If God creates something, then lets it "naturally" unfold, it is a natural process. Now if God let the process unfold, God isn't at every step in the molding process or creation, rather it just unfolds naturally.
No, it unfolds because God set the sequence in motion. It doesn't make it any more "natural" than any other chain reaction effect, simply because without the tampering of an intelligent being, it wouldn't have happened.
It seems impossible to reconcile this with the direct creation of humanity and animals in Genesis 1 and 2 with the passages I've referenced.
Your passages haven't proven anything. You simply took the translation that fits your position best and assumed it was absolute. I, on the other hand think it is too vague to assume that much, and since Genesis 1 clearly states God said "let the Earth... etc" it would be a contradiction to say God molded animals directly with His own hands in genesis 2. On the other hand, if the word in genesis 2 is simply translated as "make" it becomes perfectly acceptable.
And if you advocate God directly intervening at each stage of the molding process as said several messages ago, then you don't really have evolution, rather you have creation.
I have already defined evolution as the belief that animals turned from a single celled organism to what we see today. You're still debating naturalism even though you know damn well it isn't my position. I suggest you stop.
So you're telling me you choose to accept to have all angles covered "just incase"?
No.
I'm sorry, but that seems like a cowardly way to come to a position. I'd much prefer to work with current information to develop my current position, rather than basing it out of ignorance of what "could" possibly be.
tsk tsk didn't even wait to get my answer. You mean basing your position in terms of both scientific knowledge and the scripture and taking the position that fits both? Because that's what I'm doing.
Now, we're discussing evolution and the amount of direct influence God had in creation. How does abiogenesis have anything to do with our discussion? Nevermind if a natural solution to abiogenesis was found it would also go against your postion that God just ignited life. You can't have it both ways here like you do with evolution.
Not really. I can easily say God triggered it all at the big bang and life was bound to happen through a seemingly natural process (I believe it's the second time I'm saying this.
So it would also be a blow to Theistic Evolution.
Nope. Most TEs I've met believe God sparked life through a seemingly natural process already.
Getting back to evolution, a mechanism(s) isn't even decided upon that can reasonably explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary and the picture we see in the fossil record. Anyway, this is getting away from Scripture, which is what we were dealing with...
There is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution. If you wish to discuss this further you can make a new topic.
I think I've presented a strong enough Scriptural case to rule out anything other than God's direct and intimate creation of animals. Strong enough at least to make you consider that God was involved in every step of the evolutionary molding process. That is, until I began questioning how "evolution" had a role if God was involved at every step. After which you reverted back to God created everything and let it unravel. I think you need to consider your position better as it seems as though you're not really sure what you believe was God, and what you believe was natural, in the creation process.
You presented your translation of Genesis out of many possible translations, and I see no reason why it should be set in stone, as noted above. Second, I didn't "revert" to anything. I said that whether God had a hand at every step or simply triggered it and left it to unfold is of no consequence to me. I'm rather surprised that you of all people would purposefully misinterpret my position like this.
Which means what? 