Death Before the Fall

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

So God was saying “You will surely die spiritually”. Is this your view? But you told me that physical death had already been modeled before them. Reconcile this for us.

I believe death was a part of life 3.5 billion years ago as it still is today. I believe Adam and Eve were familiar with physical death. I believe when God said “you will surely die”, it meant that their spiritual connection to God would be broken. It is also possible that if the garden were trees in it were not metaphorical, that expulsion from the garden would result in eventual physical death, as well.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

The church? Really? Most Christian churches already are.

There are, depending on whose reckoning one accepts, somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 Christian denominations in the USA. I have not seen any survey work which covers the views of all those denominations on evolution. So I’m not sure how the conclusion “most” was arrived at.

If the meaning is, “most mainstream Christian churches,” then possibly the statement is correct, though of course that depends on which churches are reckoned as “mainstream.” I suppose, if one reckons “mainstream” to mean the liberal branches of the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, and the Anglican churches, and the Roman Catholic church (with caveats about the evolution of the soul), and the United Church of Christ, and most of the Methodist churches, then it’s true that “most churches” have accepted evolution, or at least, tolerate it as acceptable belief for their members.

I’m not here passing any judgment on churches that do or do not accept evolution, but merely questioning the confident use of the word “most.”

[Michael_Okoko]

Maybe its time for you to keep up with times. @cwhenderson has embraced evolutionary theory, because it is a well-supported explanation for the sheer diversity of life.

Take a cue from Jesus. He broke ancient traditions and made reforms. That’s why you have Christianity today. Maybe science is our Holy Spirit now.

[Michael_Okoko]

@cwhenderson

it meant that their spiritual connection to God would be broken.

Personally I think the most logical interpretation (but not necessarily correct) is that God meant a physical death and a spiritual one.

They would lose their chance at immortality as well as spiritual intimacy with God.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Michael_Okoko

Maybe science is our Holy Spirit now.

I don’t think the above remark was intended critically, but if one reflects upon it, one perceives that it may well be true, and may have something to say about the ultimate religious commitments of contemporary culture.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Eddie

I don’t think the above remark was intended critically,

Yeah it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.

@Eddie

one perceives that it may well be true,

Who knows.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

The church? Really? Most Christian churches already are.

There are, depending on whose reckoning one accepts, somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 Christian denominations in the USA.

So what, Eddie? There was absolutely nothing in my statement that would lead anyone to infer in good faith that I would limit my consideration to the USA.

@Eddie

I have not seen any survey work which covers the views of all those denominations on evolution.

By considering the world, not just the USA, a hotbed of creationism.

@Eddie

So I’m not sure how the conclusion “most” was arrived at.

I’m not sure that your attack was made in good faith.

@Eddie

If the meaning is, “most mainstream Christian churches,”

No, the meaning is most Christian churches in the world. The fact that you added, then omitted “in the USA” does not suggest good faith on your part.

@Eddie

I’m not here passing any judgment on churches that do or do not accept evolution, but merely questioning the confident use of the word “most.”

You appear to be attacking using a straw-man fallacy.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Michael_Okoko

@thoughtful

the science for it has gotten worse not better

Tumors and antibiotic resistant bacteria: you say what??

I mean the evidence for OoL and common ancestry as the reason for humanity has gotten to be less likely as time goes on rather than more likely. Eventually it will be dropped as a model.

@cwhenderson

@thoughtful

It’s REAL physical life too! That’s why we have the resurrection!

The resurrection shows us that physical death is not the end. It does not imply anything about the origin of physical death.

I heartily disagree.

@cwhenderson

@thoughtful

It perhaps doesn’t. It invalidates GAE though.

Not at all, I can’t tell why you would even think so.

Because GAE has two beginnings, not one.

@cwhenderson

Are you ready to take the stance that anyone that believes differently from you is wrong by default?

Yes, on the subject we’re referring to - that all of life has one common ancestor.

@cwhenderson

The science has only become more certain in the last 150 years that current life on the planet is a result of evolutionary processes.

I agree with that.

@cwhenderson

The ridiculous debates - There are ridiculous debates that 5G is causing the coronavirus pandemic. Does that somehow invalidate scientific evidence that 5G is irrelevant?

Not even remotely a good analogy for what I was thinking about.

@cwhenderson

Well, if you are using the opinion of the church as a whole as the arbiter of truth, you should probably acknowledge that a majority of the church worldwide is already on board.

I’m referencing here some who like to compare common ancestry to the church’s fight over heliocentrism. It is not even remotely similar.

@cwhenderson

Second, I am reasonably confident we can agree that church opinion is an inadequate tool for the measurement of scientific validity.

I disagree. What the church has to say as a whole is an adequate tool for measurement of scientific validity.

@structureoftruth

Particularly for the second - if you’re suggesting there is a problem with the fact that God said “in the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die” followed by their exile from the Garden rather than immediate death, then it is a problem shared by YECs as well as OECs.

I’m saying that I believe they did die immediately - the process of death began.

@structureoftruth

In regards to the first, I never said that the biological humans outside the Garden are viewed by Scripture as animals. I suggested they are not in view at all.

Another possibility is that they are implicitly in view: it is not a great strain on the text to read Genesis 1 and 2 sequentially, so that all biological humans (who are all made in the image of God) are in view in Genesis 1

So then why does Jesus define marriages using both Genesis 1 and 2. When do you think marriage was actually instituted?

@cwhenderson

@r_speir

And how specifically was death modeled in front of Adam and Eve?

I suspect it was by watching living organisms die.

And how did this happen if all they knew was the Garden where there was no death? Or are you supposing it was an island of life and they could peer outside without any legend surviving of biological humans outside the garden surviving to this day wondering about these odd humans?

@Mark10.45

This is a really great argument, thank you. God doesn’t say unimportant or superfluous things and would not have addressed the penalty of sin with something they did not understand, so they must have known and death must have existed in some form. Makes perfect sense to me and to the Spirit of truth in me. Logical hermeneutics makes me happy.

I agree. That’s why they knew that death was something that happened when they sinned and disobeyed God because they knew God was and had given them life.

@cwhenderson

It is also possible that if the garden were trees in it were not metaphorical, that expulsion from the garden would result in eventual physical death, as well.

I agree with this. They’re both symbolic and real.

[Michael_Okoko]

@thoughtful

I mean the evidence for OoL

There are many OoL models. Some models hold more promise than the others. As time progresses, and new technology and ways of thinking emerge, we will see which models prevail.

@thoughtful

common ancestry as the reason for humanity has gotten to be less likely as time goes on rather than more likely. Eventually it will be dropped as a model.

This is a YEC fantasy. For this to happen, you would have to restructure our genome to eliminate the genetic patterns therein which provide powerful testimony of our shared ancestry with the great apes. It’s easier to dispute shared ancestry between rodents, than to dispute shared ancestry between humans and chimpanzees.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

I mean the evidence for OoL and common ancestry as the reason for humanity has gotten to be less likely as time goes on rather than more likely.

Valerie, have you been a witness to any of the relevant evidence yourself or are you basing your claim on hearsay?

If the former, would you please point me to that evidence? I’m especially interested in your take on the evidence supporting metabolism-first hypotheses.

TIA!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

By considering the world, not just the USA, a hotbed of creationism.

Fine, then let’s see your data for the churches of the world. Did you personally look up the stance on evolution of every single church in the world, and count, and determine that 50% plus 1 (or more) of them accepted evolution? If not, how did you determine “most”?

[Michael_Okoko]

@Mercer

I’m especially interested in your take on the evidence supporting metabolism-first hypotheses.

Is it just me, or do most biochemists support metabolism-first models?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

By considering the world, not just the USA, a hotbed of creationism.

Fine, then let’s see your data for the churches of the world. Did you personally look up the stance on evolution of every single church in the world, and count, and determine that 50% plus 1 (or more) of them accepted evolution?

It appears that you already have and found that to be the case, since you misrepresented my point as only applying to the USA.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@thoughtful

I heartily disagree.

I realize that. However, that doesn’t mean you are right.

@thoughtful

Because GAE has two beginnings, not one.

GAE proposes a beginning within a beginning. I don’t believe @structureoftruth would characterize his views as inconsistent with GAE, but what do you think, Matthew?

@thoughtful

Yes, on the subject we’re referring to - that all of life has one common ancestor.

1. That is a tremendous amount of confidence in your own opinion. You are basically saying that in this particular matter, you are infallible.
2. The OP is on “death before the fall”, not common ancestry.

@thoughtful

Not even remotely a good analogy for what I was thinking about.

Then explain what you mean when you count the existence of “ridiculous debates” as evidence against evolution. Otherwise, this argument doesn’t make sense.

@thoughtful

I’m referencing here some who like to compare common ancestry to the church’s fight over heliocentrism. It is not even remotely similar.

Your earlier statement was something to the effect of - evolution can’t be true or the church would already be on board. My point is that most of the church is already on board. And even if it isn’t on board, that is hardly a good criteria for determining whether or not evolution and common ancestry are true.

@thoughtful

What the church has to say as a whole is an adequate tool for measurement of scientific validity.

So what lay people in the church think is a better measure of truth than professionals who study and do science for a living? How can you possibly justify that opinion?

@thoughtful

And how did this happen if all they knew was the Garden where there was no death?

You have apparently somehow assumed that I am arguing that death occurred, but only outside of the garden. I am saying that living organisms died inside the garden, as well. I don’t think the natural order that God put in place was suspended in the garden, nor do I think it was subverted by sin to generate pathogens and carnivory. The Bible just plain DOES NOT support these ideas - they are born only of human extrapolation, not the words of the Bible. I, and others, have explained to you why we believe differently, using actual text from the Bible. You may want to consider that your response has basically been “Nuh-uh!”

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Michael_Okoko

Is it just me, or do most biochemists support metabolism-first models?

Sorry, I have no idea and no polls AFAIK. I learned and did biochemistry very late in my career, so I’m not plugged into the community.

What’s clear is that creationists are content to attack a straw man of the OoL field as it was 40-60 years ago, and that those who parrot them do not seem to have been informed that metabolism-first hypotheses even exist.

Right, @thoughtful?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

It appears that you already have and found that to be the case, since you misrepresented my point as only applying to the USA.

I’ll take your dodging of my question to mean that you have no data to back up your claim.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Mercer

Sorry, I have no idea and no polls AFAIK. I learned and did biochemistry very late in my career, so I’m not plugged into the community.

Alright.

@Mercer

What’s clear is that creationists are content to attack a straw man of the OoL field as it was 40-60 years ago,

That’s why Kent Hovind has refused to update his slides despite decades of corrections and new findings.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@thoughtful

If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been fully on board.

I think you would be surprised at where most evangelical Christians who work in science and geology actually stand. Small sample size to be sure, but of those I personally know (especially geology, Alberta is oil country), there are none that are YEC.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Michael_Okoko

This is a YEC fantasy. For this to happen, you would have to restructure our genome to eliminate the genetic patterns therein which provide powerful testimony of our shared ancestry with the great apes.

No, we just have to continue to make discoveries about genetics that make these initial assumptions look dumb.

@Mercer

Valerie, have you been a witness to any of the relevant evidence yourself or are you basing your claim on hearsay?

This is my personal assessment of the state of the science.

@cwhenderson

Then explain what you mean when you count the existence of “ridiculous debates” as evidence against evolution. Otherwise, this argument doesn’t make sense.

I have not observed that those who believe in common ancestry as an origins theory can speak in love to those who don’t. If it is true, they should be able to. The same often hold true in the other direction though. The terrible witness we bear is what I mean by ridiculous debates.

@cwhenderson

My point is that most of the church is already on board. And even if it isn’t on board,

And most of Israel were serving idols when they were delivered into captivity. Popularity doesn’t equal truth.

@cwhenderson

So what lay people in the church think is a better measure of truth than professionals who study and do science for a living? How can you possibly justify that opinion?

Because the truth of the Bible matters more than science. Should we deny the virgin birth because science says it’s impossible? Where do we want to draw the line?

@cwhenderson

don’t think the natural order that God put in place was suspended in the garden, nor do I think it was subverted by sin to generate pathogens and carnivory.

So the original created order included death and disease? Do you think these things are good? If not, did God create an evil creation?