Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Erik Nelson]

If you assume Man must have evolved then you have death before sin while word of God tells us there was no death before sin .

Scripture does not say that. Adam & Eve were eating fruit, which consumes the life of the fruit. Plant life was obviously mortal, and Adam & Eve were not immortal -- except by eating of the Tree of Life, but not on their own.

 

[Chinchilla]

Scripture does not say that. Adam & Eve were eating fruit, which consumes the life of the fruit. Plant life was obviously mortal, and Adam & Eve were not immortal -- except by eating of the Tree of Life, but not on their own.

?

Genesis 1:29
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

If what you said was true why did God tell Noah to eat meat , did he have to remind him because that old guy lost memory ?

Genesis 9:3
“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

 

[Erik Nelson]

?

Genesis 1:29
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

If what you said was true why did God tell Noah to eat meat , did he have to remind him because that old guy lost memory ?

Genesis 9:3
“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

Abel obviously brought a meat sacrifice to God in Gen 4. Early humans ate plants, consuming their lives. No where does it explicitly say that animals (and humans) didn't die. In fact, God evicted Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden so that they wouldn't become immortal... no need for such a concern, if humans already were immortal...

the "death" of the Fall was a "Divine Sentence of capital punishment" due to disobeying God, and mankind lived under that Divine Decree of Wrath & Death until the Cross, when the penalty was satisfied, enabling God's Mercy to enter the scene.

 

[Chinchilla]

Abel obviously brought a meat sacrifice to God in Gen 4. Early humans ate plants, consuming their lives. No where does it explicitly say that animals (and humans) didn't die. In fact, God evicted Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden so that they wouldn't become immortal... no need for such a concern, if humans already were immortal...

the "death" of the Fall was a "Divine Sentence of capital punishment" due to disobeying God, and mankind lived under that Divine Decree of Wrath & Death until the Cross, when the penalty was satisfied, enabling God's Mercy to enter the scene.

Why do you presuppose that Abel ate meat ? In these times God would rain fire from heaven and consume whole sacrifice .

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Abel obviously brought a meat sacrifice to God in Gen 4. Early humans ate plants, consuming their lives. No where does it explicitly say that animals (and humans) didn't die. In fact, God evicted Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden so that they wouldn't become immortal... no need for such a concern, if humans already were immortal...

the "death" of the Fall was a "Divine Sentence of capital punishment" due to disobeying God, and mankind lived under that Divine Decree of Wrath & Death until the Cross, when the penalty was satisfied, enabling God's Mercy to enter the scene.

True. The "death" that came with the sin of Eve and Adam was the second, or eternal death, not 'mortal' physical death.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Abel obviously brought a meat sacrifice to God in Gen 4. Early humans ate plants, consuming their lives. No where does it explicitly say that animals (and humans) didn't die. In fact, God evicted Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden so that they wouldn't become immortal... no need for such a concern, if humans already were immortal...

the "death" of the Fall was a "Divine Sentence of capital punishment" due to disobeying God, and mankind lived under that Divine Decree of Wrath & Death until the Cross, when the penalty was satisfied, enabling God's Mercy to enter the scene.

Agreed.

It says precisely that Adam would die and was NEVER immortal. People confuse long lived with immortality when it comes to Adam.

Genesis 3:22 "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Does this sound like an immortal being to you? One that is about to be evicted from the garden, because if he eats from the tree of life, he WILL become immortal.

And if Adam was not immortal, the animals surely were not. Besides which, how would Adam know what the punishment for sin was (death) if he had no conception of what death was, being everything was immortal?

 

[Shemjaza]

What they are not bothering to mention is that we use virus to target specific cells for gene therapy. That virus commonly bring DNA from foreign hosts across species all the time. That an ERV is a foreign invader to begin with, that all the shared markers are from ERV sites.

No one is certainly denying that after infection, the body incorporates the foreign DNA to use in protein manufacture, and is THEN passed to future generations vertically.

There would be divergences whether they shared ancestry or whether it came from foreign infection. All the divergence can do is tell you when the foreign infection occurred, not if they share a common ancestor. And this is based solely upon mutation rates, while ignoring the more fundamental truth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So simple mating between different humans would have affected the appearance of time by two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation alone. The same with apes. Therefore the actual infection time would be much, much closer in the past than they account for, being they neglect the changes due to mating which has a 2 to 3 times greater magnitude of producing changes.

I understand how they come to their incorrect conclusions of time, they ignore what is two to three times greater in magnitude.

The new hybrid population will have a variety of traits from both parent populations... This doesn't create new traits.

Where do the original variety of traits found in the two original populations come from? The answers is mutations. That is unless you can demonstrate that your magical genome idea has any merit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

?

Genesis 1:29
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

If what you said was true why did God tell Noah to eat meat , did he have to remind him because that old guy lost memory ?

Genesis 9:3
“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

Perhaps because after the flood, there would be insufficient greenery to eat until plant life had fully re-established itself from seeds??? Just a thought.....

But the animals would be able to subsist on dead plant life until it had re-established itself. Cows eat hay for example...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The new hybrid population will have a variety of traits from both parent populations... This doesn't create new traits.

Where do the original variety of traits found in the two original populations come from? The answers is mutations. That is unless you can demonstrate that your magical genome idea has any merit.

I say your mutations are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude less efficient.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Just accept the science found to be true in real life studies - versus theory. Breeding is able to add new genetic variance on a scale two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutations can. Because the recombining of genomes during mating affects several locus at once, while mutation only affects a single one.

So no, I don't need their fantasy mutations to describe new additive genetic variance. I just need to accept real world studies like you need to.....

The Grants found out how bogus that claim is by studying actual living populations. Yes, I know you believe what they say, but sadly it just isn't true.

 

[Chinchilla]

Perhaps because after the flood, there would be insufficient greenery to eat until plant life had fully re-established itself from seeds??? Just a thought.....

God send manna for his people Israel for 40 years in wilderness.
God send angel with cake for Elijah .
Jesus could feed 5000 men with 2 fishes and 5 breads .


How much is not enought food ?
Noah could have food with him ?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

God send manna for his people Israel for 40 years in wilderness.
God send angel with cake for Elijah .
Jesus could feed 5000 men with 2 fishes and 5 breads .


How much is not enought food ?
Noah could have food with him ?

He did, 7 pair of every clean animal..... God provided. Are you unsatisfied with the way God chose to provide for Noah and his family for some reason? I'm sure he did have food with him, but a year on board and then how long for plants to recover? How much space would you need to feed 8 people for a year???

 

[Chinchilla]

He did, 7 pair of every clean animal..... God provided. Are you unsatisfied with the way God chose to provide for Noah and his family for some reason? I'm sure he did have food with him, but a year on board and then how long for plants to recover? How much space would you need to feed 8 people for a year???

Did Jesus plant wineyard to turn water into wine or did he do it straight away ?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did Jesus plant wineyard to turn water into wine or did he do it straight away ?

Noah isn't Jesus. Noah isn't Moses. Noah isn't Elijah. Noah worked no miracles. But yet he was a righteous man.

And actually Jesus remonstrated his mother for asking for that miracle.

Miracles were not needed to convince the world God existed. Noah and his family - the entire world - already knew that. Had God needed to produce another miracle, another miracle would have been produced. One was not needed.

It seems your unsatisfied because God chose not to miraculously feed Noah.

God supplied in His own way.

Genesis 6:21

"And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them."

Apparently all that he had gathered was enough for the voyage. And after he had 7 pairs of every clean animal.....

 

[Chinchilla]

Noah isn't Jesus. Noah isn't Moses. Noah isn't Elijah. Noah worked no miracles. But yet he was a righteous man.

And actually Jesus remonstrated his mother for asking for that miracle.

Miracles were not needed to convince the world God existed. Noah and his family - the entire world - already knew that. Had God needed to produce another miracle, another miracle would have been produced. One was not needed.

It seems your unsatisfied because God chose not to miraculously feed Noah.

God supplied in His own way.

Genesis 6:21

"And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them."

Apparently all that he had gathered was enough for the voyage. And after he had 7 pairs of every clean animal.....

Well God caused it to rain for 40 days but the water came up from windows in heaven and from fountains from the deep which God opened that's miracle . Also God gave wind to take away water from land so Noah could finally walk out of boat that's another miracle .

I was not arguing for God to miraculously feed Noah but that he feed the animals later on .

On top of that God told him to take only specific amount of animals . Some animals can only feed on meat of another animals that's why we can conclude that they used to not eat each other prior to that because they would eat each other inside of ark plus it was not enought .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well God caused it to rain for 40 days but the water came up from windows in heaven and from fountains from the deep which God opened that's miracle . Also God gave wind to take away water from land so Noah could finally walk out of boat that's another miracle .

I was not arguing for God to miraculously feed Noah but that he feed the animals later on .

On top of that God told him to take only specific amount of animals . Some animals can only feed on meat of another animals that's why we can conclude that they used to not eat each other prior to that because they would eat each other inside of ark plus it was not enought .

Except there would be plenty of dead plant life for the herbivores to eat. If God can cause Lions to walk to the Ark, what makes you believe He couldn't cause them not to eat the other animals on board?

No one knows, but there will one day be a lion that will eat straw like a lamb. The Bible is silent on whether God provided meat for some animals afterwards or not, but he did bless them so they would multiply quickly.

You might read this, it is along the lines you are thinking.

http://etzion.org.il/en/what-changed-after-flood

"Still – animals are now permitted as food. And since they are now permitted as food, we may assume that something changed in the nature of animals, such that now some animals were carnivores and ate other animals, rather than just plants. A priori, we may understand this change in two mutually opposing ways. One possibility is that man's status as ruler by virtue of the image of God within him, was now removed from him. When man was ruler, he was forbidden to eat animals – because the rulers have no right to devour the citizens of their kingdom. As we have said, there was a hierarchy, but no license for use or exploitation. In the wake of man's sin, he can no longer be the ruler of the world, and therefore he can no longer be expected to maintain such a scrupulous standard in his attitude towards the animals. The removal of this moral demand of man is an expression of God's understanding that the level He set for man was too high."

 

[Chinchilla]

Except there would be plenty of dead plant life for the herbivores to eat. If God can cause Lions to walk to the Ark, what makes you believe He couldn't cause them not to eat the other animals on board?

No one knows, but there will one day be a lion that will eat straw like a lamb. The Bible is silent on whether God provided meat for some animals afterwards or not, but he did bless them so they would multiply quickly.

You might read this, it is along the lines you are thinking.

http://etzion.org.il/en/what-changed-after-flood

If Lion was eating meat and God caused him to not kill other animals how do you feed him ? I don't believe Noah had fridge and power generator to keep the meat from going bad .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If Lion was eating meat and God caused him to not kill other animals how do you feed him ? I don't believe Noah had fridge and power generator to keep the meat from going bad .

That's just it. I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also.

Genesis 1:30

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

But just before the flood.

Genesis 6:12

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."


So we today see the end result of that corruption. Lions that eat only meat. So we assume incorrectly that at the time of Noah, that they could only eat meat.

 

[Shemjaza]

I say your mutations are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude less efficient.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Just accept the science found to be true in real life studies - versus theory. Breeding is able to add new genetic variance on a scale two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutations can. Because the recombining of genomes during mating affects several locus at once, while mutation only affects a single one.

So no, I don't need their fantasy mutations to describe new additive genetic variance. I just need to accept real world studies like you need to.....

The Grants found out how bogus that claim is by studying actual living populations. Yes, I know you believe what they say, but sadly it just isn't true.

You are ignoring the point.

Two very similar, but genetically distinct species can hybridise and that is vastly faster way to add new genetic variety to a child population then can be achieved with mutation. But it doesn't create new variety not found in the parents.

What are you not understanding?

Where do you think the variety comes from initially?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe anyone has tested a sample for 1/2 million years and actually verified any half-life.

Nore has anyone seen Pluto complete a full orbit, since
1. humans don't live long enough to witness it
2. a single orbit actually takes longer then the time since we've discovered pluto.

Yet we know it takes 248 years.

The lesson here is that you don't need direct observation to obtain these answers.
If you would inform yourself on the physics of atomic decay, you might know that.

But you prefer burrying your nose in creationist propaganda. Then you'll miss that, off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly, they use a timeline that matches their beliefs

Ow, the irony.......

It actually stains.