The writer of Psalm 104, the God Breathed Inspired Word of God, references the original 24 hr 6 day creation - there is no new " and God Said" something out of nothing. 27-30 is all creation waiting upon God for His providential care. Thank you so much for keeping me thinking about my Lord, Savior and Creator.
To answer the first question, is something incomplete by definition imperfect, whatever God has created or spoken into existence is not incomplete and cannot be imperfect. Godâs providential will cannot be altered. He is unchanging. I do not argue for development or change. When a perfect Creator calls his creation âVery Goodâ after 6 - 24hr creative days, He is saying that what I have Spoken is perfect. Only sin caused imperfection. To answer your next question about God reaching out to His day 6 human creation, He did this by sending His Son Jesus Christ by dying on the cross for the elect and rising the third day and sitting on the Right Hand of God the Father. We must look to Romans 9 in regards to Godâs Sovereign Choice. Godâs 6 day 24hr creation is done but His providential will in History goes on.
If you do a little research, you will learn that the word translated âcreatedâ in verse 30 is the same one used in Genesis 1. I donât know how anyone could argue that verse 30 is about âprovidential care.â
1 Like
Godâs providential will is never thwarted by man or the circumstances of man. His creation of Genesis - 6 days 24 hrs is perfect âvery goodâ and done. God Spoke and His Word is Perfect. The creation of life on a daily basis and His providential will (Romans 9) is separate from Speaking something into existence from nothing.
So would you say that everything âGod saidâ during the creation week was completed and fulfilled on the same day He spoke it, without exception?
I think you are illustrating very well what happens when a systematic theology, which is essentially a human construct, forces you to treat the Bible as an object instead of a subject. You seem very confident in your system. I hope it works out for you in life. If you ever read a passage that makes you scratch your head and say, âHuhâŚhow does that fit?,â come back and maybe we could have an interesting conversation.
2 Likes
This may be above my pay grade on so many different levels. I think that I am more concerned to have the scientific non believer become a believer than to have a believer become a scientific believer when it comes to creation. It seems that if one believes that God used the evolutionary process to create life and Humans then it seems clear that the processes are still in effect and God is still creating . If one doesnât see these processes occurring there is really no point having that discussion.
1 Like
Isnât it clear that God has always been âcreatingâ regardless of oneâs view on evolution. People are born. New islands and land masses are forming. New stars are appearing. The universe has always been an ever-changing place.
As to evolution, we see new species evolving right before our eyesâand humans even exploit evolutionary processes to create new species. (Yes, lots of people deny that fact but denial doesnât prevent evolution from creating new species.)
Of course, some will preach from Ecclesiastes and say âThere is nothing new under the sunâ but I think most people are able to put that in a proper context. Christ-followers can cite the fact that we are ânew creationsâ in Christ through the new birth.
1 Like
Scott, I am basically in agreement with you. Evolution results in adaption which includes changes in behavior as well as genes. I would expect that they go hand in hand.
My argument with all of you is based on the fact that changes in the ecology create the framework for evolution. Yes, genetic drift does exist, but it changes the genome, but it does not power evolution.
The earth has gone through several ecological revolutions. These are why the flora and fauna on out planet have evolved in a particular way. The earth is very different now than it was then. Humans most likely could have lived during the times of the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs could not live today. We and they are products of their and our environment.
Thus changes in the environment guides and directs natural selection and evolution
A known falsehood. Please stop posting like this.
2 Likes
I donât know what it means for something to âpower evolutionâ.
In any case, I donât know of anyone who claims that genetic drift is the most important evolutionary processes. Iâm not sure why anyone feels a need to reduce a complex topic to any one thing.
I freely admit that there is much that I donât know.
1 Like
Maybe you did not before, but now you do. Live and learn.
Stephen-
I guess what I am getting at is that the Lord has used evolution to get us here. He has created this amazing brain of ours by evolution. This brain has formulated behavioral strategies and tools that have enhanced our survival. These strategies and tools are post genetic in that they are not innate. My question is what can we learn from the pathway of our genetic evolution and behavioral evolution by Gods creation to guide us as we continue to develop our technologies and understanding of our world?
Yes, I think thatâs called cultural evolution, not sure if thatâs a valid phrase. I assume that most of this kind of information is âinheritedâ in the sense that it is transmitted across generations, and can be stored and retrieved, but is not âinnateâ if that means âencoded in DNA.â I would assume that this is where anthropology, sociology, and evolutionary biology meet.
I guess you would have to judge for yourself how historical trajectories of genetic and cultural evolution are instructive. I donât know how one would determine which things were caused by god and which were caused by [fill in name of evil force or entity] and which were stochastic, etc. I certainly agree that âthose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,â though I think that merely remembering the past is not sufficient.
Steve,
After reading the paper, I wonder if there might be more than four variants. If Iâm reading the paper correctly, I count six:
Previously investigated:
â13910 C>T
â13907 C>G
â13915 T>C
â14010 G>C
Investigated in this paper and found to promote lactase persistence:
â14009 T>G
â14011 C>T
Two other variants were interesting but could not be demonstrated to promote lactase persistence.
The question is: am I reading the paper correctly?
Interesting article, thanks again for posting it.
Chris Falter
Yep! And I think we would say at least six.
No, evolution doesnât happen to entities or individuals. It only happens to populations. And evolution has never been limited to enhancements of fitness.
3 Likes
Iâm curious about the rabbit species you mention. Would you give me a reference on that? Thank you.