What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[__ Darwin __] Alright So I Got A Question for Anybody Who Can Answer It

HeIsRisen2018

HeIsRisen2018

Dramione love 3333
Member
So my mom and I were just talking a little while ago and although we both believe that science and religion are compatible to a point, she believes that evolution and religion are compatible with apes turning into humans. I'm sorry but I just don't think this is possible. Monkeys and humans might be similar but they're also different in many ways. Not to mention the fact that the Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Is there somebody who believes that religion and evolution are compatible that can tell me why you support this? As a Christian I find it incredibly hard to.
 
I can help fill in some blanks that might help your analysis (I majored in Bio a million years ago).

First of all, and this is very important, Darwinian theory does not say that humans evolved from apes. It says that both humans and modern apes descended from a common, ape-like ancestor. Those two different "branches" then continued to differentiate into the species we know today. If you could directly compare humans to this ancestor, I think you'd see a lot less difference. Remember, the apes evolved, too, though not as much as people (although on some days, I really wonder).

But speaking on these differences, there is not so much of a spread between humans and modern apes as you might think. Although they seem very different, there is only about a 1% difference in the DNA between humans and apes.

As far as Adam and Eve, there's a few theories that address this. One is "soul insertion", that when the first fully human being was born, God inserted the first human soul. The second is the parable theory, that there was no one single first human per se. Genesis is recounting the story of evolution in symbolic and anthropomorhpic terms. Supporting this theory is the fact that the literal translation of the word "Adam" is "Man".
 
As far as Adam and Eve, there's a few theories that address this. One is "soul insertion", that when the first fully human being was born, God inserted the first human soul. The second is the parable theory, that there was no one single first human per se. Genesis is recounting the story of evolution in symbolic and anthropomorhpic terms. Supporting this theory is the fact that the literal translation of the word "Adam" is "Man".[/QUOTE]




I'm sorry but I don't understand that a bit.
 
Well, let's back up a bit. Do you understand what I said about how evolution works? Specifically the "ape-like ancestor"?
 
No, further back. Think of a primitive creature, more primitive than a man or ape. From this common ancestor developed both people and apes. We call this an ape-like ancestor.

It's important to understand this distinction because a common misinterpretation of Darwinian theory is to think that man descended from apes. People then wonder why we still have apes if we supposedly descended from them. Or they raise the objection you have, that people and apes seem too different to be directly related.
 
KevinK said:
I can help fill in some blanks that might help your analysis (I majored in Bio a million years ago).

First of all, and this is very important, Darwinian theory does not say that humans evolved from apes. It says that both humans and modern apes descended from a common, ape-like ancestor. Those two different "branches" then continued to differentiate into the species we know today. If you could directly compare humans to this ancestor, I think you'd see a lot less difference. Remember, the apes evolved, too, though not as much as people (although on some days, I really wonder).

But speaking on these differences, there is not so much of a spread between humans and modern apes as you might think. Although they seem very different, there is only about a 1% difference in the DNA between humans and apes.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a really good YouTube presentation on this and this 1% difference was arrived at quite unethically. I'll post it when I locate it.

KevinK said:
As far as Adam and Eve, there's a few theories that address this. One is "soul insertion", that when the first fully human being was born, God inserted the first human soul. The second is the parable theory, that there was no one single first human per se. Genesis is recounting the story of evolution in symbolic and anthropomorhpic terms. Supporting this theory is the fact that the literal translation of the word "Adam" is "Man".
Click to expand...

Then, there is the other theory... that God made the very first human male, with His own hands, breathed life into him and then, later, made the very first human woman from this first man's rib....Hmm just like it is written.

Honestly...... I can understand why atheists believe the Darwinian drivel... however, Christians on the other hand... sheesh.

Sometimes I think that if Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, stopping the storm, putting a guards ear back on, healing blind, crippled and deaf, feeding 5000 or more people with two fish and five loaves........all unscientific..... all supernatural...... all are blatantly beyond natural comprehension.......SO... if all of these miraculous events were NOT part of the gospel, not part of Christ's story and THUS... not things that our salvation depended on... Christians would be able to be convinced that they didn't happen either.... that they were parables or myths or allegory....

So, do we believe all these miraculous things about Christ 1/ because they happened? or 2/ Because or salvation is dependent on these proofs of Christ being Christ?

WHY THEN.... is the creation story dismissed? Could God not do this the way He said He did? Was it beyond His capabilities? Did He lie when He told us exactly how He did it?

A bunch of men have observed things and concocted a story that all things came from one single original organism... Which of course they cannot figure out how it became alive... so they just say "That doesn't concern us".

Who do you believe? The word of God? The words of men?
 
Jacks Bratt said:
Actually, there is a really good YouTube presentation on this and this 1% difference was arrived at quite unethically. I'll post it when I locate it.



Then, there is the other theory... that God made the very first human male, with His own hands, breathed life into him and then, later, made the very first human woman from this first man's rib....Hmm just like it is written.

Honestly...... I can understand why atheists believe the Darwinian drivel... however, Christians on the other hand... sheesh.

Sometimes I think that if Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, stopping the storm, putting a guards ear back on, healing blind, crippled and deaf, feeding 5000 or more people with two fish and five loaves........all unscientific..... all supernatural...... all are blatantly beyond natural comprehension.......SO... if all of these miraculous events were NOT part of the gospel, not part of Christ's story and THUS... not things that our salvation depended on... Christians would be able to be convinced that they didn't happen either.... that they were parables or myths or allegory....

So, do we believe all these miraculous things about Christ 1/ because they happened? or 2/ Because or salvation is dependent on these proofs of Christ being Christ?

WHY THEN.... is the creation story dismissed? Could God not do this the way He said He did? Was it beyond His capabilities? Did He lie when He told us exactly how He did it?

A bunch of men have observed things and concocted a story that all things came from one single original organism... Which of course they cannot figure out how it became alive... so they just say "That doesn't concern us".

Who do you believe? The word of God? The words of men?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not answering the actual thread question. There are plenty of threads supporting a literal interpretation of Scripture. This thread is really for an opposing viewpoint.
 
KevinK said:
Yes, but that's not answering the actual thread question. There are plenty of threads supporting a literal interpretation of Scripture. This thread is really for an opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...
You're right. I certainly cannot and did not answer this question:


Is there somebody who believes that religion and evolution are compatible that can tell me why you support this?
 
HeIsRisen2018 said:
So my mom and I were just talking a little while ago and although we both believe that science and religion are compatible to a point, she believes that evolution and religion are compatible with apes turning into humans. I'm sorry but I just don't think this is possible. Monkeys and humans might be similar but they're also different in many ways. Not to mention the fact that the Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Is there somebody who believes that religion and evolution are compatible that can tell me why you support this? As a Christian I find it incredibly hard to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, uhh...I'm with you on this. There's no way to believe that we descended from apes and so evolution just doan work on that model...Lol.

Our resident scientist will be along shortly to explain how scripture doesn't mean what it says and how apes really are your long lost cousin, lol.
 
Our resident scientist will be along shortly to explain how scripture doesn't mean what it says and how apes really are your long lost cousin, lol.[/QUOTE]



Well, that might explain a few things. I have a history of going absolutely bananas at times.
 
There's a hint of a solution here, in realizing that our bodies are created naturally by God, but that our souls are given directly by supernatural means.

That's a lesson for anyone willing to consider it. It's why one can accept scripture and the evidence God has given us in nature.
 
Barbarian said:
There's a hint of a solution here, in realizing that our bodies are created naturally by God, but that our souls are given directly by supernatural means.

That's a lesson for anyone willing to consider it. It's why one can accept scripture and the evidence God has given us in nature.
Click to expand...





I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that I understand what you are trying to say. :confused
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top