I am addressing the topics below for completeness, in the Monkey Trials court case provided by Stu, a traditionalist, a significant amount of text was written on the below items which were claimed to be good justification for the traditional view that mankind didn't descend from hominids but popped instantaneously into existence by God instead. Below, I offer an alternative viewpoint to the traditional reasoning related to these verses and their conclusions.
1) [Stu] -'There was no sin before Adam. This lone man brought sin into the world and it permeated all of humanity for the future generations.'
Although, we both agree on the statement, I do not agree with his view as justification for God popping Adam into existence from dust. It has no bearing on this debate. Hominids were not capable of distinguishing good from bad because they were not fully human. Only humans are capable of distinguishing between the two. Lower animals may have many characteristics nearly identical to humans and show some levels intellectual capacity for hunting and tool usage, but only the human mind is capable of abstract reasoning and making decisions between committing between good and evil acts. Behavior in lower animals to a large degree is instinctual and their limited reasoning is necessary for survival and procreation. This is why the first sin applies to Adam and not his ancestor hominids, Adam was the first being that God made that could understand sin and freely choose to commit it or to be obedient to God.
2) [Stu] -'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor 15:47). '
This verse, when read in context, is about mankind's earthly nature as opposed man's spiritual nature. Adam was the first being that had both a body (or living spirit) and a divine or God-like reasoning spirit capable of understanding good and evil. The divine spirit is the image of God referenced in Gen 1. The second man is Jesus. Jesus represented a fully divine spirit from heaven; a purely divine character in all thought and action. The reason that earth and dust is mentioned in this verse is to remind us that people have this dual earthly and heavenly characteristic with both a sin or earthly character and a divine character. The Bible tells us that mankind needs to overcome the earthly influences and earthly nature and become more divine in character. The Bible in this chapter is telling us that the two aspects are distinct and that the earthly part will pass away. The chapter also tells us to control our earthly ways, stop sinning, and live our lives in a God pleasing divine way, because the divine part of our spirit is what lives on beyond this world.
This line of reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not Adam was popped into existence instantaneously from dust or originated from dust over eons by evolution. There are many examples where God or people use clay or dust to represent themselves and in each case we know from the Bible they were born naturally from their parent's seed in their mother's womb. Adam (Ge 3:19), Abraham (Ge 18:27), Jacobs descendents (Num 23:10), Job (Job 10:9), Solomon (Ecclesiastes 3:20), Elihu (Job 33:6), David (Ps 103:14). This doesn't indicate that they were made instantaneously from clay or dust into fully formed adult humans; in several cases their geneology is specifically stated in the Bible. The references to dust or clay in all cases are symbolic of our bodies' constituents being from the dust or earth.
3) [Stu] -'And Moses testified that God made different "kinds" (Hb. "min") that would reproduce only according their kind (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). ...
The plaintiff is clearly wrong in extrapolating variation beyond what you call "species" "families" or "orders". There are limits to genetic variation. ... The reason God created "kinds" this way is so they would reproduce only according their "min" (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15).'
Besides the incorrect assumption and unrealistic view that kinds 'reproduce only according to their kind' and not diverge in genetic code over time, this traditionalist view contains a fundamental flaw in its assumption regarding the ability for the God to make changes to the genetic code of any parent's seed. The assumption is based on a limit to the total number of genetic sequence changes in the proper locations in a reproductive cycle that can naturally be introduced by random chance. As a designer, God has no limit in the number of changes introduced in the womb. We have seen evidence of this in the creation of Jesus in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit's creation of a complete set of male chromosomes to mate with Mary's egg and conceive Jesus. This is roughly half of the 3 billion nucleotide pairs in the DNA set and perfectly sequenced to create God (Son of Man) from the womb.
The traditionalist has based their view here on limits imposed by random chance. The likelyhood by random chance of getting a correct set of genetic code changes introduced in one cycle that would produce a new species would be exceedingly low. The genetic code differences between kinds requires a large number of changes. One or two changes in the code during a cycle is easy, thousands to millions of changes is virtually impossible for random chance to get correct. The traditionalist has failed to see that directed changes by the Designer can easily achieve all variation planned and express it in the tree of life over billions of years regardless of the probability hurdles between kinds. These directed changes are not based on probability but the skill of the Designer which is omnipotent. Make no mistake, He could make a porcupine come out of a cat's womb if He wanted to, and certainly a man from a hominid if that was His plan, and by the way, yes, that's just what He did based on the archeological record.
4) [Stu] -'How did they develop from hominids in one generation to be humans in an impossibly short time span? The scientific evidence indicates that there is at most a couple of hundreds thousands of years for that evolution to take place. There are no evolutionary mechanisms that would transform dumb hominids who have no sentience, no language and minimal cranium capacity, into sentient homo sapien sapiens with fully developed intellects and brain cavities 3X that of any reasonable hominid candidate.'
The traditional viewpoint seems to hold the view that evolutionary creation uses the same methodology as Darwinism for modifying genetic code. This is not true. Darwinism relies on random mutation of genetic code and natural breeding or selection to develop new species and animal traits. Evolutionary creation is performed according to God's plan which permits God guided mutation and divine selection. God as a designer, can make any number of targeted changes simultaneously to the code that He desired in any generation that He desired. The constraints for Darwinistic change are severe but there are no constraints how God chose to develop our common ancestry.
According to the archeological record, God chose to develop the primate kind into hominids and then humans over several millions of years. This would result in just a small number of significant nucleotide sequence changes in each of the close to a million generations to account for the estimated tens of millions of changes in the genetic code between humans and the common ancestor that we have with the ape. Even this level of incremental and guided change would be difficult for Darwinism to explain and achieve in this large number of generations but easy for God to accomplish.
5) [Stu] -'Man didn't descend from some lower form of life. From the beginning man was created as the highest form of God's creation, not the lowest. He was created to rule over the animals, not descend from them! Moses recorded all this in the Torah:'
Another misconception that the traditionalist seems to have is that common ancestry descent implies a degradation in quality of the descendent. This would be typically true under most cases if random chance mutations were the primary cause of change in genetics. It is only under extreme rare situations when a randomly caused mutuation produces an improvement in the quality of the descendent. However, evolutionary creation is God guided and is not based on random change of genetic sequences; evolutionary creation is based on specific God guided sequence changes. In this way, God has built up the quality of information in the tree of life generation by generation over billions of years. The Tree of Life has been a design project by our Creator with the highest form being the human. The Cambrian Explosion, probability barriers based on irreducible complexity, and the amazing nano-technologies found in biological systems can be easily explanned by this God guided process of genetically modifying the 'seed' in the parents 'womb' according to God's Plan starting with the first cells and viruses billions of years ago. This is poor justification for the instantaneous popping since God has built up the information in the genetic code for each new species and kind.
6) [Stu] -'God performed a direct medical miracle. He put Adam under sedation and took flesh from his side and fashioned Eve from it. When God brought her to Adam he thought she was a knock-out and couldn't wait to cleave to his new wife (Gen 2:21-25).
The Bible actually states the following:
Gen 2:21And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead. 22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man; 23and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken; 24therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh. 25And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.
Assuming for the moment that this set of verses is not symbolic like several of the other verses in chapter 2 and 3 (this is already highly speculative), let's look at what it really states and the possibilities of how God could have make Eve. God 'buildeth up' a woman from the flesh (or rib) He took from Adam. Not sure how you get the fundamental creation process for the traditionalist of instantaneous popping into existence ex nihilo out of this. He could have built Eve over any time span and any way He wished. There is no time frame here provided and it only states that He buildeth up Eve out of the side flesh or rib (Hebrew 'tsela' derivative of to curve or side) and some time later brought her to Adam. Since Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, it could have been up to roughly a hundred years after Adam was born that God brought Eve to Adam. This timing would allow for Cain to be born roughly 30 years before Seth and allow the story in Ch 5 to unfold. This allows plenty of time for Eve to be grown naturally in a womb and become a naturally grown mature woman capable of speaking language that she must have learned from Adam since she was the second human to speak in the Bible.
How do you know that God didn't grow this piece of flesh as a modified female clone of Adam from a modified stem cell implanted into the womb of a hominid? Or that after examining Adam's flesh, the Holy Spirit modified the genetic code to match that ofAdam's flesh of Eves's hominid parent gametes to make a female match and mate for Adam. This could have been done during a fifteen to twenty year time span after Adams named the animals, leaving plenty of time for Eve to grow to maturity and meet Adam. It doesn't say how He buildeth her up to a fully formed mature women, the traditionalist view assumes a miracle of nearly instantaneous or highly rapid growth when none is stated. He certainly made all the other animals by modifying the genetic code in their seed in their parents womb since the Bible states so. So why assume a new process when an existing one already stated in the Bible will do. Jesus was made in the womb from half the normal genetic code required who was the second Adam. Why couldn't Eve be made the same way from half a set of genetic code in the womb of a hominid by God (who we know is involved in creating all humans in their mothers womb from a God controlled seed)? When Eve was all grown up, He brought her to Adam and He obviously found her suitable at that point. It doesn't seem that either of these two other possibilities that are physically possible and performed by doctors today using natural methods to grow the embryo are any less of a possibility than flash forming, using new physical laws, a complete adult talking and educated women from a few living cells. In any case, the verses give no indication that the process God used to 'buildeth up' occurred rapidly or at any particular speed. It seems to me even here the traditionalist has assumed this happened in a flash without considering the use of natural processes and without consideration how God creates people in many other verses. The traditionalist can believe what he wants, but they can't claim it is Biblical justification for popping beings into existence ex nihilo since Eve was grown or buildeth up.
7) [Stu] -'Humans having sex with animals would be an abomination.'
A significant amount of text was generated on this topic to support the instantaneous popping into existence of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, I don't see how this statement has anything to do with the debate of whether Adam or Eve came from hominids or popped into existence. I agree, it would be an obamanation. Fortunately this did not happen during the creation of Adam according to the Bible, since his parents were both hominids, there was no sex between humans and animals since all hominids were animals and both Adam and Eve and their descendents only mated with other humans according to the Bible. As with all other hominids and Neanderthals, the hominid line that produced Adam and Eve became extinct. This extinction occurred for Adam and Eve's hominid parents at the time of Adam and Eve's birth or sometime after Adam and Eve were born tens of thousands of years ago.
Are you referring to Cain's wife possibly as a hominid? Although the Bible doesn't state who her parents were, I have always assumed that she was a child of Adam and Eve or one of their children's children or Cain's sister or cousin. Since Adam lived to ripe old age, he might have been living with descendents from 20 or more generations. If not, are you saying that she was a subhuman? Where do you think she came from?
8 ) [Stu] -'L: There was no ancestry before Adam. If there was such a thing the Holy Spirit would have made sure that it was recorded it that way.
Luke 1:38: "Adam was the son of God, the genealogies testify to the special creation of Adam as the son of God - a special creation (Lk 3:38; Gen 5:1; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Gen 1:27). The Bible says that God specially created Adam. He "spoke" Adam into existence. He did not evolve Adam from hominid parents. In six days of testimony all the biblical witnesses have testified to this fact and offered irrefutable biblical evidence.'
In this particular case, the so called no-ancestry piece of evidence can be easily resolved because no animals or hominids would have had names prior to Adam. The naming of individuals and animal species started with Adam, it requires abstract thinking capabilities that only humans possess as they are made in the image of God, hominids did not have names. Animals prior to Adam were not capable of this level of mental processing. There are no named animals prior to Adam for that reason and the lineage recorded stops at Adam since there were no other names to be recorded. All of the prior hominids and animals were real and existed but individual names for them did not exist. Skipping generations in geneology was common place in the Bible and most scholars agree with this view. In this case there was a very good reason, the predecessors to Adam have no name. There would have been billions of names listed if they would have had them. This is also poor justification inferring that because the names are not listed, popping animals into existence ex nihilo is the way God created animals. One has nothing to do with the other.
The evidence the traditional view provides is very suspect and refutable contrary to the claim, since it is all from one individual's imagination and stated by fictional witnesses during a mock trial. The Bible also does not claim 'special' creation for Adam or that God 'spoke' Adam into existence. This traditionalist view by Stu is unsubstantiated by the actual text in the Bible, and is pure imagination from bad exegesis. See my previous post for the detailed reasoning why. There are many verses substantiating how God creates by giving each unique 'seed' (or mated gametes) the characteristics He pre-planned for it in it's parents 'womb' and God grows them naturally, generation by generation.
Lee