Evolution and Genesis

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Boy, I've never seen a post so at war with itself. Please explain the difference between "evolving" and "one species becomes another species altogether."

Not a war, rather a marriage. Evolve: "to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition"

Have your ideas and capacity to deal with life challenges evolved over time or has the essential essence that is 'you' been replaced by another 'you'?

So are we talking about evolution as it pertains to the ability to adapt or to replace?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Doesn't the plan of of redemption demand INEVITABLE emergence of humans capable of sin?

btw, nice job in this thread.

Capability of sin somes with consciousness, or, as defined earlier, the creation of the soul, which is God's act.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Capability of sin somes with consciousness, or, as defined earlier, the creation of the soul, which is God's act.

of course we exercised agency prior to conciousness as a soul when we were merely spirits.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Convenience is a mortal preoccupation and should not be assigned to deity. My physical and spiritual existence is evidence there is a God and that I have been introduced as an element in his Universe.

Ok, then how unlikely is it that he did so? It's only unlikely in the context of a literal belief in Genesis. Otherwise, it fits in fine with my view of God and his capacities.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

of course we exercised agency prior to conciousness as a soul when we were merely spirits.

Agreed, but SU was talking about emergence on this earth of a ebing capable of committing sin. At least that is what I thought.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is inaccurate. The fossil record is replete with missing links, as you call them (and what does that mean, anyway?) Most of the links are missing, as in not currently alive, becasue they have evolved. IOW, we have met the missing link, and he is us. Further, mutations leading to adaptations have been observed especially in the lab among simple organisams and mutations leading to changes have been induced in the lab. Plus, the DNA evidence is perhaps the most compelling. Long stretches of unused DNA code that is the same in animals in related lines, etc. There is, in fact, significant observed evidecne supporting evolution.

Also, consider this, the notion of evolution has bveen artound for centuries. Darwin ex-palined it differently and almost certainly correctly, but the thought that evolution leads to species differentiation has a long history.

Maybe they are missing because they never existed. You MUST accept the possibility.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Capability of sin somes with consciousness, or, as defined earlier, the creation of the soul, which is God's act.

I believe that each of us has an eternal spirit.

Personally, I believe that capability of sin comes from knowledge of good and evil, and I believe that this "conscience" was generated via evolution as well. (See back scratching reference in previous post.)

CS Lewis liked to argue that the proof that there is a God is in this simple story: A man is walking along and sees another man falling threw the ice. The man has two instincts. One is a "herd instinct" telling him to save the man who is falling through the ice. The second instinct is a "self preservation" instinct that tells the man to stay away from danger. But in CS Lewis's mind, the proof that there is a God lies in the fact that there is something else which tells the man that the "right" or moral thing to do is attempt to save this man.

I completely disagree with CS Lewis. Morality can be very nicely explained by evolutionary theory, and there is no reason to invoke God. Nevertheless, I believe that God used evolution to give us "the light of Christ" or a conscience.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Maybe they are missing because they never existed. You MUST accept the possibility.

Then you must accept the fact that God created all kinds of humanoids that were capable of generating art and using tools, but were not human (and went extinct).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Zero evidence to suggest it? That is absurd. The evidence to merely suggest it is so overwhlming as to be undeniable.

When does a species become a different species. WHen man first domesticated the cow's predecessor, the first cow was still a wild animal. How about the next genreation? What about the third generation? Still a wild animal or is it a cow? How many genreations did it take to turn it inot a cow? What would the fossil record for this process look like? Did a wild mammal one day give birth to a holstein? Of course not. Instead, the 'link' is the new species itself. Was there an intermediate species? Taxonomists might say so, I am not sure, but any generation of the line transitioning from wild beast (auroch or whatever it was) to cow could still breed with the genreation immediately before nad after it. So which gneeration is the link? Nonetheless, do you deny that there was a non-domesticated predecessor?

Yet no single 'missing link' has ever been found. Now that is absurd! Which leads me to believe that we are applying the THEORY of evolution incorrectly.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Capability of sin is a natural result of knowledge of good and evil (see the Genesis creation allegory).

How knowledge of good and evil appeared--that's another thread. I'd love to talk about evolutionary theory behind: "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine," or even better: "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch someone else's, and a completely independent third party will scratch mine."

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Lucretius talked about this in the brilliant "De Rerum Natura." In response to a comment earlier by creekster, the poem also goes on at length about speciation. Lucretius attritues these ideas to Epicurus, though his writings have for the most part vanished.