I wrote to Aig

[Chris†opher Paul]

Here is a letter I just sent them, I am eager to see the explanation. I thought some of you might be interested too.

--

I read on your website about physical death coming into the world through the Original Sin. I looked through your "Illustrations" but I didn't see the answer to a question on this topic, so I am writing to you.

I was confused because when I look at these Scriptures, it seems that this was a spiritual death.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.

Roman 5:18

In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.

If this was a physical death and a physical life, then why do we still die?

A spiritual death makes more sense to me given God's comment to Jesus in Genesis:

Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.

If man was suppose to live forever, then this comment makes no sense. How could man eat from this tree and live forever, if man was created to live forever in the first place?

Can you help?

 

[JesusServant]

I am interested in seeing their opinion on this matter.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Evolution requires death.

 

[JesusServant]

How on earth did you read that before I deleted it?  You weren't even in the thread? lol

 

[ashibaka]

Hmm.... because it's a problem with taking Genesis literally?

[ediot] Oops... JesusServant deleted his post. ;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by JesusServant
How on earth did you read that before I deleted it?  You weren't even in the thread? lol

Im Catholic, and therefore, I have magical powers. At least, thats what I am told by protestants that misunderstand me.

See: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=530816#post530816

 

[JesusServant]

yeah, sorry, I type faster than I think   I forgot we could discuss creation in here...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Technically evolution does not require death, only reproduction. If the parents die or not has no genetic impact on the offsprings genes.

Just as my parents didn't have to die for me to have slightly different genes than them.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Technically evolution does not require death, only reproduction. If the parents die or not has no genetic impact on the offsprings genes.

Just as my parents didn't have to die for me to have slightly different genes than them.

Yes it does, else natural selection would be meaningless.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Actually, while death is one of the means by which differential reproduction is brought about, it is the differential reproduction that is necessary for natural selection, not necessarily death. Selection acts on successive generations. Death's contribution is to prevent reproduction by an individual at a certain point (and secondarily to decrease the burden of consumption on the local environment.)

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Yes, there wouldnt be anything selected, so no evolution, at least not how it is understood today. I suppose you could have mutants, but they would live right along with the same old original DNA clusters.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why would a lack of death end natural selection?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Why would a lack of death end natural selection?

Because anyone could mate as much as they wanted I suppose.

 

[ashibaka]

There would certainly be much less natural selection-- animals wouldn't die, so mutations wouldn't benefit in any way from having a helpful mutation

 

[Jerry Smith]

There would certainly be much less natural selection-- animals wouldn't die, so mutations wouldn't benefit in any way from having a helpful mutation

Again, death is not the real issue. As long as there is differential reproduction, then natural selection will continue to operate from one generation to the next.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

differential reproduction?

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by s0uljah
differential reproduction?

Darwin redefined...

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Oh yes, thanks, that makes more sense. So the best organism is really one that can date the most, I get it now.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Oh yes, thanks, that makes more sense. So the best organism is really one that can date the most, I get it now.

Something like that... It gets complex. You have a spectrum between what are termed K strategists & R strategists. K strategists (like humans) have fewer offspring but put most of their resources toward making sure those offspring are able to reproduce. R strategists put most of their resources toward producing as many offspring as possible - giving more offspring a shot at reproduction. There are a number of variables that affect how often an individual reproduces, and how likely their offspring are to do the same. All of this goes toward natural selection. Death is a major factor in all of this but technically, it could work without death. The absense of death would definitely change the equations of population genetics. Of course, it will also quickly lead to impossible overpopulation problems. Imagine how Eve could have reached the apple, up to her neck in a week's worth of bacteria and insects!

 

[Morat]

From what I understand, it's not just "He who has the most kids, wins" it's "He who has the most kids who have kids" wins.

After all, your kids can be Lords of the Jungle, yet sterile...