Is there any way the theory of human evolution from primates and the theory of the Biblical creation of humans

Question

can co-exist, or must the truth be one or the other? For example, is it possible that Adam and Eve, along with other early BIblical "humans", were in fact Sahelanthropus tchadensis apes? Any thoughts please.

Answer 1

here is how i reconcile them in my own mind and heart. they both shape chaos into cosmos. church makes me a spiritual stranger here. science makes me food for worms. churches might change and science might improve but spirituality will never die as long as man dreams, hallucinates, deja vu's, fears, and watches loved ones give out their last breath. the heart of man should not put him at odds with his eyes. the mind of man cannot rationalize away the human heart. perhaps the highest wisdom might be like iris dement sings: "let the mystery be," while living the golden rule.

http://www.odysseusepicmythhero.com.

Answer 2

To start with ,evolution theory teaches that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, not that humans descended from apes.

As a Christian I have no trouble with the evolution theory.  All I have to know is that God works in mysterious ways.

Answer 3

Im afraid this is a new one on me, Sahelanthropus tchadensis apes. What number is it in the bipedal ape slotting system ?

Answer 4

I think Otto said just about all that can be said about it. I might add that the general trend from lower to higher forms of life in the first Genesis account of creation, with humans as the final product, suggests that evolution is a commonsense notion even pre-scientific minds would find appealing. It was certainly not original to Darwin.

You might want to read some other creation myths from other faith traditions. They can be very enlightening.

Answer 5

Both evolution and the Bibles account of creation require faith. No evolutionist or scientist has ever created life from non living matter, but yet they tell you it has to have happened that way because creation is wrong. Where did the physical matter that makes up the universe come from if creation is wrong? The Bible says "in the begining, God created the heavens and the earth". There is no time period connected to this verse so it accomidates the fact that the universe can be billions of years old. Also, the creative days mentioned in Genesis have no time period associated with them. Just as you can say, " In the dinosaurs day" or in "George Washingtons day", the word day can refer to any period of time and not always 24 hours. This period can be any length of time. In the case of the dinosaurs, this usage of the word day is millions of years long. Viewing the creative day as 24 hours is incorrect.

The so-called evidence of human evolution is subject to interpetation just as the Bible is. Remember, the artistict pictures of "early humans" in the biology books are dreamed up by the by the anthropoligist and not based on evidence. These pictures are of what they think "early humans" should look like. The closer these "early humans" are to "modern man" the less hair they draw on the bodies of these subjects. This is based on the view point of the evolutionist and not any "evidence". Oh well, I'm through. Good day everyone.

Answer 6

According to the Theory of Evolution both the apes and ourselves had a common ancestor. We are not descended from apes.

Answer 7

If you believe the Bible is literally true, then there's no way to reconcile the two. If you believe the Bible contains many parables and rather that being meant literally, was meant to convey some ideas to a small, iron age desert tribe that had no concepts of complex science, then you can reconcile the two. Another way to reconcile them is to say that when the world was created, it had to have signs of its development--surely the first trees had rings, one for each year, even though they hadn't actually grown for years; and mammals had bellybuttons, though they never grew in a womb, right? So in the same way, god created the signs of a ancient world, even though it wasn't ancient.

Answer 8

I believe these two theories are in co-existence.  Have been since the beginning of the written word.

So, it comes down to what you want to believe, after all we are here for such a short time... and yet we are discovering new facts even as we speak that change the old beliefs.

Answer 9

You must remember that the Old Testament is an epic poem, that was sung from generation to generation, for 3,000 years, by Oral Tradition, before being written down for the first time in Babylon, circa 600 BCE...

It's not meant to be a scientific document!

It's an artistic production from the right-hemisphere of the brain...and that is fine!

Nothing is wrong with that, however theatre is not science!

Science is left-brain activity. It's designed for pin-point accuracy, like a photographic map...

The problem arises, when one side of the brain tries to do the work for the other side...

Answer 10

There are people who believe that the creation story was just a story showing that God created everything, though not in six days or in quite that way.  After all, herders in the times of the pharaohs aren't really going to get evolution or plate techtonics or astral physics.  Others think each of those "days" was really an incredible length of time in human terms, so the first "day" was when scientists say the universe was being formed.  Kind of a stretch, but whatever.

It's totally acceptable to take Genesis, and, in fact, most of the Bible, as allegory and story while still being a Christian.  In fact, that's the stance of half to slightly more than half of Christian Americans.

Answer 11

The level of coexistence greatly depends on your personal biblical belief. If you take every word of the bible literally with no room for interpretation, you're going to have a hard time.  For example, the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.

If you view the bible and its teachings as a allegory for a higher moral and spiritual truth, and not a hard-fact history textbook, then evolution and the bible have no real issues.  For example, what is a day if there is not a sun to measure it yet?

Answer 12

Sahelanthropus looked more like a chimp, though upright, than a modern man.  Sahelanthropus probably had a brain roughly equivilent to a chimp.  Why stop at at Sahelanthropus, maybe Eve was an ancient fish.  If you are willing to include great apes as human, the bible's story of creation still has many falsehoods.  It is simpler to recognize that although there may be many truths in it, the bible contains peoples thoughts and ideas of that day and since then we have learned things that contradict and/or add to that knowledge.

Answer 13

The real Eve, the one woman every person on this panet can trace their DNA ancestry back to, lived about 160,000 years ago.  The human race at the time consisted of only about 5,000 individuals worldwide.

If you consider her the person the Bible is actually talking about (instead of a mythical character) then the stories suddenly make a lot more sense.  (Especially the fact that Cain had an unexplained wife in the Bible.)

We have evolved and are sill evolving since then.

Answer 14

I doubt it

Answer 15

In my opinion, it could be possible. Since many Christians support this theory. It could be possible. Or maybe not.

Answer 16

Why is it you born agains can not seem to form intelligent questions.?

Answer 17

They can co-exist with the belief in a soul.  We are absolutely and undeniably physically related to all other life on the planet.  Denying that fact only hurts the credibility of modern religions.  The stories of the bible are not factually accurate and shouldn't be considered to have scientific credibility.  They are only words though and their meanings have no doubt changed through time and translation.  Understanding science doesn't actually have to affect your faith unless you are arrogant and try to take translated words literally.  Nobody was given absolute divine wisdom.