tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post8642348412593340542..comments2024-02-23T11:23:45.971-05:00Comments on Lost Motorcyclist: Tigers and Pigs Living Together Does Not Disprove DarwinLost Motorcyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-56358738145459388102011-04-07T08:47:56.559-04:002011-04-07T08:47:56.559-04:00You write, 'To me, the explanation of God plan...You write, '<i>To me, the explanation of God planning ahead for the fall is opening another door to a convincing case that God was not really too serious about the Garden of Eden.</i>'<br /><br />Of course God knew about The Fall - God is (and always was) <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1394" rel="nofollow">omniscient</a> - knowing every past, present and <i>future</i> action (and thought) ... LOL!<br /><br />'<i>Survival of the strongest</i>'? Well, that, in fact, is somewhat of a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. Evolution operates through genetic variation and recombination affecting inherited traits under conditions in which natural selection can operate on the phenotype to favour individuals with reproductive or survival advantages.<br /><br />The instance of <a href="http://creation.com/tigers-and-pigs-together" rel="nofollow">pigs nursing tigers</a> is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion. Evolution does not <i>require</i> carnivores to kill everything in sight. In fact, animals generally prefer the <i>least cost</i> approach to feeding (in this case, the easy meals provided by the zookeepers). And, otherwise, in the absence of an actual survival threat or reproductive competition, most animals normally do not kill (unlike <i>homo sapiens</i>). <br /><br />Conversely, should we also believe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant" rel="nofollow">carnivourous plants</a> had been <i>designed</i> by the <i>creator</i> to be activated immediately after 'The Fall'?<br /><br />I did take the opportunity to the explore the <i>creation.com</i> site. And I discover that the premise for that entire site falls at the first hurdle. In its '<a href="http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe" rel="nofollow">Statement of Faith</a>' it declares that: '<i>The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the <b>original autographs</b>.</i> [emphasis added]<br /><br />Sorry, folks, but those 'original autographs' have long since ceased to exist. And most biblical scholars (regardless of their specific beliefs) concur that the current versions of the books of the Bible are <a href="http://www.cresourcei.org/autograph.html" rel="nofollow">fraught with irreconcilable inconsistencies</a> and corrupted by centuries of transcription errors, unauthorized modification and political selectivity.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.com