Christian Evolutionist

[Andrea77]

So could the process of Adams creation happend in, lets say for example, a few hours if the evolving was part of the creation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

First of all I thought this thread was for Christian Evolutionist and their opinions, the Athiests keep coming in playing mind games.

Secondly (note this question is for christian evolutionists) If Genesis states that Adam was created from dust. How can this support evolution which believes that the first life cell was formed from proteins and other organic compounds that evolved from non-living matter.
Is it because you support the belief in the two creations? or is it that Adam was the only one created this way (from dust)?

See what the Bible says about it:

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:20[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:24[/BIBLE]

The language is very clear here: "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the Earth bring forth..."

Contrary to YEC belief, the Bible does not say that God crafted each critter individually in His magic workshop -- He clearly subcontracted out.

 

[Andrea77]

See what the Bible says about it:

Genesis 1:20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The language is very clear here: "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the Earth bring forth..."

Contrary to YEC belief, the Bible does not say that God crafted each critter individually in His magic workshop -- He clearly subcontracted out.

So there could have been a gap between genesis 1 and 2.

And also could the evolving be the creation in Genesis 1, but happend much quiker? Like God taking a cell and forming it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So could the process of Adams creation happend in, lets say for example, a few hours if the evolving was part of the creation?

No. Starting from the 'dust', we then get to 3.5 billion years ago, which is when the first replicators are thought to have formed. The evolutionary process has been going on ever since.

Very patient, God. More inclined to start with water, pasta and cheese than just warm up a tin of macaroni cheese, you see. Heck, God starts before even the wheat and a cow.

 

[Andrea77]

So could there of been a gap between Genesis 1 an 2, say billions of years.

 

[Andrea77]

Could it only of been Adam that was uniquely created by God, and the evolving was only the people created in Genesis 1?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So could there of been a gap between Genesis 1 an 2, say billions of years.

Sure.

But, I would encourage you, my sister, to view Genesis 1 and 2 as a beautiful poem expressing God's majesty, his creativeness and his relationship with humanity rather than as a technical treatise. Your heart will be much rewarded.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Could it only of been Adam that was uniquely created by God, and the evolving was only the people created in Genesis 1?

google
"old earth, young adam"

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could it only of been Adam that was uniquely created by God, and the evolving was only the people created in Genesis 1?

Again, sure.

Some TEs have suggested that very thing. This allows explanations of who Adam's kids married, etc.

Again, though, I'd like to suggest that the spiritual truths of Genesis -- one's personal responsiblity; God's special interest in humans; God's righteousness, justice, love, and mercy-- don't change whether we can shoehorn science into the interpretation or not.

God bless.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution is a scientific theory. The only "appeal" is that it works. It is the only scientific explanation for the distribution and diversity of life on earth that explains the evidence. For science, it is irrelevant whether or not a theory is emotionally pleasing, all that matters is that it works.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

[The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.

“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise 1937 edition. (President of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris.)

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him." Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

How is your cut and paste job from someone else's quote mine project (which you didn't bother citing), featuring out of date snippets without complete sentences, a response to my comments?

I guess I was wasting my time trying to explain to you that evolutionary theory is not about what is most "appealing," but what science-based theory works to explain the distribution and diversity of life on earth. Period. That is the science. People can try to extrapolate from this and explain what they think is the impact on religion or philosophy, but then they must step outside of the realm of science.

 

[Andrea77]

(*corrected species)

what exactly do you mean by "no gaps"`?

It is worth remembering that the organisms we find will be representatives of their particular species, and their species might not be on the direct ancestral line between the modern species and more ancient ancestors, but might be sister species/genera/families and so on which have no descendents in the modern world. anyway, here is a list of hominid skulls. the top left one is a chimp skull, put there principally since the common ancestor between us and chimps was probably more like a modern day chimp than anything else (this is not suprising because these common ancestors lived in the forest)

those are all ordered in nothing more than the age of the fossil. incidentally, if you think there are missing links in human evolution, could you point out where they are, or might be on that list?

there are of course, lots more between major groups, since we see more transitionals between major groups than between smaller groups like genera and so on (unsuprising, since the major groups are represented by many more species)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Couldn't these sculls be a mixture of different Ape's and a few human skull's, not all human scull shapes are exactly the same?

Is there any Fossils of one species evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?*


* By gaps I mean 'clearly visible that the first and last fossil are part of the same species'.

 

[jwu]

Couldn't these sculls be a mixture of different Ape's and a few human skull's, not all human scull shapes are exactly the same?

Which ones are non humans and which ones are human then? How come they are ordered by age in such a nice alignment?

* By gaps I mean 'clearly visible that the first and last fossil are part of the same species'.

In case of significant morphological changes odds are that they wouldn't be able to have viable offspring with each other though, so by definition they wouldn't be the same species anymore.

 

[Andrea77]

Which ones are non humans and which ones are human then? How come they are ordered by age in such a nice alignment?

Like number 1 ?

 

[jwu]

The first one is a modern chimp which was included for the sake of comparison.
How about the others?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is there any Fossils of one species evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?*


* By gaps I mean 'clearly visible that the first and last fossil are part of the same species'.

First of all, the first and last fossil are not the same species. That's speciation at work for you.

Second, if all you had was a camera and 24 exposures of film, would you be able to document a ball rolling down a hill with "no gaps"?

 

[Andrea77]

The first one is a modern chimp which was included for the sake of comparison.
How about the others?

It is possible that the others are a variety different shaped human sculls and ape sculls found and ordered by age?

 

[jwu]

Humans are apes...

However, which ones would you say are variations of human skulls and which ones are variations of non-human skulls then? Where do the human ones begin and the non-human ones end?

 

[nvxplorer]

It is possible that the others are a variety different shaped human sculls and ape sculls found and ordered by age?

No. Shape is only one factor. Brain volume, dentition, facial projection, chin, other identifying characteristics, are each indicative of different species.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, so catch me up... has the OP figured out that Christians are allowed to accept evolution?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Andrea - we know the variations in human skulls. We do, after all, have lots to look at!

We know the extremes of cranial capacity, jaw size, cheekbone shape etc. etc. that can occur in modern humans.

The skulls that are considered to not be Homo sapiens sapiens on the posted image fall well outside the extremes of what we see within modern human populations. Let me give you an example for comparison.

Suppose you have a machine that makes widgets. The average widget is 6mm long and 4mm wide. Now, the machine isn't perfect, and so there is some variation. Close work with micrometres shows that actually the widgets vary between 5.8mm and 6.2mm in length, and 3.9mm and 4.1mm in width.

If you found a widget that was 7mm long and 2mm wide, could it be from the "population" of widgets made by the machine? The answer, of course, is no, because it falls well outside the range of widgets that the machine makes.

And if you could date the widgets, and found that the longer thinner ones were older than the shorter wider ones, and what's more, the older they were the longer and thinner they were, wouldn't you conclude that there had been a change in design of the widgets over the years, with different (or recalibrated) machines being used to create different versions - "species" - over the years?

Or, again, if you found a musket ball in an English Civil War battle site, that's very different in shape and size from a modern bullet, would it be reasonable to call it a deformed bullet, or more reasonable to call it a seventeenth century musket ball - a different "species"?