Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[code1211]

whoa big fella that is not what I said. I said do you know of any organism giving birth to an offspring not of the same kind meaning family. Are the donkey horse and mule of the same family. Some of the diversity we see could have come from cross breeding. But your theory calls for these changes to come from mutations. Not only that a mule was the product of man like many breeds from dogs ,horses, virtually all livestock. What I asked for was do you know of one family giving birth to a different family ?

I see...

So very similar does not reflect anything that is not within your belief system.

Like a chimpanzee and a man.

Got it.

while there is similarity between humans and chimps but there is a vast difference in the genetic information. The human is made up of 4 billion base pairs of Dna with a 5% difference between humans and chimps that is 200 hundred million base pairs of Dna difference.That is what we know of. what they don't tell you as they study the genome they keep finding more differences.by the normal rate of mutations that occur man has not been on the planet long enough to Eco enough beneficial mutations for humans to evolve from any apelike creature. fact is when I ask for someone from your side to point out beneficial mutations they can't name very many. but harmful mutations are at 5,000 that cause deformity and or disease and growing. That was my job for years to study mutations in flies mutations caused more harm then good.

Regarding mutations, because the process is random and the selection process that follows is what actually produces evolved differences, mutations are not by definition either good or bad.

The mutant is either more or less capable of thriving in the current environment.

If the mutation occurred at the same time that the environment changed, this might cause the prevailing population to die while the mutant thrived.

If the environment is constant and the mutant diverges from the "copy" that is thriving, the mutant will not thrive.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see...

So very similar does not reflect anything that is not within your belief system.

Like a chimpanzee and a man.

Got it.

while there is similarity between humans and chimps but there is a vast difference in the genetic information. The human is made up of 4 billion base pairs of Dna with a 5% difference between humans and chimps that is 200 hundred million base pairs of Dna difference.That is what we know of. what they don't tell you as they study the genome they keep finding more differences.by the normal rate of mutations that occur man has not been on the planet long enough to Eco enough beneficial mutations for humans to evolve from any apelike creature. fact is when I ask for someone from your side to point out beneficial mutations they can't name very many. but harmful mutations are at 5,000 that cause deformity and or disease and growing. That was my job for years to study mutations in flies mutations caused more harm then good.

As I understand the current thinking on evolution, the descent of man was not from chimps. Both Man and Chimps descend from a common ancestor.

Regardless of that, though, you seem to be saying that the intelligent Designer made Monkeys and Men less than 5% different.

Sounds like when he made the Monkey, he didn't exactly throw the mold out.

The creator used the same substances to create organisms the big difference is the genetic information. They use the chimp for a reference how we are similar because they can't find anything closer related and its just based on similarity. What they ignore how vastly different the genetic information is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see...

So very similar does not reflect anything that is not within your belief system.

Like a chimpanzee and a man.

Got it.

while there is similarity between humans and chimps but there is a vast difference in the genetic information. The human is made up of 4 billion base pairs of Dna with a 5% difference between humans and chimps that is 200 hundred million base pairs of Dna difference.That is what we know of. what they don't tell you as they study the genome they keep finding more differences.by the normal rate of mutations that occur man has not been on the planet long enough to Eco enough beneficial mutations for humans to evolve from any apelike creature. fact is when I ask for someone from your side to point out beneficial mutations they can't name very many. but harmful mutations are at 5,000 that cause deformity and or disease and growing. That was my job for years to study mutations in flies mutations caused more harm then good.

Regarding mutations, because the process is random and the selection process that follows is what actually produces evolved differences, mutations are not by definition either good or bad.

The mutant is either more or less capable of thriving in the current environment.

If the mutation occurred at the same time that the environment changed, this might cause the prevailing population to die while the mutant thrived.

If the environment is constant and the mutant diverges from the "copy" that is thriving, the mutant will not thrive.

Environment may change that affects an organisms ability to survive. Mutations have nothing to do with a group or families survival . You are wrong about mutations they are neutral ,harmful,and beneficial its just that beneficial mutations are rare. If you are driving down the road and lose a tire and replace it with an extra seat will it let the car perform like it was designed to do ? That is what happens with mutations. Sometimes mutations cause no change they are neutral. Sometimes mutations cause a benefit but are rare but when you look at the big picture down the road it turns out it was only a temporary benefit. Then a harmful mutation would threaten survival of the organism. What keeps us going and healthy is we have mechanisms in place preventing mutations spreading through the population. Natural selection prevents evolution because mutations are not allowed to spread through the population.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry I'm on my smart phone don't like these touch pads.

 

[Foxfyre]

With respect:

The Synoptic Gospels while all in general agreement were written starting about a 100 years after Jesus' death.

The Old Testement stories are not a reliable history. If anything, it is a single point of view PR piece by a roving tribe in a hostile world.

If you are to produce proof of the level that you demand of the other side, you have some producing to do.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but the gospel were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus died on the cross. The ot is very reliable,so reliable communities are being discovered by archaeologist because of the ot.

Let's use the 40 year figure.

Now compare that the Trayvon Martin case for finding the truth in eye witness testimony and the accuracy of the remembrances of those who listened to what they heard.

We're working with a few weeks of stories relayed from zealots and they seem to have editorialized liberally in a few weeks.

After 40 years, do you suppose the the accuracy is perfect in a journalistic sense.

You're welcome to your own opinion on this.

The earliest of Paul's letters found in the N.T. were written probably less than 20 years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, and of course after the churches they were addressed to have been established for some time. The Synoptic gospels are not whole manuscripts as are the letters but are a compilation of various manuscripts that had no doubt been in circulations as well as collections of pericopes (sayings of Jesus) edited together without intense concern for historical chronology. We are certain that Mark was the first compiled, probably around mid centiury, as both Matthew and Luke contain essentially all of the content of Mark. We are relatively certain that Matthew and Luke were written ahead of the beginnings of the Roman persecutions of Christians, as there is no reference to those in the texts, which would date them well before the turn of the century. John does suggest courage in the face of those persecutions and was likely written around the turn of the century making it the latest of all N.T. manuscripts.

As for the accuracy, we have people writing from memory but writing of a monumental and important event in their lives that changed them forever.

Those of us who were old enough to vividly remember when President Kennedy was shot retain vivid memories and vivid imagery and facts of the events surrounding that event that happened almost 50 years ago. If you put 100 of us in a room to write our recollections, every one of us would be able to produce a substantial manuscript just working from memory. We would agree on many things, would likely get some things out of chronological order, each would remember some things that others wouldn't think of, we would disagree on some things. And yet, collectively, we would produce a pretty good account of that event and the days that followed that event.

And that would be without benefit of the life training in oral tradition that every good Jewish boy was immersed in during New Testament times. (Old Testament times too.)

The manuscripts of the New Testament demonstrate the same kinds of agreement, variations in chronology, some disagreements, some contradictions. You will find some content in Matthew not found anywhere else; some content in Luke not found anywhere else etc.

All of which testifies to an authenticiy of the scriptures that would be more suspect if there were no such variations.

And those of us with a relationship with the living God will likely read the scriptures with the sense that God, despite using imperfect people not always producing perfect results to do it, is guiding the process.

And it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to see the same evidence of intelligent design in the wonders of the universe in which we live.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's use the 40 year figure.

Now compare that the Trayvon Martin case for finding the truth in eye witness testimony and the accuracy of the remembrances of those who listened to what they heard.

We're working with a few weeks of stories relayed from zealots and they seem to have editorialized liberally in a few weeks.

After 40 years, do you suppose the the accuracy is perfect in a journalistic sense.

You're welcome to your own opinion on this.

Yes the writings are reliable because they were inspired by God. So it doesn't really matter when they were written.

This is not a provable thing. Again, you cannot use faith as proof in a discussion of science and logic.

Logic is a tenet of design so why should I not use logic in this discussion ? I am playing in the pool we will have to carry on this discussion later maybe Tuesday for me I have business meeting tomorrow.

 

[code1211]

while there is similarity between humans and chimps but there is a vast difference in the genetic information. The human is made up of 4 billion base pairs of Dna with a 5% difference between humans and chimps that is 200 hundred million base pairs of Dna difference.That is what we know of. what they don't tell you as they study the genome they keep finding more differences.by the normal rate of mutations that occur man has not been on the planet long enough to Eco enough beneficial mutations for humans to evolve from any apelike creature. fact is when I ask for someone from your side to point out beneficial mutations they can't name very many. but harmful mutations are at 5,000 that cause deformity and or disease and growing. That was my job for years to study mutations in flies mutations caused more harm then good.

Regarding mutations, because the process is random and the selection process that follows is what actually produces evolved differences, mutations are not by definition either good or bad.

The mutant is either more or less capable of thriving in the current environment.

If the mutation occurred at the same time that the environment changed, this might cause the prevailing population to die while the mutant thrived.

If the environment is constant and the mutant diverges from the "copy" that is thriving, the mutant will not thrive.

Environment may change that affects an organisms ability to survive. Mutations have nothing to do with a group or families survival . You are wrong about mutations they are neutral ,harmful,and beneficial its just that beneficial mutations are rare. If you are driving down the road and lose a tire and replace it with an extra seat will it let the car perform like it was designed to do ? That is what happens with mutations. Sometimes mutations cause no change they are neutral. Sometimes mutations cause a benefit but are rare but when you look at the big picture down the road it turns out it was only a temporary benefit. Then a harmful mutation would threaten survival of the organism. What keeps us going and healthy is we have mechanisms in place preventing mutations spreading through the population. Natural selection prevents evolution because mutations are not allowed to spread through the population.

If a mutation spreads through a species, it is because there is something about that mutation that is preferred over the existing copy of the species.

Natural selection works with a mutation, but independently of it. The mutation occurs and then, if it is one that produces an advantage it spreads because it is naturally selected.

So, in an imaginary world in which a species could eat only one type of fruit and that fruit grew on trees holding the fruit 5 feet above the ground, a mutation that created a reach that only went to four feet would not spread as you say. It would immediately cause starvation and that mutation would fail.

If the mutation made reaching the fruit easier, it would flourish.

Mutations are not aimed at better or worse survival, they simply are. If they occur at the right time and the mutation is the right mutation, it will benefit the mutated. If not, it won't.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

loser thread

 

[Youwerecreated]

Regarding mutations, because the process is random and the selection process that follows is what actually produces evolved differences, mutations are not by definition either good or bad.

The mutant is either more or less capable of thriving in the current environment.

If the mutation occurred at the same time that the environment changed, this might cause the prevailing population to die while the mutant thrived.

If the environment is constant and the mutant diverges from the "copy" that is thriving, the mutant will not thrive.

Environment may change that affects an organisms ability to survive. Mutations have nothing to do with a group or families survival . You are wrong about mutations they are neutral ,harmful,and beneficial its just that beneficial mutations are rare. If you are driving down the road and lose a tire and replace it with an extra seat will it let the car perform like it was designed to do ? That is what happens with mutations. Sometimes mutations cause no change they are neutral. Sometimes mutations cause a benefit but are rare but when you look at the big picture down the road it turns out it was only a temporary benefit. Then a harmful mutation would threaten survival of the organism. What keeps us going and healthy is we have mechanisms in place preventing mutations spreading through the population. Natural selection prevents evolution because mutations are not allowed to spread through the population.

If a mutation spreads through a species, it is because there is something about that mutation that is preferred over the existing copy of the species.

Natural selection works with a mutation, but independently of it. The mutation occurs and then, if it is one that produces an advantage it spreads because it is naturally selected.

So, in an imaginary world in which a species could eat only one type of fruit and that fruit grew on trees holding the fruit 5 feet above the ground, a mutation that created a reach that only went to four feet would not spread as you say. It would immediately cause starvation and that mutation would fail.

If the mutation made reaching the fruit easier, it would flourish.

Mutations are not aimed at better or worse survival, they simply are. If they occur at the right time and the mutation is the right mutation, it will benefit the mutated. If not, it won't.

Let me help you out you are struggling with your explanations of mutations. Mutations are copying errors that is why we currently have around 5,000 genetic disorders and diseases. Can you explain the mechanism that tries to repair these Dna copying errors so no mutation takes place ? Why would this mechanism exist ? Would a natural process evolution think of such a mechanism or would a designer think of such a mechanism ? I have studied mutations for many years on flies. Why flies because they have such a short lifespan and reproduce quick. We have witnessed countless numbers of mutations both the ones that happened naturally and the ones we induced through radiation and vaginal sponge baths. I have never seen a change that benefited the flies. I never observed a mutation that spread through the population. And every fly that experienced mutations had a shorter lifespan. Evolution needs lots of beneficial mutations to occur absent of neutral or harmful mutations and that's just not observed. No matter what your side does they will not be able to save neo darwinism it never happened. All you have to do is name the observed beneficial mutations agains't the harmful mutations. For evolution to occur you need a continual accumulation of beneficial mutations. That just simply is not observed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a provable thing. Again, you cannot use faith as proof in a discussion of science and logic.

This is simply not true. Science is a small subset of 'logical' disciplines and others would be mathematics, and some forms of philosophy and theology.

Science does not have an exclusive lock on Reason.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We now know that most of the energy in the observable universe can be found not within galaxies but outside them, in otherwise empty space, which, for reasons we still cannot fathom, "weighs" something. But the use of the word "weight" is perhaps misleading because the energy of empty space is gravitationally repulsive. It pushes distant galaxies away from us at an ever-faster rate. Eventually they will recede faster than light and will be unobservable.

This has changed our vision of the future, which is now far bleaker. The longer we wait, the less of the universe we will be able to see. In hundreds of billions of years astronomers on some distant planet circling a distant star (Earth and our sun will be long gone) will observe the cosmos and find it much like our flawed vision at the turn of the last century: a single galaxy immersed in a seemingly endless dark, empty, static universe.

- Pondering a universe without purpose - Los Angeles Times

 

[Dr.Drock]

No that was punishment for eves sin he did not kill her but he did punisher her. Are we wrong to punish criminals ?

This one brings us back to the moral question of original sin. If the bible stands true, then people aren't reincarnated in different forms to live again on this Earth in Hindu fashion. Nobody who is currently alive was also alive during the time of Adam and Eve. Therefore, there's not a single woman alive today who, even if she really, -really- wanted to stop the snake from tempting Eve, or stop Eve from eating of the fruit, could have done anything about it. Every single woman alive today was completely powerless to do anything about Eve fucking up in the garden of eden.

How does a God who is infinitely wise, and loving, and just, sentence every woman to that sort of painful, often-deadly child birthing model for the crime of one woman that they were powerless to prevent?

I would say that we are not wrong to punish criminals. . . however. . . if someone commits murder, to you also imprison his children? Their children? How many generations of that persons offspring is it justifiable to punish for the crimes of their predecessor? And is it just offspring? What about siblings? Predecessors? Everybody who looks like 'em? Everybody in the same species? Should the entire human race get in line for the electric chair since, somewhere in history, there had to be -somebody- who did enough awful shit to justify the death penalty. If original sin is our model for justice, then every human should be punished for every crime committed by any human. Does this sound consistent with your view of justice?

There is profound wisdom to be found in the Bible, but much of it is evident only if one can free his/her mind from the literal and embrace the greater truths that are expressed metaphorically. symbolically, or allegorically.

In Exodus 34, for instance, we read various translations of a curious passage: "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generation."

This makes sense if we go back to the Creation story beginning in the second chapter of Genesis which was written at a much earler time than was the first chapter of Genesis. There we see the progression: the 'original' sin of Adam and Eve that began the process of spoling God's perfect creation for them. Then Cain and Abel in which the sin spreads into the family and further screws things up for them. And then into the larger community, (Noah) and finally into the entire world (the Tower of Babel.) All, in my opinion, are allegorical explanations for why things are the way they are, but the theme of sin, intended or unintended, runs through all, and there is consequence for all sin.

The lesson to be learned is that what God created is perfect. And it is our collective sin that spoils that perfection and it is accumulative and progressive which is why sin is bad. So we at different times have eroded our health and damaged genes to be passed on to our progeny; addictions affect the whole family and subsequent generations; and as a global society we at different times have destroyed the beauty and wonder, fouled the soil and water and air and food supply, and failed to do what we could to preserve much of what God gave us.

Sin is that which harms us and/or others whether intentional or not. The lesson of the Bible is that if we yield ourselves to God and do what He commands, we will not sin.and will not spoil his perfect creation. Otherwise, sin is inevitable.

How can something sin that was created perfect?

 

[KevinWestern]

Let me help you out you are struggling with your explanations of mutations. Mutations are copying errors that is why we currently have around 5,000 genetic disorders and diseases. Can you explain the mechanism that tries to repair these Dna copying errors so no mutation takes place ? Why would this mechanism exist ? Would a natural process evolution think of such a mechanism or would a designer think of such a mechanism ? I have studied mutations for many years on flies. Why flies because they have such a short lifespan and reproduce quick. We have witnessed countless numbers of mutations both the ones that happened naturally and the ones we induced through radiation and vaginal sponge baths. I have never seen a change that benefited the flies. I never observed a mutation that spread through the population. And every fly that experienced mutations had a shorter lifespan. Evolution needs lots of beneficial mutations to occur absent of neutral or harmful mutations and that's just not observed. No matter what your side does they will not be able to save neo darwinism it never happened. All you have to do is name the observed beneficial mutations agains't the harmful mutations. For evolution to occur you need a continual accumulation of beneficial mutations. That just simply is not observed.

When a beneficial mutation occurs - maybe a mutation that helps to camouflage the animal from predators - the animal (generally speaking) will thrive and multiply. When a negative mutation occurs, the animal won’t have as much luck with mating, and will die off (along with the negative mutation). Evolution works because of the concept of “survival of the fittest”. The recipients of the beneficial mutations continually win out, multiply, and proliferate, and the species will be continually "bettering" itself as time moves forward (all while changing in appearance, size, and temperament over long stretches of time).

A species will "perfect" itself if you give it a long enough time in a given environment.

.
.
.

 

[amrchaos]

The Law of gravity was discovered by Issac Newton in which he described the inverse square of the gravitational force. However, gravity was understood by scientist and engineers long before Issac Newton. The fact that material bodies attract was well understood for several millenium, the mathematical equation that describe how was only discovered in the past couple of centuaries.

Another case is in terms of the postulate of relativity, in which the general description of a physical system is laid down before an actual equation is written.

Of course, one could say that math is used if one wish to quote the velocity of light as c(simple algebra) but stating that is irrelevant to the postulate. One could just talk about the velocity of light without referencing algebra or the actual measurement of the speed
light.

To say that the velocity of light is constant is to make a mathematical statement. A simple one - yes - but mathematcial nonetheless.

1st, You are only looking at half of what is being postulate!
2nd--the main point is that concepts are described BEFORE mathematics is considered in physics. You can talk about motion of an object near the earth surface. That is physics. Now Tell us--what equation would you use to describe this motion?

How to learn physics--one learns concept about the physical nature of the world.

An illustrative method of doing this is well explained in this video



Mathematics is just a method of explaining an idea. But note the number of ways that "author" described torque on paper to help solidify the concept to his understanding.
A diagram
Two analogues
Where is the equation?

 

[KevinWestern]

Although the concept of evolution in no way explains where all of this “stuff” came from originally (no one has the answer to that one), I don’t think it’s logical for people to claim that evolution doesn’t exist at all (to any degree). How can one explain the domestication of animals without having to acknowledge that evolution exists at least to some degree?

Check out the link below - this was a very interesting science experiment they performed in Russia. Over the span of 50 years a large pool of foxes were bred, then separated by temperament (aggressive vs docile). For the next generation, the aggressive bred with the aggressive, and docile with docile, producing a new pool of foxes. That pool was again separated by temperament and the process was repeated over and over again.

What was the result? After 50 years, the science experiment yielded two very different types of foxes. A type of fox that is always extraordinarily aggressive, territorial, and mean, and another that is always docile, friendly, and “pet” material. It doesn’t stop there, the two types of foxes even look different, and have different sized tails, different bone structure within the face, and have different fur patterns. It’s a rapid form evolution at work before our very eyes!


Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

This one brings us back to the moral question of original sin. If the bible stands true, then people aren't reincarnated in different forms to live again on this Earth in Hindu fashion. Nobody who is currently alive was also alive during the time of Adam and Eve. Therefore, there's not a single woman alive today who, even if she really, -really- wanted to stop the snake from tempting Eve, or stop Eve from eating of the fruit, could have done anything about it. Every single woman alive today was completely powerless to do anything about Eve fucking up in the garden of eden.

How does a God who is infinitely wise, and loving, and just, sentence every woman to that sort of painful, often-deadly child birthing model for the crime of one woman that they were powerless to prevent?

I would say that we are not wrong to punish criminals. . . however. . . if someone commits murder, to you also imprison his children? Their children? How many generations of that persons offspring is it justifiable to punish for the crimes of their predecessor? And is it just offspring? What about siblings? Predecessors? Everybody who looks like 'em? Everybody in the same species? Should the entire human race get in line for the electric chair since, somewhere in history, there had to be -somebody- who did enough awful shit to justify the death penalty. If original sin is our model for justice, then every human should be punished for every crime committed by any human. Does this sound consistent with your view of justice?

There is profound wisdom to be found in the Bible, but much of it is evident only if one can free his/her mind from the literal and embrace the greater truths that are expressed metaphorically. symbolically, or allegorically.

In Exodus 34, for instance, we read various translations of a curious passage: "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generation."

This makes sense if we go back to the Creation story beginning in the second chapter of Genesis which was written at a much earler time than was the first chapter of Genesis. There we see the progression: the 'original' sin of Adam and Eve that began the process of spoling God's perfect creation for them. Then Cain and Abel in which the sin spreads into the family and further screws things up for them. And then into the larger community, (Noah) and finally into the entire world (the Tower of Babel.) All, in my opinion, are allegorical explanations for why things are the way they are, but the theme of sin, intended or unintended, runs through all, and there is consequence for all sin.

The lesson to be learned is that what God created is perfect. And it is our collective sin that spoils that perfection and it is accumulative and progressive which is why sin is bad. So we at different times have eroded our health and damaged genes to be passed on to our progeny; addictions affect the whole family and subsequent generations; and as a global society we at different times have destroyed the beauty and wonder, fouled the soil and water and air and food supply, and failed to do what we could to preserve much of what God gave us.

Sin is that which harms us and/or others whether intentional or not. The lesson of the Bible is that if we yield ourselves to God and do what He commands, we will not sin.and will not spoil his perfect creation. Otherwise, sin is inevitable.

How can something sin that was created perfect?

Another of the mysteries but there we are creatures of free will that includes ability to make choices. We are not marionettes manipulated by invisible strings. The ability to make choices includes ability to choose wisely. Or choose wrongly. Without such choices there is no ability to experience the full range of human emotions--love, joy, anticipation, hope, great expectation, satisfaction in goals accomplished, etc. While it is obvious that other creatures also experience some degree of some of the emotions we experience, none are fully capable of making choicess beyond their immediate experience our outside their experience.

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

I doubt the ancients knew or considered all this in their day, but they had the intellect to know that humans were somehow capable of having dominion over all other creatures As is reflected in the Biblical allegory.

But the ability to distinguish good and evil of itself includes the ability to choose bad or wrong or evil as well. And when we choose not to love God enough to yield to his guidance, we won't choose as well. And little by little we thereby choose to screw up the perfect creation we were given.

Perhaps it is the incredible and unfathomable marvel that is the human brain and the human capacity to love, hate, choose, adapt, that gives extra credence to the concept of some kind of intelligent design working in the universe.

 

[KevinWestern]

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

Foxfyre – How are you so sure that we’re the only species “capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience”? I totally disagree with you with regards to this statement. Do you realize how incredibly intelligent and aware some of our fellow earth mates – such as dolphins – are?

 

[Foxfyre]

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

Foxfyre – How are you so sure that we’re the only species “capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience”? I totally disagree with you with regards to this statement. Do you realize how incredibly intelligent and aware some of our fellow earth mates – such as dolphins – are?

Kevin, first I will refer you to your dictionary to look up the word 'apparently' which is never translated as 'so sure'. I do not presume to know what I cannot know.

Second, I will refer you to your biology and zoology courses or textbooks that explain the phenomenon of instinct, predictability of behavior of various species, and the evidence of animal behavior that is before us to see.

But yes, being both a student of our environment and the creatures we share our planet with, I have a long appreciation for the wonders and phenomena of nature.

However, outside of the human species, there is no reported phenomena of ANY species organizing to go to the aid of another species. And even the amazing intelligence of the dolphins and chimpanzees is quite limited in helping them understand and avoid natural and unnatural hazards that exist for them beyond their immediate experience. Otherwise there wouldn't be a problem with dolphins getting tangled up in the tuna nets or chimpanzees unable to comprehend anything outside of their physical experience.

All other mammals, and presumably other creatures too, forget their young once those young move on to make their own way in the world. We humans do not forget. No other creatures voluntarily choose a lifestyle out of that naturally ordered for their species. There seems to be no such limitation on human ability.

There are relatively few anomalies among all living things on Earth, both plant and animal. Except for human beings which are a species of perpetual anomalies.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There is profound wisdom to be found in the Bible, but much of it is evident only if one can free his/her mind from the literal and embrace the greater truths that are expressed metaphorically. symbolically, or allegorically.

In Exodus 34, for instance, we read various translations of a curious passage: "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generation."

This makes sense if we go back to the Creation story beginning in the second chapter of Genesis which was written at a much earler time than was the first chapter of Genesis. There we see the progression: the 'original' sin of Adam and Eve that began the process of spoling God's perfect creation for them. Then Cain and Abel in which the sin spreads into the family and further screws things up for them. And then into the larger community, (Noah) and finally into the entire world (the Tower of Babel.) All, in my opinion, are allegorical explanations for why things are the way they are, but the theme of sin, intended or unintended, runs through all, and there is consequence for all sin.

The lesson to be learned is that what God created is perfect. And it is our collective sin that spoils that perfection and it is accumulative and progressive which is why sin is bad. So we at different times have eroded our health and damaged genes to be passed on to our progeny; addictions affect the whole family and subsequent generations; and as a global society we at different times have destroyed the beauty and wonder, fouled the soil and water and air and food supply, and failed to do what we could to preserve much of what God gave us.

Sin is that which harms us and/or others whether intentional or not. The lesson of the Bible is that if we yield ourselves to God and do what He commands, we will not sin.and will not spoil his perfect creation. Otherwise, sin is inevitable.

How can something sin that was created perfect?

Another of the mysteries but there we are creatures of free will that includes ability to make choices. We are not marionettes manipulated by invisible strings. The ability to make choices includes ability to choose wisely. Or choose wrongly. Without such choices there is no ability to experience the full range of human emotions--love, joy, anticipation, hope, great expectation, satisfaction in goals accomplished, etc. While it is obvious that other creatures also experience some degree of some of the emotions we experience, none are fully capable of making choicess beyond their immediate experience our outside their experience.

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

I doubt the ancients knew or considered all this in their day, but they had the intellect to know that humans were somehow capable of having dominion over all other creatures As is reflected in the Biblical allegory.

But the ability to distinguish good and evil of itself includes the ability to choose bad or wrong or evil as well. And when we choose not to love God enough to yield to his guidance, we won't choose as well. And little by little we thereby choose to screw up the perfect creation we were given.

Perhaps it is the incredible and unfathomable marvel that is the human brain and the human capacity to love, hate, choose, adapt, that gives extra credence to the concept of some kind of intelligent design working in the universe.

Still doesn't seem perfect to me. A perfect creation to me would only be choosing between a collection of good choices, not choosing good or evil.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can something sin that was created perfect?

Another of the mysteries but there we are creatures of free will that includes ability to make choices. We are not marionettes manipulated by invisible strings. The ability to make choices includes ability to choose wisely. Or choose wrongly. Without such choices there is no ability to experience the full range of human emotions--love, joy, anticipation, hope, great expectation, satisfaction in goals accomplished, etc. While it is obvious that other creatures also experience some degree of some of the emotions we experience, none are fully capable of making choicess beyond their immediate experience our outside their experience.

We are not only apparently the only species with a full range of emotions, but we are also the only species capable of making choices about something we have not experienced. We are the only species capable of caring about or knowing about anything beyond our immediate experience. And the capability to love God, which is the most incredible and joyous experience of humankind, must of itself include the ability to reject that love, even to hate God. There is no up without a down, no in without an out, no there without a here, etc.

I doubt the ancients knew or considered all this in their day, but they had the intellect to know that humans were somehow capable of having dominion over all other creatures As is reflected in the Biblical allegory.

But the ability to distinguish good and evil of itself includes the ability to choose bad or wrong or evil as well. And when we choose not to love God enough to yield to his guidance, we won't choose as well. And little by little we thereby choose to screw up the perfect creation we were given.

Perhaps it is the incredible and unfathomable marvel that is the human brain and the human capacity to love, hate, choose, adapt, that gives extra credence to the concept of some kind of intelligent design working in the universe.

Still doesn't seem perfect to me. A perfect creation to me would only be choosing between a collection of good choices, not choosing good or evil.

How can there be a 'good' without a 'bad"? How can there be virtue without evil? All I know is that love cannot be ordered, but without it, there is little in life that makes any sense at all. And perhaps, metaphorically, before Adam and Eve chose to be God instead of loving/obeying God, there were no bad choices? And once they made that choice, they began the process of spoiling the perfect creation?

If there was no ability to choose wrongly, then we are nothing more than puppets with every thought, action, and emotion pre-ordained. As I know that is not the case, then I have to accept that the choices I make do make a difference in the immediate, or at least the future of us all.