If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Tassman]

???? That doesn't even make sense. Your trolling is slipping.

I am not even TE, I was just helping Gary out by giving him the answer that TE's have given me in the past. Your post was just a complete non sequitur to the whole topic. Just an attempt to derail it like you do every thread. This thread isn't about whether souls exist or not. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread. You know how to do that right?

Always quick to blame others, eh Sparko.

Your response to the OP was (in post #2) that non-human animals don't need saving in that "they don't have an immortal soul so there is nothing to save"

So why?

[Rushing Jaws]

Interesting, but not the topic of this thread. This thread is addressed to Christians such as "Adrift" and Stein who believe in Evolution and also seem to believe that humans need a Savior. To me these positions are contradictory. I am trying to understand how so many "moderate" Christians can simultaneously hold these two positions.

In case anyone is still reading, and would still like an answer:

Suppose a train in a story, and a train existing in everyday life. The two trains will not collide, because a train that exists as a real material object is of a different order of being from a train that exists only in a story. The two trains are of different orders of being - they are incommensurable. They are related, not by encountering each other - because they are incommensurable, they cannot do that - but by both being related to a third something, namely, the mind of the person who thinks about both of them.

Rather than taking the Genesis 1-11 narrative and the evolution narrative as narratives of the same kind, both meaning to tell the same kind of truth, and colliding with each other, ISTM that the two narratives are talking about the same subject -the origin of the material universe, and of life on earth - but from utterly unrelated POVs, that do not in themselves depend on or imply each other. There is no conflict between them, because there is no collision.

Genesis 1 has been set against biology. That makes as much sense as setting the Silmarillion against seismology and geography. It would be illegitimate to argue to the reality of the very cold Grinding Ice and the freezing location of the Mountains of Thangorodrim, from the reality of the Arctic Circle. The locations in Tolkien's myth are of a different order from locations on the maps of this world. Those locations are real in their own way, which is not that of the cartography and geography of the Primary World of human life.

The proper term of comparison with Genesis 1 is not modern palaeontology or biology, but an ancient theological document like the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic - that might more accurately be called The Exaltation of Marduk. The Jews were faced by foreign polytheisms, and threats to the integrity and purity of their religion - not by doctrines of biological evolution. Gen.1-11 even contains passages - like the Flood narrative and the Tower of Babel story - that are perhaps to be understood as rebukes to Babylonian legends and ideas. To use Genesis to stave off the doctrine of evolution, or to belittle Genesis in order to advocate evolution, is a category error. And the result is not only to cause needless friction between the doctrine of creation, and the sciences, but also to fail to appreciate Genesis 1-11 in comparison with other myths of origins.

[hansgeorg]

The scriptures teach that people are in the image of God. There's nothing said about what image animals have. And God said animals were the domain of people. There's no teaching of the people and animals being equal.

Could that be, because they were created same day, but people did not evolve from other animals?

[hansgeorg]

How, when, and where did humans receive an immortal soul?

God gave it to them, how else? And why do we have to know when?

He might be hinting at certain scenarios of "when" being impossible?

At least on the Christian view he doesn't share.

[hansgeorg]

In case anyone is still reading, and would still like an answer:

I came here just today.

Suppose a train in a story, and a train existing in everyday life. The two trains will not collide, because a train that exists as a real material object is of a different order of being from a train that exists only in a story. The two trains are of different orders of being - they are incommensurable. They are related, not by encountering each other - because they are incommensurable, they cannot do that - but by both being related to a third something, namely, the mind of the person who thinks about both of them.

True enough. Even so they can encounter each other, if the person thinking of both is writing the story.

Example, when I started writing Chronicle of Susan Pevensie a few years ago, I checked Times from 1949 for a trainwreck story to match the trainwreck which ended The Last Battle and begins my fan fiction. That is why Susan Pevensie is going to Sevenoaks when going to identify her parents and siblings.

This means a coordination of the two train wrecks.

Also, there is a question of intention.

My train wreck in Sevenoaks conflicts with the trainwreck on the way to Bristol, because both stories (canon and my fan fic, CSL and me) intend to write about the train wreck killing the Seven Friends of Narnia and the parents of the Pevensies.

In a similar way, both Genesis 1-11 [and "modern science"] can intend to tell the story of our exact real origins and therefore conflict.

Rather than taking the Genesis 1-11 narrative and the evolution narrative as narratives of the same kind, both meaning to tell the same kind of truth, and colliding with each other, ISTM that the two narratives are talking about the same subject -the origin of the material universe, and of life on earth - but from utterly unrelated POVs, that do not in themselves depend on or imply each other. There is no conflict between them, because there is no collision.

ISTM = ISMT = I Sub-Mit That?

I counter, the utterly unrelated POV's is false.

There is a collision, as much as between a trainwreck happening in Sevenoaks on the way to Kent or on another line on the train to Bristol.

Genesis 1 has been set against biology. That makes as much sense as setting the Silmarillion against seismology and geography. It would be illegitimate to argue to the reality of the very cold Grinding Ice and the freezing location of the Mountains of Thangorodrim, from the reality of the Arctic Circle. The locations in Tolkien's myth are of a different order from locations on the maps of this world. Those locations are real in their own way, which is not that of the cartography and geography of the Primary World of human life.

The proper term of comparison with Genesis 1 is not modern palaeontology or biology, but an ancient theological document like the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic - that might more accurately be called The Exaltation of Marduk. The Jews were faced by foreign polytheisms, and threats to the integrity and purity of their religion - not by doctrines of biological evolution. Gen.1-11 even contains passages - like the Flood narrative and the Tower of Babel story - that are perhaps to be understood as rebukes to Babylonian legends and ideas. To use Genesis to stave off the doctrine of evolution, or to belittle Genesis in order to advocate evolution, is a category error. And the result is not only to cause needless friction between the doctrine of creation, and the sciences, but also to fail to appreciate Genesis 1-11 in comparison with other myths of origins.

Babylonian Creation Epic is also, for similar reasons, in conflict with things like, not just Genesis, not just Silmarillion, but also Big Bang and Evolution theories.

[hansgeorg]

I'ts absurd to believe that folk tales are literally true.

[Tassman]

Richard the Lion-heart is Richard 1 of England, a well documented historical figure as is Leopold V, Duke of Austria whereas, in comparison, the bible stories are folk-tales concerning an alleged miracle-working prophet and cannot be viewed as historically accurate.

[hansgeorg]

Richard the Lion-heart is Richard 1 of England, a well documented historical figure as is Leopold V, Duke of Austria whereas, in comparison, the bible stories are folk-tales concerning an alleged miracle-working prophet and cannot be viewed as historically accurate.

[Tassman]

[hansgeorg]

Many folk-tales have an origin in fact

If you mean popular legend as opposed to popular entertainment fairy tale, it is more like asking whether there even are any folk tales that do not have an origin in fact.

That is antipopular prejudice, and the changes or more often banale adaptations or even leaving things out than embellishing.

especially those of a religious nature where the intention is to impress and convince the audience.

The intention when telling things is usually to inform on fact.

In religious cases, facts are almost always impressive, unless there is also religious actual fraud and not just folk tale.

[shunyadragon]

Folk tales have an origin, and often in fact.

Ancient mythology, legends, and folk tales may have a limited origin in facts, but many do not. The limited and I mean limited factual basis in these ancient accounts is not a reason for justifying their degree of factual basis in history.

The myths and legends of Genesis are indeed rooted in older folk stories from Babylonian, Ugarite, Canaanite, and Phoenician myths and legends. The myth of a catastrophic world flood is indeed common to most ancient cultures, often attributed to Divine retribution, are related to geomorphological evidence for local and region floods which are common events in history. Other common events like catastrophic earthquakes are also attributed to Divine intervention in ancient cultures world wide.

[hansgeorg]

Ancient mythology, legends, and folk tales may have a limited origin in facts, but many do not. The limited and I mean limited factual basis in these ancient accounts is not a reason for justifying their degree of factual basis in history.

You presume the origin in fact is "I mean limited". Prove it. You say "many do not". Examples?

The myths and legends of Genesis are indeed rooted in older folk stories from Babylonian, Ugarite, Canaanite, and Phoenician myths and legends.

According to a popular urban legend, not rooted in fact but in bad Prussian scholarship.

Logically speaking, the similarities give three possible interpretations:

* 1) a factual account was correctly or less correctly preserved from event to extant versions of traditions

(and this gives something of a measure on how much tradition can distort an account, at least if one side for theological reasons decide to distort it)

* 2) Babylonians etc borrowed a non-factual Hebrew account but with deliberate theological modifications of polytheistic inspiration
* 3) Hebrews borrowed Babylonian etc non-factual accounts but with deliberate theological modifications of monotheistic inspiration.

The bad Prussian scholar was only deciding between 2 and 3, first because as Evolutionist he was a gradualist, and second because he shared your prejudice about "folk tales".

The myth of a catastrophic world flood is indeed common to most ancient cultures, often attributed to Divine retribution, are related to geomorphological evidence for local and region floods which are common events in history.

The geomorphological evidence is actually such that it supports a global flood - which of course can imply a support of very many regional and local ones.

The commonality to most ancient cultures is rather an evidence the folk tale is fact based.

Other common events like catastrophic earthquakes are also attributed to Divine intervention in ancient cultures world wide.

I attribute the Earthquake in St Benedict's basilica in Nursia/Norcia to divine intervention to this day. The benedictines should not have been supporting "Pope Francis", especially after his deciding to visit ecumenically the worst Lutherans available in Sweden - the regular version of the State Church or former such.

[shunyadragon]

Logically speaking, the similarities give three possible interpretations:

* 1) a factual account was correctly or less correctly preserved from event to extant versions of traditions

(and this gives something of a measure on how much tradition can distort an account, at least if one side for theological reasons decide to distort it)

* 2) Babylonians etc borrowed a non-factual Hebrew account but with deliberate theological modifications of polytheistic inspiration
* 3) Hebrews borrowed Babylonian etc non-factual accounts but with deliberate theological modifications of monotheistic inspiration.

The evidence indicates that the written records that include the flood, and similar myths, predate any possible known Hebrew written language, and other sections of the Old Testament like the Psalms contain excerpts of more ancient known written texts before any known written Hebrew language.

The geomorphological evidence is actually such that it supports a global flood - which of course can imply a support of very many regional and local ones.

The commonality to most ancient cultures is rather an evidence the folk tale is fact based.

I am a geologist and a geomorphologist with published papers. The evidence of local and regional flooding are of different types of floods at different dated times, some separated by in some cases thousands of years, of occurrence in history and not related in a worldwide context. The evidence does not remotely support any sort of worldwide event. The commonality of the folk tales does not remotely related to one event. In fact most of the world land surface shows no evidence of a catastrophic flood at any time.

I attribute the Earthquake in St Benedict's basilica in Nursia/Norcia to divine intervention to this day. The benedictines should not have been supporting "Pope Francis", especially after his deciding to visit ecumenically the worst Lutherans available in Sweden - the regular version of the State Church or former such.

Such earthquakes occur in regions of natural occurrence, and natural explanations. This is one anecdotal claim which fails when compared to the over all pattern and occurrence of earthquakes in human history and the geologic record. Actually this region Seismically is a plate of broken glass with common historical earth quakes with documented natural causes.

[Tassman]

That is antipopular prejudice, and the changes or more often banale adaptations or even leaving things out than embellishing.

Oral tradition is typically embellished, as are the resultant narratives based upon it...including the gospels.

The intention when telling things is usually to inform on fact.

In religious cases, facts are almost always impressive, unless there is also religious actual fraud and not just folk tale.

[hansgeorg]

The evidence indicates that the written records that include the flood, and similar myths, predate any possible known Hebrew written language, and other sections of the Old Testament like the Psalms contain excerpts of more ancient known written texts before any known written Hebrew language.

It is possible that the Hebrew language was not written very early, and rather certain we don't have papyri or tablets dated to before Babylonian tablets (unless there is some Smithsonian conspiracy to hide them, as with giants). This is to the point exactly how?

I am talking about Hebrew tradition, not about Hebrew manuscripts.

That the earliest Adamic tradition was Hebrew from start is evidenced by the tradition that Hebrews did not participate in Tower Building of Babel and were therefore spared the dispersion of tongues. They just needed to keep successfully shirking from Nimrod's slave hunters, that is all.

I am a geologist and a geomorphologist with published papers. The evidence of local and regional flooding are of different types of floods at different dated times, some separated by in some cases thousands of years, of occurrence in history and not related in a worldwide context. The evidence does not remotely support any sort of worldwide event. The commonality of the folk tales does not remotely related to one event. In fact most of the world land surface shows no evidence of a catastrophic flood at any time.

Such earthquakes occur in regions of natural occurrence, and natural explanations. This is one anecdotal claim which fails when compared to the over all pattern and occurrence of earthquakes in human history and the geologic record. Actually this region Seismically is a plate of broken glass with common historical earth quakes with documented natural causes.

Existence of natural explanations does not preclude them from expressing God's providence.

If you find a parking place when you pray for it, there is usually a natural explanation to why the parking place was free, but this does not preclude the prayer being heard from being an answer by God's providence.

Oral tradition is typically embellished, as are the resultant narratives based upon it...including the gospels.

I don't know what you mean by embellished, but if you mean "by events that did not really occur, recognisable by feeling larger than life", I think you are totally wrong about what is typical.

You don't regard oral tradition as a reliable source. I don't regard contemporary scholars as a typically reliable source. Especially not those who take this type of stand.

By the way, his stated "most contemporary scholars" only refers to scholars with his type of Academic credentials (which are the wrong ones), or even, "most" can have been one of the errors of transmission of an oral tradition within Academia.