There was no death before the fall. But, do plants live
and die in the manner of animals? How about insects
or fish? One thing the bible mentions when talking
about Noah and the flood, is animals having the breath
of life. I think only they and man counted as far as death.
So are patents and non-disclosure agreements.
They stifle free flow of progress.
Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. An animal finds a way to get
stronger or faster. He passes on this trait and his offspring
have an advantage over others. Doesn't work though. And
it's why no evolution works.
As opposed to the religion of evolution, which is set in stone?
Pat34Lee in Post #323:
<< There was no death before the fall. >>
Genesis does seem to imply that Adam and Eve were not subject to death before the fall from grace and expulsion from Eden. It doesn't say whether the same applies to animals and plants, so there is no reason to think that animals were immortal at that time.
Pat34Lee in Post #324:
<< So are patents and non-disclosure agreements.
They stifle free flow of progress. >>
Patents and non-disclosure agreements are very different things. To get a patent, an inventor is required to disclose his invention. One of my employers, who had about ten patents, thought that they end up working against the inventor by forcing disclosure. The original purpose of patents is to enable an inventor to profit from an invention, and so to give inventors incentive to invent by making it profitable.
I don't see how either a patent or a non-disclosure agreement compares to a statement of faith, which could easily block any research that doesn't lead to the desired ideological result.
Pat34Lee in Post #325:
<< Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. >>
My High School biology teacher specifically taught us that Lamarck's did believe that animals, and maybe even plants, had a desire to change. So it is about a “desire to change” as well as the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Pat34Lee in Post #327:
<< As opposed to the religion of evolution, which is set in stone? >>
Why would anyone think evolution is a religion? Why would anyone think it is “set in stone”? Our beliefs about human evolution are changing with new discoveries. Our view of the evolution of animals are also changing with new discoveries.
Only creationists have a vested interest in saying that evolution is a religion. I'll give you an example. A few years ago, in the town I live in, someone rented a building and hung out a sign, “Church of Evolution”. Was there a Church of Evolution? Was anyone interested in attending such an organzation? Nope. It turned out that the person who rented the building and hung out the sign was a fundamentalist minister, a creationist, who was trying to prove that evolution is a religion.