RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

Hi JP-

JP said: "I don't really care whether God created man from dirt immediately or over 3.8 billion years."

I do deeply care. And if you come to see the answer to this question clearly, your theology will take a much more definite shape. It deeply impacts one's faith. And I think the evidence is overwhelming that biological evolution actually occurred to create humans (the mechanisms for evolution are in debate, but not the "fact" that it happened). DNA can prove many things in a court of law; in the same exact way, I think it proves the event of human biological evolution. Once that is received, then you can be sure that Adam was not created literally by a scoop of dirt, which also means the rest of Genesis ch's 1 & 2 are likewise not literal (talking serpents, etc.).

Whether God is directly involved in evolution or not is a different class of questions.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: james000777@bellsouth.net [mailto:james000777@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:15 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

I think we are arguing about different things, although you may consider them to be the same.

I've read Collins, Miller, etc, and seen (and replied to) the pseudogene issue ad nauseum. I don't have a problem with CD. I don't have a problem with man's relationship in the past, or what DNA points to as our ancestors. You think that because the genetic evidence (pseudogenes, etc) indicates man evolved from apes, that God had nothing to do with it. Genesis says that God had something to do with it. Genesis does NOT say much about how God did it...I don't really care whether God created man from dirt immediately or over 3.8 billion years.

My point is that there were two people that were the progenitors of mankind (Hebrew mankind perhaps). They are described in Genesis. How that came about isn't described clearly. God didn't discuss pseudogenes with Moses, apparently. I think it's perfectly OK to presume a hominid ancestor for Adam, either the one in G1 or the one in G2. That does nothing to make Adam figurative, or symbolic. That does nothing to disprove that God was directly involved with Adam's creation. You may not want God to be directly involved, because that would be "natural" but hey, that's not what Genesis tells us. It tells us he was directly involved.

THAT is what I am debating, really and truly.

I agree with the point made earlier by someone: Truth is Truth, no matter what we believe. I really think this whole CD thing is blown way out of proportion. I'm fine with Uncle Pongo. It was my Father God who changed me to be human. It happened when Genesis happened, and it wasn't just natural selection working on random mutations that caused it. If you want to believe that, you can. Once again, I suggest Russell's OSP, but I think even that would be taxed to explain the interventional works of God in creating mankind.

More later...lunch break over! JP
-------------- Original message from "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>: --------------

> Hi JP-
> You asked for proof that Adam was not made biologically by fiat. I think I have
> overwhelming proof for that.
> The big picture: there are only two general ways in which humans were biologically made: Either by fiat (a miracle from God from scratch- scooping/forming dirt and breathing life into it) or by evolution from lower
> animals.
> Either way would "leave a mark" in the DNA. If by fiat, we would expect to see breaks in DNA, such as "you can't get there from here" when looking at chimp to human DNA. If made by evolution, we would see all kinds of pathways across the
> different animal genomes.
>
> Now look at the DNA evidence:
> 1. Pseudogenes. These genes work in lower lifeforms, but our copy is retarded in some way and so it is nonfunctional. The enzyme for asorbic acid (vitamin c) is classic: lower life-forms have it, but the ape and human DNA copy is screwed-up so it doesn't work. It can't be because of a curse of God on Adam
> for sinning, because apes are also messed-up but not other lower life-forms.
>
> 2. Fused human chromosome #2. This explains perfectly how a human could arise
> out of an apelike creature, but goes against creation by fiat.
>
> Francis Collins explains this well in his book "The Language of God." The
> pseudogene argument is explained very well for a layman in the book by RTB's
> Hugh Ross (and Fuz) "Who was Adam?" (the whole vitamin C thing and much more).
> (Hugh Ross rejects human evolution from lower lifeforms, but he has no answer
> for this pseudogene problem.)
>
> The strongest argument is #1, pseudogenes. This is because of all the copying
> shown in the various genomes when compared.
>
> It would be like if you claimed to make a CPU from scratch, not copying from my
> company. My company would inspect your work to see if there's a lawsuit. If
> they see things copied- you're dead! I heard rumors that some designers on some
> products purposely put in weird things just to see if their work is copied- it
> is a powerful argument in a court of law. DEC used to be a company that made
> advanced computers, and I heard a joke that they used to write on their circuit
> board "when you care to copy from the very best" so the Russians would have that
> when they steal our technology. See this for the funny picture and more info:
> http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
> Of James Patterson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:14 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
>
> > The problem, as I see it, is that the natural record disproves
> > an Adam who was made biologically by fiat.
>
> Reliance upon an incomplete and inconsistent natural record, and calling
> that "proof" is less than an optimal solution, in my opinion. However, lay
> out the evidence that you consider proof in 5 to 10 concise bullets, if
> that's possible. I say "if that's possible", because I realize that many
> such topics require much more...sometimes entire books. You might also refer
> me to certain chapters in Miller's Perspective's of an Evolving Creation, if
> the points you wish to make are in there.
>
> Kind regards, JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here
>
> George said:
> " The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original
> sin."
>
> In my seminary class, they say there are these stages:
>
> 1. God made everything perfect.
> 2. Man fell.
> 3. Christ redeemed.
> 4. The final state.
>
> We sinned so we need a savior. If you don't have sin, you don't need a
> savior. Where did sin come from? Inherited by Adam. Therefore, reject
> Adam, and the gospel is all confused and murky. (That's why those who
> believe in Adam share the gospel starting at point1, whereas others would
> skip right into the solution to sin (3), not explaining where sin came
> from.)
>
> I agree- it is a nice and very sharp focus to have a literal Adam in there
> doing the first sin, as the Apostle Paul seems to teach (Christ is like the
> second Adam, only undoing all the damage rather than causing it).
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that the natural record disproves an Adam who
> was made biologically by fiat. And if that 'creation by fiat' isn't
> literal, there's no need to take the rest of Gen. ch's 1-2 as literal
> either.
>
> Dang- there goes the clarity. But science has a way of complicating
> everything, in order to make it simpler in the long run. Removing a literal
> Adam creates a lot of theological problems, but I think it also solves many
> problems (both in science and theology).
>
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of gmurphy10@neo.rr.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:52 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
> Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here
>
> The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original sin.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- James Patterson wrote:
> > I don't know what you mean by intimately involved but as I stated,
> >
> > I don't think I and a lot of people on this list neccessarily
> >
> > believe that and I resent the implication that means I am not
> >
> > choosing God. This assumes a historical Adam and a literal Genesis
> >
> > and as you know there are many on this list that reject both.
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, I think the opposite is more true, that the PSI Gulo
> >
> > pseudogene evidence shows that man was likely not the result of
> >
> > any intimate involvement (e.g. special creation) unless you
> >
> > consider the spiritual aspect of man and that would likely be
> >
> > imperceptible to science anyway, rendering this to be by all
> >
> > appearances identical to the deistic position anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > So again, we are back to your strawman argument that God NOT being
> >
> > intimately involved in Adam and Eve means not choosing God and
> >
> > that God HAD to leave His fingerprints on Adam and Eve to get the
> >
> > credit for creating them. But neither is true and neither are
> >
> > scientific statements. And neither are supported by data either.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well then, John, perhaps you do have a problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Bible is an integrated whole, and fits together throughout its
> breadth. You want to remove the lynchpin from that completeness by removing
> Adam and Eve, and original sin. I am not sure that Adam and Eve were the
> first two of all mankind. Even if they were the first two of the Hebrews,
> they were the first two. Genesis spends quite a bit of time telling us about
> them. If you want to think that Genesis and all the rest of the creation
> accounts in the Bible are made-up, then that is your choice. I believe it's
> the wrong one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's a little thought experiment:
> >
> >
> >
> > Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously just symbolic. There's no scientific
> evidence for Adam and Eve, right? So that means all of Genesis is
> tainted...why not just blow the whole of Genesis off? And while we're at it,
> Exodus is shaky too. There's no evidence all that really happened. Heck, I
> don't like any of the Pentateuch, let's get rid of it as well. And while we
> are at it, Revelations doesn't seem right either. I'm not sure it's supposed
> to be there.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, since God didn't have any supernatural involvement with the creation
> of man or his spiritual nature, then why accept any of the supernatural
> accounts in the Bible? Why not just become a higher critic, and cut out the
> portions of the Bible altogether that reference prophecy, miracles, signs
> and wonders, and don't align with science? They obviously are false, since
> the supernatural isn't real.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why not just be a deist then? If all you need is the moral law of God, why
> believe in Christ at all? Why shouldn't we just believe then, that Jesus was
> "just a good man"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hopefully from this little thought experiment my message is clear. If you
> think that you can "choose God" and deny the Genesis account of creation (as
> well as all the other references in the Bible), then I disagree with you, I
> believe you are wrong, I believe that your Christianity lacks foundational
> strength, and I think therefore that your faith is on shaky ground. You must
> deal with my statements as best you can, because that's where I live, and
> that's what I believe.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a balance. YEC denies science. You deny the Genesis account. I
> accept both. That is not always easy for me to like or deal with. You may
> continue to resent that if you wish, but where does that anger come from,
> really? Because you really need to deal with the source of that anger - not
> with me. I am comfortable discussing these topics. I will defend my position
> as best I am able.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now...did I touch on a nerve for more than just John? Quite likely.
> However, I think that you should be able to see 1 Peter 3:15 above, and I
> think it is wholly consistent with Ephesians 4:29. However, perhaps this
> modification of my original statement will appease you:
> >
> >
> >
> > If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
> creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice. As for me and
> my family, we choose God's intimate involvement with his Creation.
> >
> >
> >
> > JP
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 26 15:06:58 2009