One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[Maria Billingsley]

I understand what you mean with respect to the spiritual side just fine.

What I don't understand is your claim that if the physical human form is the product of evolution that would otherwise prevent God from instilling it with a spirit.

It just seems like you're placing an arbitrary limitation on God for no specific reason.

I am just simply saying that evolution does not allow the spirit of man to function cohesively with the physical man. Man stands alone in creation by representing the image of God. No other created form has this unique quality.

 

[pitabread]

I am just simply saying that evolution does not allow the spirit of man to function cohesively with the physical man.

Why not?

Man stands alone in creation by representing the image of God. No other created form has this unique quality.

But we're already determined the image of God is not physical in this respect. So why does the process of the creation of the human physical form matter in that regard?

 

[coffee4u]

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.

Survival of the fittest is about weaker creatures dying off and stronger ones proliferating, that suggests the death has an important role to play in evolution.

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.

Genesis 1 has God telling the creatures to 'be fruitful and multiply'
2 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
He said the same exact thing to Adam and Eve.
8 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply;

Then we are not told how long it was from the creation of Adam and Eve until the fall but we know that she had not yet got pregnant. So the fall had to be very soon after creation. They had no birth control and they had been commanded to fruitful. If they had lived in the garden for a year she would have been pregnant at the very least. I think she would have been pregnant even if it had been 3 months.

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

Genesis 1 tells us they were commanded too, not that had yet done so. There is only 1 day between sea creatures/birds and land animals/humans.

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

I am assuming a normal reproductive cycle since nothing indicates otherwise. Eve would have been pregnant if she had lived there for a few cycles. She doesn't become pregnant until after the fall.

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

Theology isn't science.

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.

That's word semantics, we all know that evolution believes life started with a one cell creature and that it changed and branched off to become over time all all the creatures we have now. That is what we mean when we say "evolution believes one kind changed into another kind" I am also pretty sure you are fully aware of what we mean but chose constantly to ignore it.

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?

If God had wanted to use evolution he certainly could have done, but the Bible would read very differently if he had.
Evolution doesn't fit, its a square peg in a round hole. It has no explanation for sin, no explanation for the spirit, no explanation for the many, many Bible verses that contradict it.
Are we to believe contrary to the text, that Adam evolved over millions of years with no death occurring and woke up one day and God just gave him his spirit and said he was now perfect?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why not?



But we're already determined the image of God is not physical in this respect. So why does the process of the creation of the human physical form matter in that regard?

Good morning! I am affraid no matter what I say to explain this position it is not going to be understood by those who hold your position. I enjoyed our conversation. Be well.

 

[pitabread]

Good morning! I am affraid no matter what I say to explain this position it is not going to be understood by those who hold your position. I enjoyed our conversation. Be well.

We do appear to be going in circles. Fair enough, take care.

 

[BobRyan]

Bits do not necessarily make a whole. And back to my original post, we are unique because we are made in the image of God.

And you know that because as a Creationist - the Bible tells you so.

the problem is that "the key" was already presented in the start of the conversation which is "the definition" for Creation.

Instead of the fiction that some propose which is that creationists invent their own creation account with its defined parameters -- what we have in real life is the text itself providing parameters for what God did - in what length of time and the scope that goes from dust-to-living-creature in a single day for land animals and for man. IT specifically does NOT state that it is going from simpler animal to more complex one.

The proposal is basically "well forget what the creation account SAYS - what-if God did it via evolution ANYWAY"..

and that is basically a circular argument for an atheist or agnostic to make positioning it as if it were "Creation in the Bible done via evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know that because as a Creationist - the Bible tells you so.

the problem is that "the key" was already presented in the start of the conversation which is "the definition" for Creation.

Instead of the fiction that some propose which is that creationists invent their own creation account with its defined parameters -- what we have in real life is the text itself providing parameters for what God did - in what length of time and the scope that goes from dust-to-living-creature in a single day for land animals and for man. IT specifically does NOT state that it is going from simpler animal to more complex one.

The proposal is basically "well forget what the creation account SAYS - what-if God did it via evolution ANYWAY"..

and that is basically a circular argument for an atheist or agnostic to make positioning it as if it were "Creation in the Bible done via evolution".

That is not knowledge. It is belief. As the saying goes knowledge is demonstrable. In this case the Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not knowledge. It is belief.

Belief becomes knowledge with experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Belief becomes knowledge with experiment.

It can, if one does the proper experiments. Since you brought it up what reasonable tests would show your beliefs to be wrong? The test has to be based upon your beliefs and not the beliefs that you imagine that others have.

 

[Ophiolite]

Survival of the fittest is about weaker creatures dying off and stronger ones proliferating, that suggests the death has an important role to play in evolution.

Incorrect.

• "Survival of the fittest" is a Victorian era soundbite designed to offer a simple and simplified description of a key aspect of Darwinian theory. (And it isn't even Darwin's words.)
• But running with the sound bite:
  • It is about those organisms that are less adapted to their environment experiencing a lower probability of successfully reproducing.
    
  • That doesn't require death

 

[pitabread]

Evolution doesn't fit, its a square peg in a round hole. It has no explanation for sin, no explanation for the spirit, no explanation for the many, many Bible verses that contradict it.

But it's not supposed to. The point of biological evolution is that it's simply a process we observe in nature regarding changing gene pools over times. And the theory of evolution is simply an explanation of that process.

That creationists object to it on theological grounds really doesn't make any sense given the above.

 

[dlamberth]

The spirit was instilled as part of His creation process. Evolution does not allow for this process to happen because it folds in the animal as part of the process. Not only were animals created on an entirely different day, they were created in a different manner, not in God's image.

The Christian mystics have a different take. They say things like all of Creation is the breath of God. For example, Hildegard of Bigen wrote that "Every Creature is a Glittering, Glistening mirror of Divinity".

 

[coffee4u]

But it's not supposed to. The point of biological evolution is that it's simply a process we observe in nature regarding changing gene pools over times. And the theory of evolution is simply an explanation of that process.

That creationists object to it on theological grounds really doesn't make any sense given the above.

You can't combine a model with no death into a model with death. One is correct and one is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't combine a model with no death into a model with death. One is correct and one is wrong.

And the fossil record tells us that death has existed for billions of years on this planet. Your model appears to be wrong.

 

[coffee4u]

And the fossil record tells us that death has existed for billions of years on this planet. Your model appears to be wrong.

The fossil record shows that animals died. Mostly in the global flood. They don't come with labels saying '6 million years'

 

[Speedwell]

The fossil record shows that animals died. Mostly in the global flood. They don't come with labels saying '6 million years'

Actually, they pretty much do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil record shows that animals died. Mostly in the global flood. They don't come with labels saying '6 million years'

Sorry, there was no global flood. And they actually do come with labels if one knows how to read them.

 

[pitabread]

You can't combine a model with no death into a model with death. One is correct and one is wrong.

As already discussed evolution doesn't strictly speaking require death.

 

[coffee4u]

Sorry, there was no global flood. And they actually do come with labels if one knows how to read them.

God says otherwise.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.a]">[a]b]">[b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

[coffee4u]

As already discussed evolution doesn't strictly speaking require death.

Maybe not strictly speaking, but you still believe it occurred for millions of years as a natural part of the world. I do not. I believe sin brought in death.