Christian and Ape ?

[rogue06]

The theistic evolutionist regularly uses geocentrism as a strawman to demonstrate how science has moved us on from Bible 'literalism'.

However geocentrism is mostly a product of human vanity, whereas theistic evolution is an amalgamation of poor science and bad theology.

I suspect it would be easier for an athiest to become a Christian than a theistic evolutionist to accept the truth of this.

It would help if you actually supported your assertions here. Oops. I guess that means I'm more close-minded than an atheist

[libreesprit]

Of course we were created in God's image but we Fell did we not?, and our punishment was to lose our perfect love ,freedom [of the universe ,and KNOWLEDGE].When we fell we deteriorated and
and while I cannot be as certain of this as I am of other things like
that we live in a created programme [my work,or rather God's,but not read elsewhere] I think that when the big judgements happen from time to time [like 25,000 or so years] we gain better bodies for our efforts ,and those who still deny God etc fall behind again .As above ,so below, and God is the Original Programme maker
and as we learn and accept HIS programme we need better bodies [computers] for our extended new understanding.Try putting
windows 98 ? into a computer of 50 yrs ago. [By the way I know the minimum about computing ,but as you know He puts it straight in without the details sometimes.]
The next [big] judgement will find people either moving up or down in this wonderfully executed plan.Jesus has allowed us to make the final connection in the cycle of rebirth in the last part of the plan
and our first birth through Him is what is meant by being born once ,being [re] born through Him is the first time we have had the chance to be what we were meant to be ,and if we 'bugger ' [excuse have just learned the power of occasional swearing] up this one we will be lost for a very long time to all whom /that we love ,and to our likeness to God . Big judgement coming up for many who call themselves Christians,but are they ?'Do not take My name in Vain . I think he said.
The Holy Spirit rules seeking and higher knowledge. I have not met that many who seek ,but have met many who are lazy ,and 'social' Christians.
It is my opinion that they should be wary of the ignorance within.
They might get a shock to find that those who have love but do not know the bible too well are promoted ahead of them to a higher evolutionary status.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

The theistic evolutionist's assertion that man is an ape, a 'smart monkey', an animal, or sharing a common ancestor with apes is demeaning to Christians.

Though Genesis by no means goes into great detail about the creation process, it is clear that man was created separately and given dominion over the beasts. Eve was not a she-monkey, but the result of cloning/genetic modification from a part of Adams rib structure.

Cloning and genetic modification is achievable nowadays, though obviously on a lower level (otherwise we could all make our own women), so the relevant Bible passages by no means stretch the imagination.

Humans have similarities to, and share DNA with, other creatures because we are all built to survive in this biosphere and make use of such resources as are available. Scientists thoroughly enjoy grouping things together and doling out impressive looking Latin names.

Dismissing mankind as apes or animals supports atheist claims that we are merely random biological organisms.

People are by no means fallen angels, that is simply another vanity, but theistic evolution does much to strip us of our humanity.

[rogue06]

Let me say from the offset thank you for responding.

The theistic evolutionist's assertion that man is an ape, a 'smart monkey', an animal, or sharing a common ancestor with apes is demeaning to Christians.

What you choose to label as demeaning isn’t at issue. We don’t get to choose which reality we prefer in spite of Adam Savage’s famous quip:"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" What we want does not determine what is.

The DNA evidence makes claims that we aren’t closely related to ape’s like chimps untenable regardless of our personal feelings on the matter are. For instance, take a look at the evidence put forth by transposons (sections of DNA that can move around to different positions in the genome of a single cell); specifically the seven known Alu elements in the alpha globin gene cluster on chromosome 16. All 7 Alu elements are found in matching positions on the corresponding chimpanzee gene. Such a parallel transpososon sequence is strongly indicative of a genetic connection.

Our shared descent from the same ancestor with apes is further demonstrated by our sharing the same psuedogenes as they do, such as the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene which in both the human version of the gene, as well as the version found in other apes, has a deficiency of 8 nucleotides. There are several other psuedogenes like this that are known.

To claim that these don’t demonstrate descent from a recent common ancestor leaves us with God placing precisely the same genetic flaws in precisely the same locations on the genome so that it overwhelmingly implies that we share a recent common ancestry with the same species which coincidentally is also implied to be a close relative through the fossil record as well.

And I never even got around the fusion of chromosome 2.

The point is the evidence overwhelmingly points to humans and apes sharing a common ancestor whether you like it or not. Whether you find this demeaning or not.

Though Genesis by no means goes into great detail about the creation process, it is clear that man was created separately and given dominion over the beasts. Eve was not a she-monkey, but the result of cloning/genetic modification from a part of Adams rib structure.

Cloning and genetic modification is achievable nowadays, though obviously on a lower level (otherwise we could all make our own women), so the relevant Bible passages by no means stretch the imagination.

We know very little of the creation process partly because the account portrays God in a rather anthropomorphic manner. The only thing I think we can say with absolute certainty is that, aside from being a specially created being, God is showing that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly and separately created. One, the body, from the Earth, and the other, the soul, directly bestowed by God.

Humans have similarities to, and share DNA with, other creatures because we are all built to survive in this biosphere and make use of such resources as are available. Scientists thoroughly enjoy grouping things together and doling out impressive looking Latin names.

Yeah the vote to use Sanskrit names missed by just this much (*please visualize approximately a hair width separating my fingers*).
Seriously, as hopefully I demonstrated above, it is far more than that involved.

Dismissing mankind as apes or animals supports atheist claims that we are merely random biological organisms.

Or, establishes a tangible unity throughout God’s creation that will allow us to better understand His creation, and thus discovering more about Him. The universe is God’s handiwork and we should rejoice at the chance to study it since this affords us a better opportunity to increase our understanding. As a Christian we have no need to fear doing this since whatever truths about nature we find do not and can not ever contradict what God teaches. One truth can’t contradict another.

If ever we perceive what appears to be such a contradiction it is because, as the great Jewish thinker and theologian Moses Maimonides (d.1204) aptly put it, “Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.”

Re-examine both the scientific evidence as well as your interpretation of Scripture. Too often we confuse our interpretation of Scripture for what Scripture is actually saying and they aren’t always one and the same.

People are by no means fallen angels, that is simply another vanity, but theistic evolution does much to strip us of our humanity.

No. It doesn’t matter how we became what we are or what we were before. It does not make you any different from what you are.

[volcano rocket]

Our shared descent from the same ancestor with apes is further demonstrated by our sharing the same psuedogenes as they do, such as the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene which in both the human version of the gene, as well as the version found in other apes, has a deficiency of 8 nucleotides. There are several other psuedogenes like this that are known.

To claim that these don’t demonstrate descent from a recent common ancestor leaves us with God placing precisely the same genetic flaws in precisely the same locations on the genome so that it overwhelmingly implies that we share a recent common ancestry with the same species which coincidentally is also implied to be a close relative through the fossil record as well.

And I never even got around the fusion of chromosome 2.

The point is the evidence overwhelmingly points to humans and apes sharing a common ancestor whether you like it or not. Whether you find this demeaning or not.

Although this evidence can demonstrate human and non-human ape descent from a recent common ancestor, it does not convincingly prove that such a common ancestor ever existed. Basically you are unable to falsify the supernatural or mythical on this issue. Until such proof of the existence of this common ancestor is provided, you will never persuade everyone to your point of view on the issue of universal common descent.

[rogue06]

Although this evidence can demonstrate human and non-human ape descent from a recent common ancestor, it does not convincingly prove that such a common ancestor ever existed. Basically you are unable to falsify the supernatural or mythical on this issue. Until such proof of the existence of this common ancestor is provided, you will never persuade everyone to your point of view on the issue of universal common descent.

(Emphasis Added by rogue06)

You are correct. It is impossible to falsify the supernatural or mythical on this issue, or may I add, any issue. Yup, we can always posit ghosts made that creaking sound you heard, though it might be possible that the windy day is effecting the old building you're in as well. Two possibilities. But since you can never falsify the supernatural or mythical, I guess you assume both are equally valid explanations then?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Atheists don't compromise the current scientific understanding of evolution in the way theistic evolutionists do.

[volcano rocket]

You are correct. It is impossible to falsify the supernatural or mythical on this issue, or may I add, any issue. Yup, we can always posit ghosts made that creaking sound you heard, though it might be possible that the windy day is effecting the old building you're in as well. Two possibilities. But since you can never falsify the supernatural or mythical, I guess you assume both are equally valid explanations then?

It is also possible that someone else walking in the building made the creaking sound if more than one person is there. There are other possibilities than what you may think.

Until you have convincing proof of the existence of the mythical creatures you require us to believe in with universal common descent, the supernatural and mythical are the only explanations we have concerning the origin of human life. From a scientific point of view, no definitive decision can be made to the validity, correctness, or incorrectness of their explanatory power on this issue. Science is unable to provide all the answers on the origin of human life. This is where we are forced to rely upon religion or belief systems since they already deal with such questions.

With this in mind, the biblical interpretations of God using mythical creatures to originate human life and God creating completely formed human life are not equally valid explanations. The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 that God formed man of the dust of the ground. It does not state that God formed man from the offspring of a creature. From a Biblical point of view, there are no such mythical creatures as what you have us to believe with universal common descent.

[volcano rocket]

Atheists don't compromise the current scientific understanding of evolution in the way theistic evolutionists do.

If atheists accept universal common descent as part of evolution, then they must believe in those mythical creatures too.

[rogue06]

It is also possible that someone else walking in the building made the creaking sound if more than one person is there. There are other possibilities than what you may think.

Until you have convincing proof of the existence of the mythical creatures you require us to believe in with universal common descent, the supernatural and mythical are the only explanations we have concerning the origin of human life. From a scientific point of view, no definitive decision can be made to the validity, correctness, or incorrectness of their explanatory power on this issue. Science is unable to provide all the answers on the origin of human life. This is where we are forced to rely upon religion or belief systems since they already deal with such questions.

With this in mind, the biblical interpretations of God using mythical creatures to originate human life and God creating completely formed human life are not equally valid explanations. The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 that God formed man of the dust of the ground. It does not state that God formed man from the offspring of a creature. From a Biblical point of view, there are no such mythical creatures as what you have us to believe with universal common descent.

Uh, VR... What mythical creatures are you going on about?

[shunyadragon]

If atheists accept universal common descent as part of evolution, then they must believe in those mythical creatures too.

What mythical creatures do you have objective evidence for that would be a part of common descent?

[volcano rocket]

Uh, VR... What mythical creatures are you going on about?

Uh...the common ancestor you claim humans and non-human apes descended from. They are mythical or scientifically called hypothetical taxonomic units.

[volcano rocket]

What mythical creatures do you have objective evidence for that would be a part of common descent?

There are no mythical creatures in common descent. Where is your evidence I have made such a claim?

The objective evidence in universal common descent is that scientists refer to these mythical creatures as hypothetical taxonomic units. You can read more about them here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I could use local sandstone to build a house and then a garage. The house and garage would share many similarities - doors, windows, a roof. They would share the same "DNA" (sandstone and cement) and the same "common ancestor" (sandstone). However they did not evolve from the sandstone - they were built in specific ways with specific purposes in mind.

[rogue06]

I could use local sandstone to build a house and then a garage. The house and garage would share many similarities - doors, windows, a roof. They would share the same "DNA" (sandstone and cement) and the same "common ancestor" (sandstone). However they did not evolve from the sandstone - they were built in specific ways with specific purposes in mind.

Tell me Moose... are either sandstone or cement capable of reproducing and do you understand that the answer blows a huge hole in your argument?