Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

I've responded on the circle and the square. What did you want to say about it?

I am referring to this. Since you are arguing that Genesis doesn't talk about physical creation and therefore has nothing to do with the evolution debate, I am assuming that you didn't see it or chose to ignore it.

As shown above, Bible doesn't have to say anything about evolution in order to still apply to the question of where people came from. As stated in my original argument, from what we know right now, there are theological and moral implications that logically disprove evolution of humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am referring to this. Since you are arguing that Genesis doesn't talk about physical creation and therefore has nothing to do with the evolution debate, I am assuming that you didn't see it or chose to ignore it.

What do you want me to say about it? It's not really a logical argument. It's just you sharing a thought.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excellent. I am a software developer. I can explain how code can be created to look like it evolved, when it actually didn't.

Ok, here goes. Like I said, I am aiming for a balanced view. Bible, science, and logic.

So first we start with a theory of sets. There is a set that contains biologic animals. Dogs, amoebas, fish, primates, humans are all members of this set. So basically if you are a member of the animal kingdom, you are a member of this set. Then there is also a set of spiritual beings. God, angels (good and bad), etc are members of this set. So are people. So if you picture a Venn diagram, people and God (Jesus) belong in the intersection between the animals and the spiritual beings. Agree so far?

View attachment 344784

Ok, now comes the question. Do all people belong in that intersection, or are there some people that are just animals and not spiritual beings?

I think Job 33:6 (the person, not the verse) answered that for us before on a moral level, when he said that all people are people, all people have a soul. He specifically said that all people, regardless of how they were born, whether by natural birth or in a test tube or cloned, are still people with a soul. Now of course if we start arguing, on a moral level, that not all people are the same, that some are more human than others, we can quickly get into issues of supremacy. Which I am sure we all here disagree with? I sure hope so. So, we can assume that all people are the same, and therefore there is no such thing as a person without a soul.

Ok, now what else do we know about people? We know that all people and only people are made in God's image and have been made that way from the beginning. Genesis 1:26. We know that all people and only people have been told to have dominion over creation. We know that all have sinned and all can be saved by faith. Romans 3:23-24. (I will quickly address Job 33:6 theology that the Romans passage does not apply to prehistoric people. The Romans passage does not say anything about time. It talks about all jews and gentiles, which is another way of saying all jews and not jews. That means all people, including Abraham, Noah, Adam, and Adam's parents if Adam had parents.)

View attachment 344786

What does this mean? Well, in order to be saved by faith, we need to have higher order thinking ability, as in we need to be able to understand concepts like God, sin, death, a need for saviour, eternal life, eternal suffering, etc. In order to be rulers we need to be able to make judgement calls, which at minimum requires a capacity to know what is fair and what is not fair. In order to sin, we need to have the ability to know right and wrong. What I refer to as moral capacity.

Which species in the history of the world had the capacity for this higher order brain functions? The only species that I am aware of is homo sapiens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So at this point we have defined the term "people" - homo sapiens with a soul and with a developed enough brain to grasp spiritual concepts.

Ok, now we look at the evolutionary timeline. We know that at one point in time people did not exist, and at another point people definitely existed. We'll call these lines A and B. So prior to A our species was definitely animal and not human. After line B our species was definitely human and not animal.

View attachment 344795

So we know as described above that we can't be half-human or less than human. So I am going to pick a hypothetical person at some point in time. I am going to call him Adam. Adam is a person.

Where in the timeline can Adam exist? Well, we know that Adam can exist to the right of B because that would make him a homo sapiens who are all people. We know that Adam can't exist before line A because there were no people then. Can Adam exist in the time between A and B?

So our hypothesis: Adam exists in the period between A and B and Adam is a person and Adam is a transitional species between a Homo and a Homo Sapiens. But we know that only Homo Sapiens have the higher order brain functions. So even if Adam is a very smart specimen, we know that his brain is still not able to fully grasp the moral concepts that would condemn him as a sinner, and we know that he would not be able to grasp salvation. So Adam is not a person. Which is a contradiction to our hypothesis. So Adam can't exist in the space between A and B.

But if space between A and B has no people, then A and B must be the same point in time. I will re-draw the diagram, and I will put Adam at the exact point in time when people came to existence.

View attachment 344796

Now we have to ask ourselves a question. What about Adam's parents? Well, we know from above that Adam's parents could not be people because we just proved that Adam is the first person (or one of many first people, doesn't matter).

Our hypothesis: Adam is a person and Adam has parents who are not people.

Here is our complete diagram:

View attachment 344797


We know from the Venn diagram above that if Adam's parents are not people, then they are not homo sapiens. So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. So Adam's parents had to be homo sapiens, so they had to be people, which contradicts our hypothesis.

And therefore the only other option left is this timeline:

View attachment 344798

In other words, something supernatural happens in order for Adam come to existence. Now before all the scientific minds here start screaming that this is impossible because it has never happened, I'd like to point to Jesus. Jesus did have a human mom, but he did not have a human dad. Jesus was a miracle. All evidence points to the conclusion that Adam was also a miracle.

We already went through this whole thing, and I pointed out a falsehood.

"So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

And for whatever reason, you're referencing the post again despite it continuing to contain this error.

 

[olgamc]

We already went through this whole thing, and I pointed out a falsehood.

"So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

And for whatever reason, you're referencing the post again despite it continuing to contain this error.

You never answered my question. How is that an error?

 

[olgamc]

What do you want me to say about it? It's not really a logical argument. It's just you sharing a thought.

You don't have to say anything about it. You just have to understand my point. Which, if you did, you would not be arguing about bara. Or if you disagreed with my point, then you could say why you disagree. Logically.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't have to say anything about it. You just have to understand my point. Which, if you did, you would not be arguing about bara. Or if you disagreed with my point, then you could say why you disagree. Logically.

I don't really see an argument in it. It just looks like a long commentary on circles and squares without really clearly making a point.

 

[Job 33:6]

You never answered my question. How is that an error?

It's an error because speciation does occur over a single generation. Typically evolution is thought of in populations, but those populations still of course begin with single individuals. It starts when a parent essentially gives birth to a child of another species.

 

[olgamc]

I don't really see an argument in it. It just looks like a long commentary on circles and squares without really clearly making a point.

You missed the point? You read it and honestly didn’t see the point?

 

[olgamc]

It's an error because speciation does occur over a single generation. Typically evolution is thought of in populations, but those populations still of course begin with single individuals. It starts when a parent essentially gives birth to a child of another species.

That’s… not how speciation works.

Do you have any links to share to demonstrate that speciation in humans can happen over 1 generation?

 

[Job 33:6]

That’s… not how speciation works.

Do you have any links to share to demonstrate that speciation in humans can happen over 1 generation?

What I'm saying is that, essentially, the mutations that result in speciation, occur in single generations. It has to, because there's no logical concept of an animal or a population that exists between one species and another. At some point, the very first individual of a species must be born, in which case, that event involves a parent having offspring of another species.

Not in terms of scientific definition involving fixation, but in terms of, the physical occurrences that produce a new species.

So for example, at some point in time, the very first human, was born. Even if their mutations that make them human had not yet made it's way throughout the population.

 

[olgamc]

What I'm saying is that, essentially, the mutations that result in speciation, occur in single generations. It has to, because there's no logical concept of an animal or a population that exists between one species and another. At some point, the very first individual of a species must be born, in which case, that event involves a parent having offspring of another species.

Not in terms of scientific definition involving fixation, but in terms of, the physical occurrences that produce a new species.

So for example, at some point in time, the very first human, was born. Even if their mutations that make them human had not yet made its way throughout the population.

No. You don’t understand speciation. But I am not going to try and explain how it works. After the bara discussion, you can just have it your way.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. You don’t understand speciation. But I am not going to try and explain how it works. After the bara discussion, you can just have it your way.

I understand the subject just fine. Speciation ultimately begins with mutations that occur in individuals. You can't have a new species without beginning with mutations that define that species, originating from individuals.

 

[olgamc]

I understand the subject just fine. Speciation ultimately begins with mutations that occur in individuals. You can't have a new species without beginning with mutations that define that species, originating from individuals.

Right, but they are small changes accumulated over time over many generations. It does not happen over one generation. A mother does not give birth to a baby of a different species.

 

[Job 33:6]

I understand the subject just fine. Speciation ultimately begins with mutations that occur in individuals. You can't have a new species without beginning with mutations that define that species, originating from individuals.

In the theory of evolution, you're either one species or another. There are sub species, but those are still classified within one species or another.

There is no gray area of being classified as two species at once. No such thing as an in-between species. Even transitional fossils are still identified as individual species of their spectrum.

And so what that means is, at some point in time, one species does give birth to another, mother to child, one species to another.

 

[Job 33:6]

Speciation does not happen over one generation. A mother does not give birth to a baby of a different species.

In the theory of evolution, you're either one species or another. There are sub species, but those are still classified within one species or another.

There is no gray area of being classified as two species at once. No such thing as an in-between species. Even transitional fossils are still identified as individual species of their spectrum.

And so what that means is, at some point in time, one species does give birth to another, mother to child, one species to another.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, but they are small changes accumulated over time over many generations. It does not happen over one generation. A mother does not give birth to a baby of a different species.

If a mother never gives birth to a baby of a new species, then where does the new species come from (according to the theory)? Outer space?

That's a rhetorical question btw. You don't seem to understand the subject yourself.

 

[olgamc]

If a mother never gives birth to a baby of a new species, then where does the new species come from? Outer space?

That's a rhetorical question btw. You don't seem to understand the subject yourself.

Lol. Ok. Whatever you say.

 

[Job 33:6]

Lol. Ok. Whatever you say.

Go ahead and answer the question.

According to the theory of evolution, if a mother never gives birth to a child of a new species, then where do you think new species come from?

 

[olgamc]

Go ahead and answer the question.

According to the theory of evolution, if a mother never gives birth to a child of a new species, then where do you think new species come from?

Are you kidding me? I will not answer your question. Sorry. You can find the answer on YouTube if you like.

 

[Job 33:6]

Go ahead and answer the question.

According to the theory of evolution, if a mother never gives birth to a child of a new species, then where do you think new species come from?

You see, you're confusing taxonomic classification with the actual mechanisms that make evolution unfold gradually.

Evolution occurs gradually, through populations over time. Descent with modification. It involves mutations that, when beneficial, become fixated and dispersed in a population.

Taxonomy however, isn't gradual. It's an artificial rigid boundary set on gradual transitions to help us differentiate between animals.

There is no point in which an animal, a single individual, is in transition between one species and another. There are subspecies, but even subspecies are identified under one species or another. There is no subspecies that is outside of any individual species classification.

Which means that though the process is gradual, mothers do give birth to children of other species. The classification change is abrupt despite the real world process being gradual.