Theistic Evolutionist...

[Shemjaza]

The Theo-Evo still can't explain when/how/why sin began.

The literalist can.

Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and all the nastiness of the world is our punishment... but that isn't actually an explanation as to how 100% of created humans and 33% of created angels were able to sin, unless it was always a part of the plan.

As literalists like to say "No original sin, no need for Jesus's sacrifice". If sin can be a part of God's plan then a TE could say that it was planned into our evolved nature.

(This is just conjecture from an interested atheist, if I'm way off a TE can correct me. I just think the TE position can be as logically consistent as the literalist one).

 

[Neogaia777]

The Theo-Evo still can't explain when/how/why sin began.

The literalist can.

you can?, please, explain

I don't claim to know those answers, I'm not "all-knowing", but I believe the true answer to that Question, is found in Genesis...

God Bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

Just for the record, the 98% number keeps changing.

No, it doesn't. When you compare shared DNA, substitutions produce about a 2% difference on average across the whole genome. This number hasn't changed since the chimp genome paper came out in 2005. When you include deletions and insertions of DNA in each lineage, then the differences increase to 96% as compared to the total number of bases. Again, this was established by the chimp genome paper in 2005 and hasn't changed. The chimp genome paper covered about 90% of the chimp genome.

Secondly, a common creator would re-use some of the genome for similiar creations.

A common creator would not force DNA sequences into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason for doing that. A common creator would be free to use some mouse DNA here, some chimp DNA there, and some jellyfish DNA somewhere else in the genome. We see no such thing. We only see the similarities we would expect from evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is Genesis presented as literal in the rest of the bible and not allegorical?

If you argue for a literal Genesis, then all you are doing is proving the Bible is false. Your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and all the nastiness of the world is our punishment... but that isn't actually an explanation as to how 100% of created humans and 33% of created angels were able to sin, unless it was always a part of the plan.

As literalists like to say "No original sin, no need for Jesus's sacrifice". If sin can be a part of God's plan then a TE could say that it was planned into our evolved nature.

(This is just conjecture from an interested atheist, if I'm way off a TE can correct me. I just think the TE position can be as logically consistent as the literalist one).

Can't remember the specific book and chapter, but Jesus did say that all have sinned and are in need of sinning. He didn't say that they were innocent except for the sin they inherited. Rather, they did the sinning themselves. There really isn't a need for original sin.

 

[Neogaia777]

It is meant to be interpreted like a "dream" since that's probably where it came from, imagine some little primitive village, where, not to insult their not highly educated, and some six year old girl has a vision or a dream one night, and it' the story of Adam & Eve and the garden and such, and the dream was so highly detailed and so vivid and very profound, so advanced to such a primitive species, that everybody thought it was from God when they heard it, and they decided to "record" it, and pass it down through the generations... Just don't know?

God Bless!

 

[-57]

you can?, please, explain

I don't claim to know those answers, I'm not "all-knowing", but I believe the true answer to that Question, is found in Genesis...

God Bless!

That is where the answers are. The Theo-Evo denies Genesis.

 

[-57]

If you argue for a literal Genesis, then all you are doing is proving the Bible is false. Your choice.

That makes no sense at all..or you don't really know what a literalist is.

 

[-57]

No, it doesn't. When you compare shared DNA, substitutions produce about a 2% difference on average across the whole genome. This number hasn't changed since the chimp genome paper came out in 2005. When you include deletions and insertions of DNA in each lineage, then the differences increase to 96% as compared to the total number of bases. Again, this was established by the chimp genome paper in 2005 and hasn't changed. The chimp genome paper covered about 90% of the chimp genome.



A common creator would not force DNA sequences into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason for doing that. A common creator would be free to use some mouse DNA here, some chimp DNA there, and some jellyfish DNA somewhere else in the genome. We see no such thing. We only see the similarities we would expect from evolution.

That's silly. forced to do what you think based upon what?

 

[-57]

Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and all the nastiness of the world is our punishment... but that isn't actually an explanation as to how 100% of created humans and 33% of created angels were able to sin, unless it was always a part of the plan.

As literalists like to say "No original sin, no need for Jesus's sacrifice". If sin can be a part of God's plan then a TE could say that it was planned into our evolved nature.

(This is just conjecture from an interested atheist, if I'm way off a TE can correct me. I just think the TE position can be as logically consistent as the literalist one).

I can't speak for the angels...but the bible does speak 100% of the humans.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is meant to be interpreted like a "dream" since that's probably where it came from, imagine some little primitive village, where, not to insult their not highly educated, and some six year old girl has a vision or a dream one night, and it' the story of Adam & Eve and the garden and such, and the dream was so highly detailed and so vivid and very profound, so advanced to such a primitive species, that everybody thought it was from God when they heard it, and they decided to "record" it, and pass it down through the generations... Just don't know?

God Bless!

You might want to try googling "Tremper Longman on Genesis." If you haven't heard of him, he is a conservative Old Testament scholar who nevertheless has no problems with Evolution.

 

[Neogaia777]

I can't speak for the angels...but the bible does speak 100% of the humans.

You still didn't answer my question that you claimed to have answer for, and that is, what is "original sin" or where does it come from?

 

[lesliedellow]

Try this:

http://marccortez.com/2012/04/10/john-walton-and-tremper-longman-on-genesis-1-2-video/

 

[Neogaia777]

Ignore -57. He just wants everybody to think the way he thinks, and you need to find your own way to God.

You might want to try googling "Tremper Longman on Genesis." If you haven't heard of him, he is a conservative Old Testament scholar who nevertheless has no problems with Evolution.

Thank You!

God Bless!

 

[pat34lee]

If humans are separate from the rest of life, why is our genome 98% chimp?

You're about two decades behind the times. The number is more like 85% and dropping fast.

 

[pat34lee]

I would say that genetics did quite a nice job of slamming the door on special creation.

You would be wrong. If anything, evolution is being dismantled, bit by bit.

Either Genesis is allegorical, or Genesis is true. If Genesis is true, the God had to fake all of the evidence we see around us for no other purpose than to fool us. At least to me, an allegorical Genesis seems like the better alternative.

The only problem with the evidence is how you interpret it. Nothing comes with signs
painted on them with a date stamp.

 

[Hoghead1]

Having given the matter careful consideration, I do not think Genesis is an account of creation. I think it is two contradictory accounts. Check out the chronologies. They seriously co9nflict. Gen. 1 has fist animals, than man and women. Gen. 2 has fist man, then animals, then woman. The literary style is very different. Hence, I believe that 2 was written long before 1. I realize that many have tried to explain away this contradiction, but I have yet to find one that really succeeds. I believe we have to bear in mind that the ancient Hebrews saw God's major salvific revelations as occurring in history, not nature. Hence, the creation accounts are very brief, leaving out many key details. The editors butt edited these two account together, because they weren't sure which was right. And probably, they didn't care. All they were trying to demonstrate is that only the God who is the creator can save you, period. Now let's get back to history.

 

[pat34lee]

Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and all the nastiness of the world is our punishment... but that isn't actually an explanation as to how 100% of created humans and 33% of created angels were able to sin, unless it was always a part of the plan.

Free will is always dangerous. You can choose wrong or evil. Unlike what
liberals believe, you cannot legislate goodness. The only way to ensure
that someone does the right thing all the time is to remove every bit of
free will they have and make them slaves.

 

[Hoghead1]

Some of the comments here about the so-called theo-evo show an appealing lack of knowledge about the theo-evo approach. Yes, I would hold that Genesis is not an accurate account of creation, because it is a contradictory account to begin with. We can't explain sin? Oh, c'mon. A common view is that we sin in our freedom. We simply made bad choices. I do not hold with original sin, because I do not believe it is at all biblical, to start with, and presents too many other major problems. If we are all born with a nature corrupted through and through (original sin), then why should we bother at all with God? It is bad to go against your nature, and if ours is fixed to be a rebellion against God, so be it! I am inclined to argue we are born either neutral or basically good, capable of making good choices.

 

[pat34lee]

Having given the matter careful consideration, I do not think Genesis is an account of creation. I think it is two contradictory accounts. Check out the chronologies. They seriously co9nflict. Gen. 1 has fist animals, than man and women. Gen. 2 has fist man, then animals, then woman. The literary style is very different. Hence, I believe that 2 was written long before 1. I realize that many have tried to explain away this contradiction, but I have yet to find one that really succeeds. I believe we have to bear in mind that the ancient Hebrews saw God's major salvific revelations as occurring in history, not nature. Hence, the creation accounts are very brief, leaving out many key details. The editors butt edited these two account together, because they weren't sure which was right. And probably, they didn't care. All they were trying to demonstrate is that only the God who is the creator can save you, period. Now let's get back to history.

Genesis 1 and 2 have different subjects. They are not describing the same details.
Both are necessary before going on to chapter 3.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html

Isaiah 46:10
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

The creation account describes all of time from the beginning to the end.