One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[coffee4u]

That's not really the point of the thread though. I understand the concept of sin and how it applies to Christian theology. If I wanted to discuss that, I'd head over to the theology subforums.

The question here is simply whether its possible that God could have used an evolutionary process in creating biological diversity on Earth. Do you have an opinion on that?

What I outlined is the whole reason that evolution could not have taken place.
With evolution you have a man like creature gradually becoming more intelligent and upright. Where does no death fit into that picture? It doesn't and it can't. Death is a needed part of evolution. Evolution says death was always a part of life but God says it wasn't, that the only reason for death is sin. This is why a man's death was needed to rectify things. A lot of people wonder why Jesus had to die to save mankind, why it took blood, that is why.

If God created the world with slow evolution then that is how it would also end, it would have to revert back to that. It wont, when God says he will remake it back to what it once was, and what was that? It was perfection, it was animals like lions eating straw like an ox. So it once was, so it will be again.

Also notice in 2 Peter 3 that we are told how the world was made and this also does not fit with evolution. How God created and what he plans runs all through the Bible, I don't even need to quote Genesis to show this. https://www.christianforums.com/bible/2-peter/3/

God spoke and the heavens were made long ago.
It reiterates that God speaking was how he made the world.

Then it goes onto mention that the world was made out of water and that there was water surrounding it.
The earth was made out of water and water was all around it.
Evolution says it was a dense matter and energy.

Then it goes onto the global flood. The water that surrounded it was the firmament that came down during the flood.
6 Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed.
Not locally, but the entire earth.

The Bible narrative from beginning to end does not fit into the world view of evolution in anyway. You can't separate Christian theology out from how and why God created the world. If evolution happened then 1. The world was made from dense matter and energy not water. And 2. There was death from the start and death did not originate from sin.
Its an either or situation. You can't have it both ways. People may try but it doesn't fit.

 

[pitabread]

What I outlined is the whole reason that evolution could not have taken place.
With evolution you have a man like creature gradually becoming more intelligent and upright. Where does no death fit into that picture? It doesn't and it can't. Death is a needed part of evolution.

Death is not needed for evolution. All that is required is differential reproduction. There is no explicit requirement that ancestors necessarily die off.

(That aside, there are also a host of issues with the idea there was no physical death before the Fall. Not the least of which is overpopulation per God's command for living things to be fruitful and multiply.)

Evolution says death was always a part of life but God says it wasn't, that the only reason for death is sin.

"Evolution" doesn't say death is part of life. Rather, that's just basic biology.

Evolution says it was a dense matter and energy.

I think you're confusing some subjects here. When I talk about evolution, I'm talking about biological evolution. The premise of the thread is how God could have diversified species on Earth.

This isn't about cosmology.

Then it goes onto the global flood. The water that surrounded it was the firmament that came down during the flood.
6 Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed.
Not locally, but the entire earth.

On a side note, this is actually a bit of an issue for creationists. Creationists generally rely on hyper-evolution to explain the diversity of species stemming from the animals on Noah's Ark. Which makes it a little ironic to assume that God could not have done the same with diversifying species on Earth in the first place.

 

[coffee4u]

Death is not needed for evolution. All that is required is differential reproduction. There is no explicit requirement that ancestors necessarily die off.

But you believe death was a part of it since a one cell creature came to life, yes? You don't believe everything was evolving with no death occurring?
In this way wasn't death needed? For 1. Population control over millions of years and 2. wasn't it needed to kill off weak and dysfunctional models?
If death did those two things for the evolution model then yes death was needed and part of it.

(That aside, there are also a host of issues with the idea there was no physical death before the Fall. Not the least of which is overpopulation per God's command for living things to be fruitful and multiply.)

The fall happened pretty much right away, before Eve had even become pregnant, just as God knew it would. There was never even a chance for over population. Biblical death only refers to creatures with a soul. Humans and animals.

I think you're confusing some subjects here. When I talk about evolution, I'm talking about biological evolution. The premise of the thread is how God could have diversified species on Earth.

This isn't about cosmology.

Its all tied together, you can't separate them out.

Is not evolution about how a one cell creature diversified into many? And then how those many changed gradually over millions of years into all the creatures we have now? The evolution tree that we see around the place?
This is what we mean when we say its impossible for one creature to change into another. We believe each animal was made as a fully formed kind on the day of its creation. No ancestor that became a dog, but a dog kind that split into many dogs.

 

[pitabread]

But you believe death was a part of it since a one cell creature came to life, yes? You don't believe everything was evolving with no death occurring?
In this way wasn't death needed? For 1. Population control over millions of years and 2. wasn't it needed to kill off weak and dysfunctional models?
If death did those two things for the evolution model then yes death was needed and part of it.

What I'm saying though is that death is not otherwise a requirement for evolution to occur. You only technically need reproduction. So if we're imagining a world where organisms don't die, you can still have evolution thereof as they change over time via differential reproductive success.

It's also interesting to me that Genesis 1 does make point of emphasizing the reproduction of organisms. I feel that it's suggesting an evolutionary process in that respect.

The fall happened pretty much right away, before Eve had even become pregnant, just as God knew it would. There was never even a chance for over population. Biblical death only refers to creatures with a soul. Humans and animals.

Genesis 1 does state that animals reproduced to fill the waters, skies, etc.

If you otherwise assume normal reproductive cycles, it's a bit of a contradiction to assume that the Fall was pretty much right away.

Its all tied together, you can't separate them out.

Sure you can. That's why we have different disciplines in science. So we can focus on and discuss different things.

Is not evolution about how a one cell creature diversified into many? And then how those many changed gradually over millions of years into all the creatures we have now? The evolution tree that we see around the place?

Evolution is simply about the change in populations of organisms over time. My question is whether God could have used such a process in differentiating living organisms and creating diversity of species on Earth. It would certainly fit better with what we observe in nature.

This is what we mean when we say its impossible for one creature to change into another. We believe each animal was made as a fully formed kind on the day of its creation. No ancestor that became a dog, but a dog kind that split into many dogs.

I know what you believe, but I actually don't know what you mean in saying that it's impossible for one creature to change into another (per an evolutionary process). And certainly wouldn't have been impossible for an all powerful, supernatural God would it?

 

[St_Worm2]

The Bible doesn't explicitly say this though (at least insofar as the general biosphere goes). As I said, the way creation is described in Genesis 1 appears to point to an evolutionary process with the emphasis on reproducing of their kind, which is an apt description for the evolution and diversification of species. For the record, there is also nothing in the Bible about limits to biological evolution.

Hi Pitabread, this is where we will need to agree to disagree, I guess. God told us that He "created" plants and trees and fish and birds and cows and giraffes (and "us") in the basic forms that we still exist in today. There is no sense Biblically (that I am aware of) that plants, animals and human beings "evolved" from a lower life form to become what we are today (instead of being created by God). God created the various kinds of life forms that exist on this planet, and we all reproduce according to our own kind.

Do you believe that God's image is physical? IOW, is God essentially a physical human being?

The Bible tells us plainly that God is spirit .. John 4:24, so no, I do not believe that God exists in the same physical form that we do (at least not in His "natural state" if you will ... I'm not at all sure that it's possible to use such language .. "natural state" to adequately describe the living God).

That said, He (the God who speaks) created us as intelligent beings (well, most of us anyway ), to communicate and to be in true fellowship with Him from the very get-go ... unlike my fish, my rabbit, my dog .. or any of those cans of primordial soup that are still collecting dust on my pantry shelf .. none of which have ever communicated with me, much less with God, at least not in the non-instinctual sense like we humans are able to do with each other, and with God.

--David

 

[pitabread]

Hi Pitabread, this is where we will need to agree to disagree, I guess. God told us that He "created" plants and trees and fish and birds and cows and giraffes (and "us") in the basic form that we still exist in today.

IIRC, the Bible doesn't actually say that. In fact in most creationist accounts, living things have undergone radical changes since creation.

There is no sense Biblically (that I am aware of) that plants, animals and human beings "evolved" from a lower life form to become what they are today (instead of being created by God). God created the various kinds of life forms that exist on this planet, and we all reproduce according to our own kind.

It makes sense in the context of Genesis 1 given the descriptions of the Earth/waters bringing forth life, and the emphasis on reproduction in populating the planet. I think a lot of people imagine God just poofing fully-formed organisms out of thin air, but that's not how things are described in Genesis.

And even if God used evolution as a process, all things would still be created by God. This is really a question of process, not authorship.

The Bible tells us plainly that God is spirit .. John 4:24, so no, I do not believe that God exists in the same physical form that we do (at least not in His "natural state" if you will ... I'm not at all sure that it's possible to use such language to describe the living God however).

Then why would it matter whether humans share ancestral relationships with other species? I mean, when you consider us biologically, we're certainly built out of a lot of the same components.

That's the other thing I don't understand about creationism. If we were explicitly created to be unique, then why aren't we unique? Why do we share so much in common with other species?

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense. From the perspective of independent design and creation? Not so much...

 

[BobRyan]

It would be, but this is not the forum for it. Creationists want to deny the salvation of over two billion Christians with whom they generally agree on the essential doctrines of Christianity, just because of Genesis, and are generally quite hostile about it. I understand what you believe and pretty much why you believe it and if it brings you closer to Christ you are welcome to it. But I really don't see the need to be so hateful to other Christians about it.

I didn't even bring up this topic. I am responding to your post on it.

 

[BobRyan]

St_Worm2 said: ↑
Hi Pitabread, this is where we will need to agree to disagree, I guess. God told us that He "created" plants and trees and fish and birds and cows and giraffes (and "us") in the basic form that we still exist in today.

IIRC, the Bible doesn't actually say that.

In fact it does say that and minor mutations over time within those species does not change the fact.

Moses writes at about 1490 B.C - his readers would have understood him to be referring to animals on planet Earth and they would be familiar with some of them. The text excludes nothing.

Gen 1
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Gen 2
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field,

One may posit extinctions, mutations since that time and that is reasonable. But the text clearly states a limit within "kind" it does not allow for amoebas turning into rabbits over time.

 

[BobRyan]

It makes sense in the context of Genesis 1 given the descriptions of the Earth/waters bringing forth life, and the emphasis on reproduction in populating the planet. I think a lot of people imagine God just poofing fully-formed organisms out of thin air, but that's not how things are described in Genesis.

In Genesis God makes them from the dust of the ground in a single evening-morning 24 hour day - same as the length day at Sinai Ex 20:9,11

As has been noted on this thread many times before this

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

=========================== quote

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Gen 2
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky,

Gen 1
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
...31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Do you believe that being made in God's image is a physical descriptor? IOW, does God look like a human?

No that is not what "image" means in scripture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This thread has *way* too many bible quotes. On the other hand, I can just skip those posts...

 

[BobRyan]

This thread has *way* too many bible quotes. On the other hand, I can just skip those posts...

Read the OP if you want to know why it has Bible quotes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Read the OP if you want to know why it has Bible quotes.

I always skip the bible quotes in posts. I'm interested in the ideas, not the quotes. (This applies to other quoted materials as well. Too much is too much.)

 

[pitabread]

No that is not what "image" means in scripture.

Then why would it be relevant if we're the product of an evolutionary process or not? We're clearly made of the same bits that animals are made of. We're not a wholly unique organism in that respect.

 

[BobRyan]

I always skip the bible quotes in posts. I'm interested in the ideas, not the quotes. (This applies to other quoted materials as well. Too much is too much.)

That's fine - but the subject title of this thread is addressed to Creationists and is about trying get evolution to fit into the Bible doctrine on origins - the Bible account of creation, and whether there is a reasonable way to do it or not.

Given that fact -- you should be "surprised" if the thread made no reference at all to the Bible texts that it was claiming could be fit into evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

This thread has *way* too many bible quotes. On the other hand, I can just skip those posts...

That's all right--they're mostly the same texts over and over.

 

[BobRyan]

That's all right--they're mostly the same texts over and over.

Indeed -- the ones with the "Time element" and the "scope" of creation in the Bible - into which the OP would suggest that evolution can fit.

Why those specific texts would come to surface in a thread like this - is the easy part from what I see so far.

 

[St_Worm2]

Wow, that was weird. I just finished my reply to you (@pitabread), but when I posted it, more than half of it ended up disappearing, including all of the quotes of yours that I was replying to I've been posting here for more than 20 years now (and I've seen some strange things), but I've never seen anything happen like that before.

I copied what was left and I'll redo it all, but at this point I'm afraid that I'm going to need to bid you ado for the night (as tomorrow is the beginning of a very short work week).

Talk to you tomorrow evening (Dv), oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR

--David

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's fine - but the subject title of this thread is addressed to Creationists and is about trying get evolution to fit into the Bible doctrine on origins - the Bible account of creation, and whether there is a reasonable way to do it or not.

Given that fact -- you should be "surprised" if the thread made no reference at all to the Bible texts that it was claiming could be fit into evolution.

And the OP is about *how* "god" created things. So after you check Genesis and find nothing about mechanism, then where are you?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Then why would it be relevant if we're the product of an evolutionary process or not? We're clearly made of the same bits that animals are made of. We're not a wholly unique organism in that respect.

Because God breathed Himself into the nostrils of Adam, the first man. He did not do this to any animal.

 

[pitabread]

Because God breathed Himself into the nostrils of Adam, the first man. He did not do this to any animal.

Literally breathed? Does God have lungs?