Evolution and Genesis

[Indy Coug]

From another thread

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

This is a crude outline of how I view the creation particulars.

I. Creation

A. Literal
1. The universe was created/organized by the power of God.
2. The creation was done in orderly steps. Possibly in the exact order outlined in Genesis/Moses, but not necessarily
3. God created man in His image.
4. Animals reproduce after their own kind. What that means exactly, I'm not sure, which is why I started this thread. I postulated that it might be an obscure reference to micro evolution, but that's hardly a concrete conclusion of mine.

B. Figurative
1. The time needed was not 6 earth-days, 6 Kolob days, but is represented by 6 creative periods.
2. Which animals were created and when. This serves simply as a way to show that everything was created with a purpose and in an orderly fashion
3. Eve created from Adam's rib
4. Satan as a serpent

C. Unknown
1. The Garden of Eden as an actual location and how much of the Adam and Eve story is a literal account.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

From another thread

OK. I removed your name. I still gathered that you doubt human evolution.

I think it's fair to say that evolution has not yet explained everything since some hypotheses are not directly testable. I don't think it's fair to deny overwhelming evidence that humans were created through evolution.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

First of all, if you're going to be a literalist like Tex, then let's be genuine literalists.

I am not a literalist. I generally agree with Indy Coug's "crude outline."

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I am not a literalist. I generally agree with Indy Coug's "crude outline."

So no one on this board doubts human evolution?

I don't know how someone could see a human being with four nipples and then doubt human evolution.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So no one on this board doubts human evolution?

I do not believe the claim that mankind is a direct descendant from a primordial single-celled animal is an open and shut case.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I do not believe the claim that mankind is a direct descendant from a primordial single-celled animal is a open and shut case.

Do you believe that mice as direct descendants from primordial single-celled animals is an open and shut case?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I do not believe the claim that mankind is a direct descendant from a primordial single-celled animal is an open and shut case.

Indy does not believe in evolution. What he's doing is what Adam has accused Tex of doing. He's chickening out.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I do not believe the claim that mankind is a direct descendant from a primordial single-celled animal is an open and shut case.

Do you believe that mitochondria within our cells are the descendants of primitive "bacteria" which entered into a symbiotic relationship with more advanced cells, and that these mitochrondia have their own "bacteria-style" genomes and "bacteria-style" protein synthesis machinery?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Do you believe that mitochondria within our cells are the descendants of primitive "bacteria" which entered into a symbiotic relationship with more advanced cells, and that these mitochrondia have their own "bacteria-style" genomes and "bacteria-style" protein synthesis machinery?

I believe there are certain microscopic and anatomical blueprints that have been proven to work.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I believe there are certain microscopic and anatomical blueprints that have been proven to work.

I don't understand what you're saying.

The point is that in every single one of your cells there is a little organelle which is an evolutionary descendant of a bacterium. I'm wondering how you reconcile that with your doubt of human evolution.