Far as I know, the default view of creationists is that the scientific method should incorporate supernatural paradigms, for as Philip Johnson explains...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The super-natural is beyond the realm of science. Why would you assume I do not believe this?...
With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative.
Assuming TE
Man would have only gotten a "soul" and began a personal relationship with God when he reached whatever arbitrary state that God deemed "sufficient" enough, that is, when he evolved out of his lesser, primitive forms reaching his state of "sentience".
Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".
Question: What would be the implications of debased humanoids reproducing and not dying for millions of years until mankind was "created" so to speak.
And by extension, what about the vast plethora of biological life that seemingly evolved and reproduced throughout not only millions, but billions of years before the Fall, when death was non-existent.
Essentially, the first "humans" would have been walking around with billions (most probably even trillions and beyond) of other humanoids. Then we have "the Fall", and hence we have this positively enormous amount of "humanoids" (ranging from the most debased to the most advanced) dying within the same margin of time.
1) such events would blatantly contradict the fossil record.
2) how could evolution have possibly worked before the fall, as natural selection could not exist.
And on a side not, if the evolution was guided, then how could it be purely naturalistic? You cannot have both. The moment you say evolution is "guided" you have redefined evolution.
Far as I know, the default view of creationists is that the scientific method should incorporate supernatural paradigms, for as Philip Johnson explains...
The only other option in this case, is to attribute at least a degree of "consciousness" to natural selection. You really cannot see how self defeating this is to the whole concept of evolution, can you? If you would also merge the super-natural with natural selection, it is no longer science.
I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.
Who said it was limited to physicality? I'd actually argue the opposite, that it has little to do with physicality. Truly the apex of human evolution would lie in the inception of the human brain, his sentience and all related capacities - specifically his spiritual capacity, being the ability he acquires to share his relationship with the Creator.
My argument is that he could not have possessed the capacity to sin if it weren't for all these attributes, it is impossible.
God is free to choose without regard to what is "sufficient" enough. God's choice would make whatever he chose sufficient.
Further, there are many examples of species which lived and became extinct before any humanoids of any sort existed. Factually, death has accompanied life since its inception.
That's for sure. Hence the interpretation of scripture that dictates no plant or animal or bacterial, etc. death before the fall must be a misinterpretation.
Paul tells us that death came on all men because all men sinned. His statement clearly doesn't apply to organisms which are incapable of sin, because they are incapable of the free choice to obey or disobey their creator.
Darwin coined the term "natural selection" to contrast with "artificial selection" in which human breeders did the selecting. "Natural selection" means no human intervention in the process. That doesn't exclude God. After all, God created and sustains the natural world. So "natural selection" is effectively God's selection since no one other than God selects. IOW "natural selection" is how God guides evolution.
So then, the death of plants and bacteria and protists does not count as death? In fact, one could exclude almost all marine life, since clams, lobsters, fish, etc. are not air-breathers.
Right, so since even air-breathing animals have no capacity to sin, the connection of death to sin and the fall has no applicability to any species other than humans.
Death fell on the world as a whole due to the sin of man, it did not fall solely on only man. If that wasn't the case, Paul would not have phrased that statement in that manner.
I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.
Some of my favourite verses[ Death in Adam, Life in Christ ] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned
22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
So if only humans created in the image of God can sin, then animals cannot sin. Yet the verses you quoted describe death spreading to all men because all sinned, so how it it supposed to spread to animals who you realised cannot sin? If death is the wages of sin, how did animal earn death? Paul is not talking about animal death here, his description of the death that comes through sin cannot be referring to animal death. So when did animal death start? The bible does not say it was the result of the fall, is there any reason not to think it is how God created them?This is what happens when you do not give scripture precedence, you move over for other ideas and concepts, which ultimately leads to compromise. I'm more than satisfied with the truth of God that Paul expounds to us right here.
The truth of scripture: The sin state of humanity is due to one man (through whom all share in this heritage of being sinners), and this sin is the root cause of death. You cannot hide behind "metaphors" forever, and especially not here.
The Fall could not have happened before the existence of man in the image of God. If death only came through that sin as Paul explains, then prior to that sin death did not exist.
This is where the whole "metaphor" argument gets blown out of proportion, and it becomes very clear. Metaphors are symbolic, but they represent truths. The Fall is the cause of man's separation from God, the time where sin entered into humanity and ultimately causes death. The Fall could not have happened without the choice, the choice being a cause of the free will of man. Furthermore, man could not have rebelled against God if he hadn't shared a relationship with Him. It is irrelevant what you pick and choose to be a metaphor or not, death could not have existed until man achieved his "apex" of evolution at which point the Fall would have taken place.
You mean, like this?
Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men
because all sinned ... (Rom 5:12, ESV)
It says that sin brought death to men, not to the world. But I suppose you have some license to improve on what the Bible actually says. Creationists always do.
I have a problem with no death before the fall too... I've always asked well what about plants then? They ate nothing? You do say that plant life is never included in the context of the hebrew word which helps. However... I do not understand animals and plants that went on to eat meat. Lions, bears, crocs... venus fly trap... a velociraptor... were perfectly crafted with the tools and skills they need to survive... they were created with the intention of hunting and eating meat. I've heard it said that before the fall, they just ate plants like everything else... I don't buy this though... saying so I think makes it out that God made them with the intention of sin entering the world. But God made his creations perfect in the beginning... these were not perfect creatures if they were designed to eat meat cause they were designed for an imperfect world then.
How do you explain God's perfect designs for everything in nature if there was no death before the fall? And how would Adam and Eve understand what death was if they had not seen it in the animal kingdom?
I don't mean to drag this off topic, just a curiosity I've had and was curious peoples answers who do believe in absolutely no death whatsoever (animals too) before the fall.
The bible does not say it was the result of the fall, is there any reason not to think it is how God created them?
So why did God create the Tree of Life, then?
Huhh, my totally unnecessary snarkiness was responded to kindly.Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.
If Adam and Eve were immortal, why did God ban them from eating from the Tree of Life, to prevent them from gaining immortality?I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.
How is it stupidity? You either believe that the universe functions like science has observed and tested, or you assume God supernaturally "created" it with varying levels of involvement.Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.
I would obviously be inclined to believe the Tree of Life to be allegorical. It represents everlasting life, and the fact that Adam and Eve were given freely to eat of it, this would simply mean before the Fall, when they had access to the Garden, they were able to take freely of everlasting life. This wouldn't be restricted simply to "spiritual" well being or longevity.
What makes you think the Tree of Life is allegorical? Are there any other passages from Genesis 1 or 2 that you read allegorically?I would obviously be inclined to believe the Tree of Life to be allegorical.
I thought that was implied in my statement.
Actually, Paul said sin entered the world, and through sin death. The cause of this was the sin of man, hence the sin of man brought death not only on man, but the world as a whole.
This still doesn't derail the point I was trying to make, that guided evolution assumes a direction and goal in all evolutionary processes, whereas the core definition of evolution assumes a result that is the complete opposite. The moment you infer God as the cause it is no longer naturalism, this is self defeating to evolutionary theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?