[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's demonstrably true. YE creationism's doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. He say that life was created by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

So...another God did the origional "life ex nihilo"

No. The real God did it by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

Why do you find it so hard to comprehend these few simple words barb?

You seem to have a hard time accepting Genesis. I don't understand why.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If that isn't "life ex nihilo" then nothing is.

Sorry, it's not. He's quite specific. He says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. And that's certainly not life ex nihilo.

You can't escape it Barb. At some point God created everything from nothing unless you believe molecules were eternal.

The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from previously-created things. That's what God says. Let Him decide.

You're the one who is forced to disregard God precise exact words Barb not literal Bible believers.
I take God's explanation literally, you do not.

Since you refuse to accept His word in Genesis, it seems pointless to claim otherwise.

So it's perplexing when you state that by accepting God's exact words, we somehow are contradicting God's words.

I didn't say that. But I'm in good company. You revised what He said, too.

What you are in effect saying is not directed toward the literalist Barb, but rather you are challenging God Himself by stating He doesn't mean exactly what He says.

I told you He does mean exactly what He says. He says that the earth and waters brought forth life. Why not just accept it? Life was not created from nothing, He says.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello brother.
OK, I’m honestly trying to comprehend exactly what you believe the scriptures are describing, so if I come across as sarcastic or arrogant in any way please know it is not my intention.
I have gone through a lot of my posts and I see that I have been a bit of a smart-aleck towards you barb.
I am going to do better from here on in, so I am sorry for pushing the envelope with you in the past.

Bronzesnake wrote; so...another God did the original "life ex nihilo"

No. The real God did it by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

Useing the term "natural" is revealing due to the fact that God is supernatural Barb...anyway...
Could you please show me scriptures which corroborate this idea of a pre-existing creation Barb?
I will accept inference, but not simple declaration. I believe that is fair would you agree?

Bronzesnake wrote; why do you find it so hard to comprehend these few simple words barb?

You seem to have a hard time accepting Genesis. I don't understand why.

Touché! LOL! :biglol

Bronzesnake wrote; Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If that isn't "life ex nihilo" then nothing is.

Sorry, it's not. He's quite specific. He says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. And that's certainly not life ex nihilo.

Hold on a minute broseph.
Where did the Earth and waters come from?
Also, you stop at this scripture and lose the proper context that you would have gotten had you have read further.
When you read Gen 1:20 on its own, it is easy to extrapolate a variety of possibilities including evolution as well as creation. This verse standing on its own doesn’t lead us to a position where we can reliably and confidently infer either evolution or creation Barb.

So you read the verse on its own without the qualifying proceeding scriptures and you seem to simply declare evolution. However when we read the qualifying scriptures, we can very reliably understand that God actually brought forth “abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.â€

And when we read on we see that God has created fully formed and functioning great whales and birds for example and this is still legitimately the “beginning†as God Himself clearly tells us this life was created only a few days into His entire creation. It was day five for animals, and day six for humans.
How do you deal with this scripture?
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

If we read these verses in their context, we have a much stronger argument for special creation than we do for Darwinian evolution Barb. Look again at the details of this short line for example... “Abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.â€
In spite of the specific details of created birds, great whales, cattle and man, we see these animals as moving in a manner than indicates fully functioning life forms such as flying birds - and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.â€

Barb, it appears that theistic evolutionists are choosing to ignore these extremely important clues and details of specific animals such as birds which are flying right from the very beginning of their creation.

The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from previously-created things. That's what God says. Let Him decide.

Barbarian Quote;“Life was created from previously-created things"
With all due respect, that is somewhat convoluted Barb. OK just as a debating point, life at some point was created ex nihilo, do we agree?

But to be specific, could you please post any scriptures which describe life being created by previously created life?

Alright Barb, here’s an honest question; If we assume God used evolutionary process to get to where we are today (for arguments sake), why would He have even chosen to do things this way? And why would God create a situation where His own descriptions of creation in the extreme very least infer that He created animals as we know them today, cattle, great whales, birds, bugs, insects, bats, humans etc?

God goes out of His way to make sure we understand e created everything in six literal days. Now you can disagree with that Barb, but the scriptures do refer to sunrise, sunset - day 1. Sunrise, sunset – day 2 etc. God also drives His message home by making sure we realize these created animals such as whales, and birds, are created after their own kind! That should remove any lingering ideas about speciation Barb.

It’s akin to me telling you I will sell you a Doberman puppy for $2,000 and I ship a Jack Russell to you and when you protest, I simply tell you this is a pre-Doberman; that over generations if you are clever, you can breed and cross breed and experiment with many varieties of dogs with this Jack and you will eventually get your Doberman. Yes, it’s convoluted however in the end you will, or at least theoretically you will get a Doberman...actually, your ancestor will actually get the Doberman!

From my origional assertion that I was selling a doberman, you would be extreemly upset with me if I then told you I actually didn't say that, but rather I was describing a life which is in the process of being invoked via evolution from pre-existing life.

Alright, now could you please analyze a few scriptures for me please barb so I can get a feel for how you are interpreting Genesis?

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Do you believe this scripture infers an evolutionary process where billions, or millions of years are required to get from a supposed early form of life to what we see today?
If so, how can you extrapolate? Please be as specific as you can Barb.
Gen 1:20 is qualified by –
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

You see why I am struggling to understand your prospective Barb?
Of course I’m not saying “I’m right, you’re wrong nah, nah, nah,nah,nahhhâ€
I am truly attempting to find any way to interpret the scriptures which give what seem to be clear and unambiguous details of specific creation of fully formed and functional animals “after their own kindâ€, such as the “great whalesâ€, in a manner where for the sake of this debate; I can come to conclude God used evolutionary process to create all life on Earth. No matter how I try to twist, or manipulate these scriptures the only way I can come to your conclusions is for me to disregard what God is telling us.
I can't even find an ambiguous clue to use as a platform for even inferring any evolutionary process Barb.

These few scriptures as an example to make the point of special creation tell us that over the course of six days, and one final day of rest, God created the Heavens and the earth, and all life as fully functioning and specific animals after their own kind.


So all the way back in the “beginning†God created the heavens and the Earth; so space, planets and Earth.

God says that before He began to mould Earth, it was dark without light, and void of any landscape or life. It also directly infers the planet was covered completely with water.
So yes, we can indeed infer things from the scriptures Barb, however in order to be accurate we must in the very least have a platform from which to infer from.

God says - Gen 1:2 and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And so we have excellent references from which to draw certain conclusions such as the earth being covered in water.

Also, way back six thousand years ago we have a clear piece of historical fact where we know “great whales†were created fully formed and after their own kind.
God does not give us any platform from which we could even remotely infer that He seeded the planet with primitive life forms, which then mutated over extended time periods to the point where we have the great variety of complex life we see today.
The fact that evolution was propagated as a means to refute the very existence of God right from its beginnings should be a huge problem for any Christian.

Bronzesnake wrote; so it's perplexing when you state that by accepting God's exact words, we somehow are contradicting God's words.

I didn't say that. But I'm in good company. You revised what He said, too.

Where have I revised Genesis in any way Barb?
I haven’t revised anything I’m quoting exactly from the scriptures.

Take care Barb.

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's demonstrably true. YE creationism's doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. He say that life was created by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

so...another God did the original "life ex nihilo"

Barbarian observes:
No. The real God did it by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

Useing the term "natural" is revealing due to the fact that God is supernatural Barb

But some of His creation is not. And as He says, life was produced by nature as He intended.

..anyway...
Could you please show me scriptures which corroborate this idea of a pre-existing creation Barb?

You haven't read Genesis? He created the earth, and then used the earth to create life. No "ex nihilo." He specifically says that life was not created from nothing.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If that isn't "life ex nihilo" then nothing is.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, it's not. He's quite specific. He says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. And that's certainly not life ex nihilo.

Hold on a minute broseph.
Where did the Earth and waters come from?

Pre-existing creation. The Earth and waters were brought forth by condensation of gas and matter from the explosion of a supernova. And of course, as God says, live was not produced ex nihilo, but rather from that already-created matter.

When you read Gen 1:20 on its own, it is easy to extrapolate a variety of possibilities including evolution as well as creation. This verse standing on its own doesn’t lead us to a position where we can reliably and confidently infer either evolution or creation Barb.

It merely shows that "life ex nihilo" is not a Christian doctrine.

So you read the verse on its own without the qualifying proceeding scriptures and you seem to simply declare evolution.

No. First, I reminded you that the pre-existing creation of God was used by Him, citing Genesis 1:1. And second, I didn't say it supported evolution; I showed you that it ruled out YE creationism.

And when we read on we see that God has created fully formed and functioning great whales and birds

He did indeed. You just don't approve of the way He did it. Of course, all living things are fully formed. Even the transitional ones. You've chosen to ignore the parts of His word that you don't like, and to rework parts you think might agree with you.

Barbarian observes:
The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from previously-created things. That's what God says. Let Him decide.

With all due respect, that is somewhat convoluted Barb.

He's very plain about it. Live was created by natural means from things He had already created.

OK just as a debating point, life at some point was created ex nihilo, do we agree?

Sorry, I have to go with God's word on this. He says otherwise.

But to be specific, could you please post any scriptures which describe life being created by previously created life?

And you've tried again to change what I said. This is why it's beginning to look as though you aren't being honest. God created life from things already created, not ex nihilo. At some point, non-living matter became sufficiently organized to be living. God says He did it from the earth and waters, which the evidence seems to support.

Alright Barb, here’s an honest question; If we assume God used evolutionary process to get to where we are today (for arguments sake), why would He have even chosen to do things this way?

There's a hint in the fact that engineers have recently discovered that it's more efficient to use evolutionary processes than design for very complicated problems.

And why would God create a situation where His own descriptions of creation in the extreme very least infer that He created animals as we know them today, cattle, great whales, birds, bugs, insects, bats, humans etc?

"As we know them today" is your addition to scripture. It's not in God's word.

God goes out of His way to make sure we understand e created everything in six literal days. Now you can disagree with that Barb, but the scriptures do refer to sunrise, sunset - day 1. Sunrise, sunset – day 2 etc.

That has never been the Christian position. St. Augustine pointed out that they could not be literal days, mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

God also drives His message home by making sure we realize these created animals such as whales, and birds, are created after their own kind!

All organisms are created after they own kind. What riles you, is the way He does it.

That should remove any lingering ideas about speciation Barb.

Speciation, as you learned, is an observed phenomenon. Even honest creationists now admit it. And maybe some less than honest ones, too...

Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Maybe you should learn something about creationism, too?

Alright, now could you please analyze a few scriptures for me please barb so I can get a feel for how you are interpreting Genesis?

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Do you believe this scripture infers an evolutionary process where billions, or millions of years are required to get from a supposed early form of life to what we see today?

It merely repeats God's word that He created living things from pre-existing creation. It no more supports evolution than it supports protons. Nor does it rule out either of them.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Again, He shows that he did not create life ex nihilo, but rather from nature.

You see why I am struggling to understand your prospective Barb?

Of course. You're very uncomfortable with the way He did it, and you want to find a way to deny it.

I am truly attempting to find any way to interpret the scriptures which give what seem to be clear and unambiguous details of specific creation of fully formed and functional animals “after their own kindâ€,

All species are created after their own kind. But what bothers you, is that speciation does it.

Also, way back six thousand years ago we have a clear piece of historical fact where we know “great whales†were created fully formed and after their own kind.

Indeed. But of course, millions of years ago, they looked a lot different.

The fact that evolution was propagated as a means to refute the very existence of God right from its beginnings should be a huge problem for any Christian.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Even Darwin attributed the origin of life thusly:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence from Darwin's The Origin of Species (my 1872 edition)

so it's perplexing when you state that by accepting God's exact words, we somehow are contradicting God's words.

Barbarian observes:
I didn't say that. But I'm in good company. You revised what He said, too.

Where have I revised Genesis in any way Barb?

Your addition "as we know them today" is not found in Genesis. That is your addition. If you pretend I said things I did not, you will find that such behavior will do you little good.

 

[David505]

Here's your chance. Try me.

When Christ returns to rule on Earth, will plants and animals continue to evolve?

 

[jasoncran]

cant you start that in another thread as i and other have been debated that.

 

[David505]

cant you start that in another thread as i and other have been debated that.

Ok, sure.

Can you point me to the appropriate Theistic Evolution topic so I can study up.

Thanks.

 

[jasoncran]

where were the carnivores before the fall? in the science forum. and read the posts(all revelant) you will see.

 

[David505]

where were the carnivores before the fall? in the science forum. and read the posts(all revelant) you will see.

I followed your instruction and searched: "where were the carnivores before the fall?"

I found: "What did predators eat before the fall?"

I read the three pages of comments.

I think The Barbarian should be allowed to answer my question.

 

[jasoncran]

if he wishes to do so thats fine then. good luck i havent gotten much on that as you have seen that.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I might be able to fill in for The Barbarian on that question of yours David

As long as there are organisms alive and reproducing, they will continue to evolve

If you want to learn more you can head to this topic :D

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48081

Feel free to ask more questions there

 

[jasoncran]

evo he wants to know barb reconciles the book of genesis account of the flood.

 

[Evointrinsic]

oh, lol, i misread then. hahaha :D

 

[David505]

I might be able to fill in for The Barbarian on that question of yours David

As long as there are organisms alive and reproducing, they will continue to evolve

If you want to learn more you can head to this topic :D

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48081

Feel free to ask more questions there

Thanks Evointrinsic,

I should say at the outset that I do not favor evolution.

I assume the proponents of theistic evolution mean an evolutionary process impelled / created by a designer / creator.

Insofar as discussion and debate of evolution / theistic evolution relates primarily to the past, I'd like to get a theistic evolutionist's "take" on the evolutionary process and the future return of Christ.

If Christ returns, and evolution contines, then does this imply that Christ evermore presides over an incomplete (continually evolving) universe? May this also have implications respecting our conception of, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." -- Hebrews 13:8

Thanks for filling in.

 

[Evointrinsic]

No problem Although Theistic Evolution is really only saying that "...classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

There really isn't much of another option (as in another Theory of Evolution, other than Darwinian) that has much gravity surrounding it (and I use the term gravity in a non-literal sense ;) ). Technically Theistic Evolution is the same as Darwin's Theory of Evolution, just an abbreviated statement that says god and evolution are compatible.

The Theory of Evolution simply explains a natural phenomenon. "Theistically" speaking, God created everything, including nature (well, as is considered by Christians at least). If god created everything, that would include life and the things that occur within it (such as reproduction and that kind of stuff), than god created evolution. And if we accept that divergence happens, we can still take the phrase that god created the plants and the animals and man. We can still, than, accept that Man is gods prime creation. The only difference is that in Theistic Evolution, animals and plants and all that didn't suddenly appear in their modern form, but "grew" through successive generations.

I'd like to get a theistic evolutionist's "take" on the evolutionary process and the future return of Christ.

I may not be able to speak on their behalf for what will happen with the future return of Christ, but their "take" on evolution should be identical. (please mistake me if I am wrong though)

If Christ returns, and evolution continues, then does this imply that Christ evermore presides over an incomplete (continually evolving) universe?

The word evolution in the sense of the universe is much different from Biological evolution. The only thing that would be a requirement for Biological evolution to continue would be that any organism continues to live and reproduce with variation. Evolution is merely an intrinsic property of life, just as death is an intrinsic property of life. If life ceases to exist death does not continue, right?

I can only go so far on this topic though I can't answer the biblical questions unfortunately :D

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'

Well, let's see what He has to say about it...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.


He doesn't agree. And He was there. Why not just accept it the way He said He did it?

There's a lot more YE sources out there.

Your problem is that God isn't a YE creationist. Genesis directly contradicts your new doctrine.

Barbarian observes:
And note that the creationist completely ignores God's word in Genesis.

"And note that the creationist completely ignores God's word in Genesis." You're being facetious right?

To be precise, YE creationism is contrary to God's word in Genesis. I should have made that distinction. Some kinds of creationism are not necessarily contrary to His word.

You can make a statement like this, and the fact that it’s you who are guilty of that very accusation is completely lost on you.

It's very clear. You claim God created living things from nothing. He claims He created them from the earth and waters. So it's not really much of a choice to decide Who is right, um?

Barbarian observes:
I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

How can you equate God's creation with "natural means�

You think you were created by God, um? He used natural means to make you.

Why are you always trying to take away God's omniscient abilities?

I'm just accepting it the way He said. For some reason, you object to the way He made living things.

He created the dirt, Barbarian.

And from the dirt, he made living things. Not from nothing. Let Him be God.

You keep trying to infer or outright exclaim that God started life billions of years ago and through a system of evolution

No. The origin of life is not part of evolution. Evolution is the way existing life changes.

which is not to be found or even inferred to any scriptures throughout the entire Bible.

Neither are protons. It's not a science book. Some truths, He left for us to figure out. On the other hand, He specifically rules out YE creationism.

I have repeatedly shown you the exact words used by God to describe a literal creation of fully formed cattle, whales, birds, and humans as well as insects and bugs,

His word says He did it from existing creation, not ex nihilo. But "fully formed" is your addition to His word. Let Him be God and do it His way.

As if God were some kind of a half wit who couldn't find the appropriate words to express an evolutionary creation over billions of years.

So you think He's a half-wit because He didn't tell us about protons or valence electrons? Let God be God.

satan tried this same tactic when He told Eve that God didn't say what She heard Him say when He warned her to stay away from the tree with the lying serpent in it!

Like the serpent, you're trying to deny what He said about the creation of life. He clearly rules out ex nihilo. Let Him be God and accept what He has done without reservations or additions.

 

[Barbarian]

Insofar as discussion and debate of evolution / theistic evolution relates primarily to the past, I'd like to get a theistic evolutionist's "take" on the evolutionary process and the future return of Christ.

If Christ returns, and evolution contines, then does this imply that Christ evermore presides over an incomplete (continually evolving) universe? May this also have implications respecting our conception of, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." -- Hebrews 13:8

Hard to say. It seems that any perfect universe would have to operate by different laws than we currently see. So probably not. Obviously, Jesus as man changed continuously over His lifetime in his body and maturation. That is not what Hebrews is talking about.

 

[Bronzesnake]

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'

Well, let's see what He has to say about it...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

He doesn't agree. And He was there. Why not just accept it the way He said He did it?

Sorry Barb, I’m not playing that game anymore.
Take care brother.

 

[jasoncran]

where does it really say barb, how god did it. he states that he did it but not means by evolution in exact terms.

the main reason evolution fails to line up with proper exgesis of genesis is this(and the references to it)

the flood.
if noah knew what the rainbow was why did the lord just say , the rainbow that you see in the sky it will remind you and me that the flood shall not be used to flood the land of the area(region) that you lived in.

but it didnt it says
i have put the rainbow in the sky to be a reminder that floods shall not used to judge ALl flesh on the earth. barb i know that you are educated the greek word for all is all.
while that doesnt relate to they toe directly but it has the effect on the idea of a local regional flood from the bospurus and the fossil record.
unless you deny the flood altogother


then theres the ages of men, methusalah etc
what does those munbers men to you and what do they signify

and what of the tree of life in both genesis and revalation
both must mean something.


and the word eden means paradise, how can the writers call it paradise when the lord know it had death and disease to it.

does the lord lie to men?

 

[Evointrinsic]

where does it really say barb, how god did it. he states that he did it but not means by evolution in exact terms.

I can fill in for Barbarian for this one. By "did it" i assume you mean created life, correct? If so, then you are 100% correct! I can assure you that god did not, I repeat, did not create life using Evolution.

How do I know this, you may ask? Simple. Because Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Jason, I highly suggest you read the first two posts on this topic (or more if you'd like, but preferably the first two at least)

This is the link to the post you absolutely need to read (scroll up for the first post)

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48081#p584247

It should help you understand what The Theory of Evolution means, feel free to ask questions on there, or make claims as well

The specific part that's most valuable at this point is this.

Evolution is the reason we have life on this planet!

No! Evolution is the phenomenon that occurs when life is on this planet. Abiogenesis is the description of what happens when a planet has no life and then begins to produce life. Technically, the Christian view of Genesis is a theory of Abiogenesis. But evolution does not describe the same thing.

 

[jasoncran]

i know that,but it still doesnt add to that. read on down add i adress that part.

for you see would you call your death a part of paradise?

i know what the the toe states,and that was a bad on my part, but he has to use a process to get to man.

and that isnt theologically sound there, see above. i dont call death and disease a state of utopia for a society
if it is why then do we try to cure all manner of disease and mental health?