Humans came to be "in God's image" about 6000 years ago

Mods: Human Origins and Evolution seems the most appropriate forum.Sitting through a breakfast conversation with my theistic parents and sister, I observed a discussion involving the rationalization of the Genesis creation story and creation in general by my sister. Putting aside for the moment the implicit assumption that rationalization of such a story is desirable or acceptable, I wanted to address the particular method she proposed.She freely admits that science indicates that biologically humans existed long before the 6000 BCE year creationism time period, and the earth long before that. Instead she proposes that while physically indistinguishable, the humanity of those beings only manifested around 6000 BCE through undefined social and cultural organization.At the time, I approached the rationalization this way: Stone-age tools were developed and used long before 6000 BCE, perhaps around 30,000 BCE in that general area. This resulted in the elaboration that it wasn't sheer intelligence she was talking about, but some sort of greater cultural organization. I continued by suggesting that using her reasoning, apparently we shouldn't be concerned with the behavior of the American colonists toward the native Americans due to them not qualifying as "human". She of course protests indistinctly, which brings me to my second and third approach:Her argument is basically a "No true Scotsman" explanation toward the undeniable fact of intelligent human life well prior to the timeline claimed in the Bible. In essence she is saying "Sure, there were humans around at that time, but not "true" humans!" Secondly, considering that she couldn't actually define what distinctive quality cropped up around that time (as illustrated by the native American example) she didn't really have a rationalization at all, merely a strong enough conviction that there *must be* a rationalization to assuage her feelings of cognitive dissonance.Now for the topic itself: For those creationists or theistic evolutionists who care about the Biblical creation stories, can you flesh out that rationalization she was so confident could be made? For those non-theists and others I would ask for examples refuting such rationalizations, such as examples of differing timelines of civilization development in different regions, as in China or the Americas. And of course any other comments that reasonably address the issue.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Topic title changed from "No-True-Human Argument" to "Humans came to be "in God's image" about 6000 years ago".

The subtitle is my idea of (possibly) a better topic title.My impression is that the topic not really fit well into any forum - It's kind of a "Human Origins and Evolution"/"Bible Study" hybrid.Your sister's position seems to accept standard scientific evolution theory, but with something happening about 6000 years ago.As things are currently set up, I foresee massive problems keeping the debate on topic theme. Message 1 seems OK (with perhaps a title change), but prior to promotion to the yet to be determined forum, would you comment on my comment first?Certainly, other admin comments also welcome.Adminnemooseus

I agree on the title change, it seems much more descriptive of the issue at hand. As for difficulties keeping to the topic theme... I would bow to your experience in that matter, but I am uncertain how to make it more topic-centric.I don't think any rationalization would be directly sourced from the Bible, unless there is a definition of what makes people human of which I am unaware. Similarly I can foresee issues from non-theists disputing the arbitrary determination of "god's image" due to this lack of biblical definition. After further reflection, I am inclined to agree that the "something" happening about 6000 years ago is far too indefinite for reasonable discussion.

Topic title changed. The evolution side strongly objects to "young Earthism". Proposing something within the old Earth framework is less objectionable, especially if it has no direct conflict with worldly evidence.The topic's probably going to turn into a mess - pretty much all of them do. It's just a question of how many good relevant messages happen before the mess sets in.The topics is ready to release but I'm still not sure where to send it, and I think the forum location does have some significance. I'm going to think about it a bit more before making the move.Stand by.Adminnemooseus

Thread copied here from the Humans came to be "in God's image" about 6000 years ago thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think the biggest problem is that theists want to believe in God and the niceties that come with it. They will defend it by any means necessary, even resorting absurdities.Their feelings about God and their beliefs are inextricably linked. If you attack the bible, you are in a sense attacking them personally.I find it best to simply point out specific errors and go from there, as dispassionately as possible is optimal, but I'm aware that it doesn't always end up that way.I was watching Religulous yesterday with the wifey, and while his information was good, Maher's problem is that he sounds like a condescending cocksucker. That's about as annoying to a theist as a street evangelist who shows up at a Slayer show to prosletyze.You're going to have to wittle down your sister through clear logic piecemeal. Make no mistake, she is going to have to come to the conclusion on her own, though.Many theists suffer from confirmation bias, and any perceived attack almost strengthens their resolve in proving that they're under some spiritual attack. That's why people like Dawkins don't get very far with theists, because they are to the theist a self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I suppose that is exactly the problem; there are no specifics, and requesting them appears to the theist as an action of a condescending cocksucker, like you said. How else can I point out she needs to define what makes homo sapiens "human" and then link it to a universal global event 6000 years ago if she desires to consider a story she already believe in as true?Considering how delicate the ego of most religious people, I find it difficult to imagine a way to gently point out they are prosthelytizing from their sphincter and still get results. After all, religious faith tends to revel in belief sans-evidence so gently pointing out evidence is lacking is particularly ineffective.Of course there is something to say for not rocking the boat in a theistic family, but I feel like I am failing to help them beat a drug addiction.

It is a perfect example of the top-down approach taken by creationists, theists, etc. Instead of the explanation starting with the evidence and building to a conclusion, a bottom-up approach, they instead start with the conclusion. If we are going to point to anything as the start of modern civilization surely the end of the last ice age is the best place to start, not some forced theistic idea of supernaturally enlightened humans.Or will our ancestors 10k years from now deem the last 100 years as the birth of civilization with our discovery of the transistor, the atom, and the Universe? Who knows.

quote:

---

Now for the topic itself: For those creationists or theistic evolutionists who care about the Biblical creation stories, can you flesh out that rationalization she was so confident could be made? For those non-theists and others I would ask for examples refuting such rationalizations, such as examples of differing timelines of civilization development in different regions, as in China or the Americas. And of course any other comments that reasonably address the issue.

---

I first got my family to understand that the creation story is not written as a journal. God didn't write it. It wasn't based on a written journal, as we know it, written by God. Moses wrote about God, from his own point in time. It wasn't necessary for Moses to know about past humans/civilizations or other existing humans/civilizations. They were irrelevant to the point of the story. This is supported by the way the stories are written.Eventually we get to the point that creation itself is the "journal" left by God and scientists are the transcribers concerning the physical world.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

And once her god is firmly pushed into the gaps of our knowledge, what then? Just point it out?

quote:

---

And once her god is firmly pushed into the gaps of our knowledge, what then? Just point it out?

---

Hopefully they'll eventually come to the obvious conclusion on their own.IMO, the average Christian considers the creation of the planet to be done. I don't think any of them view an earthquake, hurricane, or tornado as God renovating. So the "journal" is closed and the scientists are "translating" it.When it comes to morals and behavior, the creation of the planet doesn't really impact that. The "fall of man" has nothing to do with the creation of the planet.The A&E story is still a foundational myth that people can cling to for explanation of why mankind (from the Jewish and Christian perspective) is the way he is. IOW, even though it's a myth, it doesn't automatically cancel their belief system.Let them have God, but help them see the reality behind him. The rose colored glasses may eventually lighten up or come off, their choice.Keep it basic and don't attack the belief system. It takes time and patience.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion