Theistic Evolution and the Fall

[UpperEschelon]

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.

Truly those who want to claim there is no "major" differences between theistic/non-theistic evolution must be fooling themselves!?

 

[Assyrian]

Theistic evolutionists believed all that? Who'd a thunk?

 

[Mallon]

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall

So why did God create the Tree of Life, then?

 

[laconicstudent]

So why did God create the Tree of Life, then?

​

 

[juvenissun]

Assuming TE

Then the Genesis 1-11 must become a huge metaphor. That is the only way to escape your questions.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Then the Genesis 1-11 must become a huge metaphor. That is the only way to escape your questions.

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.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Theistic evolutionists believed all that? Who'd a thunk?

[ 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.

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.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".

...snip....

How did they eat without killing the plants?

 

[marlowe007]

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.

'Evolution' is not constrained by such a narrow defintion of blind and unconscious natural selection, regardless of what the Dawkins-esque materialists want you to believe. On the contrary, one can believe, like Behe and others, that supernatural selection is the defining characteristic of the evolutionary process; an idea that had always been widely accepted since the time of the ancient Greeks up until the advent of Darwinism.

 

[Cabal]

[ 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.

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.

That scripture is always stated like it's a requirement that one and only one man sinned. The only thing that is called into question is the coherency of the literal interpretation, not the validity of the resurrection and man's need for salvation.

Even if a group of humans speciated, became sentient, etc - there would still be a first sinner.

 

[UpperEschelon]

'Evolution' is not constrained by such a narrow defintion of blind and unconscious natural selection

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.

 

[UpperEschelon]

How did they eat without killing the plants?

So now we are to equate plants with animals and humans?

 

[Cabal]

So now we are to equate plants with animals and humans?

You said no death before the Fall.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Even if a group of humans speciated, became sentient, etc - there would still be a first sinner.

And that first sinner would have to be found at the end of the human evolutionary trail.

 

[pgp_protector]

So now we are to equate plants with animals and humans?

...snip....

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".

...snip....

You did state No Death, not no Human Death didn't you ?

 

[Cabal]

And that first sinner would have to be found at the end of the human evolutionary trail.

Why? If this is about being made in God's image, what does that have to do with physicality?

 

[marlowe007]

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.

But you, as a creationist, surely musn't believe the supernatural to be beyond the realm of science.

 

[UpperEschelon]

You said no death before the Fall.

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.

 

[UpperEschelon]

But you, as a creationist, surely musn't believe the supernatural to be beyond the realm of science.

The super-natural is beyond the realm of science. Why would you assume I do not believe this?...

 

[UpperEschelon]

Why? If this is about being made in God's image, what does that have to do with physicality?

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.