Don Fanucci

I don't understand why it would be troublesome with death. Equilibirum would eventually be reached between multiplication and what resources could support. No, selection does what it says. Whoever is best suited for that environment has an advantage and increases its numbers. It is selecting for life, and there can be multiple organisms that are competitive in any particular niche. It couldn't select for death as there would be no competitors. I think you are focusing on the creationist perspective that somehow selection is bad. In fact, it ensures survial. If there were no variants in a population, nothng would survive every time the environment changed.

Which does not obscure the fact that God was directly responsible for the death of millions, and as I mentioned, he has done it multiple times. The resoning is irrelevant. If you want to change "in his nature", that's fine. I know what you are alluding to. But to say that it is not in his nature when God has been directly reponsible for a multitude of deaths is not supported by scripture. Its like saying that it is not in the nature of John Doe to spank his kids, but if his kids have been spanked many times, John is a spanker--great and loving parent that he may be, it does not change the fact that he spanks when he has to, even if he spanks out of love for his chlidren. As stated before, you don't have anything from Scripture to support that nonsense. You are basically blaming God for the sin in the world. Again, you are defaming His character and that is not something that He takes lightly. I think it would be the false accusations that would really chip him off. Is a copy of a masterpiece, no matter how good, the same as the masterpiece? You have clear scripture to answer your question. Jesus was put in a position to choose, just as Adam was. Jesus chose correctly, consistent with his perfect character. Adam had a choice, he chose incorrectly, therefore he could not have been created perfectly from the start, as was God's intention, otherwise he would have said it. Only if I subscribe to your baloney, or in other words, your "my way or the highway" interpretation. I said no such thing regarding God sinning. I said, and showed you my reasoning, that Adam was imperfect by design. I note you start the name calling when you can't win an argument, and I note that happens quite a bit no matter who is posting. Shame. It carries the same connotation. God is perfect and is not satisfied with less than perfect and would not have used such an emphatic concept as tov meod to express His satisfaction with it if it were imperfect. Sorry, but you are just wrong on every point. "Very good" carries the same connotation as "perfect"? Are you serious? Either your Hebrew expertise has failed you, or you are making it up.

Psalm 104:19-21 He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. v20-21 clearly make the initial seven days of creation the time frame, within which the lions exist and actually use the darkness to hunt. No, it does not clearly state that, otherwise it would be in Genesis. What this is is David reflecting on God, nothing more. Why does it need to be in Genesis. Are there no references to Genesis that mention something in addition to what was written in Genesis? Alternatively, would you argue that David's reflection is erroneous--ie, lions really didn't have animal prey?

Ok, fair enough, but I'm sure you can understand why I made the connection since your opening post reads, "I was doing an experiment this week in which I was looking at cell death and was reminded of some of the creationist positions regarding the genome and death after the fall." No problem, I just thought it interesting. Logic generally isn't flippable. The problem with saying there is a command to multiply therefore the reality of the command obtained pre-fall, makes certain hidden assumptions: 1. The command was obeyed. 2. The command was limited in scope to the pre-fall world. In other words it expired post-fall and therefore had to happen pre-fall in order to be useful. I'm not at all suggesting that the "command is irrelevant, and had no relation to anything or would not be useful". Where do you get that from my post/s? What God commanded is a reality today, as we live in a world with 6.8 billion people (as at 2009). It wasn't a useless command at all, it just didn't come to fruition pre-fall, and there's no need for it. Look at it this way,it seems unlikely God would command something that the very act of trying to fulfilling it would make it impossible to fulfill. In fact, post fall, Noah gets the same command. Multiplying (in the absence of death) would lead to every availble space being filled, and resource being consumed. You don't really mean this, do you?

We are and have included the context of imperfection. Somehow creationists believe that predators and carnivors would be indicative of pre fall imperfection. No but there are animals that have no anatomy whatsoever to equip them to eat vegetation. Some have are all canine-like teeth or fangs and no molars. Would a snake really need poisonous fangs to subdue an unruly tomato? Many fish have all sharp, pointed teeth, that allow them to grab and hold prey so they can swallow. On the other hand, other types of fish actiually will graze on coral and have dentition meant for that.

You can't say that and back it by scripture. We do not know if Adam would of physically dies if he had not eaten, so it also could of referred to a slow physical death, as in aging. You take too many privileges with scripture. In fact, I am taking far less privilege than you are. Scripture said "you will surely die". He did not. In fact, he lived a very very long time. However, he caused separation from God for which which we all suffer.

The motivation for why God was associated with death is not germane to the point. The fact that God could and did cause death, and lots of it, as well as suffering, showed he is capable of it, and therefore certainly within his nature. It is indisputable. The countless battles, even the direct causes of death (first born, the flood). I think we are haggling over semantics, it is abundantly clear that God can and did cause great death. If it were not in his nature, he could not do it. This does not detract from him being a loving God at all, but to say death is not in his nature is clearly incorrect. Simply, if Adam and Eve were perfectly created, they would not have chosen to eat the fruit--they failed as humans, and I don't believe they were intended to be made perfect. Just good, consistent with God's plan. They were made in God's image to have fellowship with God, communicate with God, know God, not to be Gods. In fact, are they not immortal as long as they are in the garden? Your contention is that everything God makes is good. My contention is that he makes some things flawed in order to achieve his goal, which is perfection. There is no other way to explain the failure of Adam and Eve and mankind as imperfection. God was both sorry and sad. But again, it was his creation, perfect for his goal, but in order to meet his goal, parts had to be flawed. How can you say that imperfection was not engineered into his creation when the creation did in fact become imperfect? Your logic doesn't follow. Adam sinned, yet he was a complete creation of God--no help from anyone else. The capabllity to sin was engineered in--Adam came like that directly from the factory, and like a new product from the factory, he was unblemished. But again, Adam was an imperfect product (the product failed) but the plan was/is perfect. No, I addressed this above. God's plan included giving us free will, Adam exercised it and failed, not God. But a perfect Adam could not fail. It is crystal clear---Luke 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher, James 1:13 ...God cannot be tempted by evil... Adam was indeed tempted and could not resist. If he had been perfectly trained he could not have done it. So the hebrew word for good and perfect is the same? Curious since Genesis also uses the word "very good" regarding creation, which doesn't translate into perfection. Something is either perfect or not, a degree of perfect, like "a little bit pregnant" doesnt follow.

I was only referring to the cells I was working with as making me think about death, not cell death in particular. It would be too complicated for here. I would say on the contrary, just as YECs argue the complement system was designed and not evolved. The evidemnce showed that it easily evolved. Similarly, the widespread nature of caspases just shows that it is useful. I would flip that logic around and say that God would not give an irrelevant command that had no relation to anything or would not be useful. But as I read creationist positions, they seem to equate any mutation with somethng that is bad. In reality, you can have all types of mutations, many of which are silent or exert no phenotype, unles the environment changes. This is yet another thing I was thinking about...would not every human have been clonal, excluding the Y chromosme, at least until after the fall, but even then, unless you are arguing that variation was introduced into the genome have a incredible frequency, by and large, everyone would have looked pretty similar.

Well actually it is. He made skins for Adam and Eve, brought plagues, and commanded the Israelities to kill people in droves when needed. Others may bring that judgement, but it is surely in his nature. I completely disagree with your reasoning, and I think it takes us back to my position on evolution. I believe what God intends his goals to be is perfect. However, clearly, his creations can be imperfect. If everything he made were perfect, Adam and Eve would not have sinned. They couldn't have if they were perfect. However, there is scriputre that is even more evidence and in fact, is somewhat troubling. In Gen 6:6, And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Clearly what God had created was not perfect. He is troubled and dismayed by the outcome. In fact, he clearly and unequivocably shows who is responsible: "it repenteth me that I have made them". Yes, man wrecked it, but that is shifting responsibility and actually would argue that God is less than omnipotent--he was not in control of what was happening. The fact is, he created everything, and much of it was imperfect in order to meet his goals. I mention this because creationists seem to equate mutation as some sort of post-fall genomic degradation.

But extinction would only happen if you had death, which is exactly what we're saying didn't happen in paradise. Populations depend on births versus deaths. If you have no deaths and you have no births your current population remains the same size. Are you saying that the physical death and resurrection has no importance other than being demonstrative of spiritual rebirth? I'd also like to know how you see everlasting life. Will our glorified bodies still die in heaven, but our spirits will live on. Will we go through numerous physical bodies in heaven as they age and deplete, as in a sort of reincarnation? If not then why will an immortal body work in heaven but not in paradise? You are arguing, then, that nature would be held in a sort of suspended animation. Not possible in the natural world, nothing in scripture would suggest that. Are you really going to argue that all the animals that have incisors for teeth would only use them for grazing? Would you argue that plants that are eaten only have the tops chewed off? Pretty preposterous if you ask me. I'm saying just the opposite re physical death of Christ. As far as what we have in heaven, I doubt that if we had physical bodies they would be the same as what we comprehend our current mortal bodies to be today, but I havn't thought about it.

And what is their prey? Plants? I don't think so. However, there is further evidence in an earlier discussion I had regarding Adam having to name the animals. The hebrew name for lion is rooted in a word for violence. Would that really refer to how lions graze? How about the derivative for Eagle (to lacerate)? Would eagles really lacerate plants.

Hi Don, I'd like to ask a couple of questions about some of the points you've made in the above: 1. When you say cell-death, are you not committing a non-sequitur by applied what's true for the part to the whole? A dying cell doesn't necessarily prove an organism dies, just like a flat tire doesn't mean your car is flat. 2. What kind of cell-death are you referring to? As far as I know there's controlled cell death and uncontrolled cell death. Controlled cell-death is essential for life and this isn't necessarily precluded in the pre-fall world. Cell-death is merely the anthropomorphic term for deletions of spent cells. 3. The only genomes that are available to study are post-fall genomes. Adam's genome isn't available, so based on what do you say that "old age must have occurred"? Thanks You are referring to apoptosis. I wasn't thinking of that. Generally I started thing about death as a result of what I was working on, not in relation to it. More specifically, I was thinking of aging, as in not being immortal, which is what the state of biological orgainsims would have been in if there was not death. I also have not substantially thought about it, but it would seem that Genesis says that there are other humans in addition to Adam and Eve, otherwise God would have not given the command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Since this command is prefall, it would seem unlikely that he would give it and yet have it never fulfilled (because Adam and Eve were the only two humans), prefall. Lastly, going back to my original post, its not clear how creationists conclude that the genomes were perfect and non mutable simply because God made them. God only refers to everything he made as "good" and "very good", not perfect (flawless, as would would equate with Christ)

I disagree as once something becomes infertile, you have extinction. on the otherhand, even if you reduce fertility, unless you are removing members of the population, every new birth is a net addition. Because of the nature of how ecosystems are interdependent, you would need to effect fertility rates of every organism, even the plants. I think given that most people were not aware that they were spiritually dead, the physical death of Christ, and the graphic nature in which it occured--clearly sacrificial, better demonstarted the point.

The explanation of what happens if Adam eats the fruit from the tree of life, "you shall surely die" pretty clearly demonstrates that the reference to death is spiritual death, not the end of biological existance. As I indicated, unchecked multiplication is not compatible with life. Also see my post to oneight referencing lions hunting prey in response to no predatation. While you are arguing that the "world will be restored...", that belief reflects an opinion that the world will be reset to its previous state that existed prior to sin. It ignores the possibility that had Adam not sinned, the world would have progressed to that condition and presumably other conditions, not return to it.

Psalm 104:19-21 He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. v20-21 clearly make the initial seven days of creation the time frame, within which the lions exist and actually use the darkness to hunt.

Gen 1: 20 And God said,

Gen 1: 20 And God said,

After the fall we are dead in our sins (spiritually) and also die physically. Prefall, before the introduction of sin, there was only physical death. Do you agree?

I was doing an experiment this week in which I was looking at cell death and was reminded of some of the creationist positions regarding the genome and death after the fall. The "degradation of the genome" argument does not make sense to me because it is not supported by scripture. In fact, it is pretty clear that scripture incorporates death prior to sin does it not? While some could die from non natural causes (ie, accidents), old age must have occurred, which would mean that, for lack of a better word, human genomes were not "perfect" as some would die of old age--they'd just wear out, just as happens to some (the lucky ones!) today.

Am I missing something, or is the correct answer the most obvious? Since there were only two living humans, by definition, they are disease-free.

As you are aware, I've said that "creation science" isn't science. My problem is not really with creationists. Its when they try to start with their faith in creation, which is fine, then jump to using science to prove that position, usually by trying to disprove evolution. The problem is that "creation science" is pseudoscience, or junk science to be exact. Reinterpreting someone else's research, with no credible expertise to do so, is commentary, not science. Not understanding something is not a valid approach for rejecting it, which seems to be the general strategy of creationists. We've already established that you don't know what a citation is. But to the point, you havn't named them that I can recall, but you have told me repeatedly that you have talked to them, so you are misinterpreting your information from someplace. Why don't you tell your "classic evolutionists" that you don''t believe in natural selection and get back to me about how well that goes over. There's your problem righ there. I can copy a paste a bunch of quotes from creationists here about relying on ones own intellect/knowledge etc and how bad it is. The scriptural references have been posted many times. I'm not surprised you think they don't apply to you. Ah, but as I've noted, creationists believe, as you do, that if evolution can be proven false, creationism must be true. Neither is physics, computer science, and the internal combustion engine. Do they need to be? Alternatively, it is derived froma belief that God cannot be deceptive. Given that every field of science that could deal with the origin of man is in agreement with evolution and not creation, I'm thinking God really does not have a desire to be deceptive, therefore, belief in evolution is fine with him. An unusual statement since I have said over and over that I believe the bible is true an inerrant. Probably has somethingto do with me not believing how you want me to believe that has you so bothered.

Yet, mixing science and faith is exactly what you are trying to do. You keep arguing that natural selection is the method God employed to bring about life. Your problem is not in mixing science and faith so long as one begins and ends with an evolutionary worldview. The truth is that you are only opposed to mixing science and faith only when the underlying worldview is creationist. Theistic Evolution is the mixing of science and faith (assuming one believes evouition to be science). On the countrary, you are the one that insists my science is wrong (faith too, but that is a separate thread). I said I believe both and you claim its not possible. To support your reasoning you insist evolution is false. Evolution is in the purview of science, and therefore you rely on creationist arguments to refute it. These arguments are continuously and completely disproven, yet in spite of particpating in a scientific argument, someonhow scientific proofs are not aceptable. That's the proving-creationism-by-disproving evolution school of thought. Having failed at that, you then claim creation is true based on scriputure. As I've said, I believe the bible and I believe in evolution, and in the areas where they appear in conflict, I believe that God is big enough to resolve them both, but its just not clear to us now. This belief is derived from a belief in one truth, and that both approaches will eventually meet at this truth. Your response; my understanding of the bible is wrong, because it disagrees with you, and evolution is wrong, because, well, it disagrees with you. So I'm wrong on both counts, according to you. You you don't do very well defending your arguments on either end. The problem is with you not me. I'm fine with my beliefs, you're not, because they don't agree with yours.

I don't know if I can find one of these sections to be rational let alone true. Anne Coulter, one of my favorite conservatives, should stick to law and politics. She clearly knows nothing about science (she has previously claimed no one died of radiation poisoning at Chernoble). Fred Hoyle, a mathematician, knew nothing about biochemistry or biology and was spectacularly wrong in his calculations. The Piltdown Man, contrary to creationist claims, was not universally accepted when it was found. All the examples cited in the Behe section have been proven to be false many times over, they are all reducible. Wiith regard to the Crick quote, you left out the fact that he believed life was shipped here by aliens. As far as the peppered moth story, it was claimed to be fraudulent by Jonathan Wells, a creationist-Moonie (how does this work?) These claims were false and based on mischaracterizations by Wells in his book.

Gould is long dead. Dawkins is probably the major protagonist to creationists, and he has also done some nice reasearch. So there is one living. I'd counter with Francis Collins, certainly and equal to Dawkins, and probably a superior. I have not doubt there are indeed many scientists that are outright hostile to Christians, for one, there is a large Jewish representation in science, so there is likely a heightened antagonism to Christians. Having said that, scientific philosophers are very much like creationists. They are commenting on other's work. Most rank and file scientists really don't have the time, or the research scope to worry about how their studies relate to God. It is just not relevant to their work and more importantly, their work does not address it. Not unbderstanding a poinyt is one thing, and most people are more than happen to patiently explain something. But mixing science and faith is not doable for a simple reason, there is not way to test and measure faith. That's not hard to understand, but when creationists keep on insisting on it, its tough to remain patient. And I've made the point over and over again. If you have a way to fit faith into the scientific method, I promise I will listen patiently. But really, you can't claim faith should be incoporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith. Acceptable is really not an issue. It is more like logical, well founded, and scientific. Take the "kinds" argument many posts ago. Although that term has been around for decades, it really hasn't been advanced with any scientific research. As I've noted, if it were a legtimate scientific phenomenon, there would be extensive research on it and it would be mainstream by now. There isn't and its not.

I actually do a good bit of lab work for both humans and animals, and charge the same regardless of patient. Sadly, I think there is a limit before one considers an animal "totaled". Sorry, had a car wreck this weekend.