Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. So in order that we don't have to face that conversation, the Lord didn't just give us nature. He gave us the Bible as well. He gave us both - nature and Bible. He told us everything we needed to know. He gave us the book of Genesis, where He said that it was Him who created us special, with unique attributes of being made in His image. And He gave us a book of Job where He told us not to be presumptuous and think that we know all of His ways. Not to mention the book of Romans, which says that all creation manifests His eternal power and divine nature, and warns us against exchanging the truth about Him for a lie.

This is the point that I've been trying to make. We can't just study science and ignore the Bible. And we can't just study the Bible and ignore science. God gave us both - the Word and the world. We need to study both. Not as separate disciplines, but both together. If we are going to make a theory, we need to validate it with both the text and the physical evidence.

Well....... I agree with you on the part where you've said we need to study both Science and the Bible in a complementary fashion. But to then insinuate that in order to construct a scientific theory we have to somehow validate it with the Bible is to invoke a set jumbled epistemological assumptions that don't cohere with one another. In other words, if we do science by way of Methodological Naturalism, we're not going to expect to see verification of the scientific Theory of Evolution via, or from, the Bible directly, or vice versa. These are, as the late Stephen Jay Gould affirmed, "Non-overlapping magisteria," or at the least, I'd say they are mostly non-overlapping magisteria. However, the epistemic problem will come about in that each individual person will have to evaluate for himself/herself the extent to which the Theory of Evolution is seen to compete with the Biblical Creation Accounts in Genesis.

 

[sfs]

And yes, I agree with you, that based on the physical evidence it is reasonable to conclude that macro evolution exists and applies to all biological life. But it wouldn’t stand up in court of law

Not only would it stand up in a court of law, it has stood up in a court of law.

because it doesn’t consider all of the available evidence.

What evidence do you think has been left out that would be admitted to a court of law? For that matter, what evidence that can't be admitted do you think has been left out?

Like someone else said, imagine standing one day before God and arguing that macro evolution exist and always applies. And God says thank you very much for presenting all your evidence to support your case, but you ignored the key piece - I exist. I created evolution. I defined how it works. I put the limits on it as I saw fit, and I used it as a tool as I deemed necessary. What are you going to answer then?

I'll answer you rather than God: what an odd question. We can ask virtually the same question about everything we know about the world around us: how cars work, how plants grow, what rocks are made of, where babies come from. You can propose that all of the evidence about X is wrong because God made it so, regardless of what X is. Having recognized that, all any of us can do is get on with our lives and go on assuming that when all of the evidence points to X, we'll treat X as if it's true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pete Enns wrote a book on the evolution of Adam? Haha. That actually sounds interesting.

Oh, it is, and his book, and others similar to it that I'm sure you're already aware of, serve as an influence in my overall engagement with Science and the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Brushes hands off*

Alright, now that we've solved that topic, what's next on the chopping block?

 

[olgamc]

Well....... I agree with you on the part where you've said we need to study both Science and the Bible in a complementary fashion. But to then insinuate that in order to construct a scientific theory we have to somehow validate it with the Bible is to invoke a set jumbled epistemological assumptions that don't cohere with one another. In other words, if we do science by way of Methodological Naturalism, we're not going to expect to see verification of the scientific Theory of Evolution via, or from, the Bible directly, or vice versa. These are, as the late Stephen Jay Gould affirmed, "Non-overlapping magisteria," or at the least, I'd say they are mostly non-overlapping magisteria. However, the epistemic problem will come about in that each individual person will have to evaluate for himself/herself the extent to which the Theory of Evolution is seen to compete with the Biblical Creation Accounts in Genesis.

Elon Musk is trying to invent a neurolink device that will keep people living forever. But God said that people will not live forever. Who is going to win? So why spend all the energy inventing something that can't be done, when we as society can spend energy inventing something that can be done?

Darwin studied creation without the Creator. In the end, instead of saying "wow God, you are so wise and awesome, you created this amazing process of evolution" what do Darwinists say? "The world created itself without God's involvement". Well that's a theological claim, and a wrong one. They have exchanged the truth about God for a lie. Why do people make a theological claim purely based on scientific observations, if science does not cover the spiritual aspect? And then we get mad at people who do the same - make a scientific claim based on the Bible alone.

And this is what you guys don't get. I am not asking you to prove that evolution exists by the Bible. I am not even asking you to prove evolution. I agree that evolution exists. I do not agree that just because evolution exists, we can make an assumption that a complete bio-spiritual human could have naturally evolved. A primate - yes, go for it. It could have very well evolved. We don't know for sure of course, but it's a pretty good theory that hasn't been disproved yet, so we can run with it. But a human made in God's image? I mean, think about it just with common sense, it's an oxymoron that something evolved in the image of God if God was not in the picture.

But more than just common sense, like I said, I think I can prove the logical impossibility of humans evolving just by what we believe on a moral and theological level, as well as what we know from the theory of evolution itself. Would you like to hear it? I might be wrong, and I am open to constructive criticism.

 

[olgamc]

Not only would it stand up in a court of law, it has stood up in a court of law.

Has it now? You have stood before God the Almighty Creator and argued that people evolved?

What evidence do you think has been left out that would be admitted to a court of law? For that matter, what evidence that can't be admitted do you think has been left out?

I already explained. Stand before God, set the Bible aside, and prove to Him on the basis of just science alone that He did not create people as a separate creation.

I'll answer you rather than God: what an odd question. We can ask virtually the same question about everything we know about the world around us: how cars work, how plants grow, what rocks are made of, where babies come from. You can propose that all of the evidence about X is wrong because God made it so, regardless of what X is. Having recognized that, all any of us can do is get on with our lives and go on assuming that when all of the evidence points to X, we'll treat X as if it's true.

Bible does not talk about how cars work or how plants grow or what rocks are made of, and none of those have anything to do with non-material world. The Bible does touch a bit on where babies come from. And it does talk a lot about people.

Anyway, I am not going to sit here and try to convince Christians to read the Bible. I am here to point out this. You believe that human sapiens species evolved, and you use fossil remains and micro evolution as your supporting evidence. But a human is more than a biological organism, everyone agrees with that, right? Does anyone want to hear what I have to say about why I believe that specifically homo sapiens evolution is a logical impossibility, based on both science and theology? This is the last time I am asking.

 

[olgamc]

At a minimum, I mean that the biological organisms that are humans are the product of evolution. That's what lots of Christians reject and it's important to me as a biologist.

A lot of Christians reject all of evolution period. I do not.

I do not reject micro evolution, because we can observe it. I do not reject the fact that fossils exist or that we can do dna testing. I do believe that asserting a continuous evolutionary line based on the evidence of disjointed fossils is a logical deduction, which may or may not actually be true. I believe that God occasionally interferes miraculously or outside of the laws that He created. Creation of something out of nothing is a miracle to begin with. There was at least 1 person in the history of mankind that did not have 2 biological parents. Based on all of the above, I believe that God created the process of evolution to use as He wished. I also believe that He could have interjected at any point in time, as He saw fit. I also believe that we were not there, so we can theorize to our heart's content but we will never know for sure how God actually did it.

Do you agree with all of that? Does any of that prevent you from being a biologist?

 

[olgamc]

Gravity isn't supernatural.

You are missing the point

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Elon Musk is trying to invent a neurolink device that will keep people living forever. But God said that people will not live forever. Who is going to win? So why spend all the energy inventing something that can't be done, when we as society can spend energy inventing something that can be done?

Darwin studied creation without the Creator. In the end, instead of saying "wow God, you are so wise and awesome, you created this amazing process of evolution" what do Darwinists say? "The world created itself without God's involvement". Well that's a theological claim, and a wrong one. They have exchanged the truth about God for a lie. Why do people make a theological claim purely based on scientific observations, if science does not cover the spiritual aspect? And then we get mad at people who do the same - make a scientific claim based on the Bible alone.

And this is what you guys don't get. I am not asking you to prove that evolution exists by the Bible. I am not even asking you to prove evolution. I agree that evolution exists. I do not agree that just because evolution exists, we can make an assumption that a complete bio-spiritual human could have naturally evolved. A primate - yes, go for it. It could have very well evolved. We don't know for sure of course, but it's a pretty good theory that hasn't been disproved yet, so we can run with it. But a human made in God's image? I mean, think about it just with common sense, it's an oxymoron that something evolved in the image of God if God was not in the picture.

But more than just common sense, like I said, I think I can prove the logical impossibility of humans evolving just by what we believe on a moral and theological level, as well as what we know from the theory of evolution itself. Would you like to hear it? I might be wrong, and I am open to constructive criticism.

olgamc, do you have a general system by which you research a topic that I could follow? I'm just wondering because in reading your first sentence, you say something to the effect that Elon Musk's neurAlink "will keep people living forever," and I'm trying to get a better understanding about his device and what it can do, so I'll be up on it like you are. It sounds quite appealing, as so much of Transhumanism attempts to be.

 

[sfs]

Has it now? You have stood before God the Almighty Creator and argued that people evolved?

Huh? What does that have to do with presenting evidence in a court of law? All of this 'standing before God' stuff is contributing nothing to the discussion. We're all standing before God the almighty creator all the time. I try to conduct myself accordingly, and that includes applying my God-supplied reason to the God-supplied evidence with as much rigor as I can.

I already explained. Stand before God, set the Bible aside, and prove to Him on the basis of just science alone that He did not create people as a separate creation.

The question was, 'What evidence do you think has been left out that would be admitted to a court of law?' What you've written is not an answer to that question.

A lot of Christians reject all of evolution period.

I've run into very few Christians who think about the subject at all and who also reject microevolution

I do believe that asserting a continuous evolutionary line based on the evidence of disjointed fossils is a logical deduction, which may or may not actually be true.

Fossils are only a part of the evidence for common descent and not the most powerful part.

Do you agree with all of that?

No. I don't agree that we can't be sure that humans share a common ancestor with other species, to the extent that we can be sure of anything. And no, I couldn't do some of the work I've done as a biologist if I didn't accept that common descent was true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Darwin studied creation without the Creator. In the end, instead of saying "wow God, you are so wise and awesome, you created this amazing process of evolution" what do Darwinists say? "The world created itself without God's involvement". Well that's a theological claim, and a wrong one. They have exchanged the truth about God for a lie. Why do people make a theological claim purely based on scientific observations, if science does not cover the spiritual aspect? And then we get mad at people who do the same - make a scientific claim based on the Bible alone.

Sure. A number of Darwinists may say that the world created itself, and phenomenologically it does kind of look that way, but mere appearances don't settle the epistemological problems involved with God's possible presence in the World.

Moreover, the problem here is in our knowing who gets to define how and why theology must be done on the one hand, and then also as to how science must be done on the other.

So, who gets to define how Christian Theology must be done? Who gets to define what the Scientific Methods are and how they are to be applied?

And this is what you guys don't get. I am not asking you to prove that evolution exists by the Bible. I am not even asking you to prove evolution. I agree that evolution exists. I do not agree that just because evolution exists, we can make an assumption that a complete bio-spiritual human could have naturally evolved. A primate - yes, go for it. It could have very well evolved. We don't know for sure of course, but it's a pretty good theory that hasn't been disproved yet, so we can run with it. But a human made in God's image? I mean, think about it just with common sense, it's an oxymoron that something evolved in the image of God if God was not in the picture.

What exactly does the "image of God" mean? Is there a consensus among theologians on this, one that comports with, as you've said, common sense?

But more than just common sense, like I said, I think I can prove the logical impossibility of humans evolving just by what we believe on a moral and theological level, as well as what we know from the theory of evolution itself. Would you like to hear it? I might be wrong, and I am open to constructive criticism.

Sure. Let's hear what you have to say.

 

[sfs]

Anyway, I am not going to sit here and try to convince Christians to read the Bible.

That would be pointless in my case, since I need no convincing on that subject

You believe that human sapiens species evolved, and you use fossil remains and micro evolution as your supporting evidence.

Mostly I use genetic evidence -- I'm a geneticist.

But a human is more than a biological organism, everyone agrees with that, right?

I'm not sure I would agree with that, partly because I'm not sure what you mean and partly because I don't pretend to know fully what humans are.

Does anyone want to hear what I have to say about why I believe that specifically homo sapiens evolution is a logical impossibility, based on both science and theology?

Sure, I'd like to hear it. I'm more interested in the science part, since science has a broadly agreed-upon way of reaching conclusions that theology lacks.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Why do people make a theological claim purely based on scientific observations, if science does not cover the spiritual aspect? And then we get mad at people who do the same - make a scientific claim based on the Bible alone."

Science shouldn't be blamed, by Christians, for issues that people commonly have. Just because some atheist says that evolution disproves God or weird things like this, doesn't actually mean that it does. Evolution doesn't make claims on supernatural matters. So you can just ignore those atheist. Likewise, the Bible doesn't make scientific claims either. It was written thousands of years ago before science even existed, in a pre scientific time where the common belief involved a flat earth under a solid sky. So atheists also shouldnt blame the Bible whenever Christians say that the Bible disproves science. So we can also ignore Christians who think that the Bible is a science textbook.

Quite frankly, the average person just isn't the most informed on these matters.

 

[olgamc]

Mostly I use genetic evidence -- I'm a geneticist.

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

Sure, I'd like to hear it. I'm more interested in the science part, since science has a broadly agreed-upon way of reaching conclusions that theology lacks.

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?

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 grace through 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.)

What does this mean? Well, in order to be saved through 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" - a species of animals characterized by having a soul and a brain advanced enough to grasp spiritual concepts. The only species that we know of that possesses these characteristics is Homo sapiens (sapiens), which I will refer to as HS or Homo Sapiens or Human Species.

Ok, now let us assume that HS evolved. Let us 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.

So we know as described above that we can't be half-human or less than human. 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 HS. 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. Adam is the first person.

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.

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

Here is our complete diagram:

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 current understanding of evolution is impossible for hominids. 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:

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.

 

[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.

The animal kingdom is also a part of the spiritual realm as well. Genesis identifies animals as "nephesh". Or spirits. Just a note for your diagrams.

 

[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.

‭

Genesis 1:20 NRSVUE‬
[20] And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

The term there "creatures" is nephesh.

◄ 5315. nephesh ►
Strong's Concordance
nephesh: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion
Original Word: נֶפֶשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: nephesh
Phonetic Spelling: (neh'-fesh)
Definition: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

 

[Job 33:6]

"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."

Other hominids species, such as neanderthals, had music, artwork, toy dolls and figures, burial sites, among other evidences of higher order brain function. If we were thinking of things beyond what chimpanzees could do, such as using tools and sign language.

 

[olgamc]

The animal kingdom is also a part of the spiritual realm as well. Genesis identifies animals as "nephesh". Or spirits. Just a note for your diagrams.

Correct, we don't actually know whether animals have a soul or not. For that reason I did not define people as animals with a soul. In my subsequent arguments I made a very specific definition of a person. But you are right, I could re-draw the diagram like below. Does this change any conclusions that follow?

 

[olgamc]

"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."

Other hominids species, such as neanderthals, had music, artwork, toy dolls and figures, burial sites, among other evidences of higher order brain function. If we were thinking of things beyond what chimpanzees could do, such as using tools and sign language.

Sure. Think of it this way. A baby chimpanzee that grows up with humans can learn to do a lot of the things that human children can do. However a human child, at the age of 3-4, can understand what Jesus did for him. But a chimpanzee of any age cannot. Also notice that in my arguments I did not mention things like art or advanced language. My proof hinges specifically on the ability to sin (having conscience, aka ability to know right and wrong) and ability to be saved (understanding eternal God, eternal life, eternal punishment).

Do we have evidence, for example, that neanderthal believed in the afterlife? And I mean, the kind of evidence that rules out a homo sapiens person walking into a neanderthal cave and leaving that piece of evidence for us or teaching the neanderthal how to draw or how to bury their dead?

 

[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.

The argument conflates the Bibles theological concept of humanity, with a scientific concept of homo sapiens. These concepts are not equivalent.

But also, species, as a taxonomic category, is somewhat arbitrary.

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

This quote actually is not true. Because taxonomically, you're either of one species or another. You aren't half way between species.

Though speciation is a gradual process.

So, the position is incorrect in arguing that taxonomic man-made classifications are actual real life rigid categories, and then further takes that mixup and tries to apply those rigid categories to the Bible, which leaps from a modern scientific context, into an ancient context.

So it's problematic on multiple levels. And we've already addressed these concepts earlier in our conversation.