The Bible isn’t God’s only word to us. He also speaks to us in nature, as well. And science is what tells us about nature. But even science doesn’t tell us everything about nature, either. We need both, not just one, which is why God never set up a book to guide us. The development of the Bible is a long story (one that can be explored by anyone interested in pursuing it), but it is not our only source for understanding God, human nature, and the universe.
Who in the world says it’s the only book written? Certainly not the Church.
It certainly would need to go into every single detail, other wise someone, like yourself, would point to a missing second of evolution and claim there! It isn’t true, He left out this second in history. The point is a history book ONLY in the sense of it being a history of His relationship to us.
Either way. The scientific definition of homo-sapiens doesn’t include the distinction of “has a human soul.”
See above where I bolded the text I meant to in the first palce.
Is there evidence that these were people in the theological sense, possessing human souls?
I hope that’s rhetorical, cuz you are not seriously expecting an answer from anyone, right?
Why the “hint of sarcasm”? And why avoid the central point of both posts that answered your objection? Don’t just brush us aside like this. There are real issues here you simply do not understand. We are trying to help you understand by filling in the gaps in your misinformation/unintentional ignorance about the Bible and it’s purpose. If you don’t want us to do that–if you just want to dismiss us just say so–seriously. We have little interest in answering if you have no interest in replying more fully than this to our answers.
Right.I hope that’s rhetorical, cuz you are not seriously expecting an answer from anyone, right?
But the very lack of an answer makes the point.We fall in the category of “homo-sapiens,” as we share the same brains and characteristics as earlier homo-sapiens, including the first homo-sapiens, Adam and Eve, who had souls (memory, intellect, and will). Adam and Eve were not animals at all, they just shared similarities with other mammals, like we do, like being warm blooded, etc… That is why I still believe in the Creationist view and don’t care if we share similar DNA to other animals. Similar DNA can’t definitively prove we came from apes or descended from apes, it just proves we share similarities with them in our genes. I am not on the side of evolutionists who argue we share a common parent with the apes. We just share similarities with mammals. That is all that can be proven.
Humans evolving from apes and evolution itself is absurd.
The points that were made were, to me, hypothesizing on the nature of the book of Genesis, wether it should be taken literally or not. Since this question is still an open debate even amongst Catholics, I’m not sure how you would like me to respond differently?
Dirk is right. Very much hit the nail on the head, actually.
From: pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
Well, what do you expect me to say?
So, what’s your take on all this? Are you a young earth creationist?
So the earlier ancestor could have been “more” human and Apes would then have evolved from humans. I, myself, don’t feel offended being evolved from an mosquito, an Ape, an aardvark, who cares? God made them all. And that is the point of the Bible. Not when, not how, but that He did.
BTW, have we answered your question? Science and the Bible are not in opposition.