I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that evolution can partially be fulfilled when mutation is within the same specie, but it does not cross mutate. I believe with the law of entropy; things are changing (evolving) to mediocrity or degeneration. Consequently, I reject the theory that man came from an ape. Evolution is not a totally scientific theory because science is not based on faith; it is based on empiricisms, and the four stages of empiricism are observation, hypothesis, experimentation and theory (OHET). For the theory of man evolving to an ape to have a base, it must be experimented which as we all know has never been experimented for lack of time as Darwin and his exponents claimed.
Some claim that the narratives on the creation of man in genesis chapter 1 and 2 and even the fall of man in chapter 3 are all mythic. Those who believe that a myth is a fictitious story are still right too, for that is what it is, but that is one definition. If we define myth as a story based on tradition, then the entire Bible is a myth since none today was present yesteryears to witness its writing. However, what differentiates the Bible or its content from other mythical stories is that its content is true; could be corroborated with living accounts. Science, archeology, history, internal and external evidences and the existence of lectionaries all prove that the Bible is infallible and thus true. If the story is true, then we can only start to read it literally before going literarily and practically (applying text to its context). It is absurd for anyone to start finding the meaning of a word connotatively when they cannot even decipher its denotative meaning.
Looking at the above bearings, we may want to look at the content of Genesis to see if it has the characteristics of a myth. Yes, it does because it was transmitted by oral tradition; it has a Deity (God) and legends (Adam and Eve). Yet it transcends a fictional story because what is narrated could actually still be experienced. The book of Romans says:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come (Rom 5:12-14).
Stories that were written as myth lived and ended with those periods and cannot replicate themselves. Therefore, the source of sin which is the fall of man as narrated in Genesis chapter 3 is not a myth because Romans corroborates it. It is nonfiction that was remitted by oral tradition. Just because something was orally transmitted from one generation to another does not make the story spurious.
The man in verse 12 is not a macrocosm but a microcosm. If it is a microcosm, then it cannot represent a group. The usage of the cardinal number /one/ as a noun or adjective denotes singularity of a thing or person. Thus, one man means there was only one man. Not to leave us in indecision, the writer follows with Adam as the apposition.
Genesis is very literal. There is nothing poetic about Genesis 3. What form of poetry would that be? Is it free verse? Not at all. It would have been closed to some narrative or lyric poem but it is not. That is a simple narrative about how sin entered into the world through the shortcomings of one man: Adam and life through one Man: Jesus.
Adam being used as a type of Christ does not make it a group. Does it mean Christ is a group too or a single person? Yes, since Adam is a type of group then Christ is an antitype of group Perhaps the simple narrative has evolved into a narrative poem who knows.
The fact that Origen said genesis 3was poetic does not mean he is right. What about the others who said the contrary?
While there is poetry in the Bible but Genesis 1-3 should be read literally. That may invite the question if the word firmament is literal. Such a question would be limited only to chapter 1 and not since the word firmament is mentioned only in chapter 1. Nonetheless, the word firmament was perhaps used as a synonym to the asteroid belt.
Man did not come from a monkey and will never come from a monkey. So the analogies you gave are inconsequential. The only logic we should adhere to right now is that, if man came from a monkey then other monkeys could still be turning to man until today. Sadly, they have not been. So the case is closed.
Some people believe that if chapter 1 and 2 are read literally then they will be contradicting each other. There are no contradictions in these passages. The problem here is one of paragraph patterns. One is in terms of chronology or logical order while the other is descriptive pattern. In chapter two, the paragraph is developed descriptively. The passages would have been contradictory if their development was sequential, yet that is not the case. It is synonymous to telling a story and digressing to inject an anecdote to buttress your point or to create some humor. Look at V 18 of chapter 2. The author narrates then suspends the narration about man in verses 19-20 to go to the animal kingdom. Then in verse 21 he comes back to give more details on how humanity was fully created.
Listen; if someone writes the same passage and develops them with different paragraph patterns, there will be an apparent contradiction due to placement of events. However, what is important is the existence of the facts. The topic sentences in chapter one and chapter two are the same. They talk of the creation of heaven and earth. If you look carefully in the way both passages are developed, you will realize that it is a problem of blueprints and not of facts. Furthermore, the narrations lack any versification; thus, cannot be considered poetic. Those narratives are more prosaic than poetic because they proclive more to the former with a plot (creation of humanity), characters (Adam and Eve and the animals), setting (comic; heave and earth), and a theme (creation) than to the latter.
“Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability” (Abel David).
To put feathers on a lizard, for example, would require a favorable macromutation that would add a long strand of properly sequenced base pairs to the DNA. Though theoretically possible such a favorable macromutation has never
been observed. A step by step series of small mutations to gradually put
feathers on a lizard would also be implausible because partially formed feathers would be disadvantageous to the lizard. The needed macromutation with hundreds of properly sequenced base pairs would be as hyper-improbable as the chance formation of the protein we discussed above. We can confidently say that virtually all steps in the alleged macroevolution process would fail the UPM test. Evolution is falsified. Bill Nugent.
My science is not that good, but I know falsehood no matter what scientific name it carries. One does not need to be a fossilist to know that the theory of macroevolution is not plausible. Not even one’s nescience of science should be a factor. That is lame excuse that the evolutionists “believe that humans descended from a particular species or primates, which are now extinct”. The excuse of extinction is to avert the empirical challenge of experimentation that authenticates a theory. It is not possible for primates to become humans.
“The evidence reveals that evolution has occurred but the jury is still out for me”. What evidence: assumptions, probabilities and inferences? Evolution has had enough time to prove its case. If it has not proven it and cannot prove it, then it is a spurious theory and should not be considered.
Every hypothesis must enter into the lab to be experimented. Experience thus far peters out macroevolution as a believable theory. If I don’t have scientific tools to prove that God exists, I can at least use my daily experiences and occurrences to prove that He does. It is thus swivel chair (retired) syllogism to posit that “oh if given some more time, it will occur”. Tell your kids that macroevolution is not plausible, and that it is all bundles of fabrication interwoven to extricate man from his responsibilities of piety.
Perhaps people are just falling in love with the word poetic or perhaps are merely discovering it, but if one had taken time to look at the characteristics of poetry and prose, he/she would have realized that the passages are more prosaic than poetic.
The allusion to Galileo again defeats their very theory. Galileo never said just believe that the earth was not stationary, but he used a telescope to observe the moon. In 1610 he made his observations and in 1725 James Bradley saw that the stars moved due to the earth’s rotation. That was within 115 years from the time of hypothesis to the time of experimentation.
However, since 1859 (the publication date of Darwin’s Origin of Species) in which he posited macroevolution with an ape mutating to a human being until today, we have not experienced anything. That is a period of 151 years from the time of hypothesis to that of experimentation. Considering that the average lifespan of man has been 365 years, at least if that was plausible, we would have experienced it. Bearing in mind that the average lifespan of humans is 70 years, then it is probable that we will never experience the cross mutation of species. In layman register, it is clear we will never see an ape change to a human being.
Evolution per the term can exist and does exist even until today, but in terms of transmutation; it is impractical, so it should not be believed. Consequently, those who believe in macroevolution act on presumption and faulty inference.
Until then, I am done with this futility.
Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk
“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).
Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).