Evidence for God from Science

In learning of the different considerations of the origin of man with a soul. If he did evolve from primates and at a point was given a soul, the picture I see in my minds eye is the cave man model. How does the Garden, the Serpent, play into that? Is the Genesis account of the Fall accurate?

Maroto wrote:In learning of the different considerations of the origin of man with a soul. If he did evolve from primates and at a point was given a soul, the picture I see in my minds eye is the cave man model. How does the Garden, the Serpent, play into that? Is the Genesis account of the Fall accurate?

Maroto, I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but I just don't see any proof that man evolved from primates. Now, the bible says that God formed the man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils, the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

I can't see anything else in the text, except it says that God specially created man from the dust of the earth. I just can't see evolution applying here in the sense that man evolved from primates. It just looks like a special creation on God's part.

As far as the account of the fall being accurate...There are a few interpretations that I'm familiar with. The first is that it was a literal snake that spoke to eve. The second was that it was a literal snake that was possessed by Satan, that spoke to Eve. And the third, that I probably lean towards, is that it was simply Satan in some form. Satan is referred to as the serpent, in other parts of the bible. Satan is spoken of as the serpent. Jesus is the Lamb of God. Figuratively speaking.

I hope that helps, and welcome to the board.

Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.
As for the literal interpretation of Genesis, well, its not as if that hasn't been debated at all
Man fell because man decided that they didn't need God, that they could be God, that they could it without God.
And that "original sin" is with us to this day.

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.

What did the common ancestor look like?

August wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.

What did the common ancestor look like?

Michael Bolton

PaulSacramento wrote:

August wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.

What did the common ancestor look like?

Michael Bolton

For some reason I found that to be absolutely hilarious. It took me by surprise that I burst into almost uncontrollable laughter. So much so that people in the office are looking at me like what the heck is wrong with this guy. Thanks, I really needed the laugh.

PaulSacramento wrote:

August wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.

What did the common ancestor look like?

Michael Bolton

Talk about Laugh out Loud! Could you get a funnier moment? Well, probably, but that was simply hilarious

Michael Bolton is believable, because the Neanderthal is a spitting image of vin diesel.

Thanks guys, we all have our moments.
That Vin Diesel one is a tad scary * backs away slowly*...

PaulSacramento wrote:Thanks guys, we all have our moments.
That Vin Diesel one is a tad scary * backs away slowly*...

Paul I'm laughing again...tickled me no end that!

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution states that Man and primate SHARED a common ancestor, not that man evolved from a primate.

Man is a primate. As far as I gathered evolution did not state that man and primate shared a common ancestor but that man was a subdivision of primate.

According to evolutionary theory, man and ape share a common ancestor as primates....

Man is a primate. As far as I gathered evolution did not state that man and primate shared a common ancestor but that man was a subdivision of primate.

The evolution of man from ape-like ancestor is often argued because of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. The theory states that man, evolved through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicit-ies seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Both are considered to have an apelike ancestor. But lets not forget this is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic views.