• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am confident that God will judge evolutionists and creationists equally as it is the lessons the stories teach, not the details that are important.
I'm not as confident as you are that God permits heresy and has no problem with people teaching false gospel in His name; proclaiming that the world of God is false because the theories of man are more trustworthy.
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟194,090.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Because God's word states that God made made on the sixth day of creation, and that by man's rebellion sin and death came into the world.

Christ didn't believe it that way. He said if you didn't believe Moses you would never believe Him either.

One can take scripture in Genesis as allegory and still understand that God created the universe and demands obedience from His people.

I also do not pretend to know what Christ believed beyond what is written in the NT and what the Holy Spirit has shown me through study of that text.

I also do not pretend to know what is in your heart or the depth of your faith. I accept that you are Christian because you say so. I am comfortable with my faith. You have know way of knowing the depth of my faith or what God thinks of me.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Strict literalism also requires one to explain the inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Which came first, people or plants?
Why is it that all of our enlightened evolution believing brethren are so blinded by the misinterpretations of others that they can't even understand God's word? Genesis 2 has no contradiction with Genesis 1. It's not a story of the creation of all things, but the specific creation of man. Anyone who reads the words can see this. Why are we continually told misrepresentations of two conflicting creation stories where none exist??
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟194,090.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Why is it that all of our enlightened evolution believing brethren are so blinded by the misinterpretations of others that they can't even understand God's word? Genesis 2 has no contradiction with Genesis 1. It's not a story of the creation of all things, but the specific creation of man. Anyone who reads the words can see this. Why are we continually told misrepresentations of two conflicting creation stories where none exist??

Genesis 1 clearly states that man was created on day 6, after plants and animals. Genesis 2 clearly states that man was created before the plants.

But again, I see no problem with this since I read the creation story as allegory designed to teach a lesson to a primitive people.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Genesis 1 clearly states that man was created on day 6, after plants and animals. Genesis 2 clearly states that man was created before the plants.
The only way they can get around that is by claiming that "erets" in Genesis 2 refers to the "land" in a localized sense and not the whole planet, which is linguistically feasible. However that opens a whole can of worms for them especially in regards to the flood account.
 
Upvote 0

tooldtocare

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2010
444
93
united states
✟18,750.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago
____________________

According to the best available evidence the age of Earth is:
The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3][4] This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite[5]material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

The age of Earth: 4,500,000,000 years old

Homo sapiens
The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago,

http://eol.org/pages/327955/details


The age of Homo sapiens is around: 200,000 years ago.

4,000,000,000 years

-200,000 years

= 3,998,00,000​

The earliest evidence for life on Earth is graphite found to be a biogenic substance in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks

"remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks

in Western Australia.[15][16] In March 2017, researchers reported evidence of possibly the oldest forms of life on Earth. Putative fossilized microorganisms were discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada, that may have lived as early as 4.280 billion years ago

oceans formed 4.4 billion years ago,
formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
Earth formed 4,500,000,000 years ago

First sign of life: 4,200,000,000 years ago
During a time of dramatic climate change; i.e. "the great flood"

First sign of Homo sapiens: 200,000 years ago

In short, our earth was void of life for 3,00,000,000

Then out of the blue a dramatic climate change occurred and in this turmoil life appeared.

In my view -
I am going about this the wrong way. I believe we were visited around 200,000 years ago and these visitors seeded this planet. Just as we will seed other inhabitable planets. At some point in our future we will play the Adam and Eve you speak of
& again in my view, that will not ocure until we stop eating meat. .,/\.,./\.,.,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One can take scripture in Genesis as allegory and still understand that God created the universe and demands obedience from His people.
However, one cannot provide a single passage of Scripture to validate that opinion. The Fourth Commandment makes specific reference to the six day creation. Should there only be nine commandments?
I also do not pretend to know what Christ believed beyond what is written in the NT and what the Holy Spirit has shown me through study of that text.
Which of us quoted His actual words?
Oh, yes. That was me.
I don't know of a single Biblical authority who contends that Christ did not believe in the Scriptures as written. Can you produce one?
Jesus actually quoted Genesis 2 when describing what God intended for marriage. If Adam and Ever were not the first couple, then why would Jesus say they were? He also said, "From the beginning." If the world were millions of years old, it wouldn't be the beginning, would it?

What you are promoting has no Biblical authority.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'm not as confident as you are that God permits heresy and has no problem with people teaching false gospel in His name; proclaiming that the world of God is false because the theories of man are more trustworthy.
God allowed Satan to fool the whole world.....because we have the ability to perceive truth from falsehood. The whole point of this mystery of life is to experience growth in truth while confronted with the possibility of contrasted error.

As a result more good came from Satans lue than would have come otherwise.

Scripture is man made, written by men of faith, speculating.
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
930
Brighton, UK
✟137,692.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
True.

Completely false. Physicists determine the half-life of radioisotopes, not archeologists. They do it by taking samples of the isotope and seeing how fast it decays.

So you are telling me that in less than 100 years that we have been able to measure the radioisotopes in carbon we have absolute evidence of how they act over 50,000 years, or even 5730? I have had the discussion with physicists in far greater detail and with sufficient time and discussion to discuss the issues I raised they wer enot able to prove the hypothesis wrong. It originally came form The Observer newspaper and they did the initial investigation but it is something I have followed when Ive seen information on since. The report they did was originally intended (according to them) to prove that carbon dating was reasonably accurate to disprove creationists but they were so shocked by the results they ran with it as an expose on the "facts" being taught that they so easily disproved.


Radiocarbon dating is only good for dating samples that are less than ~50,000 years old.

As I said it was a while ago. In those days they claimed they could date anything and the change was necessary as they got so many things wrong.

It would be good if you learned at least a little bit about the subject you're lecturing scientists on.
True.

I find this last comment quite rude. It would also be good if you didnt accept what you have been told without question. I have had the discussion with a number of people including physicists which allowed me sufficient time and both sides sufficient ability to question and answer the different aspects in a lot more detail. I have yet to find one who has been able to prove that I am wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.

I think we may be on nearly the same page. I tried to look at Adam from a historical/anthropological angle. I am not sure he was a specific person (though I could entertain the notion that he was an important tribal figure in Jewish prehistory), but an archetype of modern humans emerging from the paleolithic to the neolithic periods.

See more here: Human History and Adam as Archetype
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Does God have fingers?
What does Exodus 31:18 say?
"When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God."
Luke 11:20 “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.”
Exodus 24:12

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction."
God's fingers may not be as our fingers, but the finger of God has 11 references.
Why would you, a learned and educated Christian, need to ask that question?
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
God's fingers may not be as our fingers
So you dont take that literally. You would, im guessing, believe like most scholars that the "finger of God" is a figurative anthropomorphism conveying power and personal authority.

Now apply those same principles to the creation story and you have my position.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am not sure he was a specific person
Thats a common viewpoint, but as I explained I am convinced there are compelling and necessary theological reasons for affirming the existence of a literal historical Adam who was the first truly human being. If you don't affirm that then Paul's covenantal reasoning in Romans falls flat.

This understanding was the motivation behind my formulation of this evolutionary model of Adam and Eve. I'm seeking to maintain the traditional Christian doctrine of a literal first pair of humans made in God's image with the scientific evidence of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
930
Brighton, UK
✟137,692.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I genuinely feel that this whole argument, although interesting, is actually a deception by the devil. My God is an all powerful God. He spoke and the universe came into being. Whether it is in a few days or over billions of years is actually immaterial. What is important is believing by faith that God created the universe.

My personal view however is that God did create the universe in a matter of days as I do not beleive he is a liar. And as an all powerful God he is more than capable of creating the elements in different states (that those who do not want to believe in a literal Genesis creation have told everyone is evidence that the universe in billions of years old which is absolutely proven and beyond doubt).
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟194,090.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
However, one cannot provide a single passage of Scripture to validate that opinion. The Fourth Commandment makes specific reference to the six day creation. Should there only be nine commandments?

Which of us quoted His actual words?
Oh, yes. That was me.
I don't know of a single Biblical authority who contends that Christ did not believe in the Scriptures as written. Can you produce one?
Jesus actually quoted Genesis 2 when describing what God intended for marriage. If Adam and Ever were not the first couple, then why would Jesus say they were? He also said, "From the beginning." If the world were millions of years old, it wouldn't be the beginning, would it?

What you are promoting has no Biblical authority.

I guess it depends on who you consider a biblical authority.

These biologists and theologians believe in theistic evolution:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟194,090.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I genuinely feel that this whole argument, although interesting, is actually a deception by the devil. My God is an all powerful God. He spoke and the universe came into being. Whether it is in a few days or over billions of years is actually immaterial. What is important is believing by faith that God created the universe.

My personal view however is that God did create the universe in a matter of days as I do not beleive he is a liar. And as an all powerful God he is more than capable of creating the elements in different states (that those who do not want to believe in a literal Genesis creation have told everyone is evidence that the universe in billions of years old which is absolutely proven and beyond doubt).

I wholeheartedly agree with you first paragraph. And, I respect your right to believe in creationism.


What I have a problem with is people who question my faith or say I can't be a Christian if I believe in evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That said, my thread is primarily addressed to those Christians who do accept the scientific record, mainly those who hold to Old Earth Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism
Human evolution is only a theory and not a fact, and is therefore not held as true, but only as theory.

The scientific record/evidence can be interpreted in various ways and with differing theories.

One interpretation is that Adam did not evolve from a living prehistoric human, but was re-created/resurrected from a dead prehistoric human.

This would be similar to a dead Christian being resurrected from a mortal human to an immortal human just as Jesus was.

This explanation reconciles the scientific record of prehistoric humans 150-200,000 years ago with the biblical record of the creation of Adam 5-6000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I also feel the need to make clear that my purpose with this thread is not to debate theistic evolution and young-earth creationism. The point is to discuss the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve within the framework of the modern scientific consensus of the Theory of Evolution.

If we could stay on topic I believe this discussion could be much more fuitful. There are plenty of other threads where young earth believers and evolutionary creationists can debate the veracity of their positions.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now apply those same principles to the creation story and you have my position.
I bet you're a terrible cook.
You probably take a pinch of salt figuratively and add a cup, or two eggs to mean a carton.
Things which are written in a simple narrative fashion should be taken that way.
The heart of this heresy is the notion that God could not have described an evolution as easily as he could a six day creation. That's lunacy. If God had evolved the world he could have explained it in language that people would have understood and which would not later come into conflict with anything. In fact, He needed say nothing whatever of the creation.
 
Upvote 0