Carnivores and the Fall

[Mallon]

The Bible presents 5 arguments against theistic evolution:

1. Genesis 1:31 God saw everything was very good, the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Also Exodus 20:8-11 Presents the edict analogy, the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How does this contradict theistic evolution?

2. Genesis 1:11-12, 22-22, 24-25 God established physical laws governing the propagation of species.

Ditto.

3. Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:5-9, Psalm 139:13-18 God made man in his image and likeness, man's quantitative superiority over apes, chimps, and all animals. (What are the odds on darwinian evolution in statistically succeeding even theistic evolution speaking in making man in God's image and likeness?)

Are you suggesting that bearing God's image means looking physically like Him? God is spirit (John 4:24).

4. Matthew 5:3-11 Darwinian evolution and it's eternal brutality, the neverending struggle, death, and extinction is contrary to God evident by Lord Jesus' ethics and morals presented during the Sermon on the Mount.

Evolution is the solution to death. If species were unable to adapt to a changing environment, they would all be dead.

5. Genesis 2:1-3 Creation is finished. Evolution begs to differ and theistic evolution dictates creation will never finish.

If creation were truly finished, speciation wouldn't continue to occur, yet we see it all the time. Even most YECs admit as much.
Moreoever, the Bible describes each of us individually as a creation of God. I don't know about you, but I wasn't born on Day 6.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

How does this contradict theistic evolution?

Because the Hebrew word yom literally means a day, when one gives far too much credit to Darwinism far too little credit is given unto God.

Are you suggesting that bearing God's image means looking physically like Him? God is spirit (John 4:24).

Do apes, mammals, reptiles, fish, a wad of goo swimming in a pond er common ancestor of all life qualify as in the image and likeness of God? We have a quantitative superiority above nature and its creatures.

Evolution is the solution to death. If species were unable to adapt to a changing environment, they would all be dead.

Does blessed the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are peacemakers resound with a God that would sanction the creation of a world that began upon its dawn filled with billions of years of brutality, struggles, death, survival of the fittest, and extinction? Remember God saw everything he had made and it was not good but very good.

If creation were truly finished, speciation wouldn't continue to occur, yet we see it all the time. Even most YECs admit as much.
Moreoever, the Bible describes each of us individually as a creation of God. I don't know about you, but I wasn't born on Day 6.

Based on my comprehension its impossible to observe speciation properly and fails to provide any proof of the propagation of a new species. God said "Be fruitful and multiply" and "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well".

 

[gluadys]

The Bible presents 5 arguments against theistic evolution:

1. Genesis 1:31 God saw everything was very good, the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Also Exodus 20:8-11 Presents the edict analogy, the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Nothing in scripture tells us that evolution is not part of God's very good creation.

2. Genesis 1:11-12, 22-22, 24-25 God established physical laws governing the propagation of species.

Including the laws governing the evolution of species which are closely allied to the propagation of the species.

3. Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:5-9, Psalm 139:13-18 God made man in his image and likeness, man's quantitative superiority over apes, chimps, and all animals. (What are the odds on darwinian evolution in statistically succeeding even theistic evolution speaking in making man in God's image and likeness?)

What does evolution of our physical form have to do with the image of God who is Spirit? I doubt that any theologian prior to the 20th century thought of our physical appearance as the image of God. Why did God tell us not to make images of anything (including humans) as objects of worship? Because no such form (including human) is the image of God.

As Jesus told us, God is Spirit and those who worship him worship in spirit and truth. Please read the commentaries of theologians like Augustine, John Calvin and Matthew Henry on what "image of God" means and stop spreading the heresy that God is like any bodily form.

4. Matthew 5:3-11 Darwinian evolution and it's eternal brutality, the neverending struggle, death, and extinction is contrary to God evident by Lord Jesus' ethics and morals presented during the Sermon on the Mount.

As Mallon said, evolution is the way species survive threats of extinction. Remember that the so-called brutality of nature, the struggle for life, etc. is an observation, made by many before the theory of evolution was thought of. Do you think, if evolution was proven false that it would stop? Was it non-existent before Darwin published Origin of Species?

Ethics is what enables us to share scarce resources in a fair and just way.

5. Genesis 2:1-3 Creation is finished. Evolution begs to differ and theistic evolution dictates creation will never finish.

Jesus seems not to agree with you. Remember his words to the Pharisees who objected to him healing on the Sabbath? "My Father is still working and I am also working."

 

[gluadys]

Because the Hebrew word yom literally means a day, when one gives far too much credit to Darwinism far too little credit is given unto God.

Theistic evolution is not Day-Age creationism. We have no problem with the literal meaning of 'yom'.

Do apes, mammals, reptiles, fish, a wad of goo swimming in a pond er common ancestor of all life qualify as in the image and likeness of God?

No, and neither does the human body. The human-like images of the Greek gods are as much forbidden by the second commandment as the animal-like images of the Egyptians and images of the heavenly bodies.

We have a quantitative superiority above nature and its creatures.

But it is not a bodily superiority. Many other animals have superior senses of hearing and smell and can even sense things we cannot such as electomagnetic fields and ultraviolet light. Many are faster and stronger. Many are more adept at camouflage. Some can fly. Some are at home in water. This is not a reason to suppose that our physical form is an image of God.

Does blessed the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are peacemakers resound with a God that would sanction the creation of a world that began upon its dawn filled with billions of years of brutality, struggles, death, survival of the fittest, and extinction? Remember God saw everything he had made and it was not good but very good.

Why not? Did not God raise up the nation of Israel on a foundation of violence against the Canaanites?

Based on my comprehension its impossible to observe speciation properly and fails to provide any proof of the propagation of a new species.

Then you do not comprehend speciation. That does not mean that others fail to do so.

God said "Be fruitful and multiply" and "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well".

Amen!

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Theistic evolution is not Day-Age creationism. We have no problem with the literal meaning of 'yom'.

Good.

No, and neither does the human body. The human-like images of the Greek gods are as much forbidden by the second commandment as the animal-like images of the Egyptians and images of the heavenly bodies.

Yeah well we aint going to see a chimp compose Bach, write Shakespeare, construct the Taj Mahal, paint the Sistine Chapel, or build a rocket to the moon.

But it is not a bodily superiority. Many other animals have superior senses of hearing and smell and can even sense things we cannot such as electomagnetic fields and ultraviolet light. Many are faster and stronger. Many are more adept at camouflage. Some can fly. Some are at home in water. This is not a reason to suppose that our physical form is an image of God.

Animal attributes dont necessarily equate to the image and likeness of God. See the answer above.

Why not? Did not God raise up the nation of Israel on a foundation of violence against the Canaanites?

That is after the original sin and the fall of man when man began to believe and perform and practice abominations and failed to retain God in their thoughts.

Then you do not comprehend speciation. That does not mean that others fail to do so.

Well enlighten me, the fossil record has failed or otherwise we wouldnt have things such a punctual gradualism to explain the absence of transitional forms.

Amen!

 

[Jig]

I realize that. As you can probably tell, though, juvie isn't like most YECs.


And yet we put murderers in jail every day on the basis of forensic evidence of events that happened in the past.
Would you therefore advocate we release all these people from jail because their murders cannot be repeated? Let's explore this analogy.

The deeper we reach into the past, and certainly beyond that of written history, there is more we must assume. You are talking about a trivial amount of time (less than 5 years normally) verses millions and even billions of years. Huge difference. There is no way of knowing with any certainity what happened that far into tha past without applying some kind of philosophical assumption, may it be uniformitiarianism or some other interpretational guide. Your analogy fails.

 

[Mallon]

Because the Hebrew word yom literally means a day, when one gives far too much credit to Darwinism far too little credit is given unto God.

I don't debate that. I subscribe to an accommodationist hermeneutic, not a concordist one.

Do apes, mammals, reptiles, fish, a wad of goo swimming in a pond er common ancestor of all life qualify as in the image and likeness of God? We have a quantitative superiority above nature and its creatures.

Again, I don't debate any of that (except maybe for the "quantitative" specifier you threw in there). God called for us to rule over and to care for His creation. That doesn't somehow negate evolutionary common descent, though. We can be evolved creatures and still care for God's creation.

Does blessed the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are peacemakers resound with a God that would sanction the creation of a world that began upon its dawn filled with billions of years of brutality, struggles, death, survival of the fittest, and extinction? Remember God saw everything he had made and it was not good but very good.

Can God not bring about His will through the death of animals? Did not God take pleasure from the smell of burning animal offerings in the Old Testament? Did God not take credit for the terror of the war horse, the stupidity of the ostrich, and the bloodthirstiness of the hawk in Job 39?

Based on my comprehension its impossible to observe speciation properly and fails to provide any proof of the propagation of a new species.

We've observed speciation many, many times. A quick Google search will show you many instances of speciation.

God said "Be fruitful and multiply" and "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well".

I don't see how this supports your point.

 

[Mallon]

The deeper we reach into the past, and certainly beyond that of written history, there is more we must assume. You are talking about a trivial amount of time (less than 5 years normally) verses millions and even billions of years. Huge difference. There is no way of knowing with any certainity what happened that far into tha past without applying some kind of philosophical assumption, may it be uniformitiarianism or some other interpretational guide. Your analogy fails.

Does it? You said, "The ONLY possible way to know what happened in the past is to have observed it then". I showed, with reference to modern forensic science, that that isn't the case. We can and do infer past events without ever having to re-live them. There are certainly degrees of confidence associated with our inferences depending on how much time has passed, but that doesn't make all inferences about the past equally likely. The job of palaeontology is to rule out, on the basis of forensic evidence, what could not have happened in the past. And, using the same assumptions that we make in the court of law, the YEC model of earth's history doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Jig]

Does it? You said, "The ONLY possible way to know what happened in the past is to have observed it then".

Philosophically speaking I am correct. Though that is not what I meant in my comment. I was referring to beyond our own experience and observation.

I showed, with reference to modern forensic science, that that isn't the case.

We can and do infer past events without ever having to re-live them. There are certainly degrees of confidence associated with our inferences depending on how much time has passed, but that doesn't make all inferences about the past equally likely. The job of palaeontology is to rule out, on the basis of forensic evidence, what could not have happened in the past. And, using the same assumptions that we make in the court of law, the YEC model of earth's history doesn't cut the mustard.

You are right to say we can draw inferences. We do in fact have many processes of deriving conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. However, a philosophical guide must be established in most cases ranging beyond our own observational and experimental horizon.

 

[Assyrian]

Philosophically speaking I am correct. Though that is not what I meant in my comment. I was referring to beyond our own experience and observation.

You are right to say we can draw inferences. We do in fact have many processes of deriving conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. However, a philosophical guide must be established in most cases ranging beyond our own observational and experimental horizon.

Ii is odd. Clearly you don't think philosophy is that reliable or you would not claim science's philosophical basis as evidence it is wrong. Yet you are using philosophy yourself to try to argue against science.

The fact is, science left philosophy behind centuries ago, back in the time of Galileo, when science showed it was able to describe how the universe operated, through experiment, where philosophy utterly failed in the task. Creationism tried to come up with a scientific argument against evolution, and failed. So now we see them trying to turn the clock back four hundred years and use philosophy to argue their case when philosophy could not even work out the path a canon ball took as it flew through the air. Philosophy could not even describe what could be observed.

 

[Assyrian]

Because the Hebrew word yom literally means a day,

But then again, the bible does not always use yom literally. Just look at Gen 2:4 where the entire creation is described as taking place in a day. Or Gen 2:17 where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. Either die didn't mean literal physical death, or 'day' wasn't a literal day.

when one gives far too much credit to Darwinism far too little credit is given unto God.

Oddly enough, one thing that keeps coming up in discussions here is that TEs give more credit to God than Creationists. We believe God is responsible for events that occur naturally, rain watering the land for crops to grow, newborn babies, beautiful sunsets, as well as his supernatural works, whereas Creationist keep arguing that if there is a natural explanation, it somehow 'excludes God'. Now I don't think Creationists actually believe this. After all, they thank God when they sit down and eat their dinner, even when they know the food grew quite naturally. There is just an unresolved contradiction between their relationship with God and the Creationist arguments they have been taught.

Do apes, mammals, reptiles, fish, a wad of goo swimming in a pond er common ancestor of all life qualify as in the image and likeness of God? We have a quantitative superiority above nature and its creatures.

Does mud have the image and likeness of God? Yet that is what Genesis says we are made of. Why do you think God can form something in his image out of mud, but not out of a mammal?

Jesus expressed God's love for the people of Jerusalem in terms of a mother hen caring for her chicks. Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Does that mean when God made chickens, his creation showed something of the character of the one who created them, something of the image and likeness of God?

Yeah well we aint going to see a chimp compose Bach, write Shakespeare, construct the Taj Mahal, paint the Sistine Chapel, or build a rocket to the moon.

Which shows more of the character and nature of God, painting the Sistine chapel, or a mother hen loving and caring for her chicks?
Or as James T Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"

Does blessed the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the pure in heart, blessed are peacemakers resound with a God that would sanction the creation of a world that began upon its dawn filled with billions of years of brutality, struggles, death, survival of the fittest, and extinction? Remember God saw everything he had made and it was not good but very good.

The bible tells us God provides prey for hungry lion cubs and ravens (Job 38, Psalm 104), is God not being good when he does this? Jesus ate fish and passover lambs. Does this mean he wasn't meek or merciful?

Based on my comprehension its impossible to observe speciation properly and fails to provide any proof of the propagation of a new species. God said "Be fruitful and multiply" and "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well".

Beautiful psalm and well worth looking at the context.
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

I presume you accept the scientific description of human reproduction, how you were formed by the fusing of two gametes from your father and mother to form a zygote containing genetic material from both parents, and how this tiny cell developed in your mother's womb until you were ready to be born. Now I don't see a contradiction between the scientific description and God knitting you together in your mother's worm, or, intricately weaving you in the depths of the earth. Do you?

If there is no conflict between Psalm 139 and the science of human reproduction, why does there need to be a conflict between Genesis and evolution?

 

[Jig]

The fact is, science left philosophy behind centuries ago, back in the time of Galileo, when science showed it was able to describe how the universe operated, through experiment, where philosophy utterly failed in the task. Creationism tried to come up with a scientific argument against evolution, and failed. So now we see them trying to turn the clock back four hundred years and use philosophy to argue their case when philosophy could not even work out the path a canon ball took as it flew through the air. Philosophy could not even describe what could be observed.

Are you suggesting that uniformitiarianism is not a philosophy?

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

But then again, the bible does not alwas use yom literally. Just look at Gen 2:4 where the entire creation is described as taking place in a day. Or Gen 2:17 where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. Either die didn't mean literal physical death, or 'day' wasn't a literal day.

Now you are twisting the verse around, Gen 2:17 does not say "where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit" but rather "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now look forward to verse 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Oddly enough, one thing that keeps coming up in discussions here is that TEs give more credit to God than Creationists. We believe God is responsible for events that occur naturally, rain watering the land for crops to grow, newborn babies, beautiful sunsets, as well as his supernatural works, whereas Creationist keep arguing that if there is a natural explanation, it somehow 'excludes God'. Now I don't think Creationists actually believe this. After all, they thank God when they sit down and eat their dinner, even when they know the food grew quite naturally. There is just an unresolved contradiction between their relationship with God and the Creationist arguments they have been taught.

Does mud have the image and likeness of God? Yet that is what Genesis says we are made of. Why do you think God can form something in his image out of mud, but not out of a mammal?

But Adam and Eve had no parents neither were conceived in a womb and conceived out of a womb. They didnt evolve from apes, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and finally goo in the pond.

Jesus expressed God's love for the people of Jerusalem in terms of a mother hen caring for her chicks. Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Does that mean when God made chickens, his creation showed something of the character of the one who created them, something of the image and likeness of God?

The animal kingdom represents a lot of sound examples of wonderful caring paternal and maternal instincts to illustrate the love of God towards Jerusalem.

Which shows more of the character and nature of God, painting the Sistine chapel, or a mother hen loving and caring for her chicks?
Or as James T Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"

No, simply God created man special above all animals in the kingdom to know good and evil, right from wrong, to have a moral compass, to be artistically genius, we can behold the creations of God and appreciate them and look up to the heavens and praise Him. Our humanity is gift no animal can ever experience. We were created to fellowship with God. This is so contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest.

The bible tells us God provides prey for hungry lion cubs and ravens (Job 38, Psalm 104), is God not being good when he does this? Jesus ate fish and passover lambs. Does this mean he wasn't meek or merciful?

Beautiful psalm and well worth looking at the context.
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

I presume you accept the scientific description of human reproduction, how you were formed by the fusing of two gametes from your father and mother to form a zygote containing genetic material from both parents, and how this tiny cell developed in your mother's womb until you were ready to be born. Now I don't see a contradiction between the scientific description and God knitting you together in your mother's worm, or, intricately weaving you in the depths of the earth. Do you?

If there is no conflict between Psalm 139 and the sceince of human reproduction, why does there need to be a conflict between Genesis and evolution?

Yes, God provides for the post-fall animals of earth, but why would God whose is infinite and all powerful and all loving take billions of years to create Adam and Eve and lose it all in a act of disobedience witnessed through millions of years of struggle, death, and extinction. From pond guppy to sinner. Anyways, Adam and Eve werent conceived in a womb remember.

 

[shernren]

The deeper we reach into the past, and certainly beyond that of written history, there is more we must assume. You are talking about a trivial amount of time (less than 5 years normally) verses millions and even billions of years. Huge difference. There is no way of knowing with any certainity what happened that far into tha past without applying some kind of philosophical assumption, may it be uniformitiarianism or some other interpretational guide. Your analogy fails.

But if you are right then there are no millions and even billions of years. There are only thousands of years.

If creation really is as young as you claim it is then we should be able to know that with certainty, assumptions or not. To put things into perspective, our earliest copies of the Bible date back to about 200-300AD. That's 1,800 years ago. According to your beliefs the entire universe is only about 6,000-8,000 years old - that is, at most five times as old as the oldest copies of the Bible, whose authorship dates we can often pin down reliably to within one or two decades.

Your argument is right only if your beliefs are wrong. Man, life must be hard as a creationist. Adhockery gets you into so much trouble!

 

[Assyrian]

Are you suggesting that uniformitiarianism is not a philosophy?

No, it is more a hypothesis, that has been confirmed again and again in the history of science. If uniformitarianism was a philosophy, how would geology have ever accepted giant asteroid impacts like Chicxulub or the possibility the moon is the result of an planet the size of Mars hitting earth?

Geology learned the great age of the earth, not by assuming the earth was ancient and interpreting the rocks that way, but because they came across geological features like Hutton's Siccar Point that could not have been formed quickly. But the fact that unifirmitarianism, or rather actualism, does explain the geology of the earth where flood geology never could, is powerful evidence that the earth really is ancient. That is the way science works whatever field you study. Science goes with the theory that gives a coherent explanation of the evidence.

Then science discovered radioactivity which provided two very important pieces of information, most importantly it provided a heat source of the sun and earth's core, which had been the biggest problem for geology and evolution. Until then it did not seem the sun could have been old enough for the ages geology spoke about, or if it was old enough it would have been too large a hundred million years ago and would have been engulfing the earth. Radioactivity showed there were other processes that could provide the phenomenal amounts of energy the sun emits, and over much longer periods, than combustion or gravitational collapse. But then radioactive isotopes also provided a method of measuring the actual age of the rocks. Which confirmed what geologists had been saying all along. Nor do scientists simply assume rates of radioactive decay have been constant over billions of years. They also look at decay rates in past events billions of years ago, supernovae and natural nuclear reactors like in Precambrian Oklo, to look for slight changes in universal constants. There is no assumption the rates have been constant. They test it.

In one way actualism is no different from the principle used throughout science, Occam's razor. When known processes explain an event, you don't go looking for unknown processes. That is why the hunt to find the cause of AIDS searched for viruses not invisible malevolent pixies or cloaked aliens with death rays. Equally when no virus, bacterium or environmental factor could explain mad cow disease, scientists were willing to consider something never heard of before, the idea of a disease being spread by a protein, but only when good evidence backed up the hypothesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you suggesting that uniformitiarianism is not a philosophy?

I'd be interested in hearing what you think "uniformitarianism" says. Tell us about it.

 

[Assyrian]

But then again, the bible does not alwas use yom literally. Just look at Gen 2:4 where the entire creation is described as taking place in a day. Or Gen 2:17 where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. Either die didn't mean literal physical death, or 'day' wasn't a literal day.

Now you are twisting the verse around, Gen 2:17 does not say "where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit" but rather "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now look forward to verse 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Careful, you have the 'where' on the wrong side of the quotation marks, and it is not a quotation anyway, I was describing what Gen 2:17 says rather than quoting it, like I did in the previous sentence. Gen 2:17 does not say "where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit", it is where the bible tell us that Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit.

So what is you problem with my statment, how do you think I am twisting the verse?
Do you think there is a difference between:
On Tuesday I went to Starbucks
and
I went to Starbucks On Tuesday

or between:
The day we walked to DunLaoghaire I asked her to marry me
and
I asked her to marry me the day we walked to DunLaoghaire

Gen 2:17 tells us what was going to happen on the day he ate the fruit.
What is the difference between:
Adam would surely die in the day he ate the fruit
Or
In the day he ate the fruit Adam would surely die

God told Adam what would happen, and when.

But then we have the problem with literalism. Adam did not die, physically anyway, on the day he ate of it. As the verse you quote points out, Adam had many days earning his daily bread by the sweat of his brow before he died, days spent toiling in the field long after the day he was told he would die on. So verse 17 cannot refer to his physical death which occurred many years later, either that or the day mentioned in verse 17 was not a literal day. That is in fact an interpretation of the verse that dates back to the earth church and was common among the church fathers.

Does mud have the image and likeness of God? Yet that is what Genesis says we are made of. Why do you think God can form something in his image out of mud, but not out of a mammal?

But Adam and Eve had no parents neither were conceived in a womb and conceived out of a womb. They didnt evolve from apes, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and finally goo in the pond.

That is how you interpret it, but so what? It does not answer my question. You think our evolutionary ancestry excludes being formed in God's image, in a way that being formed from mud does not. What is so special about mud that God can form us in his image from it, but he cannot start from 'goo' and work his way through fish, amphibian, mammal and ape DNA? Could you be underestimating God?

The animal kingdom represents a lot of sound examples of wonderful caring paternal and maternal instincts to illustrate the love of God towards Jerusalem.

So parental instincts of the animals he created are in some way 'like' God?
OK they are only a dim reflection of the creator, but then again, animals can lay down their lives protecting their young ones. It is a pretty powerful image. On the other hand was mud ever compared to God? Which is nearer God's likeness the self sacrificial love of an animal parent, or mud? What makes you tihnk it is easier for God to form us in his image and likeness from clay rather than from animals whose parental love already bears something of his likeness?

No, simply God created man special above all animals in the kingdom to know good and evil, right from wrong, to have a moral compass, to be artistically genius, we can behold the creations of God and appreciate them and look up to the heavens and praise Him. Our humanity is gift no animal can ever experience. We were created to fellowship with God. This is so contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest.

And yet evolution can come up with self sacrificial altruism like the mother hen, or ants who lay down their lives for the nest. I think God was really clever coming up with that. Of course, what God has formed in man goes way beyond our nearest relatives and he has given us a spirit that can know him that none of them possess, but just because God has done in us so much more than other animals it does not mean he has not formed us from other animals.

Yes, God provides for the post-fall animals of earth, but why would God whose is infinite and all powerful and all loving take billions of years to create Adam and Eve and lose it all in a act of disobedience witnessed through millions of years of struggle, death, and extinction. From pond guppy to sinner.

Not sure what you mean about an "act of disobedience witnessed through millions of years of struggle, death, and extinction". But I don't see why you would have a problem with a God who is infinite and all powerful taking billion of years. Nor does God's view of what it means to be all loving exclude loving ravens by providing them with prey. Be careful not to mistake modern sentimentality with a biblical view of God's love. Don't forget God shows his care for the sparrow by watching over them, even in their death. Even when their falling to the ground at the end of their life is also God's provision of lunch for hungry ravens.

Anyways, Adam and Eve werent conceived in a womb remember.

God formed you in the depths of the earth too, yet you were conceived in a womb. The bible says God made us out of clay. Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Is that any different from he way God made Adam?

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Careful, you have the 'where' on the wrong side of the quotation marks, and it is not a quotation anyway, I was describing what Gen 2:17 says rather than quoting it, like I did in the previous sentence. Gen 2:17 does not say "where Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit", it is where the bible tell us that Adam was told he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit.

So what is you problem with my statment, how do you think I am twisting the verse?
Do you think there is a difference between:
On Tuesday I went to Starbucks
and
I went to Starbucks On Tuesday

or between:
The day we walked to DunLaoghaire I asked her to marry me
and
I asked her to marry me the day we walked to DunLaoghaire

Gen 2:17 tells us what was going to happen on the day he ate the fruit.
What is the difference between:
Adam would surely die in the day he ate the fruit
Or
In the day he ate the fruit Adam would surely die

God told Adam what would happen, and when.

But then we have the problem with literalism. Adam did not die, physically anyway, on the day he ate of it. As the verse you quote points out, Adam had many days earning his daily bread by the sweat of his brow before he died, days spent toiling in the field long after the day he was told he would die on. So verse 17 cannot refer to his physical death which occurred many years later, either that or the day mentioned in verse 17 was not a literal day. That is in fact an interpretation of the verse that dates back to the earth church and was common among the church fathers.

But see God didnt say death would be instantaneous but rather it would be inevitable. In fact, God had a plan since the beginning that His Son would lay down His life and be pinned to a cross for the sins of humanity. In fact, Genesis 3:21, we see our first example of grace, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." A grace that would see its culmination on the cross. If death was instantaneous, what would be verdict? There is a whole lot of problems fundamentally with humanity pre-existing before Adam and Eve and this is one of them, the denial of sin. Or did sin happen corporately? See.

That is how you interpret it, but so what? It does not answer my question. You think our evolutionary ancestry excludes being formed in God's image, in a way that being formed from mud does not. What is so special about mud that God can form us in his image from it, but he cannot start from 'goo' and work his way through fish, amphibian, mammal and ape DNA? Could you be underestimating God?

So parental instincts of the animals he created are in some way 'like' God?
OK they are only a dim reflection of the creator, but then again, animals can lay down their lives protecting their young ones. It is a pretty powerful image. On the other hand was mud ever compared to God? Which is nearer God's likeness the self sacrificial love of an animal parent, or mud? What makes you tihnk it is easier for God to form us in his image and likeness from clay rather than from animals whose parental love already bears something of his likeness?

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Evolution is suggesting the lineage of Jesus includes clean and unclean animals? That paints a pretty sight. God before the foundation of the earth planned to save a race upon literally millions of generations of animals, swimming and creeping, and preying and killing upon each other until finally the ape climb down out of the trees, stood upright and lost his hair.

And yet evolution can come up with self sacrificial altruism like the mother hen, or ants who lay down their lives for the nest. I think God was really clever coming up with that. Of course, what God has formed in man goes way beyond our nearest relatives and he has given us a spirit that can know him that none of them possess, but just because God has done in us so much more than other animals it does not mean he has not formed us from other animals.

Not sure what you mean about an "act of disobedience witnessed through millions of years of struggle, death, and extinction". But I don't see why you would have a problem with a God who is infinite and all powerful taking billion of years. Nor does God's view of what it means to be all loving exclude loving ravens by providing them with prey. Be careful not to mistake modern sentimentality with a biblical view of God's love. Don't forget God shows his care for the sparrow by watching over them, even in their death. Even when their falling to the ground at the end of their life is also God's provision of lunch for hungry ravens.

Because the guppy in the pond committed the original sin when it cannibalized his sickly weaker siblings according to evolution.

God formed you in the depths of the earth too, yet you were conceived in a womb. The bible says God made us out of clay. Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Is that any different from he way God made Adam?

I am in absolute agreement with this statement though Adam wasnt conceived how I was conceived.

 

[The Barbarian]

But see God didnt say death would be instantaneous but rather it would be inevitable.

But He didn't actually say that, did He? He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. He didn't say it would be inevitable. He said that day.

No matter how much you want Scripture to be different, it's never a justification for changing it.

Because the guppy in the pond committed the original sin when it cannibalized his sickly weaker siblings according to evolution.

It's not as serious a sin to change what evolutionary theory says, but it's still a dishonesty. You should avoid that, too.

BTW Jig, I'd still be interested in knowing what you think "uniformitarianism" says.

 

[GenemZ]

Ii is odd. Clearly you don't think philosophy is that reliable or you would not claim science's philosophical basis as evidence it is wrong. Yet you are using philosophy yourself to try to argue against science.

The fact is, science left philosophy behind centuries ago, back in the time of Galileo, when science showed it was able to describe how the universe operated, through experiment, where philosophy utterly failed in the task. Creationism tried to come up with a scientific argument against evolution, and failed. So now we see them trying to turn the clock back four hundred years and use philosophy to argue their case when philosophy could not even work out the path a canon ball took as it flew through the air. Philosophy could not even describe what could be observed.

You are working on censorship and selective reasoning. The GAP understanding of Genesis completely harmonizes the scientific data and Scripture. Your straw man argument must stand upon the reasoning of Young Earth creationism alone. That is why evolutionists are always quick to move far away from the GAP understanding when its presented. They do not want to debate it, because they do not want it explained to those who would see the truth it holds.

Here we go: http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

The amazing aspect of this grasp of understanding on Scripture is that scholars of the Bible saw what was indicated long before they could explain why the Bible speaks of prehistoric creation. They had no axe to grind. They had no agenda to prove. They had no one by the name of Darwin to contend with. They found out this truth by simply knowing the original languages the Bible was written in and reading it as it was stated.

Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists both possess some truths. But, they do not have what is needed to draw a TRUTHFUL conclusion. For both are riddled with inconsistency.

Have a nice Day, gentlemen. For you MUST ignore the GAP understanding of Scripture in order to maintain your ego boost in showing how clever each side is. Its a game of the flesh which has been carried over to the other side of the Cross. One that gives such great self satisfaction when you check and checkmate the reasoning of his opponent. Jesus said, the Truth will make you free. I am free to walk away from the never ending mental fist fight that YEC's and TOE's find themselves in. I stand outside the cloud of dust where I can see arms and fists darting in and out of. I do not have to win this fight. For its already won. I share because someone here may be truly searching for the truth. Not simply beat his opponent for the ego rush of human victory.

Enjoy your temporal battle!