Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Job 33:6]

Barbarian...
I have read some of the early pages of this topic, however, its too much to go back through 18 other pages to get the gist of your view of Old Earth philosophy.

A couple of questions...
1. how do you view the complete missing link between the spinal entry point into the skull of apes and monkeys being at the rear of the head, whereas, its entry point is at the base of the skull in neanderthals and humans?

It is quite clear the Neanderthals are not related to monkeys or even a link between them and humans...they are human. Creation scientists have shown that Monkey/ape spinal entry point into the back of the skull is specifically because they were designed to walk predominantly on all four legs and not upright on two like neanderthals & humans. Wouldnt it be fair to say that considering we have ancient archeological and recent vertical spinal cord specimens (Neanderthals/humans) and ancient archeological and recent evidence of "rear spinal cord entry point" ( apes/monkeys), there should be evidence of one in between... with a spinal entry point halfway between the two? Also, how would that animal-human hybrid mechanically support itself given such a position? (It would seem that evolution took a huge jump between the two here)
As an illustration...i suffer from a common human skeletal problem called Scheuermann's disease...its a "degenerative" condition that causes hunchbacks. Are you suggesting that hunchbacks are the missing link? If so, why is my cranial entry point of the spine still at the base of my skull and why arent mine (and all other really bad hunchbacks) arms twice as long so we can walk with our spines 45 degrees to the ground and support the extreme mechanical load this places on us physically?

2. Based on your research of various scholarly writings on the subject, do you view the Bible as a narrative or poetry?

3. you wrote a few months back that Seventh Day Adventists developed young-earth views and my take on this is that you appear to be stating that SDAdventism has facilitated/started all other young-earth Christians into a false SDA view of the age of the earth. Are you able to provide scientific studies or any historical evidence on the topic of "Old earth beliefs" that date back to 1st-3rd centuries on this? If not, how would you account for the early Christian church believing the age of the earth as being anything different from that shown in Bible genealogies and therefore the almost certain likelihood then.... (given they only had the Bible genealogies to go on)... the earth was merely thousands of years old? Would you not agree from the written evidence that the early Christian church in the first few centuries, and indeed Judaism, believed the earth was young?

If you could provide the evidence for all three of the above questions, that would be appreciated.

Regarding the whole positioning of the foramen magnum, there is Sahelanthropus tchadensis. A transitional between our primordial ape ancestors and ourself. Sahelanthropus also has a jaw bone that is Midway between a humans C shaped Jaw and other great apes U shaped jaws. Among other transitional features related to its brow size and cranial capacity. There are other species of a similar nature as well.

Also, the neanderthal genome has been sequenced and genetically, they are not human. They have their own collection of genes that no human being has. I suppose the simple answer of how such a species would live is that it would walk both on all 4s and upright interchangeably, probably not as well as people walk on two feet and probably not as well as a chimpanzee might move on all 4s, but rather something in between, just like every other transitional.

The Earliest Hominins: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[SilverBear]

You say it’s cut and dried, yet the science literature says it is in fact problematic - and facts like the following make the Cambrian explosion even more so:

Nectocaris was found in Middle Cambrian strata, it is now the "earliest" cephalopod, found "30 million years earlier than thought to exist - and it appears with no trace of transition.

It is fully formed with side fins, large gills, a flexible siphon for propulsion, a streamlined body for moving quickly through water, and refracting-lens eyes--like vertebrate eyes--on long eyestalks.

The presence of fully formed eyes in such a low geologic stratum is a huge problem for evolution, since Nectocaris appears in full form with all the necessary features near the very bottom of the fossiliferous sedimentary layers.

Nectocaris pteryx is listed as a species of possible cephalopod affinity. It is understood to be equal parts equal parts chordate and arthropod...making it a transitional species.

it has "camera eyes" and as noted by Fernald, Russell D. in his paper "Casting a genetic light on the evolution of eyes". such eyes were becoming common in the middle Cambrian with earlier examples of his kind of eye going back 200 million years prior to the Nectocaris.

As to the Gould quote you cited, it does not undo the fact that Gould first said that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional fossils are missing IN ALL THE IMPORTANT PLACES.

Your quote of Gould is of him spinning the facts as hard as he could to save face.

the Gould quote you are referring to appeared first in "Answers in Genisis" and is a well known quote mine where Answers in Genisis cobbled together parts of two different works.
Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16. and Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

So his statement on the existence of some transitions does not cancel out his earlier statements, nor the fact that PE exists to explain away the lack of fossil evidence in all the important places.

except he didn't actually say that

As to Yockey, information theory, and the falsification of the primordial soup hypothesis, it’s an absolute fact that he and many other evolutionists have calculated the odds of abiogenesis occurring, and all found it to be impossible.

and like any opinion it's not worth much when busying something from McDonalds

And before information theory, the Wistar Institute symposium showed the same fact of the impossibility of it.

Citation?

Astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds for abiogenesis are equal to the odds of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a working Boeing 737 jet airliner.

he was an advocate of the idea of panspermia...go take few minutes to look that one up...

 

[The Barbarian]

1. how do you view the complete missing link between the spinal entry point into the skull of apes and monkeys being at the rear of the head, whereas, its entry point is at the base of the skull in neanderthals and humans?

That's a great question. It's not hard to get, if you have some familiarity with vertebrate anatomy. Turns out, infant apes have the foramen magnum under the skull, as humans do. They have relatively large crania and brains, and relatively small faces and jaws, as we do.

So it's a matter of neotony. Ape skulls change dramatically in shape as they mature, but humans don't change as much. This was first noted over a hundred years ago by D'Arcy Thompson whose book On Growth and Form remains a classic of scientific literature.

Here's an illustration from his book, showing how landmarks on ape and human skulls change over time. Notice the huge distortion from ape infant to adult ape, and much less distortion from human infant to adult human.

Humans are the the result of a process called "neotony", the retention of juvenile characteristics in adults. We're far from the only species so affected. And all of it is managed by a relatively few changes in genes that determine timing of growth.

It is quite clear the Neanderthals are not related to monkeys or even a link between them and humans...they are human.

Another good point. Very early Neanderthals looked more like anatomically modern humans than later ones. They aren't primitive,they are highly evolved in a different direction.

Wouldnt it be fair to say that considering we have ancient archeological and recent vertical spinal cord specimens (Neanderthals/humans) and ancient archeological and recent evidence of "rear spinal cord entry point" ( apes/monkeys), there should be evidence of one in between... with a spinal entry point halfway between the two?

Yes, that's true. Since the repositioning of that opening would be determined by the walking stance of the hominid, we would expect bipedal hominids to have the human aspect or close to it, while quadripedal hominids would have it toward the rear of the skull.

Australopithecus afarensis, an early Australopithecine, was already bipedal, and had the foramen magnum pretty much where ours is, albeit not the forward orientation of modern humans. It would be interesting to know the position of the foramen magnum in Oreopithecus, an ape with some adaptations for bipedal movement, but not a close human relative. I don't know about that, but I'll take a look.

Supposedly, there was a tendency in primates during the Eocene for the foramen magnum to move forward as a result of sitting or pulling upright in trees. It's notable that gibbon skulls have the foramen magnum under the skull, rather than at the rear. But they spend most of their time brachiating through trees in an upright position and often walk bipedally.

Also, how would that animal-human hybrid mechanically support itself given such a position?

Pretty much the way gibbons do, or Dryopithecus might have. It's likely that chimps have evolved to become more quadrupedal than our most recent common ancestor, given that the earliest tendency to the opening moving under the skull was in arboreal species that spent most of their time in trees.

As an illustration...i suffer from a common human skeletal problem called Scheuermann's disease...its a "degenerative" condition that causes hunchbacks. Are you suggesting that hunchbacks are the missing link?

Disease is not an indicator of evolution. Besides, chimps don't have hunched backs. Their spines are straighter than ours.

Interestingly, an amateur paleontologist once suggested that Neanderthals were humans like us, but just had rickets. It was a daffy idea, since the bones of people with rickets are quite fragile, and the leg bones of Neandethals are much more robust than ours.

If so, why is my cranial entry point of the spine still at the base of my skull and why arent mine (and all other really bad hunchbacks) arms twice as long so we can walk with our spines 45 degrees to the ground and support the extreme mechanical load this places on us physically?

That's a good question, too. It's because evolution happens to populations, not individuals. You're stuck with the genes you have. Evolution just doesn't work like that.

Based on your research of various scholarly writings on the subject, do you view the Bible as a narrative or poetry?

Yes. And prophesy. And philosophy. Depends on which book and verse it is.

you wrote a few months back that Seventh Day Adventists developed young-earth views and my take on this is that you appear to be stating that SDAdventism has facilitated/started all other young-earth Christians into a false SDA view of the age of the earth.

Yes. The Adventist evangelist George McCready Price was very successful in spreading the SDA concept of YE creationism to fundamentalists in the 1960. Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists.

"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God."
Baptist Evangelist Charles Spurgeon, Sermon Number 30, 1855

The Testimony of creationist William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes "Monkey Trial" 1925:
Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’


William Jennings Bryan : ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’


[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’


: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’


[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’


: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’


[D]: ‘You do not?’


: ‘No.’


[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’


: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’


[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’


: ‘They might have been.’


[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’


: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’

If not, how would you account for the early Christian church believing the age of the earth as being anything different from that shown in Bible genealogies and therefore the almost certain likelihood then....

Since, for example, we have conflicting genealogies for Jesus in the Bible, most Christians knew they weren't literal lineages. But the science of the time didn't indicate how old the Bible was. Nor did the Church ever make a definitive doctrine of such an age, since it wasn't stated in the Bible. Most assumed thousands of years, given the lack of data. By the 1800s, most theologians knew better, and like Spurgeon, thought in terms of millions years. As you see, this was the case until the SDA, relying on the visions of their prophetess, re-interpreted Genesis to be a literal history.
The Creationists — Ronald L. Numbers

Would you not agree from the written evidence that the early Christian church in the first few centuries, and indeed Judaism, believed the earth was young?

No.

Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.
Was Creation Really Seven Days?

Further, even St. Augustine wrote that when scripture is not explicit, one must be prepared to revise one's opinions on it, when new evidence is found. Obviously, if the Bible was explicit on the age of the Earth, almost all Christians would agree on it. So we must conclude that it is not.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

That's a great question. It's not hard to get, if you have some familiarity with vertebrate anatomy. Turns out, infant apes have the foramen magnum under the skull, as humans do. They have relatively large crania and brains, and relatively small faces and jaws, as we do.

So it's a matter of neotony. Ape skulls change dramatically in shape as they mature, but humans don't change as much. This was first noted over a hundred years ago by D'Arcy Thompson whose book On Growth and Form remains a classic of scientific literature.

Here's an illustration from his book, showing how landmarks on ape and human skulls change over time. Notice the huge distortion from ape infant to adult ape, and much less distortion from human infant to adult human.

Humans are the the result of a process called "neotony", the retention of juvenile characteristics in adults. We're far from the only species so affected. And all of it is managed by a relatively few changes in genes that determine timing of growth.



Another good point. Very early Neanderthals looked more like anatomically modern humans than later ones. They aren't primitive,they are highly evolved in a different direction.



Yes, that's true. Since the repositioning of that opening would be determined by the walking stance of the hominid, we would expect bipedal hominids to have the human aspect or close to it, while quadripedal hominids would have it toward the rear of the skull.

Australopithecus afarensis, an early Australopithecine, was already bipedal, and had the foramen magnum pretty much where ours is, albeit not the forward orientation of modern humans. It would be interesting to know the position of the foramen magnum in Oreopithecus, an ape with some adaptations for bipedal movement, but not a close human relative. I don't know about that, but I'll take a look.

Supposedly, there was a tendency in primates during the Eocene for the foramen magnum to move forward as a result of sitting or pulling upright in trees. It's notable that gibbon skulls have the foramen magnum under the skull, rather than at the rear. But they spend most of their time brachiating through trees in an upright position and often walk bipedally.

Pretty much the way gibbons do, or Dryopithecus might have. It's likely that chimps have evolved to become more quadrupedal than our most recent common ancestor, given that the earliest tendency to the opening moving under the skull was in arboreal species that spent most of their time in trees.



Disease is not an indicator of evolution. Besides, chimps don't have hunched backs. Their spines are straighter than ours.

Interestingly, an amateur paleontologist once suggested that Neanderthals were humans like us, but just had rickets. It was a daffy idea, since the bones of people with rickets are quite fragile, and the leg bones of Neandethals are much more robust than ours.



That's a good question, too. It's because evolution happens to populations, not individuals. You're stuck with the genes you have. Evolution just doesn't work like that.



Yes. And prophesy. And philosophy. Depends on which book and verse it is.



Yes. The Adventist evangelist George McCready Price was very successful in spreading the SDA concept of YE creationism to fundamentalists in the 1960. Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists.

"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God."
Baptist Evangelist Charles Spurgeon, Sermon Number 30, 1855

The Testimony of creationist William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes "Monkey Trial" 1925:
Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’


William Jennings Bryan : ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’


[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’


: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’


[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’


: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’


[D]: ‘You do not?’


: ‘No.’


[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’


: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’


[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’


: ‘They might have been.’


[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’


: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’



Since, for example, we have conflicting genealogies for Jesus in the Bible, most Christians knew they weren't literal lineages. But the science of the time didn't indicate how old the Bible was. Nor did the Church ever make a definitive doctrine of such an age, since it wasn't stated in the Bible. Most assumed thousands of years, given the lack of data. By the 1800s, most theologians knew better, and like Spurgeon, thought in terms of millions years. As you see, this was the case until the SDA, relying on the visions of their prophetess, re-interpreted Genesis to be a literal history.
The Creationists — Ronald L. Numbers



No.

Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.
Was Creation Really Seven Days?

Further, even St. Augustine wrote that when scripture is not explicit, one must be prepared to revise one's opinions on it, when new evidence is found. Obviously, if the Bible was explicit on the age of the Earth, almost all Christians would agree on it. So we must conclude that it is not.

Is it possible for a theistic evolutionist to believe in Christ at all?
How does one combine Neoteny (juvenilism as one matures) with God saying man's days will be limited to 120 years, rather than living for approx 900 years after the flood?
This seems to be very specific numbers written by Moses...do theistic evolutionists believe Moses flood story and the exodus are fairytales?

How does one reconcile this?

 

[The Barbarian]

Is it possible for a theistic evolutionist to believe in Christ at all?

One might as well ask: "Is it possible for a YE creationist to believe in Christ at all?" Be careful about who you trust, particularly when it comes to the word of God.

How does one combine Neoteny (juvenilismas one matures)

Observation. Humans retain traits that are juvenile in other apes. It's more than anatomy. It's life span, a longer period of play and learning, and a longer time to full adulthood. Pretty much a package deal. To some extent, we are juvenile to the day we die. And that's a good thing; we retain the capacity to learn and mentally grow, well into adulthood. Most of us, anyway.

[quote[with God saying man's days will be limited to 120 years, rather than living for approx 900 years after the flood?[/QUOTE]

For humans in historical times, He says three score and ten. But as a general fact, not a limit. Second, there at least one modern human has been verified to have exceeded that "limit" so again there's something wrong with assuming that is literal in calendar years.

This seems to be very specific numbers written by Moses...do theistic evolutionists believe Moses flood story and the exodus are fairytales?

And it's a shame that anyone might think that using parables and allegory is God indulging in "fairytales."

 

[AdamjEdgar]

One might as well ask: "Is it possible for a YE creationist to believe in Christ at all?" I get that all that stuff they told you about turned out to be false, and you're not happy. But I didn't do that to you. You need to be more careful about who you trust, particularly when it comes to the word of God.

If you claim to be a Christian, at least try to live up to the challenge. You have disparaged most of God's Church to make a point for your particular beliefs, which are not part of Christian orthodoxy and never have been.



Observation. Humans retain traits that are juvenile in other apes. It's more than anatomy. It's life span, a longer period of play and learning, and a longer time to full adulthood. Pretty much a package deal. To some extent, we are juvenile to the day we die. And that's a good thing; we retain the capacity to learn and mentally grow, well into adulthood. Most of us, anyway.

[quote[with God saying man's days will be limited to 120 years, rather than living for approx 900 years after the flood?

For humans in historical times, He says three score and ten. But as a general fact, not a limit. Second, there at least one modern human has been verified to have exceeded that "limit" so again there's something wrong with assuming that is literal in calendar years.



And it's a shame you think that using parables and allegory is God indulging in "fairytales." You should trust God more, and people with stories to tell you about what God said, much less.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the view is wrong. A genuine interest in understanding how theistic evolutionists contend with the scholarly view that the Bible is actually a narrative?

A narrative is a little difficult to describe as an ambiguous and non specific use of such things as genealogies and hours, days, years etc...in rebuttal, please don't quote prophetic numbers from Daniel and Revelation...that completely misunderstands the context of these two books and is not relevant to my point.

I find it difficult to align the theme of the Bible with evolution where the aspects of evolution that are in question are those related to millions of years in time and in direct conflict with the following

1. Adam being created and naming all the animals within his own lifetime.

2. The Bible says man is gaining in knowledge however deteriorating in terms of stature and life expectancy.

3. Jesus genealogy...the Bible lineage even if out by thousands of years is not even close to old earth evolutionary theory...they are light years apart). The gap is so enormous that simple logic and coming sense says very matter of factly...either the Bible is wrong, or old earth evolution is.

4. How does theistic evolution explain end time prophecies from books of daniel and revelation? The Bible prophesied what is almost a complete breakdown in social and environmental stability...so much so that many Christians believe the world will make a return to religion crying out for answers. Jesus himself prophesied "as in the days of Noah (people are partying and living life to the full and godless)...so shall the last days be".

Where I am at right now is trying to find a middle ground between creation and evolution where the two do not conflict with either the Bible story, or the fossil record that we have. I honestly think that Answers in Genesis and Is Genesis History have gone a long way towards finding that place. I accept biases are being presented, however it's the closest I have ever seen creation science get to evolution. A lot of Christians simply state...evolution is nonbiblical so it's wrong period. That argument is a very poor one in my opinion it is not founded on solid ground at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

For humans in historical times, He says three score and ten. But as a general fact, not a limit. Second, there at least one modern human has been verified to have exceeded that "limit" so again there's something wrong with assuming that is literal in calendar years.

And it's a shame you think that using parables and allegory is God indulging in "fairytales." You should trust God more, and people with stories to tell you about what God said, much less.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the view is wrong.

If that view is right, then Jesus is wrong.

A genuine interest in understanding how theistic evolutionists contend with the scholarly view that the Bible is actually a narrative?

The scholarly view is that it's narrative, poetry, prophesy, parables, etc.

A narrative is a little difficult to describe as an ambiguous and non specific use of such things as genealogies and hours, days, years etc...in rebuttal, please don't quote prophetic numbers from Daniel and Revelation...that completely misunderstands the context of these two books and is not relevant to my point.

Most literalists don't want to talk about many parts of God's word. For the obvious reasons.

I find it difficult to align the theme of the Bible with evolution

I find it difficult to align the theme of the Bible with resonance bonding in aromatic compounds. For the same reason. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. That's good enough for God. It should be good enough for you.

where the aspects of evolution that are in question are those related to millions of years in time and in direct conflict with the following

1. Adam being created and naming all the animals within his own lifetime.

Given that there are millions of species of animals in the world, some of them in places Adam couldn't even go, it's pretty obvious that is an allegory. There's some other issues with that verse:

Genesis 2:19 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.

There's this:
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

How would an omnicient God not know what Adam would call the animals?

Genesis 1 says that water produced birds, but Genesis 2 says that land produced birds.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

If this is a literal narrative, the Bible contradicts itself.

2. The Bible says man is gaining in knowledge however deteriorating in terms of stature and life expectancy.[/quote0

3. Jesus genealogy...the Bible lineage even if out by thousands of years is...

Wrong. Just wrong, if you take them as literal genealogies. Since we know that the Bible is God's word, that means that the genealogies cannot be literal ones.

The gap is so enormous that simple logic and coming sense says very matter of factly...either the YE revision of the Bible is wrong, or God is.

4. How does theistic evolution explain end time prophecies from books of daniel and revelation?

Pretty much the same way solid-state electronics does. Which is, "not at all." That's not what science is for.

The Bible prophesied what is almost a complete breakdown in social and environmental stability...

Which seems at odds with the dramatic drop in violent crime and abortion rates over the past few decades. But most Bible Scholars don't see that as a prophesy of our time. So again, it doesn't mean God is wrong; it merely means some people have misinterpreted the Bible.

Where I am at right now is trying to find a middle ground between creation and evolution where the two do not conflict with either the Bible story, or the fossil record that we have.

It conflicts with some people's interpretation of the Bible. But that's not the fault of the evidence.

I honestly think that Answers in Genesis and Is Genesis History have gone a long way towards finding that place.

Since they've shown a willingness to deceive in order to persuade, I don't put much confidence in their statements.

I suggest you check what Dr. Wise or Dr. Aardsma have written in this regard. Unlike AIG, they actually make an honest attempt to reconcile the evidence with their understanding of the Bible.

 

[coffee4u]

Where I am at right now is trying to find a middle ground between creation and evolution where the two do not conflict with either the Bible story, or the fossil record that we have. I honestly think that Answers in Genesis and Is Genesis History have gone a long way towards finding that place. I accept biases are being presented, however it's the closest I have ever seen creation science get to evolution. A lot of Christians simply state...evolution is nonbiblical so it's wrong period. That argument is a very poor one in my opinion it is not founded on solid ground at all.

What does a middle ground look like? I don't believe there is a middle ground.

Creation science is all very well but don't forget they are just men too, men who weren't there and don't know everything.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

For humans in historical times, He says three score and ten. But as a general fact, not a limit. Second, there at least one modern human has been verified to have exceeded that "limit" so again there's something wrong with assuming that is literal in calendar years.

And it's a shame you think that using parables and allegory is God indulging in "fairytales." You should trust God more, and people with stories to tell you about what God said, much less.

If that view is right, then Jesus is wrong.



The scholarly view is that it's narrative, poetry, prophesy, parables, etc.



Most literalists don't want to talk about many parts of God's word. For the obvious reasons.



I find it difficult to align the theme of the Bible with resonance bonding in aromatic compounds. For the same reason. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. That's good enough for God. It should be good enough for you.



Given that there are millions of species of animals in the world, some of them in places Adam couldn't even go, it's pretty obvious that is an allegory. There's some other issues with that verse:

Genesis 2:19 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.

There's this:
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

How would an omnicient God not know what Adam would call the animals?

Genesis 1 says that water produced birds, but Genesis 2 says that land produced birds.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

If this is a literal narrative, the Bible contradicts itself.[/QUOTE]

In 2020, the femur was analyzed, and it was found that Sahelanthropus was not bipedal, casting doubt on its position as a human ancestor...A further possibility is that Toumaï is not ancestral to either humans or chimpanzees at all, but rather an early representative of the Gorillini lineage wikpedia
​

further, the skull in question is a reconstruction...i am not sure if it even is what they say it is because of that???

In any case, based on evidence...it is doubtful this is human, the brain cavity is far too small...

Existing fossils include a relatively small cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 320 cm3 to 380 cm3 in volume, is similar to that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm3​

A little correction, you use the wrong text as your explanation of the age of man after the flood...

Genesis 6"New Living Translation

Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”.

Now whilst we are on the topic of 120 years and average age of humans...dont you find it interesting that the oldest known individuals do not come from highly developed households? They are not old because of modern medicine or technology. So this debuncts the evolutionary theory that we are improving in age. In fact the use of statistics that say oh but the average lifespan is getting better, yes thats true but only because good eating and healthy living is now getting us back to the age that God foretold in the Bible (we had dropped way below that through poor eating and living...in mid to late 1700's it was about 35 years of age).

In answer to the question, doesnt a current life expectency of approx 80 years defeat the bible claim of 3 score and ten? Not really because if you look in the last colum...the average expentency for those at age 65 to live on for another 5 years is just 20%. None of the figures in the table below come even close to Genesis 6

Life expectancy 1751–2020
Life expectancy 1751–2020


Year Life expectancy in number of years
Men Women
At birth At age 50 At age 65 At birth At age 50 At age 65
1751–1790 33.72 18.16 10.02 36.64 19.59 10.51
1791–1815 35.35 17.26 9.29 38.44 18.68 9.84
1816–1840 39.50 17.55 9.58 43.56 19.60 10.44
1841–1850 41.66 18.10 9.62 46.10 20.24 10.57
1851–1860 40.49 18.49 10.03 44.40 20.26 10.77
1861–1870 42.80 19.40 10.40 46.37 21.30 11.40
1871–1880 45.27 20.80 11.20 48.62 22.60 12.20
1881–1890 48.55 21.94 11.96 51.47 23.64 12.92
1891–1900 50.94 22.44 12.24 53.63 24.04 13.13
1901–1910 54.53 23.17 12.81 56.98 24.74 13.69
1911–1920 55.60 23.35 12.84 58.38 24.79 13.69
1921–1930 60.97 24.15 13.24 63.16 25.14 13.85
1931–1940 63.76 24.08 13.06 66.13 25.13 13.64
1941–1950 68.06 25.01 13.60 70.65 26.27 14.30
1951–1960 70.89 25.54 13.85 74.10 27.47 15.00
1961–1970 71.73 25.70 13.93 76.13 28.87 16.05
1971–1980 72.26 25.82 14.10 78.10 30.41 17.47
1981–1985 73.55 26.46 14.60 79.53 31.45 18.39
1986–1990 74.37 27.17 15.09 80.22 32.06 18.91
1991–1995 75.60 28.03 15.70 80.98 32.59 19.42
1996–2000 76.89 28.95 16.35 81.83 33.19 19.93
2001–2005 77.99 29.89 17.11 82.41 33.64 20.30
2006–2010 [1] 79.12 30.85 17.94 83.16 34.29 20.83
2010-2014 79.93 31.57 18.51 83.69 34.74 21.18
2011-2015 80.08 31.73 18.64 83.79 34.84 21.25
2012-2016 80.24 31.89 18.76 83.88 34.92 21.31
2013-2017 80.41 32.06 18.91 83.99 35.02 21.39
2014-2018 80.55 32.18 19.00 84.10 35.12 21.47
2015-2019 80.75 32.36 19.13 84.24 35.25 21.57
2016-2020 80.80 32.38 19.13 84.29 35.30 21.58
1983 73.62 26.51 14.65 79.61 31.59 18.49
1984 73.84 26.73 14.81 79.89 31.72 18.65
1985 73.79 26.60 14.66 79.68 31.59 18.50
1986 73.97 26.83 14.80 79.99 31.84 18.69
1987 74.16 26.99 14.99 80.15 31.99 18.90
1988 74.15 26.99 14.95 79.96 31.85 18.70
1989 74.79 27.56 15.40 80.57 32.37 19.17
1990 74.81 27.50 15.30 80.41 32.20 19.04
1991 74.94 27.60 15.42 80.54 32.34 19.21
1992 75.35 27.82 15.55 80.79 32.42 19.27
1993 75.49 27.91 15.56 80.79 32.40 19.19
1994 76.08 28.43 16.03 81.38 32.92 19.75
1995 76.17 28.42 15.97 81.45 32.90 19.70
1996 76.51 28.61 16.10 81.53 32.95 19.73
1997 76.70 28.77 16.24 81.82 33.20 19.92
1998 76.87 28.94 16.34 81.94 33.30 20.03
1999 77.06 29.11 16.45 81.91 33.23 19.92
2000 77.38 29.41 16.69 82.03 33.30 20.08
2001 77.55 29.60 16.88 82.07 33.36 20.06
2002 77.73 29.64 16.90 82.11 33.37 20.01
2003 77.91 29.83 17.01 82.43 33.67 20.32
2004 78.35 30.19 17.39 82.68 33.92 20.56
2005 [2] 78.43 30.22 17.38 82.77 33.92 20.60
2006 [1] 78.70 30.45 17.61 82.91 34.10 20.71
2007 [1] 78.92 30.69 17.83 82.95 34.10 20.62
2008 [1] 79.09 30.82 17.93 83.13 34.26 20.81
2009 [1] 79.33 31.08 18.13 83.33 34.45 20.99
2010 [1] 79.52 31.17 18.21 83.49 34.55 21.03
2011 [1] 79.79 31.41 18.37 83.67 34.73 21.17
2012 79.87 31.51 18.42 83.54 34.60 21.02
2013 80.09 31.75 18.67 83.71 34.77 21.19
2014 80.35 31.99 18.86 84.05 35.07 21.48
2015 80.31 31.98 18.85 84.01 35.02 21.39
2016 80.56 32.19 19.01 84.09 35.13 21.48
2017 80.72 32.38 19.14 84.10 35.13 21.44
2018 80.78 32.37 19.13 84.25 35.27 21.55
2019 81.34 32.85 19.52 84.73 35.73 21.99
2020 80.60 32.12 18.87 84.29 35.25 21.46
​

Of the books of the Bible that are clearly identified as narrative (of which over 40% of the Bible is clearly identified this way), Genesis is the first on the list of narrative biblical books. It is a literal historical narrative of that there is no question. Now that presents a problem, if the consensus is that Genesis is an historical narrative, how can one use the term figurative for its very specific times, dates etc? That isnt consistent with the way in which the book is written.
See the problem is, the bible clearly says in numerous places, don't put your own understanding on things God has explained to us. In the book of Genesis, I think he has pretty clearly explained how we got here, clearly explained the cause of the flood, its extent, and duration, he clearly explained how and why the different languages of the world came about...when we look at the secular science theories of the movements of people across the globe, these are not really in contrast with the Genesis historical narrative.

You state that Adam couldn't have named the animals using the Birds coming out of the water in Genesis 1 being opposed to Birds coming out of the ground in Genesis 2.
If you read closely Genesis 1 its says

20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind.​

Genesis 2

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,
​

Genesis 1 vs 20 does not say birds were created from the water...100% it does not say or even imply that! There is no contradiction in these two verses.

Your statement about Adam naming the animals and that surely an omnipotent alknowing God should already know what the animals names are:

Genesis 2:19
and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.
​

I don't intend to be rude here, however, that is just a non-argument and in no way supports any kind of theistic evolution argument on the basis that "this must be evidence that Genesis 1 is not a literal creation".

I think one has to go back to the beginning of the basis in our search for an explanation of our existence (where did we come from? why are we here? and where are we going?)

BTW did you know whilst on this point...encyclopedia Brittanica outlines the word "epistemology" one of the 4 great philosophical endeavours, as having derived from the Greek word epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”)

Isn't it interesting that "reason" (logos) is linked to God, and that the apostle John identifies Jesus Christ as the logos!

I interpret this as meaning that early philosophers either knowingly or unknowingly use Jesus Christ as the basis in explaining the nature of the origins of our existence, our knowledge and our future.

As an SDA i also find it interesting that the language of the early Christians was largely Greek, however as Roman influence spread, and particularly with the rise of the Catholic church, the language of the Bible changed to one that few people could read...Latin! To me it seems an alarming coincidence then that the change in the approved language of Christianity during that period to Latin should also line up with a number of Christian denominations believing that the Catholic church is aligned with Pagan Rome and the Beast in the books of Daniel and Revelation! (anyway, a bit of a side track, back to the topic...

In order to decide on the pathway of creationism versus theistic evolution, one has to first start with a very basic question...

What is the overall theme of the Bible? (here is my short version)

1. God designed and created man after his own likeness and the earth was made for him

how can man evolve from apes if God created man in his own image Genesis 1:26-27, after his own likeness? Are we saying God is an ape or indeed his son Jesus evolved from an ape?

IT appears to me that a theist would need to ignore this fundamental Biblical statement. I would argue on this alone, theistic evolution creates an impossible anachronism...the two are completely opposed right here in the first chapter of Genesis.

How do theists who are also evolutionists resolve that dilemma (I am concerned with the view the Catholic church says so therefore its ok...on what biblical basis can that view be supported?)

2. Satan corrupted that perfect creation due to his own desire to be God...to replace God. having failed in his efforts in heaven and God immediately sets in motion a plan to answer the charges satan made against him...God Himself in the form of his son would die for the sins of his creation in order to redeem us to himself and prove satan a self-serving liar.

3. The First 39 protestant books of the Bible (46 catholic which includes Apocrypha) are "testament" to the history of the rise of sin on this world

4. The defining moment of the biblical theme New Heavens and New Earth

Isaiah 65:17 (also in Revelation 21)
For behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.f
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.​

How do theistic evolutionists resolve this dilemma...it is very clearly a deliberate and specific re-creation of heaven and earth in order to completely wipe out the trace of sin!

I am very very doubtful that the Biblical story allows for any possibility of the destruction of Satan and Sin and the recreation of the New Heavens and New Earth to take place over billions of years and that our resurrection and translation into heaven at the time of the second coming also must be an evolutionary process.

So in light of the above 4 listed items of my view of the overall theme of the bible, how can a theistic evolutionist resolve these seemingly impossible contrasting and conflicting world views?

A final thought...
2 Peter 3:4
"Where is the promise of His coming?" they will ask. "Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation."

 

[The Barbarian]

Of the books of the Bible that are clearly identified as narrative (of which over 40% of the Bible is clearly identified this way), Genesis is the first on the list of narrative biblical books. It is a literal historical narrative of that there is no question.

Actually, most of the world's Christians see much of Genesis as allegory. There are also many who question that understanding and have their own ideas. There are many Christians on each side of that divide. It's a very lively question.

how can man evolve from apes if God created man in his own image Genesis 1:26-27, after his own likeness? Are we saying God is an ape or indeed his son Jesus evolved from an ape?

Good question. Does God just look like a refined ape, as we do? No. The image is in our minds and souls, not our bodies. As Jesus says, God is a spirit. And Jesus says a spirit has no body.

It seems to me that a YE creationist would need to ignore these fundamental Biblical statements. How do theists who are also creationists resolve that dilemma?

It's really not hard. Just don't add your own ideas to scripture, and take it as it is, without embellishments. And then there is no conflict between scripture and science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your statement about Adam naming the animals and that surely an omnipotent alknowing God should already know what the animals names are:

Genesis 2:19
and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.

As I said, it would be odd, indeed if an omniscient Creator did not know what his creation was going to call things. As you know, the Bible says that his knowledge is infinite.

I don't intend to be rude here, however, that is just a non-argument and in no way supports any kind of theistic evolution

It merely shows that the creation story is not a literal narrative, as does the fact that Genesis 1 says birds came from the waters and Genesis 2 says they came from the earth. Again, if this was meant to be a literal narrative,there wouldn't be contradictions like this.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I put the following statement to the individuals on each side of the controversy between theistic evolutionists and creationists...

Dr James White stated in a debate in 2014 with Dr Crossan (Is the Bible True?)...

"surely approaching these texts with the starting presupposition that the beliefs of their authors were wrong, will impact greatly ones reading of them. If we start with the idea that God isnt doing it today, then he has never done it in the past, are we not beginning with the negation of the Christian view of its own scriptures as a starting point?"

Dr Crossan defines the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as

"4 narrative interpretations"
​

why then would the book of Genesis not be equally interpreted as a narrative considering the nature of the way in which its story is told in that it is very similar to that of the 4 Gospels?

Richard Dawkins (non christian botanist) considers theistic evolution

"a superfluous attempt to "smuggle God in by the back door"​

As I said, it would be odd, indeed if an omniscient Creator did not know what his creation was going to call things. As you know, the Bible says that his knowledge is infinite.



It merely shows that the creation story is not a literal narrative, as does the fact that Genesis 1 says birds came from the waters and Genesis 2 says they came from the earth. Again, if this was meant to be a literal narrative,there wouldn't be contradictions like this.

you quoted your own statement on my previous post...i did not say an omnipotent God would not know the animal's names. I am not sure why you felt the need to misrepresent me here?

I will further summarise and repeat my statement on that... the argument that the Almighty God needed Adam to name the animals is a non-argument for theistic evolution. It is not evidence in favour of such a view.

i posted an edit that was late in my last post...i will add it here again so its not missed.

I have a rebuttal to your reference about Sahelanthropus

That is unfortunately a false alarm. It was proven in 2020 that this creature was neither human or a human ancestor.

In 2020, the femur was analyzed, and it was found that Sahelanthropus was not bipedal, casting doubt on its position as a human ancestor... the orientation of the foramen magnum is not an entirely conclusive piece of evidence in regard to the question of habitual posture, and the features used to classify Sahelanthropus into Hominina are not entirely unique to Hominina.

In looking at the various images of the reconstruction of this creatures head, this looks like a badly deformed monkey of some kind...seems to even have a cleft palate.

 

[The Barbarian]

In 2020, the femur was analyzed, and it was found that Sahelanthropus was not bipedal, casting doubt on its position as a human ancestor... the orientation of the foramen magnum is not an entirely conclusive piece of evidence in regard to the question of habitual posture, and the features used to classify Sahelanthropus into Hominina are not entirely unique to Hominina.

So it appears to be an ape, perhaps ancestral to chimps and gorillas. Notice the foramen magnum is transitional between quadrupeds and bipeds.

Remember, I mentioned that it's likely that chimps are more quadrupedal than the common ancestor of humans and chimps? Here is some evidence for that. More strictly arboreal apes would be expected to be upright more often, and there by have a foramen magnum positioned more forward than in chimps or gorillas.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dr Crossan defines the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as

"4 narrative interpretations"
why then would the book of Genesis not be equally interpreted as a narrative considering the nature of the way in which its story is told in that it is very similar to that of the 4 Gospels?

The four Gospels do not contradict each other as narratives. They were intended to be historical narratives. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other if viewed as narratives, so we know they are not.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The four Gospels do not contradict each other as narratives. They were intended to be historical narratives. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other if viewed as narratives, so we know they are not.

Just more baseless nonsense. The first two chapters of Genesis are in no way contradictory. And if you are going to claim that they are, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it rather than just say it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The four Gospels do not contradict each other as narratives. They were intended to be historical narratives. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other if viewed as narratives, so we know they are not.

Just more baseless nonsense. The first two chapters of Genesis are in no way contradictory.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 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.

One says fowl were brought forth by water; the other says they were brought forth by the ground. If these are meant to be historical narrative, it's a huge problem. If it's meant to be a parable of creation, not a problem.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The four Gospels do not contradict each other as narratives. They were intended to be historical narratives. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other if viewed as narratives, so we know they are not.



Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 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.

One says fowl were brought forth by water; the other says they were brought forth by the ground. If these are meant to be historical narrative, it's a huge problem. If it's meant to be a parable of creation, not a problem.

My Bible says, Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

Genesis 2:19 is obviously a summary of the first chapter, as the creation of man did not precede the creation of animal life. It has to do with the creation of Adam and his lack of a suitable mate. Moses is summarizing the creation account in a lead up to Adam naming the creatures. It is a brief summary, and not a detailed, specific account. That is found in Genesis 1.

 

[Freth]

Every living thing is made of carbon (soil's primary ingredient) and water. It's not a contradiction, it's a fact. God used water and carbon to make every living thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it possible for a theistic evolutionist to believe in Christ at all?
How does one combine Neoteny (juvenilism as one matures) with God saying man's days will be limited to 120 years, rather than living for approx 900 years after the flood?
This seems to be very specific numbers written by Moses...do theistic evolutionists believe Moses flood story and the exodus are fairytales?

How does one reconcile this?

By reading some things on 1) the Nature and Practice of Historiography & 2) The Philosophy of History.

That's one way to do it. It may not be the only way ...

So, after having done so, this translates into my seeing the Garden of Eden as a sacred but only representational (mythic?) account, with the Flood story being a little more than this, and then, more or less beginning to qualify the Exodus account as some form of 'actual' proto-history, reflecting some events that (more or less) happened in the way they're related. Sort of.

 

[The Barbarian]

My Bible says, Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

KJV:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 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.