[_ Old Earth _] Question for those who agree with Theistic Evolution.

[Orion]

I'm curious. As evolution suggests, man has a common ancestory with some of the current primates of our planet (I'm not sure how many of the differing ones). That means that God watched the progress of the beginning stages of life on this planet, and watched as the billions of years progressed, each stage of the evolutionary scale, with the foreknowledge of the eventual (in 4.5 billion yeras) goal of having an animal advance to the point where it would be able to be sentient enough to comprehend the concept of it's creator. Also, up until that time, this eventual humankind would be basically no different than any other animal on the planet OR any different than the other primate lines that we, today, are not supposed to be related to.

So, at what point does God choose to breath spirit into one of His created animals, giving it a soul that will live forever, . . . . . and why just man? There are many other creatures on this planet. We would have had to live no different then they. We would have to kill to eat, procreate with whomever we would find who was ovulating, find ways to survive, . . . . . and to be blunt, primates are not known for their cleanliness.

There would come a point where this primate line would advance to the ability to use tools, create a language, etc, well before God would be able to even speak with them. If what we have, as a line from the Jesus to Adam, as roughly 10,000 years, then it is very conceivable that there were 10's of thousands of years, maybe even 100's of thousands of years where this humankind would have had the ability of language and even a grasp of something of the spiritual (the idea of sun worship, etc).

I'm not sure exactly how long our classification has be living, but if you stop to consider what lead up to the point of God deciding to commune with this animal known as "human", I beleive it leaves some questions that may be hard to answer.

Opinions?

 

[jwu]

Also, up until that time, this eventual humankind would be basically no different than any other animal on the planet OR any different than the other primate lines that we, today, are not supposed to be related to.

Which primate lines aren't we supposed to be related to?

So, at what point does God choose to breath spirit into one of His created animals, giving it a soul that will live forever, . . . . . and why just man? There are many other creatures on this planet. We would have had to live no different then they. We would have to kill to eat, procreate with whomever we would find who was ovulating, find ways to survive, . . . . . and to be blunt, primates are not known for their cleanliness.

As to at what point, i simply don't have an opinion on that. There is no way to find out when that happened or if that passage is to be taken as literal at all.

Why just man? The same question can be asked in case of other methods of creation too, can't it? It is independent from our precise mode of origin.

And humans still aren't known for cleanliness ;)

There would come a point where this primate line would advance to the ability to use tools, create a language, etc, well before God would be able to even speak with them.

God can communicate by other means that spoken word as well ;) Telepathy and whatever....

 

[Orion]

When I was in college, and in a biology class, the instructor stated that we are in no way related to gorillas. No, it wasn't a christian college, but a university. However, are you suggesting that all primates began from one primate type animal? The variety of primates are one of the most diverse of the mammal kingdom that I can think of. Many different types, from the large silver back gorillas to the tiny pigmy marmocet.

 

[jwu]

No, it wasn't a christian college, but a university.

That instructor was grossly mistaken then, or his own personal beliefs were showing through.

However, are you suggesting that all primates began from one primate type animal?

Yes. This is a fundamental part of the theory of evolution; that all among one classification share a common ancestor species which "founded" that classification. It's the same with mammals, vertebrates and so on.

But specifically about primates, the ERV argument which i explained earlier is conclusive evidence of common descent of all primates. Gorillas are actually quite closely related to humans.

 

[Orion]

Perhaps a silly question, but in another million years or so, . . . .will the offspring of generations of chimps advance enough to the point where they too will need Grace to cover their sins? If man is just an advanced primate, then why on earth (no pun intended) would God select one of the MANY forms of life He created to have a more personal relationship with them?

My thoughts on evolution, and their possibilities only goes as far as MICRO-evolution, and I say that because only a wise being, such as who we call God, would create creature with the ability to adapt to their environment. However, I can't see MACRO-evolution as plausible.

 

[jwu]

Perhaps a silly question, but in another million years or so, . . . .will the offspring of generations of chimps advance enough to the point where they too will need Grace to cover their sins?

If they become morally responsible for their deeds and have a soul that requires salvation, then yes. But a soul can only come from God, so that would require God's intervention. Unless they already have one, that is - apes are self-conscious.

If man is just an advanced primate, then why on earth (no pun intended) would God select one of the MANY forms of life He created to have a more personal relationship with them?

Many lifeforms exist regardless of God's method of creation, so the same question can be asked about creationism of any flavor.

And who knows if God doesn't have a personal relationship to every other lifeform?

However, I can't see MACRO-evolution as plausible.

What exactly are the problems with it? You've seen very strong evidence for it, e.g. the ERVs.

 

[Orion]

The dictionary give this definition of macroevolution:

major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

I have a hard time understanding how such a trasition could take place based upon a need to do so, or because of something in the environment that requires such a quick change. Microevolution would see changes over a much longer time span and MAY be more "believable".

But back to the other topics of the discussion. Just as, in a million years, some offspring of a primate type may reach a point where it can understand, . . . or moreso, comes to the point where (according to Theistic Evolution) humans attained this level of advancement that caused God to feel the need to "redeem this advanced primate", . . . . will the work of the cross be enough for them as well? I realize the silly nature of this question, but it has meritt when discussing the idea of man soley evolving from a more animalistic primate to what we are now.

As for other animals and God having a relationship with them, I suppose such an idea would be highly unlikely to be recognized. I'd like to think so, though. The few places where we may see this idea would be in the description of God providing for the sparrow.

 

[Barbarian]

I have a hard time understanding how such a trasition could take place based upon a need to do so,

Natural selection, not need. Sometimes there's no need at all, and reproductive isolation just happens by genetic drift.

or because of something in the environment that requires such a quick change.

What makes you think it has to be sudden? Usually, it takes a very long time, although there are exceptions.

Microevolution would see changes over a much longer time span and MAY be more "believable".

In most cases, macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution.

But back to the other topics of the discussion. Just as, in a million years, some offspring of a primate type may reach a point where it can understand, . . .

Primates can understand a great deal now. Apes can understand even more. And we understand most of all.

or moreso, comes to the point where (according to Theistic Evolution) humans attained this level of advancement that caused God to feel the need to "redeem this advanced primate", . . . .

Don't you think He intended us to become what we are?

will the work of the cross be enough for them as well? I realize the silly nature of this question, but it has meritt when discussing the idea of man soley evolving from a more animalistic primate to what we are now.

As for other animals and God having a relationship with them, I suppose such an idea would be highly unlikely to be recognized. I'd like to think so, though. The few places where we may see this idea would be in the description of God providing for the sparrow.

I think God has compassion for all beings that feel sadness, pain, joy, and fear. Someone once told me that the love of a pet is most like the love of God; totally free and unconditional. I have no doubt that cruelty to animals is among the things that most quickly corrodes one's soul, and separates one from God.

 

[Orion]

Thank you for responding to my questions. I will give you what I believe may be the closest that I would come to the idea of Theistic Evolution.

God created the world and universe in Chapter 1 of Genesis. After that point, there may have been an undetermine-able amount of time that passed by. The lifeforms created were not from some "primordial soup", but were formed perhaps in a more primitive form, but each within their own species. Time allowed for the many variations we see in various animal types. I can foresee that this may have occurred within primates to the point where the homosapien was ready to be "given a soul". Then, perhaps, this is where Genesis 2 picks up, . . . God taking this advanced man, breathing His life into him, perhaps even giving this man the ability of what we know as communication. And from that point, I can call that new man, Adam, and then the rest of the Bible chronicles the rest of history, perhaps with both literal and non-literal stories.

:-?

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence is compelling for a single common ancestor. There is no way to consider the evidence, and not see common descent.

Otherwise, I think you have it pretty close to right.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Welcome to The Planet Of The Apes! As Doctor Cornelius ( I Think?) said, I believe Apes are descended from these primative human creatures! Bah Humbug! quotes the Gorilla General (or something to that effect!)

 

[Orion]

So, the story in Genesis, where God forms Adam from the dust of the earth, and creates Eve by removing one of Adams ribs . . . . that would be an analogy of . . . . . . ?

 

[jwu]

...of women supposed to being close to a man's heart.

 

[Heidi]

I'm curious. As evolution suggests, man has a common ancestory with some of the current primates of our planet (I'm not sure how many of the differing ones). That means that God watched the progress of the beginning stages of life on this planet, and watched as the billions of years progressed, each stage of the evolutionary scale, with the foreknowledge of the eventual (in 4.5 billion yeras) goal of having an animal advance to the point where it would be able to be sentient enough to comprehend the concept of it's creator. Also, up until that time, this eventual humankind would be basically no different than any other animal on the planet OR any different than the other primate lines that we, today, are not supposed to be related to.

So, at what point does God choose to breath spirit into one of His created animals, giving it a soul that will live forever, . . . . . and why just man? There are many other creatures on this planet. We would have had to live no different then they. We would have to kill to eat, procreate with whomever we would find who was ovulating, find ways to survive, . . . . . and to be blunt, primates are not known for their cleanliness.

There would come a point where this primate line would advance to the ability to use tools, create a language, etc, well before God would be able to even speak with them. If what we have, as a line from the Jesus to Adam, as roughly 10,000 years, then it is very conceivable that there were 10's of thousands of years, maybe even 100's of thousands of years where this humankind would have had the ability of language and even a grasp of something of the spiritual (the idea of sun worship, etc).

I'm not sure exactly how long our classification has be living, but if you stop to consider what lead up to the point of God deciding to commune with this animal known as "human", I beleive it leaves some questions that may be hard to answer.

Opinions?

"Thestic evolution" is an oxymoron. One cannot both believe God in Genesis and disagree with God in Genesis at the same time. God was very clear about how he created man. He did not say that he created the beasts and out of the beasts came man. : He said he created man out of the dust of the ground separately from the animals. People either believe God or they don't.

But the real tragedy will come when scientists will finally expel the myth of evolution once and for all and all those who claimed to be Christians realize they abandoned God's word for the words of men. As Jesus says; "What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight." Oh those poor souls who looked to the opinions of the secular world for the truth rather than to God alone.

 

[Barbarian]

One cannot both believe God in Genesis and disagree with God in Genesis at the same time.

True. This is why YE creationism is inconsistent with Christian belief. In Genesis, God explicitly rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE. However, Genesis is completely compatible with evolution.

God was very clear about how he created man. He did not say that he created the beasts and out of the beasts came man. He said he created man out of the dust of the ground separately from the animals.

He says that man, like all living things, came from the earth. But "separately" is your addition to scripture. He never said that.

People either believe God or they don't.

I think you believe there is a God, but you just don't believe everything He has told you.

But the real tragedy will come when scientists will finally expel the myth of evolution once and for all and all those who claimed to be Christians realize they abandoned God's word for the words of men.

You might as well hope that pigs will fly. Meantime, Christians will continue to accept that evolution is the way He chose to do it.

As Jesus says; "What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."

You value creationism over God's word. Fortunately for you, that is not what God uses to decide where you will spend eternity.

Oh those poor souls who looked to the opinions of the secular world for the truth rather than to God alone.

"Or some folks told you, but they knew, no more of His designs than you."

Listen to what God says, not what some people told you He says.

 

[Orion]

Heidi, I'm not completely convinced that everything we have in our Bibles CAME from God in the first place, or at least as literal as it was written down by the men who put it to paper. So I have no problem believing in God, but not what was written and called our first book of the Bible.