Question for evolutionist

[1611AV]

=Lion Hearted Man;56863826 To evolution, who cares if you live to 100 if 16-30 is the prime reproductive window?

Agree. But further, why would evolution care at all?

 

[pgp_protector]

Agree. But further, why would evolution care at all?

It's not that evolution cares or doesn't care, it's just that their hasn't been any selective pressure for longer life after one's DNA has passed onto another generation.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Agree. But further, why would evolution care at all?

Read the "Selfish Gene."

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Agree. But further, why would evolution care at all?

Evolution directly affects reproductive strategies. Selective pressure demands that organisms be good at surviving long enough to reproduce. There was no real selective pressure to make our bodies efficient enough to live to a hundred.

For example, cholesterol and lipid metabolism is ridiculously terrible in humans. Because our bodies are so bad a cholesterol homeostasis, by the time we each reach 50-60+ years, our arteries are coated with plaque, which leads to hypertension and heart attacks. This is the leading cause of death in America. But that didn't matter at all when our ancestors were evolving methods of cholesterol homeostasis. Our ancestors lived such short lives, it only mattered that they'd hit puberty and have offspring. The method of cholesterol homeostasis was good enough to get people through that period. So few of them lived to what we call "middle age" that there was no reason to change anything. But now that we artificially extend our lifespans by staving off infection and managing chronic conditions, we pushing the limits of the human body's efficiency.

Dyslipidemia is a trait that expresses itself so late that it really is embedded in our lineage. Nothing will really ever change our inherent lack of ability to efficiently deal with cholesterol, because the trait doesn't interfere with our ability to reproduce.

 

[Assyrian]

the phrase "three in one" is mentioned and it is in the comma....

that phrase would have to come from somewhere...

From verse 8.
The comma makes no mention of the preposition 'in' it simply says 1John 5:7 'these three are one'.
Verse 8 has the preposition eis 'into',
1John 5:8 'these three are in one', or 'these three are into one'.

 

[createdtoworship]

From verse 8.
The comma makes no mention of the preposition 'in' it simply says 1John 5:7 'these three are one'.
Verse 8 has the preposition eis 'into',
1John 5:8 'these three are in one', or 'these three are into one'.

you are correct, however it is a strange coincidence that Augustine states three in one in the same spot it actually occurs.

perhaps this is a better quote from 380 (4th century)

in Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) "As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.""

and cyprian (one who quoted copiously and textually in the 3rd Century)

"The Lord says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one.""

 

[Tiberius]

because it's koine greek, and I don't speak it. But you are right to a point, I like youngs literal translation. It seems to do a hefty job.

So what? If it was that important to God that people get the original meanings, he could have had it so that greek was the main language worldwide instead of English. Certainly a small thing compared to some of the stuff he did in the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

you are correct, however it is a strange coincidence that Augustine states three in one in the same spot it actually occurs.

A coincidence he states it in the same spot it occurs outside the comma?

perhaps this is a better quote from 380 (4th century)

in Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) "As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.""

and cyprian (one who quoted copiously and textually in the 3rd Century)

"The Lord says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one.""

Yes, it is interesting how we see the comma starting to appear among some Latin writers but not others like Augustine, and not among the Greek fathers. This what you would expect if the comma was an interpolation that arose in one Latin manuscript and was passed on to manuscripts copied from it, while other Latin manuscripts and all the Greek manuscripts didn't have the comma.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Agree. But further, why would evolution care at all?

Evolution doesn't "care" about anything any more than gravity "cares" if you fall out a window -- it's a process, nothing more.

 

[createdtoworship]

A coincidence he states it in the same spot it occurs outside the comma?

Yes, it is interesting how we see the comma starting to appear among some Latin writers but not others like Augustine, and not among the Greek fathers. This what you would expect if the comma was an interpolation that arose in one Latin manuscript and was passed on to manuscripts copied from it, while other Latin manuscripts and all the Greek manuscripts didn't have the comma.

yeah I thought it was interesting too. At least if they forged it, they had some basis for it.

 

[Lillen]

Another way to look at the trinity, if we go there, is the phrase used in deut 6:4, Elohim is in plural why it says elohim echod-- Echod means one in hebrew. Which makes perfect sense that the plural essens of God is united as one. "Gods is one!"

Another way to argue for the trinity using the bible is that threough the whole bible we have three persons, that are distinct but still adressed as God since there also only is one God according to the bible we conclude that these three persons are the one God.

Genesis 1:1-3 in context with the rest of the bible has three devine constants that were involved with the creation. 1, God, 2, the spirit of God and 3 The word of God... all three created the world and are thus almighty, which makes us drawn the conclusion that they are God. Throughout the bible we read about these three persons adressed as distinct persons. God - the Father and Jesus Christs, and finally the holy ghost. Many people sees the holy Ghost as a power or a force, But the bible teaches that he is a distinct person from The Father and the Son, He can speak and think, moroever he can greive for us - all attributes of a person...

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Another way to look at the trinity, if we go there, is the phrase used in deut 6:4, Elohim is in plural why it says elohim echod-- Echod means one in hebrew. Which makes perfect sense that the plural essens of God is united as one. "Gods is one!"

Another way to argue for the trinity using the bible is that threough the whole bible we have three persons, that are distinct but still adressed as God since there also only is one God according to the bible we conclude that these three persons are the one God.

Genesis 1:1-3 in context with the rest of the bible has three devine constants that were involved with the creation. 1, God, 2, the spirit of God and 3 The word of God... all three created the world and are thus almighty, which makes us drawn the conclusion that they are God. Throughout the bible we read about these three persons adressed as distinct persons. God - the Father and Jesus Christs, and finally the holy ghost. Many people sees the holy Ghost as a power or a force, But the bible teaches that he is a distinct person from The Father and the Son, He can speak and think, moroever he can greive for us - all attributes of a person...

And there you have it. God is just like us... just moreso.

One could make a case for god being created in man's image. In fact, all the available evidence suggests this to be the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there you have it. God is just like us... just moreso.

Just out of curiosity, were you a Mormon at one time?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Just out of curiosity, were you a Mormon at one time?

Why do you ask?

 

[1611AV]

Just out of curiosity, were you a Mormon at one time?

Ask me that question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ask me that question.

Was he a Mormon at one time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you ask?

Don't they say: As God once was, man is?

(Or something like that?)

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Don't they say: As God once was, man is?

(Or something like that?)

Yes, they do say that. Again, all deities seem to be just better versions of us.

I was raised Southern Baptist (not KJO though).

 

[AV1611VET]

I was raised Southern Baptist (not KJO though).

Okay, thank you -- I was just being nosey.

For the record, I was raised American Baptist.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Okay, thank you -- I was just being nosey.

For the record, I was raised American Baptist.

Why did you make the switch to SB?