Evolutionist's optimal design arguments fall short...

[shernren]

So the LORD God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
(Genesis 3:14-19 NIV)

Hmm. Who was cursed?

The serpent. And if you think of it as Satan "incarnate" instead of any physical being that doesn't even count as physical change.

The woman. Her pain would be increased in childbirth. We cannot even infer from this verse that prior to the Fall childbirth would have been painless. And her psychological relationship with Adam was harmed, which is clearly a result of sin and not (easily) attributable to anything genetic.

The man. The ground would produce thistles and thorns and he would eat the plants of the field. Even if one takes the thistles and thorns as newly developed (ie not around before the fall) we have a very specific circumscriptiion here, ground, thistles, and thorns, and nothing else cursed.

We do not see anything like:

"Primates, you shall be forced to eat oranges or get scurvy, for your Vitamin C gene will be broken."

It is simply a-biblical to ascribe such things to the Fall, for the Bible does not speak of them in the one place where it fully describes the effects of the Fall.

 

[Mallon]

As for Scripture, there is plenty of evidence the Fall is the reason for entropy (the steady deterioration of our universe).

In that case, I'd love to see it. Would've been mighty hard for Adam to digest the plants God told him to eat if there were no entropy.

Creationism at its best. Can't wait to see it taught in the science classroom!

 

[Dannager]

Regardless if Scripture can be used as empirical evidence or not, you should believe it is authoritive based on your position as a Christian.

No, I should believe it is authoritative on things it was meant to be authoritative on. And so should you.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Common design may lead to similar defects within species under similar influences and conditions of stress and decay from the Fall.

You mean the same stretch of DNA in humans and chimps underwent the same random mutation???

The Fall, of course, will never be able to be back by empirical evidence. Science has nothing to do with it.

Actually science has a lot to do with enthropy.

As for Scripture, there is plenty of evidence the Fall is the reason for entropy (the steady deterioration of our universe).

Not in any bible I've seen, though I have seen the claim in creationist books.

 

[Jig]

I will say this. If the death sin brought was spiritual, does that mean we are spiritually dead right now? Scripture seems to point to the spirit being, not only very alive, but immortal. (Eccl 12:7; Luke 23:46).

Though many will argue this only refers to the spiritual seperation from God (which we are), that in itself is not a form of death, but a requirement due to God's perfectness (He can't be connected directly to sin). What also is of interest to me, is that God requires a physical death as payment for sin. What point would be physical sacrifice for sin, if sin supposedly brought death only spiritually? God was very clear that blood must now be shed for the atoning/covering of sin.

I believe the Fall caused physical death to be subjected throughout all creation. You are falling into the assumption that the world worked the same before the Fall, an assumption that can not be backed up. Have we forgot how powerful God is?

 

[Deamiter]

I will say this. If the death sin brought was spiritual, does that mean we are spiritually dead right now? Scripture seems to point to the spirit being, not only very alive, but immortal. (Eccl 12:7; Luke 23:46).

Of course, our spirits are immortal. In this context, "spiritual death" refers to an eternal separation from God. I've never met a creationist who denies that the word "death" IS used this way in some parts of the Bible (though many do claim that it ALSO refers to physical death). Do you claim that "death" is never used to refer to spiritual death, or just that in reference to the fall it is solely physical?

Though many will argue this only refers to the spiritual seperation from God (which we are), that in itself is not a form of death, but a requirement due to God's perfectness (He can't be connected directly to sin). What also is of interest to me, is that God requires a physical death as payment for sin. What point would be physical sacrifice for sin, if sin supposedly brought death only spiritually? God was very clear that blood must now be shed for the atoning/covering of sin.

Are you honestly claiming that God HAD to sacrifice himself to himself in order to make up for our eating a bit of fruit?

Or could the requirement of sacrifice be symbolic, and Jesus' physical death was symbolic of his accepting the consequences of all our sin (eternal separation from God)?

I believe the Fall caused physical death to be subjected throughout all creation. You are falling into the assumption that the world worked the same before the Fall, an assumption that can not be backed up. Have we forgot how powerful God is?

And you are falling into the assumption that the world DIDN'T work the same before the fall, an assumption that is backed by your interpretation of scriptures just as my assumption is also backed by my interpretation of scriptures.

As another member posted in a previous thread (paraphrased) it is a rather sick bit of bookkeeping if God had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to atone for one man's consumption of a bit of complex carbohydrate. Is God powerful because he killed his son over a piece of fruit, or is he powerful and merciful because he can and has chosen to forgive every one of our sins and the consequences (eternal separation from him) that are laid out in scripture?

 

[shernren]

Though many will argue this only refers to the spiritual seperation from God (which we are), that in itself is not a form of death, but a requirement due to God's perfectness (He can't be connected directly to sin). What also is of interest to me, is that God requires a physical death as payment for sin. What point would be physical sacrifice for sin, if sin supposedly brought death only spiritually? God was very clear that blood must now be shed for the atoning/covering of sin.

Because humans dumb.

You have to remember that throughout Scripture God institutes sacramental symbols as "hangers" onto which we can hook spiritual concepts. Solomon knew well enough that God could not fit into a temple and yet he built the Temple as a house for God. Why? Because the people of Israel needed a tangible, material reminder that God was their Immanuel. The Temple became a sacramental monument to the presence of God with them.

Ditto the Eucharist. Why did Jesus bother, after all we can remember His death just fine especially with the Scriptural record. The point is that Eucharist as a sacrament was a tangible physical expression of the spiritual truth that Jesus had died and has risen again for us.

In the same way, animal death and sacrifices were a symbolic reminder, or a sacrament if you will, to the Old Testament believers that humanity could not find its own way out of sin. Just because physical death was required as a symbol of the forgiveness of sin, it does not follow that sin is a physical phenomenon or that its consequences were the universal introduction of physical death.

 

[Jig]

Of course, our spirits are immortal. In this context, "spiritual death" refers to an eternal separation from God.

That much was obvious.

I've never met a creationist who denies that the word "death" IS used this way in some parts of the Bible (though many do claim that it ALSO refers to physical death). Do you claim that "death" is never used to refer to spiritual death, or just that in reference to the fall it is solely physical?

I believe it has both a physical and spiritual meaning. In the same way both our spirit and physical bodies are connected. In this sense, it is easy to see that both aspects were involved, resulting in both being effected.

Are you honestly claiming that God HAD to sacrifice himself to himself in order to make up for our eating a bit of fruit?

It's not just about the fruit. It was about the physical action of going against God. It is about sin.

Or could the requirement of sacrifice be symbolic, and Jesus' physical death was symbolic of his accepting the consequences of all our sin (eternal separation from God)?

In the same way you tried to snare me with the false belief I might of had, the point of believing in solely a physical connection to the Fall, you snared yourself with basicly the same fallacy. Here you subscribe to a purely symbolic meaning to sacrifice.

And you are falling into the assumption that the world DIDN'T work the same before the fall, an assumption that is backed by your interpretation of scriptures just as my assumption is also backed by my interpretation of scriptures.

I think you are interpreting the Scriptures, based on your assumption that the theory of Evolution is true.

As another member posted in a previous thread (paraphrased) it is a rather sick bit of bookkeeping if God had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to atone for one man's consumption of a bit of complex carbohydrate. Is God powerful because he killed his son over a piece of fruit, or is he powerful and merciful because he can and has chosen to forgive every one of our sins and the consequences (eternal separation from him) that are laid out in scripture?

Why are you so caught up on the piece of fruit, it had nothing to do with the fruit.

Your problem is trying to understand God through the logic of man.

 

[Dannager]

I think you are interpreting the Scriptures, based on your assumption that the theory of Evolution is true.

I'm pretty sure that none of us assume the theory of evolution to be true. Rather, we accept that it is the best explanation we have.

 

[shernren]

In the same way you tried to snare me with the false belief I might of had, the point of believing in solely a physical connection to the Fall, you snared yourself with basicly the same fallacy. Here you subscribe to a purely symbolic meaning to sacrifice.

"Snare with false belief" is a pretty strong term, don't you think?

In fact, there is plenty of Biblical proof that sacrifice was merely a symbol of deeper reality instead of having any efficacy in and of itself. It's a point the book of Hebrews harps on over and over again:

When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Hebrews 9:6-10 (NIV)

Animal sacrifices were able to satisfy the ceremonial law, as the rest of the chapter goes on to describe, but that was only because the ceremonial law itself was merely a symbol of something deeper and more intrinsic to our spiritual nature (as Romans 4-8, etc. describe), unable to bring salvation.

And this is not a message exclusive to the New Testament, even in the Old Testament there are hints and murmurs that the ritual sacrifice is merely an outward sign:

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.

Psalm 40:6,7 (NIV)

But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king."

1 Samuel 15:22,23 (NIV)

The Bible is clear about just where animal sacrifices stand with God.

 

[Deamiter]

I believe it has both a physical and spiritual meaning. In the same way both our spirit and physical bodies are connected. In this sense, it is easy to see that both aspects were involved, resulting in both being effected.

In the same way you tried to snare me with the false belief I might of had, the point of believing in solely a physical connection to the Fall, you snared yourself with basicly the same fallacy. Here you subscribe to a purely symbolic meaning to sacrifice.

So you're claiming that there was an actual physical mechanism that was triggered when Jesus died? If not, then you too are subscribing to a purely symbolic sacrifice.

This type of sacrifice is by definition purely symbolic. The sacrifice itself does nothing (as shernren has already said). It is God's acceptance of the sacrifice as a repentant atonement for our sins that makes sacrifice effective. I know it's subtle, but there is no NON-symbolic component to this sacrifice. Jesus didn't throw himself in front of a bullet and sacrifice himself to make any physical change in the world. I'm sure Jesus could have taken the consequences of our sins upon himself without physically dying (being omnipotent and all).

I think you are interpreting the Scriptures, based on your assumption that the theory of Evolution is true.

Why is it always about evolution? I'm not a biologist, and I've never had a biology class past high school! I couldn't care less about whether God poofed everything into existance or whether he sustained creation for millions of years. I AM quite sure that there was no physical effect to Jesus' sacrifice beyond Jesus' death. Even the actual act his death represented -- accepting the consequences for our sin -- was utterly UNphysical!