[_ Old Earth _] A pyschological question for creationists

[Jimbob]

This thread isn't for directly debating evolution vs. creationism (we have plenty of other threads in this folder for that), instead, I just want to ask creationists a psychological question.

It seems to me that most creationists are offended at the idea that humans evolved from apes, yet they are perfectly comfortable with the idea that humans were made from dirt, as it says in the Bible. Personally, I'd much rather be descended from an ape than from a clump of dirt.

Of course, the obvious answer is going to be that you feel it is better since we were created from dirt by God, yet that ignores the idea of theistic evolution, where you can effectively have the best of both worlds.

So why is the idea that humans developed from apes so offending?

 

[reznwerks]

It seems to me that most creationists are offended at the idea that humans evolved from apes, yet they are perfectly comfortable with the idea that humans were made from dirt, as it says in the Bible. Personally, I'd much rather be descended from an ape than from a clump of dirt.

So why is the idea that humans developed from apes so offending?

There are two problems with your statement. First man is not evolved from apes. Man is evolved from himself or if you prefer a species unto himself which is or was ape like. Secondly it is commonly accepted that all living matter came from dirt or the same primordial goo that sprung forth with life itself.

 

[heel31ok]

Our bodies are from the earth but life and our spirit are directly from the breath of God. Our true selves are from God, it is the house we live in that is from the "dirt".

 

[Solo]

The offensive part of evolution is the same thing that is offensive when a lie or deception is made.

It leads many into a position of bondage that eventually will destroy them. Why? Because one must determine that the Word of God is false, and must be erroneous in its creation account in order to believe the "theory of evolution"; therefore, if the creation account is false then most of the rest of the Word of God must be false as well. A slippery slope deception is accomplished by placing doubt in the Word of God; the same manner of deception was played out in Eden when the initial sin entered the world, all because doubt was subtly suggested in the direction of the Word of God.

All believers know the lies that kept them under bondage for the time that they were unbelievers, and they hate that anyone would be trapped in a life of lies and deceptions that will eventually doom them to an eternity apart from the creator God.

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

This thread isn't for directly debating evolution vs. creationism (we have plenty of other threads in this folder for that), instead, I just want to ask creationists a psychological question.

Hallelujah.

Jimbob wrote:

It seems to me that most creationists are offended at the idea that humans evolved from apes, yet they are perfectly comfortable with the idea that humans were made from dirt, as it says in the Bible. Personally, I'd much rather be descended from an ape than from a clump of dirt.

Personally, I’d rather be descended from Donald Trump. Except for the hair. I could use the cash. If I had to choose an animal or mineral, I’d choose a poppy seed muffin.

Jimbob wrote:

Of course, the obvious answer is going to be that you feel it is better since we were created from dirt by God, yet that ignores the idea of theistic evolution, where you can effectively have the best of both worlds.

Well, if we can have both, I’ll take Trump and a muffin. To go. I’m late.

Jimbob wrote:

So why is the idea that humans developed from apes so offending?

Duhhh…because it’s not true? :roll:

 

[Drew]

Our bodies are from the earth but life and our spirit are directly from the breath of God. Our true selves are from God, it is the house we live in that is from the "dirt".

The idea that we have an immaterial soul /spirit that is somehow separate from the body is widely held in the Christian community. However, I think that a stronger case can be made for the position that there is no immaterial soul - that human beings are a single unified entity and that there can be soul without a physical body. The phenomena that we attribute to the soul are really just "what happens" when neurons fire in the brain.

Lest ye think I am a non-Christian or that I do not believe in the reality of eternal life, I hold the view that God "stores" knowledge of our physical state when we die and uses it to re-constitute us in a perfected physical body at the time of the resurrection described in the book of Revelation.

I have come to accept the proposition that the idea of an immaterial soul, distinct from the physical body, is essentially a Greek idea, and the that the Hebrews of the time drew no such distinction.

 

[Quath]

I kind of agree with ya Drew. I think at some point, people will be able to make backups of themselves. If we die, we reload at an older backup and keep living. In that sense, we can have physical immortality (withing the limits of the universe).

Quath

 

[cubedbee]

Related to Drew’s post, what is the physical human body? We are dynamic living creatures composed of trillions of cells---and these cells are constantly dying and being replaced. There’s not a single cell alive inside of you (excepting a woman’s eggs) that was present when you were born.

Yet, despite constantly replacing the little bits of which we, on a macroscopic level stay unchanged. Our body’s DNA controls the new cells and keeps all of our complex organs intact in the face of constant renewal. Obviously our life experience of injuries, damages, drugs, etc will effect our physical bodies, but at the core is DNA.

I agree with you Drew that the physical/spiritual body is one, not a duality. I also like your idea of God storing us---IMO he would need to store DNA and our life history---in order to give us new bodies in heaven. It makes much more sense than believing the cells you happened to have when you died, that have decomposed and faded into dust, that have likely been consumed by worms which have been consumed by animals which have been consumed by other people, are going to be taken out of the grave and reconstituted into your body.

 

[Drew]

I agree with cubedbee's clarification (at least how I understand it) - our "physicality" lies more in the way that matter is organized in our bodies - thus we remain the same person even though we are constantly replacing our cells.

Another advantage of understanding human beings as being "non-dualistic" is that such a position disposes of a major philosophical problem associated with the dualist view - the interaction problem. The dualist faces a formidable challenge in explaining exactly how an immaterial soul "pushes physical buttons" in order to animate the human body. This is a very real challenge for the dualist - how does a "ghost in the machine" - type soul make an arm move without having to somehow "step over the line" into the realm of the physical and initiate nerve and / or other activities in the body?

 

[Quath]

Very interesting stuff. So how do you think heaven will work for someone who has brain damage? Do you think God would reverse that? What if the person suffers from depression from a chemical imbalance in the brain?

The problem I see is that our material body has flaws in it from he enviornment and from DNA. Do you think God will correct those flaws? What if that changes the person so they are completely different?

I agree that what makes us who we are is the software. You should be able to replace all your atoms with other atoms of the same type and stay the same person. (It just gets weird if you make a physical copy of yourself.)

Quath

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

The offensive part of evolution is the same thing that is offensive when a lie or deception is made.

It leads many into a position of bondage that eventually will destroy them. Why? Because one must determine that the Word of God is false, and must be erroneous in its creation account in order to believe the "theory of evolution"; therefore, if the creation account is false then most of the rest of the Word of God must be false as well. A slippery slope deception is accomplished by placing doubt in the Word of God; the same manner of deception was played out in Eden when the initial sin entered the world, all because doubt was subtly suggested in the direction of the Word of God.

All believers know the lies that kept them under bondage for the time that they were unbelievers, and they hate that anyone would be trapped in a life of lies and deceptions that will eventually doom them to an eternity apart from the creator God.

Ive wondered this for a long time... What do creationists have to say about those fosils that were found about the last human "evolution"... you know.. human like creatures but a little different than humans of today, like they didnt walk up right, etc.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I'll add something.

I don't mind the idea for any reason except that there is not a shread of conclusive proof, it deny's what scripture teaches, and it makes God a liar. Being discended from an ape isn't nearly as bad as saying God had nothing to do with creation.

 

[Quath]

I'll add something.

I don't mind the idea for any reason except that there is not a shread of conclusive proof, it deny's what scripture teaches, and it makes God a liar. Being discended from an ape isn't nearly as bad as saying God had nothing to do with creation.

Many Christians believe in their religion and evolution. Their idea is that God guided evolution. Some may think He seeded life while other think life came through natural means (but God set it up so those natural means would occur).

Either way, life would come from the natural elements which could be interpreted as earth or dust.

Many Christians do not believe the 7 days in Gensis are real days (1 revolution of the earth) but eras. This is not a huge stretch and fits in better with what we see scientifically.

The way many Christians reconcile religion and science is to say that religion is here to answer the question "why?" and science is to answer the question "how?"

Quath

 

[Blazin Bones]

Yes, many Christians don't believe all that is in the Bible. That's a bigger issue than them believing in evolution. If A Christian can't trust the word of God, then why do they believe in His son Christ? :-?

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

Yes, many Christians don't believe all that is in the Bible. That's a bigger issue than them believing in evolution. If A Christian can't trust the word of God, then why do they believe in His son Christ? :-?

Actually, most Christians believe that the Bible must be interpreted before getting its actual message.

Hardcore Christians take the bible word literally.

 

[Heidi]

This thread isn't for directly debating evolution vs. creationism (we have plenty of other threads in this folder for that), instead, I just want to ask creationists a psychological question.

It seems to me that most creationists are offended at the idea that humans evolved from apes, yet they are perfectly comfortable with the idea that humans were made from dirt, as it says in the Bible. Personally, I'd much rather be descended from an ape than from a clump of dirt.

Of course, the obvious answer is going to be that you feel it is better since we were created from dirt by God, yet that ignores the idea of theistic evolution, where you can effectively have the best of both worlds.

So why is the idea that humans developed from apes so offending?

Did you know that dirt has all the components necessary for human life in it? It has nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxide, etc. God used what he had already made to create man. Man was God's design, not the dirt's design.

It is offensive because God created us in his image, not the image of apes. And that is precisely why apes cannot ponder the existence of God but we humans can.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

Yes, many Christians don't believe all that is in the Bible. That's a bigger issue than them believing in evolution. If A Christian can't trust the word of God, then why do they believe in His son Christ? :-?

Actually, most Christians believe that the Bible must be interpreted before getting its actual message.

Hardcore Christians take the bible word literally.

another thing, stuff written in the bible isnt really ment for this time, or era.

Example:
Bible says: "A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist (if they are "found")- (Deut 22:28-29) "if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" Deuteronomy 22:28-30

Do you think thats rational now a days? Thats even inmoral. Maybe not on oldschool jesus days.

 

[Barbarian]

It was a humane thing to do in those days, when no man would ever take a woman who had been raped, and a woman had no hope of anything unless she was married.

And then, life was in small pastoral groups, so you knew the people, and a man who was a thief or a killer was not going to live very long. It was a way of making a man responsible for what he had done, and a way of providing for the woman so wronged.

The best that could be done under the circumstances.

Of course it would be a horror today, and I imagine it was sometimes a horror back then.

 

[reznwerks]

It is offensive because God created us in his image, not the image of apes. quote]
We DO look like apes and the DNA is over 98% identical. God is like us because WE created him.

 

[bibleberean]

It is offensive because God created us in his image, not the image of apes. quote]
We DO look like apes and the DNA is over 98% identical. God is like us because WE created him.

Watch yourself here!

Rule 2 - No Flaming:

You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

That is flaming. You don't believe in God but you claim we created Him knowing full well that we will be offended!

That is another violation...

Rule 6 - No Trolling:
You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site).
You won't be labeled as a troll if your post has substance.

And even another.

Rule 8 - No Promotion of Other Religions:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than mainstream Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Debates of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a Christian Forums as the name suggest. If you cannot abide with this, please do not use our site.

I hope you are getting the picture.

This is a Christian forum and you are going to respect that or leave!