As @T_aquaticus pointed out, without it, the earth would have cooled, we would have lost our magnetic field, and we would probably look a lot more like Mars in the present day.
God. Whether you take it literally or figuratively, Eden was a special space set apart by God for Adam and Eve, that was separated from the rest of creation and did not appear to be subject to its physical laws. Animals could talk, there was no pain, no rocks to step on, no thorns to prick the flesh, no death, and apparently only one rule. In other words, something totally different from the physical world we live in. And when that rule was broken, Adam and Eve were expelled into our reality, and needed clothes to block those UV rays.
Dust to dust. Ash to ash. Even for the stones and the atoms that make them.
This depends on one’s view of God as direct or indirect creator. if God just works through the indirect way using the interactive forces in nature then radioactive isotopes are just bi-products of process. They can of course now be tamed by humans and used for medical and technological purposes if used with care.
The heat from radioactive decay has allowed the Earth’s core and mantle to remain molten for billions of years. No molten core means no magnetic field. No magnetic field means Earth’s atmosphere can be stripped off.
The same fundamental laws that allow for the production of ionizing radiation from the decay of unstable nuclei also allow for energy production from fusion in the Sun’s core.
I highly doubt that radioactive decay factored into those biblical concepts. I would suspect that their views were probably tied to farming where wild flora and fauna would attack crops and lead to decay of fields.
It is also necessary for the evolution of life. How do I know this? Because bacteria protect such radiation damage to their DNA from their own DNA repair mechanisms in order to have enough variation in their genome to evolve.
It certainly helps to discredit creationist distortions of the Bible.
The plan of salvation and restoration is for people take responsibility for their own lives rather than blaming every little thing on God or expecting God to alter the whole universe for their convenience.
I guess you haven’t heard of melanin (for ultra violet) and tree shade (for infra red).
Im unsure what you are saying above? It appears that you are claiming that man essentially takes responsibility for saving himself? That is a Mormon belief is it not?
The bible states that the plan of salvation is exactly the opposite of what you have claimed…the earth is the centre stage for the playing out of the fight between good and evil!
Mans responsibility is to repent and believe. The idea of the sanctuary service is to illustrate that ultimately, the responsibility for all sin will one day be placed squarely on the head of Satan (the Levitical scapegoat Azazeel)
I am rather interested in this because that gives me the impression that white would come before black in the evolutionary timeline and yet i do not recall seeing any illustrations of early human life where white skin has been portrayed. When i search Wikipedia for example, from 1.2 million up until about 100,000 millions years ago, we were all dark skinned and white evolved out of dark not the other way around.
Nonsense. Salvation is about overcoming the self destructive habits of sin not about the infra-red radiation which only requires people to limit their exposure to direct sunlight using the shade of trees some of the time. The self destructive habits of sin began with A&E blaming everyone for their own mistakes which quickly led to murder for the most trivial reasons of personal discomfort.
No the Bible doesn’t say anything of the sort. I am quite aware of what it does say and I refute your rewrite of the text.
Your problem is the time scale you are using. Melanin coevolved with hairlessness and our sweat cooling system which enabled us to become the best long distance running hunters (1.2 to 1.6 million years ago).
From Scientific American article “The Naked Truth” Feb 2010.
When did this metamorphosis occur? Although the human fossil record does not preserve skin, researchers do have a rough idea of when our forebears began engaging in modern patterns of movement. Studies conducted independently by Lieberman and Christopher Ruff of Johns Hopkins University have shown that by about 1.6 million years ago an early member of our genus called Homo ergaster had evolved essentially modern body proportions, which would have permitted prolonged walking and running. Moreover, details of the joint surfaces of the ankle, knee and hip make clear that these hominids actually exerted themselves in this way. Thus, according to the fossil evidence, the transition to naked skin and an eccrine-based sweating system must have been well under way by 1.6 million years ago to offset the greater heat loads that accompanied our predecessors’ newly strenuous way of life.
Another clue to when hominids evolved naked skin has come from investigations into the genetics of skin color. In an ingenious study published in 2004, Alan R. Rogers of the University of Utah and his colleagues examined sequences of the human MC1R gene, which is among the genes responsible for producing skin pigmentation. The team showed that a specific gene variant always found in Africans with dark pigmentation originated as many as 1.2 million years ago. Early human ancestors are believed to have had pinkish skin covered with black fur, much as chimpanzees do, so the evolution of permanently dark skin was presumably a requisite evolutionary follow-up to the loss of our sun-shielding body hair. Rogers’s estimate thus provides a minimum age for the dawn of nakedness.
Whiter skin came back rather quickly to those living in the far north where the lower sunlight gave a greater advantage to those getting increased Vitamin D production over the protection from ultra-violet. It is no surprise that this is not traced to a single mutation like blue eyes (but happened with diverse groups in the north) because the genetics for lighter skin was already there in the DNA.
um, that isn’t answering my question…
if white came first, how do you explain skin cancer and melanoma? Shouldnt this have evolved out of our biology by now given the evolution of dark skin that protects from harmful rays?
I also wonder socially, if dark is better, what went wrong with our social structure, where light coloured skin is clearly socially dominant right around the world, where dark skinned were made slaves and generally viewed as being inferior?
Interesting… so let me ask, what pray tell does the “great controversy” mean in theological terms? (you are familiar with the phrase and its application yes?). Define it and illustrate please…What is it? Where did it start? Who were the key players? Where is the battle ground for the event currently? What is the eventual conclusion prophesied to be? There are plenty of Biblical references on this topic.
According to your model, exactly how is this achieved and what biblical references do you use to support it?
You said you were interested, but your response does not reflect that interest. Very confusing!
I was talking about the text of the Bible. I have no interest in the theological concoctions of the Seventh Day Adventists.
The Bible tells the history of God’s efforts with people to overcome these bad habits starting with the so called curse in Genesis 3:14-19 and God’s words to Cain in Genesis 4:6-7. It is what the all the stories in the Bible are about. Ultimately He sent His Son to give us a renewed inheritance of the mind through Him… the “new Adam.” And God will continue helping us to overcome these self-destructive habits after our death provided we want Him to do so.
Keep in mind that humans are not the sole consideration for the creation of the universe. Ps. 104 includes providing food for the lions as a good part of creation. Also, earthly comfort is not the goal for humans; being prepared for heaven is the goal.
Radioactivity has plenty of useful aspects (nuclear power, medicine, understanding physics, genetic variation, etc.), as well as plenty of ways of being misused; the same is true of any number of other things such as rocks, hands, or intelligence.
A caution on the estimated dating of genetic changes in humans is that those are largely based on molecular clocks, which are popular but based on incorrect assumptions about consistent mutation rates.
I don’t think Ps 104 speaks to God’s purpose in creating the universe. And there are other passages in the Bible like Hebrews 1 and Genesis 1 which suggest that we are very central to God’s purpose in creating the universe. …not necessarily our species in particular to be sure, for I have no reason to doubt that somewhere in this vast universe God has other children as well.
But your other points are well made, so I gave your post a thumbs up. I would even add that radiation plays an important role in the creation of life in general… so that would speak the point you made. Clearly before God can concern Himself with human needs in particular there are the condition which makes life possible in the first place.
God will continue helping us to overcome these self-destructive habits after our death provided we want Him to do so.
This appears to be a little like Mormon doctrine…Im sure you don’t mean it to come across that way, can you explain the quoted section above in more detail? (it would help if you provide some supporting bible texts in your explanation if that is ok)
I am just trying to rationalise how a destructive particle can be consistent with the creation of biological life (such as mankind)?
For example, if radioactive decay is utilised in the creation of this world and life by an intelligent being (ie God for he is obviously intelligent i think we all agree on this), why then would said intelligent being continue to allow damaging nuclear decay to exist…because when i look around the world, radiation appears to kill all living things it touches!
Reference 1 Below - mutations are usually a loss in information…they are not an improvement…in my mind this is more like to growth of rust …the rusting process is rarely wanted by intelligent design…its heading in the opposite direction to that which the designer desires
Ionizing radiation damages the genetic material in reproductive cells and results in mutations that are transmitted from generation to generation.
Reference 2 Below - We have cellular damage, breaking of DNA chains, and decomposition of water in cells. None of these are usually helpful in promoting life. Of particular interest to me (as I’m a layman and no expert), they are search for water on Mars right now as it is considered necessary for life. Here we have radiation taking that water out of the cell and somehow this is also good for evolution? Im not convinced!
I am struggling to find a position where destructive radiation can produce or even enhance biological life. I appreciate that we use radiation to attempt to kill cancers, but honestly, many of those cancers are caused by exposure to various types of radiation in the first place…that does not appear to be helpful and it does not appear to fit with even an allegorical view of the creation account in Genesis (perhaps I’m just missing stuff here).
The Catholics believe in purgatory so this is hardly a “mormon doctrine.” I don’t believe in purgatory because I think that describes the only heaven with any human beings in it, because there are no human beings without sin.
The Mormons believe in even more levels of heaven than the Catholics. All that sort of stuff is very convenient for legalistic churches who want leverage to get people to do what they command. I follow a rule of thumb that when something is convenient for a purpose (like power over other people) then that is the most likely motivation and where it came from – so I filter such things out.
i didn’t read that you were referencing purgatory. The Catholics see that as a hallway house…which is very different from the self elevating essence of Mormonism…ie that we become deity of our own worlds (which is what you appeared to be defining).
Anyway, now that you have clearly that up, can you elaborate on your theology for the following statement you made:
God will continue helping us to overcome these self-destructive habits after our death provided we want Him to do so
There is nothing about any “self-elevating” in what I said. Either we want what God has to offer or not – accepting His help or not. That is the only difference between the two destinations available to us, whatever you want to call them. Because if you say you are without sin then you are lying.
“God is helping us to overcome these self-destructive habits after our death”
at first glance, it appears to be a very strange statement of belief. One could easily deduce that you are claiming that we overcome sin through our own death and God helps us do this by facilitating death. That is a bit wishy washy and can be read the wrong way.
To explain further, we are condemned to death not matter what we do. “Sin is not cleansed through the blood of sheep and goats/bulls” (Hebrews 10:4). Men are not saved by sacrificing sheeps and goats/bulls…we cannot do anything to save ourselves.
We are only saved by Grace through Faith in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross…that is it…period!
When the aposlte Paul wrote “we come boldly before the throne” (Hebrews 4:16), he was making the statement that the reason we can do this is because we are clothed in Christs righteousness.
The point is, underneath, we still have the stink of our filthy rags when we are judged. However, because of Christs cloak around us, we are declared righteous!
So to avoid confusion, exactly what do you mean by the statement you made which i have quoted above?
Are you able to explain the difference between the version in my post and the version is in your post?
You completely made up this idea of death being necessary which is not in my post at all. Why is that?
… is it perhaps because you only believe in physical life and that the earth is the only place people will exist ever? Are you trying to steer me towards such a belief so contrary to what Jesus and the Bible plainly says? That is not going to happen.
I am just guessing… trying to understand why keep changing what I said in such strange ways.