What does the phrase "survival of the fittest" mean?

[Robert]

Through the eyes of evolution, when did mankind become sinful?

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Again, are you suggesting that animals do not die?

---

No, I am suggesting that the death of animals is not solely due to sin, and that there is no scriptural reason to believe that they did not die before the Fall.

/Bevin

[Robert]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Quote:

---

Again, are you suggesting that animals do not die?

---

No, I am suggesting that the death of animals is not solely due to sin, and that there is no scriptural reason to believe that they did not die before the Fall.

/Bevin

---

Sin produces death.... Hence, "The wages of sin is death"! Sin pays in death.

According to Genesis, God's creation was perfect...it was complete. Perfection equates to immortality and sinlessness. On the other hand imperfection equates to mortality and sinfulness.

Rob

[there buster]

Quote:

---

not to animals....

Try again

---

Here is a perfect example of Biblical literalism, while at the same time being Biblically illiterate.

In Genesis, Adam is given dominion over the animals. This happens not just explicitly, but symbolically, when they are broght to Adam to be named.

When Adam sineed, sin and death had dominion over him. But not just him, over all of his dominion as well. Adam and Eve had been clothed in light, the result of being in communion with the Source of all Light. When they sinned, they had to be clothed in animal skins, that is, they were clothed in death. Their sin brought the need for covering, and that covering came at the expense of animals. Thus, their whole dominion now came under the dominion of death.

No, the Bible nowhere says this explicitly, but it is inherent in any real understanding of the Hebrew text.

Bevin insists on asking Greek questions of a Hebrew text, and trumpeting when such questions have no answers.

[bevin]

In summary, you agree...

The bible NOWHERE says that animals did not die in Eden.

You don't like this fact, so feel obliged to read between the lines to get it.

/Bevin

[Amelia]

Well here is my 2 cents worth.

Animals were created, but without souls. No soul, no sin. Yes animals die but from a God ordained life span or through predation. Just like plants die after their season is over.

Ecclesiastes 3:1

To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

In summary, you agree...

The bible NOWHERE says that animals did not die in Eden.

You don't like this fact, so feel obliged to read between the lines to get it.

---

It's not a matter of whether I like that "fact" or not. It's simply that the Bible doesn't primarily deal in mere facts.

In summary:

1) The Bible NOWHERE says they did not die, nor does it say that they did die. The argument from silence proves NOTHING. Based on that silence, each is as likely as the other.

2) Your ignorance of the meaning of the Bible is almost total. You read all the words, get the literal dictionary definition, but know nothing of the significance. Like the Cosmonaut who orbited the Earth and "Didn't see God." You cannot find an explanation for the supernatural if you examine only nature. No matter how advanced your physics, they can never explain metaphysics.

Taking the approach you are now, you will never find the evidence, because it isn't presented in the cramped way you prefer. God doesn't give deep truths to those who disregard the samll ones.

There are such treasures in the Bible for those who open themselves to them, but God is too great to be extruded through the contorted little keyhole you're looking through.

Once in a while, ask yourself "Why?" Why does the Genesis record include the naming of the animals? It woulsn't have to. Why are there two parallel creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2? Why does Lamech, of the line of Cain, get 4 verses to himself, when the previous 4 generations are crammed into one verse? Why do we have the story of Noah getting drunk? Why is Lot's wife turned into a pillar of Salt? For the love of God, man, don't do a chemical analysis and declare her to be calcium chloride, not sodium chloride!

Why does John portray Jesus meeting Nicodemus at night, and the woman at the well at noon?

Materialists and literalists look at John's portrayal of Jesus upsetting the moneychangers at the beginning of his ministry, and compare it with the Synoptics putting that episode during Passion Week, and only see "factual inaccuracies."

When Matthew says Jesus sent out the 12, "two-by-two," but Luke puts the number at 70, literalists argue about historical accuracy.

What a pity. What a loss. To see how these episodes function in the larger context of the whole text--but I forget myself.

Just the facts, Ma'am.

The Captain put in the log, "The first mate was drunk today." It was a fact. When the first mate protested, the Captain pointed out that it was a fact, and that the log contained facts. A few days later, when the mate kept the log, he wrote, "The Captain was sober today." It, too, was a fact. As it happened, the Captain was sober every day--like Joseph Bates he was a teetotaler. But the log NOWHERE said that he was sober every day.

So much for facts.

You're a literalist, Bevin. That's all I said. Your reply proved it in spades.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

When Adam sineed, sin and death had dominion over him. But not just him, over all of his dominion as well. Adam and Eve had been clothed in light, the result of being in communion with the Source of all Light. When they sinned, they had to be clothed in animal skins, that is, they were clothed in death. Their sin brought the need for covering, and that covering came at the expense of animals. Thus, their whole dominion now came under the dominion of death

---

Excellent

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Yes animals die but from a God ordained life span or through predation

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

So you believe animals died in Eden? Do you believe they will die in heaven? The new earth?

[bevin]

Will animals die in heaven?

I think we all agree whales are animals.

Today they eat either fish/squid/etc or they eat plankton.

Plankton come in three sizes (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/plankton.cfm)

including microscopic animals.

What do you propose whales eat in heaven?

Consider cows. Cows eat grass. So do caterpillars. When, in heaven, a cow eats grass that a caterpillar is currently eating, what happens?

When Adam stepped on a ant, what happened?

/Bevin

[CyberGuy]

I have always wonder if plants die in heaven. Plants would grow and would need triming or we would be overwhelmed with plant growth in heaven. So what happens to the plants we cut and trim. What do we do with them?

[Bravus]

OK, think about it another way[1]. A tiger is a spectacularly well-adapted carnivore. Essentially everything about its teeth, claws, strength, size, musculature, digestion and skeleton is all about hunting prey and eating meat. Try hard to imagine a herbivorous tiger... pretty tough, isn't it? And even if you have enough imagination, what you imagined would have to be something more like a striped cow than a tiger.

So, if there was no death of animals (only plants) in Eden, did God make the tiger as it is now, or as a striped cow? If the tiger was herbivorous until the Fall, how did it get adapted? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. God actively turned it into a killing machine

2. Satan corrupted its original design

3. It adapted over time via mutation and natural selection - an evolutionary mechanism

We can immediately rule out 3 if we believe all this happened 6000 years ago: there's been nowhere near enough time to allow such dramatic modifications.

I'd like to rule out 2 as well - it gives Satan too much power, and in particular too much of God's creative power.

So it seems as though either (as a number of prominent and mainstream Adventist scientists have concluded) there were carnivora in Eden, or else God actively remodelled all the animals that ended up as carnivores at the Fall.

Leave aside the whole notion of ecosystems and the interdependence of animals, and how odd the pre-Fall, no-death ecosystem would have been if it was composed entirely of herbivores (first level consumers)...

There may be more options than the 3 I outlined, of course... anyone want to suggest some?

[1] This is a speculation and a play with ideas, rather than the putting forward of a deeply held statement of belief. Those who consider such modes of thought to be active attempts to undermine the Bible should ignore this discussion.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I'd like to rule out 2 as well - it gives Satan too much power, and in particular too much of God's creative power.

---

Satan can't create, but he can play....You cannot begin to approach his intellect (don't even kid yourself).

[NormF]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So you believe animals died in Eden? Do you believe they will die in heaven? The new earth?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It appears that implied in your questions is the assertion that they did not die in "Eden." Such assertions are usually based on the divine injunction that at Creation, created life was to be fruitful and multiply. The problem with this take is the reality of what would then ensue.

In a word: fecundity.

Just a reminder, take the case of a single, relatively small, simple animal: a fruit fly (quote also viewable online here):

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Applying a geometric progression to fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) results in astronomical numbers in a relatively short period of time. Starting with 2 fruit flies, assume that each female lays 100 eggs every two weeks (25 generations per year). How many flies will the 25th generation have at the end of a year?

.

Number ------- 2 -- 100 -- 5000 -- 250000 -- 12500000 -- 1.19 x 10(41st)

Generation -- (1) -- (2)---- (3) ------ (4) ------- (5) ------------ (25)

.

To appreciate the number of flies in the 25th generation, assume that the flies are packed together 1000 to a cubic inch. This number of flies would fill a ball 96 million miles in diameter, greater than the distance between the earth and the sun!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

... and this is just one single species of animal. Add to that all the other millions of species of animals. Now add to that the proliferation of plants (as CyberGuy alluded to above). Something has to be done to balance that "fruitful multiplication" or the world becomes an absolutely untenable place in a very short period of time. Somehow, the excess must be dealt with.

If it isn't death, it's got to be some form of "cessation," call it what you will. Either that or quit proliferating -- and by the literal interpretation, the literal divine injunction is to proliferate: "be fruitful and multiply" ... no if's, and's, or but's.

With things like this in mind, I find it curious that there seems to be a speaking out of both sides of the mouth going on here. On the one hand, we are being urged by the originator of this thread and others who support him to accept a supposedly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story, while on the other we are being told in this same thread by one of those very ones who would have us believe this take that:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It's simply that the Bible doesn't primarily deal in mere facts.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That statement hasn't been withdrawn yet and no one has volunteered to put a spin on it, so I guess it's meant to stand. That being the case, let me challenge it from this side:

Which is it? Science deals only in facts -- that's a given. If the Bible doesn't deal in facts, we don't have a problem here, only a slight problem in semantics and lack of clarity. One side is talking about one thing; the other about something else entirely.

But if the Bible does deal in facts and we are to interpret the world around us only by what it says, why then are we being told now that the Bible doesn't deal in facts?

I'll grant that there's a modifier in the statement -- "primarily." But even with that allowed, that still means that one must parse that which is supposedly unparsable, trying to separate Biblical fact from that which is not. The literalists basic assumption is that can't be done.... There seems to be a problem here.

Regards,

Norm

[Dr. Shane]

There is a fourth option, Brother Bravus. That God created tigers after the fall. Also, the Bible gives us no reason to believe that plants died in Eden.

In Genesis 2:16 God gave man permission to eat of every tree. that would limit man's diet to fruit and nuts. Neither requiring the plant to die. It was not until after the fall that man was given permission to eat vegetables (Ge. 3:18)

We need not wonder about death of animals in heaven.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Isaiah 11:6, 7

These verses clearly indicate that animals will not be eating each other in heaven. However it is not so clear in regard to plants. Straw comes from grains like wheat, barley, rye and oats. As far as I am aware, the stalk (or stubble) of grain dies after the harvest. Of course God could create some new strain of grain that allows the harvest without the plant dying. Then we get into the whole issue of nitrogen depletion, human and animal waste. Some things the Bible simple doesn't tell us.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Norm, It really isn't that complicated when one takes God by His Word. He did tell us to be fruitful and multiple. Jesus later said that in heaven marriage wouldn't exist like it does on earth. He said we would be like angels.

At least two options: 1) God wanted man to continue multipling and He would continue to create more planets for them to occupy as they would fill them. 2) Once the planet was filled man (and other animals) would stop multiplying. It really isn't that hard to take God at His Word.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Science deals only in facts -- that's a given.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Science deals with observation and speculation. If you consider that facts, it is clear why you doubt the Word of God.

[NormF]

Digestion causes the meat and pulp of nuts and fruit to lose the life within them. At the time you ingest them, they are living, else they are rotting and putrid. Vegans put great stock in the fact that they eat live food (fruits and vegetables), not dead food (meat). What then happens in digestion if not death?

Or for that matter, what happens to the uneaten tissue of fruits and nuts that fall to the ground never to be consumed? The fruit of a single apple tree produces a larger crop than any two people could ever hope to consume by themselves.

And one other question, what's this about "created after the fall"? Where's the record of that Creation in the Bible?

Regards,

Norm

[NormF]

Where's the "if" that says, stop multiplying after the world gets full?

Regards,

Norm

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

what's this about "created after the fall"?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is called speculation. For one that embraces evoltion you should be well aware of what speculation is. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> You must agree that Jesus created fish to feed the 5,000. There weren't that many in the little boy's basket.

[NormF]

We speak in two different languages. The prognosis is not good.

Regards,

Norm

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So you believe animals died in Eden? Do you believe they will die in heaven? The new earth?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, I didnt mean to imply that. I was speaking of the world as it is now, not of Eden.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I'd like to rule out 2 as well - it gives Satan too much power, and in particular too much of God's creative power.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree that satan does not have the power our Father has. But even with an Nth of Gods power I believe it's enough to cause an influence on actions. That's how satan works in our lives right? Maybe animals like the tiger are the product of animal inbreeding caused via satans influence? But is 6000 yrs long enough to allow for this change? Eh what do I know? I still dont get the whole dinosaur thing.

[Bravus]

Cross-breeding wouldn't work for this purpose: which of the herbivores would bring the 'big pointy teef' gene to the party? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Amelia]

Ummm elephant maybe? LOL