God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Amusing.  If someone rejects what you believe, they don't know what they are talking about .

Oh goodness, no. But it certainly applies in your case.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

However there are Christian scientists better qualified than you are who also reject your evolution theology.

I'll bet they can explain the difference between a gene and an allele, too.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

It seems you just ignored  my request for you to prove HOW that is possible.

I've complied with your requests repeatedly. You ignore them and/or don't read them.

 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

The problem is not defining he terms.

No, the problem is that you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, yet pretend you do.

Love, joy, and peace to you, too.

[dad2]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:19 AM, The Barbarian said:

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter.   So we know that the "death" was not a physical one.   It was a spiritual death, brought about by disobedience, which separated us from God.   If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed; we will all die someday.   But he saved us from the death Adam brought into the world.

 

The physical dying followed. So it seems there was both. Likewise, we will have bodies like Jesus had when He rose from the dead, so in a way it is physical as well as spiritual. Jesus was physical also, and ate food for example.

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, dad2 said:

The physical dying followed.

God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.   And yet Adam lived on for many years thereafter.  So we know that it's not a physical death, if God's word is trustworthy.

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.   And yet Adam lived on for many years thereafter.  So we know that it's not a physical death, if God's word is trustworthy.

 

By the same token He said if we believe in Him we have eternal life. Yet our bodies will die unless ruptured. We also know that that eternal life will include a

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.   And yet Adam lived on for many years thereafter.  So we know that it's not a physical death, if God's word is trustworthy.

 

By the same token He said if we believe in Him we have eternal life. Yet our bodies will die unless ruptured. We also know that that eternal life will include an eternal body, both spiritual and physical. It is reasonable to conclude that the death that came was also both.

[The Barbarian]

God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.   And yet Adam lived on for many years thereafter.  So we know that it's not a physical death, if God's word is trustworthy.

7 hours ago, dad2 said:

By the same token He said if we believe in Him we have eternal life.

Which is another reason we know that the death God spoke of, was not a physical one but a spiritual one.   

God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree.

Adam eats from the tree.

Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter.

If God speaks the truth, then the death He spoke of was not a physical death.    No way to dodge it.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by The Barbarian

[JohnD]

On 8/22/2019 at 6:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

 

            Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. ¹⁴²

            As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

 

Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

 

Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.¹⁴⁵

 

                The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. ¹⁴⁶

 

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

 

Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.  Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?

 

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.¹⁴⁹

 

Scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)

 

 Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. ¹⁶²

 

Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?

 

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)

 

In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)

 

But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

 

1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.

 

What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).

 

Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. ¹⁵³

 

The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.

 

It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.¹⁶⁷

 

The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

 It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-­mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?

 

    The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y­-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. ¹⁷⁸

 

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)

 

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.

 

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

            It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!

 

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

                                    

I see a lot of suppositional reasoning some 7000 years after the fact.

The restoration of the world, for example, is a supposition based on the word "replenish"

in the Genesis text.

If the world was previously occupied by the marshmallow candy peeps then wiped out,

and then God created man to populate the world, that would be a replenishment too.

In the Genesis account, the replenishment of Earth was with human beings where

before there were cherubs, seraphs, and teraphs (angels) only.

How old is the Earth from the original creation?

In what form are we referring to?

The physical or the spirit realm?

 

[JohnD]

On 8/22/2019 at 6:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

            It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!

 

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

                                    

The mosaic laws against incest weresome2000 years after the fact of creation. The gene pool had since degraded from the corruption of sin to the point that close relations (relations with too close a relative) would match the same flaws in the genes too much to the point that birth defects would and do result. But until that point in human history the only restriction of relations was with ones own mother (which is what Ham did bringing the Noachian curse upon the offspring of Ham and his mother: Canaan).  

Genesis 9:20–27 (AV)
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Leviticus 18:8 (AV)
8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by JohnD

[dad2]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is another reason we know that the death God spoke of, was not a physical one but a spiritual one.   

God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree.

Adam eats from the tree.

Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter.

If God speaks the truth, then the death He spoke of was not a physical death.    No way to dodge it.

 

 

 

Or, a spiritual death INCLUDES the physical eventually. Also a spiritual life will include the physical eventually. Both.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Or, a spiritual death INCLUDES the physical eventually. Also a spiritual life will include the physical eventually. Both.

That's an addition to scripture, which is not found in God's actual words.    God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Not "eventually", not "and then you'll die another death."

If you have to change it to make it fit your narrative, isn't that an important clue?