Jump to content


Photo

Was God's Initial Creation Perfect?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:26 PM

This is a spinoff to the topic titled Abiogenesis, where the issue came up of whether God's initial creation of man and Eden was considered perfect. Rather than derail the Abiogenesis topic more than it had been already I decided to create a new topic here.

 

My thesis follows closely on what Mike the Wiz touched on in the Abiogenesis topic.

 

 

But we can't know for sure how "good" it was in the beginning.

 

Technically you could say, "it is not perfect BECAUSE it has the capacity to go wrong." But really God's plan was that this creation would be temporary because He foresaw the fall of man.

 

... God created a type of universe which was, "set up" to be temporary. Even though it was perfect for perhaps a few weeks at the beginning, God knew it would only have to be perfect at the very start.

 

As others in the other topic mentioned, at the end of each day of creation God declared his day's work good. What they fail to realize is that at the end of the sixth day when everything was created, including man, God declared it very good.

 

 

Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

In God's eyes how much better is very good than good? Does it mean perfect? There are no clues from the text. But there is something in context that should lead us to believe that what God created was perfect for his purpose.

 

We know that sin cannot exist in the presence of God. Yet God walked freely with Adam and Eve in Eden, communing with them. Therefore Adam and Eve, as created, were sinless. There was no death, no discomfort in Eden, just a perfect existence with God their Creator.

 

We all know what happened. Eve gave in to the whiles of the devil and disobeyed God, causing her and Adam to be banished from Eden and all of creation to be cursed. God cannot commune with sin. Adam and Eve blew it, and all of creation has suffered the consequences to this day.

 

But, like Mike the Wiz stated, this was to be only temporary. When do we see again that God communes directly with his creation in a perfect world where there is no death or discomfort? That would be in the new heaven and the new earth, the new city of Jerusalem of Revelation 21.

 

As types are often used to tie together seemingly incongruous elements of Scripture I believe that Eden, the first of perfect creation, was a type of the new heaven and earth, which would be God's final perfect creation.

 

However, there is one major, huge difference between the two: At the end, Satan, the fallen angels, demons and all those who rejected God's gift of salvation will be cast into the lake of fire no longer able to wield their corruption and evil influence. The new heaven and new earth will be literally sinless.

 

Those communing with God in the new heaven will be in their glorified bodies, as were Adam and Eve before the fall, and before they "discovered" their nakedness. Remember, they were created in God's perfect image.

 

So, was God's creation initially perfect? I believe that by God recreating virtually every condition in the new heaven and new earth that existed in Eden before the fall it tells us that, yes, Eden was perfect. The only difference between the two is Satan deciding he wanted to be "like the most high" and become a false god corrupting what God had created in Eden.

 

It's the free will thing.



#2 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:30 PM

This is a spinoff to the topic titled Abiogenesis, where the issue came up of whether God's initial creation of man and Eden was considered perfect. Rather than derail the Abiogenesis topic more than it had been already I decided to create a new topic here.

 

My thesis follows closely on what Mike the Wiz touched on in the Abiogenesis topic.

 

 

But we can't know for sure how "good" it was in the beginning.

 

Technically you could say, "it is not perfect BECAUSE it has the capacity to go wrong." But really God's plan was that this creation would be temporary because He foresaw the fall of man.

 

... God created a type of universe which was, "set up" to be temporary. Even though it was perfect for perhaps a few weeks at the beginning, God knew it would only have to be perfect at the very start.

 

As others in the other topic mentioned, at the end of each day of creation God declared his day's work good. What they fail to realize is that at the end of the sixth day when everything was created, including man, God declared it very good.

 

 

Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

In God's eyes how much better is very good than good? Does it mean perfect? There are no clues from the text. But there is something in context that should lead us to believe that what God created was perfect for his purpose.

 

We know that sin cannot exist in the presence of God. Yet God walked freely with Adam and Eve in Eden, communing with them. Therefore Adam and Eve, as created, were sinless. There was no death, no discomfort in Eden, just a perfect existence with God their Creator.

 

We all know what happened. Eve gave in to the whiles of the devil and disobeyed God, causing her and Adam to be banished from Eden and all of creation to be cursed. God cannot commune with sin. Adam and Eve blew it, and all of creation has suffered the consequences to this day.

 

But, like Mike the Wiz stated, this was to be only temporary. When do we see again that God communes directly with his creation in a perfect world where there is no death or discomfort? That would be in the new heaven and the new earth, the new city of Jerusalem of Revelation 21.

 

As types are often used to tie together seemingly incongruous elements of Scripture I believe that Eden, the first of perfect creation, was a type of the new heaven and earth, which would be God's final perfect creation.

 

However, there is one major, huge difference between the two: At the end, Satan, the fallen angels, demons and all those who rejected God's gift of salvation will be cast into the lake of fire no longer able to wield their corruption and evil influence. The new heaven and new earth will be literally sinless.

 

Those communing with God in the new heaven will be in their glorified bodies, as were Adam and Eve before the fall, and before they "discovered" their nakedness. Remember, they were created in God's perfect image.

 

So, was God's creation initially perfect? I believe that by God recreating virtually every condition in the new heaven and new earth that existed in Eden before the fall it tells us that, yes, Eden was perfect. The only difference between the two is Satan deciding he wanted to be "like the most high" and become a false god corrupting what God had created in Eden.

 

It's the free will thing.

In a similar vein - I was wondering to myself if God created Adam and Eve to live forever.

If they were created to live forever, why would the tree of life be able to make them "live forever" if they ate from it (Gen 3:22)?

 

If they weren't created to live forever - would they die?  Or would God take them to heaven at some old age without them experiencing death? (if they didn't sin)

 

One other related thing - God created us with intricate DNA repair proteins - that can detect and repair incorrectly copied DNA.  If God gave us those repair mechanisms from the very beginning - this means God knew that even Adam's DNA would not be copied 100% accurate all the time, and would need to be corrected.  I can only  chalk this up to the limits of the laws of physics and chemistry.  God created us with awesome internal mechanisms - but mechanisms that rely on physics and chemistry that can only accomplish a limited degree of perfection.

 

I would say that from the moment God created this world and the physical laws that govern it - He knew that there was a limit to how perfect those laws could make it.



#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 June 2017 - 05:23 PM

As others in the other topic mentioned, at the end of each day of creation God declared his day's work good. What they fail to realize is that at the end of the sixth day when everything was created, including man, God declared it very good.

Not correct.  We realize full well that God declared His completed creation "very good."  What those who claim a perfect creation fail to realize is that "very good" is not necessarily "perfect."

 

In God's eyes how much better is very good than good? Does it mean perfect? There are no clues from the text. But there is something in context that should lead us to believe that what God created was perfect for his purpose.

Perhaps.  But the Bible still doesn't say it was perfect.

 

We know that sin cannot exist in the presence of God. Yet God walked freely with Adam and Eve in Eden, communing with them. Therefore Adam and Eve, as created, were sinless. There was no death, no discomfort in Eden, just a perfect existence with God their Creator.

No death is something else that is not supported by the text.  With no death and God's command to "be fruitful and multiply," the Earth would be covered several feet deep in e-coli within a couple years.

 

Of course, something else we don't know is how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Fall.

 

We all know what happened. Eve gave in to the whiles of the devil and disobeyed God, causing her and Adam to be banished from Eden and all of creation to be cursed. God cannot commune with sin. Adam and Eve blew it, and all of creation has suffered the consequences to this day.

This is where I see the problem with a "perfect" creation.  It is often pointed out that man has a "flawed" and/or "sinful" nature.  That flawed nature is what led man to sin.  Simply stated, if man's nature is flawed then man was flawed.  If man was flawed, so was creation. 

 

Is it possible God knew of man's flaw and that's why He didn't say His creation was "perfect?"

 

Those communing with God in the new heaven will be in their glorified bodies, as were Adam and Eve before the fall, and before they "discovered" their nakedness. Remember, they were created in God's perfect image.

This is another point.  What is meant by man being created in the "image" of God?  My position is that God is a spiritual being with no physical form.  For example, He may choose to appear as a burning bush.  It seems clear to me that since God has no physical form, He made us in His spiritual image.

 

It is equally clear to me that the death spoken of in the early chapters of Genesis not physical death, but the spiritual death of sin.



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 June 2017 - 05:44 PM

One other related thing - God created us with intricate DNA repair proteins - that can detect and repair incorrectly copied DNA.  If God gave us those repair mechanisms from the very beginning - this means God knew that even Adam's DNA would not be copied 100% accurate all the time, and would need to be corrected.  I can only  chalk this up to the limits of the laws of physics and chemistry.  God created us with awesome internal mechanisms - but mechanisms that rely on physics and chemistry that can only accomplish a limited degree of perfection.

 

I would say that from the moment God created this world and the physical laws that govern it - He knew that there was a limit to how perfect those laws could make it.

Well, the "perfectionists" would argue there were no incorrect copies of DNA before the Fall.

 

I would say that God is fully capable of using the physical laws and chemical processes to achieve His goals.



#5 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:25 PM

 

One other related thing - God created us with intricate DNA repair proteins - that can detect and repair incorrectly copied DNA.  If God gave us those repair mechanisms from the very beginning - this means God knew that even Adam's DNA would not be copied 100% accurate all the time, and would need to be corrected.  I can only  chalk this up to the limits of the laws of physics and chemistry.  God created us with awesome internal mechanisms - but mechanisms that rely on physics and chemistry that can only accomplish a limited degree of perfection.

 

I would say that from the moment God created this world and the physical laws that govern it - He knew that there was a limit to how perfect those laws could make it.

Well, the "perfectionists" would argue there were no incorrect copies of DNA before the Fall.

 

I would say that God is fully capable of using the physical laws and chemical processes to achieve His goals.

 

Agree to a point...

Yes God initiated the laws with a purpose in mind.

The laws will achieve what they are able to achieve - but obviously not what they are unable to achieve.

I think evolution requires more of the physical laws than the laws are able to give.

Physical laws can't govern code.  The pairing of the proper amino acids to the proper codon is not ultimately achieved by chemistry.  Yes, the chemistry is intricate and wonderful to build proteins from amino acid building blocks - but when you continue to take one step back, you ultimately find the chemistry is guided by information - and without that information, the chemistry would be incapable of producing anything worthwhile.



#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 June 2017 - 09:58 PM

 

I would say that God is fully capable of using the physical laws and chemical processes to achieve His goals.

Agree to a point...

Yes God initiated the laws with a purpose in mind.

The laws will achieve what they are able to achieve - but obviously not what they are unable to achieve.

Agreed.

 

I think evolution requires more of the physical laws than the laws are able to give.

On that, I'm not so certain.

 

Physical laws can't govern code.  The pairing of the proper amino acids to the proper codon is not ultimately achieved by chemistry.  Yes, the chemistry is intricate and wonderful to build proteins from amino acid building blocks - but when you continue to take one step back, you ultimately find the chemistry is guided by information - and without that information, the chemistry would be incapable of producing anything worthwhile.

Physical laws can't govern code.  That much is true.

 

In evolution, the code is self-modifying.  The physical laws can govern which modifications will be more efficient.  Genetic algorithms used to design spacecraft radio antennas are a good example of such a process..

 

In addition, every cell in our bodies is formed by natural chemical reactions acting within the physical laws.... including the DNA.

 

I don't think we fully understand exactly what biological information is or how it works.

 

Is there such a thing as biological information?  Certainly.

Is there a "code" by which it works?  No doubt.

Is the chemistry "intricate and wonderful?"  Absolutely.  The chemistry is complex beyond belief.

Do we understand what biological information is?  Not really.

Do we understand how the "code" controls the chemistry?   We're only at the beginning stages of that.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 June 2017 - 04:39 AM

 

 

Piasan: Genetic algorithms used to design spacecraft radio antennas are a good example of such a process..

 

No, it's a notoriously bad example evolutionists use, because those antennas have to be inherently, "random" as shapes. Shaping isn't at all similar to the high level of specific complexity in say an eyeball, where placement/arrangement of parts has to be highly specific and correct.

 

Now if you want to create an algorithm for the creation of a car or helicopter, which has specified complexity such as correct placement of car wheels, tyres, brakes, like eyes have correct placement of pupil, retina, receptors, choroid, etc...then please demonstrate how we can get that type of design with evolutionary algorithms.

 

:acigar:



#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 June 2017 - 09:50 PM

 

Piasan: Genetic algorithms used to design spacecraft radio antennas are a good example of such a process..

 

No, it's a notoriously bad example evolutionists use, because those antennas have to be inherently, "random" as shapes. Shaping isn't at all similar to the high level of specific complexity in say an eyeball, where placement/arrangement of parts has to be highly specific and correct.

Here's a picture of an antenna designed by a genetic algorithm:

220px-St_5-xband-antenna.jpg

 

The 2006 NASA ST5 spacecraft antenna. This complicated shape was found by an evolutionary computer design program to create the best radiation pattern.

(Wikipedia)

 

Notice the "placement/arrangement of parts has to be highly specific and correct."  Notice also that it certainly has the hall-marks of what I would identify as the result of a "designer" but it still appears to be a random pattern of bending rather than the result of a deliberate design.  In fact, it looks a lot like someone at an office somewhere simply took a paper clip and bent it with no purpose at all in mind.

 

The "evolved antenna" serves as an excellent example where a process of "random mutation" and "fitness selection" results in an optimized "design" that appears for all the world to be "random."

 

:acigar:

 

 You really shouldn't smoke, mike.  It's bad for you.



#9 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 June 2017 - 03:43 AM

Physical laws can't govern code.  The pairing of the proper amino acids to the proper codon is not ultimately achieved by chemistry. 

I'm not sure what you mean by this - are you saying that transfer RNAs aren't chemicals or break the currently-known laws of chemistry, or do you mean something different?
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users