Evoultion and creation are antithetical - discuss

[Tubal-Cain]

Either death IS the penalty for sin, in which case Jesus paid the penalty for humanity, or death is not the penalty for sin, it's just one of those unaccountable things that happens to humanity, in which case Jesus' death achieves nothing.

Physical death is not the penalty for sin. Jesus' physical death does not save us from physical death. Jesus' sacrifice saves us from spiritual death. He descended to Hades and defeated it.

If evolution occurs so very gradually that it is imperceptible to those living and observing, that implies that God introduced a similarly gradual accountability.

Not necessarily. Suppose God only holds accountable those creatures who can fathom morality. Under such a scenario there would be a moment when a creature existed that could fathom morality who had no ancestors who were able to do the same thing. Accountability would come suddenly.

What was the first sin and who committed it and why did God judge it to be sin and impute it to that man, and not continue to ignore it as one must believe He had done previously if one is to accept the evolutionary model?

Under the above scenario, the first sin would be committed by the first creature who could undertake moral reasoning. God judged that man a sinner because that man could reason about morality. God did not judge the man's ancestors for their sins because they could not understand morality.

Unless man suddenly and in an instant changed from ape (brute beast and unaccountable for sin) to man (made in the image of God and thus accountable to God) which is inconsistent with the gradualism of evolutionary theory, I cannot understand how a God of absolute righteousness and justice brought about accountability and hence imputation of sin.

Consider the following simplified way of looking at things. Suppose you could rate a creature's intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100. Any creature with an intelligence of 50 or over would be held accountable for his sins. Now you could have creatures gradually gradually evolve more intelligence. The moment that a parent with an intelligence of 49 gives birth to offspring with an intelligence of 50 accountability begins. This is the "instant" change from beast to man you allude to.

It's very easy to suggest that fish gradually grew limbs unil one day they ended up with four legs and a preference for living on dry land instead of water. But EXACTLY HOW did this transformation occur on a day by day basis? What was the fish doing while it had four little proto-limbs that were of no use on dry land and likely a hindrance in the water? The implication is that for millions of years, a species of fish was swimming around in the water with 4 little protuberances growing from their bodies. These fishes would have suffered from being less-streamlined and therefore less agile in water and should rightly, according to evolutionary theory, have been more likely to persish than their unevolving counterparts.

There are fish alive today that have varying appendages or limbs that allow them to scuttle along on the bottom of a body of water. Remember, they don't have to be the best fit for every environment, just one environment.

I mean, what use was a proto-feather during its million year (or whatever) evolution?

Insulation and/or wind-protection.

[methinkshe]

Either death IS the penalty for sin, in which case Jesus paid the penalty for humanity, or death is not the penalty for sin, it's just one of those unaccountable things that happens to humanity, in which case Jesus' death achieves nothing.

Physical death is not the penalty for sin. Jesus' physical death does not save us from physical death. Jesus' sacrifice saves us from spiritual death. He descended to Hades and defeated it.

If evolution occurs so very gradually that it is imperceptible to those living and observing, that implies that God introduced a similarly gradual accountability.

Not necessarily. Suppose God only holds accountable those creatures who can fathom morality. Under such a scenario there would be a moment when a creature existed that could fathom morality who had no ancestors who were able to do the same thing. Accountability would come suddenly.

What was the first sin and who committed it and why did God judge it to be sin and impute it to that man, and not continue to ignore it as one must believe He had done previously if one is to accept the evolutionary model?

Under the above scenario, the first sin would be committed by the first creature who could undertake moral reasoning. God judged that man a sinner because that man could reason about morality. God did not judge the man's ancestors for their sins because they could not understand morality.

Unless man suddenly and in an instant changed from ape (brute beast and unaccountable for sin) to man (made in the image of God and thus accountable to God) which is inconsistent with the gradualism of evolutionary theory, I cannot understand how a God of absolute righteousness and justice brought about accountability and hence imputation of sin.

Consider the following simplified way of looking at things. Suppose you could rate a creature's intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100. Any creature with an intelligence of 50 or over would be held accountable for his sins. Now you could have creatures gradually gradually evolve more intelligence. The moment that a parent with an intelligence of 49 gives birth to offspring with an intelligence of 50 accountability begins. This is the "instant" change from beast to man you allude to.

It's very easy to suggest that fish gradually grew limbs unil one day they ended up with four legs and a preference for living on dry land instead of water. But EXACTLY HOW did this transformation occur on a day by day basis? What was the fish doing while it had four little proto-limbs that were of no use on dry land and likely a hindrance in the water? The implication is that for millions of years, a species of fish was swimming around in the water with 4 little protuberances growing from their bodies. These fishes would have suffered from being less-streamlined and therefore less agile in water and should rightly, according to evolutionary theory, have been more likely to persish than their unevolving counterparts.

There are fish alive today that have varying appendages or limbs that allow them to scuttle along on the bottom of a body of water. Remember, they don't have to be the best fit for every environment, just one environment.

I mean, what use was a proto-feather during its million year (or whatever) evolution?

Insulation and/or wind-protection.

Genesis 2:17 "...........for in the day that you eat of it DYING YOU SHALL DIE" (literal translation). i.e. dying spiritually through being cut-off from the source of both spiritual and physical life - God - you will also die physically. Physical death, as well as spiritual death is most definitely the penalty for sin. And Jesus' death DOES save us from physical death....let me explain. Through believing in Jesus Christ we are born again of the Spirit, we become a new creation. However, we do not receive our new resurrection bodies until after our spiritually dead bodies have also perished physically. As Paul says, "we count ourselves as dead" - why - because we know we are going to die and that in me dwells no good thing. It is important to realise that we are BORN AGAIN and are NEW CREATIONS and that Jesus death did not just minister metaphorical sticking plasters. But we also know that we will see God in our flesh. Job 19:26 "yet in my flesh will I see God.." Also, Jesus invited Thomas to touch the nail marks on His hands. He ate with His disciples following His resurrection. In other words He was demonstrating that He was flesh and not just a spiritual apparition. Since Christ is the firstfruit, then we, too, shall have resurrection bodies like His - physical. Thus we are given a new life in the Spirit AND in the flesh (physical) and both are imperishable, immortal and incorruptible. So we can truly say that Jesus' death has conquered spiritual death AND physical death.

Re accountability:

"..........there would be a moment when a creature existed that could fathom morality who had no ancestors who were able to do the same thing. Accountability would come suddenly."

A child - fully human - does not suddenly "fathom morality" - they grow into an understanding. I cannot believe that a proto-human would suddenly fathom morality such that at one point in time he was unaccaountable to God and at the next point in time he was accountable, and therefore so were all his progeny. What about if his female partner hadn't experienced this sudden revelation of morality, yet continued to be the mother of the children of this enlightened man. Would their children be accountable. Occam's razor comes to mind.

"Consider the following simplified way of looking at things. Suppose you could rate a creature's intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100. Any creature with an intelligence of 50 or over would be held accountable for his sins. Now you could have creatures gradually gradually evolve more intelligence. The moment that a parent with an intelligence of 49 gives birth to offspring with an intelligence of 50 accountability begins. This is the "instant" change from beast to man you allude to."

Occam's Razor, again - since I guess you must be a great admirer of scientific devices. However, let me tell you why I love the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ ( the Occam's Razor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if you like). You know how Jesus said that unless you come as little children you cannot see the kingdom of heaven? It is one of the most mysterious and beautiful truths of the gospel of Jesus that it is as available to a child as it is to a professor with a yard of initials after his name. More particularly, it is as available to my daughter with severe learning difficulties (the modern euphemism for mentally retarded, but you know what I mean) as it is to any of my other children with full mental and physical faculties.. She knows Jesus with a very simple, childlike faith. She understands that God created the world and all that is in it. She understands the concept of sin and is able to grasp, at some level, the Fall. But how on earth would I go about explaining the idea of a gradually evolving intelligence that gradually became accountable to God?

As for the value of proto-limbs - well that's another discussion and I really shouldn't have introduced it here because what I really wanted to understand is how people synthesise evolution and Christianity.

I wish I could set out these replies as neatly as you have. I keep fiddling with the quote button but all I get is a mess, so I apologise for my poor formatting and having to resport to the old fashioned "...." quotation marks.