Why do we look so much like apes?

[SkyWriting]

Since he's talking about a post directed at you what do you think I meant by it?

We have no control over what others say or often even a clear understanding of what is meant.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by progmonk
Well, apes did write the definition and they did include us.

Ah, you are correct.
When things get classified by what they look like, my brain goes numb.

Have some cake, all you biologists.

 

[Assyrian]

Trying to pass off your opinion is not a valid rebuke. Correct or not.

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.

A common misconception. Adaptive traits are any traits that help a population in it's environment. Nonadaptive traits are those that don't.

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?

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.

I used to be a Creationist myself, so I am pretty familiar with the ideas.

-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.

Isn't that what I just said?

Behaviour, size, colour, metabolic rate, reproductive rate, parental strategies and a load of other traits all affect how suited and organism is to its environment.
​

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?

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.

God has provided every blessing to our fallen world. The rains falll on the just and unjust alike.

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?

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.

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.

Again, your biases serve you no purpose.

If you don't have an answer that's fine

They are part of evolution, and perfectly natural no matter if they are human caused or not.

So?

Did you mean climate or territorial extinctions?

I meant species extinctions.

 

[Assyrian]

Since he's talking about a post directed at you what do you think I meant by it?

We have no control over what others say or often even a clear understanding of what is meant.

Sounds like you understood it then

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds like you understood it then

I don't know what you mean.

 

[SkyWriting]

I meant species extinctions.

Caused by what?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I agree. It's just more fun to use human sources that go against
the idea that man is an animal. Things people vote on like legal
issues. Every state in the Union, individually & specifically excludes
humans from animal laws. The taxonomical link is ignored as irrelevant,
as it should be.

 

[Assyrian]

Caused by what?

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.

You seem to keep hopping from subject to subject here sky. You brought up current extinctions to avoid the fact that predation is a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem and that ecosystems are much worse off if we remove the apex predators.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't know what you mean.

That you understood progmonk when he ended his comment to you with the common internet idiom [/smartass]
It seemed a reasonable request when progmonk asked you if you understood what he meant. Yet you avoided the question.

 

[Greg1234]

[/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.

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.”

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?

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.

 

[Greg1234]

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?

The vegetable, beast, fish etc were also created twice, and they are all also comprised of that spiritual aspect.

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.)

A continuation of provision through secondary means. It didn't begin that way nor is matter the original condition of restoration.

 

[Keachian]

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.

So you agree with Assyrian? Because I don't understand how the verses you quote say otherwise, if you believe they do please expand

 

[Keachian]

The vegetable, beast, fish etc were also created twice, and they are all also comprised of that spiritual aspect.

Really, you'd have to be the first creationist I've come across who accepts there are two creation stories.

A continuation of provision through secondary means. It didn't begin that way nor is matter the original condition of restoration.

I'm not quite sure this addresses Assyrian's questions or what he has written

 

[Assyrian]

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.”

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.

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.

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.

The vegetable, beast, fish etc were also created twice,

Both creation accounts talk of God creating adm. Was Adam created twice?

and they are all also comprised of that spiritual aspect.

Sorry no idea what that means

A continuation of provision through secondary means. It didn't begin that way nor is matter the original condition of restoration.

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.

 

[Gozreht]

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.

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.

 

[mathetes123]

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.

Romans 8:22 (KJV) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

 

[Greg1234]

Really, you'd have to be the first creationist I've come across who accepts there are two creation stories.

There were two creations.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

It's cursing the ground. It is also the provision of food "through the sweat of his brow."

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,

The access to the tree of life is granted in Genesis and is restored in Rev through "clean robes."

in fact if you read 1Cor 15 you will see Paul says the first and second creations are very different.

One was formed from the dust of the earth, the other is already of dust, restored by the spirit.

Both creation accounts talk of God creating adm. Was Adam created twice?

As just given.

Sorry no idea what that means

Of course not

Both reference to God providing prey to lions and ravens come in creation accounts.

The provision was given in Gen 3:14-15. It's not the original state though.

What we see in the natural world is how God created it.

In Christian Darwinism. Otherwise it is a post-fall era.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

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.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
God took Adam from there to the garden he planted.
Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Now the description of God planting the garden of Eden also refer to adamah ground, but notice how the adamah Adam was formed from was outside Eden. The story keeps coming back to it.

Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
Is this any ground? If we look in the next verse the curse is starting to sound as though it is more specific, talking about Adam dying and returning to the ground, not just any ground, but the ground he was taken from.
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Is the ground Adam was taken from generic, or does it refer to the specific area? Look where Adam was sent to farm when he was kicked out of Eden.
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

But, when looking in full conext and history, the ground is still producing thorns and thistles for us. So it is all over.

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.

 

[Assyrian]

Romans 8:22 (KJV) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

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.