Why do we look so much like apes?

[ViaCrucis]

No.

The rebukes were well deserved because they are inveterate dogmatists that will not be corrected no matter what the scriptures say nor by what the facts of science reveal. I have merely chosen to not communicate with them for that is my civil option.

So you regard this to be a "well deserved rebuke"?

As it concerns conversation with those of your ilk..............good.

(For our home audience this was in post 146 of this thread.)

See I see it as a hostile, unwarranted, and dismissive backhand that demonstrates your unwillingness to treat Christians who have legitimate and honest disagreements with you concerning proper exegesis of Holy Scripture and how to rightly discern natural phenomenon with any respect.

Whether you choose to apologize for such language is, of course, up to you entirely. I choose to retain my apology for having improperly understood your views concerning the Imago Dei and as it pertains to the Essence of Deity.

Now to answer you directly as I said I would: (as quoted and posted above)

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. 1;26-27

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image..."

Correct we are made in the image and likeness of God, this is central to the text of Genesis 1 and it is central to the biblical testimony concerning man, our problem with sin, and God's gracious act to restore what has been broken.

Just how hard is it for you to grasp that the Holy Spirit inspired this expressive language on purpose so that there would be no mistaking what he was talking about? You're telling us that you can't make the obvious connection? Or is it that you WON'T make the obvious connection?

I'm quite able to grasp what Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is saying. So not only can I make that connection, I do make that connection.

So was the Spirit talking about this:

or this...

???

The Scriptures are talking about human beings, not gorillas. This is true and rather obvious.

The Scriptures are talking about a specific ape called mankind, you and me. Not gorillas, chimpanzees or orangutans. The reality that we are apes isn't a problem for the biblical text because such aspects of science are not of interest for the Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kirkwhisper]

ViaCrucis;

So you regard this to be a "well deserved rebuke"?

Don't twist my meaning. You know exactly what I intended.

See I see it as a hostile, unwarranted, and dismissive backhand that demonstrates your unwillingness to treat Christians who have legitimate and honest disagreements with you concerning proper exegesis of Holy Scripture and how to rightly discern natural phenomenon with any respect.

They were not 'legitimate, honest disagreements', O prejudiced one. Far from it. They deliberately ignored the truths that were laid in their laps just like you are and they offered the same type of criticisms that you are now judging me with. Now are you going to keep tearing me down with your cheap little criticisms or will I have to ignore you also?

Whether you choose to apologize for such language is, of course, up to you entirely. I choose to retain my apology for having improperly understood your views concerning the Imago Dei and as it pertains to the Essence of Deity.

There is no apology necessary. It is you who deserve a rebuke for dwelling on unecessary matters.

Correct we are made in the image and likeness of God, this is central to the text of Genesis 1 and it is central to the biblical testimony concerning man, our problem with sin, and God's gracious act to restore what has been broken.

Well, at least you got that much, however....

I'm quite able to grasp what Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is saying. So not only can I make that connection, I do make that connection.

You have not demonstrated that in view of what you said next...

The Scriptures are talking about a specific ape called mankind, you and me.

Chapter and verse please. The only 'apes' you find in scripture are during the time of Solomon, I Chron. 9:21 & 1Ki 10:22.

Why do you believe such lies? Who told you such things? You don't find that in the Bible. It is contrary to God's word. There were certainly no apes in Jesus family tree! (Luke 3 ...from Adam to Jesus...77 generations). If there was even ONE non-human in Jesus family lineage then that would make his status as heir to the throne of David illegitimate. How long before you finally catch on to the implications of this?

The whole point of my comparison between Gen. 1:26-27 & Gen. 5:3 was that there would be no mistaking that God created man as man, not anything else. Like your comrades in compromise with evil you miss the point assiduously. Are you aware that NONE of the ancient Jews nor the early Christians believed in evolution or that man came from animals?

I'm done here, at least for now.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

We were given authority to do it by God though cf. Gen 2:19

That reveals how much you understand about God's Word.

'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.'

Adam was given authority to NAME the animals, not classify them. It was Moses who gave us the true classification of living organisms in the law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

ViaCrucis;



Don't twist my meaning. You know exactly what I intended.

How exactly have I twisted anything? You said you refused to offer an apology for your behavior because it was well deserved, when I asked you to extend in kind an apology for your hostile and dismissive rhetoric (such as the statement I quoted from you from earlier in this thread) you said such were well deserved rebukes. I offered that explicit statement in reference to you mentioning well deserved rebukes and now you say I'm twisting your meaning.

I don't know how I've twisted your meaning. Was your statement concerning "my ilk" a well deserved rebuke? If not, then it seems an apology is deserved, if it is a well deserved rebuke then you're free to say so. I'm not going to hold you in contempt either way.

But let's not pretend I'm twisting your meaning here when you've said what you've said and it's been taken at face value. Perhaps I have taken it wrongly, if I have then show me how I have. However on my part I have not done anything to intentionally twist your meaning.

They were not 'legitimate, honest disagreements', O prejudiced one. Far from it. They deliberately ignored the truths that were laid in their laps just like you are and they offered the same type of criticisms that you are now judging me with. Now are you going to keep tearing me down with your cheap little criticisms or will I have to ignore you also?

I haven't offered "cheap little criticism" nor have I sought to tear you down. I have, however, in numerous places presented honest disagreement with you over matters of biblical exegesis. Honest and civil discussion means that we should be able to offer point and counter-point without any need to enter into ad hominem or areas of hostile rhetoric (e.g. calling me "o prejudiced one").

There is no apology necessary. It is you who deserve a rebuke for dwelling on unecessary matters.

What exactly is it that I'm dwelling on that constitutes an unnecessary matter?

Well, at least you got that much, however....

Thank you.

You have not demonstrated that in view of what you said next...

Chapter and verse please. The only 'apes' you find in scripture are during the time of Solomon, I Chron. 9:21 & 1Ki 10:22.

If human beings are biologically apes then any mention of human beings is a reference to a particular kind of ape. Similarly, to say that human beings are mammals or vertebrates means that any mention of human beings is a reference to a certain kind of mammal or vertebrate.

That much seems obvious to me. Saying that we are apes is a scientifically and biologically accurate statement, as accurate as saying we are mammals or that we are vertebrates. This shouldn't be a matter of contention or controversy, it's rather simple inference based on what we know about earth's biosphere and our place within it.

If we say that we, human beings, are made in the image and likeness of God--which we confess as a point of faith because of the word of God and the historic teaching of the Christian Church--then it is no great difficulty to say that "human beings are apes made in the image of God" or "human beings are vertebrates made in the image of God" or "human beings are carbon-based organisms made in the image of God".

Why do you believe such lies?

No lies. Just honest truth.

Who told you such things?

Biology?

You don't find that in the Bible.

I also don't find Einstein's theory of general relativity in the Bible, or the pathogenic theory of medicine in the Bible. The men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who wrote Sacred Writ weren't expounding upon fields of scientific study that wouldn't be understood for centuries to thousands of years later. They weren't expounding or talking about it because it wasn't necessary to what they were talking about. I don't see why the Bible has to mention things such as genetics, biology, string theory or the laws of thermodynamics for such things to pertain to reality. The Bible has far more important things to tell us about.

It is contrary to God's word.

Not at all. It's no more contrary to God's word then if we say we are mammals or carbon-based organisms. It's no more contrary to God's word then saying the earth revolves around the sun or that Mars is a planet with two natural satellites. God's word simply is not interested in such information and thus says nothing regarding such matters one way or the other.

There were certainly no apes in Jesus family tree! (Luke 3 ...from Adam to Jesus...77 generations). If there was even ONE non-human in Jesus family lineage then that would make his status as heir to the throne of David illegitimate. How long before you finally catch on to the implications of this?

Because it's non-sequitur. The only thing required for Jesus to be heir to the Davidic throne is His lineage from David and God's messianic promises. That we are biologically apes, or that we share common descent with other apes is fundamentally irrelevant in this.

The whole point of my comparison between Gen. 1:26-27 & Gen. 5:3 was that there would be no mistaking that God created man as man, not anything else. Like your comrades in compromise with evil you miss the point assiduously. Are you aware that NONE of the ancient Jews nor the early Christians believed in evolution or that man came from animals?

I'm not sure that's relevant. Ancient Jews and the Church fathers didn't know or believe that the earth orbited the sun, but this doesn't change things of this nature.

I'm done here, at least for now.

Feel free to respond when you have a chance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Keachian]

That reveals how much you understand about God's Word.

'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.'

Adam was given authority to NAME the animals, not classify them. It was Moses who gave us the true classification of living organisms in the law.

So Adam called dogs dogs, cats cats, fish fish and that's the end of it?

Can I have reference for Moses classifying the animals?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

progmonk

So Adam called dogs dogs, cats cats, fish fish and that's the end of it?

What? You can't even understand the simplest of statements in scripture?

Can I have reference for Moses classifying the animals?

Since you like to refer to those you differ with as 'smart ass' then I will just tell you to use a concordance and look for words such as 'bat', 'lapwing', 'stork', 'heron' and you will find the two places where God's classification of the animal world is listed.

You shock me with such a request. You know more about Darwin than you do the Bible!

 

[Keachian]

What? You can't even understand the simplest of statements in scripture?

Are our names for animals, which we (english speakers) not Adam have given them, their names or have their names been lost?

Since you like to refer to those you differ with as 'smart ass'

I do? The only time I remember calling anyone a smartass was calling myself one. And that was by making it look like I was typing in BBCode.

then I will just tell you to use a concordance and look for words such as 'bat', 'lapwing', 'stork', 'heron' and you will find the two places where God's classification of the animal world is listed.

You shock me with such a request. You know more about Darwin than you do the Bible!

I wouldn't say that the laws on kosher are a scientific classification of animals, it is a moral classification of what animals are suitable for eating and which ones are not. It makes broad sweeping statements about where you find creatures, nothing about what defines them what makes one different from another and so on. You still don't seem to understand reading something in context.

I also find it hilarious that you think I know more about Darwin than the bible, I haven't read anything written by Darwin, I have read through the Bible about 5 times and am still figuring out what it is talking about. You don't seem to have done anything other than reading, leaving hermeneutics and actual comprehension at the door.

 

[mmksparbud]

Not sure where to put this but I'll try posting it here. This is something I've been wondering about forever. If God created the animals and us seperately and there's no evolution, why do we look so much like apes?

going back to the original question---being a creationist, I think it's simply because God has a sense of humor--He loves to see their antics, as we do.And He made them perfectly suited for their environment--not naked and in need of clothes--they have the teeth they need, the strength they need--much superior to ours. We are to take care of the planet and it'[s creatures--we've done a lousy job of it. And He's not happy about that either--Rev:11:18 "............and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth." He meant to take care of it--not destroy it. They are wonderful creatures to look at--and protect--and they do not look all that much like us--they do make noises, but can't sing, or talk, and when people have tried to make them into little humans, they rebel when they are old enough and they know they are not like us and they want to be free to be themselves. Some people have learned that the hard way. And they take better care of their young than some humans--they grief the loss of a baby--too many humans just throw them in the trash, use and abuse them. We're supposed to be superior to them, have evolved into higher creatures--but we're far more capable of extreme cruelty than they are. We have fallen from the high calling that God made us for--Were there is no God--there is only evil and cruelty in the hearts of man. At least animals are meant to live in the world of survival of the fittest, for now--but man is supposed have a far higher intellect--but everything we do ends up being used for evil. I guess, to some, that means we really are animals--but it's not because we came from them, it's because sin has degraded and dragged us down, way down past them. We make fancy toys with our brains, and some do aspire to reach their potential--but mostly, we seem to turn barbaric in our quest for fun, riches, and fame--something animals don't do.

 

[SkyWriting]

I did. Survival of the fittest is about being suited to an environment, the organism that fits the environment best. You followed the common misunderstanding of 'fit' and thought it meant who is the strongest.

Same thing. Strongest fit for a situation. Poor fits become weak and die. Best fits gain food and community support. Weak like your logic.

You find that misunderstanding a lot on creationist websites. But please, carry on you argument using proper definitions.

I don't go to them. You don't offer any.

I though you were talking about evolution?

I don't see that you do.

Strong does not mean better adapted. It may in some environments, not others. Sometime small means you can find enough food when times are tough.

Its a result of better adaptation. Now we're talking size? I have no issues with size. We can chat about behavior next as long as we're wandering off topic.

Not sure where you got that from what I said.

Granted.

'Right up to the present', or 'until now'... doesn't that mean it has been groaning from the beginning? You seem to thing creation wasn't groaning when it was created, and then it only started groaning at the fall, but that isn't what 'until now' suggests is it?

No. Why go with suggestions, when we have real groaning to illustrate.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

That's "very good". Not "groaning" as people do in childbirth.
I take it you've not been in the room when it happened.
Hint' there's blood. It's not "very good" until it's over.

I thought Noah brought food along and built the ark with separate compartments. Of course if he had left them all wander around hungry it would have been carnage.

Animals don't stay in wooden enclosures easily. Some fly, many climb, there needs to be air circulation, they eat through wood or claw, disease, urine saturation of the wood, enclosure size limitations, running space, natural death.

When you brought up the 'humble will inherit the earth', I actually reminded of the creationist use of the this verse, both are trying to take a prophecy about the future and read it as if it was talking about the creation.

God doesn't have the time issues we have. He's in the future and past at the same time.

Thank you.

Your welcome.

There have been an number of extinction events in the past and we are responsible for the one going on now...

Climate or territorial changes? Either way, their both completely natural evolution events. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Assyrian]

Same thing. Strongest fit for a situation. Poor fits become weak and die. Best fits gain food and community support. Weak like your logic.

Sorry no, they aren't the same thing. Trying to conflate your mistaken understanding with the real meaning of the phrase isn't going to to help you understand it either. If you want to argue against evolution, you really need to understand what it is about first.

I don't go to them. You don't offer any.

It's a common misunderstanding even if you don't visit creationist sites.

I don't see that you do.

Its a result of better adaptation. Now we're talking size? I have no issues with size. We can chat about behavior next as long as we're wandering off topic.

Behaviour, size, colour, metabolic rate, reproductive rate, parental strategies and a load of other traits all affect how suited and organism is to its environment. But they are not the result of adaptation. Adaptation is the selection of suitable traits for that environment. The process of adaptation, though creationist like that term, is natural selection.

No. Why go with suggestions, when we have real groaning to illustrate.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

So in Romans 8 where Paul talks about creation groaning and being in the bondage of decay, there is no reference to the fall, which is why you have to go all the way back to chapter 5, where we read about the fall, but there is no reference to the fall affecting animals?

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

That's "very good". Not "groaning" as people do in childbirth.
I take it you've not been in the room when it happened.
Hint' there's blood. It's not "very good" until it's over.

God didn't call creation very good until he had created man, You need to show that God providing prey for young lions and ravens isn't 'good' (and if it isn't good, why God seems so pleased to be doing it in Job 38 and psalm 104.)

Animals don't stay in wooden enclosures easily. Some fly, many climb, there needs to be air circulation, they eat through wood or claw, disease, urine saturation of the wood, enclosure size limitations, running space, natural death.

You would need to show the lions not being fed in spite of Noah being told to being suitable food, then show them breaking out of their enclosures in the Ark, before you can begin to build a claim the only reason they didn't eat the wildebeest was because they were vegetarians.

God doesn't have the time issues we have. He's in the future and past at the same time.

Unfortunately, it wasn't God you were talking about eating straw, it was a lion. If Creationists can't tell when a prophesy is about the future, can't tell if the passage is literal or metaphorical, how can they lecture on the meaning of Genesis?

Your welcome.

Climate or territorial changes? Either way, their both completely natural evolution events. Nothing to worry about.

Extinction events are never that pleasant to go through, even if you escape extinction yourself.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

ViaCrucis;59536297]How exactly have I twisted anything? You said you refused to offer an apology for your behavior because it was well deserved, when I asked you to extend in kind an apology...

Stop. The subject is in the OP and it's not what you have imagined is Kirkwhispers attitude.

There will be NO apology for the rebukes of those who deserved it.

Example: one poster on these threads said to one of my creationist companions, "smart ass..." among other put downs & remarks that those of your persuasion dish out to us. I've had plenty of them thrown at me but at no time have I seen you object to such attitudes.

This is precisely why I will not listen to your complaints.

I think I will post others now.

 

[Keachian]

Example: one poster on these threads said to one of my creationist companions, "smart ass..." among other put downs & remarks that those of your persuasion dish out to us. I've had plenty of them thrown at me but at no time have I seen you object to such attitudes.

You're talking about me apparently, show me where I have erred and I will recant

 

[Keachian]

Well, apes did write the definition and they did include us[/smartass]

Here is the post in question, I was calling myself a smartass

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You're talking about me apparently, show me where I have erred and I will recant

1. You didn't make clear who you were calling 'smart ass'. Furthermore, why would a godly Christian be using such language to begin with?

2. Secondly, shall we begin with your acceptance of lies in the form of Darwinian evolution...even though the evidence (both scriptural and scientific) is against it?

 

[jackmt]

so you know that i dnt really know what i talking about just guessing lol, didnt know if anyone would jump in and like post straight after what i said then my new post would have just seemed random....

That's what the edit button is for. It allows you to go back in and edit what you wrote or add to it as I just did.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. You didn't make clear who you were calling 'smart ass'. Furthermore, why would a godly Christian be using such language to begin with?

It's not particularly foul language to start with. Artificially constructed social mores shouldn't be the rule of acceptable Christian behavior; rather our behavior and speech ought to be in conformity to that of Christ. If such language, as received in general social parlance, did breach Christ's commandments then that would be problematic.

Otherwise we're finding unnecessary reasons to be offended. And that's rather useless for living in the real world.

2. Secondly, shall we begin with your acceptance of lies in the form of Darwinian evolution...even though the evidence (both scriptural and scientific) is against it?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Keachian]

1. You didn't make clear who you were calling 'smart ass'. Furthermore, why would a godly Christian be using such language to begin with?

It's an idiom that I have picked up while talking on many forums, from other people using [/foo] to help with ambiguity of the meaning of a post, popular versions include "[/sarcasm]" and "[/obvious]"

2. Secondly, shall we begin with your acceptance of lies in the form of Darwinian evolution...even though the evidence (both scriptural and scientific) is against it?

I have shown you that a literal reading of Genesis is unnecessary and in some cases is detrimental to the Gospel.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. You didn't make clear who you were calling 'smart ass'. Furthermore, why would a godly Christian be using such language to begin with?

The Amish speak much better and less like the rest of the world, my Brother.
But they are hard to model, as they rarely get out much.

 

[Keachian]

The Amish speak much better and less like the rest of the world, my Brother.
But they are hard to model, as they rarely get out much.

Since he's talking about a post directed at you what do you think I meant by it?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry no, they aren't the same thing. Trying to conflate your mi....<snip>

It's a common misunderstanding even if you don't visit creationist sites.

Trying to pass off your opinion is not a valid rebuke. Correct or not.

Behaviour, size, colour, metabolic rate, reproductive rate, parental strategies and a load of other traits all affect how suited and organism is to its environment. But they are not the result of adaptation. Adaptation is the selection of suitable traits for that environment. The process of adaptation, though creationist like that term, is natural selection.

A common misconception. Adaptive traits are any traits that help a population in it's environment. Nonadaptive traits are those that don't.

You can stop with your mindless blathering about "Creationists". Not only do the forum rules discourage it, but it's quite detrimental to a healthy mindset.

-Beneficial traits are extremely varied and may include anything from protective coloration, to the ability to utilize a new food source, to a change in size or shape that might be useful in a particular environment.

So in Romans 8 where Paul talks about creation groaning and being in the bondage of decay, there is no reference to the fall, which is why you have to go all the way back to chapter 5, where we read about the fall, but there is no reference to the fall affecting animals?

Sin entered the world through Adam.
All of creation is groaning.
Satan is the god of this world.

If Satan is the god of this world, it's hard to imagine God thought it was "very good". Any theories?

God didn't call creation very good until he had created man, You need to show that God providing prey for young lions and ravens isn't 'good' (and if it isn't good, why God seems so pleased to be doing it in Job 38 and psalm 104.)

God has provided every blessing to our fallen world. The rains falll on the just and unjust alike.

You would need to show the lions not being fed in spite of Noah being told to being suitable food, then show them breaking out of their enclosures in the Ark, before you can begin to build a claim the only reason they didn't eat the wildebeest was because they were vegetarians.

I'm simply pointing out that the entire journey on the Ark was a miracle guided by God's hand. One clear indicator was God closing the door. Some animals eat right through wood. Many climb wood easily. All the pens needed to be open for air, food and water, and cleaning or drainage. That would be holes and openings at the top and bottom.

I'd say He stuck around and kept all the animals in line or put them to sleep on a rocking boat, in the dark. Evidently God kept them in shape enough to walk out. That'd be really hard without daily outings to exercise.

Unfortunately, it wasn't God you were talking about eating straw, it was a lion. If Creationists can't tell when a prophesy is about the future, can't tell if the passage is literal or metaphorical, how can they lecture on the meaning of Genesis?

Again, your biases serve you no purpose.

Extinction events are never that pleasant to go through, even if you escape extinction yourself.

They are part of evolution, and perfectly natural no matter if they are human caused or not. Did you mean climate or territorial extinctions?