Human Babies: The Best evidence against evolution

[DamianWarS]

They agree 100% on every detail. The Bible never contradicts itself and Science does not contradict the Bible. In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for allowing their traditions to override God’s commandments.

Understood using Hebraic block logic two contradictory accounts may be juxtaposed together but both may be true at the same time. This is because the accounts are goal-driven not driven by literal representation which is a modern western obsession. Being goal driven the purpose of the accounts are to establish foundational points and may use fluid details to support these goals. This doesn't make them false, it just means the goals operate at a higher or more noble level. Because the goal is worthy then the details that support the goal is also worthy regardless if they are through literal or non-literal means. For example, we don't read Christ's parables as any less truth just because they may be non-literal and this is because Christ uses these accounts to teach us something greater. It is that greater goal we need to stop and take notice of rather than be so preoccupied with forcing our world view over the accounts that we miss the point completely.

Modern western obsession for these sort of literal reading is also what drives a lot of odd reading-inbetween-the-lines conclusions like saying Gen 2 is actually day 6 of Gen 1. I don't think the accounts need any extra information to understand them, they are written exactly as they should be, and nothing needs to be added or superimposed over them but that doesn't mean we can approach them in a way the accounts were never written to be and force conclusions that distract us from the goals of the accounts. Is Gen 2 day 6 of Gen 1? I doupt it but I really don't know nor do I care. Why don't I care? because the account doesn't feel it is important enough to reveal those details so I will value what the account values not what I try and make the accounts into. Let's focus on the more noble goals of the accounts not these petty ones.

 

[Diamond72]

not driven by literal representation

We teach a literal Bible to our Sunday School students. Later when they are older and go into the sanctuary where they learn the symbolic meaning of the Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

Gen 2 is actually day 6 of Gen 1.

For dispensationalists Genesis 2 is day 8.

 

[Diamond72]

Perhaps not suited for your typical Sunday school discussion

Sounds like they are teaching Sunday school to the adults.

 

[Diamond72]

The differences of the accounts demand at least one to be non-literal

Genesis one is talking about mankind. Genesis two is talking about one man and one women. The matriarch and the patriarch of the Hebrew people and patriarch of the Muslim people. People of the same father but different mother. Abrahams descendants were given all of the Arab continental plate. Hagar was told not to be afraid and promised that God would make Ishmael into a great nation2.

 

[David Lamb]

Genesis one is talking about mankind. Genesis two is talking about one man and one women. The matriarch and the patriarch of the Hebrew people and patriarch of the Muslim people. People of the same father but different mother. Abrahams descendants were given all of the Arab continental plate. Hagar was told not to be afraid and promised that God would make Ishmael into a great nation2.

I don't see what you mean. Genesis 1 & 2 do not mention Abraham, or Hebrews or Muslims.

 

[Diamond72]

Genesis 1 & 2 do not mention Abraham

A lot of people do not read the generations in the Bible, so they do not know that Abraham descended from Adam and Eve. Even David is a descendant. Even Jesus is a descendant. We read about this in Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

The word: "seed" refers to the generations or the genealogy of Jesus.

 

[David Lamb]

A lot of people do not read the generations in the Bible, so they do not know that Abraham descended from Adam and Eve. Even David is a descendant. Even Jesus is a descendant. We read about this in Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

The word: "seed" refers to the generations or the genealogy of Jesus.

Yes, that's clearer - I agree that the seed is Jesus.

 

[DamianWarS]

Genesis one is talking about mankind. Genesis two is talking about one man and one women. The matriarch and the patriarch of the Hebrew people and patriarch of the Muslim people. People of the same father but different mother. Abrahams descendants were given all of the Arab continental plate. Hagar was told not to be afraid and promised that God would make Ishmael into a great nation2.

The word used in Gen 1 and Gen 2 is the same which is ha-adam or "the man". Both are nouns, both use a definite article and both are singular. Context shapes the meaning into at least male and female for gen 1 and a single man for gen 2 (since each are explicit) Although Gen 1 is not specific to the amount of "man" some infer Adam and Eve while other think it may be more. Either way Gen 1 is more collective and Gen 2 is specific or macro focus/micro focus. Just like the two chapters use different names for God (Elohim ch 1/YHWH ch 2) this difference of focus is also another reason why the 2 texts can be said to have different authors.

 

[DamianWarS]

For dispensationalists Genesis 2 is day 8.

For the record I'm not challenging these views. I just find them to be the most insignificant parts of the account, so much so that I don't even entertain them as I think it distracts from the goals of the texts, be it a staunch literal view, gap, dispensational, pure metaphor, etc... so although I'm not challenging the views per se I do challenge what I consider to be an disproportionate emphasis on them. This means in practice I approach the text as non-literal but officially I'm indifferent or agnostic to these various positions

 

[DamianWarS]

We teach a literal Bible to our Sunday School students. Later when they are older and go into the sanctuary where they learn the symbolic meaning of the Bible.

It's taught more matter-of-factly imo. It varies by individual how literal it's taught (at least in my experience). I've seen many who will answer questions away by saying I don't know that's just the way the bible says it. Which is fine I guess and reflects a tension between science and scripture but discourages critical thinking.

The literal conversation might be too heavy for kids but that doesn't mean we can't encourage kids to see the symbols. The creation account in Gen 1-2:3 imo is the most underrated in all of scripture teeming with meaning at several levels. I think it even points to overarching cylindrical and chiastic rhythms of all life, foreshadowing things like Christ, the resurrection, baptism, the second coming, the new heaven and earth, etc... as well as using a salvation framework. Not necessarily a 7-day beat but the theme of light being spoken into darkness or life from death, then repeated over and over again. But all we can do is argue about how literal it is which ends up distracting us from the beauty and the deeper meaning. Shame on us!

 

[Diamond72]

I'm not challenging the views per se I do challenge what I consider to be an disproportionate emphasis on them.

They all have truth in them. Some are easier to explain than others. YEC is by far the most difficult. We always use the story of the elephant and people looking at different parts of the elephant.

 

[stevevw]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

I see it the other way around. Babies have a moral sense from birth. Whether that delays development I am not sure. But we know from psychology that there are developmental stages for which a child goes through to achieve normal development. The first 7 years is said to be crucial for development.

Other developmental periods with stages continue through puberty and into adulthood. Even then we are still developing as the prefrontal cortext is fully developed until mid 20's. Which is important as far as rational thinking and ethical behaviour.

So maybe because we are conscious moral beings we need time to develop our character, temperament, cognition and psyche so we are able to navigate the moral environment and not just the ecological environment.

It seems pretty straight forward and practical to all life that we need to adapt. I think most creatures are pretty well equipped to adapt. But it seems for humans at least wee have another level of life that needs time to develop before we can go out into the world and mix with other humans.

 

[Diamond72]

there are developmental stages for which a child goes through to achieve normal development. The first 7 years is said to be crucial for development.

We go through stages our whole life. There is a Gail Sheehy book about this called Passages. I am 72 so I can look back at all the stages I went through in life. I just talked to someone that was a very good friend 50 years ago. It was interesting to compare notes on what we remember from back then.

 

[stevevw]

We go through stages our whole life. There is a Gail Sheehy book about this called Passages. I am 72 so I can look back at all the stages I went through in life. I just talked to someone that was a very good friend 50 years ago. It was interesting to compare notes on what we remember from back then.

Yes its very interesting. They say we get wiser as we get older. All the great men of the bible were pretty old. I think there is truth in this as you have experienced a lot and its experience that is the tester in life. We gain insights and learn from experiences.

I think that the way we develop through the earlier stages will remain underlying and we can revert back to that childish behaviour. But as you get older you learn to keep it at bay because of your experiences and how you were affected. It goes into the memory bank.

My mum is 84 and she tells me she still has a mind like she was when young. I tend to agree. Your body gets old but your mind can be still ticking along the same barring brain disorders. Like your body is giving up and getting weaker but your mind wants to go on.

 

[Jipsah]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS. Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution

Probably because while the lower animals were evolving to run fast or fly, humans were evolving toward greater intelligence.

, but each answer they give is patently absurd.

If you've already decided that whatever they say is wrong. A little intellectual dishonesty is a wonderful tool for "winning" arguments.

The idea that God couldn't have used evolution as part of His design for His creatures is as ridiculous as any other belief based on the proposition that "God can't" do thus and so. Yes, God can do just as He pleases, without having to get it cleared through our doctrines and presuppositions. If He designed His critters to evolve, then evolve they will, whether you like it or not.

 

[Jipsah]

Small babies do not have less intelligence.

And no one said they did, but thanks for playing.

• Newborns may be small because their parents are small, the placenta did not function normally, or the mother has a medical disorder, has taken certain medications, or has used illicit drugs, tobacco, or alcohol during the pregnancy.
• Unless they are born with an infection or have a genetic disorder, most small-for-gestational-age newborns have no symptoms and do well.
• Some small newborns remain small as adults.

What do any of those things have to do with the evolution of larger and more complex brains?

 

[Jipsah]

Wrong again. I'm a Christian who studies evolution (among other things) for a living, responding to a really bad argument against it.

What hacks me is the argument that "God can't have designed His creatures to evolve". Really?

The only reason I accept evolution is that all of the evidence in the real world points to it.

Yeah, but other than that...?

As for the Bible... Do you believe in Jesus because for some reason you decided to believe the Bible is infallible?

Well, even if the Bible isn't infallible in matters of science, our doctrines surely are!

 

[Diamond72]

If He designed His critters to evolve,

That is a big IF and we also have to define the meaning of "evolve". We know there is a lot that God can not do. He can not lie, cheat, steal or do anything contrary to HImself and HIs nature. He is always just and He can not be unjust. This is why Jesus had to go to Carvery. Jesus paid the price for us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Evolution offers a pretty excellent answer to this question. I have no idea how you conclude, without even presenting an argument, the opposite. It's not necessary for human beings to be born immediately capable of self-survival, we depend on our parents. Parental care exists in lots of animals. Birds are not born able to fly, they are helpless for a time and depend on being cared for by their parents. Human beings also are social animals, we live in social groups, children are cared for, so that means more energy can be devoted to the development of a child's brain over the need for physical ability. Human infants are born effectively premature, the skull has not fully formed, and this aids in childbirth because human heads (big brains) would otherwise make childbirth incredibly difficult if not impossible for the mother.

I would encourage you to do some legitimate study about these things, rather than present a non-argument and then simply lift your arms in the air as though you'd won the debate. Evolution has an incredible amount of evidence backing it up as one of the most credible theories we have.

If your opposition to evolution is based on religious grounds, then I'd encourage you to understand why most Christians have no problem with evolution. There's no good reason for a follower of Jesus to be anti-science.

-CryptoLutheran