumes Genesis to be figurative. Sorry TE’s you can’t have Genesis 1-11 figurative and 12 to the end of Genesis as literal.
Why not when the rest of the bible interprets one of the central characters in Genesis 3, the snake, figuratively? After all, when did Jesus ever step on a real snake's head?

Problem three is that in Genesis God gives mankind dominion over all animals.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

It is not possible for humans to have dominion over animals if humans came from animals.
By that logic, Saul could never have been king of Israel because he was an Israelite himself.

Problem four is that humans have souls, animals do not.
And you have scriptural evidence for this?

Problem five mankind was made in God’s image/likeness. None of the animals were created in God’s image/likeness. This means that humans are special.
By that logic man cannot be made from clay either. Man is in God's image, clay is not.

Problem six God desires relationship with humankind, not with animals. Jesus died for mankind, for our salvation, not for the animals. Humankind cannot come from animals because of this.
Sorry this simply does not follow. God's plan for mankind is not dependant on how he created us.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
bullietdodger said:
Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology. This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture. It’s one thing to hold on to the tail of an elephant and say it is a rope (assuming blindness), it is another to stand back and look at the whole picture and truly see that the “rope” is the tail of an elephant.


Yes and you know what? If you look at the big picture, YECism falls even flatter. Geology and Astronomy prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's why OECism exists -- for people who accept the plain irrefutable facts, but are uncomfortable with evolutionary biology (fair enough).

Problem four is that humans have souls, animals do not.

Do a word search for nephesh and ruach in the original Hebrew, and you'll see that this is wrong.

Problem six God desires relationship with humankind, not with animals. Jesus died for mankind, for our salvation, not for the animals.

Yes, which is why there is nothing wrong with animal death in the original "perfect" creation.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
bullietdodger said:
Since some of you seem to think that animals have souls, please give me an exact reference in scripture refering directly to animals and their "souls".

I've already suggested that you do a Hebrew word search for nephesh ("soul") and ruach ("spirit"). You'll find that these terms are applied to animals in the Bible. Any Hebrew concordance will do the trick.

Now it's my turn to ask you something: can you give me an exact reference in scripture clearly teaching that man has a soul and animals do not?
 
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

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Since some of you seem to think that animals have souls, please give me an exact reference in scripture refering directly to animals and their "souls".

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
(Genesis 1:20 ESV)

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
(Genesis 1:24 ESV)

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
(Genesis 2:7 ESV)

(emphases added)

Each of the three "living creature"s in the above verses are the same Hebrew words, chay nephesh. As such, we see that the breath of God in Gen2 only elevated man to the status of something living, on par with the sea creatures and the land creatures.

Only God's making man in His image in Gen1 is what makes man different - and God's image has to be a spiritual endowing of man, not a physical endowing (which is described in Gen2). As such, man is biologically an animal, and animals are physically on the same level as man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I_Love_Cheese
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
49
✟8,655.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
Hi dodger, indeed the Bible does talk about animals having souls.

BTW, those who state that the Church Fathers specifically state in their writings that Genesis 1-11 are figurative or literal, are both wrong. There are some writings that lend support for either conclusion, but no clear statement of faith of exactly what they believed and meant by it. To carelessly throw around that they all believed this or that is to show that one has not really read their writings very well.

The real problem with this debate is the lack of Christ likeness shown to each other. Lions treat their dinner better than many do in these types of debates. Besides, these debates won't convince anyone of anything and only make their stance in their current position that much stronger because of stubborness to be right. We are human sinners after all and it is in our nature to be this way. But, there is a choice that we can make to not try and pound people over the head into believing what we believe as if that will convince them to believe it. God gave us free will, so we shouldn't be trying to take that away from others.

Sorry about my intrusion, just thinking out loud.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
SBG said:
Hi dodger, indeed the Bible does talk about animals having souls.

BTW, those who state that the Church Fathers specifically state in their writings that Genesis 1-11 are figurative or literal, are both wrong. There are some writings that lend support for either conclusion, but no clear statement of faith of exactly what they believed and meant by it. To carelessly throw around that they all believed this or that is to show that one has not really read their writings very well.

The real problem with this debate is the lack of Christ likeness shown to each other. Lions treat their dinner better than many do in these types of debates. Besides, these debates won't convince anyone of anything and only make their stance in their current position that much stronger because of stubborness to be right. We are human sinners after all and it is in our nature to be this way. But, there is a choice that we can make to not try and pound people over the head into believing what we believe as if that will convince them to believe it. God gave us free will, so we shouldn't be trying to take that away from others.

Sorry about my intrusion, just thinking out loud.
I'm aware of a number of occassions where former YECs have decided to accept evolutionary theory. To my knowledge, your claim that these debates change no one's mind is largely untrue.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Actually, I came over to TEism directly because of discussion on the CF open C&E board. So it's wrong to say that debates don't change anybody's mind. And I think there is nothing wrong with being firm about what one believes, as long as nobody starts questioning another person's faith or faithfulness because of their origins views. In my personal opinion, faith is very, very little affected by what one believes of origins alone. I have yet to see anyone show otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

bullietdodger

Active Member
Jan 17, 2006
82
1
50
✟15,209.00
Faith
Christian
jereth said:
I've already suggested that you do a Hebrew word search for nephesh ("soul") and ruach ("spirit"). You'll find that these terms are applied to animals in the Bible. Any Hebrew concordance will do the trick.

Now it's my turn to ask you something: can you give me an exact reference in scripture clearly teaching that man has a soul and animals do not?

No, I want an exact scripture reference from you. If you have done your homework on this it should be easy to give me exact scripture references.
 
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

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
bullietdodger said:
No, I want an exact scripture reference from you. If you have done your homework on this it should be easy to give me exact scripture references.

I'm not going to do that because I don't believe in prooftexting when it comes to this sort of thing. And yes, I have done my homework. All I'm expecting is that you put a little effort into finding out the answers for yourself, if you really are interested in the truth.

Please look at these links:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07307&version=nas
All 346 occurrences of the word "spirit" in the Old Testament.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05315&version=nas
All 625 occurrences of the word "soul" in the Old Testament.

You will see that animals have "spirit" and "soul" just like humans.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
bullietdodger said:
Problem one with the evolutionary debate is it is focused on biology. This discussion does not take into consideration of the big picture. It’s one thing to hold on to the tail of an elephant and say it is a rope (assuming blindness), it is another to stand back and look at the whole picture and truly see that the “rope” is the tail of an elephant.

Even though evolution is a biological theory, it fits smoothly with other scientific disciplines.

Problem two is the evolution side presumes Genesis to be figurative. Sorry TE’s you can’t have Genesis 1-11 figurative and 12 to the end of Genesis as literal.

Nonsense. I don't know where you dreamed this up, but it is false.

Problem three is that in Genesis God gives mankind dominion over all animals.

It is not possible for humans to have dominion over animals if humans came from animals.


You are inventing non-existent problems. Human dominion over other animals does not require that humans not be animals.


Problem four is that humans have souls, animals do not.

Where is it established that animals do not have souls?

Problem five mankind was made in God’s image/likeness. None of the animals were created in God’s image/likeness. This means that humans are special.

So humans are special animals. Nothing incompatible with evolution there.

Problem six God desires relationship with humankind, not with animals. Jesus died for mankind, for our salvation, not for the animals. Humankind cannot come from animals because of this.

Contradicts scripture which says that God made Leviathan "to sport with". Jesus did die for animals and plants and bacteria and the whole created order. Since the fall affected all of creation, Christ died to save all of creation from the effects of the fall.

Only humanity needs to be saved from its own sinfulness, but all of creation needs to be saved from the consequences of human sin. That is why Paul speaks of the whole creation yearning to see the birth of the sons of God.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Many conservative Christian churches teach that only man has a soul, animals do not.

Yet, the Hebrew term nephesh appears 754 times in the Hebrew OT. Most English copies translate this word into "soul" only 472 times.

If you check this link here, you can read more about it. Many of the other links already listed in this thread also provide good information. It would seem that the Bible does not say that animals do not posses souls.

I also have to agree with Shernren tha these debates and conversations do add to anyone's knowledge with a will to learn. Wether it changes your theology or simply teaches you more about something you did not know, I find them highly beneficial.

Honestly, there are many teachers and pastors in conservative YEC churches that make very matter of fact remarks about how easily refutable evolution is without actually providing this iron clad refutation. I originally came to this forum hoping to find just that. If it existed, the people arguing against evolution here would be using. Obviously, it doesn't.
 
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

bullietdodger

Active Member
Jan 17, 2006
82
1
50
✟15,209.00
Faith
Christian
jereth said:
I'm not going to do that because I don't believe in prooftexting when it comes to this sort of thing. And yes, I have done my homework. All I'm expecting is that you put a little effort into finding out the answers for yourself, if you really are interested in the truth.

Please look at these links:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07307&version=nas
All 346 occurrences of the word "spirit" in the Old Testament.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05315&version=nas
All 625 occurrences of the word "soul" in the Old Testament.

You will see that animals have "spirit" and "soul" just like humans.

I have been researching the topic, but if you are unwilling to point me to passages which convince you of your theology, then our discussion is a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.