The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[Starise]

On 9/6/2023 at 2:18 PM, Scott Free said:

"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!" I Corinthians 13:9

You haven't directly answered my question sir.

On 9/7/2023 at 1:27 PM, Scott Free said:

One last note. The reason natural science and the Bible seem to differ is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia of modern knowledge. Many scriptures on these matters are catering to a Bronze Age audience or allegorical in nature and difficult to analyze leading to mostly personal interpretations.

 

Examples:

“The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them He has set the world” - 1 Samuel 2:8 A modern view would be something like the core and mantle of the Earth is the Lord's. and around it he has placed the biosphere. The Bible's words are beautiful and preferred, nurturing both mind and heart with epic poetic imagery.

"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" - Psalm 148:4. Today, we call it space, a concept unattainable to people of the Bronze Age. Many early writers thought that there was a dome of water above them, based on their literal interpretations of several passages in the Bible. This shows the level of misunderstanding we can achieve.

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." - Ecclesiastes 1:5. the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, failure to promotion our current knowledge. Scriptures are not going to cater to our modern understanding of science, except through End Time prophecy.

 

 

 

The Genesis interpretation that makes the most sense. Off topic but illustrates how simple the language of Genesis has to be for ancient humanity to grasp the concept.

In the start of the creation story God is viewing the Earth as a potential contained within the formless mass at hand, only the mind of God can penetrate to this image. (The waters is reference to area beyond sky, Psalm 148:4)

Seven days of creation. Formation of the Solar System(time is relative to observer):

0) Nebula

1) Sun and planet formation(Earths mass forms umbra)

2) Atmospheric stratification(Moon formation caused Earth to temporarily have a thick expansive envelope exhibiting features of a gas planet)

3) Water world forming volcanic plates(algae/flora created, plate tectonics begin).

4) The clearing of the atmosphere(second light - carbon capture by algae and tectonics)

5) Aquatic life and dinosaurs are created

6) Mammals are created

7) The earth is finished and ready for Mankind

How would you resolve this view with the biblical seven days of creation?

[Scott Free]

13 minutes ago, Starise said:

How would you resolve this view with the biblical seven days of creation?

It is not resolvable. The information presented is incomplete and not conducive to our "comprehensive analysis".

[Starise]

4 hours ago, Scott Free said:

It is not resolvable. The information presented is incomplete and not conducive to our "comprehensive analysis".

I know you have a basis, such as maybe what science and cosmology say about universe age. I don't see a background story that has us as a byproduct of apes.

[Scott Free]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

I know you have a basis, such as maybe what science and cosmology say about universe age. I don't see a background story that has us as a byproduct of apes.

Yeah, I am not going to argue about the minutia of minor subjects. I am only interested in nurturing a sense of humility about the limitations of our understanding. 

[Starise]

13 hours ago, Scott Free said:

Yeah, I am not going to argue about the minutia of minor subjects. I am only interested in nurturing a sense of humility about the limitations of our understanding. 

Granted, we don't have the methods God used to make man. We only know he was made from the elements of the earth. I doubt any of us would understand it if He attempted such an explanation.

To introduce apes into human geneology is not what the bible says happened, so yes, there's a lot we don't know, but what's obvious is God made man directly. No back door approaches.

It would not have been difficult for God to say He used an ape, if He had done that. It have been a serious conflict to take the highest being on earth made after His image and smear it with 'apeology'.

[Scott Free]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

Granted, we don't have the methods God used to make man. We only know he was made from the elements of the earth. I doubt any of us would understand it if He attempted such an explanation.

To introduce apes into human geneology is not what the bible says happened, so yes, there's a lot we don't know, but what's obvious is God made man directly. No back door approaches.

It would not have been difficult for God to say He used an ape, if He had done that. It have been a serious conflict to take the highest being on earth made after His image and smear it with 'apeology'.

If He used anything it would of been the Denisovans or Neanderthals. The story of Adam and Eve has trouble if we take it too literal. Like, snakes can't talk, fruits don't alter morality, dust lacks the building blocks of life. There are other levels of meaning that are plausible. Turning Adam and Eve into psychological archetypes is crossing a line for me.

[Starise]

16 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

If He used anything it would of been the Denisovans or Neanderthals. The story of Adam and Eve has trouble if we take it too literal. Like, snakes can't talk, fruits don't alter morality, dust lacks the building blocks of life. There are other levels of meaning that are plausible. Turning Adam and Eve into psychological archetypes is crossing a line for me.

I don't see this as an either/or solution in looking at proper interpretation.Satan or lucifer is called many things in the bible, so inferring this is a literal snake is not intellectually responsible. We all know this wasn't a snake, and we all know there are  other references to Satan as a snake in other parts of scripture which reenforce the view of who is being called a snake.

Certainly God knew which handful of dirt to gather to make the first man. I don't question that. Adam has a geneology that can be historically followed, so that pretty much scraps the idea he is some sort of a representation of men in general.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil could have been anything God told them not to touch. The point of the story is, God told them not to eat it and they ate it. If we wanted to split hairs, I think it was a tree.The tree itself may have held no special value. It was the PARTAKING of the tree that was wrong.

Since Neanderthals are really just us, as has been shown in part one of these threads, it's really a non sequiter for me. One does not follow the other because we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Scott Free]

11 minutes ago, Starise said:

Since Neanderthals are really just us, as has been shown in part one of these threads, it's really a non sequiter for me. One does not follow the other because we are talking about the same thing.

My point is all of us are wrong, including scientist. The detailed information needed has not been offered to us by God. We have to wait for Jesus's return to see these things as they actually are. For now, creating derision is a more a serious offense than having a different opinion. Unity does not mean homogeneity.

[Starise]

I'm not wrong

[Mozart's Starling]

On 9/12/2023 at 12:22 PM, Scott Free said:

If He used anything it would of been the Denisovans or Neanderthals. The story of Adam and Eve has trouble if we take it too literal. Like, snakes can't talk, fruits don't alter morality, dust lacks the building blocks of life. There are other levels of meaning that are plausible. Turning Adam and Eve into psychological archetypes is crossing a line for me.

That was in a supernatural garden of paradise before the fall and the "snake" I always assumed was Lucifer who is a known shapeshifter. Why you can't take it literally is unclear to me. Again trying to warp the Bible to fit scientific theories seems a bit odd to me. The supernatural exists, Angels, Demons, etc. So a literal tree of knowledge before the fall I just take at face value. If it were a parable it would have been made clear. Jesus always clarified literal stories from parables. You seem to be putting limits on God that are not biblically there. imo

Edited September 13, 2023 by Mozart's Starling