Is Man a Cosmic Accident?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Christine J. Watson, Apr 16, 2003.

  1. Christine J. Watson

    Christine J. Watson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?
    Microevolution, the indication that there is a change, a progression involving different directions among various species that we can track historically is of no consequence with respect to biblical Christianity. It's the unsubstantiated myth of macroevolution that presents rational, logical as well as theological objections. One day this unmitigated nonsense will be totally rejected by the scientific community.

    In this post, I will focus in on the theological objections to theistic evolution. A Christian cannot believe that he is a cosmic accident and at the same time believe in the sovereign God and the creator God. Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a nonhuman ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man's creation in Genesis 2:7. Man did not evolve but rather was created from the dust of the ground. How can I know for sure? As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down.

    Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10.) Jesus Christ's words have the authority to be trusted in this particular matter as surely as His words can be trusted in other matters.

    Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 reveals God's love for us through Christ the Redeemer. As far as Christianity is concerned, if there's no creation, then there's nothing to redeem. If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis. Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly rejects such a notion.

    Christine JW
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a common misconception that theistic evolution considers man to be a "cosmic accident". For a Christian, nothing God does is an accident.

    Hence, His use of nature to create living things is merely the way He decided to do it.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with insisting on accepting literal interpretation of the Bible no matter what science says is nobody does that in every case. There are some biblical assertions that are literally stated that nobody believes to be literally true.
     
  4. FRED WILSON

    FRED WILSON
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    CHRISTINE J WATSON,
    GENESIS 1;26-And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness;and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,and over all the earth,and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    Genesis 2;7-And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul.

    No man is not a Cosmic Accident.

    God Bless. [​IMG]
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nor does evolutionary theory say that he is.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree. I find it interesting that those opposed to theistic evolution refuse to understand the idea of evolution by design.
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I like the idea of God the Creator, rather than God the Designer. All intelligent beings can design, but only one of them can truly create.
     
  8. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man take on God's image and likeness?

    If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man become capable of making this kind of decision?

    If man was created by God as a single celled bactirium sort of creature, was that creature made in the image of God, and was that creature capable of making the decision to, or not to, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

    At what point in man's evolution do these two verses of scripture become applicable to man?
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man take on God's image and likeness?
    When God gave man a soul. "Image and likeness" does not refer to the physical form, but the spiritual form.

    If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man become capable of making this kind of decision?
    Again, when God gave man a soul.

    If man was created by God as a single celled bactirium sort of creature, was that creature made in the image of God, and was that creature capable of making the decision to, or not to, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
    Physical appearance does not determine "in the image and likeness of God".

    At what point in man's evolution do these two verses of scripture become applicable to man?
    After God gives man a soul. Note that Gen2:7 supports the physical being as separate from the spiritual:

    And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Now, whether God "formed man" via evolution over time or all at once, God did not give man a spirit until after man was formed, and man did not become a living soul until after the process of formation and until after God gaiving man a spirit were completed. Man was not "in the image and likeness of God" until man "became a living soul".
     
  10. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    And when did that occur?

    And where is there any mention of there ever being a "man creature" that was not a living soul?
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...where is there any mention of there ever being a "man creature" that was not a living soul?
    Gen2:7 Man is not complete (aka, become a living soul) until AFTER he is formed, AND until AFTER the breath of life is breathed into him.
     
  12. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Does this verse, as it is written, give any indication of a great amount of time between the forming of man out of the dust of the ground and the subsequent breathing into his nostrils the breath of life?
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't discuss time at all. The purpose of the verse isn't to discuss time. It's purpose is to explain what constitutes a man being a living soul, as per the image and likeness of God.
     
  14. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, in other words, you have to read into the text a great amount of time to fulfill the supposition that evolution has occured.

    [ April 17, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    One has to look to the evidence. And all the evidence points to a very old universe.
     
  16. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, in other words, you can't get from the text of the Genesis account that evolution has occurred, you have to trust in something other than God's Word.

    You speak of evidence. What is your best evidence that evolution has occurred?
     
  17. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here, check out this picture of a contemporary whale skeleton, showing vestigal hip/leg structures. There are some species of whales with these vestiges completely absent, there are others with these vestiges somewhat larger.

    I cite the presence of these whale vestigal hips as evidence for evolution.

    http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/vbones.jpg
     
  18. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've heard that used before. I've also heard that those bones are attachment points for muscles that the whales use during mating.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't say anything about the issue. It doesn't say anything about molecular biology, or nuclear power, or superconductivity, either. You may think that God was remiss in not telling us about these things, but most Christians think that the Bible was for a different purpose, and that God expects us to find out some things for ourselves.

    Yep. Fortunately, he gave each of us intelligence and the ability to find out these things. Even if He didn't specifically mention them in Scripture.

    Directly observed speciation is a good one. But let's review the major sources of evidence, from earlier in the thread:

    What is the evidence for evolution?

    First, anatomy shows homologies among organisms that show evolutionary histories. Similarities may or may not be homologies. For example, wolves and thylacines are superficially similar, but the details shows that one is related to canids and other carnivores, while the thylacine is related to other marsuipials. The same kind of teeth are in both animals, but the dental formula of the wolf is like other canids, and the superficially similar teeth of the thylacine follow the marsupial dental formula.

    Not surprisingly, when we look a the DNA of the two animals, we find that this analysis give us the same evolutionary history as anatomical information. (thylacines are presumably extinct, but we still have enough remains to do such analyses)

    And biochemistry gives us many other examples. Widely-distributed molecules in living things have small differences, which when analyzed, give us the same phylogenies we get from other, independent sources of evidence.


    Incidentally, vestigial legs are not common on whales, but only show up on some of them. They have no function at all now.

    James is probably thinking of the extinct whale Basilosaurus, which still had very small hind legs with a hip joint that permitted only two positions. This seems likely to have been used in mating as claspers. No species of whale today has hind legs that perform any function at all.
     
  20. JamesJ

    JamesJ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that necessarily have to be due to common ancestory, or might it also be due to common design?
     

Share This Page

Loading...