Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[AVZ]

Or "any" facial hair. 

How about eyebrows?

[AVZ]

Who knows exactly which human was first given a living soul?    Do you think H. erectus was not good enough to be the first of our kind?

Why would God care?

Classic H. erectus (the one associated with fire and extensive tool use) probably looked more like this:

So you are saying that Adam was not the first human?

[Ginger Rella]

How about eyebrows?

I actually know a man who has zero hair anywhere on his body. He worked in the auto industry repairing and repainting cars and some chemical he was allergic to had him  developed a condition that caused all hair to be lost permanently, including eyebrows.

He was every bit as attractive without as with.  I actually think more.

So... lack of brows, for me, is alright.  Far more preferable then bushy wild looking ones.

[The Barbarian]

So you are saying that Adam was not the first human?

Depends on what you mean by "human."   Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.    I do not think Adam was from that particular species, although it is possible.  If you mean "descendants of Adam", it is more likely it's one of the more recent populations of Homo.   Homo erectus, especially, the later populations, was very, very much like our own species.

It's fun to speculate, but of course, it has nothing whatever to do with salvation.    And we really don't have a way of knowing for sure.

[Texas Conservative]

I actually know a man who has zero hair anywhere on his body. He worked in the auto industry repairing and repainting cars and some chemical he was allergic to had him  developed a condition that caused all hair to be lost permanently, including eyebrows.

He was every bit as attractive without as with.  I actually think more.

So... lack of brows, for me, is alright.  Far more preferable then bushy wild looking ones.

Men, if you see a woman with eyebrows that painted on, tattooed on, or drawn on with makeup run away at light speed.

[Jean74]

It is no wonder I do not need a tattoo!

[KiwiChristian]

Depends on what you mean by "human."   Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.   

Ahh, WHOSE classification is that? Gods? Mans?

[AVZ]

Depends on what you mean by "human."   Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.    I do not think Adam was from that particular species, although it is possible.  If you mean "descendants of Adam", it is more likely it's one of the more recent populations of Homo.   Homo erectus, especially, the later populations, was very, very much like our own species.

It's fun to speculate, but of course, it has nothing whatever to do with salvation.    And we really don't have a way of knowing for sure.

Of course it is important.
If Homo Habilis was the first human, and Adam was the first human...then Adam must have been a Homo Habilis.


But then again, according to science (and according to you) it was Homo Erectus who is associated with fire.
We read in scripture that Cain and Abel built an altar for the Lord, so they must have known fire.
In that case Adam must have been a Homo Erectus, and hence he could not have been the first human on earth.

So, you call all this speculative...but which part do you is speculating?
Is science speculating or is scripture?

You have been promoting science in this thread as "proof" of things, and you have declared scripture as "figurative".
So are you now changing your tune and call your proof "speculative"?

Science claims that Homo Habilis appeared on stage 2.3 Million years ago. So if Adam was the first human, then he existed 2.3 million years ago.
Science claims that Homo Erectus appeared on stage 1.8 Million years ago. Cain and Abel must have been Homo Erectus because they knew fire.
So according to you, Adam was at least 500,000 years old...no wonder he looks so bad in all the pictures.

[4WD]

Scripturally, the difference between mankind and all other animals is the spirit given him by God.  Since the spirit is scientifically undetectable, there is no way for science to distinguish biblical man from any other animal.  Therefore the scientific designation of human being and the biblical designation are not necessarily the same.  The scientific human being [homo sapiens]may well have existed long before God decided it was time to introduce the spirit into the individual we now know as the biblical human being. 

[geronimo]

Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.

Really, Rella?
How do you know that's not a picture of Eve? Looks like a bra strap on her shoulder.

[Michael2012]

Bottom line, should we interpret God's words according to science? 

[The Barbarian]

Of course it is important.

It's completely irrelevant to one's salvation.   Why would it matter when two humans got immortal souls from God?

If Homo Habilis was the first human, and Adam was the first human...

He's merely the ancestor of all humans living today.  Doesn't say he was the first human.

But then again, according to science (and according to you) it was Homo Erectus who is associated with fire.

And more sophisticated tools.   Hominins were making tools before the genus Homo appeared, but H. erectus (second word is not capitalized) was more humanlike in that respect.

Homo erectus was the first to use fire and sophisticated tools. Unlike earlier hominids that developed crude choppers and flakes, Homo erectus produced sophisticated stone axes and used sharp stone cleavers and finger-size scrapers used slice off chewable sizes of meat. "Tools gave them access to elephants, wildebeest---bonanzas so big they couldn't eat it all," Nick Toth, an archaeologist from Indiana University told National Geographic.

Homo erectus made the first wooden spears and first wooden bowls. Using stone anvils and point pressure tools, Homo erectus was able to fashion large tool heads and fine long blades, sharpened on both sides. They made hunting tools with spear points for throwing and thrusting and ax heads for chopping and dismembering carcasses. Perhaps they used cooperative skills in hunting to drive rhinos, elephants or mammoths over cliffs or into swamps.

Blades dated to 240,000 year ago made from long slivers of stones in the Rift Valley are so skillfully crafted from difficult-to-work obsidian and lava, that some anthropologists argue that they required abstract thought to make.
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub360/entry-2754.html

We read in scripture that Cain and Abel built an altar for the Lord, so they must have known fire.
In that case Adam must have been a Homo Erectus, and hence he could not have been the first human on earth.

The Bible doesn't say one way or the other.   So it's speculative.   And if you focus on this, you lose the message of Genesis.

So, you call all this speculative...but which part do you is speculating?

People extending what we have, to imagine what might be.

Is science speculating or is scripture?

Neither.  People are speculating.

You have been promoting science in this thread as "proof" of things,

No.  If you take nothing else away from this, realize that science is not about logical certainty.   We merely accumulate evidence to the point that it's foolish to deny what the evidence indicates.    There are inductive proofs, but not in science.   

and you have declared scripture as "figurative".

Much of it is, yes.  Unless you think mountains can talk, or that the Earth is flat and covered with a dome-shaped sky with windows in it from which rain falls.

So are you now changing your tune and call your proof "speculative"?

You've just imagined things I haven't said.

[The Barbarian]

Bottom line, should we interpret God's words according to science?

A wise man, who loved God once said "truth cannot contradict truth."    So there is no conflict.   

However, as Galileo remarked, science tells you how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven.    Different things with different purposes.

[AVZ]

It's completely irrelevant to one's salvation.   Why would it matter when two humans got immortal souls from God?

There are tons of people who corrupt scripture. And they all think it is irrelevant to their salvation.

[The Barbarian]

There are tons of people who corrupt scripture.

YE Creationist don't "corrupt" scripture.   They merely interpret it in a new way.  Since the Bible doesn't support or deny evolution, it's not a salvation issue.

And they all think it is irrelevant to their salvation.

It is irrelevant to their salvation, unless they make an idol of their opinion.   Same goes for those who accept evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Depends on what you mean by "human."   Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.   

Ahh, WHOSE classification is that?

Scientifically, "human" refers to any species of the genus Homo.  We happen to be the only surviving species.

If by "human", you mean those two members of the genus who were given an immortal soul by God, then it would be whatever species they happened to be, along with their descendants.   We have no way of saying with any certainty, what species.   


Gods? Mans?

[AVZ]

YE Creationist don't "corrupt" scripture.   They merely interpret it in a new way.  Since the Bible doesn't support or deny evolution, it's not a salvation issue.

It is irrelevant to their salvation, unless they make an idol of their opinion.   Same goes for those who accept evolution.

The Bible most certainly and explicitly denies evolution.
You just swing in such a way that you can pretend it doesn't. Man most certainly did not come from apes, and Eve was created from Adam's rib.

It is very convenient for you to declare your theory as irrelevant to salvation, but I am not that sure you are right.
If indeed the evolution theory as you promote it, turns out to be a deception, and as a Christian you should have known and yet you followed the deception...I am not convinced at all you will be let off the hook.
Furthermore, if you have promoted this deception and due to your advocacy you have participated in someone rejecting God as the Creator, you are very likely to be held accountable.

I think you are on very thin ice.
Scientific "proof" and Darwin's evolution theory are the number one reason why people reject God.

The funny thing about it all is that you KNOW scientific proof fails when it comes to scripture.
I have in my hand scientific proof that the resurrection is an impossibility! Yet I have decided that science is wrong on that matter, and the Bible tells the truth.
By that same token, and the same logic, I have also decided that science is wrong about evolution, and the Bible tells the truth.
I have decided that if the Bible is God's Word...it MUST be truth!

You on the other hand have decided that science is wrong about the resurrection.
But for some reason that defies logic, that same science is the truth when it comes to evolution.
You have decided that Gods Word is subject to man's knowledge.

And I think that is exactly what the Bible says when it speaks about those who are vain in their own wisdom and declare the truth to be a lie.

[4WD]

I have in my hand scientific proof that the resurrection is an impossibility!

No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof".  The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15).  Science addresses only the physical.

The funny thing about it all is that you KNOW scientific proof fails when it comes to scripture.

And that is wrong as well, or perhaps I have not understood what you intend.  Science is the study of the physical universe, God's physical creation.  Some people, scientists or otherwise, may interpret either the scientific data or the scriptural data wrongly, but that does not mean that science or scientific proof fails; and given the variances of interpretations  given by theologians in so much of scripture, I think that the theologians and theology are probably as much or more at odds with scripture than are scientists and science.

[AVZ]

No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof".  The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15).  Science addresses only the physical.

And that is exactly the crux of the matter.
Science CANNOT address the unnatural. Creation in all is facets is unnatural, and it cannot be addressed by science.

Yet man attempts to explain away the miracle of creation by invoking natural improbabilities and implausibilities.
And for that they use a theory that falls short by any means whatsoever.

As Christians this really should be an absolute nobrainer for us.
In scripture God tells us EXACTLY how he achieved salvation for mankind, and what acts and miracles He performed to achieve His goal.
In Genesis God does EXACTLY the same and He tells us how He made this universe, how long it took Him and what acts and miracles He performed to achieve His goal.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Christian to doubt anything that is written down in the Bible.
As I said, if you accept scripture as Gods Word...you MUST accept that it is truth.

Unfortunately there are lots of Christians who take sides with the opposition, and happily declare that scripture is does not say what it says and it should be taken figuratively.
As far as I am concerned that is the biggest mistake a Christian can make.
If you cannot trust God to hand us a creation event that we can blindly trust for its truth and value, how can we ever trust God blindly for anything else that is written down in that same scripture?

I have said it before, those who doubt or reject the first chapters of scripture...find themselves in a position where they have no choice but to doubt and reject many other parts of scripture.
Both you and Barbarian are typical examples of that.

You deny that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin, and you find yourself in a theological conundrum with the original sin question in the New Testament.

Barbarian bluntly rejects a physical creation of Adam as a man. He prefers to have him come from a lineage of apes. Eve was of course not made from Adam's rib as well.
He finds himself at odds with a whole bunch of issues and has arrived at the point that salvation is about "being good to your neighbor" and even Muslims are welcome in heaven.

So yes, it is very important and an issue of salvation to believe God on His Word.
Once you take out the whitewash because some bunch of scientists whisper in your ear they know better than God, you are on a path that will lead you away from the truth.

[4WD]

And that is exactly the crux of the matter.
Science CANNOT address the unnatural. Creation in all is facets is unnatural, and it cannot be addressed by science.

The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation".  Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation.  He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child.  That is the fallacy of so much of Young Earth Creationism.  When the Bible records that God said, "let there be light", and there was light (Gen 1:3), you will insist that means God created light. But the Bible doesn't say what you insist it says.  The Bible doesn't say God created light.  You say that, not the Bible.  And you are wrong.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Christian to doubt anything that is written down in the Bible.

That is absolutely true.  But there are lots of reasons for a Christian to doubt what you, or any others, say is written down in the Bible.  The example above demonstrates that clearly.

[Michael2012]

No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof".  The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15).  Science addresses only the physical.

Science is the study of the physical universe, God's physical creation. 

That's clear enough. Science addresses only the physical, not anything spiritual. The difference is so obvious. Now, is not God's words in scriptures, spiritual?

So, there is the obvious reason that science does not and cannot address God's words in scriptures. What then is the matter of trying to bring the things of science to the things of scriptures? What work is that? Whose work is that?       

[AVZ]

The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation".  Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation.  He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child.  That is the fallacy of so much of Young Earth Creationism.  When the Bible records that God said, "let there be light", and there was light (Gen 1:3), you will insist that means God created light. But the Bible doesn't say what you insist it says.  The Bible doesn't say God created light.  You say that, not the Bible.  And you are wrong.That is absolutely true.  But there are lots of reasons for a Christian to doubt what you, or any others, say is written down in the Bible.  The example above demonstrates that clearly.

Michael is absolutely correct. Psalm 139 states:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

So here too the simple principle applies. It is in Gods Word that this is what He does. Now you can argue with that until you see blue in the face, but the real question is: if God does not create babies individually, why would He put it in the Bible that He does?

Of course your argument with the creation of light is just another hollow claim.
You tell me, if God did not create light...who did?

[Carey]

Furthermore, if you have promoted this deception and due to your advocacy you have participated in someone rejecting God as the Creator, you are very likely to be held accountable.

I think you are on very thin ice.

This comment holds true for both sides of the debate.  In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution.  IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God? 

[Alan]

Light is a physical attribute of our relevance to our sun, it is indeed God's creation but it doesn't need to recreated as a spiritual creation that doesn't require the natural elements that God Himself has put in place.


If God created light outside of the physical and natural elements known to us, can we then expect that in some other state, light can and will exist without the sun? This is one of those topics that is far too obvious, yet some people attempt to add their own complexity to support their views of scripture.

[Alan]

This comment holds true for both sides of the debate.  In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution.  IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God?

+1 Carey

[Michael2012]

The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation".  Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation.  He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child. 

That is saying that God created not man but the process that created the man. But God said He created man, and that, in His image. Who should the readers of this thread believe, your words or God's words?

[Alan]

So when you read that God created man, He wasn't referring to mankind as a whole?

[4WD]

Of course your argument with the creation of light is just another hollow claim.
You tell me, if God did not create light...who did?

No one created light.  God created the process whereby light emerged.

Michael is absolutely correct. Psalm 139 states:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

That is a very poor translation.  Look at some others.

[Michael2012]

So when you read that God created man, He wasn't referring to mankind as a whole?

What do you mean?

[Michael2012]

No one created light.  God created the process whereby light emerged.

What process? What did God create before the process so that there could be light?   

[4WD]

What process? What did God create before the process so that there could be light?

The physical universe through the big bang and the physical laws of nature.

[4WD]

This comment holds true for both sides of the debate.  In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution.  IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God?

+1

[Michael2012]

The physical universe through the big bang and the physical laws of nature.

Big Bang?

Tell us what do you say God created in the beginning before this so called big bang process?

[Amo]

No one created light.  God created the process whereby light emerged.

Yea, He said let there be light, and there was light. Given enough time though, you'll tell us how it really happened, won't you? Your among the new order of prophets aren't you? The scientists, the new prophets of God who correctly explain the word of God which could not be explained by the inferior prophets before them. They tried, but they just didn't have it in them.

[4WD]

Yea, He said let there be light, and there was light. Given enough time though, you'll tell us how it really happened, won't you? Your among the new order of prophets aren't you? The scientists, the new prophets of God who correctly explain the word of God which could not be explained by the inferior prophets before them. They tried, but they just didn't have it in them.

No not really.  But I am really curious here.  Suppose, just suppose, that in fact God created the universe using the big bang and His laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc much like is being presented in the sciences;  how do you suppose He would declare that to the Hebrew to whom and for whom the creation account was written.  Science, for example, sometimes describes the very earliest of time, first seconds and earlier right after the big bang, as a primordial "soup" of fundamental particles.  How would God have described that to the Hebrew 4000 years ago?  I can imagine that He might call that "water", there being no Hebrew for "primordial soup of fundamental particles".  Much as God said the "sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again", when we know that the rising and setting sun is really the earth rotating on its axis and has nothing to do with any movement by the sun.

But who knows, perhaps you hold to the literal words in the Bible that says the earth is unmoved and the sun rises in the east, travels across the sky, sets in the west and then returns (unseen) again to the east to begin the process all over again.  And I could believe that you just might.