Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

Looking back at your posts, that's an extraordinary claim in itself.

Fluff. Please see post 180.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok. Provided you agree to the following ground rule. Let me explain. Suppose I made an incoherent statement and then said, "See I just disproved evolution." Unacceptable, right?

Expected.

That's all I am asking here - that you don't use incoherent statements to rebut my proof.

Perhaps you don't know what "incoherent" means. What do you think it means?

For example you don't get to appeal to the two-natured theory of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) since even mainstream theologians - I cited several of them earlier - admit that it is a humanly incoherent supposition.

You do know that appeals to authority are not logical, right?

It's like speaking Chinese to an English-only audience.

That would be different. Chinese is perfectly coherent, but it may be that you don't understand it. Right thought, wrong term.

There is no point in the two of us trying to speak Chinese to each other.

Láizì yěmán rén dì měihǎo yītiān. (Yehren)

But it does appear that we're not making progress here. So we'll leave it at that.

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you don't know what "incoherent" means. What do you think it means?

Here's a definition I just found online:

1.(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

You do know that appeals to authority are not logical, right?

That's not fair. I also DEMONSTRATED the problem in terms of an immutable God becoming man. (Sigh) Here's another demonstration. According to the Hypostatic Union, God selected a human soul - one of us - and placed it in Christ's body. Had your soul been the one selected, we'd now be worshiping it as a member of the Trinity - Quadrinity? Pray tell, explain to me how it is a coherent theory that your CREATED soul could become a member of the UNCREATED Trinity.

Oh that's right - as you pointed out before, I only raise minor, trivial, sophomoric objections. That's all I do.

That would be different. Chinese is perfectly coherent, but it may be that you don't understand it. Right thought, wrong term.

Láizì yěmán rén dì měihǎo yītiān. (Yehren)

But it does appear that we're not making progress here. So we'll leave it at that.

That nuance doesn't seem worth debating. What's important is that we both commit to limiting our assertions and proofs to statements that any and every normal Christian adult should readily comprehend. That's what I mean by coherent, whether that's the right term or not.

If you can't commit to that, I don't think you're committed to being rational. In that case, you're right, we won't make any progress here.

 

[JAL]

You do know that appeals to authority are not logical, right?

This insinuation seems hypocritical to me. Reflect on your own debates about evolution. In each case, did you video-tape your own laboratory experiments before making assertions? Or did you sometimes appeal to research done by scientists ("authorities")?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We came from Adam and Eve who were specially created in the image of God.
They fell and died spiritually and physically.
Only a perfect death could restore the spiritual condition, but the physical won't be restored until the second coming of Christ.

No other way of creating man fits the gospel. Death is God enemy and its fate is the same as that of Satan, the lake of fire. God would never use death or Satan to help shape his creation and then call it 'very good', the very idea is repulsive and yet evolution claims millions of years of death occurred before mankind came to be.

It was not considered interbreeding at that stage. Marrying family occurs through the Old Testament. For example Abraham married to his half sister. God didn't have any laws on family members marrying until the time of Mosses.

Amen not to mention that we’re all descendants of Noah as well which again would’ve had to result from incest.

“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let me qualify that. In my view all living things have souls. Adam and Eve were simply the first humanoids whose soul was geared to experiencing conscience. That's what made them the first humans.

Is there any evidence anywhere to support this hypothesis or did it just come from someone’s imagination?

 

[JAL]

Is there any evidence anywhere to support this hypothesis or did it just come from someone’s imagination?

Which part?

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,

I've provided two demonstrations that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible. Was that enough? I can provide two more demonstrations, although it seems overkill.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which part?

Adam & Eve reproducing with humanoids without souls. I’m not familiar with anything in the scriptures that supports this idea so I’m inclined to think that it was just pulled out of thin air.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It is well known among Scripture experts that the first five books of the Bible,
were written 500 years after the rest of the Pentateuch. In other words, the
author Moses, had the last five books committed to memory before writing the
creation story.

So, is it literally accurate? Science proves it's not, but allegorical and
the meaning of the story has meaning beyond being the historical fact
behind creation.

Science will always be at odds with miracles. They’re not intended to be explainable by science. According to science a man can’t be dead for three days and come back to life. If we can’t believe that because it contradicts what science teaches us then how can we believe the gospel?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You do know that appeals to authority are not logical, right?

Actually, TB, sometimes appeals to authority are logical and legitimately affirmed when made. It all depends upon the overall qualifications of the 'Who' being referenced.

Heck, even where Biology is concerned, I find myself appealing to your authority all the time ... in fact, it's not so infrequently that I find myself twirling around in my chair, asking myself, "I wonder what TB would think about such and such idea in evolutionary science?" And then I go and find out.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I figure humans existed before Adam and Eve. They were the first two given living souls by God. I don't see the figurative language in Genesis to be a literal description. For one thing, if Eve was cloned from Adam, she would have only one x chromosome, and thus be male rather than female.

Its a miracle, by definition it’s not supposed to be explainable by science. That’s like asking where the X chromosome came from in dust.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science will always be at odds with miracles. They’re not intended to be explainable by science. According to science a man can’t be dead for three days and come back to life. If we can’t believe that because it contradicts what science teaches us then how can we believe the gospel?

BNR32FAN, while you're exactly right in cases where Scientism (i.e. Philosophical Naturalism) is relied upon by a few various skeptical scientists, when the more mainstream practice of Methodological Naturalism is instead assumed, then miracles are not necessarily at odds with science.

In fact, you said it yourself, "They’re not intended to be explainable by science," and it is this very thing that makes them not necessarily at odds with each other.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, He could, but is it reasonable to believe He did based on the overwhelming evidence?

Just as reasonable as Him creating man from dust. If a person can’t believe in miracles they can’t believe half of the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@The Barbarian,

I've provided two demonstrations that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible. Was that enough? I can provide two more demonstrations, although it seems overkill.

I agree, it is incomprehensible.

But where the nature of Christ is conceptualized, I prefer the term "Divine Mystery," myself. It retains the substance of the affirmation but alleviates me from ... (blah)... having to attempt to completely and sufficiently explain something I can't really have any direct, intricate and exacting knowledge about.

 

[renniks]

What existing parts do you think is absolutely necessary for life?

As you see, you personally are much, much more improbable than the example you gave me. And explain to us how an even more improbable shuffled deck of cards can be, when by your reasoning, it's so improbable as to be impossible.

Again that doesn't make sense.. how am I more improbable? That's like saying nearly identical life from existing life is more improbable than life from a random accident that can't even be replicated in a laboratory.

 

[JAL]

I agree, it is incomprehensible.

But where the nature of Christ is conceptualized, I prefer the term "Divine Mystery," myself. It retains the substance of the affirmation but alleviates me from ... (blah)... having to attempt to completely and sufficiently explain something I can't really have any direct, intricate and exacting knowledge about.

Like regeneration, so too the Incarnation is a cinch to explain in my simple ontology. It's literally a joke to explain. For 2,000 years, theologians have found these simple things impossible to explain because they allowed Plato's Greek philosophy to muddy the water.

 

[JAL]

Adam & Eve reproducing with humanoids without souls. I’m not familiar with anything in the scriptures that supports this idea so I’m inclined to think that it was just pulled out of thin air.

That's not precisely my view. But in any case, my view does involve hominids outside of Adam and Eve - people with whom Adam's children mated with instead of practicing incest. I can thank science for finding hominids in the fossil record.

 

[JAL]

I agree, it is incomprehensible.

I've been insisting on coherent/comprehensible doctrinal statements. Let me be frank - I don't have any unclear doctrines in my theology, as far as I know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again that doesn't make sense.. how am I more improbable?

Because the odds of you ending up with your genome, given your great-great grandparents, are less likely than the formation of a ribosome. As you also learned shuffled decks of cards are less likely than ribosome.

Here's the point; astoundingly unlikely things happen every day all around you. Shuffled cards, newborn infants and so on. But the probability of a particular order of cards after it's done, is 1.0. That's your probability after conception, too.