Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[Sparks]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't think you're intentionally ignoring what He said.    You've just got a new interpretation of it.   Fortunately, He doesn't care if you approve of the way He did it.

I am suggesting you have ignored it.  Even a three year old knows what a 'day' means.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You have to ignore what the Bible says God did to believe this bunk.

This is false. I do not ignore what the Bible says, I simply disagree that the contents of the creation chapters must be taken 100% literally.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Why think that God is so cruel, inept and inefficient with his creations as to let them evolve, anyway?

I don't think God is cruel, inept, or inefficient. I do think His ways are different from our ways. I believe God enjoys the creation process because He put that into us, the part of His creation that was made in His image.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Incidentally, you never answer the question that if Adam brought death into the world, according to the Bible, then how could man evolve from primordial soup

You are again mistaken. I have answered this question multiple times. The "death through Adam" theme in Paul's writings clearly refers to spiritual death when the entire context is considered. It does not refer to physical death of other organisms.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

It's such a dumb theory that a dog crawled out of the primordial soup

Agreed, that would be a really dumb theory. However, no one actually thinks anything remotely similar ever happened. Making ridiculous caricatures does not make a good argument.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I will ask you the question, why is it so difficult to believe that God did exactly what he said he did?

I will answer it just as I have done previously. The evidence God has given us regarding His creation gives the strong suggestion that He created through the process of evolution.

[Sparks]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is false. I do not ignore what the Bible says, I simply disagree that the contents of the creation chapters must be taken 100% literally.

So, in other words, you ignore what the Bible says.  If you don't like what the Bible says, you should not try to re-interpret it to try to prop up the dumb evolution theory.

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I don't think God is cruel, inept, or inefficient. I do think His ways are different from our ways. I believe God enjoys the creation process because He put that into us, the part of His creation that was made in His image.

Evolution theory is not only dumb, it would suggest that a god (lower case g) didn't know what he was doing.  God Almighty gets it right the first time, every time.  Evolution does not.  God made things in hours and days, not trillions of years of trial and error.

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are again mistaken. I have answered this question multiple times. The "death through Adam" theme in Paul's writings clearly refers to spiritual death when the entire context is considered. It does not refer to physical death of other organisms.

Adam and Eve were immortal, until Adam's sin cause death to appear in the world.  We literally die today because our first progenitors sinned.  Our spirits and souls, do not die.

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Agreed, that would be a really dumb theory. However, no one actually thinks anything remotely similar ever happened. Making ridiculous caricatures does not make a good argument.

Yes, they do.  You believe in the 'magic-ee' version of evolution theory where the super natural is possible, but your atheist counterparts who believe in evolution theory have a real problem with evolved creatures finding mates.  It's as dumb as it sounds to think they strolled from the primordial soup, holding hands.

They believe (and this is a definition):  Evolution theory is the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection. 

Evolution theory, which is just a theory, is as dumb as it sounds.

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I will answer it just as I have done previously. The evidence God has given us regarding His creation gives the strong suggestion that He created through the process of evolution.

Based on what?

[AandW_Rootbeer]

7 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

There was evening and morning the first day.  So what is the significance of evening coming first in the day?  Is a day 12 hours or 24 hours?  Are we sure we know what a day is?

Well, Moses does say that the Nephilim survived Noah's Flood.

(Genesis 6:1)  Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,

(Genesis 6:2)  that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

(Genesis 6:3)  Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.”

(Genesis 6:4)  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who <i>were</i> of old, men of renown.  [NASB-2020]

In the Reconstruction of the land, God fashioned plants, animals and humans from the existing materials already on the land.  His breath made us what we are.  I believe you are correct that God did this in six days plus one day of rest as a guide for mankind.  But I understand how Theistic Evolutionists, Day - Age Theorists, Gap Theorists, can read those same scriptures and interpret them differently.  I have vacillated back and forth on the length of Reconstruction.  I can't be dogmatic about it but I'm leaning toward 24 hour days.  But Genesis 1:1-1:2 still means an Old Earth Creation.

I will add one degree of difficulty here.  Let's look at the Hebrew Version of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

 

1In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.   Nowhere do we see how the process of God just shows up to a Planet called Earth and it is already in Existence in the Condition of Verse 2.   Where in the Creation Story does this Condition of Earth even come into being?    How the Bible is laid out, it appears Earth was just in this Existence and God shows up and creates everything on Earth and what surrounds Earth.   But there is no process to show how Genesis 1:2 came into being, because it reads that it always existed in this Condition until God decided to build around it and within it.   God is Eternal, so He was before He created His own kingdom.   When He created His own kingdom, was this also when He created Earth as we find it in Verse 2?   And if so, is Earth as Void and under water as old as the created kingdom of God?   Nowhere do we know how long Earth was established and remained as described in Verse 2 before we see God doing something .   Is it possible then, knowing God created Space, the Luminaries, and life well AFTER Earth was already existing, that Earth is OLDER than the Universe, than Space, than the Luminaries?      This destroys the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang, but it also destroys a Young Earth concept as well.

Edited December 10, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[one.opinion]

Just now, Sparks said:

So, in other words, you ignore what the Bible says.

I don't know why you want me to ignore the Bible so much that you make up untrue statements.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Adam and Eve were immortal

I understand your opinion on the topic. 

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yes, they do.

Nope.

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Based on what?

You can revisit the many other thread where this is discussed. I'm not taking the time to show you all over again. There is evidence in paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, and biogeography - and probably more.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If what I believe is true, and God used the process of evolution in His creative purpose, there is no reason to believe that what we see today is a product of chance. In fact, it would be quite the opposite. God creating from His position outside time could have laid out all of the astronomically large number of necessary mutations in a single act. What may look random from our perspective could be very intentional from His.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

But I just added a post before this I believe jumbles everything up even more so.

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I don't know why you want me to ignore the Bible so much that you make up untrue statements.

Darwinian Evolution is untrue.

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I understand your opinion on the topic.

An I yours, only yours takes some extra special interpretation.

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Nope.

Yep, they do.  They have a really hard time explaining how the symbiotic relationships happened, too.  It's all a part of the fairy tale called Evolution Theory. 

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You can revisit the many other thread where this is discussed. I'm not taking the time to show you all over again. There is evidence in paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, and biogeography - and probably more.

You never really get into the fine detail in our chats.  If you had, I would have challenged them.  So, why not link to one, if you think it explains your case?

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

It's a huge problem to ignore what God said he did.

I don't think you're intentionally ignoring what He said.    You've just got a new interpretation of it.   Fortunately, He doesn't care if you approve of the way He did it.

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

I am suggesting you have ignored it.

No,  I'm just accepting it as it is, without your additions,   Even a three year-old knows what a morning and evening is.

 

[one.opinion]

50 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They have a really hard time explaining how the symbiotic relationships happened, too.

It isn't difficult at all to explain symbiotic relationships, although I'm not sure what you have in mind for "the" symbiotic relationships.

52 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You never really get into the fine detail in our chats.  If you had, I would have challenged them.  So, why not link to one, if you think it explains your case?

If you really wanted to know, you would make the effort to look.

If you want to talk about something you see as a challenge to evolution, go ahead and present it here.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

I will add one degree of difficulty here.  Let's look at the Hebrew Version of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

 

1In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

(Genesis 1:1)  ???????????? H7225 be·re·**** In the beginning ??????? H1254 ba·Ra created ????????? H430 E·lo·Him; God ???? H853 'et ???????????? H8064 hash·sha·Ma·yim the heaven ?????? H853 ve·'Et ????????? H776 ha·'A·retz. the earth [Hebrew Study Bible]

The account of Creation is the logical starting point for Genesis, for it explains the beginning of the universe. These verses have received much attention in connection with science; this is to be expected. But the passage is a theological treatise as well, for it lays a foundation for the rest of the Pentateuch.

In writing this work for Israel, Moses wished to portray God as the Founder and Creator of all life. The account shows that the God who created Israel is the God who created the world and all who are in it. Thus the theocracy is founded on the sovereign God of Creation. That nation, her Law, and her customs and beliefs all go back to who God is. Israel would here learn what kind of God was forming them into a nation.

The implications of this are great. First, it means that everything that exists must be under God’s control. The Creation must be in subjection to the Creator. Forces of nature, enemies, creatures and objects that became pagan deities — none of these would pose a threat to the servants of the living God.

Second, the account also reveals the basis of the Law. If indeed God was before all things and made all things, how foolish it would be to have any other gods before Him! There were none. If indeed God made man in His image to represent Him, how foolish it would be to make an image of God! If indeed God set aside one day for rest from His work, should not man who is walking with God follow Him? The commandments find their rationale here.

Third, the account reveals that God is a redeeming God. It records how He brought the cosmos out of chaos, turned darkness into light, made divisions between them, transformed cursing into blessing, and moved from what was evil and darkness to what was holy. This parallels the work of God in Exodus, which records His redeeming Israel by destroying the Egyptian forces of chaos. The prophets and the apostles saw here a paradigm of God’s redemptive activities. Ultimately He who caused light to shine out of darkness made His light shine in the hearts of believers (2 Corinthians 4:6) so that they become new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17).

These verses have traditionally been understood as referring to the actual beginning of matter, a Creation out of nothing and therefore part of day one. But the vocabulary and grammar of this section require a closer look. The motifs and the structure of the Creation account are introduced in the first two verses. That the universe is God’s creative work is perfectly expressed by the statement God created the heavens and the earth. The word bārā’ (“created”) may express creation out of nothing, but it certainly cannot be limited to that (cf. Gen_2:7). Rather, it stresses that what was formed was new and perfect. The word is used throughout the Bible only with God as its subject.  [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

From a scientific standpoint, the Big Bang lines up perfectly with scripture.

5 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

Nowhere do we see how the process of God just shows up to a Planet called Earth and it is already in Existence in the Condition of Verse 2.

Where in the Creation Story does this Condition of Earth even come into being?   

How the Bible is laid out, it appears Earth was just in this Existence and God shows up and creates everything on Earth and what surrounds Earth.   But there is no process to show how Genesis 1:2 came into being, because it reads that it always existed in this Condition until God decided to build around it and within it.

(Genesis 1:2)  ?????????? H776 ve·ha·'A·retz, And the earth ???????? H1961 ha·ye·Tah was ??????? H8414 to·hu without form ???????? H922 va·Vo·hu, and void ?????????? H2822 ve·Cho·shech and darkness ???? H5921 'al- upon ??????? H6440 pe·Nei [was] upon the face ??????? H8415 te·Hom; of the deep ???????? H7307 ve·Ru·ach And the Spirit ????????? H430 E·lo·Him, of God ?????????? H7363 me·ra·Che·fet moved ???? H5921 'al- over ??????? H6440 pe·Nei the face ?????????? H4325 ham·Ma·yim. of the waters  [Hebrew Study Bible]

But Genesis 1:2 describes a chaos: there was waste and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The clauses in Genesis 1:2 are apparently circumstantial to Genesis 1:3, telling the world’s condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God’s creative work (bārā’); rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment. Moreover, God’s Creation by decree begins in Genesis 1:3, and the elements found in Genesis 1:2 are corrected in Creation, beginning with light to dispel the darkness. The expression formless and empty (ṯōhû wāḇōhû) seems also to provide an outline for Genesis 1:1-31, which describes God’s bringing shape and then fullness to the formless and empty earth.  [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

Genesis 1:2 describes the condition which will begin in Genesis 1:3.  That's when God begins the Reconstruction of the Ruined Earth of Genesis 1:2.

5 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

God is Eternal, so He was before He created His own kingdom.   When He created His own kingdom, was this also when He created Earth as we find it in Verse 2?   And if so, is Earth as Void and under water as old as the created kingdom of God?   Nowhere do we know how long Earth was established and remained as described in Verse 2 before we see God doing something.

This is gibberish.  I don't know what you imagine the Bible says.  I don't even know what translation of the Bible you're using.  You like to use unidentified sources that keeps the reader wondering if they can be trusted.  Please identify your sources if you want me to respond.

5 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Is it possible then, knowing God created Space, the Luminaries, and life well AFTER Earth was already existing, that Earth is OLDER than the Universe, than Space, than the Luminaries? 

Where did you invent this question and / or where did it come from?  This question is ridiculous.

5 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

This destroys the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang, but it also destroys a Young Earth concept as well.

You've destroyed nothing.