Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[tonychanyt]

People can always be saved by Christ, even after death.

I think so to some extent. See What about people of other cultures, ancient Chinese, ancient Australians, Islamic, Hindu, etc?

 

[BNR32FAN]

‭‭1 Timothy 2:14 NIV‬‬
[14] And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

You can just read the Bible and see that sin was in the world before the fall.

But like I said before, sin was not counted where there was no law. Adam represents all of us. We all sin because he sinned. Sin came through him into the world, that is, to mankind.

But before Adams transgression, sin was present. Eve sinned. Satan sinned...

And Adams grandma would have sinned too.

Eve was deceived and BECAME a sinner. It doesn’t say that she was a sinner before she was deceived.

 

[BNR32FAN]

‭‭Romans 5:13 NET‬‬
[13] for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.

Before the law was given, sin was in the world. Paul can't say it any more plainly. The law is not required for sin to exist, because Paul says it very plainly, before the law was given, sin was in the world

Obviously Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law not the commandment pertaining to the tree of knowledge. Thats why he says in the very next verse

”Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.“
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB

If Paul was referring to the commandment referring to the tree of knowledge there would be no need to mention the time between Adam and Moses. Death reigned before the Law and before Moses which obviously indicates exactly which Law he is referring to.

 

[Job 33:6]

Paul is talking from Adam until Moses. Not before Adam. So from Adam to Moses there was sin (because of Adam) but no law (because no Moses). And sinning not in the same way that Adam - well, how did Adam sin? He ate the fruit. Nobody else was able to sin in the same way because we don't have access to the fruit. We sin in other ways - we lie, we murder, we have a sin of pride.

I don't see why this same logic could not also address people of an adamic law, even if the passage could be interpreted one way or the other.

The logic being that, people are held accountable based on their understanding of the law. And in an environment where there is no law, of course the standards would be different. They can't be held accountable to something they aren't aware of or have not received.

Then flip back to Romans 2:12-15 - "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) "

That's fine. Paul is helping to unify Jews and gentiles in this section of Romans.

‭‭Romans 2:10-11 ESV‬‬
[10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality.

‭‭Romans 2:14-15 ESV‬‬
[14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

I would say that these wouldn't necessarily relate to pre Adamic people. Paul appears to directly address the Jews and Gentiles here.

Then flip back even more to Romans 1:18-21 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

So according to Romans 1, if people existed before Adam, these people had the capacity to know God and indeed they knew God.

To some extent, yes. Through things like natural or general revelation.

Which you say they didn't.

God had not communed with mankind at this time in history. God wasn't walking in the garden with people for example. That direct relationship wasn't present.

According to Romans 1, they where godless and wicked and God's wrath is on them, but according to you they were not held accountable.

Huh? No. Gods wrath is not upon random unknowing people. There's a difference between the wicked who suppress Gods message, and people who simply aren't communing with God later in History.

Paul is specifically addressing pagan worship in Romans 1:

‭‭Romans 1:23 ESV‬‬
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

He's essentially speaking of people who worship demons. And that wouldn't fit the bill for pre Adamic people. Maybe some, but in context this is more rightly addressing things like the cult of Artemis or cults identified in Ephesians or Colossians. Gnostic Jews or things of this nature.

According to Romans 2, Lucy would have been judged by her conscience. But according to Genesis 2, if as you say it came after Genesis 1, Lucy would not have had conscience. And according to Romans 5, death reigned from Adam (as opposed to from creation) - so, assuming we are talking about spiritual death - Lucy was spiritually alive?

I never said that Lucy would not have had a conscience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Lucy would have been made in the image of God, as all humanity was.

I don't think the text clarifies, at least not the passages You've referenced, on the question of how pre Adamic people would or would not have been judged. Paul appears to be addressing pagan worship.


I think that ultimately, whether Lucy would have been judged based on a law of general revelation or a law of special revelation, or no law at all, I think that in all of the above options, Lucy would have an opportunity for salvation no matter how this is interpreted.

If no law at all, Lucy, similar to animals, may not be judged. If a law of the heart or through general revelation, then Lucy may be saved much like people today who live in remote tribes of the Amazon where they never get to know Jesus through the church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

‭‭Romans 5:13 NET‬‬
[13] for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.

Before the law was given, sin was in the world. Paul can't say it any more plainly. The law is not required for sin to exist, because Paul says it very plainly, before the law was given, sin was in the world.

The difference is that it just wasn't accounted for. People were not held accountable, because they did not know the law, but they could still sin.

They were not held accountable to the Mosaic Law, people were held accountable for laws that had been established before the Mosaic Law which is why death came into the world, why man was cast out of the Garden of Eden, and why God flooded the entire earth killing everyone except Noah and his family. Not to mention the other numerous punishments that were given to people for their transgressions before Exodus. Furthermore I forgot to mention that your whole purpose for establishing that sin existed before the fall was to justify death before the fall and I should’ve also pointed out in my previous post that Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses, not before Adam. In fact there’s not a single mention of anyone dying before Adam in the entire Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They were not held accountable to the Mosaic Law, people were held accountable for laws that had been established before the Mosaic Law which is why death came into the world, why man was cast out of the Garden of Eden, and why God flooded the entire earth killing everyone except Noah and his family. Not to mention the other numerous punishments that were given to people for their transgressions before Exodus. Furthermore I forgot to mention that your whole purpose for establishing that sin existed before the fall was to justify death before the fall and I should’ve also pointed out in my previous post that Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses, not before Adam. In fact there’s not a single mention of anyone dying before Adam in the entire Bible.

I very much appreciate your interpretive points on the grounds that you provide, but I'm inclined to take a position conceptually in-between that of yourself and @Job 33:6 : that theologically speaking where the writings of Moses are concerned, death did not reign in and among humanity before Adam and Eve sinned. However, I don't think the Garden of Eden narrative necessarily precludes the idea that death, and/or entropy in general among living organisms, didn't somehow already exist on the earth.

But, I know. It's difficult to tell and I think I'd rather focus on the important point that all of us can glean from the Garden of Eden account--that sin has come into the world and separates us in some way from God, placing us all in need of a Savior, whom Jesus was and is.

That's my view on it. At least it is for now.

 

[tonychanyt]

Lucy would have been made in the image of God, as all humanity was.

According to my theory, Lucy did not exist within witnessed-time. She never received a breadth from God. She would not be resurrected and judged. She only existed as a fossil record within space-time.

 

[olgamc]

I don't think I'd refer to Adams grandma as evil. Though she was sinful. Sorry I'm not following here.

My point is that sin is evil. Here are the definitions again:

• Evil - profoundly immoral or wicked. Personally, I would remove the word profoundly because all it does is indicates a degree of evil, and just say that evil - immoral or wicked.
• Sin - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law. (I would add, whether or not that law is known)
• Good - that which is morally right, righteous.

So there is no in between. You can't be sinful but not evil, because by definition sin is evil and not good.

To illustrate my point further, I'll go back to the animal world. Male dolphins are known to separate a female from the group, surround her, attack her, and forcibly have sex with her. Would you agree that this is evil and not good? Or would you say that this is morally neutral? I would say that it is morally wrong (evil), but a dolphin does not sin because it has no moral capacity. But humans do. When humans do the same thing, it is sin.

So not all evil is sin but all sin is evil.

I would say that Lucy may get saved. We can't say for sure, but presumably a loving God would give her the opportunity.

An amoeba isn't a human being. So I don't see why an amoeba would need to be saved. Amoebas don't sin. So I don't think I'd go back that far. But yes at some point, if we kept going back and back and back in time, eventually people would stop being people, and the subject of salvation would become irrelevant, just as it's not really meaningful to talk about if ants or caterpillars would go to heaven if they died today. Some topics just aren't meaningful.

Right, so that is exactly what I am trying to say. At what point does and amoeba become a human? What differentiates us from animals? Whatever that is - whether it's a soul, or a conscience, or a capacity to know God or reject God - doesn't matter what words we use to describe it, it had to just happen at some point and it couldn't have been a gradual change. Because there is no such thing as gradual conscience or half a soul, you either have it or you don't.

So now we have these options:
1. Lucy is a person and Lucy is good and Lucy does not sin. But we know that the only person who did not sin was Jesus. Therefore Lucy sinned. That's a contradiction.
2. Lucy is a person and Lucy is good and Lucy does sin. But sin is evil, therefore Lucy is evil. That's a contradiction.
3. Lucy is a person and Lucy is evil and sin is irrelevant. But we know that Lucy is made in God's image and God is good and not evil. We also know that God looked at creation and called it good. We also know that Lucy lived pre-fall before men knew evil. So Lucy is good. That's a contradiction.

Ok, so now we've proven that Lucy could not have been good or evil. Assuming that people are moral creatures, that would lead to the conclusion that Lucy was not a person. So Adam was the first person. But could Adam have evolved from an animal?

1. Lucy is an animal and Lucy is Adam's grandma and Lucy is a homo sapiens. But we know that all homo sapiens are people. So Lucy is a person. That's a contradiction.

2. Lucy is an animal and Lucy is Adam's grandma and Lucy is not a homo sapiens. But we know that evolution happens by tiny jumps, not by huge ones. And we also know that God says that everything produces offspring according to their kinds. So Lucy is not Adam's grandma. That's a contradiction.

So Adam did not descend from a person. And Adam did not descend from an animal.

Now do you see what I've been trying to say?

 

[olgamc]

I don't see why this same logic could not also address people of an adamic law, even if the passage could be interpreted one way or the other.

The logic being that, people are held accountable based on their understanding of the law. And in an environment where there is no law, of course the standards would be different. They can't be held accountable to something they aren't aware of or have not received.


That's fine. Paul is helping to unify Jews and gentiles in this section of Romans.

‭‭Romans 2:10-11 ESV‬‬
[10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality.

‭‭Romans 2:14-15 ESV‬‬
[14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

I would say that these wouldn't necessarily relate to pre Adamic people. Paul appears to directly address the Jews and Gentiles here.



To some extent, yes. Through things like natural or general revelation.


God had not communed with mankind at this time in history. God wasn't walking in the garden with people for example. That direct relationship wasn't present.


Huh? No. Gods wrath is not upon random unknowing people. There's a difference between the wicked who suppress Gods message, and people who simply aren't communing with God later in History.

Paul is specifically addressing pagan worship in Romans 1:

‭‭Romans 1:23 ESV‬‬
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

He's essentially speaking of people who worship demons. And that wouldn't fit the bill for pre Adamic people. Maybe some, but in context this is more rightly addressing things like the cult of Artemis or cults identified in Ephesians or Colossians. Gnostic Jews or things of this nature.



I never said that Lucy would not have had a conscience. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Lucy would have been made in the image of God, as all humanity was.

I don't think the text clarifies, at least not the passages You've referenced, on the question of how pre Adamic people would or would not have been judged. Paul appears to be addressing pagan worship.


I think that ultimately, whether Lucy would have been judged based on a law of general revelation or a law of special revelation, or no law at all, I think that in all of the above options, Lucy would have an opportunity for salvation no matter how this is interpreted.

If no law at all, Lucy, similar to animals, may not be judged. If a law of the heart or through general revelation, then Lucy may be saved much like people today who live in remote tribes of the Amazon where they never get to know Jesus through the church.

But Job 33:6, don't you see what you are doing? You are taking Paul's words and deciding the context in which they apply. So you take Romans 1 where Paul specifically says "from the creation of the world", and you say that it doesn't apply to pre-Adam, but then you take Paul 3, where Paul specifically says "from Adam to Moses", and say that it does apply to pre-Adam. How are you deciding that?

Same with Genesis. You take a creation account and you decide that it is definitely not science, not even a little bit. But then you take the same account and decide that it is definitely fully and completely near-east cosmology. Why are you doing that?

After I wrote this, I checked out some links posted by tonychanyt and it led me to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/s77m1d/_/hu0dlbt
That person sounds a lot like you, and there is one quote that I really like: "The text uses real people with a blend of Myth to convey certain truths." Truths like: God made everything, God made things in 6 days, Adam and Eve were made in God's image, Adam and Eve were the first people who sinned, and they will have an offspring who will defeat sin.

And the truth that Paul is trying to convey is that through Adam and Eve all of us sinned, and the offspring who defeats sin is Jesus.

And neither Paul nor Moses are talking about Adam's grandma. Grandma is a new idea, she is a logical deduction made purely from scientific observations. So in order to include grandma as a possibility, we need to examine this idea from both views - science and theology. In order for grandma to have a chance, she needs to not contradict what the Bible says. And she does, as I tried to describe in my previous posts.

 

[tonychanyt]

Both require faith.

I need faith to believe in Jesus. Some scientists need faith to believe in science. I don't. I assume the workings and the utility of science.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I need faith to believe in Jesus. Some scientists need faith to believe in science. I don't. I assume the workings and the utility of science.

Ultimately, there is no faith involved in falsifiable hypotheses. I think science philosophy is being blended with science.

 

[tonychanyt]

Ultimately, there is no faith involved in falsifiable hypotheses.

Right.

I think science philosophy is being blended with science.

Some people blend soft science philosophy with hard science.

 

[truthpls]

I use the term evolution biologically and technically. It describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time through successive generations. It is driven by natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow.

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

I am a Christian. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Unlike other branches of hard science, evolution has less mathematical support. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

The evolution model? What precisely is that and how exactly was put in an algorithm? What does the algorithm practically do that you say it works?

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

So in your words how exactly does evolution treat cancer?

 

[tonychanyt]

The evolution model? What precisely is that and how exactly was put in an algorithm? What does the algorithm practically do that you say it works?

See Evolutionary algorithm - Wikipedia

So in your words how exactly does evolution treat cancer?

Good question. Unfortunately, I don't know. I do not have a copy of the book.

 

[truthpls]

See Evolutionary algorithm - Wikipedia

I looked at the link and saw nothing that relates to the theory of the evolution of man. Perhaps post the relevant quote

Good question. Unfortunately, I don't know. I do not have a copy of the book.

Being in a book (even if it did explain an actual link with the theory of evolution) does not make it true.

 

[tonychanyt]

I looked at the link and saw nothing that relates to the theory of the evolution of man. Perhaps post the relevant quote

I am not talking about the evolution of man. See my OP for the definition.

Being in a book (even if it did explain an actual link with the theory of evolution) does not make it true.

Right.

 

[Job 33:6]

But Job 33:6, don't you see what you are doing? You are taking Paul's words and deciding the context in which they apply. So you take Romans 1 where Paul specifically says "from the creation of the world", and you say that it doesn't apply to pre-Adam, but then you take Paul 3, where Paul specifically says "from Adam to Moses", and say that it does apply to pre-Adam. How are you deciding that?

Same with Genesis. You take a creation account and you decide that it is definitely not science, not even a little bit. But then you take the same account and decide that it is definitely fully and completely near-east cosmology. Why are you doing that?

After I wrote this, I checked out some links posted by tonychanyt and it led me to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/s77m1d/_/hu0dlbt
That person sounds a lot like you, and there is one quote that I really like: "The text uses real people with a blend of Myth to convey certain truths." Truths like: God made everything, God made things in 6 days, Adam and Eve were made in God's image, Adam and Eve were the first people who sinned, and they will have an offspring who will defeat sin.

And the truth that Paul is trying to convey is that through Adam and Eve all of us sinned, and the offspring who defeats sin is Jesus.

And neither Paul nor Moses are talking about Adam's grandma. Grandma is a new idea, she is a logical deduction made purely from scientific observations. So in order to include grandma as a possibility, we need to examine this idea from both views - science and theology. In order for grandma to have a chance, she needs to not contradict what the Bible says. And she does, as I tried to describe in my previous posts.

I'm not sure if the from Adam to Moses statement would apply to the Mosaic law or and Adamic law. But I do think that the logic would still remain consistent. As Paul says,

‭‭Romans 5:13 ESV‬‬
[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Whereas Romans 1 very explicitly identifies pagan worship of idols. Which I would consider as demons.

And so with respect to Lucy, we don't know if she would have worshiped demons or not. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that she would be punished.

Regarding Genesis, the ancient Near East didn't have modern science, which is why I would say that Genesis is not scientific. Ancient cosmology is not scientific because it is a concept that exists in a pre-scientific age.

I think that makes sense, that there are spiritual truths in the text that are outside of scientific concepts. So I would agree with Tony and the general concept that he is sharing.


I don't think Lucy does contradict the text. I'm not sure where you see a contradiction.


I don't think Romans won would apply in the case of Lucy, because Romans 1 is specific to demon or idle worship of pagan deities. So I wouldn't consider this a sort of logical contradiction because it doesn't seem to apply to Adam's grandma.

 

[Job 33:6]

My point is that sin is evil. Here are the definitions again:

• Evil - profoundly immoral or wicked. Personally, I would remove the word profoundly because all it does is indicates a degree of evil, and just say that evil - immoral or wicked.
• Sin - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law. (I would add, whether or not that law is known)
• Good - that which is morally right, righteous.

So there is no in between. You can't be sinful but not evil, because by definition sin is evil and not good.

To illustrate my point further, I'll go back to the animal world. Male dolphins are known to separate a female from the group, surround her, attack her, and forcibly have sex with her. Would you agree that this is evil and not good? Or would you say that this is morally neutral? I would say that it is morally wrong (evil), but a dolphin does not sin because it has no moral capacity. But humans do. When humans do the same thing, it is sin.

So not all evil is sin but all sin is evil.


Right, so that is exactly what I am trying to say. At what point does and amoeba become a human? What differentiates us from animals? Whatever that is - whether it's a soul, or a conscience, or a capacity to know God or reject God - doesn't matter what words we use to describe it, it had to just happen at some point and it couldn't have been a gradual change. Because there is no such thing as gradual conscience or half a soul, you either have it or you don't.

So now we have these options:
1. Lucy is a person and Lucy is good and Lucy does not sin. But we know that the only person who did not sin was Jesus. Therefore Lucy sinned. That's a contradiction.

I never said that Lucy does not sin. I just don't think that Lucy would be judged in the same way as people who are under the law.

2. Lucy is a person and Lucy is good and Lucy does sin. But sin is evil, therefore Lucy is evil. That's a contradiction.

I don't think people are evil if they sin, like I wouldn't call you evil or myself evil, even if we are sinners. We could agree that the sin is evil though, but I don't think I would call Lucy evil.

3. Lucy is a person and Lucy is evil and sin is irrelevant. But we know that Lucy is made in God's image and God is good and not evil. We also know that God looked at creation and called it good. We also know that Lucy lived pre-fall before men knew evil. So Lucy is good. That's a contradiction.

When God said that creation was good, he wasn't talking about moral perfection, because he also turns and says that it is not good that Adam was alone, but he wasn't saying that Adam was immoral because he was alone. He was talking more about the function of what he was creating, not about morality.

But I do agree though that there's an issue of the problem of evil, so for example if we substituted Lucy with Satan, Satan sinned, Satan is evil, and God created Satan. Which leads us to some complicated conclusions.

But I don't think this would apply to Lucy or Genesis, because when God says that creation is good, he's not talking about morality, but also, sin is evil, but I wouldn't consider people to be evil.

Ok, so now we've proven that Lucy could not have been good or evil. Assuming that people are moral creatures, that would lead to the conclusion that Lucy was not a person. So Adam was the first person. But could Adam have evolved from an animal?

I think that in order to get to your conclusion, you would have to demonstrate that God was talking about morality when he said that creation was good. Otherwise, it's not necessarily a contradiction of God's character to create ball that sin, at least not anymore than it's a contradiction of God's character that he would create Satan.

1. Lucy is an animal and Lucy is Adam's grandma and Lucy is a homo sapiens. But we know that all homo sapiens are people. So Lucy is a person. That's a contradiction.

2. Lucy is an animal and Lucy is Adam's grandma and Lucy is not a homo sapiens. But we know that evolution happens by tiny jumps, not by huge ones. And we also know that God says that everything produces offspring according to their kinds. So Lucy is not Adam's grandma. That's a contradiction.

So Adam did not descend from a person. And Adam did not descend from an animal.

Now do you see what I've been trying to say?

I would ask, is it the people that are evil, or is it the sin of the people that is evil? If the people themselves may sin but not be evil, then they may be spared from damnation.


Which means that Lucy could be saved just as anyone else is.

I think that in order to close the loop, you would have to demonstrate that when God said that creation was very good, that he was talking about moral perfection.

 

[Job 33:6]

But Job 33:6, don't you see what you are doing? You are taking Paul's words and deciding the context in which they apply. So you take Romans 1 where Paul specifically says "from the creation of the world", and you say that it doesn't apply to pre-Adam, but then you take Paul 3, where Paul specifically says "from Adam to Moses", and say that it does apply to pre-Adam. How are you deciding that?

Same with Genesis. You take a creation account and you decide that it is definitely not science, not even a little bit. But then you take the same account and decide that it is definitely fully and completely near-east cosmology. Why are you doing that?

After I wrote this, I checked out some links posted by tonychanyt and it led me to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/s77m1d/_/hu0dlbt
That person sounds a lot like you, and there is one quote that I really like: "The text uses real people with a blend of Myth to convey certain truths." Truths like: God made everything, God made things in 6 days, Adam and Eve were made in God's image, Adam and Eve were the first people who sinned, and they will have an offspring who will defeat sin.

And the truth that Paul is trying to convey is that through Adam and Eve all of us sinned, and the offspring who defeats sin is Jesus.

And neither Paul nor Moses are talking about Adam's grandma. Grandma is a new idea, she is a logical deduction made purely from scientific observations. So in order to include grandma as a possibility, we need to examine this idea from both views - science and theology. In order for grandma to have a chance, she needs to not contradict what the Bible says. And she does, as I tried to describe in my previous posts.

And you're welcome to correct me on your position if I misunderstanding it, but it sounds like you're trying to say that if Lucy is a sinner, that will contradict scripture because it would involve God creating sinners and then simultaneously calling the creation of mankind good or very good.

And I would say that the problem with this counter argument is that when God says that things are good or not good, in Genesis, we can see how the word is used, Adam is alone and it is not good, and because this has nothing to do with morality, we know that when Genesis describes creation as good or very good, that it also has nothing to do with the question of if there were sinners.

And it's the same thing with the image of God, the image of God is directly linked to mankind's dominion mandate, to rule and to subdue creation. That concept doesn't have anything to do with the question of if people can be sinners.

And so for those reasons, God creating Lucy, as a sinner, would not be a contradiction of his character.

 

[Job 33:6]

According to my theory, Lucy did not exist within witnessed-time. She never received a breadth from God. She would not be resurrected and judged. She only existed as a fossil record within space-time.

Interesting. Yea I mean, it's something that would have to be explored. If Lucy would be judged or not and even if she was a sinner or not. I'm open to the idea of her being a sinner, though she would be judged differently because of her life before the law was provided.

I think that scripture probably leaves some of these topics open ended. We just do not get much information on humanity prior to Adam.