That is very kind of you to take the time to link to give me suggestions. Thanks!
1 Like
My answers to those questions:
1: all of the above (though not as definite on genealogical)
2: symbolism
3: I don’t know, but might guess all mankind, and intervention.
4: Time: uncertain, but I would be inclined towards ~30-70,000 years ago.
And your answer on the time is connected to your answer on the relationship… It is the attempt to make it about genetics that leads to people putting Adam so far back in the past. But a genealogical relationship doesn’t really work, and the farther back in time you put Adam the more insignificant he becomes. Even 30,000 years ago means that Adam had nearly no impact on the world for at least twice the length of entire span of human history – which makes him so insignificant he might as well not have existed at all. For this reason I am more inclined to take the Bible seriously which suggest a time after the beginning of human agriculture 10,000 years ago and maybe as recent as 6,000 years ago.
Both genealogical and cultural transmission require at least about 10,000 years, likely more. I would be comfortable with as recent as 10,000, but probably not much later. Defining when agriculture started is a bit of a challenge, depending on what counts as agriculture (e.g., does sowing some seeds in a known area, wandering for a few months, and then harvesting when one gets back, count; if so, then 15-20,000 is probably a better guess for origins of agriculture).
Don’t believe in any genealogical transmission and I don’t think the genetic evidence will support it. And I will insist that cultural transmission will take a lot less time, 20-1000 years at most, because people have walked all the way around the world in less than 10 years. And we see radical cultural changes in only a generation when the next generation is exposed to ideas from a different culture.
As for agriculture, we know from the Bible that Cain tilled the ground and Abel kept flocks of sheep. That is 11,000 years ago at most.
It was spelled out in the review. See @Christy’s thread over here:
Before you get angry and disgusted, the first view isn’t YEC. All four views accept the facts of evolution. The first option is that God selected two historical individuals (Adam & Eve) from an existing population and placed them in a Garden, where God interacted with them and taught them. The second option is similar, but instead of sinfulness being spread immediately as alienation from God, the knowledge of good and evil spread gradually throughout the population. As I understand your previously expressed opinions about A&E, don’t you fit underneath one of those umbrellas, regardless of the exact timing?
That looks like a different book to me, one by Loren Haarsma (I was speaking about a book by John Walton). And the focus of those options listed in the link by Christy is on the origin of sin though perhaps similar options are given for the origin of humanity. In which case, for the origin of sin I would be in category 2(culture), and for the origin of humanity it would be a combination of 1 and 2(culture): 2 because the actual change is brought by ideas communicated by God which would take time to spread, and 1 because our definition of humanity usually has more to do with potentiality rather than actual capabilities.
1 Like
…or that humans evolved to ‘do good’ because of a survival advantage of that trait. And we now know of altruistic behavior in other animals as well, for the same reason.
1 Like
If so, by what thought process do we discuss the quite serendipitous circumstances that even allowed for us to evolve? E.g., but for the Chicxulub asteroid 66 Mya, mammals would not even exist, much less humans. There are many, many ‘survival features’ that happened so randomly divine intervention was not necessary. Of course, our God could have been in charge of the original process that allowed for this evolution to occur. It does not threaten my faith to admit to this.
If so, I wonder how we should reconcile behaviors in the first two millennia before Christ? Slavery, blood sacrifices, zero minority rights, etc and all of them by those who we celebrate?
So you are saying that some events are necessary and some are not, right? I would agree with that. Some serendipitous circumstances and seemingly random events are the choice of God in what Dale likes to call providential timing. That asteroid seems likely a divine intervention much like Noah’s flood, except the former was truly a global event unlike the flood. But other events are truly random – most disasters are not a judgement from God. Such challenges are a part of the learning process of life.
Mammals had already evolved before that asteroid hit.
Not exactly, Mitch. What I am saying is that it is not necessary that we must pick and choose what is actual history, what is metaphor and what is symbolic. We could simply rely on solid science and accept it in its entirety. We then can be consistent in our conclusions without having to invent history. It does not, and perhaps should not for anyone, threaten or challenge our faith to believe that Adam/Eve were not the first humans, that a flood covered earth, that Christ had only 23 chromosomes from Mary and somehow acquired another 23 without human contact, or that the terrible circumstances of disease ridden peoples of history were because of God’s will.
One example: Our universe began 13.8 Bya and created only H and He. The rest of the periodic table only began to appear 6 B years later, and then was limited to 6-8 elements. Our human bodies require, for life, 10 heavy metals. These only came about through billions of years of pulsars shedding them in necessary fashion. This may have been set in motion by God, but we do not have to believe that He is still controlling it. And look at our human genome, with the impossible statistical likelihood of it happening by chance alone? The tools can be God’s work, but the survival advantages of the billions of chance mutations that result in our brains complexity of ideas, conscience and consciousness can be purely and simply what science tell us that they are…chance.
Neither of us know the truth. We are both only able to ponder these issues and speculate, but I draw strength by accepting that God may be “only” the originator, and now has become only a bystander.
1 Like
If you find this reply confusing… it is probably because I found your comments rather confusing. I could not really understand what the issue was and I suspect you have jumped to some false conclusions regarding what I believe.
Nor is it necessary for us to shut our brains down and not make judgements as to what is actual history and what is metaphor and what is symbolic.
We can accept solid science in its entirely without the delusional pretention that science makes all the decisions in our life.
Whether you think it should or not doesn’t change the fact that it does. I will not believe in something that is contrary to reason. I certainly will not believe in an inconsistent God who makes the laws of nature and breaks them just in order to show off. In my judgement, that is far far far more likely to be the fabrication of human beings for exaggerating the importance of their religion. So NO, I do not believe in 23 chromosomes appearing out of thin air contrary to the plain evidence that God took billions of years to create human chromosomes and DID NOT make them appear out of thin air. Insist on such nonsense and atheism remains an entirely viable alternative for me.
Well sure. I can believe all sorts of things including that there is no God whatsoever. I choose to believe in God and that God created the universe to have a relationship where He is a participant in events, which is not a controller or a watchmaker but a shepherd. You are of course free to make your own choices about such things.
That sounds like a purely subjective judgement on your part. Or do have some actual means of calculating probabilities and showing that this genome was more unlikely than some other alternative?
Science does not tell us any such thing. Chance plays a role in evolution much like it plays a role in thermodynamics where the results are hardly a matter of chance.
My father came to the conclusion that Deism was the only rational understanding of God and decided that such a God was irrelevant to the living of our lives. I have come to a different conclusion regarding what understandings of God are rational.
They existed but certainly had not “evolved”. They were scrawny little things that could not evolve further under the hegemony of their larger hungry cold blooded reptilian friends. I know of no expert who thinks we could have evolved in the presence of dinosaurs.
Mammals had evolved from reptiles. You were claiming that they didn’t exist before the asteroid hit. You are moving the goalposts.
Of course they had evolved but it is hard to say which modern mammals they would most resemble. There is no distinct stage at which what would have been identified as reptile becomes mammalian. But “more evolved” doesn’t mean “more advanced”.
1 Like
I’m not at all changing anything at all. My original comment stated that higher mammals, such as us, would not be here but for the asteroid. That is a fact.
Of course. I was using the expression “more evolved” as synonymous with more advanced. So if you don’t like that terminology I shall restate it as: “Humans could not have evolved if the asteroid had not hit”
As you please but personally I don’t think humans are more advanced either. Animals evolve to best utilize niches as I understand it. We may be weird but at least it is in a way we appreciate. Every creature alive today has evolved for as long as every other if you accept common descent.