God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dad2]

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That is a fact.   We are animals.   

 

As far as godless so called fake news science categorizes things, sure. In God's eyes, no. Claiming man is like worms and shares ancestors with them is bad religion.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

I believe the plain reading of the Bible. I see that the Bible clearly recounts the special creation of mankind and Adam.

Certainly, the Bible teaches that mankind is special. Do you think there is something exceptional about the biology of mankind? Would you consider it possible that what sets humanity apart from the animals are not physical characteristics, but characteristics that exist beyond the physical realm? I would suggest that what led to the biological human is of minor importance compared to what God created in humanity on a spiritual level.

 

3 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

I do not believe that humanity evolved from another species.

How familiar are you with the evidence supporting common ancestry?

3 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

True evolution is the study of change over time.

Agreed. Evolution itself should not be controversial at all, since we can observe it easily. There are implications of evolution (like common ancestry) that are obviously not directly observable, but are supported by the scientific evidence that the Creator God has made available.

 

3 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

Very difficult to equal with one species giving rise to another.

Then you would be surprised that there are multiple examples of observed speciation. Regardless, it is true. I'd be happy to share some of this evidence with you if you would like to see it.

 

 

[dad2]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Agreed. Evolution itself should not be controversial at all, since we can observe it easily.

Observing adapting today does not mean that this is where we came from. Adam would have underwent evolving also.

 

Quote

There are implications of evolution (like common ancestry) that are obviously not directly observable, but are supported by the scientific evidence that the Creator God has made available.

Not really. To implicate evolution with common ancestry involves several steps of faith. For example, not believing life was created. It also involves belief that nature was the same in the past, so that we would have had the genetics we see today, and they would have worked as they now do. It involves accepting the immense ages science claims as real. Etc.

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, dad2 said:

It also involves belief that nature was the same in the past, so that we would have had the genetics we see today, and they would have worked as they now do. It involves accepting the immense ages science claims as real. Etc.

Why would genetics have been different in the past? What evidence would you use to contradict the science supporting an earth and universe billions of years old? Like I said, the implications of evolution are consistent with the evidence that God has made available to us.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

The difficulty is that while the other creatures were grouped into five broad categories (which do not match "evolutionary" categorization

Right.   For example, scriptures says bats are birds.    They were functional categories, not biological groups.    This is why creationists keep running into self-contradictions.

4 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

mankind is created separately and with the distinct "imago dei" which none of the other animals are given. 

Right.   Although our bodies were naturally produced like the other animals, our souls are given directly by God.   The mind and soul are the imago dei, not the body.   

First, the image of God we bear involves our rational soul that separates us from animals (the function that the image plays in Genesis 1 is to separate humans from the animals God has just created). Second, talk in the Bible about God’s strong right arm, his eyes, and such is metaphorical language concerning God’s power and knowledge. This can be seen by the fact that the Bible also speaks of God as having feathers and wings; yet even the anthropomorphites would not go this far (see Ps. 91:4—”He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge”).

Anthropomorphites maintain their doctrine in defiance of verses, such as John 4:24, where Jesus teaches us: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/god-has-no-body

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

As far as godless so called fake news science categorizes things, sure. In God's eyes, no. Claiming man is like worms and shares ancestors with them is bad religion.

It's just the way He created our physical bodies.   It has nothing whatever to do with our souls and minds, which are in the image of God.     Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way, not yours.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

God says that the Earth did it.  Hence, naturally, not supernaturally.   He created the universe so that it would bring forth life.   Divine providence was in making the universe to fulfill His will.  This is orthodox Christian belief, not atheistic anything.    God said the earth brought forth living things.  

5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

Your misunderstanding the relationship of him speaking to the environment and then creating. 

God is very clear about this; the earth brought forth living things.   Nature produced life, as He created it to do.   No point in denying what He clearly states.

You've been misled badly on that.   Repeated investigations show that the molecules that form living things readily appear naturally.    If God said that He created life suddenly and miraculously, I'd believe it.   Darwin, for example, thought so.    It doesn't in any way contradict evolutionary theory, which assumes life began somehow, after which it changed by evolutionary processes.   That's what we observe.

5 hours ago, charisenexcelsis said:

Do you not understand the complexity of DNA?

I spent a career often teaching about it.   I doubt if you understand much about the nature of DNA.    The fact that there are self-catalyzing RNAs make it clear that God was correct when He said that the earth brought forth life.   Darwin agreed with you, BTW:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. "

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872     But of course, he didn't know anything about DNA or genetics, or how organic materials are produced by the earth.   

The point is, the origin of life doesn't matter as far as evolutionary theory is concerned.    Evolutionary theory assumes life originated, and describes how it changes over time.   You're free to believe what you will, but understand that your hermeneutics are poor and speculative.

 

 

.

Edited February 7, 2020 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

28 minutes ago, charisenexcelsis said:

We have fractured species. Attempts to truly cross the genetic species factor among animals has only been truly successful in the creation of the mule, an species which is not truly self sustainable.

There are much better examples of speciation. This thread is really long already. I want to double-check with you before I restart discussing scientific evidence. Are you genuinely interested in a conversation about the scientific evidence?

I will be happy to discuss speciation and/or human chimp genome similarities, but I will need to be convinced that you want to see and consider the evidence.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, charisenexcelsis said:

You are welcome to carry a monologue. I would suggest that you consider a course in hermeneutics and perhaps Biblical languages if you wish to study the other side of it.

If you prefer to listen to bizarre “proofs” against evolution without any interest in the actual evidence, that is certainly a choice you can make.

I would be happy to return to why you believe the best hermeneutical approach to Genesis is to ignore what it says and insist on ex nihilo creation of mankind and other living things.

[dad2]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Why would genetics have been different in the past?

Because that is the way history and the bible record it, and science doesn't know either way.

 

Quote

What evidence would you use to contradict the science supporting an earth and universe billions of years old?

There is no science that says that, only beliefs that have been falsely called science.

 

 

Quote

Like I said, the implications of evolution are consistent with the evidence that God has made available to us.

There are no implications except those within a religious paradigm that opposes and exalts itself above the word of God. The actual implications of  evolving are simply that we have the God given trait of being able to adapt and evolve. So did Eve, Adam, Noah, etc.