Survival of the Fittest: An Interesting Side Effect of Death

SilenceInMotion said:

The poster is likely Christian being that they posted a passage from Romans and is arguing for YECism.

Click to expand...

The content of the post is contrary to Christian theology, which is my point. You don't have to be Christian to be YEC. For instance, Jehovah's Witness is YEC, but not Christian. There are also Islamic YECers, such as Harun Yahya.

Greg1234 said:

Because they, like those naturalistic origins theories of the past, will not be substituted for Creationism and the directions handed down for the salvation of souls influencing the physical.

Click to expand...

Creationism has nothing to do with salvation of souls.

But yes, Creationism has been shown to be false and evolution has subsituted for it as the accepted scientific and theological position.

When you refer to "directions handed down" you point to one of the religious problems of creationism: it is concerned with the Bible, not with God. The Bible is not God.

toLiJC said:

we do not judge whatever human, but where is the protracted evolution in the Bible especially after all ancestry of Joseph has been counted there?!

Click to expand...

God has two books: scripture and Creation. Christians have always held that this is true. One of the problems of creationism is that it denies God as Creator by denying the book of Creation.

God is not required to put everything from one book into the other. Jesus' life is not in the book of Creation. Evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, Boyle's laws on gasses, Kepler's laws of planetary orbits, Wolf's law, the Hardy-Weinberg Principle, Mendelian genetics, etc. are not in the Bible.

As to the lineage in Luke, look at the lineage in Matthew. Completely different. None of the ancestors of Jesus listed there are present in Luke's list. Those lists were never meant by the authors to be read literally. Instead, they are there to link Jesus to the House of David because Jewish beliefs were that the Messiah would come from that house. But in reality, neither the author of Luke nor the author of Matthew knew Jesus' lineage.

jilfe said:

How can Christians get so mislead in the worlds philosophies, about the subject of origins of life, when you have to start making assumptions against the Biblical text about whats metaphors and what can be taken literally, now I see why it is so important to be trained by God's Holy Spirit, to stay grounded in His Word, because the Bible says

Click to expand...

Again, God has two books. This has us look only at a human interpretation of one of them.

Now, we are not making "assumptions" against the text. There are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. Read literally, they contradict on nearly every detail. Thus, the Biblical text tells us we should not be reading them literally. Some people just don't really read the Bible but insist on reading it the way they want instead of listening to God.

they can't see the truth anymore, when you got to staert questioning the Bible, no wonder God needs to rescue us from the worlds deceptions.

Click to expand...

The Bible is not God. What is more, we are not questioning "the Bible". We are questioning a human interpretation of that Bible. So, we can question a human interpretation of the Bible without putting God into trouble. In fact, it is that interpretation of the Bible that is creationism that gets God into trouble. It was that interpretation that God into so much trouble that evolution rescued God from creationism.

Back about 550 AD, a book came out called Christian Topography. Based on the Bible, it says the earth is flat! Do you believe the earth is flat? Why not? If you think the earth is round, you did not get that from the Bible. You got that from evidence outside the Bible, evidence from God's other book. You allow that other evidence to change your interpretation of the Bible.

Thank God for His Holy Spirit to guide us into ALL TRUTH.

Click to expand...

Too bad you don't listen to that Holy Spirit.

And God will rescue you as well,, thank God this subject is not a detriment to our salvation,

Click to expand...

Actually, creationism makes it a detriment to our salvation. Creationism tells us: either believe this particular interpretation of the Bible or believe what your eyes see. If you believe what you yourself see, then you can't believe in God. THAT is a detriment to salvation. But that is the position of creationism and Biblical literalism.

it's just ashamed that His children have to be so decieved, still saved, but just missing out on truth in this very area.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a shame that creationists miss out on the truth in this area. They miss out on how God created. Part of the shame of creationists is that they routinely break the 9th Commandment to push their Biblical literalism.

This very subject of origins, is a wonderful test that God is given His children to see who will stay grounded to God's word, and who wavers away from the word of God.

Click to expand...

Look how clealy you state that this isn't about God. You aren't concerned about God. You say so clearly. You are concerned about "the word of God".

So you believe one of the "world's philosophies [sic]" that the Bible is always to be read literally. That's a "world's philosophy" that didn't really show up until 1890. And you fell for it. I'm so sorry, but the good news is that there is still time for you to come back to God.

Only God can bring His children back to truth.

Click to expand...

But even God can't do that if His children don't listen to Him. You've thrown out one of His books and refuse to listen to the other one. Unless you change, you won't be able to get back to truth. Please change.

toLiJC said:

the first man was made of earth, and for that reason he was called "adam", because (as you also said) the biblical word "adam" means "earth/soil/ground/dust/sand", according to as it also has been written:

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.",

Click to expand...

When you read the Hebrew, you find that the "dust of the ground" and "man" are the same word.
"va.yi.tser a.do.nai e.lo.him et-ha.a.dam a.far min-ha.a.da.ma va.yi.pakh be.a.pav nish.mat kha.yim va.ye.hi ha.a.dam le.ne.fesh kha.ya Serve-A-Verse(tm)
(you will have to register at the site, but this is the best site I have found for transliterated Hebrew and English side by side)

So what we have here is not a "name" like Joe or Paul. That is, words that are used only as names in the language. What we have is Dirt. If we were really writing Genesis 2 in English, every place you see "Adam" it would be "Dirt". That tells you we are dealing with allegory.

Now, in Genesis 1:26-27 the first "man" was not made of dirt. Instead, God spoke men and women (both plural in Hebrew) into existence together. There was no "first man" in Genesis 1.

God was able to made the first man quite directly without any need of existence of a woman, but there is no whatever word about whatever evolution in the Bible,

Click to expand...

So? There's no word that the earth orbits the sun, either. God doesn't have to tell us about evolution in the Bible, just like He doesn't tell us the laws of thermodynamics in the Bible.

The creation stories are there to tell us the Who and why of creation. They are also there to tell us that there is only one God and that God is Creator of the universe. The main purpose of Genesis 1 is to tell us that the Babylonian religion is false. Genesis 2-3 tells us major parts of the Egyptian religion are false and tells us that ALL of us disobey God sometime. That's what Adam and Eve are for: to stand for all of us. EACH of us is tempted sometime in our life, and each of us (as represented by Adam and Eve) will follow temptation and disobey God.

The thing is, the creation stories were so successful at doing what they were meant to do that you don't even realize it anymore. Genesis 1 was so good at destroying the Babylonian pantheon that no one has believed in the Babylonian gods for at least 2,500 years! So now you read things into the stories that were never meant to be there and miss what God is telling you.

And again, your focus is on the Bible when you are supposed to be focussed on God. God doesn't have to tell us everything in the Bible! Don't you pray? Doesn't God talk to you in prayer? Hasn't God ever told you something in prayer that He has not told you in the Bible?

Similarly, God can and does tell us things in His Creation that He did not tell us in the Bible. Do you worship God or do you worship the Bible?

SilenceInMotion said:

But all in all, YEC's just play a pointless game to convey a wishful idea.

Click to expand...

Let me submit that it is more insidious and evil than that. YECs play the game because they worship the Bible. The Bible is their god and they play their "game" because what we find in God's Creation -- old earth, evolution, etc. -- shows their god to be false. They do what they do to preserve their false god and deny God.

razeontherock said:

Bolded part is false. A fern is simply not a frog. You may be correct and that is certainly modern thought on the topic, but we really do not know that Ev actually "spread out" to such an extent. The evidence we have makes the idea plausible.

Click to expand...

A fern and frog have a common ancestor. Given the branching nature of speciation (see the diagram in Origin of Species, pg 90 of the 6th edition), once you have speciation, you will eventually get the difference between a frog and a fern. It's inevitable. Since the only biological reality is species, once you demonstrate speciation, you demonstrate the entirety of evolution. You may not have the specific pathways, but you have the inevitability of whatever distance and difference we see in living organisms.

And yes, we do have the evidence: phylogenetic analysis. The sequences of bases in the DNA of frogs and ferns are not independent observations, but are connected by historical connections: speciations thru time.

razeontherock said:

You seem to be describing the "demiurge," a gnostic concept. Repent!

Click to expand...

I totally agree on the "Repent".

However, it's not quite the demiurge. Perhaps it is Marcionite?

toLiJC said:

here we again say that there are two sides of the divine, the "Light" and the "darkness", here are some examples about this:

Genesis 1:1-5 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.",

Click to expand...

You have some strange exegesis. This has nothing to do with the divine, but rather the material world. God is creating day and night on the earth. It has nothing to with His nature.

John 1:1-5 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.",

Click to expand...

Again a strange exegesis. And heresy. "darkness" here is ignorance of God or rejection of God. IT is not part of God. If you have the divine in parts and say that the "darkness" part does not comprehend the "light" part, you are saying that God is a split personality, where one personality can see the other, but the second cannot see the first. That makes God insane.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost(ie to those believers that believe in wrong direction): In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not(ie of those believers that do not believe in the right direction), lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Click to expand...

You are puttin lots of interpretations in this to get it to come out the way you want.

as it is written in 1 John 1:5, there is no whatever evil in the true God, but there is also negative side of divine, which is not God, but it is known as satan

Click to expand...

Satan is not "divine". You started out by saying "are two sides of the divine," In Christianity, there is only one "divine": God. Satan is a rebellious creature, not divine. Satan may be "immortal", but immortality does not make divinity. Angels are immortal. Do you consider them "divine"?

What you have here is heresy. I am not going to try to get you to change your beliefs, but please extend the same courtesy and do not try to force your beliefs on us as correct. Christianity has already rejected this view. God is purely light, as John 1:5 says. To split God into "light" and "darkness" is to go down the road of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and perhaps Arianism.

toLiJC said:

we do not believe in a lie, we believe only in Those Ones Who really are the true Lord Jesus Christ and His true Heavenly God the Father

Click to expand...

Heresy again. When you say "Those Ones" you are into heresy. There is no "ones". There is only One.

Either Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, right? I'm thinking Mormon since they believe Jesus and God are 2 separate gods.

lucaspa said:

Creationism has nothing to do with salvation of souls.

Click to expand...

Next you'll tell me Creationism has nothing to do with the fall and the effects of same.

When you refer to "directions handed down" you point to one of the religious problems of creationism: it is concerned with the Bible, not with God. The Bible is not God.

Click to expand...

The directions in the bible deal with us and God. Hence, their application is advised for the betterment of souls.

razeontherock said:

Assumption is never a good idea. (Where did I state I was arguing, and why would you assume I was or am?) You are representing everything that is wrong with academia, and doing so quite well.

Click to expand...

Since this started with your reply to me, perhaps we had better revisit that:

You: Bolded part is false. A fern is simply not a frog. You may be correct and that is certainly modern thought on the topic, but we really do not know that Ev actually "spread out" to such an extent. The evidence we have makes the idea plausible.

Now, the first sentence is a denial of my claims/argument. The second sentence is an argument against my claim in bold.

So yes, you are arguing. The argument continues after the comma in the 3rd sentence. You don't have to state that you are arguing; your statements show a disagreement and argument.

I will say that SilenceinMotion simply denied your disagreement without providing evidence. But in all fairness, your denial did not provide a cogent argument to the reasons I made the claim in bold in the first place. The small differences seen in a speciation accumulate. So, starting from a common ancestor and with enough speciation events within each lineage, it is inevitable that you are going to get the difference between fern and frog, or corn and cow, or kelp and whale. Whatever the morphological, physiologic, or genetic distance you care to name, the accumulation of the small differences between an original species and its "offspring" will produce that distance with enough speciations.

That this is indeed what has happened is confirmed by phylogenetic analysis.

lucaspa said:

God has two books: scripture and Creation. Christians have always held that this is true. One of the problems of creationism is that it denies God as Creator by denying the book of Creation.

God is not required to put everything from one book into the other. Jesus' life is not in the book of Creation. Evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, Boyle's laws on gasses, Kepler's laws of planetary orbits, Wolf's law, the Hardy-Weinberg Principle, Mendelian genetics, etc. are not in the Bible.

As to the lineage in Luke, look at the lineage in Matthew. Completely different. None of the ancestors of Jesus listed there are present in Luke's list. Those lists were never meant by the authors to be read literally. Instead, they are there to link Jesus to the House of David because Jewish beliefs were that the Messiah would come from that house. But in reality, neither the author of Luke nor the author of Matthew knew Jesus' lineage.

Click to expand...

in principle, it is pointless to argue about such things when at the same time there are millions of humans in affliction/trouble/lack - the people need salvation/provision, not wiseacres, whence God and the humans hardly need a tedious evolution or whatever protraction, with regard to the lists of Jesus' genealogy, we can say that there is a difference as regards some names therein due to some reasons, e.g. it is possible some names to have been come from a different language, also, it is possible some of the ancestry to had more than one name, e.g. as it was in the case of Jacob who had another name "Israel", and in general it is possible there to be many features/peculiarities with the literal names, however the names in Luke 3:23-38 match up with the genealogical names in the books of old testament

Blessings

lucaspa said:

When you read the Hebrew, you find that the "dust of the ground" and "man" are the same word.
"va.yi.tser a.do.nai e.lo.him et-ha.a.dam a.far min-ha.a.da.ma va.yi.pakh be.a.pav nish.mat kha.yim va.ye.hi ha.a.dam le.ne.fesh kha.ya Serve-A-Verse(tm)
(you will have to register at the site, but this is the best site I have found for transliterated Hebrew and English side by side)

So what we have here is not a "name" like Joe or Paul. That is, words that are used only as names in the language. What we have is Dirt. If we were really writing Genesis 2 in English, every place you see "Adam" it would be "Dirt". That tells you we are dealing with allegory.

Now, in Genesis 1:26-27 the first "man" was not made of dirt. Instead, God spoke men and women (both plural in Hebrew) into existence together. There was no "first man" in Genesis 1.


So? There's no word that the earth orbits the sun, either. God doesn't have to tell us about evolution in the Bible, just like He doesn't tell us the laws of thermodynamics in the Bible.

The creation stories are there to tell us the Who and why of creation. They are also there to tell us that there is only one God and that God is Creator of the universe. The main purpose of Genesis 1 is to tell us that the Babylonian religion is false. Genesis 2-3 tells us major parts of the Egyptian religion are false and tells us that ALL of us disobey God sometime. That's what Adam and Eve are for: to stand for all of us. EACH of us is tempted sometime in our life, and each of us (as represented by Adam and Eve) will follow temptation and disobey God.

The thing is, the creation stories were so successful at doing what they were meant to do that you don't even realize it anymore. Genesis 1 was so good at destroying the Babylonian pantheon that no one has believed in the Babylonian gods for at least 2,500 years! So now you read things into the stories that were never meant to be there and miss what God is telling you.

And again, your focus is on the Bible when you are supposed to be focussed on God. God doesn't have to tell us everything in the Bible! Don't you pray? Doesn't God talk to you in prayer? Hasn't God ever told you something in prayer that He has not told you in the Bible?

Similarly, God can and does tell us things in His Creation that He did not tell us in the Bible. Do you worship God or do you worship the Bible?

Click to expand...

you are right about the fact that the faith must be in God, and yet in That One Who really is the only true God, because until now there were many false, moreover in many wrong spiritual directions which were popularized as right

Mark 11:22 "Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God."

1 Corinthians 11:3-4 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

however there is no so need to ask God about anything as to ask (from) Him to provide complete salvation and life for the humans, therefore it is written that "God is love", because the purpose of the faith is (it) to be used for the sake of overall salvation

1 Corinthians 12:7 "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal(ie for overall benefit)."

Blessings

SilenceInMotion said:

The Fall heppened when our ancestors became human.

Click to expand...

I'm aware that Darwinian evolution has its own version of the origin of sin (and possibly the salvation of all souls here). I was simply addressing the statement that Creationism does not deal with salvation.

lucaspa said:

You have some strange exegesis. This has nothing to do with the divine, but rather the material world. God is creating day and night on the earth. It has nothing to with His nature.

Click to expand...

John 9:4-5 "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

the "night" in Genesis 1:5 is the already limited "darkness", because God has limited it, otherwise the "darkness" could cause greater damages

lucaspa said:

Again a strange exegesis. And heresy. "darkness" here is ignorance of God or rejection of God. IT is not part of God. If you have the divine in parts and say that the "darkness" part does not comprehend the "light" part, you are saying that God is a split personality, where one personality can see the other, but the second cannot see the first. That makes God insane.


You are puttin lots of interpretations in this to get it to come out the way you want.


Satan is not "divine". You started out by saying "are two sides of the divine," In Christianity, there is only one "divine": God. Satan is a rebellious creature, not divine. Satan may be "immortal", but immortality does not make divinity. Angels are immortal. Do you consider them "divine"?

What you have here is heresy. I am not going to try to get you to change your beliefs, but please extend the same courtesy and do not try to force your beliefs on us as correct. Christianity has already rejected this view. God is purely light, as John 1:5 says. To split God into "light" and "darkness" is to go down the road of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and perhaps Arianism.

Click to expand...

if until now there was no evil, how would it exist?!, how would eve and adam be tempted/beguiled if there was no an evil spirit?!, and if even satan was an angel of God, how would he dropped out if there was no whatever evil substance in the universe which to make him proud?!

Romans 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.",

1 Timothy 4:4 "For every creature(or: every creation) of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving(ie if it be used for good purpose(-s)):"

Blessings

lucaspa said:

Heresy again. When you say "Those Ones" you are into heresy. There is no "ones". There is only One.

Either Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, right? I'm thinking Mormon since they believe Jesus and God are 2 separate gods.

Click to expand...

we are not mormons, neither followers of the so called denomination "jehovah's witnesses", but we believe only in That One Who really is the only true God of the universe

1 John 5:20 "we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Blessings