Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Thanks for your patience. Its been good to discuss these issues I appreciate the replies.
>>Dear Mark Thank you. But I must end with 3 comments. 1 Using my"biblical glasses" I find that God feeds them (the carnivores). You don't candidly admit it, but you know it is true. I won't bother to quote references because I am sure you know them too. No "interpretation" of this fact will change the fact.<<
Yes one can argue God feeds all the creatures. But do 'biblical glasses'' mean 'God feeds' creatures that feed on men (made in His image)? Or how about, creatures that feed on their young, or cannibalism? You might 'quote references' but we know that's not 'very good'. No other 'interpretation' changes this fact. Only evolutionary theory argues suffering and death is good.
Biblical glasses (and observation of nature) argue that because Adam sinned; death entered "the world" with a universal effect. Because Rom.5.12 doesn't exclude death from half of "the world". And other passages confirm sins effect on nature. All creation is now corrupted and it's mans fault, not God's.
>>2 You don't get my point. I am not affected by any evolution theory, but John Mackay states it as his belief for carnivores and attributes it to them defending themselves. He is exactly like evolutionary NZ biologists who invented crazy reasons why coprosmas "became" twisted and tortuous - viz: moas ate on them - but at least they stated it tentatively while Mackay doesn't.<<
'Not affected by any evolution theory'? You fooled me. The glasses you wear explains your biblical interpretation and view of nature.
Mackay has biblical glasses on, he believes the bible. He says that has the best explanation to the small changes we see within the animal kinds. Since the changes don't involve increasing information, Darwinian evolution doesn't explain what has gone wrong with creation. Many theologians and scientists find no fault with that interpretation. So, there is no need for your animosity towards Mackay (Morris or AiG) or Christians who believe the bible as its written.
>>3 You don't get my point again but continue to attribute to me unworthy implications of God. Leibnitz "knows" what the character of God would do, and he was wrong. You "know" that God's character would not let him make carnivores or feed them, but He did and He does. Bertrand Russell "knows" that if God existed he wouldn't allow suffering of children, but He does. Many "know" that a God of love could not allow people to endure Hell, but He does, and is no less a God of love. Yours sincerely David<<
If I 'continue to attribute' to you 'unworthy implications of God', its because you said, “Psa 104 is an undistorted picture, including sin, death, catastrophe; the writer rejoices in it and so do I.” According to your belief, ‘nature’ reveals God to be the author of violence, suffering, cruelty, pain and death ‘nature’ teaches that God struggled to create over millions of years, so He is not all powerful, loving or good. Your problem with Genesis means you don’t understand what’s wrong on earth. In the end, God becomes an evil monster & can't create without faults. Bertrand Russell (with evolutionary glasses) describes a sadistic God who cares nothing for the life he creates. That's because nature has a limited and flawed revelation.
As said before, if you won’t understand this fact you will have “a sick and godless view” about the earth and God. Progressive Creationism imputes blame on God for the suffering and death on earth. It questions God’s goodness, Christ’s atonement and scriptural authority. It has God 'allowing' innocent creatures (with no connection to man or sin) to die in the trillions for millions of years.
For you the world has been and always will be a tough, grizzly place made by God. But that is not the correct explanation according the bible. I hope and pray our correspondence has been useful in your studies. And feel free should you wish to write in the future.