Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

He handled it exactly how he told Adam he would handle it. You eat this fruit, you die. Adam ate the fruit, hence he could no longer eat from the tree of life. Seems fair to me.

Still not answering the question. Why did he tell Adam he would handle it that way.

"Because that's what he said he'd do" isn't much of an explanation.

 

[Swift]

Still not answering the question. Why did he tell Adam he would handle it that way.

"Because that's what he said he'd do" isn't much of an explanation.

What are you asking? I really don't get it.

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.

But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

That's pretty plain I would think.

 

[FoolKiller]

What are you asking? I really don't get it.

I think he just asked you to explain God's reasoning. It is a task I wouldn't recommend taking on.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's off-topic at this point. Basically, I'm confused about God's apparent change of heart. He says "Eat from the tree and I'll banish you and you'll die and have pain and all of your children will suffer", knowing full well that they're gonna try the apples. Then he says "out you go, oh and by the way, make sure you stone people to death for the following sins". Then he says "beat up my son/me and it'll pay for your earthly sins - meaning, stop stoning people to death for sinning... even though that's what I told you to do. Basically, I just want things back the way they were. I should never have kicked you guys out of the garden of eden in the first place. Friends?"


See? I'm confused.

 

[Swift]

I think he just asked you to explain God's reasoning. It is a task I wouldn't recommend taking on.

Agreed.

I think it's off-topic at this point. Basically, I'm confused about God's apparent change of heart. He says "Eat from the tree and I'll banish you and you'll die and have pain and all of your children will suffer", knowing full well that they're gonna try the apples. Then he says "out you go, oh and by the way, make sure you stone people to death for the following sins". Then he says "beat up my son/me and it'll pay for your earthly sins - meaning, stop stoning people to death for sinning... even though that's what I told you to do. Basically, I just want things back the way they were. I should never have kicked you guys out of the garden of eden in the first place. Friends?"


See? I'm confused.

This line of thought goes back to free will. You have said before that God knew Adam was going to sin. This is a result of free will. A person with free will at some point WILL choose to go against or disobey or whatever at some point. It's part of being human.

All that about stoning people goes to our earlier conversation about sin. Once THE great sacrifice was made, humans are no longer to punish other humans for sin. End of discussion.

Oh, and God has always been our friend.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, no answers there. But it's off topic so I'll let it drop. I'll send you a PM.

 

[Swift]

Ok, no answers there. But it's off topic so I'll let it drop. I'll send you a PM.

Zalright

Well, if they get saved, and become baptized, then they're believers and no longer need to be killed, right? But your scripture there says that nonbelievers are still damned.

All that Jesus is saying is that you need to try to convert everyone first, before you can kill them out of hand.

Murdering someone and being damned are two different things.

I think you're being a bit sarcastic here, I think. :

But anyway, do you read in the new testament ANYWHERE that Jesus or his disciples instruct or are instructed to kill people?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Zalright
But anyway, do you read in the new testament ANYWHERE that Jesus or his disciples instruct or are instructed to kill people?

I,ve been out for a while, but in looking over the latest I'm also puzzuled at the line of questioning concerning the Bible telling us to kill non believers????

 

[ledhed]

I'm familiar with the pissed off daddy version. But if God wanted the "relationship" with man to return to what it was in the garden of eden, why not respond to the transgresion a little differently?

Because that would screw up the whole script . The Big guy was making a point and teaching a lesson to the kids.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Remember...this is the same God that created the duckbilled platypus! Who knew what he was thinking?!

 

[Swift]

I,ve been out for a while, but in looking over the latest I'm also puzzuled at the line of questioning concerning the Bible telling us to kill non believers????

I was able to convince Danoff that Christ changed all that.

Check these two posts.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2489170&postcount=4817

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2489186&postcount=4818

 

[Danoff]

I was able to convince Danoff that Christ changed all that.

Just keeping things technical here... you were able to convince Danoff that you believe Christ changed all that.

 

[Swift]

Just keeping things technical here... you were able to convince Danoff that you believe Christ changed all that.

Ok, to be even more technical... I was able to convince you scripturally that Jesus changed all that. But yeah, you don't believe in Jesus...yet.

 

[Famine]

Remember...this is the same God that created the duckbilled platypus! Who knew what he was thinking?!

It was probably:

*inhales*
Oh man... That's a good hit... Hey Gabe, check this... an otter with a ducks face. And flippers. Naaaaa-hahahha. Cool man...
*inhales*

 

[UnoMOTO]

It was probably:

*inhales*
Oh man... That's a good hit... Hey Gabe, check this... an otter with a ducks face. And flippers. Naaaaa-hahahha. Cool man...
*inhales*

Which might have been followed by:

DUUUDE...Adam must have the munchies! Make him eat an apple BRAAA!

 

[ledhed]

More likely it was folowed by..." stop bogartin' that doob... boob...pass the damn thing " .

 

[UnoMOTO]

Is this big news or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061201/sc_nm/dinosaurs_impact_dc

 

[Touring Mars]

It was if you were a dinosaur

Still, one or several meteors, what happened then wasn't a total extinction event, and not even all species classed under Dinosauria were wiped out... some dinos survived this drastic evolutionary bottleneck, giving us these 'living dinosaurs' today...

 

[UnoMOTO]

Maybe this is worth discussing? If this population growth has happened in the last two thousand years?...why isn't the earth after millions of years over run by any one living thing? I could understand better living conditions, food supply, modern medicine being factors. I don't understand why only in a miniscule two thousand years we have figured out to prolong life when we couldn't do it in the few million before it.

Any thoughts?

http://desip.igc.org/populationmaps.html

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe this is worth discussing? If this population growth has happened in the last two thousand years?...why isn't the earth after millions of years over run by any one living thing? I could understand better living conditions, food supply, modern medicine being factors. I don't understand why only in a miniscule two thousand years we have figured out to prolong life when we couldn't do it in the few million before it.

Those maps, however interesting and informative they may be, are only the human population - the Earth has been populated abundantly by a plethora of extremely diverse forms of life for far longer than humans have even been on the scene - and it still is... plus, remember this... if every human being on Earth was given 1 square meter to stand in (the same amount of space as a large washing machine), then every living human could fit into an area half the size of the state of Ohio - so that map which makes it look like the Earth is being 'swamped' by human life is actually very misleading indeed...

There are many reasons why no one species dominates forever - the biggest by far being that other species evolve as well... but there is always a dominant species (or group of species) in any particular epoch... the human race has dominated for millennia, and has existed pretty much in it's present form for about 100,000 years... but that's nothing compared to the dinosaurs, who dominated life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, before their reign was brought to an abrupt end by a random piece of rock that just happened to stop by and literally gate-crash the party... unfortunately, that will probably happen to us too... on Earth anyway... luckily, our unique evolutionary path (every evolutionary path is unique of course) has blessed us with the rarest of gifts - self-aware intelligence - and by smiting and out-thinking our competitors, we've become the first species ever to exist on this planet with the ability to leave.... ironic, really...

 

[UnoMOTO]

Those maps, however interesting and informative they may be, are only the human population - the Earth has been populated abundantly by a plethora of extremely diverse forms of life for far longer than humans have even been on the scene - and it still is... plus, remember this... if every human being on Earth was given 1 square meter to stand in (the same amount of space as a large washing machine), then every living human could fit into an area half the size of the state of Ohio - so that map which makes it look like the Earth is being 'swamped' by human life is actually very misleading indeed...

I didn't mean to imply that I think the earth is swamped. It is interesting to me the rate of increase in such a short time. I am curious as to why it took so long for the human race to explode in population.

There are many reasons why no one species dominates forever - the biggest by far being that other species evolve as well... but there is always a dominant species (or group of species) in any particular epoch... the human race has dominated for millennia, and has existed pretty much in it's present form for about 100,000 years... but that's nothing compared to the dinosaurs, who dominated life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, before their reign was brought to an abrupt end by a random piece of rock that just happened to stop by and literally gate-crash the party... unfortunately, that will probably happen to us too... on Earth anyway... luckily, our unique evolutionary path (every evolutionary path is unique of course) has blessed us with the rarest of gifts - self-aware intelligence - and by smiting and out-thinking our competitors, we've become the first species ever to exist on this planet with the ability to leave.... ironic, really...

Humm...well then do you think that over the next million years something will evolve that is more advanced then we are now?

 

[OZZYGT]

We might not even exist by then.....







Ciao!

 

[Touring Mars]

I didn't mean to imply that I think the earth is swamped. It is interesting to me the rate of increase in such a short time. I am curious as to why it took so long for the human race to explode in population.

I reckon it's just exponential growth.... every species that exists now has adapted to their environments sufficently well to 'explode' in population... but it won't last forever...

Humm...well then do you think that over the next million years something will evolve that is more advanced then we are now?

No, probably not.... not more intelligent anyway... viruses, on the other hand - far more 'basic' than human life, over the next million years, will probably open a great big can of whoop-ass on us But then, there will probably be other species which can cope with these viruses, and then their time as the dominant species will begin - we seem to have this in-built notion that life is becoming more and more 'advanced', but the truth is, in terms of intellect anyway, planet Earth may never see the likes of us again once we are gone...

 

[wfooshee]

I didn't mean to imply that I think the earth is swamped. It is interesting to me the rate of increase in such a short time. I am curious as to why it took so long for the human race to explode in population.

A natural population growth, without predation or starvation, would be geometric, i.e. doubles every given time period. Predation (comsumption for food by other species) or starvation (lack of food supply) limits this growth so that no one species overwhelms its environment.

Human population does not follow a natural growth pattern, as we have the ability to shape our environment to fit, we protect ourselves from predators, we produce our food rather than having to find it lying around somewhere, and we can fix things that might go wrong with us. Thus our population growth becomes closer to exponential rather than geometric.

I've read that half the people who have EVER been alive on Earth, for the entirety of human history, are living at this very moment. In other words, only 1 of every 2 people who have ever lived have actually died!

 

[Famine]

A natural population growth, without predation or starvation, would be geometric, i.e. doubles every given time period. Predation (comsumption for food by other species) or starvation (lack of food supply) limits this growth so that no one species overwhelms its environment.

Human population does not follow a natural growth pattern, as we have the ability to shape our environment to fit, we protect ourselves from predators, we produce our food rather than having to find it lying around somewhere, and we can fix things that might go wrong with us. Thus our population growth becomes closer to exponential rather than geometric.

I've read that half the people who have EVER been alive on Earth, for the entirety of human history, are living at this very moment. In other words, only 1 of every 2 people who have ever lived have actually died!

Nope. 90% of the people who have ever lived have died.

Which is still quite staggering, that in the hundreds of thousands of years that Homo sapiens sapiens has been strolling the Earth, with a lifespan of just 30/40 years until really relatively recently, 1 in 10 of them are breathing right now.

 

[wfooshee]

Nope. 90% of the people who have ever lived have died.

Which is still quite staggering, that in the hundreds of thousands of years that Homo sapiens sapiens has been strolling the Earth, with a lifespan of just 30/40 years until really relatively recently, 1 in 10 of them are breathing right now.

Thanks, because I couldn't find my reference, and had a hard time swallowing it. I remember seeing it, just not where I saw it.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Human population does not follow a natural growth pattern, as we have the ability to shape our environment to fit, we protect ourselves from predators, we produce our food rather than having to find it lying around somewhere, and we can fix things that might go wrong with us. Thus our population growth becomes closer to exponential rather than geometric.

I agree with this statement. What I am asking for is theories on why humans have only figured out these things in a very short amount of time. If we have been here hundereds of thousands of years, why only in the last couple thousand years did we figure out how to simply do things like plant food?

 

[wfooshee]

I agree with this statement. What I am asking for is theories on why humans have only figured out these things in a very short amount of time. If we have been here hundereds of thousands of years, why only in the last couple thousand years did we figure out how to simply do things like plant food?

Because up till it happened, the very idea of settling down in one place rather than following the food supply meant starvation. And it's longer than 2000, at least 5,000, maybe closer to 10,000. I'm sure someone better informed than me (they exist, as much as I hate to admit it) could chime in. Obviously the beginning of agriculture is lost in history, but it was probably an accidental discovery, somebody spilled a basket they'd gathered, and a few days later there were shoots of something growing. Somebody else figured they might try doing it on purpose.

You might call it "social inertia," but the idea of a culture changing its behavior is very difficult to get accepted. Even today, office managers with new hires hear, "But that's not how we used to do it" every time they try something or when they're training somebody. Something has to be really obvious or very proven before a society incorporates it into their livelihood. Tending crops was WAY bleeding-edge high-tech, and a difficult concept to accept, when your whole life was spent 'knowing' that stopping was starving.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with this statement. What I am asking for is theories on why humans have only figured out these things in a very short amount of time. If we have been here hundereds of thousands of years, why only in the last couple thousand years did we figure out how to simply do things like plant food?

Primitive man didn't understand how plants came to be. You take for granted the understanding that plants come from seeds because even a toddler knows that these days. But primitive man would have thought you were absolutely BONKERS to suggest that a massive tree many times his size comes from an acorn - especially if he was nomadic and didn't stick around to see a sapling grow year after year.

Most animals don't know that plants grow, let alone where they start from, or that seeds need soil and water. Man had to learn all of that - those initial leaps from a basic instinctual understanding of the world to a more rational understanding were probably very hard and came slowly. Especially for people who didn't gow up using their brain that way.

But it's our ability to use a brains in that way that allowed us to end up on top of the food chain.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Primitive man didn't understand how plants came to be. You take for granted the understanding that plants come from seeds because even a toddler knows that these days. But primitive man would have thought you were absolutely BONKERS to suggest that a massive tree many times his size comes from an acorn - especially if he was nomadic and didn't stick around to see a sapling grow year after year.

In hundreds of thousands of years nobody stayed in the same spot for more then a year to figure out what, where and when a plant would bear fruit? Where is the top of the food chain logic in that? If gathering food to surivive is your one and only objective I'm sure that even a cave man could have figured it out. (insert Geico commercial here)

Most animals don't know that plants grow, let alone where they start from, or that seeds need soil and water. Man had to learn all of that - those initial leaps from a basic instinctual understanding of the world to a more rational understanding were probably very hard and came slowly. Especially for people who didn't gow up using their brain that way.

One thing that we didn't have to learn is how to reproduce. So...I still am thinking that our population should be greater then it is. Shouldn't there be more primitive man fossils?

But it's our ability to use a brains in that way that allowed us to end up on top of the food chain.

Agreed...but the intelligence curve isn't matching up with modern evidence. (mine included)