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

July 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

bevin said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

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

Just a question.

When did the Fall take place?

I believe it took place in heaven, during the war in heaven after which Lucifer was cast out of heaven and down to this "earth" in whatever form it existed then. He actually was the first to "Fall." He actually was the author of all sin. A third of the sinless heavenly angels followed Satan in the Fall.

This earth's actual creation hadn't yet taken place [it was "without form and void"]. This was many years (eons even?) prior to Adam's fall.

Isn't it Bacchiocchi's theory that Satan was given this mass of matter and told to "create" what he could. I know Dick Nies (a Ph.D. psychologist and Biblical scholar in California who died 20 years ago) believed that Satan had been given an opportunity to do something with this mass of matter before the Genesis creation took place. His attempt was unsuccessful, of course.

Just a thought... [i hope I wasn't too far <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" /> .]

July 13, 2005

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise"

"Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...."

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."

July 13, 2005

Quote:

Shane said:

There is a fourth option, Brother Bravus. That God created tigers after the fall.

The main issue of the Sabbath is that God fully and eternally rested from His perfect AND sinless work of creation. God doesn't create junk nor does He create things that do harm....

Rob

July 13, 2005

>>Just a thought... [i hope I wasn't too far :Off Topic: .]<<

Matter of fact, you seem to be orbiting closest to actuality (imho), though, mebbe, needing to apply a few tweaks.

You may be paralleling bevin in a manner, as he has been alluding to something other than “short-age creation” (am not certain in my recollection that that’s his exact term).

July 13, 2005

"When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies"

Everything in this world [of whom Satan is god] has been touched and therefore affected by and through his power. You guys are simply rats running in a maze….

July 13, 2005

jasd 12:12 Verily it came to pass, as they sojourned in the wilderness, that at sunrise the people went out from their tents and a strange thing lay upon the ground as dew; and the people exclaimed, “Manna”!? or being translated, “What is it!?” v12 …therefore, it was, as it is written elsewhere, -- from the things that are not seen the Creator made that which is seen. v12 And so it was that on the eighth day Gd created manna.

July 13, 2005

Yes, Robert, I don't tend to agree that God created animals after the fall - except all those fish Jesus fed to the crowds. I think after Adam and Eve fell, God did change many, if not all, of the animals. We know He removed the serpants' wings. He apparently also made some carnavors. According to Isaiah, that will all be reversed in heaven.

What eludes many, although not Brother Bravus, is that we believe in a God of miracles. If God created the earth the way Genesis says He did, it was a miracle. Science doesn't take into account miracles. How can one find scientific evidence of a miracle? The miracles themselves defy science.

July 13, 2005

OK, try to imagine a tiger with the teeth of a horse? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

July 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

jasd said:

>>Just a thought... [i hope I wasn't too far :Off Topic: .]<<

Matter of fact, you seem to be orbiting closest to actuality (imho), though, mebbe, needing to apply a few tweaks.

You may be paralleling bevin in a manner.

Thanks, James.

I don't claim to be a scientist. I just feel our scope is too small when trying to conceptualize God, the Universe, and Creation.

The Universe is not humanity-centered. We're but a speck on the horizon, actually. Though God gave His all, His Son, to redeem us.

It's too huge for my mind to grasp.

July 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

God doesn't create junk nor does He create things that do harm....

Where did Lucifer come from? ... or any other sinner, including you and me? ... not to mention those poor tigers and their harm-doing?

Is there some part of the universe God didn't make? I think not. There are parts of it that have gone badly awry at one time and another. But to my knowledge, nothing popped out of the woodwork on its own or was ever found hiding under a cabbage leaf ex nihilo, except in old wive's imaginations.

That awryness is within His sovereign will, even if its badly at odds with His stated desires for us. I would think it is poor practice, if nothing else, for a believer (all of whom are also creatures, not the Creator) to pronounce limits on what God can and cannot do. Who's side are you on? Is He or isn't He the Creator of the universe?

Regards,

Norm

July 13, 2005

“Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

Couldn't this just be the result of sin and not God actually changing the serpent? The same is true in childbearing:

“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."

Throughout the Bible you see God claiming the responsibility for sin entering this world, but He doesn't take the blame. Satan is to blame for sin and its results both on man and beast....

Rob

July 13, 2005

Quote:

That awryness is within His sovereign will, even if its badly at odds with His stated desires for us. I would think it is poor practice, if nothing else, for a believer (all of whom are also creatures, not the Creator)

to pronounce limits on what God can and cannot do

. Who's side are you on? Is He or isn't He the Creator of the universe?

God can't sin...it is impossible! Lucifer "invented" the principle of self, not God.

July 13, 2005

Quote:

Science doesn't take into account miracles. How can one find scientific evidence of a miracle? The miracles themselves defy science.

I do take miracles into account, and science does not ignore the possibility. The problem with a recent creation theory is it can not explain, [:"red"]even with miracles[/], why the world looks billions of years old with millions of years of dying involved.

Also you never answered my questions about (a) what did whales eat?, ( what happened when a cow ate a caterpillar?, and © what happened when Adam stood on an ant?

The only way to believe in recent creation is to (a) not understand the evidence, ( assume huge changes that are not described in the Bible, and © believe in an extremely deceptive God.

Personally, I believe in an honest and loving God.

This is why I do not think that a recent creation is a likely-to-be-right theory.

/Bevin

July 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The problem with a recent creation theory is it can not explain, even with miracles, why the world looks billions of years old with millions of years of dying involved.

It can and does. But when one has their fingers in their ears singing "I can't hear you" they will never grasp it. There is no explanation that is acceptable to those that have hardened their hearts to God's truth. It is as the parable of the rich man and lazarus, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead".

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The only way to believe in recent creation is to (a) not understand the evidence, ( assume huge changes that are not described in the Bible, and © believe in an extremely deceptive God.

Very elitest thinking. To summerize this postition: if you don't think like me it is because you are stupid. If you believe the Word of God, you are a fool.

Jump back and remember who is God and who is creature.

"Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it... Then Job answered the Lord, and said, I know that Thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withheld from Thee." "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to Him that fashioneth it, What makest Thou? or Thy work, He hath no hands?"

July 13, 2005

Quote:

It can and does.

We have been here before. You keep saying that there are explanations, but you never produce one.

Quote:

if you don't think like me it is because you are stupid. If you believe the Word of God, you are a fool.

That is NOT what I said.

1: There is a difference between being stupid and not having invested the time and the effort in understanding the evidence. A lot of people decide not to invest the time.

2: I believe the Word of God. I just don't believe it means what you think it means.

/Bevin

July 13, 2005

Brother Bevin, I have followed your rejection of Scripture throughout the years. You have rejected the light God shone through our Brother Dwight Hornbacher. I have no additional light. That is why I have dust off my shoes with you. If God wants to reach you, it will be through another. I continue in this subject for the benefit of lurkers and other members. I have no expection of you accepting the Word of God as it is written.

July 13, 2005

RE: "It can and does. But when one has their fingers in their ears singing "I can't hear you" they will never grasp it. There is no explanation that is acceptable to those that have hardened their hearts to God's truth. It is as the parable of the rich man and lazarus, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"."

1) "It can and does" Yes the Bible gives an explaination. but, that explaination is NOT testable by science. Such, in itself, does not mean that the Bible is in error. But, the claims of the Bible are not supported by science, as we understand science today.

2) Your succeding statements, in context, and by implication, become more personal.

3) Now quoting Bevin: "The only way to believe in recent creation is to (a) not understand the evidence, ( assume huge changes that are not described in the Bible, and © believe in an extremely deceptive God."

Science does not support a recent creation. Bevin is correct that those who claim it does, do not understand the evidence. When I say that science does not support such, I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. I am simply saying that one should not go to science to tell us about a recent creation.

Bevin is correct is his statement that a recent creation has to have major (catostropic) changes occur over a very short period of time, and that the Bible does not directly say that such happened. But, the Bible is not a textbook of biology, geology, or of any other science. Whatever your discipline, if you are informed in that field, you will have beliefs that the Bible does not address.

I know that in response to me you may bring up the flood. Again, this simply becomes a mechanism that one uses to postulate major changes over a short period of time. In doing so, one goes far beyond what the Bible says. This does not make it wrong. It is simple a statement that one goes further than what is directly stated in the Bible.

"deceptive God" Bevin and I disagree on this point, as we do on others. But, I fully understand his thinking, which is the thinking of many.

4) Shane said: "Very elitest thinking. To summerize this postition: if you don't think like me it is because you are stupid. If you believe the Word of God, you are a fool."

Shane, Bevin has not said that at all. You have gone far beyond what he has said, and misrepresented him.

July 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

Brother Bevin,

I have no additional light. That is why I have dust off my shoes with you. If God wants to reach you, it will be through another. I continue in this subject for the benefit of lurkers and other members. I have no expection of you accepting the Word of God as it is written.

Oh. Dear Brother Shane.

I never realized that your purpose here on C/A was to be the channel through which God reaches the "unbelievers." Or that God needed you in order for Him to reach ... anyone.

I always thought this forum was a place for friendly, polite conversation, sharing insights and inspiration, etc. Never knew anyone had been sent here on a mission.

July 13, 2005

Jeannie:

I doubt that Shane meant such, but he sure sounded like he sees himself as another Ellen White when he made his "no additional light" comment.

I can think of several others who seem to think that they have been sent here, by God, on a mission to various parts of our membership.

July 13, 2005

Quote:

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

No. Science deals in observations, and theories about those observations.

Science cannot define "love," nor has it ever defined "life." There are many facts which science cannot deal with at all.

At the same time, scientists propose theories before observations are made. It was quite some time before Einstein's theory that light had mass could be observed.

When it comes to creation the true scientist must remain silent, because the origins of life cannot be observed. Evidence in favor of, say, "the Big Bang" can be adduced, but what caused the Big Bang is beyond the purview of science.

However, there are a growing number of people who do not believe in science, but in something called "scientism," the belief that science explains everything, and anything science cannot explain cannt exist.

C.S. Lewis describes nature as a pond. Scientists only observe what happens within the pond. If a hand outside the pond tosses in a pebble, that pebble acts "naturally"--in accord with natural law--as soon as it enters the pond. So scientists can describe that pebble as a natural phenomenon. But where the pebble came from, how it came to be in the pond, that is totally outside their ability to investigate.

Believers in scientism don't believe anything outside the pond exists. They also believe the pond has always been as it is now.

The Bible claims that the pond was once radically different, that different natural laws applied. But the poor believer in scientism says, "There's no scientific evidence for that," i.e., "there's nothing like that in the pond." As you can see, he misses the entire point.

Because everything he can observe within the pond behaves in certain ways, and always has, so far as his observations and theories can take him, he assumes this pond was always as it is.

The Bible contains facts, but it is not a catalogue or encyclopedia of facts. But then, few things are. Far from being "unparsable" they are in fact as common as everyday prose.

July 13, 2005

Thanks Ed, that's a great statement of some of the same issues I've been attempting to explain in this thread as well.

July 13, 2005

Quote:

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

This is actually easier and simpler than you're making it out to be. As has been pointed out, God cursed the ground for Adam's sake.

Don't forget, Adam's very name evokes the "mud" or "clay" from which he was created, and the curse on the ground affects everything over which Adam has dominion.

But the Biblical record also speaks of a second such curse, after the Flood.

Anyone taking the Biblical record seriously recognizes that there are at least three different states of nature described in Genesis.

1) Edenic. Conditions within the Garden.

2) After the Fall. Creation rebels, and slowly decays until "all the thoughts of the imaginations were only evil continually."

Genesis clearly indicates that the status of nature mirrors the moral status of humankind. As man degrades, so does nature.

3)Post-deluvian. After the flood, men are allowed to eat meat, human lifespan shortened, capital punishment instituted.

God turned the predators into predators for the benefit of all. For with sin came not just death, but disease.

Modern day deer populations, for example, have sometimes grown too large because of a lack of predation. This results in disease and starvation in the deer.

So predation is a blessing to the deer.

And this predatory ability and instinct could have been (and Scripture indicates was) introduced in stages.

Once again, God manages to bring as much good as possible out of a bad situation. Death was not in his original plan, but once introduced through sin, he salvaged what could be out of a bad situation.

Of course, one can declare with great satisfaction, "There is no scientific evidence for this." No, the pond was different then.

If one believes the Bible, that difference is a fact, but a fact which science cannot examine.

July 13, 2005

Quote:

(

That's only relevant if we know that a cow ate a caterpillar, or that Adam stood on an ant.

July 13, 2005

Quote:

(

assume huge changes that are not described in the Bible

But you tend to assume "no changes," when in fact the Bible describes--albeit not in scientific language--quite spectacular changes.

Isaiah describes an Earth restored to its Edenic conditions

Quote:

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,

the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

and a little child will lead them.

7 The cow will feed with the bear,

their young will lie down together,

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8 The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,

and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.

Apparently Eden was radically different than this world.

Of course the Bible doesn't use scientific language, yet it clearly indicates "huge changes," a world radically different from our own.

Let's look at 1 John 1:5

Quote:

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Is it such a stretch to posit that where God rules completely, there is no Entropy?

It's no good saying our current nature requires it; our current world is in rebellion.

If there was no entropy before the fall, what would that do to radioactive decay numbers?

At first, for the duration of the Edenic existence, there would be none. After the fall, it would gradually increase. After the flood, it would increase even more rapidly.

Looking at it from this end, the amount of radioactive material from the early millennia after the fall would register as incredibly old--because there was so little there to begin with, and it has had all this time to disperse. There would be no sudden drop-off, but the evidence would be deceiving. Not because God is deceptive, but because our assumptions were wrong.

Now, I don't know if there was no entropy. It seems likely to me that it was significantly different than it is today, simply out of principle. It may be difficult to imagine a cosmos without entropy, but it's just as difficult to imagine a self-existent source of life who is somehow continually running down. In our cosmos, even the most vast stars will eventually burn out. If there is a God as the Bible describes Him, He will not.

Does the Bible describe that sort of thing? In figurative language, like 1 John, it just may. Does it talk about entropy and radioactivity? Of course not.

July 13, 2005

If there were no entropy, salt wouldn't dissolve in water. That'd be a pretty radical change!

Certainly the idea that sin changed the physical laws of the universe is a radical one, but one that can't be ruled out.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jasd

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jasd

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NormF

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gregory Matthews

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus