The elephant in the room is why man "evolved" to where we are today.

[BPPLEE]

We're talking about @Richard.20.12's point, right? He's the one who claims to be overthrowing evolution, not you. And it's his arguments that don't display any familiarity with the subject.

But it doesn't sound like a valid point to me, which is why I'm asking you to expand on what you think the valid point is.

There is no point in arguing with someone who has already made up their mind. Your position is clear.

 

[Richard.20.12]

> If you can't understand why smart people all disagree with you about a subject they know very well, consider the possibility that the flaw is with your understanding, not the people in question.

As if there are no Christian, Bible believing, Creation believing smart people out there. Nice try. Evolutionists always use that tactic. "They (smart people) believe it and you don't? What's wrong with you?"
Well almost all smart people are going to hell, aren't they? That's not very smart is it?

How many brilliant people have thrown away their marriage for a few moments of pleasure? Not very smart, right?
How many brilliant people have been ensnared by corruption of some sort? Not very smart, right?

As a Christian you have to ponder that. Clearly God doesn't care about intelligence, otherwise He would have made us equal in that respect.
Instead He plants us in a myriad of situations with a myriad of abilities and talents, then watches what we choose. Whether we lean towards Him or Earthly pursuits. Because that is what life is all about, right? Choices.
When I read Genesis I see no room for any alteration from the original. Why should there be one? As if God needs multiple attempts at getting it right. Why would He opt for evolution? Makes no sense. Do it right in the beginning. The Bible is full of moments were things are finalized. God values finalization. What did Jesus utter with His last breath? "It is finished." God values completion. Creating life that changes radically, hugely, enormously, over time doesn't make sense. There is no indication in the Bible that we evolved from slime. You don't think that just might be included in the Bible if it was true? That we weren't created as it says in Genesis from the dust of the Earth, like we are now, rather no.....from slime which will be hidden in the account of all things? Does that make a smidgen of sense to you? It sure doesn't to me!

Plus there's the huge blowback if scientists mention their Creation belief. Its enormous. It can decimate a career. So all you evolutionists working in science: Better not be too smug about the beliefs of your co-workers!

> They may or may not have to evolve if they're going to survive.

But that's not what evolution postulates. It says we evolved for one reason: Because we had to to survive. And if we didn't we'd die. Otherwise we wouldn't have evolved in their eyes. You can't have it both ways. Again, nice try.

> Some evolved, became us, and survived well. Others evolved and became chimpanzees and survived well. Others evolved and became gorillas and survived well. Others evolved and became orangutans and survived well. Others went extinct. Their ancestors were apes and they're all still apes -- including us. I don't know why you think this is a killer point against evolution or where exactly your confusion lies.

Because it ignore the fundamental premise of evolution. That's why. That we HAD to evolve to survive.

> What species has failed to 'make the grade' and has done fine anyway?

Well you could look at apes. They have a fraction of our mental capacities yet survived. Strangely we galloped ahead mentally for no apparent reason yet we share the same environment. Maybe we did it out of fun? A lark? That's not how evolution "works". Its a change borne of necessity; its not frivolous. Unless you consider dying or living frivolous.

> What do you mean by 'make the grade'?

Survive. Evolution says we evolved to survive. One of the most important tools for survival is high reproductivity. Yet after millions or billions of years of evolution, we come out on top yet only have 1 baby at a time? That makes no sense at all. That hugely hurts our chances of survival. Our lack of body hair for insulation is another huge problem. And our incredibly slow speed compared to animals. Your cat can outrun you with ease. An ape can lift hundreds of pounds easily. Why are we so weak? Marine animals can hold their breath for long periods of time. We can't. Why? Humans are pathetic creatures when viewed physically. Slow, weak, vulnerable to the elements, slow to reproduce....everything is wrong with us physically. This makes no sense because every characteristic I listed helps us survive. I have never heard an explanation for this from any evolutionist. Including you sir. Don't worry. Its not you that's the problem. Its evolution!

>> If it WERE true there would be nothing left but the highest surviving forms of life.
> Huh? All of those forms of life survive, and therefore all of them are successful according to your own statement of what matters to evolution.

No, only the ones that had to evolve to survive would be left. Now if you want to rewrite evolution so its selective evolution, go right ahead. That would make even less sense than the evolution now!

> Do humans survive and reproduce successfully or not?

Your dog or cat reproduces much more successfully than any human. Almost every animal does. We are the worst at survival when it comes to reproduction after millions or billions of years of evolution. When it comes to survival you don't lose valuable traits. You keep them or improve them if you're "evolving" because you need them. Because you value them. Because they aid your chances of survival. Sorry, but having 1 baby at a time is a pathetic way to reproduce. Look at insects. That's reproduction!

> Why might it be better for something like humans to be bipedal than 4-legged?

Because we're hopelessly slow. As I said, your small cat that you can comfortably hold in your arms, can outrun you easily. Same with almost all dogs. We can't even catch a chicken! Physically we are inept and pathetic. Did you know a chimp can hang from a branch with one arm for one hour. Try that for a few seconds and see how long you last. You think strength isn't useful and wouldn't be used all the time in a primitive world? Hardly anything would be more useful than strength. Yet strangely we have precious little of it compared to the animal world. That makes no sense.

4 legs brings us closer to the ground for better control. Ever seen a dog walk on ice? They don't even care. We're hopeless because our centre of gravity is so much higher; we're a lot less stable. 4 legs is infinitely better than 2. But strangely we have 2. Go figure. There is almost no animal we can outrun! Basically we are ludicrous creatures.

Of course God's priority is in the choices we make with our minds. Funny how that worked out just fine.

> Evolution doesn't happen because there's a need. It just happens.

Not sure where you read that. All the evolution I was taught was we evolved out of a need to survive.
Now you're back to selective evolution or spontaneous evolution or evolution because we have nothing better to do.

But it really comes back to the Bible and Genesis. When I read that its very clear. Satan hates clarity. He loves to obscure. And he's very good at it and has a lot of practice. Hopefully the next time you're perusing Genesis your eyes will be opened.

 

[Richard.20.12]

According to evolution, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, but evolution can't explain why the human mind is infinitely superior to the mind of a chimp.

Exactly. And both humans and apes lived in the same environment, exposed to the same dangers and challenges. What gets me is how evolutionists always ignore how slow and weak humans are. We would never have lost those very useful traits if we were evolving/improving. Compare the strength of even a chimp who is half the size of a person to a human. A chimp can lift over 600 lbs! 99% of humans, without special training would be lucky to lift half their bodyweight over their head.

 

[Buzzard3]

Exactly. And both humans and apes lived in the same environment, exposed to the same dangers and challenges.

It's an absurdity of the highest order to suggest that the human mind is the result of natural selection - at the very least, it would require supernatural selection.

What gets me is how evolutionists always ignore how slow and weak humans are. We would never have lost those very useful traits if we were evolving/improving.

Darwinists ignore many things - that's one way they 'overcome' obstables to their precious theory-cum-belief.

Retaining physical strength would have provided a massive survival advantage ... hunting and protection against, not only wild anlmals, but against other humans as well.

But God never endowed humans with massive physical strength in the first place, because they were designed to exist in the Garden of Eden.

Compare the strength of even a chimp who is half the size of a person to a human. A chimp can lift over 600 lbs! 99% of humans, without special training would be lucky to lift half their bodyweight over their head.

Yes, chimps are frightfully strong. There was a horrifying incident here in Australia many years ago when a boy stuck his arm in a cage at a zoo and had it ripped clean off by a chimp.
A male chimp can weight up to 20 stone!

Apart from how weak humans are, have you noticed that humans seem to be the only creatures on the planet (generally speaking) that are horrified by the violence and bloodshed routinely displayed in nature? Non-human creatures will rip other creatures apart in a bloodbath or eat them alive, and not bat an eyelid. A couple of dogs will rip a cat to pieces just for fun.
It's as if we humans are foreign to this harsh and brutal world and were not designed to be exposed to the violence that is inherent in nature ... and we are indeed foreigners - we came from the Garden of Eden.

 

[Job 33:6]

>!
Plus there's the huge blowback if scientists mention their Creation belief. Its enormous. It can decimate a career. So all you evolutionists working in science: Better not be too smug about the beliefs of your co-workers!
> .

I've worked with many scientists over the years, at various different firms, and I've come across successful Christian scientists who were open about their faith to colleagues, and I've openly shared my faith as well without any blowback, and that includes scientists who directly work with studies in evolution.

The above just simply isn't true.

 

[sfs]

As if there are no Christian, Bible believing, Creation believing smart people out there.

Christian, Bible-believing smart people who know the subject (why did you leave that part out) by and large accept evolution. Try talking to more Christian biologists.

But that's not what evolution postulates. It says we evolved for one reason: Because we had to to survive.

No, it doesn't say that. You really need to learn something about evolution before you attack it. How do you think it looks to non-Christians who do understand the science when they keep seeing Christians attacking evolution for specious reasons?

And if we didn't we'd die. Otherwise we wouldn't have evolved in their eyes. You can't have it both ways. Again, nice try.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Well you could look at apes. They have a fraction of our mental capacities yet survived.

They made the only grade that matters, according to you -- they survived. Once more: what do you mean by didn't make the grade?

Your dog or cat reproduces much more successfully than any human. Almost every animal does. We are the worst at survival when it comes to reproduction after millions or billions of years of evolution. When it comes to survival you don't lose valuable traits. You keep them or improve them if you're "evolving" because you need them. Because you value them. Because they aid your chances of survival. Sorry, but having 1 baby at a time is a pathetic way to reproduce. Look at insects. That's reproduction!

You didn't answer my question: do humans successfully survive and reproduce or not. It's a simple yes or no question, and it seems to be at the core of your confusion here. Let's stick to this one question for the moment. Answer that and we can move on to the next point.

Not sure where you read that. All the evolution I was taught was we evolved out of a need to survive.

Studying evolution of one sort or another is a large part of what I do for a living. I don't know where you learned about evolution, but they don't seem to have done a great job of teaching.

 

[sfs]

I've worked with many scientists over the years, at various different firms, and I've come across successful Christian scientists who were open about their faith to colleagues, and I've openly shared my faith as well without any blowback, and that includes scientists who directly work with studies in evolution.

I've never had the slightest problem with colleagues. If they know much about me at all, they know I'm a Christian and nobody cares. Now if I were a young-earth creationist, yeah, that would be a problem, but that's because young earth creationism makes no sense at all and is completely useless for understanding genetics.

 

[sfs]

Retaining physical strength would have provided a massive survival advantage ... hunting and protection against, not only wild anlmals, but against other humans as well.

But what would the cost have been? Humans are exceptionally good at several things, and one of them is long-distance running. That ability makes us very good predators -- just not the same kind of predator as a lion or a tiger. An important contributor to our endurance as runners is the unusually large fraction of our muscles that is made up of slow-twitch, rather than fast-twitch, muscle fibers. That makes us better at running down prey over long distances but weaker than chimpanzees. (And let's not exaggerate the difference: chimps seem to be about 50% stronger than humans, proportional to body size.)

Every trait comes at a cost and no species can have all the traits that seem appealing to us. If a particular set of traits enable the species to flourish -- as ours clearly does -- then it is successful in evolutionary terms.

 

[Suggestion Box]

One thing I don't understand about theistic evolution is along the lines of this thread. If man evolved from animals, then it is supposedly because of some trait that is better-adapted to adverse conditions. As I understand it, this is a fair definition of "fit". So then you have survival of the fittest, and "fit" can be anything that is better-adapted than the competition to some set of adverse conditions. Maybe the fit trait is intellect, and the conditions are such that dumber ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is strength, and the conditions are such that the weaker ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is speed, and the slower ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is hard work, and the lazy ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is having good morals, and the corrupt die out. And don't get me wrong, I'm a non-expert, and I have no intention of becoming an expert... and perhaps I'm missing something... but isn't all of this talk completely contrary to one of the main themes of scripture?

Psalms 33:16-19: Which ones survive? Not those who possess the fit trait of might, but those who fear and hope in God.

Deuteronomy 9:1-2: Israel goes to dispossess nations greater and mightier than they are. One nation prevails over others. The adverse condition is wartime. So what's the fit trait that causes Israel to prevail... it isn't might... it's not greatness... maybe it's righteousness?

Deuteronomy 9:3-29: Nope. Definitely not righteousness. These people are barely making it. Not only are they misbehaving, they show by their sin that they do not trust God. Moses spends 40 days laying prostrate before God pleading with him to overlook a host of examples of horrible sin that take up a whole chapter. The only reason they prevail is because God goes before them, and he chooses them over the Canaanites not because of any merit of their own, but because of his promise to Abraham.

Judges 7:2-8: Gideon is not permitted to have more than 300 men. You'd think this is the opposite of a good survival strategy. But God intentionally limits him so that no one can say it's because of their own hand that they defeated their enemies. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the ones God chooses to survive are the ones who aren't stronger, so that it will be obvious that God is the one winning the battle for them. So we see something quite the opposite of what theistic evolution might expect. (Again... non-expert here. I can't say I know what theistic evolution advocates expect because I'm not one of them, but this seems to be the expectation.)

Isaiah 10:20-22: Large population dwindles to a small remnant... what are the adverse conditions? The wrath of God. What special adaptive trait do the survivors have? None. No merit whatsoever. They lean on the Lord. The strong do not survive. Those who trust in the Lord survive, and I find it very unlikely that this is a genetic trait.

Psalms 64: You could argue that a sharp tongue, or diligence in carrying out schemes are fit traits. Certainly the clever wicked ones have the appearance of a competitive advantage over those who aren't diligent in reading the fine print. A wealthy company with a good lawyer can defeat a poor man who can't afford a lawyer any day. But this competitive advantage is not a long-term one, as the Psalm details. God destroys the oppressor. The oppressed does not gain an advantage by his own merit.

Luke 6:20-26: Hungry, Poor, Sad and Hated are not social survival strategies. But these qualities are called blessed. The Rich, Full, Happy, and Well-Spoken-Of receive woes. Naturally, I would think wealth to be a survival advantage. I realize these are not genetic traits, but it furthers the point that God does not favor those who stand on their own merit, even if merit is not limited to physical strength. There are other favorable traits besides strength, which are also excluded from the surviving few.

Ephesians 2:1-9: We were dead in our sins, yet we are raised to life by grace, not by works. This means God does not favor his chosen people due to merit. We have no room to boast. It seems clear that we are not selected according to fit traits of any kind. God's selection process is not one of fitness.

Down through the history of God's chosen people, the selection process is anything but natural. God purposefully orchestrates events to make it clear that it is not the fit that survive, but the ones who trust in Him. So then, if this is the history of God's chosen people, how much more would this apply to the creation of the entire human race? Why would mankind have gone through eons of merit-based genetic selection by survival of better-adapted traits through adverse conditions... when God's character is clearly to thwart the fitter people in favor of those whose weakness makes it clear that He is the one doing the choosing?

 

[Job 33:6]

One thing I don't understand about theistic evolution is along the lines of this thread. If man evolved from animals, then it is supposedly because of some trait that is better-adapted to adverse conditions. As I understand it, this is a fair definition of "fit". So then you have survival of the fittest, and "fit" can be anything that is better-adapted than the competition to some set of adverse conditions. Maybe the fit trait is intellect, and the conditions are such that dumber ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is strength, and the conditions are such that the weaker ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is speed, and the slower ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is hard work, and the lazy ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is having good morals, and the corrupt die out. And don't get me wrong, I'm a non-expert, and I have no intention of becoming an expert... and perhaps I'm missing something... but isn't all of this talk completely contrary to one of the main themes of scripture?

Psalms 33:16-19: Which ones survive? Not those who possess the fit trait of might, but those who fear and hope in God.

Deuteronomy 9:1-2: Israel goes to dispossess nations greater and mightier than they are. One nation prevails over others. The adverse condition is wartime. So what's the fit trait that causes Israel to prevail... it isn't might... it's not greatness... maybe it's righteousness?

Deuteronomy 9:3-29: Nope. Definitely not righteousness. These people are barely making it. Not only are they misbehaving, they show by their sin that they do not trust God. Moses spends 40 days laying prostrate before God pleading with him to overlook a host of examples of horrible sin that take up a whole chapter. The only reason they prevail is because God goes before them, and he chooses them over the Canaanites not because of any merit of their own, but because of his promise to Abraham.

Judges 7:2-8: Gideon is not permitted to have more than 300 men. You'd think this is the opposite of a good survival strategy. But God intentionally limits him so that no one can say it's because of their own hand that they defeated their enemies. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the ones God chooses to survive are the ones who aren't stronger, so that it will be obvious that God is the one winning the battle for them. So we see something quite the opposite of what theistic evolution might expect. (Again... non-expert here. I can't say I know what theistic evolution advocates expect because I'm not one of them, but this seems to be the expectation.)

Isaiah 10:20-22: Large population dwindles to a small remnant... what are the adverse conditions? The wrath of God. What special adaptive trait do the survivors have? None. No merit whatsoever. They lean on the Lord. The strong do not survive. Those who trust in the Lord survive, and I find it very unlikely that this is a genetic trait.

Psalms 64: You could argue that a sharp tongue, or diligence in carrying out schemes are fit traits. Certainly the clever wicked ones have the appearance of a competitive advantage over those who aren't diligent in reading the fine print. A wealthy company with a good lawyer can defeat a poor man who can't afford a lawyer any day. But this competitive advantage is not a long-term one, as the Psalm details. God destroys the oppressor. The oppressed does not gain an advantage by his own merit.

Luke 6:20-26: Hungry, Poor, Sad and Hated are not social survival strategies. But these qualities are called blessed. The Rich, Full, Happy, and Well-Spoken-Of receive woes. Naturally, I would think wealth to be a survival advantage. I realize these are not genetic traits, but it furthers the point that God does not favor those who stand on their own merit, even if merit is not limited to physical strength. There are other favorable traits besides strength, which are also excluded from the surviving few.

Ephesians 2:1-9: We were dead in our sins, yet we are raised to life by grace, not by works. This means God does not favor his chosen people due to merit. We have no room to boast. It seems clear that we are not selected according to fit traits of any kind. God's selection process is not one of fitness.

Down through the history of God's chosen people, the selection process is anything but natural. God purposefully orchestrates events to make it clear that it is not the fit that survive, but the ones who trust in Him. So then, if this is the history of God's chosen people, how much more would this apply to the creation of the entire human race? Why would mankind have gone through eons of merit-based genetic selection by survival of better-adapted traits through adverse conditions... when God's character is clearly to thwart the fitter people in favor of those whose weakness makes it clear that He is the one doing the choosing?

.

Why would God make people with immune systems if God's goal was to "thwart the fit"?

 

[Suggestion Box]

So that his power would be more obvious in those whose immune systems failed them. For our sake, he asserts his authority over us. We need him; when we forget that, he reminds us. We do not deserve immunity, and it can be taken away at any moment. Sometimes God strikes an entire people with plague for their hubris, or for the arrogance of their leaders. But the last shall be first. Those who are helpless and needy in this life are exalted, and those who are happy and healthy in this life are crushed.

Matthew 4:23-25: By healing the sick, Jesus' fame spread.

Luke 8:43-48: The woman had bled for 12 years, apparently because of some disease. Doctors could do nothing for her. She was in a truly helpless state. Her faith made her well. This makes it clear to us: not by our own merit, but by God's power working in us, are we healed.

John 9:1-3: God intentionally made a man blind so that powerful works may be done through him. Healing him created quite a stir. Blindness in this case was not a function of immunity, I know, but this is another example of an unfavorable trait that is undone for the sake of achieving God's purpose to demonstrate his power and authority, and that he requires not merit but dependence in humility.

John 9:39: Jesus makes it clear that he intends to blind some, and to make others see. Health is clearly not his top priority for mankind in this life. Some have the favorable trait of sight; he removes it from them in judgement. Others lack the same trait; he adds it to them, that they and others might trust in God knowing that he loves them in spite of their unfitness.

He is creating contrast. When most people have a trait that seems good for survival, it is more obvious when one person lacks that trait. They suffer, and it is manifest to everyone. Then when God heals that person, it demonstrates his compassion for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, the poor, the lame, the blind, the outcast, the foreigner, the widow, the orphan.

 

[Job 33:6]

So that his power would be more obvious in those whose immune systems failed them. For our sake, he asserts his authority over us. We need him; when we forget that, he reminds us. We do not deserve immunity, and it can be taken away at any moment. Sometimes God strikes an entire people with plague for their hubris, or for the arrogance of their leaders. But the last shall be first. Those who are helpless and needy in this life are exalted, and those who are happy and healthy in this life are crushed.

Matthew 4:23-25: By healing the sick, Jesus' fame spread.

Luke 8:43-48: The woman had bled for 12 years, apparently because of some disease. Doctors could do nothing for her. She was in a truly helpless state. Her faith made her well. This makes it clear to us: not by our own merit, but by God's power working in us, are we healed.

John 9:1-3: God intentionally made a man blind so that powerful works may be done through him. Healing him created quite a stir. Blindness in this case was not a function of immunity, I know, but this is another example of an unfavorable trait that is undone for the sake of achieving God's purpose to demonstrate his power and authority, and that he requires not merit but dependence in humility.

John 9:39: Jesus makes it clear that he intends to blind some, and to make others see. Health is clearly not his top priority for mankind in this life. Some have the favorable trait of sight; he removes it from them in judgement. Others lack the same trait; he adds it to them, that they and others might trust in God knowing that he loves them in spite of their unfitness.

He is creating contrast. When most people have a trait that seems good for survival, it is more obvious when one person lacks that trait. They suffer, and it is manifest to everyone. Then when God heals that person, it demonstrates his compassion for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, the poor, the lame, the blind, the outcast, the foreigner, the widow, the orphan.

So why couldn't the same logic apply to any other form of fitness? The reason it exists is to demonstrate contrast.

"Why would mankind have gone through eons of merit-based genetic selection by survival of better-adapted traits through adverse conditions."

This is like asking why would mankind have gone through eons of selection by who had a better immune system.

 

[Richard.20.12]

One thing I don't understand about theistic evolution is along the lines of this thread. If man evolved from animals, then it is supposedly because of some trait that is better-adapted to adverse conditions. As I understand it, this is a fair definition of "fit". So then you have survival of the fittest, and "fit" can be anything that is better-adapted than the competition to some set of adverse conditions. Maybe the fit trait is intellect, and the conditions are such that dumber ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is strength, and the conditions are such that the weaker ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is speed, and the slower ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is hard work, and the lazy ones die out. Maybe the fit trait is having good morals, and the corrupt die out. And don't get me wrong, I'm a non-expert, and I have no intention of becoming an expert... and perhaps I'm missing something... but isn't all of this talk completely contrary to one of the main themes of scripture?

Psalms 33:16-19: Which ones survive? Not those who possess the fit trait of might, but those who fear and hope in God.

Deuteronomy 9:1-2: Israel goes to dispossess nations greater and mightier than they are. One nation prevails over others. The adverse condition is wartime. So what's the fit trait that causes Israel to prevail... it isn't might... it's not greatness... maybe it's righteousness?

Deuteronomy 9:3-29: Nope. Definitely not righteousness. These people are barely making it. Not only are they misbehaving, they show by their sin that they do not trust God. Moses spends 40 days laying prostrate before God pleading with him to overlook a host of examples of horrible sin that take up a whole chapter. The only reason they prevail is because God goes before them, and he chooses them over the Canaanites not because of any merit of their own, but because of his promise to Abraham.

Judges 7:2-8: Gideon is not permitted to have more than 300 men. You'd think this is the opposite of a good survival strategy. But God intentionally limits him so that no one can say it's because of their own hand that they defeated their enemies. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the ones God chooses to survive are the ones who aren't stronger, so that it will be obvious that God is the one winning the battle for them. So we see something quite the opposite of what theistic evolution might expect. (Again... non-expert here. I can't say I know what theistic evolution advocates expect because I'm not one of them, but this seems to be the expectation.)

Isaiah 10:20-22: Large population dwindles to a small remnant... what are the adverse conditions? The wrath of God. What special adaptive trait do the survivors have? None. No merit whatsoever. They lean on the Lord. The strong do not survive. Those who trust in the Lord survive, and I find it very unlikely that this is a genetic trait.

Psalms 64: You could argue that a sharp tongue, or diligence in carrying out schemes are fit traits. Certainly the clever wicked ones have the appearance of a competitive advantage over those who aren't diligent in reading the fine print. A wealthy company with a good lawyer can defeat a poor man who can't afford a lawyer any day. But this competitive advantage is not a long-term one, as the Psalm details. God destroys the oppressor. The oppressed does not gain an advantage by his own merit.

Luke 6:20-26: Hungry, Poor, Sad and Hated are not social survival strategies. But these qualities are called blessed. The Rich, Full, Happy, and Well-Spoken-Of receive woes. Naturally, I would think wealth to be a survival advantage. I realize these are not genetic traits, but it furthers the point that God does not favor those who stand on their own merit, even if merit is not limited to physical strength. There are other favorable traits besides strength, which are also excluded from the surviving few.

Ephesians 2:1-9: We were dead in our sins, yet we are raised to life by grace, not by works. This means God does not favor his chosen people due to merit. We have no room to boast. It seems clear that we are not selected according to fit traits of any kind. God's selection process is not one of fitness.

Down through the history of God's chosen people, the selection process is anything but natural. God purposefully orchestrates events to make it clear that it is not the fit that survive, but the ones who trust in Him. So then, if this is the history of God's chosen people, how much more would this apply to the creation of the entire human race? Why would mankind have gone through eons of merit-based genetic selection by survival of better-adapted traits through adverse conditions... when God's character is clearly to thwart the fitter people in favor of those whose weakness makes it clear that He is the one doing the choosing?

I was looking at evolution from a secular view because obviously the real yearning for people embracing evolution is because then they don't need God (to explain the origins of life). I'm trying to point out to its believers how illogical the whole process is and how it breaks its own rules, guidelines and structure. My point is its counterproductive to lose anything you would use every day to survive: Like strength, speed and resilience to the elements. Yes we are vastly more intelligent than the animals but if you freeze to death or can't outrun a predator or can't construct shelter in time to meet changing weather conditions, all the intelligence in the world wouldn't matter. In the evolutionary world we would use EVERY survival tactic and would never lose anything we would obviously use all the time.

Also the survival of the fittest insanity that somehow explains how we evolved so highly (mentally only) to survive yet miraculously all those lower forms of life (and there are QUITE a few of them!) seemed to survive just fine as well. So that makes no sense. Evolution postulates a condition than ignores it and can't even be bothered to explain its own contradictions.

Darwin wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

This is ALL about having an excuse to ignore God. Its one pathetic excuse. Ironically our lives are pathetic when we ignore God. We see "successful" people everywhere dripping with money but when you talk to them, when you observe them in real life, the truth is evident. Its a shallow, empty existence because they are ignoring their destination. More irony: Earthly success is apparently all about planning well for the future. Well if you ignore your final destination you sure ain't doing the planning thing very well!

 

[Richard.20.12]

So that his power would be more obvious in those whose immune systems failed them. For our sake, he asserts his authority over us. We need him; when we forget that, he reminds us. We do not deserve immunity, and it can be taken away at any moment. Sometimes God strikes an entire people with plague for their hubris, or for the arrogance of their leaders. But the last shall be first. Those who are helpless and needy in this life are exalted, and those who are happy and healthy in this life are crushed.

Matthew 4:23-25: By healing the sick, Jesus' fame spread.

Luke 8:43-48: The woman had bled for 12 years, apparently because of some disease. Doctors could do nothing for her. She was in a truly helpless state. Her faith made her well. This makes it clear to us: not by our own merit, but by God's power working in us, are we healed.

John 9:1-3: God intentionally made a man blind so that powerful works may be done through him. Healing him created quite a stir. Blindness in this case was not a function of immunity, I know, but this is another example of an unfavorable trait that is undone for the sake of achieving God's purpose to demonstrate his power and authority, and that he requires not merit but dependence in humility.

John 9:39: Jesus makes it clear that he intends to blind some, and to make others see. Health is clearly not his top priority for mankind in this life. Some have the favorable trait of sight; he removes it from them in judgement. Others lack the same trait; he adds it to them, that they and others might trust in God knowing that he loves them in spite of their unfitness.

He is creating contrast. When most people have a trait that seems good for survival, it is more obvious when one person lacks that trait. They suffer, and it is manifest to everyone. Then when God heals that person, it demonstrates his compassion for the sick, the weak, the oppressed, the poor, the lame, the blind, the outcast, the foreigner, the widow, the orphan.

Do you ever wonder, with all God's abilities, and they are infinite, why were we created with such severe limitations? Why is our intellect the way it is and not much, much more advanced? Why did we take so long to "progress" out of our primitive lives to our modern high tech world? (Not that it resulted in a better life of course.) The answer is clear. What really matters in life is not our advancement or our abilities, rather its our morality, virtue and putting our Creator forefront because He's always been forefront and always will be forefront. Its simply reality in the universe. This is the challenge we face daily. Who or what is forefront in our priorities? Making money to get a better house/car/clothes/stuff or simply putting God and Biblical principles first? All God wants is for us to get our priorities straight. All your examples above demonstrate this. God puts people in difficult situations to teach them to do that. When we can't do something we ask Him for help. If we couldn't have done that task we may not have asked Him for help. In fact the chances are high we wouldn't have. So the more troubles we have the closer we tend to draw to God because we need help. Of course a true believer is always close to God in good times and bad. This all of course boils down to faith. Faith is our connection to God through thick and thin.

 

[Suggestion Box]

So why couldn't the same logic apply to any other form of fitness? The reason it exists is to demonstrate contrast.

"Why would mankind have gone through eons of merit-based genetic selection by survival of better-adapted traits through adverse conditions."

This is like asking why would mankind have gone through eons of selection by who had a better immune system.

I suppose that logic could apply to any form of fitness. However, I won't say that contrast is the only reason God creates any particular creature feature. I think it's probably one of many reasons. The whole of it is beyond my understanding, but at least this one explanation is evident in scripture. You asked for a reason, so I gave one that I could think of.

To your second point, yes it's like asking that. Why would the God of grace and mercy have designed such a system? The ones with better immune systems would survive most of the time, but not in the adverse conditions of God's wrath. Better immunity would not be the reason for survival if the cause of most people dying were God's wrath because of sin. Immune people could sin just as well as any. If evolution were the correct view, then we should expect that survival unto reproduction would create evolutionary changes only if the fit trait in question were the reason for survival. Isaiah 10:16: when finished using the powerful Assyrians to carry out just wrath, he says he will destroy those very warriors with sickness. Isaiah 10:20: Then his chosen people, having dwindled to a few, will survive and reproduce, passing their traits to their children... traits that weren't better for winning battles or for standing up to disease, but just normal traits that everybody else had also. It wasn't because of any fit trait that they survived. It was because God chose them. The thing they pass on is the story of their experience almost dying out, and a warning to their children to fear God, not man.

Throughout scripture, God exalts the lame and blind, and humbles the mighty and powerful. The survivor is the one who trusts in God, not the one with genetic advantages.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose that logic could apply to any form of fitness. However, I won't say that contrast is the only reason God creates any particular creature feature. I think it's probably one of many reasons. The whole of it is beyond my understanding, but at least this one explanation is evident in scripture. You asked for a reason, so I gave one that I could think of.

To your second point, yes it's like asking that. Why would the God of grace and mercy have designed such a system? The ones with better immune systems would survive most of the time, but not in the adverse conditions of God's wrath. Better immunity would not be the reason for survival if the cause of most people dying were God's wrath because of sin. Immune people could sin just as well as any. If evolution were the correct view, then we should expect that survival unto reproduction would create evolutionary changes only if the fit trait in question were the reason for survival. Isaiah 10:16: when finished using the powerful Assyrians to carry out just wrath, he says he will destroy those very warriors with sickness. Isaiah 10:20: Then his chosen people, having dwindled to a few, will survive and reproduce, passing their traits to their children... traits that weren't better for winning battles or for standing up to disease, but just normal traits that everybody else had also. It wasn't because of any fit trait that they survived. It was because God chose them. The thing they pass on is the story of their experience almost dying out, and a warning to their children to fear God, not man.

Throughout scripture, God exalts the lame and blind, and humbles the mighty and powerful. The survivor is the one who trusts in God, not the one with genetic advantages.

An animal with a certain physical trait could sin just as well as any.

we should expect that survival unto reproduction would create evolutionary changes only if the immunity in question were the reason for survival.

Just doesn't seem like you have any clear argument to make here because immunity in and of itself is a fitness trait.

 

[Suggestion Box]

Immunity is a fitness trait, I agree. But immunity is not the reason why the people survived during times of God's wrath.

If a population suffers disease, and a few survive because they have immunity, then they pass that immunity on to their children. In that case you could say the new immunity in the population after that is an adaptive trait.

But if a population suffers disease, and a few survive because God wanted to preserve a descendent of David, then they didn't survive because of immunity, and the new population is likely to have the same immunity or non-immunity as they did before the adverse conditions were applied.

 

[Job 33:6]

Immunity is a fitness trait, I agree. But immunity is not the reason why the people survived during times of God's wrath.

If a population suffers disease, and a few survive because they have immunity, then they pass that immunity on to their children. In that case you could say the new immunity in the population after that is an adaptive trait.

But if a population suffers disease, and a few survive because God wanted to preserve a descendent of David, then they didn't survive because of immunity, and the new population is likely to have the same immunity or non-immunity as they did before the adverse conditions were applied.

How do you know that immunity isn't a reason that some people survived God's wrath?

Immunity sometimes is passed onto children, other times it is not depending on how immunity is acquired.

Your point is just not making any sense here.

 

[sfs]

If man evolved from animals, then it is supposedly because of some trait that is better-adapted to adverse conditions.

Right. (Or more accurately, better adapted to conditions -- they don't have to be adverse.)

And don't get me wrong, I'm a non-expert, and I have no intention of becoming an expert... and perhaps I'm missing something... but isn't all of this talk completely contrary to one of the main themes of scripture?

No, it's not. Natural selection describes what happens normally -- hence the word 'natural'. You're describing notable exceptions to normal processes, which are only notable because of what usually happens. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong -- but most of the time it is.

 

[sfs]

I was looking at evolution from a secular view because obviously the real yearning for people embracing evolution is because then they don't need God (to explain the origins of life).

Where on earth did you get that idea? Evolution -- which doesn't even attempt to explain the origins of life, incidentally -- is accepted by scientists throughout the world, of whatever faith, because it explains and predicts a vast range of observations about the physical world. That's what scientific theories are supposed to do and that's what evolution does extraordinarily well. Until something comes along that does that job remotely as well, scientists will continue to use it.