Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[mathetes123]

If you don't want to talk about taxonomy... don't bring it up. Nobody forced you to make claims about taxonomy.



Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila

Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris | Mendeley

Heredity - Abstract of article: Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The article did not say anything about the Drosophila being transformed into another created kind.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

1) Before the fall, Adam & Eve were vegetarians. Are you suggesting God lied when he said the penalty for sin is death?

2) The Bible says he was the first man.

3) Reptiles are land animals. You just admitted the birds came before the land animals (which includes reptiles), which is the opposite order given by evolutionists and therefore does not fit the evolutionary account.

1) There is no passage suggesting Adam and Eve only ate plants, only that they were allowed to eat from any tree, except the Tree of knowledge. Besides, don't plants die when they are picked and eaten?

2) Surprisingly it doesn't. It merely says that He created man and later placed him in the Garden of Eden. Some even think there was more than one creation of man - this however is a controversial interpretation, as it is occassionally used by racists groups.

3) I said the sky was inhabited before the land was. Alternatively, the words used in Genesis were "Op" (which refers to insects) and "Kanaph" (which means winged). Flying insects were indeed one of the first creatures to inhabit the land. Here's a link to explain the Jewish terms: LINK

 

[Incariol]

The article did not say anything about the Drosophila being transformed into another created kind.

I know, you get to say that because "kind" is something you made up in your head. Therefore, nobody can ever show a "change in kind" because no one but you knows what that would be, and you can just continue changing the definition.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

1. We all know that "micro" and "macro" evolution is a cute false dichotomy invented by Creationists to move the goalposts.

It is not. He raised a legitimate issue so don't try and rub his face in Darwinian dogma when you don't have a leg to stand on.

2. What is a "kind"? Your taxonomic argument is gibberish until you tell us what that is.

Why didn't you try looking it up in a dictionary?

(Mirriam Webster) a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> .

(Free online dictionary) A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.

3. Dogs are not a "kind", they are a subspecies of Canis lupus. Unless "kind" is a synonym for "subspecies". We are all, of course, still waiting for you to tell us what a "kind" is.

Of the family canadae. Find a dog that will produce a non-dog of any type over any time frame you choose and under any natural circumstances.

4. Nobody has ever said breeding dogs will eventually produce a cat. What on earth are you talking about?

And? It won't produce anything other than a dog.

Here is the real problem as to what has happened with definitions:

Under the old definition:

now under the new definition.

Quote: "In the mid-to-late 1700s, species began taking on a new, more specific definition in scientific circles as a biological term (that definition is still being debated even today). But by and large, the definition had changed so that, instead of there being a dog species (or dog kind), there were many dog species.

In the lay and church sense, the word species was still viewed as the biblical &#8220;kind.&#8221; But as the scientific term gained popularity, this led to a problem. When theologians and church members said &#8220;fixity of species&#8221; (meaning fixity of the biblical kinds) people readily saw that there were variations among the species (by the new definition). They thought, &#8220;But species do change!&#8221; Of course, no one ever showed something like a dog changing into something like a cat. Dogs were still dogs; cats were still cats, and so on.

However, a bait-and-switch fallacy had taken place. Christians were teaching fixity of species (kinds), but the definition of species changed out from under them. So, Christians looked ignorant when people began observing that species&#8212;by the new definition&#8212;do change. Of course, in reality, this was merely variation within the created kinds, for example, dogs could be observed changing into something different&#8212;still dogs, but not looking like other &#8220;species&#8221; (by the new definition) of dogs. So, it appeared that the created kinds were becoming new species (new definition), even though the animals did not change into a different kind of animal." (Answers in Genesis).

Exactly. Couldn't describe the present confusion more accurately.

 

[mathetes123]

1) There is no passage suggesting Adam and Eve only ate plants, only that they were allowed to eat from any tree, except the Tree of knowledge. Besides, don't plants die when they are picked and eaten?

2) Surprisingly it doesn't. It merely says that He created man and later placed him in the Garden of Eden. Some even think there was more than one creation of man - this however is a controversial interpretation, as it is occassionally used by racists groups.

3) I said the sky was inhabited before the land was. Alternatively, the words used in Genesis were "Op" (which refers to insects) and "Kanaph" (which means winged). Flying insects were indeed one of the first creatures to inhabit the land. Here's a link to explain the Jewish terms: LINK

Why the contortions you have to put the Bible through to twist the meaning to align with evolution when you could just accept the plain meaning of the creation account?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Why the contortions you have to put the Bible through to twist the meaning to align with evolution when you could just accept the plain meaning of the creation account?

Very, very good question. I am with you all the way.

But don't expect an honest answer from any of those who are committed to the lies of neo-Darwinism.

 

[mathetes123]

I know, you get to say that because "kind" is something you made up in your head. Therefore, nobody can ever show a "change in kind" because no one but you knows what that would be, and you can just continue changing the definition.

God created all the animals according to their kind. I did not invent the word. Species, on the other hand, is an artificial man made classification system which does not necessarily correspond with God's created kinds.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why the contortions you have to put the Bible through to twist the meaning to align with evolution when you could just accept the plain meaning of the creation account?

Very, very good question. I am with you all the way.

But don't expect an honest answer from any of those who are committed to the lies of neo-Darwinism.

(Careful Kirk, you're using those offensive emoticons again. )

I could ask the same of Creationists. I've heard creationists say that dinosaurs an humans lived alongside one another, that Adam and Eve were vegetarians (which would suggest that eating meat is a sin) and that there was literally no death before the Fall.

None of which is mentioned in the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Very good points. Here are a couple more I have seen:

1) Theistic evolution puts death before Adam, rather than after, making death the instrument of creation rather than the penalty for sin. This undermines the doctrine of original sin, in turn undermining the gospel message.
2) Evolution implies that the story of Adam and Eve was an allegorical story and not historical. If the first Adam is not historical, what does that say about the last Adam (Jesus)?
3) Evolution says the reptiles preceded the birds. Creation says the birds were created before the reptiles.

Either the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God or it isn't. The creation account in Genesis cannot be reconciled with theistic evolution.

I'm not going to respond to the main issues, which are how we use Scripture, and your spurious scientific arguments. However the theological questions have bothered enough thoughtful people interested in TE that they're worth commenting on.

1) Physical death can't have been the punishment for Adam's sin. As noted, that would have required him to die immediately, which he did not.

You point to Paul's comparison between Adam and Christ. But 1 Cor 15:22 says that as we all die in Adam we all are made alive in Christ. But in Christ we don't get eternal life physically. Just as in Christ was get eternal life with God, with Adam we would get eternal death.

Here's Calvin's comment on Gen 2:17. Note that Calvin assumes that without Adam's sin we still would die, but it would be a simple passing into eternal life, and would not have the mental and spiritual problems that make death now so difficult for us. (I quote Calvin to show that this is not a modernist understanding of Adam's sin.)

But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely, alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead, who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breathe nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy.

2) Paul's comparison between Adam and Christ works fine with a symbolic interpretation of Genesis. We are not physical descendants of Christ, nor does our relationship with him bring us physically eternal life. Rather, through spiritual union with him we get life in its full Biblical sense. Similarly, those who are the spiritual descendants of Adam, and whose sin is not dealt with by Christ, are now spiritually dead and in the end will get what Rev calls the "second death."

The second death does not require physical descent from Adam. In Rom 5:12 Paul notes that we are Adam's descendants because we sin, not because we are physically descended from him, just as we are Christ's descendants because of faith in him, not from physical descent.

 

[Incariol]

It is not. He raised a legitimate issue so don't try and rub his face in Darwinian dogma when you don't have a leg to stand on.

"How dare you point out that "kind" is a definitionless term that we can shift around however we want! That smacks of logic and honesty!"

Why didn't you try looking it up in a dictionary?

(Mirriam Webster) a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> .

(Free online dictionary) A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.

That could apply to all of Biota. Do you understand what taxonomy even is?

Of the family canadae. Find a dog that will produce a non-dog of any type over any time frame you choose and under any natural circumstances.'

Oh for God's sake.

1. You are moving the goalposts again. First it was "an example of macroevolution", then "change in kind", now it is specifically canids? You really are desperate.

2. It is spelled "Canidae".

3. Canids /= dogs.

4. And this isn't particularly difficult. The evolution of primeval canids into subsequent clades. Do you understand nested cladistics?

4. Nobody has ever said breeding dogs will eventually produce a cat. What on earth are you talking about?[/quote]

And? It won't produce anything other than a cat.

Here is the real problem as to what has happened with definitions:

Under the old definition:

now under the new definition.

Quote: "In the mid-to-late 1700s, species began taking on a new, more specific definition in scientific circles as a biological term (that definition is still being debated even today). But by and large, the definition had changed so that, instead of there being a dog species (or dog kind), there were many dog species.

In the lay and church sense, the word species was still viewed as the biblical “kind.” But as the scientific term gained popularity, this led to a problem. When theologians and church members said “fixity of species” (meaning fixity of the biblical kinds) people readily saw that there were variations among the species (by the new definition). They thought, “But species do change!” Of course, no one ever showed something like a dog changing into something like a cat. Dogs were still dogs; cats were still cats, and so on.

However, a bait-and-switch fallacy had taken place. Christians were teaching fixity of species (kinds), but the definition of species changed out from under them. So, Christians looked ignorant when people began observing that species—by the new definition—do change. Of course, in reality, this was merely variation within the created kinds, for example, dogs could be observed changing into something different—still dogs, but not looking like other “species” (by the new definition) of dogs. So, it appeared that the created kinds were becoming new species (new definition), even though the animals did not change into a different kind of animal." (Answers in Genesis).

Exactly. Couldn't describe the present confusion more accurately.

I'm sorry, but the deficiency of science education in Creationists isn't my fault.

 

[mathetes123]

1) There is no passage suggesting Adam and Eve only ate plants, only that they were allowed to eat from any tree, except the Tree of knowledge. Besides, don't plants die when they are picked and eaten?

2) Surprisingly it doesn't. It merely says that He created man and later placed him in the Garden of Eden. Some even think there was more than one creation of man - this however is a controversial interpretation, as it is occassionally used by racists groups.

3) I said the sky was inhabited before the land was. Alternatively, the words used in Genesis were "Op" (which refers to insects) and "Kanaph" (which means winged). Flying insects were indeed one of the first creatures to inhabit the land. Here's a link to explain the Jewish terms: LINK

1) Gen 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.
Gen 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.

2) 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

3) Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Incariol]

God created all the animals according to their kind. I did not invent the word.

I don't really care. If you want to discuss taxonomy, fine, but if you want to discuss Creationist neologisms, there is probably a more appropriate thread. Here, we are discussing evolutionary biology, which involves taxonomy.

 

[mathetes123]

I'm sorry, but the deficiency of science education in Creationists isn't my fault.

Nor is the deficiency in biblical eduction in Evolutionists the fault of Creationists.

 

[mathetes123]

I don't really care. If you want to discuss taxonomy, fine, but if you want to discuss Creationist neologisms, there is probably a more appropriate thread. Here, we are discussing evolutionary biology, which involves taxonomy.

It appears you are the one trying to move the goalposts. If you are arguing for theistic evolution, the standard classification needs to be created kinds as defined by the Bible, not the artificial classification system creation by man. Now, if you are abandoning theistic evolution for straight up evolution with no need for God, then you are free to use artificial man made classifications, but you introduce a whole new series of problems, such as abiogenesis.

 

[Incariol]

Nor is the deficiency in biblical eduction in Evolutionists the fault of Creationists.

If I meet any Christians who believe in basic biology who feel that they should somehow be blaming Creationists for a perceived lack, I'll let them know.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Mathetes123: Quoting verses won't help. Even if we assume that Adam and Eve were vegatarians, that doesn't change the fact that plants die when they are eaten. Your original point was that there was literally no death before the Fall - which is incorrect.

As I said earlier, literal Jewish translations show that the first flying creatures were winged insects rather than birds.

Furthermore - if Adam and Eve were vegatarians before the Fall, wouldn't that suggest eating meat is sinful? A hindu or buddhist might think so, but not a christian or jew. And what of carnivorous animals? Surely we cannot call a lion sinful for eating zebras?

 

[Incariol]

It appears you are the one trying to move the goalposts. If you are arguing for theistic evolution, the standard classification needs to be created kinds as defined by the Bible, not the artificial classification system creation by man.

What? ROFL, no it doesn't.

Now, if you are abandoning theistic evolution for straight up evolution with no need for God, then you are free to use artificial man made classifications, but you introduce a whole new series of problems, such as abiogenesis.

If theistic evolution had ever involved using a taxonomic system that you had personally made up, no one would believe in it, dude. I think you need to review Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Theistic evolution is just the belief that God used natural processes to create, not some weird mishmash of Creationism and biology!

Also abiogenesis /= evolution. That isn't even relevant.

 

[mathetes123]

What? ROFL, no it doesn't.



If theistic evolution had ever involved using a taxonomic system that you had personally made up, no one would believe in it, dude. I think you need to review Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Theistic evolution is just the belief that God used natural processes to create, not some weird mishmash of Creationism and biology!

Also abiogenesis /= evolution. That isn't even relevant.

I didn't personally make it up. Read Genesis one. God defines the created kinds:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

[Incariol]

I didn't personally make it up. Read Genesis one. God defines the created kinds:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Gen 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Since you have been repeatedly not bothering to define "kind" in taxonomy, I'm going to say that "dog" Canis lupus familiaris is a kind. "Kind" is therefore synonymous with subspecies. We have already shown numerous examples of development at that level, so we have observed evolution at the level of "kind".

Was there anything else?

 

[mathetes123]

Mathetes123: Quoting verses won't help. Even if we assume that Adam and Eve were vegatarians, that doesn't change the fact that plants die when they are eaten. Your original point was that there was literally no death before the Fall - which is incorrect.

As I said earlier, literal Jewish translations show that the first flying creatures were winged insects rather than birds.

Furthermore - if Adam and Eve were vegatarians before the Fall, wouldn't that suggest eating meat is sinful? A hindu or buddhist might think so, but not a christian or jew. And what of carnivorous animals? Surely we cannot call a lion sinful for eating zebras?

Plants are not moral creatures with souls.

God allowed the eating of meat after the flood:

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.