[_ Old Earth _] Assuming ID is true and god is all good...

[Jayls5]

Why are there features in humans and animals that are completely detrimental and painful to their health? There are genes in people's bodies that serve no purpose but to cause cancer later in life. Cancer, mutated limbs, autism, down syndrome, you name it: Why do these things exist?

I'm not trying to be facetious. I honestly consider this to be a significant philosophical problem for a believer in an omnibenevolent God who doesn't subscribe to evolution.

 

[jmm9683]

I've never really heard a good answer to this.

 

[Patashu]

The Fall did it.

 

[Jayls5]

The Fall did it.

Is that a serious answer?

I'm just wondering because I think that is a bit of a cop out... or at least one that seems to result in more questions than it answers. Even then... at best it would only account for why humans have it. It wouldn't explain why animals have the same problems.

 

[John]

It wouldn't explain why animals have the same problems.

why not ?

 

[Jayls5]

It wouldn't explain why animals have the same problems.

why not ?

It wouldn't follow that God would punish all creatures because the devil tricked the first humans.

 

[Heidi]

Why are there features in humans and animals that are completely detrimental and painful to their health? There are genes in people's bodies that serve no purpose but to cause cancer later in life. Cancer, mutated limbs, autism, down syndrome, you name it: Why do these things exist?

I'm not trying to be facetious. I honestly consider this to be a significant philosophical problem for a believer in an omnibenevolent God who doesn't subscribe to evolution.

The answer is in one word; SIN. "For the wages of sin is death." :wink: You'll notivce that in the days before Noah, the lifespan of humans was anywhere from 1 year to 1,000 years. That's because sin hadn't existed in the world as long as it has now. Then after Noah, God said he would shorten man's life to around 120 years. Animals were never created to have eternal life, only humans were.

 

[Jayls5]

So in a nutshell....

God's angel tricked a woman... who convinced a man to eat some forbidden fruit...

And this is why all humans, horses, whales, mice, marsupials, and birds get genetic disorders.

That makes perfect sense. :smt102

 

[Heidi]

So in a nutshell....

God's angel tricked a woman... who convinced a man to eat some forbidden fruit...

And this is why all humans, horses, whales, mice, marsupials, and birds get genetic disorders.

That makes perfect sense. :smt102

Again, animals weren't created to live forever. So it's you who isn't making any sense. ;-)

I also want to add that in Genesis 9:2-4, God tells us that man will rule over the animals and that the animals will live in fear of man. They will also have to give an account to God for every life they take since It was God who created them in the first place.

 

[Jayls5]

So in a nutshell....

God's angel tricked a woman... who convinced a man to eat some forbidden fruit...

And this is why all humans, horses, whales, mice, marsupials, and birds get genetic disorders.

That makes perfect sense. :smt102

Anyone?

 

[Heidi]

So in a nutshell....

God's angel tricked a woman... who convinced a man to eat some forbidden fruit...

And this is why all humans, horses, whales, mice, marsupials, and birds get genetic disorders.

That makes perfect sense. :smt102

Anyone?

Why ask questions when you ignore the answers? :

 

[jmm9683]

The answer is in one word; SIN. "For the wages of sin is death." :wink: You'll notivce that in the days before Noah, the lifespan of humans was anywhere from 1 year to 1,000 years. That's because sin hadn't existed in the world as long as it has now. Then after Noah, God said he would shorten man's life to around 120 years. Animals were never created to have eternal life, only humans were.

No human has ever lived close to 1,000 years...

 

[Heidi]

The answer is in one word; SIN. "For the wages of sin is death." :wink: You'll notivce that in the days before Noah, the lifespan of humans was anywhere from 1 year to 1,000 years. That's because sin hadn't existed in the world as long as it has now. Then after Noah, God said he would shorten man's life to around 120 years. Animals were never created to have eternal life, only humans were.

No human has ever lived close to 1,000 years...

Read Genesis, friend. And since you weren't there, then you have no facts to disprove it. But no one has ever witnessed or documented an ape turning into a human. Yet you believe that. ;-)

 

[Patashu]

The answer is in one word; SIN. "For the wages of sin is death." :wink: You'll notivce that in the days before Noah, the lifespan of humans was anywhere from 1 year to 1,000 years. That's because sin hadn't existed in the world as long as it has now. Then after Noah, God said he would shorten man's life to around 120 years. Animals were never created to have eternal life, only humans were.

No human has ever lived close to 1,000 years...

Read Genesis, friend. And since you weren't there, then you have no facts to disprove it. But no one has ever witnessed or documented an ape turning into a human. Yet you believe that. ;-)

What proponents of evolutionary theory assert is not of 'an ape turning into a human'. You must remember that evolution concerns scales of the generation, not over any individual's life time but from one individual to the next. Changes in your genome are not expressed until they are passed on. The theory of evolution does not say apes turn into humans because they do not; they say that over the generations the selective pressure on our ape-like ancestors in a certain area was such that beings closer to what we would today call a human were more likely to survive, and thus over time the overall population shifted towards what was more optimal in that environment. No individual ape turned into a human; instead, each generation had a spread of different body types due to different mutations present throughout the population, and those that were more fit to the environment were selected for, and thus over the generations the entire population shifted towards what was more likely to survive in the environment; and for this environment and that species, the best niche happened to be what we call humans. Once more, evolution does not operate over any individual's life, but over an entire population of individuals from one generation to the next.

That said, we actually do have evidence for the descent of the species human from its evolutionary ancestors. We have fossils, we can date them. We have genetic evidence, ie that other apes and humans share almost all of their genome, indicating a relatively recent common ancestor (the closer two species' genomes are the more recent their last common ancestor was). We can see that humans and other great apes have common traits and common genes that indicate common ancestry and we can see in the fossil record a series of transistional fossils becoming more and more what we would call human, and when we date them they're in the chronological order we'd expect for a steady evolution into homo sapiens.

There are wreathes apon wreathes of information on evolution, the evidence for it, the maths and mechanics behind it, theory and practice and knowledge. It is available in the universities, in books on science, in scientific papers in biology, genetics and evolution. The evidence is molecular, genetic, morphological and palentological. All these fields of science converge onto the same result without fail, almost as though proclaiming that human evolution did indeed occur. No matter how much scientific scrutiny the theory of evolution receives from other scientists and even non-scientists it remains standing, used for work in biological and genetic fields of industry. and for furthering future knowledge, a testament to its accuracy. When scientific theories are wrong, the flaws are discovered and the theory updated, amended or put to rest. So, where is the evidence that evolution is wrong when it has predicted so much right? Where is your scientific theory that is more accurate, more useful for predictive power and more useful for furthering the scientific body of knowledge that has invented everything you yourself and everyone in society uses? If evolution is wrong, what do you propose scientists use as their framework for understanding all of biology?

Well, Heidi?

 

[Heidi]

They are absolutely claiming that apes turned into humans! Or are they claiming that apes are not our ancestors? If so, then humans have always bred humans as creationists have always known. ;-) So they're claiming that over time, apes turned into humans which is no different than claiming that "over time", a cow turned into a human. :

Once again, you are showing your naivete. There's no way to prove that the skulls they pieced together all came from the same skull. No way. They could have washed up together into the same basin. Nevertheless, instead of looking at all the evidence, scientists want to push their own imaginarys story, so they piece incomplete skulls together,make up a name for the fictitious beast and call it evidence. : That's no more evidence than a child finding a bone in the dirt and exclaiming: "mommy, this bone looks like a giant gorilla! I think I'll name it." ;-)

 

[Patashu]

They are absolutely claiming that apes turned into humans!

ApeS, no. A species of ape as a whole, yes. I can see your intent.

Or are they claiming that apes are not our ancestors? If so, then humans have always bred humans as creationists have always known. ;-) So they're claiming that over time, apes turned into humans which is no different than claiming that "over time", a cow turned into a human. :

I just wrote an entire post detailing in depth what the theory of evolution states on the subject of human evolution; that, according to the genetic, molecular and fossil evidence we have uncovered, it is clear that the species homo sapiens and the rest of the great apes came from a common, ape like ancestor millions of years in the past. The intent of your words and phraseology is to mock evolution, to give the impression that proponents of evolution theorize that apes transmuted directly into humans, whereas the reality is that a population of apes in the past slowly evolved into differing populations of apes in differing areas subject to the selective pressures of differing environments; one of these species formed eventually lead by similar steps into homo sapiens which we see today.

Once again, you are showing your naivete. There's no way to prove that the skulls they pieced together all came from the same skull. No way.

How about the fact that they were all found in the same place and form a single continuous shape when fitted together?

They could have washed up together into the same basin.

Then why has no scientist identified the individual species that the different fragments came from? If I showed you one of these reassembled skulls, could you determine which species each part came from? And if it is a composite mashup as you say, why do they fit together so well in the first place?

Nevertheless, instead of looking at all the evidence, scientists want to push their own imaginarys story, so they piece incomplete skulls together,make up a name for the fictitious beast and call it evidence. : That's no more evidence than a child finding a bone in the dirt and exclaiming: "mommy, this bone looks like a giant gorilla! I think I'll name it." ;-)

What evidence have I overlooked AND all of the scientific community overlooked when assembling evidence in all fields for the theory of evolution?
And it's not just picking up a bone and naming it. The reconstructed skulls are analyzed, proportions, brain cavity size, relative proportions of eyes, nose, mouth, you name it, all with each other. We can predict what kind of environment a creature might have evolved for by looking at what its skeleton appears to have been built to be optimal for; a carnivore won't have the teeth of a herbivore, nor vice versa. You may not be aware of such techniques if you do not have an indepth understanding of science and techniques used by scientists, but personal ignorance is certainly no excuse nor can it be used as a reason for undermining any scientific theory.

 

[Heidi]

They are absolutely claiming that apes turned into humans!

ApeS, no. A species of ape as a whole, yes. I can see your intent.

Or are they claiming that apes are not our ancestors? If so, then humans have always bred humans as creationists have always known. ;-) So they're claiming that over time, apes turned into humans which is no different than claiming that "over time", a cow turned into a human. :

I just wrote an entire post detailing in depth what the theory of evolution states on the subject of human evolution; that, according to the genetic, molecular and fossil evidence we have uncovered, it is clear that the species homo sapiens and the rest of the great apes came from a common, ape like ancestor millions of years in the past. The intent of your words and phraseology is to mock evolution, to give the impression that proponents of evolution theorize that apes transmuted directly into humans, whereas the reality is that a population of apes in the past slowly evolved into differing populations of apes in differing areas subject to the selective pressures of differing environments; one of these species formed eventually lead by similar steps into homo sapiens which we see today.

[quote:2f6cd]Once again, you are showing your naivete. There's no way to prove that the skulls they pieced together all came from the same skull. No way.

How about the fact that they were all found in the same place and form a single continuous shape when fitted together?

They could have washed up together into the same basin.

Then why has no scientist identified the individual species that the different fragments came from? If I showed you one of these reassembled skulls, could you determine which species each part came from? And if it is a composite mashup as you say, why do they fit together so well in the first place?

Nevertheless, instead of looking at all the evidence, scientists want to push their own imaginarys story, so they piece incomplete skulls together,make up a name for the fictitious beast and call it evidence. : That's no more evidence than a child finding a bone in the dirt and exclaiming: "mommy, this bone looks like a giant gorilla! I think I'll name it." ;-)

What evidence have I overlooked AND all of the scientific community overlooked when assembling evidence in all fields for the theory of evolution?
And it's not just picking up a bone and naming it. The reconstructed skulls are analyzed, proportions, brain cavity size, relative proportions of eyes, nose, mouth, you name it, all with each other. We can predict what kind of environment a creature might have evolved for by looking at what its skeleton appears to have been built to be optimal for; a carnivore won't have the teeth of a herbivore, nor vice versa. You may not be aware of such techniques if you do not have an indepth understanding of science and techniques used by scientists, but personal ignorance is certainly no excuse nor can it be used as a reason for undermining any scientific theory.[/quote:2f6cd]

I have already presented the myriad of other possibilities that scientists have overlooked. They are listed in my thread; "What those who endorse evolution ignore." I suggest you address them.

 

[Orion]

Again, animals weren't created to live forever. So it's you who isn't making any sense. ;-)

What?. . . . . . :-? Would the animals have lived forever if Adam and Even hadn't fallen? Did they die before the fall?

I also want to point out that "sin" itself didn't cause death, nor would have "sin" even caused an eventual death.

Furthermore, it is obvious that even if they hadn't EVER sinned, it would have been possible for them to die!

 

[Jayls5]

Again, animals weren't created to live forever. So it's you who isn't making any sense. ;-)

What?. . . . . . :-? Would the animals have lived forever if Adam and Even hadn't fallen? Did they die before the fall?

I also want to point out that "sin" itself didn't cause death, nor would have "sin" even caused an eventual death.

Furthermore, it is obvious that even if they hadn't EVER sinned, it would have been possible for them to die!

Read my signature, and then think about who this needs to be applied to. I'm not giving any names in particular...

 

[Orion]

Jayls5, I have read and understand the spirit of your signature line. Sometimes it seems best to do such a thing, I suppose.