Rapid Adaptation

[Stripe]

All of these things you are saying about Stripe.

To be fair, he can say what he wants about me; it is what he teaches that he knows is not so that will get him into trouble.

 

[everready]

I'm just pointing out that your new religion isn't consistent with the facts. Christians have no issue with evolution; it's God's creation, after all.

Bible believers realize that evolution is a religion, you have to have faith in it to believe it.

everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I'm just pointing out that your new religion isn't consistent with the facts. Christians have no issue with evolution; it's God's creation, after all.

Bible believers realize that evolution is a religion

No one actually believes that, even the people who say it. Here's a way to test that:

Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science.

No faith required.


you have to have faith in it to believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

To be fair, he can say what he wants about me; it is what he teaches that he knows is not so that will get him into trouble.

I can honestly say that I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true.

And it's a stupid tactic anyway. If one provides links and documentation for one's statements, no honest person would care; they would just check the documentation.

Did you not realize that?

 

[everready]

I can honestly say that I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true.

And it's a stupid tactic anyway. If one provides links and documentation for one's statements, no honest person would care; they would just check the documentation.

Did you not realize that?

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes." Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."[1] A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's _Origin of Species_, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation," with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."[2] G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief."[3]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they _believe_ it!

I believe that the Sun is larger than the Earth. Only a foolish or dishonest person would say that belief equates to religion. Do you honestly think anyone really thinks so?

Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes."

So your belief in God isn't knowledge? It confirms what Christians have always suspected of creationists; you lack faith.

Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated.

You overestimate science. We prove nothing in science. That is only possible when you know all the rules and deduce the answers from the rules. In science, we see the particulars and inductively infer the rules.

This might seem unreliable to you, but nothing else is as successful at understanding the physical universe.

Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested

If you think so, you're a lot more ignorant of biology than I supposed. As you just learned, science can't "prove" anything. However it's simple to test evolution. For example, it was hypothesized that there must have been dinosaurs with feathers. And that hypothesis was confirmed by numerous examples.

It hypothesized transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. And that hypothesis has been confirmed.

It hypothesized that disease organisms would evolve antibiotic resistance. Again, tested and confirmed.

It hypothesized, from the family tree discovered by Linnaeus that organisms closely placed on the tree would be more similar in genes than those widely separated. And that was also tested and confirmed.

And Darwin's prediction of innumerable transitional forms has been repeatedly tested and confirmed, as even honest creationists admit.

Would you like to see some of these?

 

[everready]

I believe that the Sun is larger than the Earth. Only a foolish or dishonest person would say that belief equates to religion. Do you honestly think anyone really thinks so?



So your belief in God isn't knowledge? It confirms what Christians have always suspected of creationists; you lack faith.



You overestimate science. We prove nothing in science. That is only possible when you know all the rules and deduce the answers from the rules. In science, we see the particulars and inductively infer the rules.

This might seem unreliable to you, but nothing else is as successful at understanding the physical universe.



If you think so, you're a lot more ignorant of biology than I supposed. As you just learned, science can't "prove" anything. However it's simple to test evolution. For example, it was hypothesized that there must have been dinosaurs with feathers. And that hypothesis was confirmed by numerous examples.

It hypothesized transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. And that hypothesis has been confirmed.

It hypothesized that disease organisms would evolve antibiotic resistance. Again, tested and confirmed.

It hypothesized, from the family tree discovered by Linnaeus that organisms closely placed on the tree would be more similar in genes than those widely separated. And that was also tested and confirmed.

And Darwin's prediction of innumerable transitional forms has been repeatedly tested and confirmed, as even honest creationists admit.

Would you like to see some of these?

Lets stick with it being a religion, it appears to be yours its all you ever talk about.

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, Gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Lets stick with it being a religion, it appears to be yours its all you ever talk about.

So now you think a religion is something someone wants to talk about? No wonder you have issues with Christianity.

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

Hm... let's see.. Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with their faith. Muslims don't generally. Jews usually do.

Most of the Vedic religions don't mind it. Buddhism doesn't.

But none of them make it a doctrine of faith. You and the Muslims are pretty much the only two.

Your New Age weirdness notwithstanding. Why not just let God do it His way?

 

[6days]

To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."Rev. 21:4

For humans to some extent yes. But there's no evidence Adam and Eve were immortal to start with. Otherwise, why is there a tree of life and why do they have to be kept from it?

To some extent physical death is a result of sin? What extent do you think...60%?
No.... to the full extent!

No evidence they were immortal? Of course there is.
Genesis 3:17 is one of many sources of evidence. God tells Adam and Eve they will return to the dust because of sin. That penalty would have been meaningless if they were already going to die.

Re. Tree of life...
I don't think we can know exactly the role / function of that Tree. Although there are other verses in the Bible that connect that tree to the eternal nature of God. 1 Cor. 15 starting v12 also helps to understand that if Adam had eternal life, but in a lost sinful condition....then humanity would not be eligible to partake in the resurrection. We would be eternally lost and separated from God. God was merciful preventing humanity from living in a state of eternal separation.

Other reasons from scripture showing us that physical death (semmingly to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures') was a consequence of sin.

Why vertebrates and not other animals or plants?

Pethaps I should have said 'mostly vertebrates' because the Bible defines life as 'nepesh' which seems to be living breathing creatures. The word is also associated in the OT with things such as emotions and conciousness.*

1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die".http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

Gotta try really hard with that one. It's actually been an argument from ancient times.

For good reason.... it is consistent with all of scripture that physical death was one of the penalties of sin.

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see*Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

But humans still die. If Christ came to save humanity from physical death, clearly that didn't happen.

Of course we still die.. the Bible tells us we will die... all die because of sin.*

Christ died even though He had not sinned, because He stepped in as our Mediator. "
For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus."

He defeated death by resurrecting. Our physical resurrection is possible because of Christ.

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in*1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

It is to some extent part of the curse, it's not the main point of the curse though.
Because without separation from God (spiritual death), dying is gain!

Dying is gain? Then we should all shoot ourselves..... unless there is more to what Paul said, and why. Dying is gain because Christ defeated physical death. And, dying is gain because we can partake in His resurrection.

I would say there's nothing evil about death in animals. If animal death was evil, why would God command it as part of the worship of the ancient Israelites?

Your comments demonstrate how compromise in Genesis leads to compromise on the Gospel.*

He. *9:22 In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.


Physical death is a penalty for sin. In the OT, people were to sacrifice (physical death) *a pure spotless animal.*Christ became the ultimate sacrifice, the Perfect Lamb, and by His death, conquered sin and defeated the enemy of death. The daily shedding of blood is no longer necessary because Jesus offered Himself once and for all. The penalty of physical death was paid. His sacrifice was His own blood (His physical death). Heb. *9:12

 

[everready]

So now you think a religion is something someone wants to talk about? No wonder you have issues with Christianity.



Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?



Hm... let's see.. Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with their faith. Muslims don't generally. Jews usually do.

Most of the Vedic religions don't mind it. Buddhism doesn't.

But none of them make it a doctrine of faith. You and the Muslims are pretty much the only two.

Your New Age weirdness notwithstanding. Why not just let God do it His way?

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

http://www.icr.org/article/455/


everready

 

[everready]

So now you think a religion is something someone wants to talk about? No wonder you have issues with Christianity.



Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?



Hm... let's see.. Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with their faith. Muslims don't generally. Jews usually do.

Most of the Vedic religions don't mind it. Buddhism doesn't.

But none of them make it a doctrine of faith. You and the Muslims are pretty much the only two.

Your New Age weirdness notwithstanding. Why not just let God do it His way?

You say "Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with their faith"

That's a bold face lie, all of the believers that i know believe its nothing more than an attack on Gods word.


everready

 

[6days]

Yes, let's take a look.

In Leviticus, the word used is kilayim, which is in reference to regulations regarding the mixture of different sorts, including fabric. Clearly a distinct concept from the word used in Genesis — miym.

You've made the mistake of thinking a word must mean only one thing and not checked your source material.

I was about to look in Leviticus. ...Then I seen you replied. Good answer

 

[Alate_One]

To some extent physical death is a result of sin? What extent do you think...60%?
No.... to the full extent!

What I mean is while yes humans did not get to maintain immortality (via the tree of life), the *big* problem of the "fall" was the loss of communion with God. (Spiritual Death)

Re. Tree of life...
I don't think we can know exactly the role / function of that Tree. Although there are other verses in the Bible that connect that tree to the eternal nature of God. 1 Cor. 15 starting v12 also helps to understand that if Adam had eternal life, but in a lost sinful condition....then humanity would not be eligible to partake in the resurrection. We would be eternally lost and separated from God. God was merciful preventing humanity from living in a state of eternal separation.

I think you're trying really hard for something that has an obvious answer. Without the tree of life, neither Adam nor Eve were immortal. So when Adam sins and is kicked out of the garden he won't be immortal anymore. Otherwise why have angels guarding the tree?

So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

I think what I have said fits the text far better than YEC dogma.
YEC dogma being a "fall" that encompasses basically the entire universe. Not only was there no animal death, there were no earthquakes, storms or anything natural that could be construed as destructive in any way. It's a way of dealing with the problem of evil, I just don't see it to be a scriptural one.

Pethaps I should have said 'mostly vertebrates' because the Bible defines life as 'nepesh' which seems to be living breathing creatures. The word is also associated in the OT with things such as emotions and conciousness.*

And you're stretching the text to the breaking point to get a lack of *any* animal death out of it.

Dying is gain? Then we should all shoot ourselves..... unless there is more to what Paul said, and why.

Yes, obviously there is but that wasn't the point of this discussion.

Dying is gain because Christ defeated physical death. And, dying is gain because we can partake in His resurrection.

Indeed, because we can be with Christ. And without spiritual death, physical death has no "sting". You're not connecting the dots very well.

Your comments demonstrate how compromise in Genesis leads to compromise on the Gospel.*

There was no compromise in what I said. I simply didn't explain the gospel in full.

Physical death is a penalty for sin. In the OT, people were to sacrifice (physical death) *a pure spotless animal.*Christ became the ultimate sacrifice, the Perfect Lamb, and by His death, conquered sin and defeated the enemy of death. The daily shedding of blood is no longer necessary because Jesus offered Himself once and for all. The penalty of physical death was paid. His sacrifice was His own blood (His physical death). Heb. *9:12

You miss my point again. An animal can't sin, therefore it is innocent and has no choice. If killing it was evil, God wouldn't have mandated it would He?

And if God mandated it there's nothing evil about animals killing one another before the fall.

 

[6days]

You say "Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with their faith"

That's a bold face lie, all of the believers that i know believe its nothing more than an attack on Gods word.


everready

And it depends how you define the word. All Christians, I would think agree that animal populations can adapt.....or that through breeding, you can select certain traits. However I would think most reject the belief system that man evolved from animals.
I asked a South Korean friend recently what Christians there think about evolution. She looked shocked and asked me to repeat. She laughed and said "That's just silly. We don't believe that".

 

[way 2 go]

I can honestly say that I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true.

you don't know your deceived until your not

And it's a stupid tactic anyway. If one provides links and documentation for one's statements, no honest person would care; they would just check the documentation.

Did you not realize that?

rodhocetus
faked and still on display
https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

oh yeah you still believe in rodhocetus

 

[6days]

the big problem of the "fall" was the loss of communion with God. (Spiritual Death)

So... the 'little problem' then is that the spiritual death would mean an eternity in Hell after physical death? If the "Big" problem was just spiritual death, then Christ did not need go to the cross...and the Gospel becomes illogical.

Because Christ conquered physical death, He is our mediator in restoring communion with God. Christ paid the debt... "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin"

Re. Tree of life...
I don't think we can know exactly the role / function of that Tree. Although there are other verses in the Bible that connect that tree to the eternal nature of God. 1 Cor. 15 starting v12 also helps to understand that if Adam had eternal life, but in a lost sinful condition....then humanity would not be eligible to partake in the resurrection. We would be eternally lost and separated from God. God was merciful preventing humanity from living in a state of eternal separation.

I think you're trying really hard for something that has an obvious answer. Without the tree of life, neither Adam nor Eve were immortal. So when Adam sins and is kicked out of the garden he won't be immortal anymore. Otherwise why have angels guarding the tree?

Yes... the text indicates that if Adam did not physically die, he would have a Godless eternity.

YEC dogma being a "fall" that encompasses basically the entire universe. Not only was there no animal death, there were no earthquakes, storms or anything natural that could be construed as destructive in any way. It's a way of dealing with the problem of evil, I just don't see it to be a scriptural one.

And, I see that view of a perfect creation consistent with scripture and the nature of God.

Evolutionary dogma believes in a God who 'created' through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it "very good". The god of evolutionism is not the omnipotent, omniscient Holy God of the Bible.

And without spiritual death, physical death has no "sting". You're not connecting the dots very well.

And with spiritual death, physical death has a "sting". You're not connecting the dots very well.

Christ had to die physically to pay the penalty of our sin. (Heb. 2:14 as example)

An animal can't sin, therefore it is innocent and has no choice. If killing it was evil, God wouldn't have mandated it would He?

Again... This shows how evolutionism tosses out the Gospel.

God tells us that the shedding of blood / death was the penalty for our sin. Only the innocent blood of the Lamb could pay the penalty for our sin. I can't take your penalty by dying for you Alate...I'm a sinner too.

Shedding of blood, (lamb, or The Lamb) certainly was not part of God's "very good" creation, but was a consequence of sin corrupting this world.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary dogma believes in a God who 'created' through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it "very good".

Do you suppose an omniscient God would not know this was going to happen? And do you think that man sinning would force an omnipotent God to change nature to one in which death occurred?

The god of creationism is not the omnipotent, omniscient Holy God of the Bible.

 

[Yorzhik]

Do you suppose an omniscient God would not know this was going to happen? And do you think that man sinning would force an omnipotent God to change nature to one in which death occurred?

The god of creationism is not the omnipotent, omniscient Holy God of the Bible.

Amazing... the settled view strikes again!

Curious how your views would change if God was neither omniscient or omnipotent?

 

[Stripe]

I can honestly say that I don't say anything here that I don't believe to be true.

And it's a stupid tactic anyway. If one provides links and documentation for one's statements, no honest person would care; they would just check the documentation.

Did you not realize that?

However, you failed to follow your own advice, preferring to invent a definition of kind to attribute to me and refusing to address your "honest mistake" when called on it.

You are TOL's most dishonest member, a fact that is well documented.

 

[Stripe]

I was about to look in Leviticus. ...Then I seen you replied. Good answer

Good for us; not so good for Barbarian, whose dishonest conduct has been shown up again.