Question for Theistic Evolutionists

[Papias]

Hi Marc! You wrote:

Yeah, but in evolution there was death before the fall. Adam caused death for everyone. How could evolution happen if there was no death?

C'mon Marc, you know quite well that even your fellow Biblically literalist creationists don't agree with you here. You saw in your own thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7519515/ that there is a lot of controversy, even among Biblically literal creationists on whether the Bible actually says that, right?


Marc wrote:

Another problem with TE, it that can't explain the fall can it?

Yes, it certainly can. Hundreds of millions of Christians see the fall (and indeed, a literal, real, physical, single Adam, from whom we are all descended, and from whom we get original sin) as part of their theistic evolution. It's what I was taught in Sunday School too. I've explained this many times here, and so I've cut and pasted some from earlier posts below (to save me from retyping it for the dozenth time).

I hope you find it good and useful.

In a population of apes, evolving to be more humanlike, one ape/human (Adam) will be the first to cross whatever line you choose, and as breeding contines, everyone will be descended from him. The parents of Adam were not human - they were still behind the line, just barely still being non-human ape transitionals. I must have described this a dozen times here on CF, plus you can see it in ........

and

I think we agree that the human brain is well advanced compared to the chimp brain. How many mutations is that, in your estimation? Let's say it is 24,863 mutations. It may not be that many, but who knows - I'm not a biologist.

Now, imagine a chimp-like ancestor with none of those. He has a child with one of them. call him "00001". Is that Adam, a human, or is that child a chimp? We agree he's pretty much a chimp, right?

After many generations, his descendant has 49 of those mutations. Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

How about at 312 mutations? Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

You can see that at some point, say halfway, at 12,432 mutations, he'll now be closer to a human. So whatever line you pick, it has to be crossed sometime.

If we say that 12,431 is closer to a chimp, then 0012431 is not Adam, while his son, who is 0012432, IS Adam, and is human.

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human (they probably range from, say, 12,200 to 12,430 or so) and so we have a single person, from whom we all get orginal sin.

Remember that polygenism is the idea that there are other humans besides Adam and Eve around when Adam and Eve are first given souls and become human. Because none of the other members of the community are enough over the line to be human, there are no other humans, and polygenism is avoided.

The focus on the brain is because that ape-human, Adam, was the first to have enough brains to understand God, and to make the choice to rebel against God, and that was original sin. Here is where I pasted that from, of the many times I've explained it recently.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7524679-4/


Have a Blessed day!

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Marc15]

Hi Marc! You wrote:




C'mon Marc, you know quite well that even your fellow Biblically literalist creationists don't agree with you here. You saw in your own thread here: [ that there is a lot of controversy, even among Biblically literal creationists on whether the Bible actually says that, right?


Marc wrote:



Yes, it certainly can. Hundreds of millions of Christians see the fall (and indeed, a literal, real, physical, single Adam, from whom we are all descended, and from whom we get original sin) as part of their theistic evolution. It's what I was taught in Sunday School too. I've explained this many times here, and so I've cut and pasted some from earlier posts below (to save me from retyping it for the dozenth time).

I hope you find it good and useful.





The focus on the brain is because that ape-human, Adam, was the first to have enough brains to understand God, and to make the choice to rebel against God, and that was original sin. Here is where I pasted that from, of the many times I've explained it recently.




Have a Blessed day!

In Christ-

Papias

I had completely forgetten about that thread. I read through it and yeah, I think your probably right, animals could die before the fall. I still disagree with evolution, but I've been intresting about learning about OEC.(Progressive) Anybody got some good links to sites about it?

I've learned a lot from this thread and I thank everyone who has contributed.

Thank you and God Bless.

 

[solarwave]

I just have a question. How can you explain that you believe in both evolution and the bible. The words evolution or evolve is not used once in the bible.

The word heliocentrism also isnt in the Bible.

The New testament even has refrences to Adam and Eve.(No Adam and Eve were not just two "special people" or "A whole group of people" The bible is clear the Adam was a man. Genesis 2:7.

I also talk sometimes as if Adam was real, especially when talking to YECs.

And also there is nothing in Genesis to indicate its an allegory. Why do you listen to what one silly man said and not what God said. Since your implying that Genesis is not true you are calling God a liar.

Genesis 1 is like a poem and Genesis 2 and 3 are like a parable. I don't listen to one silly man, but evidence and understandings of that evidence by intelligent people. It also makes sense to me personally.

I just don't understand

I don't think Genesis 1-3 ever happened and probably no real Adam and Eve. I believe it is a story which happens to all of us individually. We all have our very own fall from grace when we first sin.

Storys can be good ways to express concepts and the Genesis story brings it to a level that anyone from a child to professor can understand and has a deeper meaning than what physically happens in the story.

It seems to me that the point of the Bible is to bring us closer to God, not to teach us physical truths about the universe. If we assume for a second that the Big Bang and evolution are true, I don't think God would put those things in the Bible. Writting about the Big Bang and Evolution wouldn't help people come closer to God and so wouldn't be in the Bible if it were true.

Believing these things can make certain things a bit more confusing, but that doesn't mean they arn't true.

 

[Greg1234]

The word heliocentrism also isnt in the Bible.

Yet we have understood from various expositions the use of the so called Geocentric passages, upon which confirmation is based. Exegesis through various aspects of texts, confirm what the growing body of evidence is telling us in regards to the Darwinian suppositions. That man was created a man.

Genesis 1 is like a poem and Genesis 2 and 3 are like a parable. I don't listen to one silly man, but evidence and understandings of that evidence by intelligent people. It also makes sense to me personally.

Telling you that man was created as man in what you consider an intelligent fashion, makes no difference.

I don't think Genesis 1-3 ever happened and probably no real Adam and Eve.

Of course you don't think so.

I believe it is a story which happens to all of us individually. We all have our very own fall from grace when we first sin.

Or when individual beastmen tripped and fell into kerosene. The fall describes a fall from grace. From a higher frequency as man and into matter as man. Not from death, but into death. The body created for man, is as a shadow or reflection of that image that is man. That which all men inherit, along with the trials it undergoes.

 

[Willtor]

Another problem with TE, it that can't explain the fall can it?

That isn't a problem with TE at all! In what way does a literal reading of Genesis explain the Fall better than, e.g., an allegorical one?

 

[solarwave]

Yet we have understood from various expositions the use of the so called Geocentric passages, upon which confirmation is based. Exegesis through various aspects of texts, confirm what the growing body of evidence is telling us in regards to the Darwinian suppositions. That man was created a man.


Telling you that man was created as man in what you consider an intelligent fashion, makes no difference.



Of course you don't think so.

Or when individual beastmen tripped and fell into kerosene. The fall describes a fall from grace. From a higher frequency as man and into matter as man. Not from death, but into death. The body created for man, is as a shadow or reflection of that image that is man. That which all men inherit, along with the trials it undergoes.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand much of this?

 

[Assyrian]

I had completely forgetten about that thread. I read through it and yeah, I think your probably right, animals could die before the fall. I still disagree with evolution, but I've been intresting about learning about OEC.(Progressive) Anybody got some good links to sites about it?

I've learned a lot from this thread and I thank everyone who has contributed.

Thank you and God Bless.

Check out Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/
also http://www.answersincreation.org
and http://www.godandscience.org

 

[Papias]

I had completely forgetten about that thread. I read through it and yeah, I think your probably right, animals could die before the fall.

Thanks! From my point of view, animal death before the fall solves a lot of problems, and there isn't anything in any of the Bibles I'm aware of that requires animal death to not exist before the fall.

I still disagree with evolution, but I've been intresting about learning about OEC.(Progressive) Anybody got some good links to sites about it?

Assyrian, note the bolded part. I think Marc may be asking about theistic evolution. Do we have good links for him about theistic evolution?

Here are a couple:
Let there be light: An Orthodox Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century - John Maletis - Theandros - An Online journal of Orthodox Christian Theology and Philosophy
Theistic Evolution - Perspectives

You may also enjoy the free, downloadable interviews, several with prominent Catholics, on theistic evolution here:
Evolutionary Christianity || Audio Downloads (page to bottom to see free downloads)

God Bless-

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

I would have understood that as Progressive Creationism, the OEC idea of a series of acts of creation down through the geological ages, but hey, it is even better to have a selection of links.

 

[mark kennedy]

The focus on the brain is because that ape-human, Adam, was the first to have enough brains to understand God, and to make the choice to rebel against God, and that was original sin. Here is where I pasted that from, of the many times I've explained it recently.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7524679-4/

Darwin's theory is supposed to absolutely break down if a complex organ by decent with modification. My proposal is simply this, the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.

In order to examine the scientific basis for common descent I propose to examine the genetic basis for the common descent of humans from that of apes. The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.
Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)

The HAR-1 Gene ​

 

[Willtor]

Mark, why don't you ever want to talk about the Bible?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, why don't you ever want to talk about the Bible?

I'm constantly discussing the Scriptures:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

If you want to know what the Scriptures teach, try this thread:

What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology. I have covered these Scriptures and issues over and over again, it seemed like it was time to put them all in one thread. Before the advent of Darwinism this simply was not an issue, other aspects of Genesis and the Pauline doctrine of original sin were but not our lineage.​

Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

As a supplement the Early Church Fathers understood Adam and Eve to be historical, specially created and our first parents. I have included quotes in my blog:

The Early Church Fathers on Original Sin

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Mark, why don't you ever want to talk about the Bible?

Heh heh heh. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Willtor]

I'm constantly discussing the Scriptures:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

If you want to know what the Scriptures teach, try this thread:

What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology. I have covered these Scriptures and issues over and over again, it seemed like it was time to put them all in one thread. Before the advent of Darwinism this simply was not an issue, other aspects of Genesis and the Pauline doctrine of original sin were but not our lineage.​

Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

As a supplement the Early Church Fathers understood Adam and Eve to be historical, specially created and our first parents. I have included quotes in my blog:

The Early Church Fathers on Original Sin

Have a nice day
Mark

Your examples of "Bible discussion" are replete with references to Darwinism. How does Darwinism factor so heavily into your reading of Genesis, when it is so conspicuously absent from mine? Is there a page on your blog (besides the one that is exclusively quotes from Church Fathers) that doesn't mention Darwinism?

 

[Hairy Tic]

I just have a question. How can you explain that you believe in both evolution and the bible. The words evolution or evolve is not used once in the bible. The New testament even has refrences to Adam and Eve.(No Adam and Eve were not just two "special people" or "A whole group of people" The bible is clear the Adam was a man. Genesis 2:7.

And also there is nothing in Genesis to indicate its an allegory. Why do you listen to what one silly man said and not what God said. Since your implying that Genesis is not true you are calling God a liar.

I just don't understand



YEC is the one and only biblical view

Marc15

## Because there is nothing - apart from parts of the NT - to suggest that Genesis 1-3 (or thereabouts) is a record of historical fact.

To compare Genesis 1-3 with modern science is to compare it with the wrong sort of thing - it ought rather to be compared with the creation-myths of other cultures in the Ancient Near East. It is a theological text, not a record of ante-diluvian biology, botany, husbandry, and so on.

Hope that helps

 

[heritage36]

The Bible is the facts we have to work with, not science always. Science is obviously the interpretations of people aka scientists. The simple fact is that Genesis has to be taken totally literally, or you have to deny other areas of Scripture. I heard a good quote recently...

"You tell people to look in the gospels and you said "this is what God said", but then you tell people to look in Genesis and you say "this is what God said, but it doesn't mean it.""

 

[Mallon]

The Bible is the facts we have to work with, not science always. Science is obviously the interpretations of people aka scientists.

And people don't interpret the Bible?

The simple fact is that Genesis has to be taken totally literally, or you have to deny other areas of Scripture.

That doesn't follow. Do I also have to interpret the Psalms literally or else have to deny other areas of Scripture?

That's the greatest non sequitur ever told.

 

[heritage36]

Well, obviously figurative language doesn't have to be taken literally, like some things in Revelation, but I should have narrowed it to the Genesis creation account would have to be taken literally.

 

[Mallon]

Well, obviously figurative language doesn't have to be taken literally, like some things in Revelation, but I should have narrowed it to the Genesis creation account would have to be taken literally.

I wonder if you yourself really take Genesis literally.

Was the serpent really just a serpent as Genesis says?

 

[heritage36]

Satan was in the form of a serpent we know from Scriptures, as Rev. 20:2 clarifies for us....

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.