Theistic Evolution

Forgot the pic.

Not that other user but still probably more human

How about this? From what I can gather it may be Idaltu/archaic Sapiens.

Most likely they were mutant twins who ran away from their ape tribe, tired of being bullied. They had sex and worked out how to build a fire

...

>believing in evolution in 2016

hahahahahah

' It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days...When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.' - Philo (25BC - 50AD)

Reminder that YEC is a result of ass-backwards American evangelical theology, and has never been considered as the sole interpretation of the Biblical creation account.

...

No.

Don't try to make theistic evolution work. It doesn't.

No matter where you put Adam on the Day Six clock, and surviving Day Seven, he's millions or billions of years old.

I have an idea.

How about you not be ashamed of the word of God? How about you realize that these people against you are literally arguing that they are evolved monkeys who came from amoebas?

Bullshit. 6 is the number of man. 7 is the number of perfection or completion.

There's a reason Philo didn't write about Jesus. He wanted to eradicate Christianity.

And this.

Origen is a fucking heretic. Taking the word of a fucking heretic to understand the scripture is fucking retarded.

God is light.

God needs no sun to tell time.

God put light into the sun, not the other way around.

When you get away from the truth, you end up in hell.

Haven't found a contradictory fossil record thus far.

Not sure if troll or actual prottie.

'Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.' - De Viris Illustribus by St Jerome.

Just because we have lost some of Philo's works doesn't mean he didn't know about Jesus.

Fossil record is mostly from the Flood.

Rule of thumb: Anything that purports to disprove the bible is itself false.

Yes, down with education indeed. Wouldn't want the unwashed masses to read the bible for themselves and find out that everything in the catholic church is satanic in origin.

Things of God tend to remain; things not of God tend to get lost and destroyed.

>Anything that purports to disprove the bible is itself false.
Ridiculous level of bias for data. Get this creationist nonsense off the board.

What the hell are you even talking about? This is clear evidence that Philo knew about Christianity. Whether Philo is 'of god' is beside the point.

It's been true for thousands of years, your ignorance notwithstanding.

Are you being obtuse deliberately?

I'm obviously stating that if Philo had written about Jesus, those writings would have been preserved.

How do you people manage to breathe and blink at such low wattage?

Explain this. Looked like an ape, stood like a man.

What's been true for thousands of years? Christianity hasn't been around for that long.

Please be trolling. This is the most ridiculous non-logic I have ever read.

Daily reminder that natural selection is a metaphysical principle, and cannot be falsified, therefore isn't scientific.

It might be a rational explanation, but it certainly isn't scientific.

Oh fuck off

Positivist scum detected.

...

High school drop out detected.

Burnnnnn

Explain how you can't Google shit for yourself.

Lee Berger and his team do recognize that their Au. sediba fossils are too young to be the actual ancestors of the genus Homo—that they overlap with discoveries of fossils assigned to Homo. But they suggest that earlier, yet undiscovered, members of Au. sediba could be the ancestors of Homo.4 How would one go about verifying that fossils not yet discovered are the ancestors of the genus Homo? Berger and his team have raised the concept of non-verification to a new level!5

Third, Berger and his team write: “H. habilis is generally thought to be the ancestor of H. erectus, although this might be questioned on the basis of the considerable temporal overlap that existed between them.”6 Berger and his team just condemned their own fossils because their Au. sediba fossils overlap Homo erectus just as the Homo habilis fossils do. Obviously, the evolutionist problem of a transition between the australopithecines and Homo (humans) has not been solved, and any verification would be impossible.

tl;dr We say it's a primate; Evolutionists can't stand that it doesn't fit in their time frame.

The bible dates back 3500 years.

Why do you think that you, a child of satan, would understand the things of God?

Do you see me running around telling people how awesome it is to lie, steal and kill?

>Evolutionists

The Old Testament does, the New Testament doesn't. If we're going by authenticity by age, there's beliefs that eventually filtered down into what The Bible is.

Lie cheat and steal sounds fun, I'm for it. Yelling is fun as well.

Who grants things authenticity by age? Idiots? You?

I grant things authenticity that come from God.

That's it. One requirement.

1. From God?

Yes - Authentic

Yes, that's what you people do. It's what your spiritual father, the devil, does. He was a liar, and a thief, and a murderer, from the beginning.

You're just a chip off the ol' Nick.

God is about as authentic as his predecessors. At least the Paleolithic were subtle.

Cheating, stealing, lying, eating food off the floor.

Lee Berger honestly just wanted it to be important. His son was the one who found it. He probably just wanted his son to have some sort of legacy.
Also, what primate walks on two legs?

God has no predecessors; He is eternal.

Everyone wants to be immortal.

Ironically, everyone is immortal.

>God has no predecessors; He is eternal.
A man who says he was The Son of the one and only God to a disbelieving people, who was criticized relentlessly and later thrown aside after his death for the way things always were, managed by a group of disciples on the run for their beliefs?

Where has that ever happened before?

Perhaps a prototype of some sort? C.S. Lewis even came up with an idea to explain it. Basically that every myth and legend that came before Christ was meant to soften us up to the idea.

God said He is, first through His prophets, and then through His Son.

There was no way the Jews were going to follow the Law. It was not given to them to follow. It was given to them so that they would stop trying to be righteous on their own, and accept the righteousness offered to them by their Messiah.

This has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that more or less the entire story of Christ happened before in the pharaoh Akhenaten of Egypt. He said he was the son of God, One God, not multiple. He claimed belief in multiple was heresy, it ripped Egypt apart culturally, and he became one of the most maligned and hated of the Pharaohs. Most of history was burned or destroyed by angry mobs, and his legacy was mostly forgotten, but the events clearly weren't since we have archaeological evidence of them.

It is unlikely, but entirely within the realm of possibility that history became legend, legend became history, legend became story, and spoken word of the event spread out over time to Europe, the middle east. As this isn't the only example.

But this is just one example of pre-biblical events having extremely similar biblical parallel, the mixture of myths used to form the old testament in southern Eurasia is much more clear cut.

Gee, that's very interesting. Ancient rulers who held themselves up to be gods.

Hey, you know what predates all of them?

An angel who wanted to rule over people and be worshiped as God.

Guess what they all have in common?

See, Akhenaten believed himself powerful, but did not believe himself to be a God as other pharohs did. He clearly let the public know he believed he was the Son of God, and God was his father. God at this time, being a bit of bastardization of the Aten aspect of Ra into its own being, the singular entity that created all things. This religious retcon within Egypt goes as well as one could have hoped it to go, these stories never end well.

Is this even close to right?
answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/

How come black Africans did not evolve as much as whites and Asians did?

They did. We just look different because of all the Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA that was added to the Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Australoids. The Negroids stayed out of it due to remaining in Africa.

You're laboring under a delusion; maybe the same delusion as your pet pharoah there.

To be the Son of God is to be God.

Kind begets kind, always. God begets God.

When Jesus said He is the Son of God, the Jews picked up stones to kill Him for saying He is God.

Yes, of course. Lucy is just one in a long line of missing link hoaxes. She's an artist's rendition from bones collected over a huge area that had nothing to do with each other.

Worldview.

A godly worldview makes people strive to be better.

A native animist worldview of just blending in with nature causes the opposite.

>potential
>unknown
>crucial piece of this shit graph

kek

I assume you're speaking of the A. Afarensis knee that found several meters away from Lucy, yes?

*that was found

Humans aren't as important as you make them about to be, claiming their this important at all paradoxically makes us no better than any animal who thinks it the center of the universe. Our difference between animals is not God, it's strategic ability, part of that is realizing we are not the center at this point.

Even the Bible makes that explicitly clear.

Mitochondrial ones refer only to H. sapiens.

Impossible, Adam and Eve were created suddenly and complete.

Adam simply started to exist already breathing, already being mature, and already having some knowledge in his brain - like He could understand God words, few concepts - such as earth, trees, animals, mostly what God created and defined with words - was present in Adam.

There was no death before Adam and Eve - so there couldn't be a form of evolution.

Explaining humans with evolution trough natural selection is 100% not compatible with bible.

There are proofs of genetic manipulation in bible, humans done it - evolution is a real process in the universe created by God - but it's not the answer for the origin of everything, nor anything but a somewhat good story.

Adam was kicked out of Eden around 7500 years ago, some say that he spent in heaven 700 years before falling so if we also add that 8200 years since Adam existence ( mankind ).

There are also 6 days defined for creation - one Psalm in bible defines a day for god as 1000 years so the longest time frame for existence of everything could be:

7000 years ( 6k for creation 1k for rest ) + 8200 years of mankind existence - that would be 15200 years since everything started to exist.

or 7500 + 7 days, there's a more accepted interpretation which says that Adam was kicked out of heaven the same day he was created.

If Adam were to have been created, which species would he most resemble? Habilis? Ergaster? Erectus? Rhodesiensis? Idaltu? Sapiens?

Modern humans.

Then what of the others?

...

Just gonna throw this out there, not every Christian believes genesis to be a chronological order of events. No, in fact it's much deeper than that, heck even Origen from the 3rd century believed it was more to do with certain mysteries than anything else.

No one forced you to study the theories - find an answer yourself, invent one if there is none.

From the creation perspective we can't possible talk about proto-humans.
The best human model ( most evolved ) simply started to exist in that state, without any succession.
Primates are part of animal kingdom.

Oh wait, that thread name... Well I for one agree!

It is not meant to be taken as a chronological order of events - but it does describe it clearly that God created everything as a whole, and that there was no death before man sinned.

Many saints who done great miracles in their time 3rd - 5th century some even later - said something similar, Moses did not describe the complete process trough which God created everything - but rather just a symbolic image of how things started to be - something you read and you picture it as if you were witnessing it now. They also insist that everything was created as a whole - Ex nihilo out of eternity.

>From the creation perspective we can't possible talk about proto-humans.

"We're indoctrinated."

"We can't possibly think about things because heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell"

Then are we eternally cursed to look at the world though such a narrow lens?

Glad to see someone else who shares my view.

That's what modern theologians claimed - and that wiki page hurried to write it down.

It has some elements of truth - the first Church fathers explained that it's a heresy to claim that hell and heaven are different worlds - they're not worlds at all, both of them are levels, of states of existence for the soul.

Heaven is a state for pure souls - as they are in the moment of their creation, but because of human body condition and the fallen condition of this world - soul becomes impure the moment it enters the world, also becomes even more impure trough simply existing in this world.

Trough baptism and Jesus power - the soul, is cleansed so that it could enter Heaven as a gift - literally the only way a soul could enter heaven.

All this until second judgement when all souls in heaven or earth are pulled back in newly formed human bodies - at that point the souls will be cleansed by God even if they did not believe in Jesus if they are proven to have lived a virtuous life on earth, so it's a judgement based on every single aspect of biological existence, every potential you had and wasted, or every good thing you wanted to do but you could not do because of various events.

Only from that point hell becomes eternal - for humans that are judged for wasting their biological life, in service of evil.

Before that hell is just a cleansing state, simply entering hell after death will make your judgement easier at second judgement.

But you could also just be cleansed instantly trough grace and mercy of God just accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior and trough His Church on earth - and His priests.

World won't exist forever, time and space will end on God call.

It will reformed in a new paradigm as Jesus promised - a new state of being, so you'll also have God with you there with you to ask about the old world and the new world as much as you want.

Considering your higher-than-average understanding of the Bible, this may be a good question.
Which denomination, in experience, follows the Laws of Moses and the Teachings of Jesus more closely?

# yeah so if it's not chronological and is perhaps more spiritual or emotional than a physical account (especially if genesis 1 is a "harvest festival" hymn), could we not accept scientific understanding of the world? Could God not have made us through evolution along with the other animals? We're told the heavens and the universe proclaim his works and we know he wouldn't deceive us, so what's wrong with evolution and big bang etc?

>new state of being
Thought it'd be like this, body and soul just without anything bad, no?

I can't tell you precisely - there will be a degree of freedom within it and God wisdom will decide upon how it will be configured - but the body indeed will be incapable of suffering biological death, and it's matter will be entirely different from matter this one we have now uses - Jesus body after resurrection is the model of what we will get - His body did not require food but it could eat food if he so desired, His body was able to go through physical objects - so we can conclude that it's a perfect servant for soul - doing its intentions while also providing biological pleasures.

You should accept scientific understanding of the world - but let's be honest, big bang is a theory - it imagines how it could be possible for things to form trough what was already observed in the world. Actually you can start now ( I bet protestants already did something like this ) and use every scientific observation big bang is based on, and ever more recent ones and formulate a coherent theory about creation.

The point of big bang theory is to deny a need for a Creator. Suddenly trough accepting this as a fact there is no longer a need for a creator as encapsulated everything could pop in and out of existence ( based on observations of how reality works at small scales ).

You should study biology - it allows you to help others, and scientific method was and will be applied for the benefit of others. No one forced you to believe and assume all theories as facts.
You can also study physics - be an engineer, again many practical applications.

>Could God not have made us through evolution along with the other animals?

You can't justify human existence trough evolution - it would imply death long before the state in which Adam had the dialogue with God.

Death was not even a part of animal kingdom then.
Evolution I repeat is an observable process - it's a manifestation of everything

Cont:

God created, if you see the big picture it creates the illusion of everything being noetic - intelligent on itself, while that's not the case - the reality is dual and very dense. The design is just smart.
Only soul and heaven can be truly neotic, and we already know that trough the experiences some saints had while still alive.

If there's a good or a wrong about the theories depends on how you look at them, and what perspective you use. If God ever considered humans should comprehend the universe - He would've made scientists out of saints day one - and instead of letting them work hard to find things out - He would've reveled them all the information.

Life active in the teachings of Jesus – you have concentrated ( because you seek to see essence, where it is concentrated to live it ) – in monastic groups, and in some cases in groups organized in world by some monks all this throughout Eastern Orthodox Church. Mainly being Orthodox is not a mere mental exercise or partaking in a complex philosophical, theological system which you could assume trough reading tens of volumes. It’s simply a way of life – as if you are a member of something bigger and noetic trough God – not trough any biological mean.
I can explain more but I don’t feel it’s right, I see this as very sacred and important – I will only answer directly and simply to direct questions if you are interested.

Please if I try to explain something don't take it as a form of preaching - or giving you something which is holy or mystical trough words - you can only experience that and again only inside the body of Church - outside it's not possible and to consider so ( something like the existence of "universal church" ) is heretical.

Also the essential part of Genesis - is again backed up by mystical revelation of saints which claim that the world was created as a whole - existing in a stable shape, just simply existing without layers underneath or without stages of "manifestation" - first saints explained it trough combating Gnostic heresies in early Church.

Also read this if you are interested:

fisheaters.com/hexaemeron.html
It won't take long.

being so very British of me, I find this relaxed idea of heaven quite nice: worship in the morning, cricket at lunch and a feast with everyone in the evening. Of course, with all the benefits of being resurrected with Christ.

For me, God used the big bang but he was directly and actively involved in it, the same goes for evolution. For the most part, Anglicans, Catholics and I presume protestants too, believe genesis gives us out relationship with God; what went wrong with that relationship (though yes we get a new one through Jesus)

Alas I have missed a chance to change subjects I study to biology (my fave other than physics) at college but I'm homing in on philosophy instead, hey ho.

But if I don't take genesis as "this happened, then x y z", surely man can come from evolution. People I know seem to have a problem with evolution and God, it's as if it makes God unable to do anything because he isn't doing it like in genesis (actually grabbing dirt and moulding man then woman from a rib etc) but surely God could do this and be like an effervescence fused into all things. Death and sin would occur naturally, just he very fact that when the first people eventually came about weren't God and could be tempted meant sin was rife.

>You can't justify human existence trough evolution - it would imply death long before the state in which Adam had the dialogue with God.
Then what are these? Mere animals? Animals that can walk and (almost) talk like us?

Even if they had alternate interpretations they all stil believed the age of the earth was only in the thousands

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Biblical_dates_for_creation

That's all they could comprehend at their time. Now, we can see that it's actually much older.

Atheist here, but I had a random thought: Adam and Eve in a theistic evolution would make sense as being the first organisms in our ancestral line to achieve sapience, and thus the ability to be held morally accountable.

But he knows that we'd learn of the universe (not fully as I doubt that's possible) and the discoveries we make all the time and nothing is laid out very easily, no, this is the way it is and being alpha and omega etc he knew of what we'd learn and what we will learn. If he didn't make it the way it works now (which can be assumed to be the best "phase 1" of the grand plan because he gets the best for us) we wouldn't be able to have things such as medicine and education; but we have those things now, to perhaps allow us to work towards a kingdom of heaven on earth (not THE one but one which we are striving for) through getting help to the needy, educating people and bringing them back into society.

But how far back would that go? Some suggest that australopithecus may have had the beginnings of abstract thought, mainly due to finding this odd-shaped pebble near an australopithecine fossil.

Geology informs us of things like unconformities. These things take millions of years. Simply, they are layers of sediment or rock which has been folded, eroded, overturned and then left there for a bit before sediment and rock is once again deposited to start the process again. 6000 yrs counted, billions of years of events and processes found; why the confusion?

Sure, whatever. Except that they supposedly invented clothes and agriculture and could talk, but whatever.

>How about you not be ashamed of the word of God?
Which is not the bible, but which is Christ, even according to the bible.

And Iom doesn't have to mean literal days. A Iom can be any "span of time" for example the bible calls the whole live of Adam a "Iom".

>I'm obviously stating that if Philo had written about Jesus, those writings would have been preserved.
Bull fucking shit. A lot of the early church fathers works got destroyed despite being about religion & Jesus. And we know they existed cause we find them in citations in other works of their time.

Kek.

Oh, that shit again, only changed to a different deity.

youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA

"Look, before Queen Elisabeth there were female Pharaos in Egypt, so the English culture is actually a continuation of Egyptian one".