If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
I appreciate the sentiment but when have you ever known me to stop questing for the truth? At what point in any discussion have I ever said, "This is the way it is, period, no further discussion needed"?Flores said:
Evolution really has nothing to do with atheism. There are more theistic 'evolutionists' than atheistic ones.
What Evolution does require is that religious creationism be interpreted figuratively... in just the same way that other facets of doctrine must be taken figuratively or conflict with evidence to the contrary. For instance, do you take this literally? "[18.86] Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people." We know that you can't get to 'the place where the sun set' because the setting sun is only an illusion of the Earth's rotation and we certainly know that the sun does not descend into the sea. But for some reason it's acceptable to interpret this figuratively rather than literally.
Honestly, I really don't see where the conflict is between God creating man and the Universe with Evolution. The only disagreement is about how God went about it. Is there really any conceptual difference between God using the principles of Evolution to create man and his using the laws of gravity and motion to guide the paths of the stars and planets? Their movements are as precisely defined and balanced as the functions of life; they're just simpler and easier to understand so we accept that God's direct intervention is not necessary.
The thing is, I don't know of any Atheist bandwagon and there is no mission. Some of us occasionally shout in unison but 'becoming' an Atheist is as private an issue as a Theist's relationship with God. Even more so because there is really no institutionalized Atheism whereas I can find institutionalized theism every few blocks.
Actually, I believe that a truly rigorous course of discovery for either Atheists or Theists leads one beyond easy identification with either.
~Raithere
Raithere said:
You are the only one here that have your head screwed properly on your shoulder and that's why theists and Atheists alike respect your points of view.
Raithere said:
Again, I'm thrown off by such terms as evolutionists?? I could never see myself labeling myself to such an extent when talking about evolution, and I wonder what could compell people to committ so hardly to the point of calling themselves after a concept of their study. Why would a person enslave themselves to a concept of their making is beyond me....unless of course they see in the concept the answer to their existance, purpose of life, ect..something which I don't see in the theory of evolution.
Raithere said:
You're right, but the catch is evolution DEMANDS that religious creationism follow quite closely whatever it is the state of evolution, and when evolution takes a wrong turn, we can all sit and laugh about religion that was used to justify something that is totally wrong....yet evolution simply goes on and says...shit happens, mistakes are made, we'll work on it.....yet religious books are carved in stone and can never be changed... Is that what you are suggesting??
Raithere said:
I personally don't see any need to go figuratavely on 188.85. 18.85 tells the story of "Zul Qarnein". The two horned one, or Alexander or Askandar the great. "Askan=horn" , "der=two".
Here's the story:
[18.83] And they ask you about Zulqarnain. Say: I will recite to you an account of him.
[18.84] Surely We established him in the land and granted him means of access to every thing.
[18.85] So he followed a course.
[18.86] Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.
[18.87] He said: As to him who is injust, we will chastise him, then shall he be returned to his Lord, and He will chastise him with an exemplary chastisement: And as for him who believes and does good, he shall have goodly reward, and We will speak to him an easy word of Our command.
[18.89] Then he followed (another) course.
[18.90] Until when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom We had given no shelter from It;
[18.91] Even so! and We had a full knowledge of what he had.
[18.92] Then he followed (another) course.
[18.93] Until when he reached (a place) between the two mountains, he found on that side of them a people who could hardly understand a word.
[18.94] They said: O Zulqarnain! surely Gog and Magog make mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute on condition that you should raise a barrier between us and them
[18.95] He said: That in which my Lord has established me is better, therefore you only help me with workers, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them;
[18.96] Bring me blocks of iron; until when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said: Blow, until when he had made it (as) fire, he said: Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it.
[18.97] So they were not able to scale it nor could they make a hole in it.
My interpretation:
Alexander the great followed a course or route (we don't know where he started, so I don't if he was heading east of west). The route led him first to a place where the sun set in muddy waters over people that were exposed to sun. It's hard to interpret this, but if I'm to take a guess in the dark, I would say he was somewhere in China, and perhaps the description of the sun cover hints to why chinease or Asians have slanted eyes since there is too much light in that area of the world. Also, the muddy spring could be the yellow river. The yellow river in china, which have the highest sediment load of any other river seems to be the murkey river spoken off.
The story is told in such a way that it's described from the view point of Alexander the great NOT GOD "he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. God didn't say I created the sun to go down in a black see, god said that Alexander "HE" found the sun setting by the water. The statement should not be construed as a creation statement whatsoever unless people are obviously trying to create confusion and discredit the Quran. The Quran spoke of creation in other verses, like
Abraham
[14.33] And He has made subservient to you the sun and the moon pursuing their courses, and He has made subservient to you the night and the day.
Above, it's clear that god created the sun and the moon to pursue a certain course, which in arabic is clear to imply a rotation.
Anyways, back to the story of Alexander. Those people who I think are Asians are described to speak a foriegn language and to live in a valley of two mountains. The gog and Magog are the mongolians lead by Ghingis khan. Supposidly, Alexander the great helped the chinease build a section of the great wall of china to protect them from the mongols. That's just my take, as far as it being accurate, I dare not claim so, because our account of history could be so incorrect and I would fear to use religion to justify an error in history.
Last edited:
Flores, why no comment when I showed that benefical mutations (which you state did not exist) DO exist?
Why did you change the subject?
Why these repeat attacks against evolution?
Can we ask some questions about Creationism? It's only fair...
Why did you change the subject?
Why these repeat attacks against evolution?
Can we ask some questions about Creationism? It's only fair...
That's why I put it in quotes. It's pretty much a nonsense term but I needed a label.Flores said:
Broaden your perspective. Consider, what if we had irrefutable proof of the descent of man? What if we observed the generation of life though purely natural means? Is God dependent upon these conditions never occurring or is God bigger than that? I would suggest that a God that is dependent upon any conditions is not God.
Examine this one carefully because it's crucial to religion. In fact, I'm going to wait a while to respond in any detail. Consider the ramifications of an inflexible system. What does this mean in regards to the human condition? What does it imply about God? Why do we set up judges and juries to deliver justice? When does religion beget violence?
It wasn't my intent to do so, I find this set of verses quite clear. My point was that the phrase is taken figuratively.
Yes, it can be taken to imply rotation. Again, note the flexibility of the figurative expression. But I think there's a larger message here than where the sun and moon are going. In fact I see several layers of meaning here... which is the deepest? Which is the most significant to us? Is the real concern how precisely the phrase fits empirical data? I'd call it inconsequential.
~Raithere
mountainhare said:
I'm sorry mountainhare, my day is ending here, and I'll catch you tomorrow, god's willing. I'm not ignoring you, but I hate to clutter my emails, so I'm not notified when I recieve a responce to my posts. I literally have to go back and read what others wrote to me and I always miss responces.
I'm also not changing the subject. I'm not attacking evolution, I'm attacking posters view of evolution....and you can ask me any question about creationism that you wish althought I have already confessed that I don't know much.
The problem with that is what exactly? You go on to provide the following examples:
Nope, nor does it need to. Furthermore, I would state that you can't build an air conditioning unit either.
No it can't, and nor does it need to.
Why would we need to? Water doesn't do any harm, and we're not sea living animals.
No, and nor do we need to.
Anyway, I fail to see what point you're trying to make. It is seemingly the typical creationist style debate over why cows don't have wings. The answer is very simple though: Grass is not in the air.
Apply that to everything you've mentioned above.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
James R. I apologize for writing something so simple that you saw no importance to it in connection with the subject. All I am saying is that scientists have made many declarations over the years that they later retracted, and this is okay; because, we do the best we can. We are still learning, but your seeming passion to have everyone accept that people came from monkeys is a bit premature. I do not care particularly, but it is still a theory, an unproven theory, anyway you want to state it. PMT
Apologies James, I'm not jumping on your back, I just feel like adding my two cents 
By that same rationale, a religious mans seemingly passionate need to have everyone accept that people came from an omnipotent god being is vastly premature. I do not care particularly, but it is nothing more than a baseless assumption without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
If this is a battle over what the evidence shows, then god is at the bottom of the pile.
By that same rationale, a religious mans seemingly passionate need to have everyone accept that people came from an omnipotent god being is vastly premature. I do not care particularly, but it is nothing more than a baseless assumption without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
If this is a battle over what the evidence shows, then god is at the bottom of the pile.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
That, my friend, is the most ridiculous bunch of nonsense I have ever read. Consider your comparisons. PMT
Fine, lay your evidence on the table. And while you're at it, lay all the evidence you have that goes against man coming from apes....
20+ pages have been spent showing evidence to support the evolutionary paths that have ended up with modern day man. Now I would ask you to present whatever you have that goes against that.
20+ pages have been spent showing evidence to support the evolutionary paths that have ended up with modern day man. Now I would ask you to present whatever you have that goes against that.
By James R
[Actually, we use all of our brains, just not all at the same time. The oft-cited suggestion that "most people only ever use 10% of their brains" is an urban myth, with no basis in fact.]
You know what, James R. I cannot think of one person who uses his whole brain all the time; can you?
It seems that I should have said that man uses only a small portion of his brains potentiality in one life time.
[By James R. Look at what I wrote again. We say we're made in God's image. I say that if that were true, then God wouldn't be very impressive. I think that if there is a God, then we're not made in His image. He's probably a lot more impressive than we are. Maybe we have a small part of what God is, but that's all. Does that make sense?]
Yes, it makes far more sense than your previous statement.
Thank you, James R.
[Actually, we use all of our brains, just not all at the same time. The oft-cited suggestion that "most people only ever use 10% of their brains" is an urban myth, with no basis in fact.]
You know what, James R. I cannot think of one person who uses his whole brain all the time; can you?
It seems that I should have said that man uses only a small portion of his brains potentiality in one life time.
[By James R. Look at what I wrote again. We say we're made in God's image. I say that if that were true, then God wouldn't be very impressive. I think that if there is a God, then we're not made in His image. He's probably a lot more impressive than we are. Maybe we have a small part of what God is, but that's all. Does that make sense?]
Yes, it makes far more sense than your previous statement.
Thank you, James R.
Flores:
I disagree. In genetic terms, this is very clear-cut. Genes mutate at random, due to a number of processes. There is nothing at all which can be said to guide the mutation of genes (unless God has a hidden hand in that process - maybe there you could drive a small wedge for your "design" argument).
On the other hand, as I explained, natural selection is non-random. When we talk about natural selection, we are not talking about the chance accidents of life which kill some animals and spare others. We are talking about general environmental factors which affect all animals of a species in a particular region equally (apart from differences in their phenotypes derived from the innate variations between the genes of individual animals).
In the sense of natural selection, "the environment" includes the entire ecosystem in which an animal (or plant or whatever) lives. An animal's environment includes the climate, the indigenous plant species, other species of animal in the region, and other members of the animal's own species.
No. Life is a continuum, not a bunch of discrete groups. Natural selection acts on the particular individual forms of each kind of life. The same environmental factors affect different species in different ways due to the particular anatomical and behavioural features of the species.
No creature, including a human being, can separate itself from its environment. No creature is special and can avoid natural selection, even human beings. However, it is important to also realise that there are other types of selective effects at work apart from natural selection due to environmental factors. If you look at dog breeds, for example, they have not been created by natural selection; they were created by <b>artificial</b> selection by human beings. Humans have selectively bred dogs over generations, which has resulted not in speciation, but in wide variation among "breeds" of dogs. Humans also continually artificially "select" certain portions of our population to live or die, through things such as wars. But this artificial selection does not supercede natural selection, or prevent natural processes from operating in tandem.
No. Why not? Because all present-day animals are restricted by the past process of evolution. We are not blank slates, and evolution is very gradual. Current chimpanzees have not evolved brains which allow them to build air conditioners. However, if you wait a few million years, present-day chimpanzees will have descendants which may well have that capacity. When it comes to water-proof oils, in fact humans do excrete certain oils already, and our skin is fairly water-tight. That is an evolved trait. If we lived our lives in the water, we would no doubt gradually, over many generations, become more like the whales. As to growing extra limbs, humans currently lack particular genes which allow this to occur. Historically, it has not been an evolutionary advantage for such genes to develop in humans, since any accident or other occurence involving the loss of a limb has also in most cases killed the person involved. Losing limbs is actually quite rare for humans, as compared to lizards and the like. You must bear in mind that everything is a trade-off. The ability to regrow limbs would have to come at the expense of some other useful feature of human beings. Historically, therefore, this ability has not developed, because it has had no overriding selective advantage for humans.
If you are going to discuss evolution, the first thing to realise is that it is, first and foremost, a <b>scientific</b> theory. Therefore, it is very important to know the science. Without that, discussing the philosophical aspects is to talk without knowing what you're talking about.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Absolutely. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual organism. But the form and behaviour of an organism is determined by a combination of genetic heritage, as well as cultural and other environmental factors. We must be careful to distinguish between "adaptation" in its genetic sense from "adaptation" via learned behaviours and experience of an individual. <b>Only</b> genetic adaptations are passed on to future generations. There is no "inheritance of aquired characteristics". Giraffes did not get their long necks by continually reaching for high leaves, as pre-Darwinian theories proposed.
Obviously, their environments had no effect on their genetic codes, which were set at birth. The survival or otherwise, and successful or unsuccessful breeding of these dogs obviously would depend on many different factors. However, these are but two individuals. Evolution does not take a short-term, small-numbers view of things. Instead, it is a process spread over millions of years and many many individuals. If you want to consider dog evolution, you really need to think about how generations of dogs brought up in your two situations would tend to change over time. You would certainly expect differences to develop between two populations of dogs brought up in these two environments over generations without interbreeding, because the selection pressures in each environment would be very different.
Yes. As I said, evolution is concerned with biological adaptation. Of course, in the long term behavioural adaptations influence biological adaptation, so in a sense it is all part of the same thing.
You need to understand that every animal is unique. It is not a matter of all life being perfectly adapted to its environment. In fact, most forms of life could be better adapted than they are. If you were designing a lifeform from scratch, you'd probably do a better job than evolution, given enough information about the environment. What is important in evolution is whether one individual is <b>better</b> adapted than another, given all the circumstances.
Once you drop the idea that all cows are essentially the same, that all sunflowers are the same, and so on, and accept that every individual organism is unique, you will find it very hard not to accept the conclusion that the environment acts on different individuals in different ways. And once you get that far, natural selection becomes a matter of common sense. Before you know it, you'll be an "evolutionist".
Putting the puzzle together is easy. The great thing about evolution is that, once you understand it, it is a beautifully neat and logical and, overall, <b>simple</b> explanation of life on Earth. Believing in evolution doesn't mean you have to throw out God, though it does mean you need to throw away biblical or Quranic literalism. In my opinion, knowing about evolution does not in any way remove the sense of wonder at the complexity and magnificence of life on Earth. On the contrary, it enhances it - it mangifies my sense of wonder. If God created evolution, then I have tremendous respect for Him.
In cold climates, yes.
Humans have more trouble migrating than geese. And yes, we take shelter, and wear clothes and make fires to protect ourselves from the cold as much as possible. But small things can make a big difference in evolutionary terms, because we are concerned with the <b>differences</b> between individuals, not the things they share in common. All things considered, a hairy man has a better chance against the cold than a less hairy one, once you factor out the fire-making, the clothing and so on. Also, bear in mind that ancient humans did not have good clothing and air-conditioners.
Not at all. I hope I've explained this sufficiently above.
Bush's bombing is part of the environment.
Evolution will continue to work on human beings whether or not we bomb ourselves into oblivion, provided that at least some of us survive to breed. Evolution has given us large brains and the ability to think out the consequences of our actions. Let's hope we take advantage of our genetic heritage.
I disagree. In genetic terms, this is very clear-cut. Genes mutate at random, due to a number of processes. There is nothing at all which can be said to guide the mutation of genes (unless God has a hidden hand in that process - maybe there you could drive a small wedge for your "design" argument).
On the other hand, as I explained, natural selection is non-random. When we talk about natural selection, we are not talking about the chance accidents of life which kill some animals and spare others. We are talking about general environmental factors which affect all animals of a species in a particular region equally (apart from differences in their phenotypes derived from the innate variations between the genes of individual animals).
In the sense of natural selection, "the environment" includes the entire ecosystem in which an animal (or plant or whatever) lives. An animal's environment includes the climate, the indigenous plant species, other species of animal in the region, and other members of the animal's own species.
No. Life is a continuum, not a bunch of discrete groups. Natural selection acts on the particular individual forms of each kind of life. The same environmental factors affect different species in different ways due to the particular anatomical and behavioural features of the species.
No creature, including a human being, can separate itself from its environment. No creature is special and can avoid natural selection, even human beings. However, it is important to also realise that there are other types of selective effects at work apart from natural selection due to environmental factors. If you look at dog breeds, for example, they have not been created by natural selection; they were created by <b>artificial</b> selection by human beings. Humans have selectively bred dogs over generations, which has resulted not in speciation, but in wide variation among "breeds" of dogs. Humans also continually artificially "select" certain portions of our population to live or die, through things such as wars. But this artificial selection does not supercede natural selection, or prevent natural processes from operating in tandem.
No. Why not? Because all present-day animals are restricted by the past process of evolution. We are not blank slates, and evolution is very gradual. Current chimpanzees have not evolved brains which allow them to build air conditioners. However, if you wait a few million years, present-day chimpanzees will have descendants which may well have that capacity. When it comes to water-proof oils, in fact humans do excrete certain oils already, and our skin is fairly water-tight. That is an evolved trait. If we lived our lives in the water, we would no doubt gradually, over many generations, become more like the whales. As to growing extra limbs, humans currently lack particular genes which allow this to occur. Historically, it has not been an evolutionary advantage for such genes to develop in humans, since any accident or other occurence involving the loss of a limb has also in most cases killed the person involved. Losing limbs is actually quite rare for humans, as compared to lizards and the like. You must bear in mind that everything is a trade-off. The ability to regrow limbs would have to come at the expense of some other useful feature of human beings. Historically, therefore, this ability has not developed, because it has had no overriding selective advantage for humans.
If you are going to discuss evolution, the first thing to realise is that it is, first and foremost, a <b>scientific</b> theory. Therefore, it is very important to know the science. Without that, discussing the philosophical aspects is to talk without knowing what you're talking about.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Absolutely. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual organism. But the form and behaviour of an organism is determined by a combination of genetic heritage, as well as cultural and other environmental factors. We must be careful to distinguish between "adaptation" in its genetic sense from "adaptation" via learned behaviours and experience of an individual. <b>Only</b> genetic adaptations are passed on to future generations. There is no "inheritance of aquired characteristics". Giraffes did not get their long necks by continually reaching for high leaves, as pre-Darwinian theories proposed.
Obviously, their environments had no effect on their genetic codes, which were set at birth. The survival or otherwise, and successful or unsuccessful breeding of these dogs obviously would depend on many different factors. However, these are but two individuals. Evolution does not take a short-term, small-numbers view of things. Instead, it is a process spread over millions of years and many many individuals. If you want to consider dog evolution, you really need to think about how generations of dogs brought up in your two situations would tend to change over time. You would certainly expect differences to develop between two populations of dogs brought up in these two environments over generations without interbreeding, because the selection pressures in each environment would be very different.
Yes. As I said, evolution is concerned with biological adaptation. Of course, in the long term behavioural adaptations influence biological adaptation, so in a sense it is all part of the same thing.
You need to understand that every animal is unique. It is not a matter of all life being perfectly adapted to its environment. In fact, most forms of life could be better adapted than they are. If you were designing a lifeform from scratch, you'd probably do a better job than evolution, given enough information about the environment. What is important in evolution is whether one individual is <b>better</b> adapted than another, given all the circumstances.
Once you drop the idea that all cows are essentially the same, that all sunflowers are the same, and so on, and accept that every individual organism is unique, you will find it very hard not to accept the conclusion that the environment acts on different individuals in different ways. And once you get that far, natural selection becomes a matter of common sense. Before you know it, you'll be an "evolutionist".
Putting the puzzle together is easy. The great thing about evolution is that, once you understand it, it is a beautifully neat and logical and, overall, <b>simple</b> explanation of life on Earth. Believing in evolution doesn't mean you have to throw out God, though it does mean you need to throw away biblical or Quranic literalism. In my opinion, knowing about evolution does not in any way remove the sense of wonder at the complexity and magnificence of life on Earth. On the contrary, it enhances it - it mangifies my sense of wonder. If God created evolution, then I have tremendous respect for Him.
In cold climates, yes.
Humans have more trouble migrating than geese. And yes, we take shelter, and wear clothes and make fires to protect ourselves from the cold as much as possible. But small things can make a big difference in evolutionary terms, because we are concerned with the <b>differences</b> between individuals, not the things they share in common. All things considered, a hairy man has a better chance against the cold than a less hairy one, once you factor out the fire-making, the clothing and so on. Also, bear in mind that ancient humans did not have good clothing and air-conditioners.
Not at all. I hope I've explained this sufficiently above.
Bush's bombing is part of the environment.
Evolution will continue to work on human beings whether or not we bomb ourselves into oblivion, provided that at least some of us survive to breed. Evolution has given us large brains and the ability to think out the consequences of our actions. Let's hope we take advantage of our genetic heritage.
I don't believe in evolution, but something did happen that left a "missing link".
Notice the exact way the record of God sets forth the account of the births of Cain, Abel and Seth. Genesis 4:1, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel." Genesis 4:25, "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth..." There are THREE sons born from TWO acts of carnal knowledge by Adam. Since the Bible is the exact and perfect Word of God, this is no mistake but a record for our illumination. Since THREE sons were born from TWO acts by Adam, you know POSITIVELY that ONE of those three WAS NOT the son of Adam. God has recorded this in this exact manner to show us something. The truth of the matter is that Eve had in her womb TWO sons (twins) from SEPARATE impregnations. She was carrying twins, with Cain's conception sometime previous to that of Abel's. See those TWINS again. Perfect type as always. To those who think that this is not possible, let it be known that the medical records are replete with cases where women have carried twins who were of separate ova and separate insemination with the fertilization of the eggs being days apart, and NOT ONLY SO, but some of the records show that the twins were fathered by separate males. Recently worldwide coverage was given to a Norwegian mother who was suing her husband for support for herself and her twins, one of which was white and the other black. She admitted that she had a Negro lover. The two conceptions were about three weeks apart. In Beaumont, Texas, in 1963, the records again set forth a multiple birth wherein pregnancies were many days apart, in fact so much so that the woman almost died along with one child in childbirth.
Now why did this have to be so? Why was it that the seed of the serpent must come this way? Man was created for God. Man was to be the temple of God. The place of God's rest (the Holy Spirit) was man, the temple. Acts 7:46-51, "Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built Him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things? Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Satan has known this all along. He also wants to in-dwell man even as God so does. But God has reserved to Himself that right. Satan cannot do that. God alone appeared in human flesh. Satan could not and cannot do that. He does not have creative powers. The only way for Satan to accomplish what he wanted to do was to enter the serpent in Eden even as he entered by evil spirits into the swine at Gadara. God does not enter animals; but Satan can and will to accomplish his ends. He could not have a child directly by Eve as did God by Mary, so he entered into the serpent and then beguiled Eve. He seduced her and by her did Satan have a child vicariously. Cain bore the full spiritual characteristics of Satan and the animalistic (sensual, fleshly) characteristic of the serpent. No wonder the Holy Spirit said that Cain was of that wicked one. He was.
Now I want to go into some certain proof we have that there is a definite affinity between man and animal. It is a physical thing. Do you know that you can take the embryo cells from an unborn fetus and inject them into human beings? Then those thyroid cells will go right to the human thyroid, the kidney cells will go right to the human kidneys. Do you realize how stupendous this is? Some intelligence guides those animal cells exactly to the right place. That intelligence accepts those cells and puts them in exactly the right place. There is an affinity between animal and man. They can't intermingle and reproduce. That has been tried. But back in the garden that intermingling did take place and the chemical affinity which still exists proves it. For back in Eden the serpent was an upright creature. He was close to man. He was almost man. Satan took advantage of the serpent's physical characteristics to use him to beguile Eve. Then God destroyed that pattern of the serpent. No other beast can commingle with man. But the affinity is there.
Now that we have come this far, let me try to crystallize your thinking on this subject so you can see the necessity of our going into the `serpent seed doctrine' as I have. We start with the fact that there were TWO trees in the midst of the garden. The Tree of Life was Jesus. The other tree is definitely Satan because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree. Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there. They must have had a part in the sovereign plan and purpose of God in their relationship to mankind and to Himself or we could never impute omniscience unto God. This is all true so far, is it not? Now the Word most definitely sets forth that from BEFORE the foundation of the earth the purpose of God was to share His Eternal Life with man. Ephesians 1:4-11, "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved. In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; Wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him: In Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Revelation 13:8, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (Satan) whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." But that Life could not, and would not, be shared in any other way than through the way of "God manifest in the flesh." This was a part of His eternal and predestinated purpose. This plan was to be to the praise of the glory of His grace. It was the plan of Redemption. It was the plan of Salvation. Now listen closely. "God being a Saviour, it was necessary that He predestinate a man who would require salvation in order to give Himself reason and purpose of being." That is one hundred percent correct and multitudes of Scripture bear it out as does the very pointed verse of Romans 11:36, "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are ALL THINGS: to Whom be GLORY for ever. Amen." Man could not directly come and partake of that Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. That Eternal Life of the Tree had to become flesh first. But before God could raise and save a sinner, He had to have a sinner to raise and save. Man had to fall. The fall which would be caused by Satan, had to have flesh to make fall. Satan had to come through flesh also. But Satan could not come through human flesh to make the fall as would Christ come in human flesh to restore the fallen. But there was an animal, the serpent, so close to man that Satan could get to that beast and through that beast he could get to human flesh and cause the fall, and inject himself thereby into the human race, even as Jesus would one day come and inject Himself into the human race, into human bodies, even to the extent of a resurrection wherein we would have bodies like unto His glorified one. Thus what God worked out here in the garden was His predestinated plan. And when Satan had brought about that which was necessary to the purpose of God, then man could not get to the Tree Of Life in the garden. Certainly not. It wasn't time. But an animal (animal had caused the fall had it not? let animal life be shed) was taken and his blood shed and then God had communion with man again. Then there was to come a day when God would appear in flesh, and by means of His humiliation He would restore fallen man and make him a partaker of that Life Eternal. Once you see this, you can understand the serpent seed and know that it was no apple Eve ate. No, it was the degradation of humanity by intermingling the seed.
Notice the exact way the record of God sets forth the account of the births of Cain, Abel and Seth. Genesis 4:1, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel." Genesis 4:25, "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth..." There are THREE sons born from TWO acts of carnal knowledge by Adam. Since the Bible is the exact and perfect Word of God, this is no mistake but a record for our illumination. Since THREE sons were born from TWO acts by Adam, you know POSITIVELY that ONE of those three WAS NOT the son of Adam. God has recorded this in this exact manner to show us something. The truth of the matter is that Eve had in her womb TWO sons (twins) from SEPARATE impregnations. She was carrying twins, with Cain's conception sometime previous to that of Abel's. See those TWINS again. Perfect type as always. To those who think that this is not possible, let it be known that the medical records are replete with cases where women have carried twins who were of separate ova and separate insemination with the fertilization of the eggs being days apart, and NOT ONLY SO, but some of the records show that the twins were fathered by separate males. Recently worldwide coverage was given to a Norwegian mother who was suing her husband for support for herself and her twins, one of which was white and the other black. She admitted that she had a Negro lover. The two conceptions were about three weeks apart. In Beaumont, Texas, in 1963, the records again set forth a multiple birth wherein pregnancies were many days apart, in fact so much so that the woman almost died along with one child in childbirth.
Now why did this have to be so? Why was it that the seed of the serpent must come this way? Man was created for God. Man was to be the temple of God. The place of God's rest (the Holy Spirit) was man, the temple. Acts 7:46-51, "Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built Him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things? Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Satan has known this all along. He also wants to in-dwell man even as God so does. But God has reserved to Himself that right. Satan cannot do that. God alone appeared in human flesh. Satan could not and cannot do that. He does not have creative powers. The only way for Satan to accomplish what he wanted to do was to enter the serpent in Eden even as he entered by evil spirits into the swine at Gadara. God does not enter animals; but Satan can and will to accomplish his ends. He could not have a child directly by Eve as did God by Mary, so he entered into the serpent and then beguiled Eve. He seduced her and by her did Satan have a child vicariously. Cain bore the full spiritual characteristics of Satan and the animalistic (sensual, fleshly) characteristic of the serpent. No wonder the Holy Spirit said that Cain was of that wicked one. He was.
Now I want to go into some certain proof we have that there is a definite affinity between man and animal. It is a physical thing. Do you know that you can take the embryo cells from an unborn fetus and inject them into human beings? Then those thyroid cells will go right to the human thyroid, the kidney cells will go right to the human kidneys. Do you realize how stupendous this is? Some intelligence guides those animal cells exactly to the right place. That intelligence accepts those cells and puts them in exactly the right place. There is an affinity between animal and man. They can't intermingle and reproduce. That has been tried. But back in the garden that intermingling did take place and the chemical affinity which still exists proves it. For back in Eden the serpent was an upright creature. He was close to man. He was almost man. Satan took advantage of the serpent's physical characteristics to use him to beguile Eve. Then God destroyed that pattern of the serpent. No other beast can commingle with man. But the affinity is there.
Now that we have come this far, let me try to crystallize your thinking on this subject so you can see the necessity of our going into the `serpent seed doctrine' as I have. We start with the fact that there were TWO trees in the midst of the garden. The Tree of Life was Jesus. The other tree is definitely Satan because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree. Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there. They must have had a part in the sovereign plan and purpose of God in their relationship to mankind and to Himself or we could never impute omniscience unto God. This is all true so far, is it not? Now the Word most definitely sets forth that from BEFORE the foundation of the earth the purpose of God was to share His Eternal Life with man. Ephesians 1:4-11, "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved. In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; Wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him: In Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Revelation 13:8, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (Satan) whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." But that Life could not, and would not, be shared in any other way than through the way of "God manifest in the flesh." This was a part of His eternal and predestinated purpose. This plan was to be to the praise of the glory of His grace. It was the plan of Redemption. It was the plan of Salvation. Now listen closely. "God being a Saviour, it was necessary that He predestinate a man who would require salvation in order to give Himself reason and purpose of being." That is one hundred percent correct and multitudes of Scripture bear it out as does the very pointed verse of Romans 11:36, "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are ALL THINGS: to Whom be GLORY for ever. Amen." Man could not directly come and partake of that Tree of Life in the midst of the garden. That Eternal Life of the Tree had to become flesh first. But before God could raise and save a sinner, He had to have a sinner to raise and save. Man had to fall. The fall which would be caused by Satan, had to have flesh to make fall. Satan had to come through flesh also. But Satan could not come through human flesh to make the fall as would Christ come in human flesh to restore the fallen. But there was an animal, the serpent, so close to man that Satan could get to that beast and through that beast he could get to human flesh and cause the fall, and inject himself thereby into the human race, even as Jesus would one day come and inject Himself into the human race, into human bodies, even to the extent of a resurrection wherein we would have bodies like unto His glorified one. Thus what God worked out here in the garden was His predestinated plan. And when Satan had brought about that which was necessary to the purpose of God, then man could not get to the Tree Of Life in the garden. Certainly not. It wasn't time. But an animal (animal had caused the fall had it not? let animal life be shed) was taken and his blood shed and then God had communion with man again. Then there was to come a day when God would appear in flesh, and by means of His humiliation He would restore fallen man and make him a partaker of that Life Eternal. Once you see this, you can understand the serpent seed and know that it was no apple Eve ate. No, it was the degradation of humanity by intermingling the seed.
And so those two sons were born. Sons that would be the fathers of the human race that was even now polluted. And what does the record say of them? Read the record. Jude 14, "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied..." Genesis 5 is the chapter of genealogy of Enoch. It gives that genealogy thusly, 1. Adam, 2. Seth, 3. Enos, 4. Cainan, 5. Mahalaleel, 6. Jared, 7. Enoch. Notice that Cain is not mentioned. The line of Adam goes through Seth. If Cain were the child of Adam, the law of the birthright would have given Cain the right in the lineage. Also it must be noted carefully that in Genesis 5:3, it says that, "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth." Nowhere does it say that Cain was in Adam's likeness, yet he would have to be if he were his son, for the law of reproduction is emphatically that each brings forth after its likeness. We must also credit the fact that in both genealogies in Genesis and Luke, Cain is missing. If Cain were the son of Adam it would be said of him somewhere that, "Cain, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." It does not say that for it CANNOT say that.
Of course students for a long time have set forth two lines of men: one of which was the godly line found in Seth and the other the ungodly line as founded by Cain. And it is strange, but true, these same students have never told us how it was that Cain was the kind of person he was while Abel and Seth were of the spiritual, godly line. Factually, Cain should have been spiritual and Abel less spiritual, and Seth even more so, and right on down the line because each succeeding generation has always gotten further away from God. But no, Cain comes forth as wicked as no man ever has been described for he violently withstands God and the Word.
Now let this be known: Scripture does not play with words. Whatever is in the Record is there for the anointed eyes to see. It is there for a purpose. In that Word it says, Genesis 3:20, "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." But no Scripture ever says that Adam is the father of all living. If there is not this connotation to be placed upon Genesis 3:20, why would it be mentioned that Eve is the mother of all, and no word said about Adam? The fact is that though Eve was the mother of all living, Adam was not the father of all living.
In Genesis 4:1, Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." She does not credit Adam with the fatherhood of Cain. But in Genesis 4:25, she says, "... For God, said she, hath appointed me ANOTHER seed, INSTEAD OF ABEL, whom Cain slew." She does not say God had GIVEN her another seed--that would have been Christ, for He is GIVEN. This son, Seth, was APPOINTED instead of Abel. She recognizes her son that came by Adam; she does not now recognize Cain for he came by the serpent. When she says ANOTHER SEED instead of Abel, she is saying that Cain was different from Abel, for if they were of the same father she would have had to say, "I have been given some MORE SEED."
Now right here someone is going to ask me this question: Did God tell Eve to watch out for the serpent or the serpent would seduce her? Now listen, God didn't have to say one thing about what would happen. Just get the point of the story. He simply gave the Word. He said not to partake of KNOWLEDGE. Partake of LIFE. LIFE WAS THE WORD OF GOD. DEATH WAS ANYTHING THAT WASN'T THE WORD OF GOD. She allowed ONE WORD to be changed and right then Satan had her. God could have said, "Don't pick more fruit off the trees than you can eat." Satan could say, "Look, that is quite right. You see if you pick too much it will rot. But here is a method of preserving the fruit and yet at the same time you can pick all you want. So you see, you can have your way and God's way at the same time." The devil would have her right there. He that is guilty in ONE point of the law has broken the WHOLE law. And what did that tree produce? The Tree of Knowledge produced death. Cain killed his brother, Abel. The wicked killed the righteous. It set a pattern. It will keep that pattern until the restoration of all things as spoken by the prophets.
The Tree of Knowledge produced clever men; men of renown. But their ways are the ways of death. God's people are simple but spiritual minded, leaning toward God and nature, calmly tilling the soil, caring for truth rather than wealth. The seed of the serpent has brought tremendous commerce, wonderful inventions, but with it all comes death. Their gunpowder and atomic bombs kill in war; and in peace time their mechanical inventions, such as the car, kill even more in a time of peace than do the inventions of war destroy in times of trouble. Death and destruction are the fruits of her labors.
But they are religious. They believe in God. They are like their father, the devil, and their ancestor, Cain. Both of them believed in God. They go to church. They mingle with the righteous as do tares mingle with the wheat. In so doing they corrupt and produce a Nicolaitane religion. They spread their poison in every effort to destroy the seed of God even as Cain killed Abel. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
But God loses none of His own. He keeps them even in death, and has promised that in the last day He will raise them up.
"... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree Of Life, Which is in the midst of the paradise of God." What a thrilling thought is this. That Tree Of Life in the Garden of Eden Which could not be approached unto because of the fall of Adam is now given to the overcomer. The flaming sword of the guarding cherubim has been sheathed. But it was not sheathed ere its blade was bloody with the blood of the Lamb. Let us meditate upon this truth awhile as we consider why the Tree was denied to Adam and his descendants but now allowed again.
God's intention for His creation, man, is to express His Words. In Genesis, Adam was given the Word to live by. A life lived by the Word would be the Word expressed. That is true is it not? But did Adam live by that Word? No, because he was to live by EVERY Word, and he failed to take heed to every Word. Then there arose Moses. What a great and mighty man he was. Yet he also failed to live by every Word, and that prophet, the type of the Great Prophet to come, failed in anger to obey the Word. And there was also David, the great king of Israel, a man after God's own heart. He failed by adultery, when he was tempted. But eventually, in the fullness of time, there came One, the Head, even Jesus, Who also must be tempted to see if He would live by EVERY Word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. Then was Satan foiled. For here was One Who lived by "It is written," and that Masterpiece of God overcame by reflecting God's Word. Then was this manifested Perfect One given to the cross, as the Perfect Lamb of God for the perfect sacrifice. And on the `tree' He received the wounds unto death, that we, by Him and because of Him, might eat of the Tree Of Life, and then that Life freely given would enable us to overcome, and express the Word of God.
And now to these Sons of God, who by Him overcome, are given the privilege of the paradise of God, and the constant fellowship of Jesus Christ. There will never more be any separation from Him. Whither He goes, His bride will go. What is His, He shares with His beloved on a joint-heir relationship. The secret things will be revealed. The dark things will be made plain. We shall know as we are known. And we shall be like Him. This is the heritage of the overcomer who has overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the Word of testimony to Jesus Christ
Of course students for a long time have set forth two lines of men: one of which was the godly line found in Seth and the other the ungodly line as founded by Cain. And it is strange, but true, these same students have never told us how it was that Cain was the kind of person he was while Abel and Seth were of the spiritual, godly line. Factually, Cain should have been spiritual and Abel less spiritual, and Seth even more so, and right on down the line because each succeeding generation has always gotten further away from God. But no, Cain comes forth as wicked as no man ever has been described for he violently withstands God and the Word.
Now let this be known: Scripture does not play with words. Whatever is in the Record is there for the anointed eyes to see. It is there for a purpose. In that Word it says, Genesis 3:20, "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." But no Scripture ever says that Adam is the father of all living. If there is not this connotation to be placed upon Genesis 3:20, why would it be mentioned that Eve is the mother of all, and no word said about Adam? The fact is that though Eve was the mother of all living, Adam was not the father of all living.
In Genesis 4:1, Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." She does not credit Adam with the fatherhood of Cain. But in Genesis 4:25, she says, "... For God, said she, hath appointed me ANOTHER seed, INSTEAD OF ABEL, whom Cain slew." She does not say God had GIVEN her another seed--that would have been Christ, for He is GIVEN. This son, Seth, was APPOINTED instead of Abel. She recognizes her son that came by Adam; she does not now recognize Cain for he came by the serpent. When she says ANOTHER SEED instead of Abel, she is saying that Cain was different from Abel, for if they were of the same father she would have had to say, "I have been given some MORE SEED."
Now right here someone is going to ask me this question: Did God tell Eve to watch out for the serpent or the serpent would seduce her? Now listen, God didn't have to say one thing about what would happen. Just get the point of the story. He simply gave the Word. He said not to partake of KNOWLEDGE. Partake of LIFE. LIFE WAS THE WORD OF GOD. DEATH WAS ANYTHING THAT WASN'T THE WORD OF GOD. She allowed ONE WORD to be changed and right then Satan had her. God could have said, "Don't pick more fruit off the trees than you can eat." Satan could say, "Look, that is quite right. You see if you pick too much it will rot. But here is a method of preserving the fruit and yet at the same time you can pick all you want. So you see, you can have your way and God's way at the same time." The devil would have her right there. He that is guilty in ONE point of the law has broken the WHOLE law. And what did that tree produce? The Tree of Knowledge produced death. Cain killed his brother, Abel. The wicked killed the righteous. It set a pattern. It will keep that pattern until the restoration of all things as spoken by the prophets.
The Tree of Knowledge produced clever men; men of renown. But their ways are the ways of death. God's people are simple but spiritual minded, leaning toward God and nature, calmly tilling the soil, caring for truth rather than wealth. The seed of the serpent has brought tremendous commerce, wonderful inventions, but with it all comes death. Their gunpowder and atomic bombs kill in war; and in peace time their mechanical inventions, such as the car, kill even more in a time of peace than do the inventions of war destroy in times of trouble. Death and destruction are the fruits of her labors.
But they are religious. They believe in God. They are like their father, the devil, and their ancestor, Cain. Both of them believed in God. They go to church. They mingle with the righteous as do tares mingle with the wheat. In so doing they corrupt and produce a Nicolaitane religion. They spread their poison in every effort to destroy the seed of God even as Cain killed Abel. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
But God loses none of His own. He keeps them even in death, and has promised that in the last day He will raise them up.
"... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree Of Life, Which is in the midst of the paradise of God." What a thrilling thought is this. That Tree Of Life in the Garden of Eden Which could not be approached unto because of the fall of Adam is now given to the overcomer. The flaming sword of the guarding cherubim has been sheathed. But it was not sheathed ere its blade was bloody with the blood of the Lamb. Let us meditate upon this truth awhile as we consider why the Tree was denied to Adam and his descendants but now allowed again.
God's intention for His creation, man, is to express His Words. In Genesis, Adam was given the Word to live by. A life lived by the Word would be the Word expressed. That is true is it not? But did Adam live by that Word? No, because he was to live by EVERY Word, and he failed to take heed to every Word. Then there arose Moses. What a great and mighty man he was. Yet he also failed to live by every Word, and that prophet, the type of the Great Prophet to come, failed in anger to obey the Word. And there was also David, the great king of Israel, a man after God's own heart. He failed by adultery, when he was tempted. But eventually, in the fullness of time, there came One, the Head, even Jesus, Who also must be tempted to see if He would live by EVERY Word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. Then was Satan foiled. For here was One Who lived by "It is written," and that Masterpiece of God overcame by reflecting God's Word. Then was this manifested Perfect One given to the cross, as the Perfect Lamb of God for the perfect sacrifice. And on the `tree' He received the wounds unto death, that we, by Him and because of Him, might eat of the Tree Of Life, and then that Life freely given would enable us to overcome, and express the Word of God.
And now to these Sons of God, who by Him overcome, are given the privilege of the paradise of God, and the constant fellowship of Jesus Christ. There will never more be any separation from Him. Whither He goes, His bride will go. What is His, He shares with His beloved on a joint-heir relationship. The secret things will be revealed. The dark things will be made plain. We shall know as we are known. And we shall be like Him. This is the heritage of the overcomer who has overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the Word of testimony to Jesus Christ
Yes, thevisitor, I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.
Here's an illustration for the doubters.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn03_11.html
They didn't know they were naked until they ate from the forbiddeen tree.
Who does god think would have been there to tell them they were naked?
How can anyone take these mangled creation myths seriously?
Here's an illustration for the doubters.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn03_11.html
They didn't know they were naked until they ate from the forbiddeen tree.
Who does god think would have been there to tell them they were naked?
How can anyone take these mangled creation myths seriously?
hehehe
No problem. I was rather in a hurry when I bashed my message out on the keyboard.
Also, I couldn't help but quickly read a question of yours about 2 black men not being able to give birth to a white man? Although rare, this DOES occur, and is known as albinoism. It's caused by a genetic mutation.
Could have fooled me...
What you're doing is typical, and I've seen it a thousand times before from Creationists.
Creationist will ask one question, and when that's been answered, they'll just ask another and another. When the 'evolutionist' can't answer one (after all, no one is a biologist-physicist-chemist-geologist-paleotologist (sp?)), the Creationist go "AHA, ya see, evolution is a theory in crisis!".
That type of questioning is known as the Shotgun attack...
Now there's some pretty gawl darn good bible thumpin right there Jebadiah. Ayup, that fella there he thumped it good yes sah he did.
----------------
Yes, thevisitor, I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.
Here's an illustration for the doubters.
==========================
That's funny...! I got to admit.
But evolution and Darwinism has a "thump" all of it's own.
Take some time to actually read what I posted about the beginning in Eden, it is not your average creationist veiw.
This explains how and why, leaving no parts of the "puzzle" unexplained.
Or laugh it up and read right over what might be your only chance to understand what really happened.
----------------
Yes, thevisitor, I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.
Here's an illustration for the doubters.
==========================
That's funny...! I got to admit.
But evolution and Darwinism has a "thump" all of it's own.
Take some time to actually read what I posted about the beginning in Eden, it is not your average creationist veiw.
This explains how and why, leaving no parts of the "puzzle" unexplained.
Or laugh it up and read right over what might be your only chance to understand what really happened.
Last edited: