You Say You Want An Evolution!

[rogue06]

OK rogue, so back to the Adam question. Given that Scripture is clear that all human beings alive today are descendants of one man Adam (who lived between 5-16 thousand years ago given gaps in the Biblical geologies), how can that be reconciled with the theory of evolution? You hold a high regard for the theory but it is clearly at odds with the Biblical claims. I think the Christian must choose between the two.

It would depend on how we define human. There could very well be a biblical definition that doesn't correspond to the scientific one.

And I'm glad that you appear to have abandoned your "kinds" claim even though you rose it as an objection.

[seer]

It would depend on how we define human. There could very well be a biblical definition that doesn't correspond to the scientific one.

And I'm glad that you appear to have abandoned your "kinds" claim even though you rose it as an objection.

As far as kinds, what I'm getting from you is that there are no kinds, nothing fixed at least. And I'm not talking about defining what a human is, my point is that all humans alive today (as we define them today) are the descendants one pair of humans who lived between 5-16 thousand years ago. So which do you choose, Scripture or the theory of Evolution?

[tabibito]

As far as kinds, what I'm getting from you is that there are no kinds, nothing fixed at least. And I'm not talking about defining what a human is, my point is that all humans alive today (as we define them today) are the descendants one pair of humans who lived between 5-16 thousand years ago. So which do you choose, Scripture or the theory of Evolution?

In essence, each kind gives rise to its own kind - (in the case of sexually reproduction) interbreeding is possible between offspring of one pair (or pairs) in a kind - and that state will continue in play through many generations - with remixing making interbreeding viable. However, slight variations exist between the parent and child - and where interbreeding is no longer an option, the cumulative effect of the variations over generations will eventually result in more than one kind. At each step, a kind reproduces its own kind.

Repeating - IN ESSENCE.

In Australia a single species of parrot extends its range from the far north and east coast, south as far as is possible, then west to around the mid point and swinging back east - about half way to the east coast. These parrots can interbreed with parrots from an adjacent region, but not with parrots further afield. So - exterminate all the parrots of this species in any intermediate region, and the result would be two different species.

[rogue06]

As far as kinds, what I'm getting from you is that there are no kinds, nothing fixed at least. And I'm not talking about defining what a human is, my point is that all humans alive today (as we define them today) are the descendants one pair of humans who lived between 5-16 thousand years ago. So which do you choose, Scripture or the theory of Evolution?

I believe we've gone over this

And I noticed you did not touch Adam being the biological father of all living humans, which I suspect that evolutionary theory would disagree with.

I have no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve existed. I'm a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist if you prefer).

So you believe that all living humans come from one set of parents. Would evolutionary theory agree?

So I see you aren't really interested in defining what "kinds" are. Without one it would appear that your objection is baseless.

As to your question, personally I think evolutionary theory is silent on this since there are several possible ways for it to take place. I kinda think it has a lot to do with how one defines "human" and suspect that the Biblical definition may not be in complete accord with the scientific one.

I've been noodling out a way to best explain this much like I have with the differences between appearance of age v. appearance of history and the polemic nature of Genesis 1 but have yet to fully flesh it out.

Although I doubt that it was as recent as 5 to 16,000 years ago.

And it isn't what I think about "kinds" that matters, but the fact that those who claim they are fixed cannot offer any sort of standard definition for them equating them at any given moment to species and genus all the way up to phyla, kingdom and even domain. That sort of makes them an utterly useless classification, wouldn't you agree?

[rogue06]

In Australia a single species of parrot extends its range from the far north and east coast, south as far as is possible, then west to around the mid point and swinging back east - about half way to the east coast. These parrots can interbreed with parrots from an adjacent region, but not with parrots further afield. So - exterminate all the parrots of this species in any intermediate region, and the result would be two different species.

Ring species. There are several examples of them that are well known.

[seer]

I believe we've gone over this

Although I doubt that it was as recent as 5 to 16,000 years ago.

And it isn't what I think about "kinds" that matters, but the fact that those who claim they are fixed cannot offer any sort of standard definition for them equating them at any given moment to species and genus all the way up to phyla, kingdom and even domain. That sort of makes them an utterly useless classification, wouldn't you agree?

Back to Adam, how on earth do you get past 16,000 years even with gaps in the Biblical genealogy?

As to your question, personally I think evolutionary theory is silent on this since there are several possible ways for it to take place. I kinda think it has a lot to do with how one defines "human" and suspect that the Biblical definition may not be in complete accord with the scientific one.

I've been noodling out a way to best explain this much like I have with the differences between appearance of age v. appearance of history and the polemic nature of Genesis 1 but have yet to fully flesh it out.

I don't think that evolution can be reconciled with the Biblical account of the creation of man, so I assume that you would choose Scripture over evolutionary theory.

[tabibito]

For myself. Were it demonstrated that the record of Adam and Eve conflicted with Evolutionary theory, truth being more important than dogma, I'd go with evolutionary theory.
Simply on the grounds that nothing can legitimately make the record show more than 6 000 years since Adam and Eve, certain parts of the Biblical record are already demonstrated inaccurate.

[seer]

For myself. Were it demonstrated that the record of Adam and Eve conflicted with Evolutionary theory, truth being more important than dogma, I'd go with evolutionary theory.
Simply on the grounds that nothing can legitimately make the record show more than 6 000 years since Adam and Eve, certain parts of the Biblical record are already demonstrated inaccurate.

Then I would question why you would remain a Christian since Adam is key to the fall of man and the necessity of redemption.

[tabibito]

Then I would question why you would remain a Christian since Adam is key to the fall of man and the necessity of redemption.

That God (the Christian God) exists has been satisfactorily demonstrated. That Christ is the key to redemption, and that there is a need for redemption, is satisfactorily demonstrated, as is the fact that attaining to redemption is beyond natural human ability. Then there is the fact that the creation of Adam and Eve - and the whole creation story related in Genesis - given that the story is wholly set in Eden (the actual creation of Adam excepted), has nothing to do with events on this world.
In short, demonstrating the story of creation as recounted in Genesis to be in conflict with evolution is about as likely as demonstrating that the world is flat.

[seer]

That God (the Christian God) exists has been satisfactorily demonstrated. That Christ is the key to redemption, and that there is a need for redemption, is satisfactorily demonstrated, as is the fact that attaining to redemption is beyond natural human ability. Then there is the fact that the creation of Adam and Eve - and the whole creation story related in Genesis - given that the story is wholly set in Eden (the actual creation of Adam excepted), has nothing to do with events on this world.
In short, demonstrating the story of creation as recounted in Genesis to be in conflict with evolution is about as likely as demonstrating that the world is flat.

Why is redemption needed? Sin entered into the world by one man, no Adam, no sin entering the world no need for redemption. We are just animals working out our evolutionary biology in behavior.

[rogue06]

Back to Adam, how on earth do you get past 16,000 years even with gaps in the Biblical genealogy?



I don't think that evolution can be reconciled with the Biblical account of the creation of man, so I assume that you would choose Scripture over evolutionary theory.

I'm trying to work on a more general response that may take awhile to cobble together. Quite honestly I have so many points I want to discuss that I'm having trouble deciding on where to start. Hopefully when I finally have that figured out the rest will flow easier. Hopefully.

As for the genealogy, I'll point to the first verse in Matthew where we read:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

I think we can all agree that this is an abbreviated account that misses quite a lot (and Matthew precedes to fill in the blanks). But the point is that the genealogies we have for the patriarchs could be similar, only touching upon the most famous/important ancestors with millenia long gaps in between (which is what we see separating Jesus from David from Abraham).

Moreover, around Jesus time the dating for the patriarchs was still quite fluid with some massive differences. This can be seen when we compare the Massoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch

genealogy - patriarchs.gif

All of this suggests that their dating is not to be viewed as set in stone.

[seer]

I'm trying to work on a more general response that may take awhile to cobble together. Quite honestly I have so many points I want to discuss that I'm having trouble deciding on where to start. Hopefully when I finally have that figured out the rest will flow easier. Hopefully.

As for the genealogy, I'll point to the first verse in Matthew where we read:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

I think we can all agree that this is an abbreviated account that misses quite a lot (and Matthew precedes to fill in the blanks). But the point is that the genealogies we have for the patriarchs could be similar, only touching upon the most famous/important ancestors with millenia long gaps in between (which is what we see separating Jesus from David from Abraham).

Moreover, around Jesus time the dating for the patriarchs was still quite fluid with some massive differences. This can be seen when we compare the Massoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36112[/ATTACH]

All of this suggests that their dating is not to be viewed as set in stone.

Right, that is why I said there are gaps. I have seen it possibly stretched out to 15,000 years at the outside. But we could get nowhere near what would be required for the first parents in the evolutionary sense which would be about 250,000 ago years from what I gather.

[The Remonstrant]

For myself[:] Were it demonstrated that the record of Adam and Eve conflicted with Evolutionary theory, truth being more important than dogma, I'd go with evolutionary theory.
Simply on the grounds that nothing can legitimately make the record show more than 6[,]000 years since Adam and Eve, certain parts of the Biblical record are already demonstrated inaccurate.

Then may I say, with the greatest of respect, that you hold a perilous hermeneutic that is bound to crumble and fall. The redemptive story of the Bible must be considered every bit as suspect as the creational accounts if the latter are unreliable and disharmonious with the truth.

[tabibito]

Then may I say, with the greatest of respect, that you hold a perilous hermeneutic that is bound to crumble and fall. The redemptive story of the Bible must be considered every bit as suspect as the creational accounts if the latter are unreliable and disharmonious with the truth.

Potted histories are inherently inaccurate - and the Genesis account prior to Abraham (at least) is a potted history. Once Moses comes on the scene, the accounts are reasonably reliable. However, "satisfactorily demonstrated" (which is the term I used) is not a claim that the Bible is the sole source of that demonstration.

[tabibito]

I'm trying to work on a more general response that may take awhile to cobble together. Quite honestly I have so many points I want to discuss that I'm having trouble deciding on where to start. Hopefully when I finally have that figured out the rest will flow easier. Hopefully.

As for the genealogy, I'll point to the first verse in Matthew where we read:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

I think we can all agree that this is an abbreviated account that misses quite a lot (and Matthew precedes to fill in the blanks). But the point is that the genealogies we have for the patriarchs could be similar, only touching upon the most famous/important ancestors with millenia long gaps in between (which is what we see separating Jesus from David from Abraham).

Matthew specifies three groups of 14 generations - he doesn't allow gaps. (Matt 1:17) So all the generations from Abraham to David totaled fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon totaled fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah there were fourteen generations.
Matthew's genealogy does not match that of Luke, right down to Joseph (Mary's husband) having a different father.

Moreover, around Jesus time the dating for the patriarchs was still quite fluid with some massive differences. This can be seen when we compare the Massoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch


All of this suggests that their dating is not to be viewed as set in stone.

Checking - Noah through Abraham being the most significant.