Evidence for God from Science

It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Audie wrote:It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Audie,

I think you've touched upon one of the problems with the belief that God gave souls to preexisting hominids.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Audie,

I think you've touched upon one of the problems with the belief that God gave souls to preexisting hominids.

That was like so totally the idea.

I'm not sure how I feel about Adam and Eve, evolution and so on but my thinking is that is it not possible that any preexisting humans had a soul but weren't made in His image.
The biggest mystery to me is why. Animals, I get, God gave them to us to love and learn from but preexisting humans. Why?

Storyteller wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about Adam and Eve, evolution and so on but my thinking is that is it not possible that any preexisting humans had a soul but weren't made in His image.
The biggest mystery to me is why. Animals, I get, God gave them to us to love and learn from but preexisting humans. Why?

There has been life on earth for many hundreds of millions of years.

During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged, others were not successful and disappeared.

Yet others show a succession of changes, then the line died out, or, a succession of changes that continued up to this day.

The primates are not an exception, there is a fossil record for them too.

WHY were there hominid ancestors? Because they could survive and reproduce.

IF they had not existed,you wouldnt either.

What is the mystery?

I think the problem is an inappropritate distinction between scientific species and kinds vs the biblical idea of miyn, usually translated "kind." We want to ask where the overlap is between a scientific species or kind and a biblical "kind". But I think that idea is fundamentally flawed. Prescientific taxonomy was built solely around morphology. So whales would have been "fish." The idea of species doesn't come anything like entering into it.

So what's a "man"--an ish in Hebrew? Would Moses have looked at H Floresiensis (or any of these other species) and seen a ish? The evolutionary history is completely meaningless to that question? The only place I see an intersection is with the question of the historicity of Adam. The most obvious position would be that if Adam was real, then you would assume he was a homo sapien sapien, and that all "men" before him were not men at all. Again, though, I want to go back to how that's the wrong question, because we're back to trying to find an overlap between miyn and species. It's clear that if Adam was real then he was a hominid, and that the obvious and most likely assumption is that he was homo sapien sapien. But all of that is just of historical interest, not really of theological interest.

The theological interest has to start with our understanding of the nature of the human soul. The human soul is a rational soul. The question is whether those other hominids had rational souls (as opposed to only vegetative or animal). If they have rational souls, then it seems clear the intellect must survive death and therefore it would be appropriate to share the gospel with them, and that whether they were direct descendents of Adam or not. This might seem to create theological problems with the idea of Adam and original sin and such things, but I would, again, suggest that it's actually a historical problem. It may just be a point of historical fact that Adam came along at the point in which all those other hominids were distinct, such that the question is theoretical only. It's just is by historical fact that modern humans are the only ones concerned with the gospel, and perhaps that's all by design. Who knows at that point? But to the question, again--if we DID happen to find some other hominid--if we found a rational soul, then we ought to share the gospel with them.

Jac3510 wrote:I think the problem is an inappropritate distinction between scientific species and kinds vs the biblical idea of miyn, usually translated "kind." We want to ask where the overlap is between a scientific species or kind and a biblical "kind". But I think that idea is fundamentally flawed. Prescientific taxonomy was built solely around morphology. So whales would have been "fish." The idea of species doesn't come anything like entering into it.

So what's a "man"--an ish in Hebrew? Would Moses have looked at H Floresiensis (or any of these other species) and seen a ish? The evolutionary history is completely meaningless to that question? The only place I see an intersection is with the question of the historicity of Adam. The most obvious position would be that if Adam was real, then you would assume he was a homo sapien sapien, and that all "men" before him were not men at all. Again, though, I want to go back to how that's the wrong question, because we're back to trying to find an overlap between miyn and species. It's clear that if Adam was real then he was a hominid, and that the obvious and most likely assumption is that he was homo sapien sapien. But all of that is just of historical interest, not really of theological interest.

The theological interest has to start with our understanding of the nature of the human soul. The human soul is a rational soul. The question is whether those other hominids had rational souls (as opposed to only vegetative or animal). If they have rational souls, then it seems clear the intellect must survive death and therefore it would be appropriate to share the gospel with them, and that whether they were direct descendents of Adam or not. This might seem to create theological problems with the idea of Adam and original sin and such things, but I would, again, suggest that it's actually a historical problem. It may just be a point of historical fact that Adam came along at the point in which all those other hominids were distinct, such that the question is theoretical only. It's just is by historical fact that modern humans are the only ones concerned with the gospel, and perhaps that's all by design. Who knows at that point? But to the question, again--if we DID happen to find some other hominid--if we found a rational soul, then we ought to share the gospel with them.

Seems like a thorough analysis.

Do you consider then that whatever exactly the line is, H habilis-erectos etc, that some among those hominids would be ancestors of A and E?

Audie wrote:Seems like a thorough analysis.

Do you consider then that whatever exactly the line is, H habilis-erectos etc, that some among those hominids would be ancestors of A and E?

Short answer, yes. I don't see how we could say otherwise.

All things in debates that involve creationism, I could offer endless qualifiers and then qualifiers for those qualifiers. But one of those qualifiers would be that, after all the qualification, this simple answer should still stand unchallenged.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Seems like a thorough analysis.

Do you consider then that whatever exactly the line is, H habilis-erectos etc, that some among those hominids would be ancestors of A and E?

Short answer, yes. I don't see how we could say otherwise.

All things in debates that involve creationism, I could offer endless qualifiers and then qualifiers for those qualifiers. But one of those qualifiers would be that, after all the qualification, this simple answer should still stand unchallenged.

Ever think about an afterlife reception line? You meet n" greet with great grandparents, great great, etc. Where would the other end of the line be?

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Seems like a thorough analysis.

Do you consider then that whatever exactly the line is, H habilis-erectos etc, that some among those hominids would be ancestors of A and E?

Short answer, yes. I don't see how we could say otherwise.

All things in debates that involve creationism, I could offer endless qualifiers and then qualifiers for those qualifiers. But one of those qualifiers would be that, after all the qualification, this simple answer should still stand unchallenged.

Ever think about an afterlife reception line? You meet n" greet with great grandparents, great great, etc. Where would the other end of the line be?

Hopefully in heaven!

Audie wrote:It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Gap Creationists have been talking about a Pre-Adamite race as far as I can tell since about the 1920's and once scientists started finding hominids it only confirmed this biblical interpretation.Based on what the bible teaches although they may look like humans they are not and they did not have a soul like man does.Man was a new creation and God breathed into them giving them a soul that animals
do not have.

I think that if scientists could let go of materialism( which I doubt they could) they should get together with knowledgeable Gap Creationists to better understand what the evidence is telling us.However scientists may have to stop looking at everything from an evolution perspective.I think it is causing them to get a distorted view of what the evidence is telling us.

Revelation 20:13

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Seems like a thorough analysis.

Do you consider then that whatever exactly the line is, H habilis-erectos etc, that some among those hominids would be ancestors of A and E?

Short answer, yes. I don't see how we could say otherwise.

All things in debates that involve creationism, I could offer endless qualifiers and then qualifiers for those qualifiers. But one of those qualifiers would be that, after all the qualification, this simple answer should still stand unchallenged.

Ever think about an afterlife reception line? You meet n" greet with great grandparents, great great, etc. Where would the other end of the line be?

Hopefully in heaven!

That is not what I meant.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Gap Creationists have been talking about a Pre-Adamite race as far as I can tell since about the 1920's and once scientists started finding hominids it only confirmed this biblical interpretation.Based on what the bible teaches although they may look like humans they are not and they did not have a soul like man does.Man was a new creation and God breathed into them giving them a soul that animals
do not have.

I think that if scientists could let go of materialism ( which I doubt they could) they should get together with knowledgeable Gap Creationists to better understand what the evidence is telling us.However scientists may have to stop looking at everything from an evolution perspective.I think it is causing them to get a distorted view of what the evidence is telling us.

only confirmed this biblical interpretation

The bible will say whatever you want it to say.

I think that if scientists could let go of materialism

Never crossed your mind that a very large number of scientists are Christians or people of other faiths?

Or that the alternative to "materialism" as you put it, is to allow for magic as
an explanation for things? That was tried for millenia. It doesnt work.

There is no such thing as a "knowledgable gap creationist". That is like
saying astronomers should talk to a "knowledgeable astrologer".

Anyone who does have even a college freshman understanding of geology and or biology should be able to understand why "gap" is nonsense. You would
do well to a) quit trying to make ever thread about gap and b) learn enough to quit making an embarrassing spectacle of yourself.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:It's been suggested that God gave souls to A and E, thus making them
materially and spiritually different from all their ancestors.

Should it turn out, tho, that a little band of our "Hobbit" cousins * is yet
living in Indonesia, and they are discovered, are they to be brought into the church, or, is there no point to it?

*substitute H erectus, habilis, etc as one likes, same question.

Gap Creationists have been talking about a Pre-Adamite race as far as I can tell since about the 1920's and once scientists started finding hominids it only confirmed this biblical interpretation.Based on what the bible teaches although they may look like humans they are not and they did not have a soul like man does.Man was a new creation and God breathed into them giving them a soul that animals
do not have.

I think that if scientists could let go of materialism ( which I doubt they could) they should get together with knowledgeable Gap Creationists to better understand what the evidence is telling us.However scientists may have to stop looking at everything from an evolution perspective.I think it is causing them to get a distorted view of what the evidence is telling us.

only confirmed this biblical interpretation

The bible will say whatever you want it to say.

I think that if scientists could let go of materialism

Never crossed your mind that a very large number of scientists are Christians or people of other faiths?

Or that the alternative to "materialism" as you put it, is to allow for magic as
an explanation for things? That was tried for millenia. It doesnt work.

There is no such thing as a "knowledgable gap creationist". That is like
saying astronomers should talk to a "knowledgeable astrologer".

Anyone who does have even a college freshman understanding of geology and or biology should be able to understand why "gap" is nonsense. You would
do well to a) quit trying to make ever thread about gap and b) learn enough to quit making an embarrassing spectacle of yourself.

Whether you agree with it or not this is another biblical interpretation and it addresses hominids as I have explained.You people are just hurting yourselves pushing a theory up the scientific hill you have never been able to demonstrate while interpreting all of the evidence from a wrong perspective.Just because you disagree with the gap does not mean every other interpretation can give their perspective and yet I can't.You can handle something you disagree with like I do.

2nd Peter 3:3-4

The Gap theory I'm assuming is referring to a supposed gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2. THAT has been debated for a long time. What people are trying to put Into that Gap of Time is kind of interesting. Pure speculation.

Going back to basics -- hominids - human beings - there had to be a male and female together in order to reproduce themselves. Generation by generation they continued to reproduce 'like themselves' -- So Where did the first of Them Come From. They Had to have a set of parents -- just like We do. And How do we know that people / that We have a soul. Where would we Get our soul From? And, yes, the Bible teaches that we Do have a soul. But do people who Don't believe in God Not Have one? And those who Do believe Do have One. And what happens when someone changes their beliefs -- how do they gain or loose their soul.

Audie -- you were assuming in that 1st post? that an individual / 'existing personage' was found to exist -- would they be brought into the Church to 'get saved'? But IF we Did evolve from 'something' other than human - can a soul evolve with the species. Because our soul is what makes us people -- different from animals. So -- apparently -- at Some point in past history -- there was a hominid that turned into a People. That simply Does Not Happen.