No I’m sure you’re right, but again the categories, qualities, sigmas of the non-falsifiable claims just aren’t comparable.
Furthermore
The notion is easily evaluated by science. Shoe-horning in genealogical A&E, in to the 10x longer lineage of behaviourally modern evolved humans 6025 years ago, for some bizarre pretext, is bad science fiction.
I agree completely on it looking like bad science fiction from that perspective. From a Biblically based perspective it’s a forced compromise between science and scripture.
None the less, the claim cannot be scientifically disproven. Only rejected as being absurd but those grappling with what they perceive the truth of scripture and the truth of science to be don’t see potential harmonizations as absurd. There is a recent thread about faith and belief that this whole process ties into.
In the end, most people justify whatever position they are currently locked into intellectually, regardless of how absurd it looks to others.
Yet, it’s essential truth is not a claim that science can investigate. It is outside of the purview of science.
Vinnie
I say science denies any truth ‘value’ for it whatsoever. Apart from completely and utterly untrue and unnecessary for any reason whatsoever. Unless we’re saying it has the same truth value as Russell’s teapot. Compared to the claim of incarnation, it’s that trivial.
You are interpreting exactly as I intended. Thanks! I am heartened that I am expressing myself with at least minimal clarity. 
My intent is to help those who are locked into a particular hermeneutic about A&E to see that they can accept the science of evolution without changing their A&E hermeneutic. It’s like Paul saying he had become a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks (I Corinthians 9:19). Don’t make the Greeks become circumcised in order to accept the gospel, and don’t make the A&E literalists change hermeneutics to accept the science of evolution.
Best,
Chris
Thank you all for this discussion, and thank you all for being so civil with one another! It does a body good to participate in reasonable argument.
Do most of you agree that there was a point in history when God miraculously changed what was essentially an animal to a self aware being? Or, how do you account for consciousness?
You may enjoy the discussion on this post
Thank you. That is a fascinating discussion—at least what I could understand. I was hoping to leave that rabbit hole unmolested, and allow everyone to just answer my query regardless of their opinion on what constitutes consciousness. Maybe I’m being naive to think we can do that.
Perhaps I should have asked my question in low res: Did God make us different at some point?
I’m not personally convinced that such a clean point or dividing line could be found. Reality and science both tend to be hard on our desire for category boundaries. Witness the historical trends of how our growing discovery and understanding has gone: In cosmology we used to think in terms of planets, moons, asteroids and stars. Now we are aware of so many objects that blur between planet, planetoid, asteroid, etc. And even between gas giants, failed stars, and small to large stars. In biology there was “living” and “non-living”. Now we are aware of so much (viruses etc.) that blur our historical distinction between living stuff and non-living stuff. Species? Same thing.
So I think that most all the characteristics you have now, including what we call consciousness, probably slowly came into being in populations over many generations. We would be hard pressed to identify any noticeable differences between any population and their own parents or their own children.
Note that this isn’t to say that it isn’t all miraculous. I would still call our very existence, much more then life, and much more yet intelligent life all pretty miraculous no matter what long or short history of circumstances God used to bring it all about.
That is a good question. And did he make us different through evolution or by a unique intervention, i.e. breathing his ruach into us.
I think GOD breathed into us (whether by making a special genetic twist in our makeup or literally, it doesn’t matter to me) to make us uniquely human.
I think GOD could have and still may enable a kangaroo to fly a 747. He made me so that I can talk. He became a tiny, helpless, beautiful baby boy. I can’t understand 99.9999 percent of all there is to know. But, I can sense when someone loves me and His love for me is by far the greatest thing I’ve ever known and I have met people from all over and from every background who know exactly what I’m talking about and I share these things with others hoping that somehow, someway, you will find Him yourself. I don’t want your money. I don’t need to know you. I want you to encounter Him and His Love because you will be thrilled out of your mind. Dear GOD
He made the universe. He made all the universes if there are more than one. He made time. He made the raw material from which everything exists.
He made us male and female, gave us some intelligence, the capacity to make choices and He loves us.
To me, the overriding principle, the major force in our universe, the presiding influence over all, the most important thing in life is HIS LOVE for us, for everyone. Even unto death.
I disagree as far as reality goes. Look what happens when we ignore the boundaries reality sets for us. Modern science looks to much like a religion for me to care too much about it.
I guess that’s why I asked about a particular point in time. I meant that literally.
I did mean literally. I think the story of Adam & Eve is there to give us a defining moment. Whether literal on not, I think we need to know there was an actual moment when God “created” us in our current form.
Sorry mods. I should have put that all in one post.
Sorry. Didn’t answer your question. Yes, of course, there was a specific moment when man became a living soul.
Literally, it was a distinct act or occurrence. Just exactly what He did, I don’t know and it makes no difference, not to me. GOD created mankind
There’s a difference between reality-set boundaries (like the edge of a cliff), and human-chosen boundaries (like trying to divide humanity into different skin-color races.) The former we ignore at our peril; the cliff edge will be there whether you believe in it or not. The latter is the kind of thing I’m talking about. They are our categories of convenience (or prejudice) that some insist must represent some hard-coded reality, and they are the things that end up breaking down on closer inspection.
I kinda feel like you’re making both of my points for me. Reality-set boundaries is just a longish way of saying reality. Human-chosen boundaries seems to be an euphemism for religion/science/ideology. Largely based on expediency, not reality.
Mind you, I’m an artist and a lover, and have been burned so many times by religion/science that I may be a tad cynical. 
Maybe for very good reasons! It isn’t often around here that we hear from somebody who wants to throw out both science and religion.
As corrupted as any of those things can be and are, it’s still a pretty broad brush you paint with in presuming that the whole lot are all rotten to the core just because there are so many examples of evil. Is it all equally evil?
Of course, I concur. I do love my microwave, after all.
And, my God. I do love my God and His word!
I definitely believe in his unique interventions, having a good deal of evidence both personally and through secondary sources, so I can certainly see that as a both/and and not an either/or, not that we will ever be able to point to specifics any more than we can explain the ‘how’ of his special providences.
I take the NT literally first whenever I can.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.