Originally posted by blindfaith101Suppose Adam hadn't eaten the fruit. Are you saying he would still be alive today? What do you suppose the world population would be without death?
GOD warned man that if he touched or ate from the Tree of The Knowledge of God and Evil, he would die. That was the beginning of death on the Earth. So all things on earth grow old and die,some slower than others.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere was also the Tree of Life. That tree would have enabled man to live forever. Which is why after man ate the fruit, of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, GOD blocked the way to the tree of Life.
Suppose Adam hadn't eaten the fruit. Are you saying he would still be alive today? What do you suppose the world population would be without death?
Simply put GOD had no intention to allow sin to live forever.
Originally posted by blindfaith101go read that again and tell me what the part about the Tree of Life meant.
GOD warned man that if he touched or ate from the Tree of The Knowledge of God and Evil, he would die. That was the beginning of death on the Earth. So all things on earth grow old and die,some slower than others.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Biblical view is that death entered the world by the actions of Adam and Eve. And God did not tell Eve about child bearing until after the fall. But that's my theory - it's not doctrinal.
Adam and Eve wouldn't have reproduced if man had never fallen into sin?
However, I still see no need for dying of old age in nature. It seems to go against evolutionary theories which would lead to longer lives. Maybe it has to do with the laws of entropy.
Originally posted by blindfaith101Was there NO death before sin? Or no human death? God gave man dominion over the animals, meaning we can kill for food right? Just wondering.
GOD warned man that if he touched or ate from the Tree of The Knowledge of God and Evil, he would die. That was the beginning of death on the Earth. So all things on earth grow old and die,some slower than others.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis doesn't really address the question. And it suggests that some designer installed death as a necessary means to a deliberate end. That is to say, that 'someone' actually cares if a contradiction would ensue. And that 'someone' actually is concerned about the logistics of a growing population.
Limited resources constrain the population. If you had no deaths, you'd also have to have no births, otherwise a contradiction would ensue, for you would have an unlimited population consuming a finite pool of resources forever.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the question meant is; How is death explained by the evolutionary theory of origins?
Originally posted by blindfaith101That explains why Adam and Eve died; not why anything else dies.
GOD warned man that if he touched or ate from the Tree of The Knowledge of God and Evil, he would die. That was the beginning of death on the Earth. So all things on earth grow old and die,some slower than others.
Originally posted by CoconutThere was No death before sin. The first deaths were of the animals that God himself killed in order to make a covering (clothes) for Adam and Eve. This is a 'type' of the salvation that God would later offer to mankind.
Was there NO death before sin? Or no human death? God gave man dominion over the animals, meaning we can kill for food right? Just wondering.
After Noah's flood God told Noah and his family, for the first time, that they could kill animals for food. Before that we were all (yuck) vegetarians!
Let's try a though experiment.
Imagine we start with a population of organisms that does not die of old age; nor do they experience the symptoms of age.
Suppose one of them evolves the capacity to age and die of old age. This one will have no trouble breeding to some extent, but once it's bred a certain amount, it will get old and weak and stop breeding so well; and then it will die, and stop breeding entirely. It's competitors will continue breeding for a long, long time; until the population will increase as a whole in the abscence of outside forms of death, or outside forms of death will be indiscriminate in which organisms get killed.
The percentage of the population that dies of old age in the long run should get smaller and smaller.
Suppose we start instead with a population that does age and die of old age. Suppose one organism evolves the ability to not age and die of old age. This organism should have a selective advantage. Not only does it have more time to breed, the chance that an outside event will kill it will decrease over time as it becomes more experienced and canny.
So, on the surface, this appears to be evidence against MacE.
One possibility is that immortality is either biologically impossible or it requires such a commitment of bodily resources that other bodily functions get robbed and the organism becomes weaker as an indirect result.
Originally posted by chinking58"Pinnacle"? "Subordinate"? What the hell are you talking about?
A & E represented the very pinnacle of creation. If even they would die, then certainly all things subordinate would be included in the new order of things.
If a general gets convicted of a crime, should all military personell subordinate to him also get convicted of that crime simply because they are subordinate? Should every person in the U.S. be convicted of the crimes of our Presidents? Are we all as guilty as Nixon because he was the leader of our country?