Original Sin works with Theistic Evolution

[Markh]

I believe original sin did come from one man, but that man evolved from the ape.

the evolution was controled by God so that it would produce the 1 man. Basically an Ape gave birth to the first "man" (soul bearing).

God has control over his creation, why can he not control evolution? Why can't God have used science (which he created) and evolution (which he created) to bring man into the world.

The soul is what makes us unique from animals....agreed? So then obviously God placed the soul into the first man at the moment of his conception- making him a man... Then he could have done it again to make eve.

the ape could not have evolved into man, God needs to have caused this jump by the soul entering to make man. We know this as there are no missing links, also we know this as there seems to me that there is no way, without God, that a creature can evolve greater than its environment as the environment is what makes it evolve.

These 2 could have then reproduced and the rest is history.

 

[lucaspa]

I believe original sin did come from one man, but that man evolved from the ape.

the evolution was controled by God so that it would produce the 1 man. Basically an Ape gave birth to the first "man" (soul bearing).

While I appreciate the effort to get original sin this way, it does go against evolution. Remember, evolution works on populations, not individuals. So there never was a "first man" in the sense you are using it. There is a gradual change in the population such that the population transforms from one species to another.

Now, you can certainly have a soul inserted somewhere in this transition so that there is a generation with souls and the generation before them did not have souls.

God has control over his creation, why can he not control evolution? Why can't God have used science (which he created) and evolution (which he created) to bring man into the world.

As a TE, I can certainly agree in general with this. However, I would point out that, strictly speaking, science is the study of the physical world. As such, it is a man-made invention. The deeper meaning of what you say -- that God created all the processes studied by science -- is more accurate.

The soul is what makes us unique from animals....agreed?

Not sure I do. There is no indication that animals can't have souls. I distrust this because it makes man valuable because there is something unique to him. From how I read the Bible, humans are unique only because God chooses to regard them favorably.

the ape could not have evolved into man, God needs to have caused this jump by the soul entering to make man.

This is confused. We are "man" because of our physical shape also. You seem to be making us human based only on our soul. However, as a species we are unique in our physical and genetic composition as well. That physical shape and genome did arise by evolution from ape-like ancestors. So, yes, not only could we have evolved, but we did.

The data is even more disturbing when we consider that neandertals were not "man" as in H. sapiens but the burial data implies that they had a concept of an afterlife. Did neandertals have souls? Also consider that the data indicates that H. sapiens is radiating into separate species. If this continues to the conclusion, then do those new species have souls?

We know this as there are no missing links, also we know this as there seems to me that there is no way, without God, that a creature can evolve greater than its environment as the environment is what makes it evolve.

But we are not greater than our environment. Our adaptations to our environment -- ability to make tools to make tools and have abstract language -- gives us our technology.

 

[Markh]

I think that all the other attributes of humans being greater than animals come from us having the soul. This is the unique feature to man.

Animals are directed by God's programed instinct and stuff into them, they are also directed by environmental conditions. Animals do not have control over there actions in the same way we do. I mean, birds still follow the same program of nest building they did 1000s of years ago

The soul allows man to both be directed and have control over his actions, in the way that our actions do not follow a set pattern unlike the animals and we have the freedom to willingly neglect a set pattern unlike the bird or ape who has clearly been directed into a set pattern.

I know that genrally evolution works on this massive scale with mass population. However I do not believe man "evolved" from ape in the same way that the ape evolved from a monkey.

I believe that ape was the highest stage that the environment could shape a creature into being, that is why there are no missing links, ape is the top of the animal (non soul) animals. I say this as I do not see how evolution could ever evolve the ability to control one's actions over the environment.

This control human's have in not an evolved characteristic, it is not physical, it is spiritual.

Therefore as an ape cannot evolve into human through the environment's normal evolutionary method (natural selection etc) God needed to intervine and place the soul into an ape, which in turn may have increased the brain size or something and made it truely human.

neadothols- on this question, I would say that they had souls and originated from the "adam" but were just a different type of human maybe a mutation which survived.

original sin obviously happened either in the biblical literal or poetic way. It stands to reason that it would be poetic as I don't see why God would create this tree of knowledge it didn't seem necessary...wheras poetically if you think of that as a sin or a thought it seems very possible as a product of the ability to control our destiny.


-----
I think that there are quite a lot of new testemant and non poetic old testement stuff which talks about the human soul. I think it is very important to put the uniqueness of man down to this

 

[Ark Guy]

I believe original sin did come from one man, but that man evolved from the ape.

the evolution was controled by God so that it would produce the 1 man. Basically an Ape gave birth to the first "man" (soul bearing).

God has control over his creation, why can he not control evolution? Why can't God have used science (which he created) and evolution (which he created) to bring man into the world.

The soul is what makes us unique from animals....agreed? So then obviously God placed the soul into the first man at the moment of his conception- making him a man... Then he could have done it again to make eve.

the ape could not have evolved into man, God needs to have caused this jump by the soul entering to make man. We know this as there are no missing links, also we know this as there seems to me that there is no way, without God, that a creature can evolve greater than its environment as the environment is what makes it evolve.

These 2 could have then reproduced and the rest is history.

Well, that's all nice...but it's not what the bible says.

The bible says Eve was formed from Adams rib....not a product of evolution.

If you can't trust the bible and take it for what it says...then how can you trust the bible when it tells such a fantastic story of a guy actually rising from the dead on the third day?

Either both events happened, or both events might as well be simple myths.

 

[Ark Guy]

Markh:I think that all the other attributes of humans being greater than animals come from us having the soul. This is the unique feature to man.

Where does the bible say man received a soul?
We all know that it can't be Genesis because Genesis is just a myth and not literal.
In other words, if Genesis claims man received a soul, it must be a myth just like the formation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side.

 

[Ark Guy]

markh:
original sin obviously happened either in the biblical literal or poetic way. It stands to reason that it would be poetic as I don't see why God would create this tree of knowledge it didn't seem necessary...wheras poetically if you think of that as a sin or a thought it seems very possible as a product of the ability to control our destiny

So, if "original sin " is poetic...then there really isn't a need for Jesus to save mankind from a ...poem.

 

[Markh]

when I said poetic, I meant that it was a metaphor, just like Jesus's parables, you don't take those literally do you? and you know easily when he stops his parables and we enter the realm of actual situation.

The fact we have souls is mentioned by Jesus, especially around the eucharist, this backs up the Genesis account. H

One thing is saying it is a myth the other is saying it happend, but just interpereting them differently.

I mean, I'd say "This is my body" is pretty blatent, but many interperet this differntly. If you accept Genesis literally, you should accept the rest in that way too, you are the ones with inconsistencies. I see the rest of the bible as literal.

Genesis is poetry, I don't take poetry literally.

 

[Ark Guy]

Markh:
when I said poetic, I meant that it was a metaphor, just like Jesus's parables, you don't take those literally do you? and you know easily when he stops his parables and we enter the realm of actual situation.

And there lies one of your problems. Jesus always lets us know when He was telling a parable. So, could you show me where the bible lets us know that the formation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side is a parable?

Oh, one more thing...Jesus based his parables on factual/possible events.
According to the Theo-evo sect the creation as described in Genesis wasn't factual nor possible.

The fact we have souls is mentioned by Jesus, especially around the eucharist, this backs up the Genesis account. H

Then why do you consider the verses that Jesus talks about Genesis...backing the book up...as a myth? He quotes some of the opening chapter and mentions about Noah, as fact.

One thing is saying it is a myth the other is saying it happend, but just interpereting them differently.

What is your interpretation formula? how do you tell the differance from fact and fiction in the bible?

I mean, I'd say "This is my body" is pretty blatent, but many interperet this differntly. If you accept Genesis literally, you should accept the rest in that way too, you are the ones with inconsistencies. I see the rest of the bible as literal.

The bible seems quite clear that the bread and the wine represents his body and blood.

Genesis is poetry, I don't take poetry literally.

Then why do the NT authors present Genesis as historical fact? Why didn't they present Genesis as a poem?

 

[Markh]

the poetry has fact within it. It says the basic facts within the poetry. It is reliable and as I have said, it says a lot which is true or has turth in it, that's why it can be quoted

Another prob i have with the creatoin idea is that you believe it happend in days, yet our 365 day wasn't even apparent until the day on which he made the solar system.
Also, I would look towards the point in the bible at which it says basically " the Father's second is like 1000 years" or something. I can't remember where, but surely in that context Genesis becomes a very long time.

Let me delve deeper into something...at the begining when God creates Adam, that could be his soul and the unconcious sleep he felt the gap of evolution to the point of his birth, in which he woke up again and was in his own flesh.

 

[Ark Guy]

Even the 10 commandments claim a six day creation.
Are you claiming that they are poetry?

EXO 20:11

 

[Markh]

I would claim that the world was created in 6 stages, the stages are very long, but in genesis are described as "days". I would go as far in saying that we could be in the 7th day right now.

 

[lucaspa]

Even the 10 commandments claim a six day creation.
Are you claiming that they are poetry?

EXO 20:11

Nice try, Ark Guy, but 20:11 is a later interpolation into Exodus.

Let's remember the order:
1. The Exodus happens and God gives the 10 Commandments. Leave out 20:11 and the Sabbath works just fine as a direct commandment from God. We keep the Sabbath because God tells us too. He doesn't need a reason.
2. Genesis 1 was written after the Exodus. Thus the authors were celebrating the Sabbath. They decided to give a justification for it, and therefore construct Genesis 1 to make a 6 day creation with rest on the 7th. The justification isn't really needed but these guys decided to do it anyway.
3. The Pentateuch is an edited document. So the editor has Genesis 1 and Exodus in front of him. He now inserts Exodus 20:11 so that he has a complete circle. You can see that Genesis 5 is also this type of editing to try to smooth out the differences in the sources.

 

[lucaspa]

I think that all the other attributes of humans being greater than animals come from us having the soul. This is the unique feature to man.

Again, that goes against scientific study. It's not that humans don't have souls, but "all the other attributes of humans being greater than animals come from us having the soul" is contradicted.

For instance, our language ability comes partly from the FOXP2 gene:
31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)

Animals are directed by God's programed instinct and stuff into them, they are also directed by environmental conditions. Animals do not have control over there actions in the same way we do. I mean, birds still follow the same program of nest building they did 1000s of years ago

What you are confusing is technology with biology. Yes, we have a higher level of technology, but that appears to come from 2 small adaptations:
1. The ability to make tools to make tools.
2. The ability to handle more subtle sounds and abstract thought.

Many animals do indeed have control over their actions:
3. G Vogel, DNA suggests cultural traits affect whale's evolution.Science 282: 1616, Nov. 27, 1998. Primary article is H Whitehead,Cultural selection and genetic diversity in matrilineal whales. Science282: 1708-1710, Nov. 27, 1998. Mothers teach survival traits to youngsters. Culture affecting genetic evolution. Only species besides human where this is demonstrated.
4. Octoplay. Discover 19: 28, Nov. 1998. Indications that octopi engage in "play" behavior. More recent studies indicate octopi are very intelligent.
9. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999. The escape strategies apes use to escape from zoos is every bit as good, and often better, than those used by humans to escape from prisons.

I know that genrally evolution works on this massive scale with mass population. However I do not believe man "evolved" from ape in the same way that the ape evolved from a monkey.

In terms of physical shape, the data contradict your belief.

I believe that ape was the highest stage that the environment could shape a creature into being, that is why there are no missing links, ape is the top of the animal (non soul) animals. I say this as I do not see how evolution could ever evolve the ability to control one's actions over the environment.

Actually, there are plenty of missing links in getting to apes. Where the missing links are present is in the human lineage!

Natural selection can affect thinking patterns and abilities just as it can more obvious physical traits. These are genetic. Evolutionary psychology is studying this.
1. N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.
2. R Plomin and JC DeFries, The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities. Scientific American, 278: 62-69, May 1998.

Therefore as an ape cannot evolve into human through the environment's normal evolutionary method (natural selection etc)

But the fossil record says that this is exactly what happened.

God needed to intervine and place the soul into an ape, which in turn may have increased the brain size or something and made it truely human.

Having God place a soul into humans sometime during our evolution is fine. That is God's choice, after all. But trying to link this soul to brain size and other traits that you think make us "truely human" isn't going to work. For instance, there is recent work looking at the gene that controls brain size. We can trace the genetic changes that led to our bigger brains. It doesn't require an immaterial "soul".

neadothols- on this question, I would say that they had souls and originated from the "adam" but were just a different type of human maybe a mutation which survived.

Again, the data contradicts you, unless you are going to use "human" in a very broad sense. The data is very clear that H. sapiens (us) and H. neandertal were not the same species. They are separate species. Nor did neandertals originate from sapiens. The fossil data is very clear that both species came from H. erectus. So, you are faced with some hard choices:
1. Declare Adam to be H. erectus, in which case he did not have sapiens intelligence.
2. Broaden the definition of "human" to include all the genus "Homo", which gives you some theological problems since now you have God giving souls to species other than us.
3. Give up this idea.

original sin obviously happened either in the biblical literal or poetic way.

It's not "obvious" to me at all. Instead, let me give you another possibility:

"original sin" is a direct consequence of evolution by natural selection. What was Adam's sin? Disobeying God and doing something selfish for him and Eve and not for God. Well, natural selection is inherently selfish. It works to the benefit of the individual. The "selfish gene" is a reduction of that idea. But it is true, natural selection cannot produce pure altruism. It must be selfish. So, we have always been "fallen" because we are designed by natural selection. Selfishness is built into our very genes.

I think it is very important to put the uniqueness of man down to this

You might say that humans are the only ones with a soul, but it is, IMO, contrary to the data and to necessity to attribute our physical and mental abilities to this soul. Theologically, it seems to me to be vanity again. Humans are looking for some way that they are special. From them. That is, we are special because we have souls. It is inherent in us to be special.

Instead, I suggest that it is more Biblical to realize that we are "special" only because God CHOOSES to regard us as special. There is nothing "in" us to make us special. We are completely dependent on God to be special. This assertion that we are special because we have a soul seems to me to be a way to become independent of God.

 

[Markh]

I think that natural selection is far too random to have reached humanity without God using it as his tool to reach man.

You have to question why these mutations happend, was it all down to the environment, if so, was the environment controled in order for these mutations to take place.

I still do not think that animals have any control. I believe that this "play" you talk about and stuff is from instinct- which is basically a code placed onto animals from God which directs them to do certain things. This is backed up through the fact that without human intervention animals do the same thing over and over again for 100s of years, following the direction they have.

I like all the stuff you talk of about gene developments to show that there was not a gap between ape and man as I see ther is.

However, maybe these gene developments were caused by God. Maybe the speech gene or whatever would not have developed without God's influence. Maybe the speech gene mutation was only unleased when the soul was added.

I am certain we have a soul...I think Jesus refers to the soul and spiritual stuff for us too much not to accept that.

the neadothal point is good, I will investigate that. But I still am not sure the case is closed on them. We haven't got a gene sample of them and I think in this case that is what is necessary. I don't think from bone structure alone we can define whether they were mutant sapiens or something else.

 

[Ark Guy]

I would claim that the world was created in 6 stages, the stages are very long, but in genesis are described as "days". I would go as far in saying that we could be in the 7th day right now.

Why are the stages out of "evolution" order?

 

[lucaspa]

I think that natural selection is far too random to have reached humanity without God using it as his tool to reach man.

The trouble here is that natural selection is not random. It is the opposite of random. The variations that natural selection works on are "random" ONLY with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. That is, in a climate getting colder, just as many deer will be born with shorter fur than longer fur. But the selection part is non-random in that only the longer furred deer will survive.

You have to question why these mutations happend, was it all down to the environment, if so, was the environment controled in order for these mutations to take place.

Mutations are not connected to the environment. They are mistakes in copying DNA. They have nothing to do with what the environment needs. The environment is what sets the parameters for what variations will be selected.

Think of it this way:
The environment sets a design problem for the population. Each individual is different, and those differences each represent a possible design solution to the problem. The individuals compete for scarce resources (which are part of the design problem) and selection pickes the winners of that competition. Only the designs that are solutions to the design problem are selected. So the selection is non-random.

I still do not think that animals have any control. I believe that this "play" you talk about and stuff is from instinct- which is basically a code placed onto animals from God which directs them to do certain things.

Again, the data says differently. Instinct is one of the first things the researchers consider and it is the first thing that has to be eliminated before they can say it is "play".

This is backed up through the fact that without human intervention animals do the same thing over and over again for 100s of years, following the direction they have.

So do humans in some behaviors. Suckling is not a learned behavior and infants have done it as long as we have records. However, the 'human intervention' you talk about is simply setting up experiments. Those experiments don't give animals abilities they didn't have before. They only provide settings for animals to use the abilities they have.

For instance, humans set up the problem for Macaque monkeys that the wheat grains were mixed with sand. The humans didn't provide a solution to the problem. Since the macaques had never had this problem before, they couldn't rely on "the same thing over and over for 100s of years". They figured out how to efficiently separate the sand from the wheat. Can you figure out how to do it? Or would you patiently pick out each and every grain of wheat?

However, maybe these gene developments were caused by God. Maybe the speech gene or whatever would not have developed without God's influence. Maybe the speech gene mutation was only unleased when the soul was added.

The FOXP2 gene is present in a number of species, and is expressed (unleashed in your terms) in all of them. FOXP2 controls the development of throat and mouth muscles. The human FOXP2 gene differs from the forms in other species. It allows finer control of those muscles. People who have a mutation reverting the sequence of FOXP2 to the form found in other species can't speak.

Now, does God cause individual mutations? That is certainly possible. God could do this and He wouldn't be "caught" by science. After all, He could direct a cosmic ray to the genome of a sperm or egg cell and change a particular base the way He wanted it. That provides one variation -- design solution -- to a problem and selection would ensure that the design eventually belonged to every member of the population.

This doesn't negate evolution. Just like a tail wind in your next airplane flight doesn't negate that it was the jet engines that got you there. It just means that evolution got a little outside help.

I am certain we have a soul...I think Jesus refers to the soul and spiritual stuff for us too much not to accept that.

I'm not that certain. Judaic thought does not have a "soul" like that. Something independent of the body as you are using the term. So the question is what kind of soul Jesus is referring to. You weren't very specific about verses and context.

But I still am not sure the case is closed on them. We haven't got a gene sample of them and I think in this case that is what is necessary.

Yes, we have. In fact, 4 gene samples. All of them show that humans and neandertals are separate species. What's more, we can look at the human genome and calculate how old the genes in it are. We have neandertal fossils that are more than 300,000 years old. But we have no genes that are older than 100,000 years. If neandertals had contributed to our gene pool, we would have genes going back 300,000 years.

I don't think from bone structure alone we can define whether they were mutant sapiens or something else.

yes, we can. Remember, we have a number of transitional individuals between erectus and neandertals. If neandertals were a branch of sapiens, we would have fossils linking sapiens to neandertals. We don't have those.

1: Schillaci MA, Froehlich JW.Nonhuman primate hybridization and the taxonomic status of Neanderthals.Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 Jun;115(2):157-66.PMID: 11385602 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Krings M, Geisert H, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Paabo S.DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the neandertal type specimen.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 11;96(10):5581-5.PMID: 10318927 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Ovchinnikov IV, Gotherstrom A, Romanova GP, Kharitonov VM, Liden K, GoodwinW.Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus.Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):490-3.PMID: 10761915 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S.Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.PMID: 9230299 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11. A Gibbons, Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science 292:1051-1052, May 11, 2001. Y chromosome of EVERY person in the study could be traced to forefathers who lived in Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. "one self-described 'dedicated multiregionalist,' Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted: 'I have undergone a conversion -- a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosomes lineages. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement.' " In another study, Peter Underhill and colleagues analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 populations.Primary paper is Y Ke, B Su, D Lu, L Chen, H Li, C Qi, S Marzuki, R Deka, P Underhill, C Xiao, M Shriver, J Lell, D Wallace, RS Wells, M Selestad, P Oefner, D Zhu, W Huang, R Chakraborty, Z Chen, L Jin, African Origin of modern humans in east Asia: a tale of 12,000 Y chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153, May 11, 2001.
12. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0802_neandertal.html Neanderthal face not H. sapiens
13. J Thompson, Humans did come out of Africa, says DNA. Nature Dec 7, 2000 http://www.nature.com/nsu/001207/001207-8.html Sequenced all of the mtDNA.
14. http://www.nature.com/nsu/020304/020304-7.html

 

[3Amig(o)s]

ok, hey, this is my first message ever. nice to meet you all. well the first thing I want to say is: I don't believe in evolution, the gap theory, or anything having to do with man evolving or even a long creation. I believe the Bible is clear about a literal six day creation and that God rested on the SEVENTH day. If everyday was like 1000 years or something, then since the sun wasn't made til the FOURTH day, and the plants were made on the THIRD day,... that would be kind of hard on those plants don't you think??

And there are plenty more reasons not to believe in evolution, the gap theory, and an old earth.

 

[lucaspa]

ok, hey, this is my first message ever. nice to meet you all. well the first thing I want to say is: I don't believe in evolution, the gap theory, or anything having to do with man evolving or even a long creation. I believe the Bible is clear about a literal six day creation and that God rested on the SEVENTH day.

Then what do you do with Genesis 2:4 where it says "in the day God created the heavens and the earth"? Genesis 1 has just told us it took 6 days and now Genesis 2 says it took one day. The word is "beyom" in Hebrew and all 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries I have consulted say this is "in the day" as meaning a very short period of time less than a day.

If everyday was like 1000 years or something, then since the sun wasn't made til the FOURTH day, and the plants were made on the THIRD day,... that would be kind of hard on those plants don't you think??

I think you'll find that the standard OEC response is that light had already been created on the first day. They are assuming that the light is bright enough for photosynthesis.

And there are plenty more reasons not to believe in evolution,

No one believes in evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". This isn't a worldview. We accept evolution as a valid theory because 1) we have consistently failed to show it is wrong (falsify it) and 2) there is lots of data supporting it.

In contrast, there are mountains of data showing that young earth creationism is wrong.

the gap theory, and an old earth.

You do realize that evolution, gap theory, and old earth are 3 separate things, right? Just checking.

 

[Henhouse]

No one believes in evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". This isn't a worldview. We accept evolution as a valid theory because 1) we have consistently failed to show it is wrong (falsify it) and 2) there is lots of data supporting it.

I beg to differ. Science is observation of the facts. Since no one we know was alive to observe evolution, you have to take it on faith. You don't know it's true; therefore you believe it to be so.

 

[Henhouse]

I believe original sin did come from one man, but that man evolved from the ape.

the evolution was controled by God so that it would produce the 1 man. Basically an Ape gave birth to the first "man" (soul bearing).

God has control over his creation, why can he not control evolution? Why can't God have used science (which he created) and evolution (which he created) to bring man into the world.

The soul is what makes us unique from animals....agreed? So then obviously God placed the soul into the first man at the moment of his conception- making him a man... Then he could have done it again to make eve.

the ape could not have evolved into man, God needs to have caused this jump by the soul entering to make man. We know this as there are no missing links, also we know this as there seems to me that there is no way, without God, that a creature can evolve greater than its environment as the environment is what makes it evolve.

These 2 could have then reproduced and the rest is history.

THe problem is that:
Rom:5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

If death didn't enter until Adam's sin, how do you get millions of years of evolution?