Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

There is an aspect of Dick's thought that creates a graver problem. I can
understand that the people who contacted Adam (his view) directly or
indirectly, could learn to have a conscience or whatever it takes to be
responsible before God. However, there were many tribes who were totally
isolated from such contact on the Americas, Australia, the Pacific
islands. Other tribes, such as those in the more distant areas of Africa,
for example, would be unlikely to have the message relayed to them. The
only way I can think of for these groups to have a conscience is for it
to be "transmitted" to them merely through the fact that Adam existed. If
this is the way that responsibility became part of every human being now
alive, then the redemption in Christ should be transmitted similarly, so
that all are now redeemed necessarily. If Dick can explain how anyone is
unredeemed under his scenario, I'd like to hear it.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:06:17 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
Dick and I both agree that man evolved from an ape-like creature. The
reason why is because of the overwhelming DNA evidence (pseudogenes and
fused chromosome). However, Dick thinks there was a real historical Adam
person and I don’t. I just want to clarify that.
 
Dick, to be consistent, if you think Adam was a real person, then I think
you should also believe that there really was a talking serpent and
literal tree of life in a literal garden and that Eve was made literally
from Adam’s rib (Gen. 2), but I don’t think you go that far, correct? A
short response would be appreciated.
 
Gordon, yes I blur the distinction between human and non-human, as that
is what evolution is- a blur. Supposedly something like 95% (99%?) of
all animals (species) that ever lived are now extinct. Wacky critters
(like the platypus), thanks to evolution. If man arose from ape-like
creatures, it was very gradual. An ape didn’t just give birth to a man,
as YEC’s seem to think evolution teaches. At the present moment- yes,
big diff between animals and man, with (many) intermediates missing.
 
Gordon said: “This is just one area in Christian doctrine where in order
to apply it it is necessary to know whether a creature is or is not
human.”
 
Today- we know we are human, made in the image of God, and sinners who
need a savior. The details all vary according to your denomination or
personal theology, and aren’t necessary, I think.
 
..Bernie
 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 7:53 AM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for
Gregory)
 
Hi Gordon,
 
It seems pretty straight forward to me. Man splits off from apes in the
neighborhood of 6 million years ago becoming ape-man and then man-ape
until Homo erectus emerges. Much later, Homo sapiens develop in Africa
and spread out over the globe. The great races develop. Southern
Mesopotamia, the land of the Tigris and Euphrates, remains unsettled
until the advent of irrigation techniques. Up until roughly 7,000 years
ago there is no accountability among any of the animal species including
humans. Sin against God isn't possible by any living creature until God
establishes his covenant with Adam in the Garden. This ushers in the era
of accountability among humans with Adam being the first accountable
human being. So salvation begins with Adam and sin begins with Adam.
What’s the problem?
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:26 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for
Gregory)
 
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
 
> I think with evolution there is no such thing as a "first man" since
all species blur in the grey zone. There is no such thing as a line
between human and non-human... it happened very gradually. Nevertheless,
here we find ourselves as sinful humans made in the image of God.
Animals don't sin (even if bears and tigers do kill each other simply for
territory, rape, etc.).
>
 
Bernie,
 
I don't think you are being consistent here. First you blur the
distinction between human and nonhuman. Then you turn around and say that

humans sin but animals don't. This is just one area in Christian doctrine

where in order to apply it it is necessary to know whether a creature is
or is not human. The answer should not have to depend on a physical basis

for making the distinction.
 
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
 
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
____________________________________________________________
Take a break - you deserve it. Click here to find a great vacation.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nJgx9KBJpIhtYP8yeKagoLL19ZK0MkUyAVgzvJ6yzBVAm93/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 8 19:30:54 2008