What does the Bible say about creation vs evolution?

[Dirk1540]

When over successive generations certain adaptations and mutations result in the rise of a new species, we call this speciation. No, there haven't always been cats, and cats evolved; but this occurred over a long period of time. A tiger and a lion are both panthera and share a common ancestor, and all felines share a common ancestor with their most closely related cousins--other members of the clade feliformia, which includes the closest relatives to felines, the palm civets, along with other related groups, civets, mongooses, and more distantly the hyenas.

Hi ViaCrucis. I did say that I am on the fence with common descent, there are some things holding me back. First, how long do you mean when you say 'Long period of time?' In addition to time, location and geographical separation is also mentioned with Darwinian Evolution. Well this leads into my problems with excepting it, 2 major things bother me. First let me say that the things that most make me lean TOWARDS common descent being true always seem to be the 'Under the microscope' type arguments, all the under the hood things you talk about that would take homo sapiens and chimps/apes back to a common ancestor.

But ok the 2 main things holding me back are #1 a bird's eye view argument, and #2 a practical argument. Ok my #1 problem is that homo sapiens have been located on 7 separate continents for at the very least several thousands of years. So there we have our 'Required' Darwinian geographical separation in order for a mutation to break off. But it hasn't happened. Every homo sapiens on Earth can still visit the same physician because they all still have the same physiological make up. Now, I have given Darwinian Evolution it's separation that it requires, I have even put oceans between these homo sapiens for thousands of years. Now, what really bothers me about being told "Give it more time" is I constantly here flip side stories about how impressively RAPID drastic evolution can take place. So I tend to get very jaded to the whole "Give it a million years" rebuttal, when I have evolution also pointing out impressive rapid and drastic changes. Which one is it, can evolution be a rabbit, or is it always a snail??

My #2 problem is practicality. Homo Sapiens survive because of their creative intelligence, period. Without out it we don't stand a chance. Planting and harvesting, irrigation set ups, using weapons, building shelters in ways that are much more elaborate & crucial to our survival then other species (what specie would possibly need to start a fire to not freeze to death?). Homo Sapiens are hairless, clawless, physically weak, non-climbing, we're slow, our teeth are absolutely pathetic, our vulnerability to injury next to apes/chimp is a joke, etc, etc...we are beyond wimps in the wild, if it were not for our creative intelligence to help us overcome such disadvantages we're not making it.

So the obvious problem arises in my mind...homo sapiens would have to have their creative intelligence from day 1 for them to not die off, right? If homo sapiens at ANY point had the creative intelligence of just an ape me and you would not be in a forum right now. Do you see the problem? This never before seen creative intelligence in the animal kingdom called homo sapiens would have to exist right out the gate, or we're dead. We could not be stupid un-creative homo sapiens for awhile AND THEN have God breathe human consciousness into us, we wouldn't survive that gap of time when we were stupid without the creative intelligence.

Ok so we are supposed to have intermediate links like neanderthal man. But neanderthal man had better have claws, sharp teeth, strength, etc or he's dead too. So at some point an evolutionary spin off had to pop out that was a complete wimp AND have creative intelligence for survival to be practical. What species was one link up from homo sapiens according to evolution? It had to either be tough as nails compared to homo sapiens in order to survive OR also have creative intelligence too. I would assume it would be tough as nails because God breathed into us not neanderthal man (or whatever is 1 step up). So you WOULD have this incredible single generation leap of evolution like something mentioned above, you would have this tough as nails animal giving birth to a wimp animal, VERY drastic change (if you hang onto the practicality of it's survival having to be accounted for). Unless you want to argue that God breathed into Homo (whatever) and a transformation took place instantly...resulting in a self aware creatively intelligent homo sapien (claws instantly fell off, hair instantly fell out, etc).

 

[Dirk1540]

...strange silence. I'm almost wondering if I've offended people by claiming to be on the fence, caught in the middle, having arguments for both positions.

I've posted my objections in the non-Christian sections before but I got replies such as "There's nothing unique about the human species" which I found to be absurd. That's why I wanted to post them in a Christian only section.

 

[redleghunter]

...strange silence. I'm almost wondering if I've offended people by claiming to be on the fence, caught in the middle, having arguments for both positions.

I've posted my objections in the non-Christian sections before but I got replies such as "There's nothing unique about the human species" which I found to be absurd. That's why I wanted to post them in a Christian only section.

No offense taken. You ask very good questions.

Here's my take :

One may say you are descended from apes; some may say I'm descended from apes. However, find me someone on a Christian thread who says Jesus was descended from an ape.

Take the above as ludicrous, funny or insightful. It all comes down to the Eternal Word:

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

 

[lesliedellow]

No offense taken. You ask very good questions.

Here's my take :

One may say you are descended from apes; some may say I'm descended from apes. However, find me someone on a Christian thread who says Jesus was descended from an ape.

Homo sapiens as a species are descended from apelike ancestors. Jesus was a homo sapien.

 

[redleghunter]

Homo sapiens as a species are descended from apelike ancestors. Jesus was a homo sapien.

My point was John 1 was pointing directly to the Genesis account.

Now if you have very important revelation from God that we are indeed a product of evolution, then please do share. It seems such was not important to God when He revealed Himself to mankind. And that is my point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

redleghunter said: ↑
No offense taken. You ask very good questions.

Here's my take :

One may say you are descended from apes; some may say I'm descended from apes. However, find me someone on a Christian thread who says Jesus was descended from an ape.

Homo sapiens as a species are descended from apelike ancestors. Jesus was a homo sapien.

Even the apes have a "Lawgiver"....

Jas 4:
11
Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law.
But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
12
But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge - the one who is able to save and destroy.
On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor?

.......................

 

[Dirk1540]

Homo sapiens as a species are descended from apelike ancestors. Jesus was a homo sapien.

I wouldn't mind giving your book recommendation a shot, 'Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Decide'

No offense taken.

I vaguely remember annoying ViaCrucis in a previous thread I might be on his ignore list so he might not even see alerts from me.

 

[redleghunter]

I vaguely remember annoying ViaCrucis in a previous thread I might be on his ignore list so he might not even see alerts from me.

Well his loss.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well his loss.

Where did you get the username "redleghunter" from, if you don't mind me asking.
I looked it up, as the only time I had heard the term "redlegs" was in the "Outlaw Josey Wales" movie where "redlegs" killed his wife and son. Thanks

Red Legs | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

Redlegs may also refer to: The Cincinnati Reds baseball team from 1953 to 1958. Members of the Field Artillery in the United States Army, from the red trouser stripe formerly part of the Artillery uniform. Unionist guerrillas who were headquartered at Lawrence, Kansas, during the American Civil War; see Jayhawker.


.........................

....................

 

[Dirk1540]

Well his loss.

Well I'd hate for you to overrate me lol, ViaCrucis is a wealth of knowledge I don't think I hold a candle to him, I actually put him on my Follow list. If he put me on his ignore list it would kind of be like a kid getting snubbed by one of his favorite pro athletes haha.

 

[DeaconDean]

Human beings are apes. "Ape" describes a group of which humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees are part of. Just as canines describes a group of which wolves, jackals, and coyotes are part of.

But if you want an example of why the question is plain silly: if domesticated dogs are descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?

-CryptoLutheran

I had no intention is getting involved in this discussion.

But since you evidently don't know how to take a tongue in cheek remark, answer me this.

Alligators and crocodiles are the living descendants of dinosaurs, according to popular beliefs.

Why aren't they still around?

If, as you say: "Human beings are apes. "Ape" describes a group of which humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees are part of."

How do you refute this:

"Protein-coding genes in chimpanzee and human DNA have many similarities. Evolutionists claim this proves common ancestry. For years, scientists have suspected that much so-called “junk DNA” served regulatory functions, and the revelations from the ENCODE project have confirmed that “junk” is not really “junk.” But if humans and chimps have so many genetic similarities, why are they so different?

In “Genome-wide comparison of genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms in primates,” presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, human geneticist Dr. Yoav Gilad showed that most of the differences in genetic expression between humans, chimps, and rhesus monkeys can be explained by a regulatory mechanism that determines the way a genetic blueprint for a protein gets transcribed to RNA. (Genetic instructions for building proteins are copied onto RNA and transported to the protein-manufacturing sites in cells.)

By regulating when, where, whether, and how the genetic recipes for each protein are expressed, therefore, very different results are achieved. Even this regulatory mechanism-called “histone modification”—differs between the species. Gilad reports, “We estimate that up to 70% of inter-species gene expression differences can be accounted for by corresponding changes in transcription factor binding and/or the presence of histone modification marks.”1

So does this mean that all the genetic information to become human, chimp, or monkey already existed in some ape-like ancestor and only had to be regulated in advantageous combinations to produce each sort of evolutionary result? Not at all. First of all, there is no known way by which natural processes could have produced life itself or the increasingly complex genetic information to get to that point in the first place. Secondly, the existence of biochemical and genetic similarities between humans, apes, and monkeys is evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis explains:

"It's not surprising that we see large differences in DNA regulation between humans, chimps, and monkeys. All mammals whether chimps, humans, dogs, or cats all share the same basic bodily functions. Therefore, the genes that encode the information for those functions would need to be very similar. The real difference would be expected in when the genes are expressed, where they're expressed, why they're expressed, how much they're expressed, and under what conditions they're expressed. This difference in DNA regulation obviously plays a major role in the phenotype or characteristics of mammals including humans."

Determining the genetic basis for differences between humans and chimps does not explain the origin of those differences. We share not a common ancestor but a common Designer. God used similar genetic building blocks to produce features needed in similar sorts of organisms. God created each kind of organism and equipped each with the DNA information to reproduce after its kind. That information included both the protein-coding genes themselves and the mechanisms that regulate them to achieve dramatic differences.

We know from the book of Genesis that God did not use one organism as raw material for the next but instead spoke each into existence over the course of a few days. All kinds of land animals were created on the same day as Adam and Eve. Human beings have remarkable differences including a spiritual nature that chimps have never and will never have. Ancestral biology cannot explain the origin of the information for physical and mental differences, much less the spiritual differences. But the Bible does."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I had no intention is getting involved in this discussion.

But since you evidently don't know how to take a tongue in cheek remark, answer me this.

Alligators and crocodiles are the living descendants of dinosaurs, according to popular beliefs.

Nope. Alligators and crocodiles are crocodilians, they are distantly related to dinosaurs, but are not descended from them.

Why aren't they still around?

Dinosaurs are still around, we just call them birds. The non-avian dinosaurs are no longer around because they went extinct about 65 million years ago.

If, as you say: "Human beings are apes. "Ape" describes a group of which humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees are part of."

How do you refute this:

"Protein-coding genes in chimpanzee and human DNA have many similarities. Evolutionists claim this proves common ancestry. For years, scientists have suspected that much so-called “junk DNA” served regulatory functions, and the revelations from the ENCODE project have confirmed that “junk” is not really “junk.” But if humans and chimps have so many genetic similarities, why are they so different?

In “Genome-wide comparison of genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms in primates,” presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, human geneticist Dr. Yoav Gilad showed that most of the differences in genetic expression between humans, chimps, and rhesus monkeys can be explained by a regulatory mechanism that determines the way a genetic blueprint for a protein gets transcribed to RNA. (Genetic instructions for building proteins are copied onto RNA and transported to the protein-manufacturing sites in cells.)

By regulating when, where, whether, and how the genetic recipes for each protein are expressed, therefore, very different results are achieved. Even this regulatory mechanism-called “histone modification”—differs between the species. Gilad reports, “We estimate that up to 70% of inter-species gene expression differences can be accounted for by corresponding changes in transcription factor binding and/or the presence of histone modification marks.”1

So does this mean that all the genetic information to become human, chimp, or monkey already existed in some ape-like ancestor and only had to be regulated in advantageous combinations to produce each sort of evolutionary result? Not at all. First of all, there is no known way by which natural processes could have produced life itself or the increasingly complex genetic information to get to that point in the first place. Secondly, the existence of biochemical and genetic similarities between humans, apes, and monkeys is evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis explains:

"It's not surprising that we see large differences in DNA regulation between humans, chimps, and monkeys. All mammals whether chimps, humans, dogs, or cats all share the same basic bodily functions. Therefore, the genes that encode the information for those functions would need to be very similar. The real difference would be expected in when the genes are expressed, where they're expressed, why they're expressed, how much they're expressed, and under what conditions they're expressed. This difference in DNA regulation obviously plays a major role in the phenotype or characteristics of mammals including humans."

Determining the genetic basis for differences between humans and chimps does not explain the origin of those differences. We share not a common ancestor but a common Designer. God used similar genetic building blocks to produce features needed in similar sorts of organisms. God created each kind of organism and equipped each with the DNA information to reproduce after its kind. That information included both the protein-coding genes themselves and the mechanisms that regulate them to achieve dramatic differences.

We know from the book of Genesis that God did not use one organism as raw material for the next but instead spoke each into existence over the course of a few days. All kinds of land animals were created on the same day as Adam and Eve. Human beings have remarkable differences including a spiritual nature that chimps have never and will never have. Ancestral biology cannot explain the origin of the information for physical and mental differences, much less the spiritual differences. But the Bible does."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

Here's the portion that I consider relevant:

"First of all, there is no known way by which natural processes could have produced life itself or the increasingly complex genetic information to get to that point in the first place. Secondly, the existence of biochemical and genetic similarities between humans, apes, and monkeys is evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design."

It's relevant because it is an example of both argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance; the statement "there is no known way by which natural processes could have produced life itself or the increasingly complex genetic information to get to that point in the first place" is an example of these; it is true that at present it is unknown to science how life first arose, which is irrelevant; we also aren't entirely sure how ice skates work or how sand flows, but a limitation in present knowledge is not evidence against broader, larger scientific theories and understandings of nature. That we don't know how ice skates work doesn't throw the entire field of physics out the window, or render special or general relativity false, or any other aspect of the field of physics. Further, the second statement, "the existence of biochemical and genetic similarities between humans, apes, ... is evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design" is mere assertion, not whatsoever derived from the use of the scientific method.

Refutation is made simple by the fact that what is presented is, ultimately, a cobbling of fallacious arguments and bare assertion.

Why does "common design" work as a better hypothesis than common descent? No scientific explanation is given. The explanation given is one derived from a particular interpretation of Genesis. This isn't science, and thus isn't a scientific argument. It is an argument rooted in incredulity, ignorance, and a particular set of religious beliefs exercised through denial and assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DeaconDean]

Then may I ask if you believe the bible?

The reason why is we are told that we, humans, were created in the image of the trinity.

Yet scripture does not say that about animals.

Unless God is some "ape-like" individual.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then may I ask if you believe the bible?

I believe Holy Scripture is the inspired and holy written word of God by which I can hear and receive the holy word of the Gospel and all things necessary for salvation.

The reason why is we are told that we, humans, were created in the image of the trinity.

Yet scripture does not say that about animals.

Unless God is some "ape-like" individual.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The Imago Dei isn't about what we look like. It's about our created purpose and relationship to God and the rest of creation. Human beings, uniquely, are made in God's image, because we were created to reflect and bear God's image. So, no, God is not "some 'ape-like' individual", but God isn't a "human-like" individual either: God is God, the Uncreated, the Ineffable, the Eternal. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, God became man, that what is lost and malformed on account of sin and death is restored, healed, and renewed; which is why we look to Christ for our salvation, who has overcome sin, death, hell, and the devil. By Him there is resurrection of the dead, and the life of the Age to Come for which we presently hope. St. Gregory Nazianzen having said, "Whatever is not assumed is not healed.", St. Irenaeus has written, "The Lord became as we are that we might become as He is", Holy Athanasius saying, "He became man that man might become divine" and St. John himself having said "We shall be like Him"--all that is lost on account of sin and death is restored and healed in Christ, and we who have our faith in Him will not be lost, but shall be made whole on the Day Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead, when the dead are raised, and God makes all things new. "If the Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead dwells also in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies." and "This corruptible must put on incorruptibility, this mortal must put on immortality ... where O death is your sting?"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DeaconDean]

I believe Holy Scripture is the inspired and holy written word of God by which I can hear and receive the holy word of the Gospel and all things necessary for salvation.



The Imago Dei isn't about what we look like. It's about our created purpose and relationship to God and the rest of creation. Human beings, uniquely, are made in God's image, because we were created to reflect and bear God's image. So, no, God is not "some 'ape-like' individual", but God isn't a "human-like" individual either: God is God, the Uncreated, the Ineffable, the Eternal. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, God became man, that what is lost and malformed on account of sin and death is restored, healed, and renewed; which is why we look to Christ for our salvation, who has overcome sin, death, hell, and the devil. By Him there is resurrection of the dead, and the life of the Age to Come for which we presently hope. St. Gregory Nazianzen having said, "Whatever is not assumed is not healed.", St. Irenaeus has written, "The Lord became as we are that we might become as He is", Holy Athanasius saying, "He became man that man might become divine" and St. John himself having said "We shall be like Him"--all that is lost on account of sin and death is restored and healed in Christ, and we who have our faith in Him will not be lost, but shall be made whole on the Day Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead, when the dead are raised, and God makes all things new. "If the Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead dwells also in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies." and "This corruptible must put on incorruptibility, this mortal must put on immortality ... where O death is your sting?"

-CryptoLutheran

But you said:

"Human beings are apes. "Ape" describes a group of which humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees are part of."

In spite of that, the scriptures also say that man and animals were created on the 5th day. But with one big difference, man was created in "our image" (trinity) and to have dominion over creation.

So, if you believe the bible, how can you post: "Humans beings are apes"?

Did God use only one type of material for creation, yet give each type different properties?

While one can argue that we share up to 96% of the same DNA genes with chimps, apes, etc., its the 4% difference that will forever separate us from any such notion.

But you have your opinions, and I have mine.

And they will forever separate us.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

This will be my last post before I unsubscribe.

So if you quote me, don't expect an answer.

I am among the few that still believe whole heartedly in creation.

I do not accept, and I do not believe man (human beings are apes).

That literally takes God out of the equation.

Each and every thing God "created" was "after his kind".

But it never says that about man.

God said:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

That statement alone makes the statement "Human beings are apes" null and void.

And how would one account for "women"? What "after his kind" did He use to make her?

If, human beings are apes, then that makes the scriptures incorrect. God did not create us, rather, He used something "after his kind" as the building block for man.

If it took up to 65 million years to evolve from apes to what he was in the garden, then in another 65 million years, will we see a literal "Planet of the Apes"?

"Human beings are apes" that was the statement.

If we are/were created in God's likeness, so says the scriptures, then it is not improper to say that God is some "type" of ape, since we bear His image.

And again, it would not be improper to end my posts in "Ape Bless" since we are created in His image and "humans are apes".

But enough tongue in cheek. Here is where fact is fact.

Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates.

About 4.7 percent are algae and plants.

About 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates.

And only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones).

Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

It is a very big, in fact it is a very giant leap to say what has been previously said.

Even science will tell you until more evidence is found to support such a notion is found, it is still sheer conjecture.

"Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

—Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43

So, should I say Ape Bless or

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Dirk1540]

This will be my last post before I unsubscribe.

So if you quote me, don't expect an answer.

I am among the few that still believe whole heartedly in creation.

Huh? You have over 20,000 posts but you're gonna unsubscribe because you're made at ViaCrucis?? That seems awfully drastic!

You aren't short of company in this forum for believing in creation. There's endless threads with creationists debating evolutionists in here.