God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

On 8/22/2019 at 7:06 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 have not yet figured out how to distinguish your remarks from mind, so I have put yours in quotes.

 

  " 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."

The BB theory has not been verified by any concrete scientific evidence.  In fact many evolution scientist are starting o question if it ever happened.  One main problem for the theory is that it offers no evidence for the source of the matter that went bang and no explanation for the energy that caused the bang.  Its biggest problem is explaining how liff originated from lifeless elements.

"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."

God created" tells  us that what happened in Genesis was not a restoration.  Man's free will has nothing to do with the creation of man and the Bible clearly  refutes man coming into existence  by natural progressive means.  Being made, not created from dust  is not the natural progression for life to start naturally.

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

 Man was created intelligent.  That was the "image" we see in Gen 1:27.  Also Cain's sons developed music and metallurgy.

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

Cain's wife was one of his sisters.  There  is no Biblical evidence for 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 Bible refutes those comments and why should we believe you instead of God?

 Peace and joy

[one.opinion]

55 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Let me give you one bone to chew on---there is no scientific evidence for evolution.  "After the kind" is proved thousands of times every day and that scientific proven truth, refutes evolution.

Thank you for the kind words and well-meant advice. However, there is abundant and substantial scientific evidence for evolution. I would be willing to have a peaceful discussion about the evidence, if you wish.

There is no Biblical reason to reject that "kinds" could not change over time. Yes, progeny organisms are of the exact same "kind" as their parents, but we can also see with our own eyes that progeny may be slightly different in subtle ways. It is the long-term accumulation of these slight differences that can lead to diverging segments of a population over time, and allow processes such as population diversity and even speciation.

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thank you for the kind words and well-meant advice. However, there is abundant and substantial scientific evidence for evolution. I would be willing to have a peaceful discussion about the evidence, if you wish.

There is no Biblical reason to reject that "kinds" could not change over time. Yes, progeny organisms are of the exact same "kind" as their parents, but we can also see with our own eyes that progeny may be slightly different in subtle ways. It is the long-term accumulation of these slight differences that can lead to diverging segments of a population over time, and allow processes such as population diversity and even speciation.

"Thank you for the kind words and well-meant advice. However, there is abundant and substantial scientific evidence for evolution. I would be willing to have a peaceful discussion about the evidence, if you wish."

I am willing.  Let's start with the evidence for any doctrine  of evolution you choose.  Keep in mind that real scientific evidence can  be repeated and observed, like "after their kind." can be.

The progeny being slightly different is the result of which genes in the gene pool of the parents are dominant and which are recessive.  This results in different skin color, eye color, etc., but never results in a change of species.  Actually speciation does not change the species.  The inability go reproduce does not result in a new species.  The salamanders remained salamanders, and the gulls remained gulls.   Those are the only 2 studies I am familiar with.  Also every population of salamanders can't be studied, and reliable conclusion can't be guaranteed with such a limited population.

"There is no Biblical reason to reject that "kinds" could not change over time. "

Let's stick to science instead of the Bible, which has almost no science to speak of.    There is no scientific evidence to support a kind has ever evolved into a different kind.  If there is, now would be a good time to present it.

Why do you think "after their kind" does not refute evolution?

Peace and joy

 

 

[enoob57]

On 9/12/2019 at 12:19 PM, 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 disobedience brought both physical death and spiritual death... in that day that Adam ate...
 

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is no Biblical reason to reject that "kinds" could not change over time. 

science dictates that kinds remains kinds with no evidence of the contrary … your own vehicle you use denies you.

[The Barbarian]

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.

15 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

The disobedience brought both physical death and spiritual death... in that day that Adam ate...

I know you want to believe this, but of course, God said that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   And yet he lives on physically, for many years.   If God tells the truth, it wasn't  physical death He was speaking of.

17 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

science dictates that kinds remains kinds with no evidence of the contrary … your own vehicle you use denies you.

No, that's wrong.   Science shows that new species evolve from old.   Even many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and even families evolve.    They could hardly do otherwise, given the evidence.   Would you like me to show you?

 

 

[Justin Adams]

Entrophy leads to decay and not 'new things'.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Let's start with the evidence for any doctrine  of evolution you choose.

If you truly want to have a reasoned conversation, it may be best to avoid dismissing evolution as "doctrine" before we even start. Since you've invited me to start, I suggest we begin with the simplest definition for evolution and work toward the implications afterward. Evolution can be defined as heritable change over time. I'm going to assume that you accept that genetic changes can occur that lead to changes in characteristics, and that these genetic changes can be passed from parent to progeny. If we agree on this, then we can move onward.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

science dictates that kinds remains kinds with no evidence of the contrary … your own vehicle you use denies you.

There is considerable fossil and genetic evidence that life forms change, and quite considerably, over time. There is no Biblical evidence that claims that "kinds" cannot change over time. Just as there is no Biblical evidence that death never occurred before the Fall. You appeal to the Bible for both of these ideas, but neither are supported by Scripture. When pressed for supporting scriptures, you tend to stop commenting. Why is that?

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

Entrophy leads to decay and not 'new things'.

This argument is irrelevant. Entropy leads to decay in a closed system. Living organisms receive constant energy input, so they are not closed systems. Every single zygote that develops into an organisms with billions or trillions of cells shows that living systems avoid entropy-induced decay. Want to see a closed system show decay? Watch what happens to a dead animal on the side of the road.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Would you like me to show you?

I keep hoping someone will respond with a "yes" one of these times when you ask this question. However, it seems far too many are interested in unthinkingly defending their beliefs, rather than actually considering contrary evidence.