Adam and Eve vs. the Theory of Evolution

[EarlyActs]

Are any of the creationist hypotheses testable?

You are making an erroneous assertion. I am pro bible, even pro OT. You would likely be surprised what the CC has to say about the OT;

The Church teaches that the Old Testament is indispensable for Christian life. All the books of the Old Testament are inspired by God and of permanent value for Christians. The covenant of God with the people of the Old Testament has never been revoked. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #121).​

If you want to be accurate you could say that Frank Robert is not a fan of a liberal interpretation of the OT.

Thank you. I found a pdf of Deluge Of Suspicionse on the internet. It sounds like an interesting read.

Actually you have found a pdf of THE DOCTRINE OF THE DELUGE from a Cornell U collection, but not this novel. DOD is by Harcourt in 1832, London. My novel is at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Deluge-Suspi...ford+deluge+of+suspici,stripbooks,1032&sr=1-1

 

[CrowCross]

All the books of the Old Testament are inspired by God and of permanent value for Christians.

The problem is when people using what they claim to be "accurate" science...need to change the bible to make it fit their "accurate" science.

If God used evo-ism to create man...why not simply say so????

Something like.....Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...so man was formed from the beast of the fields that had been created."

 

[Manfred]

That is way out of line even for you.

My apologies for offending your senses.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ believed and spoke about a global flood or not?

 

[Frank Robert]

The problem is when people using what they claim to be "accurate" science...need to change the bible to make it fit their "accurate" science.

Science has nothing to do within or without of the OT. As an aside to bring you up to date. Science does not claim accuracy or truth or proof. It is merely a method to help us understand nature and everything within nature.

If God used evo-ism to create man...

Sorry to hear that you have been taught that evolution is evil.

why not simply say so????

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.​

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [1] from all his work.​

3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.​

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--​

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground,​

6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--​

7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.​

A literal reading sounds exactly like A&E were created by God via abiogenesis, i.e, from water and dust and then breathed breath into them. This is the story that theistic evolutionists believe that is supported by a consilience of evidence from multiple independent scientific fields.

Something like.....Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...so man was formed from the beast of the fields that had been created."

God is immaterial so the image of God would be immaterial also and which would likely be the breathed into A&E.

Again I am not claiming that is what actually happened only that it is one of the stories that Christians believe. What is more important for Christians is to believe in Jesus as our savior and follow the commandments that he gave us:

Love the Lord your God.​

Matthew 22:37-38 reads, “And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.” (Loving God means keeping the 10 commandments he gave us in the OT.)​

Love your Neighbor.​

Matthew 22:39 states, “And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Jesus taught us how to love our neighbor, by following (imitating) Him and through corporal works of Mercy, Matthew 25:31-40)​

​

Catholics, as do all Christians, have a responsibility to be biblically literate but we should also be aware that the Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.” The Catholic Church teaches that A& E are a religious truth.

 

[CrowCross]

Science has nothing to do within or without of the OT. As an aside to bring you up to date. Science does not claim accuracy or truth or proof. It is merely a method to help us understand nature and everything within nature.

Thank you for taking the time to bring me up to date. I'm glad science doesn't suggest blood letting anymore.

Sorry to hear that you have been taught that evolution is evil.

Evolution teaches a view that say there is no need for God. That would be evil. Now, some people are grasping onto their false science and trying to make the bible conform to their false atheistic driven evo-ism. You would be one of them.

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.​

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [1] from all his work.​

3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.​

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--​

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground,​

6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--​

7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.​

A literal reading sounds exactly like A&E were created by God via abiogenesis, i.e, from water and dust and then breathed breath into them. This is the story that theistic evolutionists believe that is supported by a consilience of evidence from multiple independent scientific fields.

Long sigh....as we all know Eve being made from Adams rib...follows evo-ism to the Tee.

God is immaterial so the image of God would be immaterial also and which would likely be the breathed into A&E.

Does "image of God" mean we should look like Abba, Father..or do youthink its more of a man was fashioned to resemble and represent God on the earth?

I love it when people post on a forum acting as they have the inside baseball on what the "image of God" ...really...means.

Again I am not claiming that is what actually happened only that it is one of the stories that Christians believe. What is more important for Christians is to believe in Jesus as our savior and follow the commandments that he gave us:

But this opens up yet another can of worms for you Theo-Evos...Whay does man need a savior?
Who fell? A population or one man lke the bible says? As for me, I'm sticking with what the bible says. One man named Adam.

Love the Lord your God.​

Matthew 22:37-38 reads, “And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.” (Loving God means keeping the 10 commandments he gave us in the OT.)​

Love your Neighbor.​

Matthew 22:39 states, “And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Jesus taught us how to love our neighbor, by following (imitating) Him and through corporal works of Mercy, Matthew 25:31-40)​

​

Catholics, as do all Christians, have a responsibility to be biblically literate but we should also be aware that the Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.” The Catholic Church teaches that A& E are a religious truth.

The bible eaches A&E were indeed literal historical people. I can provide you with some examples....such as Enoch being 7th from Adam...or was Enoch also a make believe "religious truth"?

 

[CrowCross]

My apologies for offending your senses.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ believed and spoke about a global flood or not?

Frank Roberts would say that the flood didn't really happen but instead was a picture of "religious truth"....Jesus would have spoken of that "religious truth"....

Of course this isn't a far step from declaring the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen but instead was a "religious truth" story.
But the again Frank Roberts might actually believe Jesus literally went against what science presents as fact...that is, dead guys don't come back to life on day 3..and literally and physically rose from the dead....All the while claiming the one who rose from the dead couldn't have created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adams rib.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thank you for taking the time to bring me up to date. I'm glad science doesn't suggest blood letting anymore.

Thank you letting us know you are aware that science corrects itself.

Evolution teaches a view that say there is no need for God. That would be evil. Now, some people are grasping onto their false science and trying to make the bible conform to their false atheistic driven evo-ism. You would be one of them.

Long sigh....as we all know Eve being made from Adams rib...follows evo-ism to the Tee.

You understand that Eve came from Adams came from Adam but you are neglecting the fact that Adam was made from dust and God's breath before he made Eve from Adam's rib. God can do that but the rest of us are descendants from A&E down through our parents.

Does "image of God" mean we should look like Abba, Father..or do youthink its more of a man was fashioned to resemble and represent God on the earth?

Glad you asked.

By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image" (Catholic Catecism 1705).

The image of God has nothing to do with looking into the mirror and seeing God. It is about our ability God gives us to freely choose to love, create, and truly choose good. As God's creation we are able to imitate God in the manner we know and understand. .

I love it when people post on a forum acting as they have the inside baseball on what the "image of God" ...really...means.

I am merely a human and as a human am fallible.

But this opens up yet another can of worms for you Theo-Evos...Whay does man need a savior?
Who fell? A population or one man lke the bible says? As for me, I'm sticking with what the bible says. One man named Adam.

I am not an atheist neither are the majority of Christians (Catholics and Protestants) who do not share your opinion that evolution is evil and or anti-Christian.

The bible eaches A&E were indeed literal historical people. I can provide you with some examples....such as Enoch being 7th from Adam...or was Enoch also a make believe "religious truth"?

I am not doubting that they are words in the OT. I am only stating that a literal interpretation of the OT is not the only Christian interpretation of the OT.

In an article about the first couple, Father Guinan wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?”​

​

The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”​

 

[donadams]

It would be one thing if evolution applies to the physical universe and a physical body, but how does an immortal soul evolve? How can intellect and will evolve since they are spiritual and supernatural literally superior to nature?

Are we not created in the image and likeness of God?

Having intellect and will?

And an immortal soul?

Thanks

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It would be one thing if evolution applies to the physical universe and a physical body, but how does an immortal soul evolve? How can intellect and will evolve since they are spiritual and supernatural literally superior to nature?

Are we not created in the image and likeness of God?

Having intellect and will?

And an immortal soul?

Thanks

This kind of thinking presupposes that evolution happens on the scale of individuals—but it doesn't.

Evolution doesn't happen to an individual (or human soul) in his own lifetime, it happens to species populations over tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. For example, do you know how many generations there have been since the populations split that eventually became Humans and Neanderthals? Approximately 30,000 generations. Individuals having offspring, and those offspring having offspring, and those having offspring, again and again, for 750,000 years. You are human, your parents were human, your grandparents were human, your great-grandparents were human, your great-great-grandparents were human, your great-great-great-grandparents were human—and that's only SIX generations.

Thirty thousand generations of humans reproducing humans after their kind.

 

[TB2]

Now this I find ironic. These "christians" you mention seem to defy science and claim a dead guy can be killed on a cross and rise from the grave after 3 days...and be seen walking around and talking to people...BUT...claim this same God-man Jesus didn't have the ability to create the world and man in the way in which the book of Genesis proclaims.

I've see this type of argument used by YECs and others a lot and it always leaves me scratching my head as to how the argument so easily misses the point:

Christians like OECs, for example, who accept the scientific consensus of an old earth are not rejecting Scripture nor are they disputing the miraculous nature of creation. OECs don't have a problem with the miraculous nor do they think that God is incapable of creating the universe in six days (I'm sure OECs believe God could create the universe in 6 seconds if He wanted to, or less!). Belief in God's ability to do miracles is not the issue. OECs simply don't see any evidence that that is indeed how God did it (unlike the resurrection). And yet they are fellow believers committed to the truth of Scripture so they think there must be a different nonliteral way to read it. Now maybe they're wrong. But the point is they don't reject young ages because they think God's incapable of doing it that way.

 

[Frank Robert]

I would say that might be an accurate number pertaining to "christians" who think they're saved.
The catholic religion is pretty much false as they move way beyond John 3:16 concerning salvation. The Protestant church is also being deceived in many ways....some will even fly a rainbow flag. And their rainbow flag isn't to support the promise from God not to flood the earth again. But then again the world wide flood never happened like the bible said.

Thank you letting us know what you believe.

You have groups such as Biologos that are spreading lies challenging much of what the bible says. The last time I was at their site they couldn't explain the fall and our sin nature.

That you have a different belied doesn't make it a evolution a lie.

Now this I find ironic. These "christians" you mention seem to defy science and claim a dead guy can be killed on a cross and rise from the grave after 3 days...and be seen walking around and talking to people...BUT...claim this same God-man Jesus didn't have the ability to create the world and man in the way in which the book of Genesis proclaims.

God can do whatever pleases him and many Christians believe that it pleased him to create the natural laws to take care of the grunt work of in of the universe and everything in it.

These people, YOU included deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world of that time perished in the flood.

Again, thank you for letting us know what you believe.

 

[Frank Robert]

Actually you have found a pdf of THE DOCTRINE OF THE DELUGE from a Cornell U collection, but not this novel. DOD is by Harcourt in 1832, London. My novel is at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Deluge-Suspicions-Marcus-Sanford/dp/1519479425/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3MTV6EDJI2XSE&keywords=sanford+deluge+of+suspicions&qid=1688500924&s=books&sprefix=sanford+deluge+of+suspici,stripbooks,1032&sr=1-1

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Frank Robert]

Evolution teaches a view that say there is no need for God. That would be evil. Now, some people are grasping onto their false science and trying to make the bible conform to their false atheistic driven evo-ism. You would be one of them.

Most Christians do not share your belief of evolution.

Frank Roberts would say that the flood didn't really happen but instead was a picture of "religious truth"....Jesus would have spoken of that "religious truth"....

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

Of course this isn't a far step from declaring the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen but instead was a "religious truth" story.
But the again Frank Roberts might actually believe Jesus literally went against what science presents as fact...that is, dead guys don't come back to life on day 3..and literally and physically rose from the dead....All the while claiming the one who rose from the dead couldn't have created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adams rib.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity argue that Jesus existed. The contrary perspective, that Christ was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.

I would appreciate it if you would not make things up about people you have little or no knowledge about.

 

[CrowCross]

I've see this type of argument used by YECs and others a lot and it always leaves me scratching my head as to how the argument so easily misses the point:

Christians like OECs, for example, who accept the scientific consensus of an old earth are not rejecting Scripture nor are they disputing the miraculous nature of creation. OECs don't have a problem with the miraculous nor do they think that God is incapable of creating the universe in six days (I'm sure OECs believe God could create the universe in 6 seconds if He wanted to, or less!). Belief in God's ability to do miracles is not the issue. OECs simply don't see any evidence that that is indeed how God did it (unlike the resurrection). And yet they are fellow believers committed to the truth of Scripture so they think there must be a different nonliteral way to read it. Now maybe they're wrong. But the point is they don't reject young ages because they think God's incapable of doing it that way.

Not all OEC's think that way....in fact it's not the norm. I believe that most OEC are thiestic evolutionist. OEC's typically don't believe in a world wide flood at the time of Noah as it destroys their OAC models.

Most OAC's believe in a "gap" or reconstruction theory.....that is there was a pre-Adamic civilization prior to Gen 1.

 

[CrowCross]

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

You need to get out more.

 

[donadams]

This kind of thinking presupposes that evolution happens on the scale of individuals—but it doesn't.

Evolution doesn't happen to an individual (or human soul) in his own lifetime, it happens to species populations over tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. For example, do you know how many generations there have been since the populations split that eventually became Humans and Neanderthals? Approximately 30,000 generations. Individuals having offspring, and those offspring having offspring, and those having offspring, again and again, for 750,000 years. You are human, your parents were human, your grandparents were human, your great-grandparents were human, your great-great-grandparents were human, your great-great-great-grandparents were human—and that's only SIX generations.

Thirty thousand generations of humans reproducing humans after their kind.

literally bull
Scientific theory ain’t science
Certainly not biblical
God does not require eons yo create man in his image and likeness
Thanks

 

[TB2]

You need to get out more.

I'm afraid it's the other way around. Literally. It wasn't until I "got out more" in the field, in the desert with YEC geologists who showed me first hand problems with flood geology.

@Frank Robert is correct: at present, we have no geological evidence that a global flood covering the entire earth has occurred at any time in Earth's history. I know that seems to create a conflict with the biblical account, but we're all committed to divine inspiration, so that leaves a number of options: (1) the evidence hasn't been discovered yet; (2) the Flood recession eroded away any and all evidence that the Flood occurred (that's about as ad hoc as one can get!); (3) the biblical account is based on a historical flood of regional or local scale, but theologically presents it as a global flood of cosmological proportions; yes, there are numerous problems with this I agree); and/or (4) there is no problem with Scripture--the problem is with our assumption that Genesis intends to teach modern geology.

Perhaps the best "answer" is to admit that we don't know.

Importantly, it doesn't change the theological message of the biblical Flood one way or the other.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm afraid it's the other way around. Literally. It wasn't until I "got out more" in the field, in the desert with YEC geologists who showed me first hand problems with flood geology.

I've been getting out for decades.

@Frank Robert is correct: at present, we have no geological evidence that a global flood covering the entire earth has occurred at any time in Earth's history.

This would be false. I have presented many reason why on forums for years.
Just the formation of water gaps show a flood. Michael Oard presents the following.

I know that seems to create a conflict with the biblical account, but we're all committed to divine inspiration, so that leaves a number of options: (1) the evidence hasn't been discovered yet; (2) the Flood recession eroded away any and all evidence that the Flood occurred (that's about as ad hoc as one can get!); (3) the biblical account is based on a historical flood of regional or local scale, but theologically presents it as a global flood of cosmological proportions; yes, there are numerous problems with this I agree); and/or (4) there is no problem with Scripture--the problem is with our assumption that Genesis intends to teach modern geology.

Perhaps the best "answer" is to admit that we don't know.

Importantly, it doesn't change the theological message of the biblical Flood one way or the other.

What you are saying is that the flood account presented in the bible is incorrect. When you read Geneis (and other scripture) one doesn't walk away with the concept of a local flood... and for many reasons we can discuss.

 

[Frank Robert]

You need to get out more.

I have seen most of the supposed evidence that YECs put forth and find it to be an interesting compilation of misinterpretation and apologetics.


The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic recordL

The majority of Flood geologists continue to maintain that a large portion of the Phanero-zoic column represents the Flood year, although they have falsified that position them-selves. As shown in Figure 1, this is an untenable position even within the paradigm of Flood Geology, because the collected evidence from five decades of research in Flood Ge-ology demonstrates that a PWS cannot have spanned any Phanerozoic period. Even if the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras were simultaneous (for example, Oard 2001; Reed and others 2006; Matthews 2009), Flood geologists have rendered untenable the hypothesis that the Flood year spanned much of the relevant slice of time, by demonstrating that too much Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediment deposition was subaerial or was prolonged for years. The continued denial of the implications of their own findings is an example of what I call the gorilla mindset: the attitude that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla​

 

[CrowCross]

I have seen most of the supposed evidence that YECs put forth and find it to be an interesting compilation of misinterpretation and apologetics.


The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic recordL

The majority of Flood geologists continue to maintain that a large portion of the Phanero-zoic column represents the Flood year, although they have falsified that position them-selves. As shown in Figure 1, this is an untenable position even within the paradigm of Flood Geology, because the collected evidence from five decades of research in Flood Ge-ology demonstrates that a PWS cannot have spanned any Phanerozoic period. Even if the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras were simultaneous (for example, Oard 2001; Reed and others 2006; Matthews 2009), Flood geologists have rendered untenable the hypothesis that the Flood year spanned much of the relevant slice of time, by demonstrating that too much Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediment deposition was subaerial or was prolonged for years. The continued denial of the implications of their own findings is an example of what I call the gorilla mindset: the attitude that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla​

A little bit about Phil Senter who's article you posted.

The following can be found here. Phil was answered way back in 2011.

Another day, another paper. At least that’s how it seems with some people! Readers of this blog will know that Phil Senter has been expending a lot of effort addressing creationist claims lately, with papers about Lucy, vestigial organs, the Kachina Bridge “sauropod” and dinosaur baraminology (parts one and two). Now he has taken on Flood geology in the latest Reports of the NCSE (Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.1-14, 2011).

In his contributions on baraminology, Senter has been trying to show that creationist methods yield results that are actually incompatible with creationist presuppositions. His latest paper likewise seeks to turn the tables on creationists by drawing attention to competing claims in their own literature about which rocks were formed during the Flood and which were formed before or after. He writes:

Several Flood geologists have presented geologically sound reasons why strata assigned to specific parts of the geologic column cannot have been deposited during the Flood year or at least during the part of it when the entire planet was under water, hereafter called the PWS (period of worldwide submergence). In fact, compilation of such studies shows that together Flood geologists have eliminated the entire geologic column as having any record of a PWS. Here, I review the evidence against a PWS record that has been presented by the Flood geologists themselves.

Basically, he draws on extensive citations from the creationist literature to document the presence in the geological record of subaerial deposits (e.g. desiccation cracks, continental basalts, dinosaur nests, eolian sandstones), low energy deposits and deposits requiring time (e.g. chalks, hardgrounds, reefs, stromatolites) and evidence of the diversification of terrestrial animals (e.g. dinosaurs, mammals). In this way, he sets creationists debating the stratigraphic positions of the pre-Flood/Flood and Flood/post-Flood boundaries against one another, and concludes that Flood geology has, in effect, falsified itself.

Speaking frankly, I found this perhaps the least satisfying of Senter’s recent contributions for a couple of reasons. First, to make his case Senter uncritically assumes that the conventional interpretations of the geological features described are correct and, to be fair to him, in doing so he is mostly following the lead of the creationists he cites. But I think that such interpretations demand careful investigation and it is not always wise to take them at face value. Second, I think this kind of analysis tends to miss the wood for the trees. The “big picture” of the stratigraphic record is of widespread sedimentary units of marine origin blanketing the continents and displaying evidence of rapid accumulation and long distance transport. That fits well with Flood geology and is much harder to explain by reference to modern day depositional environments. It is that bigger picture that provides the framework in which I seek to understand the features discussed in Senter’s paper.

What next from Fayetteville, I wonder?