Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
He is -- who do you think gave Satan his job in the first place?
Where I'm from, if you let a mad dog off its leash, you're responsible for its actions as well as your own.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't buy it. God is sounding worse than Satan.
.
Mass extinction is still the same, if God did it or not. So if you get rid of God then how do you explain it? How can you use evolution to explain the death of Darwin's 12 year old daughter? Actually, all God is going to do is to quit restraining mankind and allow them to destroy themselves. He did not tear down the temple, the Romans did. God will protect people, but if they do not want His protection then He will allow them to suffer the consequences. So you can not really blame Him for what man does to himself.I don't buy it. God is sounding worse than Satan.
Mass extinction is still the same, if God did it or not. So if you get rid of God then how do you explain it?
How can you use evolution to explain the death of Darwin's 12 year old daughter?
Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.Scarlet Fever -- what's to explain?
Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.
In the coldest way of things, natural selection was in action by her death: she was vulnerable to the illness, and thus died. Anyone who had a resistance to it would be more likely to survive and reproduce. Her death ensured that her genes wouldn't weaken the gene pool.Explain natural selection. How does Scarlet Fever cause the species to be stronger and survive? She died before she could reproduce herself. Natural selection only works if the species is able to reproduce.
I do not see where life has any advantage over death. It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.The same thing happens with bacterial resistance. Though penicillin kills most bacteria, a few have random mutations that just so happen to code for resistance to penicillin. Once all the vulnerable bacteria are dead, what's left? The resistant strains. And since their comrades are dead, they are free to explode their population, since there's no one to compete with for resources.
No, it does not. A dead organism can't reproduce. A living organism can. That Darwin's daughter died in infancy means she will never have kids, and thus will never disperse her genes. Had she lived into adulthood, she could well have had kids, and thus had a good chance of spreading her genes.I do not see where life has any advantage over death. It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.
I'm not sure what your point is. Fish generally produce enormous quantities of fertilised eggs, but that's simply because so many are eaten or otherwise die. Population numbers can be maintained because the vast quantity of eggs is balanced by the vast quantity that are killed.I remember going to a fish hatchery once. In a man made controled situation they can get most the eggs to hatch and produce fish (97%). In the real world maybe 3% of the eggs survive. Some people feel over population is the problem, when there is nothing to keep things balanced and under control.
I do not see where life has any advantage over death.
It looks like natural selection gives them equal opportunity.
I remember going to a fish hatchery once. In a man made controled situation they can get most the eggs to hatch and produce fish (97%). In the real world maybe 3% of the eggs survive.
Some people feel over population is the problem, when there is nothing to keep things balanced and under control.
Perhaps at one time. But now that they know how to freeze sperm it is no problem for dead men to have babies. If someone somewhere happened to have some Elvis sperm, how much do you think people would pay for that?Survival isn't the be-all and end-all, but being alive it's a pretty big requirement to reproduce, don't you think?
It's possible, but it's also pure speculation. The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That does not leave much room for random selection. Even some evolutionists say that evolution is limited by the structure and the materials. Anywhere you go the elements remain consistant and there is only so many different ways you can fit those elements together. So life is going to remain fairly consistant.It's possible that at one time there was a species of fish that only laid a few eggs at a time, but went extinct. Can you see why?
One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish. God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case. Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.Fish produce many eggs to counteract the high level of predation, but we humans have removed that predation, and harvest the resulting boon of fish.
That said, I don't see how that has any relevance to your objection to natural selection
Quite a lot. But it wouldn't be the first time humans have changed the natured of the game - condoms are a deceptively clever piece of technology that allow us to enjoy all the evolved benefits of sex (pleasure, intimacy, etc) with none of the hard stuff (babies, STDs, etc).Perhaps at one time. But now that they know how to freeze sperm it is no problem for dead men to have babies. If someone somewhere happened to have some Elvis sperm, how much do you think people would pay for that?
It's all a question of scales. From a human point of view, these things take very long indeed. But on geological scales, they can happen very fast indeed. So, depending on the context of the question, an evolutionist might characterise population growth and evolution as very slow (as viewed by a single human over his or her lifetime), or as very fast (as viewed through goelogical strata). For instance, a forest can form relatively quickly - at least, relative to the evolution of the species of tree that is growing.One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish. God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case. Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.
Not that I know of; that's why God documented it in His Diary.
YesNow here's another question...
Could God have made it so the world had evidence that the flood occured?
It's possible, but it's also pure speculation.
The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That does not leave much room for random selection.
Even some evolutionists say that evolution is limited by the structure and the materials. Anywhere you go the elements remain consistant and there is only so many different ways you can fit those elements together. So life is going to remain fairly consistant.
Our planet is a fixed position from the sun. The moon holds it at a tilt so we have seasons.
Science tells us that two or three degrees can make a big difference. But we know it is the atmosphere that determines the conditions for life here on earth.
Not how far we are from the sun. God created the atmosphere and with no atmosphere you have no evolution.
One tree can produce enough seeds to make a forest. One fish can produce enough to make a whole school of fish.
God can create a population very fast and long periods of time are not needed. Evolution seems to think the process is very gradual and that is not the case.
Then another evolutionist comes along and says it all happened very fast. So evolutionists can not seem to agree among themselves.
So why didn't he?
After all, God';s given us two places we can learn about the past. He's given us the Bible, and he's given us the actual world.
Now, if the two of them said the same thing, I wouldn't be here arguing this point with you. I;d be a believer just like you. But the two sources do not say the same thing, even though God could have made sure they did.
So the question is, why didn't he make it so the world had evidence that the flood took place?
Because He cleaned up the mess.So why didn't he?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?