Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[Diamond7]

"In the beginning, God.............. There. That's better. In fact it is best.

The Bible tells us what God did and perhaps why. Science tells us how.

 

[Diamond7]

Trying to make scripture fit godless science

God gives the Godless the job of collecting. We may not always trust in their opinions but science has been given the job of collecting the evidence God gives us so we can see what HE has done from the beginning of time.

God also uses the unGodly to gather wealth for those who please Him.

Ecclesiastes 2:26
26 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

 

[Aussie Pete]

God gives the Godless the job of collecting. We may not always trust in their opinions but science has been given the job of collecting the evidence God gives us so we can see what HE has done from the beginning of time.

God also uses the unGodly to gather wealth for those who please Him.

Ecclesiastes 2:26
26 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

Collecting evidence is one thing, making absurd and unprovable assumptions is entirely another. The first assumption that modern science makes is that there is no God. That makes those who declare that to be fools, according to God's word. I'm not about to accept the conclusions of fools. Sure, there are exceptions. Listen to the howls of derision from those who reject the notion of God as Creator. It's now cool to be an atheist, so it seems.

 

[Diamond7]

The first assumption that modern science makes is that there is no God.

Science is agnostic. They cannot prove or disprove if there is a God using scientific evidence. We can prove the Bible is accurate and true using scientific evidence. There is zero evidence that the Bible is not accurate and true.

The assumption is that science is good. Science is neutral. We decide if we want to use science to build weapons of mass destruction or if we want to improve the world we live in. I sold knives for many years. A knife can be used for good, to build a home, cook your dinner and so on. Or a knife can be used to harm or even kill.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Science is agnostic. They cannot prove or disprove if there is a God using scientific evidence. We can prove the Bible is accurate and true using scientific evidence. There is zero evidence that the Bible is not accurate and true.

The assumption is that science is good. Science is neutral. We decide if we want to use science to build weapons of mass destruction or if we want to improve the world we live in. I sold knives for many years. A knife can be used for good, to build a home, cook your dinner and so on. Or a knife can be used to harm or even kill.

I've had many conversations with those who consider themselves to be rational and scientific. In theory, science may be agnostic. In reality, it is not, especially in the field of evolution. The truth that God created all things is consigned to the realm of religion. So evolution stands alone as an intellectual triumph of reason over superstition or whatever insult the scientist likes to employ in place of intelligent discussion. I'm not anti science by any means. I follow Professor James Tour with great interest, especially his graphene research. He is also a committed Christian and a highly effective evangelist. His views are widely ridiculed by the supposedly agnostic science world.

 

[1SimpleMan]

Poor arguments because it gives evolution a personality.

The previous post by Aussie Pete may not be the most convincing discussion but it has its points that are worthy of parsing out.
As an aside and because of his post, it sparked a thought in me, that another issue with evolution or theistic evolution for the Christian, who wishes to remain theologically consistent, is that if evolution is occurring before the fall of man, then death and suffering in creation are not a result of man's sin but simply of God's intended creation. With evolution, God therefore becomes the author of death and suffering and He thus called it "good."
That is a real problem for the cause for which Christ came to save us.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've had many conversations with those who consider themselves to be rational and scientific. In theory, science may be agnostic. In reality, it is not, especially in the field of evolution.

It is true that Darwin, for example, thought that God created the first living things. But understand that when scientists do this they are not using science but their religious beliefs or lack of them. You are mistaken about this.

The truth that God created all things is consigned to the realm of religion.

Has to be. Science, by it's methodology, can only investigate the physical universe. Beyond that, you have to use other methods. If your faith is too weak to support a belief in God, science cannot help you. Science can't detect God.

But scientists can.

if evolution is occurring before the fall of man, then death and suffering in creation are not a result of man's sin but simply of God's intended creation.

I don't second-guess God on that sort of thing. Would it be any "nicer" if God subjected trillions of innocent animals to suffering and death because man sinned?

With evolution, God therefore becomes the author of death and suffering and He thus called it "good."

God could have created a universe witout death or suffering or evil. He chose not do so. Again, no point in trying to outthink God. And a Christian should not fear death. Why would returning to God be bad?

 

[1SimpleMan]

It is true that Darwin, for example, thought that God created the first living things. But understand that when scientists do this they are not using science but their religious beliefs or lack of them. You are mistaken about this.

Has to be. Science, by it's methodology, can only investigate the physical universe. Beyond that, you have to use other methods. If your faith is too weak to support a belief in God, science cannot help you. Science can't detect God.

But scientists can.


I don't second-guess God on that sort of thing. Would it be any "nicer" if God subjected trillions of innocent animals to suffering and death because man sinned?


God could have created a universe witout death or suffering or evil. He chose not do so. Again, no point in trying to outthink God. And a Christian should not fear death. Why would returning to God be bad?

Just FYI. I think you are making a case against something that isn't in disagreement with you. My statements in context of my post don't disagree with you. Your questions to me then are a bit weird and presumptive of a belief I do not hold. I think if you re-read the post it will become clearer to you.
Thank you for the response though.

 

[BeyondET]

This might be a traditional belief, but it is not a biblical one. The Old Testament view of man exhibits sort of a dual-aspect anthropological monism, wherein man is a holistic unity of material and spiritual. Man is a soul (monism), he does not have one (dualism). God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul (being, creature).

Muscle stem cells can live up to 17 days after the breath is gone. The immune system kicks into overdrive trying to repair failing organs unfortunately to no avail.

Main reason why organs can be transplanted, human cells are still alive. Your DNA can be changed by a bone marrow transplant.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just FYI. I think you are making a case against something that isn't in disagreement with you.

That was in response to Aussie Pete. I think that if you re-read the post this will become clear to you.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution flies in the face of the nature of God. We understand that God is gracious, merciful, defender of the helpless, loving, caring and vitally involved in life on earth. Evolution is impersonal, ruthless, random, uncaring and destroys the weak. If evolution is true, then everyone is simply a product of random combinations of mutations or whatever mechanism the evolutionist claims to be the case. Yet God holds this random collection of cells to account for its actions. This seems utterly unfair, if indeed we are evolved. One individual "evolves" into Osama Bin Laden while another "evolves" into Billy Graham. Who is right and who is wrong? With evolution, the concept of right and wrong is meaningless. Theistic evolution is the worst of both worlds. "In the beginning God" is just fine by me.

Evolution is not so bad if its something God created to allow life to live on planet earth. Then its not blind or random in the same sense that people use evolution metaphysically. Like natural selection is respenisible for everything from eyeballs to alturism. Evolution is just one part of many processes that account of life and behaviour.

Humans and other living things to a lesser extent are natural selectors themselves and given the ability to interact in the world and change things for the better or worse. Mostly humans have changed things for the worse.

Nature itself is not passive and works with living things just as living things work with nature. Its when we are one with nature that we are living according to Gods order.

I think all life works to Gods blue print however that is expressed. We live on a unique planet just made for us and its kind of special that God went to all that trouble to bring out intelligent and conscious beings able to have relationships with Him.

 

[Derf]

Evolution is not so bad if its something God created to allow life to live on planet earth. Then its not blind or random in the same sense that people use evolution metaphysically. Like natural selection is respenisible for everything from eyeballs to alturism. Evolution is just one part of many processes that account of life and behaviour.

Humans and other living things to a lesser extent are natural selectors themselves and given the ability to interact in the world and change things for the better or worse. Mostly humans have changed things for the worse.

Nature itself is not passive and works with living things just as living things work with nature. Its when we are one with nature that we are living according to Gods order.

I think all life works to Gods blue print however that is expressed. We live on a unique planet just made for us and its kind of special that God went to all that trouble to bring out intelligent and conscious beings able to have relationships with Him.

The problem with evolution as a mechanism for creation is that it requires death to function, which God says is not good. If it's not good, then God would have been lying when He said His completed creation was "very good", when He used death to create it.

 

[stevevw]

The problem with evolution as a mechanism for creation is that it requires death to function, which God says is not good. If it's not good, then God would have been lying when He said His completed creation was "very good", when He used death to create it.

It may be that the when death entered because of the fall it was a spiritual death and not physical death. This sort of makes sense in that animals cannot experience a spiritual death but only humans can. When we see animals kill each other for food we don't think anything of it morally. We think its just nature doing its work.

In that sense nature is reflecting Gods creation in that its in harmony and self supporting. The food chaain sustains entire ecosystems and its worked for 1,000s if not millions of years. Then humans come along and put a spanner in the works so to speak.

If the garden was full of vegetation, microbes, insects, bugs al the way up to the great predators then I think there had to have been some ecosystem happening. Vegetation breaks down, which provides an environment for microbes and bugs. Insects work in harmoney with plants and plants with animals.

I don't think the garden was in some suspended animation but was alive and part of that was the death and rebirth. That was a natural state of being and nothing to do with sin and death in a spiritual sense.

The garden was created for humans. It was a necessary conditions for humans to be created. And just like the garden was necessary for bringing about humans the universe was a necessary condition to bring about the garden. So you could say in a way the garden and conscious humans were baked into creation from the beginning. Everything that was created was to bring about conscious humans able to have relationship with their Creator.

 

[Derf]

It may be that the when death entered because of the fall it was a spiritual death and not physical death. This sort of makes sense in that animals cannot experience a spiritual death but only humans can. When we see animals kill each other for food we don't think anything of it morally.

You do if it's your pet that gets eaten. God has Adam name the animals, kind of like pets.

We think its just nature doing its work.

Nature kills humans that way, and we mourn. And we're supposed to kill the animal that killed the human. But if it was just part of the natural norm, why execute the animal?
[Gen 9:5 KJV] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
And going back to the pet thing, if a mountain lion kills my pet or my livestock, it's a bad thing. Evolution says it's a good thing.

In that sense nature is reflecting Gods creation in that its in harmony and self supporting.

You're assuming that was what God intended. It's begging the question. Couldn't God have a better plan that we can't currently see in action because of the fall?

The food chaain sustains entire ecosystems and its worked for 1,000s if not millions of years. Then humans come along and put a spanner in the works so to speak.

Are you saying it was working fine until humans came? Even if death was the central ingredient? If so, why do you think it's not working well now? Humans kill animals and each other, and it's the way of nature, according to you.

If the garden was full of vegetation, microbes, insects, bugs al the way up to the great predators then I think there had to have been some ecosystem happening.

Sure, but leaves rotting isn't the same as trees dying, even if trees would count as life. I don't think there was no possibility of humans or animals dying, but I also don't think God planned for normal dying from old age. Even after the fall, "old age" was much older than it is now. If today's human life span (and animal life span as well) is the original plan, then something was odd at the beginning, don't you think, with men living longer than 900 years?

Vegetation breaks down, which provides an environment for microbes and bugs. Insects work in harmoney with plants and plants with animals.

Yes, and?

I don't think the garden was in some suspended animation but was alive and part of that was the death and rebirth.

By mere assumption? why would you think that?

And by saying "the garden was alive", what do you mean? That it was an entity, kind of like Gaia, or "Mother Earth"?

That was a natural state of being and nothing to do with sin and death in a spiritual sense.

Again, you are merely assuming what you want to conclude. But from where do you get that information?

The garden was created for humans.

Was it? I thought you believed evolution did the bulk of the creating work. Evolution, as described by most evolutionary scientists today, is a blind process, so a garden would not be created on purpose for anyone or anything. Do I misunderstand you?

It was a necessary conditions for humans to be created. And just like the garden was necessary for bringing about humans the universe was a necessary condition to bring about the garden. So you could say in a way the garden and conscious humans were baked into creation from the beginning. Everything that was created was to bring about conscious humans able to have relationship with their Creator.

Of course the garden and humans were "baked into creation from the beginning". By the creator, who purposefully created the heavens and the earth, animals and humans, and "planted a garden" to put the man in.

Genesis 2:8 KJV — And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

 

[stevevw]

You do if it's your pet that gets eaten. God has Adam name the animals, kind of like pets.

Yeah but that is humanising animals. Its humans attributing humanlike qualities to animals and not the animal itself being like a human.

Nature kills humans that way, and we mourn. And we're supposed to kill the animal that killed the human. But if it was just part of the natural norm, why execute the animal?

No I mean that animals in nature kill each other and we see that as nature doing its work. The food chain.

Humans wanting to kill animals for say killing a human is once again attributing human like ability or morality to animals and not that the animal has the moral capacity to know right from wrong when killing another animal for prey.

[Gen 9:5 KJV] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
And going back to the pet thing, if a mountain lion kills my pet or my livestock, it's a bad thing. Evolution says it's a good thing.

That bible verse applies to man killing another man. That there will be accountability for killing another human. This doesn't apply to a mountain lion or any animal. God is not holding animals accountable for their killing.

A mountain lion is killing livestock or someones pet as prey. Its instinct is to seek prey for food. Its not about morality. It is humans who are attaching their morality onto animals. We usually justify killing animals that kill cattle as protecting our livelihood. Or because an animal has become a threat to humans.

But thats more to do with humans protecting themselves than about the morality of the animal. We actually blame the owners of dangerous dogs and not the dog itself.

You're assuming that was what God intended. It's begging the question. Couldn't God have a better plan that we can't currently see in action because of the fall?

I don't know what Gods plan was. But all we can do is to go by what we do know and that is what we experience of Gods creation. It seems to me what we see in nature, the food chain and how this supports all creatures from microbes to whales is a reflection of Gods creation. Its not good or bad morally but rather a reflection of Gods ability.

Are you saying it was working fine until humans came? Even if death was the central ingredient? If so, why do you think it's not working well now? Humans kill animals and each other, and it's the way of nature, according to you.

Some say nature has fallen itself metaphorically as a result of humans falling. The apple or tree could not have chosen to fall as they have no conscience. So its humans who have introduced this fallen state into Gods creation. It seems to all come from humans because we are made in Gods image and are able to know the difference between right and wrong.

Humans killing each other and nature in the fallen state and this effects all nature because I think humans have dominion over nature. Its like the spirit and flesh are connected and the spirit also sustains life. The life force. So a spiritual death will also mean a physical death because life is only real because God gave life force to inanimant matter.

Sure, but leaves rotting isn't the same as trees dying, even if trees would count as life. I don't think there was no possibility of humans or animals dying,

But leaves rotting as a natural part of feeding into the entire ecosystem means there are processes that connect everything into that system. If leaves rot, then microbes are created. If they are created then bugs are needed and it all breaks down to regenerate the system. That system sustains other systems like birds that eat bugs ect. Thats why the leaves rot. Otherwise we would be a mile high in leaves and twigs lol.

but I also don't think God planned for normal dying from old age. Even after the fall, "old age" was much older than it is now. If today's human life span (and animal life span as well) is the original plan, then something was odd at the beginning, don't you think, with men living longer than 900 years?

Yeah I am not sure. If Adam and Eve did not sin would they have ever grown old and died. What would that mean for their decedents. Does it mean they had kids who would obviously have to grow older. If no one dies do they keep populating the earth forever.

I think these conceptions are trying to describe the difference in state from a fallen one to Gods Kingdom as it is on earth. All we know is that there will be no death, no need to be married or even eat from what I understand. So its seems a different realm to what we understand in space and time.

Yes, and?

Thats just nature and I think it was the same as it is now as when in the garden. Except perhaps it was in a more perfect state in that it was not affected by the fall and the introduction of nature breaking down through mans intervention.

By mere assumption? why would you think that?

Well how else could it have been. If the garden had in it all that we see today but only in a more perfect state then it would need all the same processes. You can't have soil without microbes that give the nutrients for plants. If all the components within the ecosystem we just sitting there doing nothing then they would not be sustained or alive. They aliveness is the expression of Gods creation.

And by saying "the garden was alive", what do you mean? That it was an entity, kind of like Gaia, or "Mother Earth"?

No alive as opposed to inanimate. Life from non life. As a system it was alive but also sustained life. Its all part of Gods creation for life for humans. You can't have humans unless you have rotting leaves..

Again, you are merely assuming what you want to conclude. But from where do you get that information?

From Gods creation itself. I am only describing Gods creation as it is. As we observe it and experience it.

Was it? I thought you believed evolution did the bulk of the creating work. Evolution, as described by most evolutionary scientists today, is a blind process, so a garden would not be created on purpose for anyone or anything. Do I misunderstand you?

If God is the Creator then this world is no accident. Not not just the garden but everything was created for us. In fact that was programmed into the equation from the very start when God spoke the Word. We should expect that there is some blueprint in nature like with DNA, common evolutionary developmental programs producing common trait a clockwork universe made of math.

Ecosystems working together and not in some savage dog eat dog fight for life. Humans and to a lessor degree animals having the ability to direct their own lives and evolution or lack there of.

Of course the garden and humans were "baked into creation from the beginning". By the creator, who purposefully created the heavens and the earth, animals and humans, and "planted a garden" to put the man in.

Genesis 2:8 KJV — And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Yes and thats probably where we found ourselves when contemplating God as a creator. Its better than ending up in some desert or hostile environment in which there were plenty throughout the universe on other planets. He planned it perfectly that planet earth could have such a garden.

 

[Derf]

Yeah but that is humanising animals. Its humans attributing humanlike qualities to animals and not the animal itself being like a human.

I have a hard time understanding why God tells Adam to do something that is "humanizing animals", unless it is ok to do so.

No I mean that animals in nature kill each other and we see that as nature doing its work. The food chain.

Animals in nature today do. Have they always?
[Gen 1:30 KJV] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Doesn't the bible tell us the food chain has changed?

Humans wanting to kill animals for say killing a human is once again attributing human like ability or morality to animals and not that the animal has the moral capacity to know right from wrong when killing another animal for prey.

That bible verse applies to man killing another man. That there will be accountability for killing another human. This doesn't apply to a mountain lion or any animal. God is not holding animals accountable for their killing.

Despite the fact that I emphasized a part of that verse where God is telling man to hold animals accountable for killing mankind?

A mountain lion is killing livestock or someones pet as prey. Its instinct is to seek prey for food. Its not about morality. It is humans who are attaching their morality onto animals. We usually justify killing animals that kill cattle as protecting our livelihood. Or because an animal has become a threat to humans.

Protecting our livelihood is a moral issue...if we don't, think we end up not being able to feed ourselves and our families.

But thats more to do with humans protecting themselves than about the morality of the animal. We actually blame the owners of dangerous dogs and not the dog itself.

Yes, that's true...because of how it impacts a fellow human being. If an animal affects a human being in that kind of way, then we art to hold that animal accountable (by killing it). Same with a dangerous dog. We don't kill the owner, we kill the dog (and if the owner won't comply, we punish the owner).

I don't know what Gods plan was.

Don't you think we can tell something of God's plan from Genesis 1 and 2?

But all we can do is to go by what we do know and that is what we experience of Gods creation. It seems to me what we see in nature, the food chain and how this supports all creatures from microbes to whales is a reflection of Gods creation. Its not good or bad morally but rather a reflection of Gods ability.

Or man's inability?? If it relates to the fall of man?

Some say nature has fallen itself metaphorically as a result of humans falling. The apple or tree could not have chosen to fall as they have no conscience. So its humans who have introduced this fallen state into Gods creation. It seems to all come from humans because we are made in Gods image and are able to know the difference between right and wrong.

Yes, that's true. But if humans have done something that corrupts all of nature (since nature was under Adam's dominion), then we don't just take current natural processes as what God originally intended.

Humans killing each other and nature in the fallen state and this effects all nature because I think humans have dominion over nature. Its like the spirit and flesh are connected and the spirit also sustains life. The life force. So a spiritual death will also mean a physical death because life is only real because God gave life force to inanimant matter.

I tend to think both happen at the same time, but that's a different topic.

But leaves rotting as a natural part of feeding into the entire ecosystem means there are processes that connect everything into that system. If leaves rot, then microbes are created. If they are created then bugs are needed and it all breaks down to regenerate the system. That system sustains other systems like birds that eat bugs ect. Thats why the leaves rot. Otherwise we would be a mile high in leaves and twigs lol.

Yeah I am not sure. If Adam and Eve did not sin would they have ever grown old

yes

and died.

probably not

What would that mean for their decedents. Does it mean they had kids who would obviously have to grow older. If no one dies do they keep populating the earth forever.

Do you think God is unable to handle such a thing?

I think these conceptions are trying to describe the difference in state from a fallen one to Gods Kingdom as it is on earth. All we know is that there will be no death, no need to be married or even eat from what I understand. So its seems a different realm to what we understand in space and time.

Thats just nature and I think it was the same as it is now as when in the garden. Except perhaps it was in a more perfect state in that it was not affected by the fall and the introduction of nature breaking down through mans intervention.

Those statements seem to compete against each other.

Well how else could it have been. If the garden had in it all that we see today but only in a more perfect state then it would need all the same processes. You can't have soil without microbes that give the nutrients for plants. If all the components within the ecosystem we just sitting there doing nothing then they would not be sustained or alive. They aliveness is the expression of Gods creation.

No alive as opposed to inanimate. Life from non life. As a system it was alive but also sustained life. Its all part of Gods creation for life for humans. You can't have humans unless you have rotting leaves..

Will there be rotting leaves in the resurrection? How do you know humans require rotting leaves?

From Gods creation itself. I am only describing Gods creation as it is. As we observe it and experience it.

But we have some evidence of God's creation as it used to be, described in Genesis. Have you read about that?

If God is the Creator then this world is no accident. Not not just the garden but everything was created for us. In fact that was programmed into the equation from the very start when God spoke the Word. We should expect that there is some blueprint in nature like with DNA, common evolutionary developmental programs producing common trait a clockwork universe made of math.

Are you saying that evolution is actually designed into our DNA? Then it's not really evolution, is it?

Ecosystems working together and not in some savage dog eat dog fight for life. Humans and to a lessor degree animals having the ability to direct their own lives and evolution or lack there of.

Yes and thats probably where we found ourselves when contemplating God as a creator. Its better than ending up in some desert or hostile environment in which there were plenty throughout the universe on other planets. He planned it perfectly that planet earth could have such a garden.

Of course, we don't know how hostile the planet was from the beginning, except that God actually seemed to think planting a garden would be helpful to sustain His created couple.

 

[stevevw]

I have a hard time understanding why God tells Adam to do something that is "humanizing animals", unless it is ok to do so.

It may be ok to do but it doesn't somehow make animals on par with humans when it comes to their abilities. It doesn't make them moral creatures accountable for their actions.

Animals in nature today do. Have they always?
[Gen 1:30 KJV] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Doesn't the bible tell us the food chain has changed?

I'm not sure. I don't think it does directly anyway. It would be hard for sea life for example to only eat plant life. There would not be enough and sea weed alone would not sustain larger creatures. Also some land animals had large sharp teeth and claws most suitable for killing prey.

Even vegetation rotting implies plant life died and was rebirthed. If there was no killing then some creatures would dominate and cause other species to die out. Adamand Eve would have been taken over by bugs.

Despite the fact that I emphasized a part of that verse where God is telling man to hold animals accountable for killing mankind?

Even so its not applying to animals killing animals. I think this was to emphasise how humans were the ultimate life being made in Gods image.

Protecting our livelihood is a moral issue...if we don't, think we end up not being able to feed ourselves and our families.

Yes so it is moral for humans to kill threats to their livlihoods like animals. The moral to protect human life trumps that of killing an animal because the human life holds more value being made in Gods image.

Yes, that's true...because of how it impacts a fellow human being. If an animal affects a human being in that kind of way, then we art to hold that animal accountable (by killing it). Same with a dangerous dog. We don't kill the owner, we kill the dog (and if the owner won't comply, we punish the owner).

Yes but we don't kill the dog because we think the dog has done something immoral. We kill it because we now deem its become an unacceptable risk to humans. A dog that usually bites a human just like a lion or shark will bite a human in the wild is doing so because of an instict related to territory, food or some other evolutionary instinct. But it has no moral control over those instincts like humans do.

Don't you think we can tell something of God's plan from Genesis 1 and 2?

Oh yeah in that sense we can. But we have to be careful as there is a lot that people can read into this. We determine some truth principles about life and human nature (Imago Dei & a Creator or Mind behind things) or about Gods nature.

But I think this has to also relate to what we experience, what is real in the world. How humans expressed God in those times through language and stories which represented a deeper truth about the relationship between God and man.

Or man's inability?? If it relates to the fall of man?

Yes and I think its by comparing how nature seems to work so well, how it can repair itself when left alone and how humans come along and disrupt that. The same fallen nature as from the time of the fall is still at work which is working against Gods creation and order. Humans are the only creature who can play god and threaten our existence.

Yes, that's true. But if humans have done something that corrupts all of nature (since nature was under Adam's dominion), then we don't just take current natural processes as what God originally intended.

I think we can in that we can still see the beauty of nature especially when we look to the heavens always there in the background really unchanging and we hear the prophets of old and new praising its abundance, magnificance and beauty.

One thing I noticed with the new Webb telescope is how scientists expected that the closer we went back to the Big Bang the more sparce space became where we should see the beginnings of stars and galaxies. But Webb has found abundent mature galaxies let along stars everywhere. This is consistent with how Gods creation is descrived in the Bible. Its no surprise because nature should reflect God.

I tend to think both happen at the same time, but that's a different topic.

Yes and a big topic at that. But as mentioned I think in some ways nature is alive in that God designed it to bring about humans. There had to be the natural world for humans to exist.

yes

So if they grow old they die

probably not

I am not sure. If they grow old that implies some aging process. The body gets weaker, things break down. It seems strange that people would just stop at a certain age. Is that age the same for everyone. Why not stop it at a younger age.

Do you think God is unable to handle such a thing?

Yes of course. Just wondering. He did say go forth and populate the earth.

Those statements seem to compete against each other.

Yes as one is before the fall and the other after. If the Garden is like Heaven then is there gardens in Heaven that grow.

Will there be rotting leaves in the resurrection? How do you know humans require rotting leaves?

In this realm humans need rotting leaves because that is part of the ecosystems that sustain life and what led to human life. Beyond this realm who knows. Maybe everything is sustained by God. Maybe there is no need for vegetation at least in the way it exists now.

But we have some evidence of God's creation as it used to be, described in Genesis. Have you read about that?

Yes I have read this. But what we see today still has the qualities of Gods original creation. It is only that sin introduced something imperfect that changed its state. For example thorns and prickles were introduced to Gods perfect creation of trees that produced fruits for Adam and Eve to eat. The land had to work the land to produce food whereas before it was a natural good that came from the garden.

God said that Adam would return to the dirt so it seems Gods spirit that gave life to His creation was lost and everything became material as in limited by the material processes that governed nature which can be harsh at times.

Are you saying that evolution is actually designed into our DNA? Then it's not really evolution, is it?

I am saying what we call evolution is part of Gods creation. I don't think Gods creation stays the same. That would make it boring, not doing much. Its more amazing that not only did God create everything but that he also create the laws that govern everything. Like how we find maths in the measurements of the universe and nature itself. How our earth ended up being in a perfect position to bring about intelligent life. How DNA is Gods signature about how all life is designed through a code which reflects the Mind of God.

All this takes processes to happen which we partly call evolution. But it didn't happen without God programming this into the beginning. In that sense you could say that an inaminant universe could produce intelligent conscious life is a miracle because it should not happen without any intervention from some creator behind things. At least in the worldview of naturalistic processes.

Of course, we don't know how hostile the planet was from the beginning, except that God actually seemed to think planting a garden would be helpful to sustain His created couple.

The point is if it happened on Mars or any other planet in our solar system and perhaps the universe that there would be no garden. That there was a garden on earth for this to happen was no coincident because for the earth to produce that garden our solar system, even galaxay and maybe universe had to be exactly the way it is. Including the processes that caused the earth to be able to have a garden.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem with evolution as a mechanism for creation is that it requires death to function, which God says is not good. If it's not good, then God would have been lying when He said His completed creation was "very good", when He used death to create it.

God never says that death is good, nor does God say that there is no death in existence.

God refers to what he created, and ordered, as good. But death still exists beyond the ordered world.

 

[Derf]

God never says that death is good, nor does God say that there is no death in existence.

God refers to what he created, and ordered, as good. But death still exists beyond the ordered world.

View attachment 336629

I wonder which Qumran cave they found that diagram in.

 

[Derf]

I think this part is where you show how conflicted you are.

All this takes processes to happen which we partly call evolution. But it didn't happen without God programming this into the beginning.

You say "evolution" was programmed in from the beginning, and by evolution you are including man descending from lower animals (irony intended), such that they don't reproduce after their kind, but after a different kind, at least every now and then. Am I right? Aren't you, in that statement, defying what God tells us about how He created life:
Genesis 1:12 KJV — And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 KJV — And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 KJV — And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In that sense you could say that an inaminant universe could produce intelligent conscious life is a miracle because it should not happen without any intervention from some creator behind things. At least in the worldview of naturalistic processes.

Why are we trying to say things from "the worldview of naturalistic processes", if they are clearly wrong in their worldview?