- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
We have no control over what others say or often even a clear understanding of what is meant.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since he's talking about a post directed at you what do you think I meant by it?
Originally Posted by progmonk
Well, apes did write the definition and they did include us.
I wasn't rebuking you I was explain what 'fit' meant when Victorian scientists spoke of 'survival of the fittest', but you don't seem particularly interested.Trying to pass off your opinion is not a valid rebuke. Correct or not.
So adaptive traits are the ones more suited to that environment? What happens to these adaptive and non adaptive traits as the organism is adapting more and more to the environment?A common misconception. Adaptive traits are any traits that help a population in it's environment. Nonadaptive traits are those that don't.
I used to be a Creationist myself, so I am pretty familiar with the ideas.You can stop with your mindless blathering about "Creationists". Not only do the forum rules discourage it, but it's quite detrimental to a healthy mindset.
Isn't that what I just said?-Beneficial traits are extremely varied and may include anything from protective coloration, to the ability to utilize a new food source, to a change in size or shape that might be useful in a particular environment.
Didn't God say that before mankind sinned? But it wasn't Satan who subject creation to the bondage of decay. Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. That sounds more like God.Sin entered the world through Adam.
All of creation is groaning.
Satan is the god of this world.
If Satan is the god of this world, it's hard to imagine God thought it was "very good". Any theories?
So dead rabbits are a blessing? James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Sounds like when God provides prey for hungry lions and ravens it is a 'good gift'. How does that contradict God calling creation good?God has provided every blessing to our fallen world. The rains falll on the just and unjust alike.
Lions pace in a cage anyway. But I have no problem with God keeping everyone on the ark healthy and safe. However you were trying to show the animals were vegetarian.I'm simply pointing out that the entire journey on the Ark was a miracle guided by God's hand. One clear indicator was God closing the door. Some animals eat right through wood. Many climb wood easily. All the pens needed to be open for air, food and water, and cleaning or drainage. That would be holes and openings at the top and bottom.
I'd say He stuck around and kept all the animals in line or put them to sleep on a rocking boat, in the dark. Evidently God kept them in shape enough to walk out. That'd be really hard without daily outings to exercise.
If you don't have an answer that's fineAgain, your biases serve you no purpose.
So?They are part of evolution, and perfectly natural no matter if they are human caused or not.
I meant species extinctions.Did you mean climate or territorial extinctions?
I don't know what you mean.Sounds like you understood it then
I meant species extinctions.
Well, I'll go with the bible on whether we are animals or not.
"the man became a living creature[nephesh]"(Gen 2:7) "God created ... every living creature[nephesh] in the water"(Gen 1:21) "let the earth bring forth every kind of creature[nephesh]"(Gen 1:24) we were even given the ability and authority as a race to name all creatures "whatsoever Adam called every living creature[nephesh], that was the name thereof" (Gen 2:19) surely our authority to classify all animals comes from here as well.
Right now? Us. In the past anything from O[sub]2[/sub] poisoning, H[sub]2[/sub]S poisoning, shifting continents, asteroids, massive volcanic eruptions dumping out SO[sub]2[/sub]. Some involved climate change but that isn't the point I was making. The fact is there have been massive extinction events in the natural world in the past too. It is hardly evidence for the fall has changed nature, though the current extinction event is the result of our sinful nature.Caused by what?
That you understood progmonk when he ended his comment to you with the common internet idiom [/smartass]I don't know what you mean.
Gen 3:14-15[/INDENT]Didn't God say that before mankind sinned? But it wasn't Satan who subject creation to the bondage of decay. Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. That sounds more like God.
So dead rabbits are a blessing? James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Sounds like when God provides prey for hungry lions and ravens it is a 'good gift'. How does that contradict God calling creation good?
So in Romans 8 where Paul talks about creation groaning and being in the bondage of decay, there is no reference to the fall, which is why you have to go all the way back to chapter 5, where we read about the fall, but there is no reference to the fall affecting animals?
God didn't call creation very good until he had created man, You need to show that God providing prey for young lions and ravens isn't 'good' (and if it isn't good, why God seems so pleased to be doing it in Job 38 and psalm 104.)
Gen 3:14-15
Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.
Same verses above applied here also. The access to the tree of life denotes a "clean robe," the state of restoration as depicted in Rev is found in Genesis.
Really, you'd have to be the first creationist I've come across who accepts there are two creation stories.The vegetable, beast, fish etc were also created twice, and they are all also comprised of that spiritual aspect.
I'm not quite sure this addresses Assyrian's questions or what he has writtenA continuation of provision through secondary means. It didn't begin that way nor is matter the original condition of restoration.
That was cursing the ground Adam was going to farm, so that it was better at growing thorns and thistles that wheat. It does not say all of creation was subject to the bondage of decay.Gen 3:14-15
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
I agree the tree of life is a picture of our redemption and resurrection in Christ (the one who bore our sins in his body on the tree, who is himself the true vine tree), but we are not told that the resurrection is a restoration of Genesis, in fact if you read 1Cor 15 you will see Paul says the first and second creations are very different.Same verses above applied here also. The access to the tree of life denotes a "clean robe," the state of restoration as depicted in Rev is found in Genesis.
Both creation accounts talk of God creating adm. Was Adam created twice?The vegetable, beast, fish etc were also created twice,
Sorry no idea what that meansand they are all also comprised of that spiritual aspect.
Both reference to God providing prey to lions and ravens come in creation accounts. What we see in the natural world is how God created it.A continuation of provision through secondary means. It didn't begin that way nor is matter the original condition of restoration.
On the same token (by the way I haven't read the last few pages so this is just off the hip) it also does not say it is Adam's land only that will be cursed. But, when looking in full conext and history, the ground is still producing thorns and thistles for us. So it is all over.That was cursing the ground Adam was going to farm, so that it was better at growing thorns and thistles that wheat. It does not say all of creation was subject to the bondage of decay.
Assyrian said:That was cursing the ground Adam was going to farm, so that it was better at growing thorns and thistles that wheat. It does not say all of creation was subject to the bondage of decay.
That was cursing the ground Adam was going to farm, so that it was better at growing thorns and thistles that wheat. It does not say all of creation was subject to the bondage of decay.
I agree the tree of life is a picture of our redemption and resurrection in Christ (the one who bore our sins in his body on the tree, who is himself the true vine tree), but we are not told that the resurrection is a restoration of Genesis,
in fact if you read 1Cor 15 you will see Paul says the first and second creations are very different.
Both creation accounts talk of God creating adm. Was Adam created twice?
Sorry no idea what that means
Both reference to God providing prey to lions and ravens come in creation accounts.
What we see in the natural world is how God created it.
The word adamah isn't simply a generic word for ground, but refers to a particular kind of red soil. In the context this is a particular region of red soil God formed Adam from.On the same token (by the way I haven't read the last few pages so this is just off the hip) it also does not say it is Adam's land only that will be cursed.
You are assuming thistles and brambles weren't part of God's original creation. Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. The word keep shamar, literally means build a hedge of thorns around it. Aren't blackberry brambles part of 'every plant yielding seed' Gen 1:29.But, when looking in full conext and history, the ground is still producing thorns and thistles for us. So it is all over.
What you need to do is link Romans 8:22 with Genesis 3:18, but Romans 8 doesn't say creation groaning is the result of the fall, and Genesis doesn't say all of creation was cursed as a result of Adam's sin.Romans 8:22 (KJV) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?