Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Sanoy]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

 

[jacknife]

1.) DNA
2.) fossil record

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There exists no good* reason, not one, for disobeying Yahweh the Creator and /or entertaining pagan religious or secular things opposed to faith in Jesus.

*The world pagan heathen men have come up with many, but what good (none) does it do to gain the whole world even, yet lose the soul.
Thus, to say something that destroys faith and souls is "good", is wrong from the start.

 

[Jack Meredith]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

Have you considered that apes may be devolved humans?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There exists no good* reason, not one, for disobeying Yahweh the Creator and /or entertaining pagan religious or secular things opposed to faith in Jesus.

*The world pagan heathen men have come up with many, but what good (none) does it do to gain the whole world even, yet lose the soul.
Thus, to say something that destroys faith and souls is "good", is wrong from the start.

Which is why we need to stop opposing science when it points out our evolutionary past, because when we do that, then as soon as people realize that evolution is, after all, true, they are tempted to think that the opposition to evolution from religious people proves religion itself is wrong.

So people trying to save their religion wind up hurting their religion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Which is why we need to stop opposing science when it points out our evolutionary past, because when we do that, then as soon as people realize that evolution is, after all, true, they are tempted to think that the opposition to evolution from religious people proves religion itself is wrong.

So people trying to save their religion wind up hurting their religion.

Go back to post 3.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

Humans have vestiges of previous species that are not explainable from direct creation. For example, we have ear wiggling muscles that we don't use at all. Even those of us who can wiggle our ears don't have any reason to do so except as a demonstration. Those vestiges are evidence of descent from a previous species that could, for example, turn its ears towards sound to good effect.

 

[Chinchilla]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

If you assume Man must have evolved then you have death before sin while word of God tells us there was no death before sin .

 

[SkyWriting]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

If God created man suddenly by "special creation"
then
"Special Creation" would be a "thing" found in the writings.
As such:
there would be a word for sudden or quick or instant "Special Creation" in greek or hebrew.

 

[inquiring mind]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

Sorry, I can only present logical reasoning for why I don’t have a logical reason for why man would have just come about spontaneously. Supposedly, there are twenty or so constants of nature, speed of light, mass of protons, force of gravity, etc., and scientists say that with the “slightest variation” of any one of them there would have been no life at all in the universe. I don’t claim to understand any of this science, but why would it be more logical to think that this sort of delicately balanced fine-tuning, on such a grand scale, occurred because of the 'roll of the dice' rather than by a Designer and Creator... with the specific intention of also creating man?

 

[SkyWriting]

If you assume Man must have evolved then you have death before sin while word of God tells us there was no death before sin .

Scripture says that there is no death until the law is known.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you assume Man must have evolved then you have death before sin while word of God tells us there was no death before sin .

Then you will have to adjust your theology. Consider the idea that Adam was the first "ensouled" man and it is HIS death that is referred to as coming because of sin.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no "must have" about it. According to the conclusion scientists have reached, man did evolve. However, scientific conclusions are always based on nothing more than the evidence in hand so consequently are regarded as provisional pending new evidence. They are not necessary truths. On the other hand, there is no "default" position in science. The failure of theory X due to new evidence does not entail a return to already failed theory Y.

 

[Chinchilla]

Then you will have to adjust your theology. Consider the idea that Adam was the first "ensouled" man and it is HIS death that is referred to as coming because of sin.

Well you presuppose that animals died before Adam , show me the evidence in Scriptures .

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Two bringing forth of men.
1. In Gen 1 as the natural product of evolution. The earth "brought forth" life and a humanoid creature was the highest form of this life.
2. In Gen 2 God created the man Adam and the woman Eve. Adam from the red clay of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib.
The only issue I see is that Eve is called the mother of all mankind. Problematic unless you start qualifying and redefining things.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well you presuppose that animals died before Adam , show me the evidence in Scriptures .

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”

You're quoting a verse having nothing to do with adamic or pre-adamic life. Why do you even think it is evidence for your point of view?

As for the death of animals before Adam, we have dated cropulites showing animals eaten from millions of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite

 

[Chinchilla]

You're quoting a verse having nothing to do with adamic or pre-adamic life. Why do you even think it is evidence for your point of view?

As for the death of animals before Adam, we have dated cropulites showing animals eaten from millions of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite

Because Christ came to restore things , if Lion will be restored to eat straw then he must have eat straw in first place right

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Top 2 reasons?

1. Humungous amounts of independent evidence that mankind evolved from other organisms

2. Lack of any objective verifiable evidence that there is a creator, let alone that this creator created mankind as is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Because Christ came to restore things , if Lion will be restored to eat straw then he must have eat straw in first place right

Oh, so you are mixing in your own deductions with the teaching of scripture. Well, you can do that, but please don't pass of your own deductions as if they are also scripture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Humans have vestiges of previous species that are not explainable from direct creation. For example, we have ear wiggling muscles that we don't use at all. Even those of us who can wiggle our ears don't have any reason to do so except as a demonstration. Those vestiges are evidence of descent from a previous species that could, for example, turn its ears towards sound to good effect.

It looks to me like these muscles help stabilize the ear-to-surrounding-tissue connection, and are therefore quite useful. Of course the real test is to remove these muscles and see what happens. If they are just vestigial there will no effect, but if otherwise functional there will be a response.

I'll wager a small but significant amount that such a procedure has never been done on any so-called 'vestigal' organs, because evolutionary researchers know there is a high probability of a negative effect, as the organ is still functional in some way.