Strategy of the Devil

[Split Rock]

Answers in Genesis has an article that explains the origin of E. coli as evidence for creation, and its pathogenicity as the direct result of God's Curse.



The article goes on to tell us how E. coli was designed by God to produce Vitamin K , Vitamin B12, Niacin (Vitamin B3), Vitamin B-Complex (thiamine, biotin, and riboflavin) and Lactase (to break down milk sugar). We are told about all these good things, but not about one very important function — that of preventing infection from other pathogenic bacteria though competition. If God made man "very good" why did he have to provide supporting organism when we should be able to make our own vitamins and enzymes? If the world was "good" why was it necessary for us to have a massive population of E. coli in our guts to prevent infection from 'bad' bacteria?

Ignoring that last point, creationists are still puzzled about the origin of pathogenic forms of E. coli. The solution for this sort of problem is typically the Fall and Curse.

Thus we see how the theme of Original Sin affects the thought processes of YECists and interferes with their attempts to rationalise the fact the the world is not perfect (from the human point of view). It never was and never will be. But that's YECist 'science' for you.

Disease and parasitism are perfectly natural components of the living world due to the opportunistic nature of organisms in finding new environmental niches. Eventually a balance is reached in which the parasite does not kill its host.

I love how they contraadict themselves:

"In order to "survive," they have mutated, changed, and adapted (although they remain the same basic kind of bacteria). "

"No doubt, E. coli and other microbes will continue to adapt and change over time. This adaptation is and will always be "within their kind." New diseases will come and go. However, the microbe itself has been designed for stability and continuity. "

So E coli will continue to adapt, mutate and change, but they are designed for stability?? huh? This is the kind of nonsense that comes form trying to impose your own assuptions and wishes on the real world.

Also, I would love to see where in the Biible is claims that The Curse involved changing genes and casuing diseases. The Curse is very specific and mentions none of this.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And the Sin Nature says you're "guilty", whether you feel guilty or not.

There are some, like Klebold and Harris, who don't share that evolutionary definition of guilt and can go out and kill w/o remorse.

But all Klebold and Harris had to do was repent at the last moment, which, for all we know, they did.

Not like all those poor miscarried/aborted babies who are currently roasting in Hell on account of their sin nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

But all Klebold and Harris had to do was repent at the last moment, which, for all we know, they did.

Not like all those poor miscarried/aborted babies who are currently roasting in Hell on account of their sin nature.

Wow -- two basic doctrines ignored in one post.

That's sad, really.

Can anyone recognize these two doctrines?

I'll make it multiple choice -- pick the two correct ones:

1. Deathbed Conversion
2. Progressive Sanctification
3. Salvation by Innocence

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow -- two basic doctrines ignored in one post.

That's sad, really.

Can anyone recognize these two doctrines?

I'll make it multiple choice -- pick the two correct ones:

1. Deathbed Conversion
2. Progressive Sanctification
3. Salvation by Innocence

Oh, come now, AV -- you can't claim "innocence" with a sin nature, now can you?

And how basic can the doctrines be if not even all Christians agree on them?

 

[Split Rock]

Wow -- two basic doctrines ignored in one post.

That's sad, really.

Can anyone recognize these two doctrines?

I'll make it multiple choice -- pick the two correct ones:

1. Deathbed Conversion
2. Progressive Sanctification
3. Salvation by Innocence

Oh, come now, AV -- you can't claim "innocence" with a sin nature, now can you?

I think he's got you there, AVET. If we are all born with a Sin nature, then how can any baby be innocent??

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think he's got you there, AVET. If we are all born with a Sin nature, then how can any baby be innocent??

Apparantly God lets sin into heaven -- so what did Jesus get himself crucified for?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think he's got you there, AVET. If we are all born with a Sin nature, then how can any baby be innocent??

You'll have to take that up with God, Himself.

In addition, the same doctrine applies to the mentally-challenged; whether they are 10 years old, or 75.

 

[Skaloop]

You'll have to take that up with God, Himself.

In addition, the same doctrine applies to the mentally-challenged; whether they are 10 years old, or 75.

What degree of mentally-challenged is elligible for this salvation through innocence?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You'll have to take that up with God, Himself.

You're the one who brought it up -- don't pass the buck now just because your theology is unravelling like a cheap sweater.

In addition, the same doctrine applies to the mentally-challenged; whether they are 10 years old, or 75.

So, the mentally challenged do not have a Sin Nature?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What degree of mentally-challenged is elligible for this salvation through innocence?

Good question -- can a person be canonized for having Downs Syndrome?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You're the one who brought it up -- don't pass the buck now just because your theology is unravelling like a cheap sweater.



So, the mentally challenged do not have a Sin Nature?

I wonder how that works, exactly? Since it was sin in the first place that made people have mental disabilities.

 

[Cabal]

You'll have to take that up with God, Himself.

Why? We can cut out the middle man and question the people who made up the doctrine.

 

[Split Rock]

You'll have to take that up with God, Himself.

In addition, the same doctrine applies to the mentally-challenged; whether they are 10 years old, or 75.

In other words, your theology just doesn't work. Got it.