1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    22 Feb '14 08:12
    Originally posted by CalJust
    OK, let's follow that train of thought a little further.

    So in the beginning God designed the smallpox virus and the malaria mosquito to be perfect and beneficial for man, and then after the Fall they became malevolent.

    Could you suggest a process whereby this change happened?

    And then maybe you could explain why the woodpecker, and the humming bird (as per your post) remained perfect?
    The process is the curse of God. The hummingbird and the woodpecker also die, don't they?
  2. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66376
    22 Feb '14 08:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The process is the curse of God. The hummingbird and the woodpecker also die, don't they?
    Sometimes your talent for avoiding questions that you can't answer truly amazes me!
  3. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 10:181 edit
    Originally posted by CalJust
    But the malaria mosquito was?

    Why?

    Why did the humming bird not turn into, say, a blood sucking, disease carrying creature? Was there something inherently different between them and the mosquito? (Both, I would suggest, where equally impacted by the "human sin from Adam".)
    CalJust, your articulate curiosity is commendable; your persistent online public attempt to narrowly humanize God's perfect plan (marred only by man's depravity/generationally magnified) to support an 'unbelief conversion' agenda isn't. -Bob

    Edit: Adam's sin nature is universally transmitted by the human male sperm in copulation sans assistance from members of the pyramidal food chain: "blood sucking, disease carrying creatures" such as "malaria mosquitos" are uninvolved.
  4. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66376
    22 Feb '14 10:493 edits
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    CalJust, your articulate curiosity is commendable; your persistent online public attempt to narrowly humanize God's perfect plan (marred only by man's depravity/generationally magnified) to support an 'unbelief conversion' agenda isn't. -Bob

    Edit: Adam's sin nature is universally transmitted by the human male sperm in copulation sans assistance from ...[text shortened]... d chain: "blood sucking, disease carrying creatures" such as "malaria mosquitos" are uninvolved.
    So, in summary, your position is: THIS (i.e. My articulated opinion) is the way it is because God says so.

    Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.

    Have we learnt nothing during the past few centuries?

    They were also 100% convinced, just as you and RJH are today, that THEIR interpretation of Scripture was correct, and that they were the champions of God's Truth in their day.

    Please ponder that for a few seconds. Maybe, just maybe you are also mistaken??

    (And when you admit that, you won't have to sacrifice your Faith even one iota!)
  5. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 11:111 edit
    Originally posted by CalJust
    So, in summary, your position is: THIS (i.e. My articulated opinion) is the way it is because God says so.

    Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.

    Have we learnt nothing during the past few centuries?

    They were also 100% convinced, just as you and RJH are today, that THEIR interpretation of ...[text shortened]... o mistaken??

    (And when you admit that, you won't have to sacrifice your Faith even one iota!)
    An accurate answer was given to your stated and implied questions. What your volition does with it is your biz not mine.

    Note: You may find this multi-faceted resource helpful: http://www.blueletterbible.org/bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&t=NASB
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    22 Feb '14 14:06
    Originally posted by CalJust
    So, in summary, your position is: THIS (i.e. My articulated opinion) is the way it is because God says so.

    Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.

    Have we learnt nothing during the past few centuries?

    They were also 100% convinced, just as you and RJH are today, that THEIR interpretation of ...[text shortened]... o mistaken??

    (And when you admit that, you won't have to sacrifice your Faith even one iota!)
    Are you sure those were not your forefathers?
  7. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 14:12
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Are you sure those were not your forefathers?
    Question, RJH: Who were the parents of 'forefathers'... a) jot and tittle; or b) iota and keraia? lol
  8. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66376
    22 Feb '14 14:44
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    An accurate answer was given to your stated and implied questions. What your volition does with it is your biz not mine.
    Sorry, I must have missed this answer.

    Here is the sequence of questions, somewhat simplified.

    RJH: Creation is proved by the humming bird and the woodpecker, who could not have evolved, but must have been especially designed.

    CM: if so, the who designed the smallpox virus and the malaria mosquito? If God, then why were they designed so malevolently?

    RJH/GB: The "bad" creatures were a part of the Fall of man, and the introduction of sin.

    CJ: But then why did not the woodpecker turn bad after the Fall, and how did the malaria mosquito live BEFORE the fall?

    GB/RJH: God is in charge of the universe, and please don't try to destroy people's faith!

    Sorry, did I miss your answer somewhere?

    I am a little pressed for time now, but in another post I will try to explain to you why I am challenging you on your view of Evolution
  9. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 17:36
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Sorry, I must have missed this answer.

    Here is the sequence of questions, somewhat simplified.

    RJH: Creation is proved by the humming bird and the woodpecker, who could not have evolved, but must have been especially designed.

    CM: if so, the who designed the smallpox virus and the malaria mosquito? If God, then why were they designed so malevolently ...[text shortened]... in another post I will try to explain to you why I am challenging you on your view of Evolution
    Genesis 1: 1-31 The Creation:

    "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

    6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

    9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

    14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

    20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

    24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (NASB)

    Verse 26 From various sources I've learned that the pattern God followed in making man was Himself: "in Our image, according to Our likeness". Image and likeness referring to a spiritual rather than a bodily shadow image (not a duplication but an inferior finite similarity); in that man's soul is immaterial, spiritual, rational, moral with capacity for relationship. Like God we have self consciousness, mentality, volition and conscience. We are the only creatures who uniquely reflect God.
  10. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66376
    22 Feb '14 20:06
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    From various sources I've learned that the pattern God followed in making man was Himself: "in Our image, according to Our likeness". Like God we have self consciousness, mentality, volition and conscience. We are the only creatures who uniquely reflect God.
    Thank you, I am familiar with Gen. 1. This is indeed a beautiful part of scripture, an excellent story that tells us so much about God.

    But we were not discussing (at this time) the creation of man.

    Do you also enjoy nature? There is nothing I like more than walking alone in some wilderness place, see the birds, study the plants, smell the fresh air. I cherish God's creation.

    Although I still wonder why He made mosquitos...
  11. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 20:371 edit
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Thank you, I am familiar with Gen. 1. This is indeed a beautiful part of scripture, an excellent story that tells us so much about God.

    But we were not discussing (at this time) the creation of man.

    Do you also enjoy nature? There is nothing I like more than walking alone in some wilderness place, see the birds, study the plants, smell the fresh air. I cherish God's creation.

    Although I still wonder why He made mosquitos...
    February the 22nd in The Year of Our Lord 2014
    To: CalJust
    @ Red Hot Pawn/Spirituality Forum
    Re: "Why God Almighty Made Bothersome Malaria Ridden Mosquitos"

    Short Answer:
    Because His Omniscience knew other creatures, such as the beautiful Damselfly and Purple Martin, would also get hungry and require nourishing food to remain healthy and perpetuate their species: so, the lowly mosquito was/is designed to provide them as a tasty breakfast, lunch, dinner and bedtime snack 24/7/365-66. Please see detail below:

    "Natural Mosquito Killers"

    "We have all heard the stories, purple martins can consume their weight in mosquitoes every day, bats eat thousands of mosquitoes, "mosquito hawks" eat nothing but mosquitoes during their entire life cycle, is any of this true? As you'll see below natural predators all play a part in mosquito control, but not to the extent that would be acceptable as a viable means of control. This is true especially during times of extreme mosquito numbers (after flooding or hurricanes) , and when levels of mosquitoes borne disease (such as WNV) are high. The fact is there is usually no scientific data to back up the anecdotal claims that predators such as birds, dragonflies, bats, purple martins, and others consume "thousands of mosquitoes". Also what scientific data does exist is often produced from a study within a controlled environment where these predators are only offered mosquitoes, this does not take into account the opportunistic feeding nature of most natural predators. There are very few instances where natural predators are quite efficient at controlling mosquito populations, although there are exceptions to the rule. Two prime examples would be canals and ponds. The reason that you do not find mosquitoes breeding in these places as often is because they are usually a permanent source of water, and as such can support a greater and varied concentration of natural predators. All of this being said, most of these predators are extremely beneficial in many other ways and should be protected and allowed a place in our urban habitat. The list below is by no means meant to say these are the only natural predators that will eat mosquitoes. Here we'll just concentrate on the most common natural predators we see and the ones that are most commonly surrounded by false stories concerning their ability to control mosquito populations.

    Gambusia Affinis also known as the mosquitofish is a live-bearing American fish that is utilized by some mosquito control districts across the country as a very effective predator of mosquito larvae. As far as natural predators go I think it can be said without hesitation that the mosquitofish is by far the most efficient natural predator of mosquitoes. Full grown females can reach a length of up to 2.5 inches and males up to 1.5 inches. The female Gambusia Affinis can produce anywhere from 10-300 live free swimming young per brood and can have between 3 to 6 broods per season. The mosquitofish is known to be an opportunistic and voracious predator. In certain studies they have been shown to consume 42-167% of their body weight in various invertebrate prey including mosquito larvae per day. This species as well as some other species of small predatory fish ( such as guppies ) can be quite useful in the reduction of mosquito larvae given the right conditions.

    The purple martin is an excellent example of a natural mosquito predator who's mosquito controlling ability has often been grossly exaggerated. Yes, they will and do eat mosquitoes but nowhere near the amount that would be needed to consider them effective at controlling mosquito populations. In a quote taken from the AMCA's page titled frequently asked questions, ornithologist James Hill founder of the Purple Martin Conservation Association (PMCA) writes, "The number of mosquitoes that martins eat is extremely insignificant, and they certainly don't control them. In-depth studies have shown that mosquitoes comprise no more than 0 to 3 percent of the diet of martins". In fact during daylight hours purple martins most often will feed on larger flying insects such as June bugs, moths, bees, butterflies, wasps, and unfortunately dragonflies, another natural mosquito predator. In the hours just before and after sunset is usually when mosquitoes are most active and during this time our friends the martins are usually feeding in the treetops, which puts them way above most mosquito activity. The purple martin is a beautiful bird, but like other natural predators who occasionally consume mosquitoes they probably would rather snag a nice juicy Japanese beetle or some other large bodied flying insect than a scrawny little mosquito.

    The bat is another natural predator of the mosquito that is often described as a voracious mosquito eater. In reality bats like other natural predators of the mosquito are opportunistic feeders. This basically means that they will eat whatever food source is available, and while they will eat mosquitoes they do not go out and specifically hunt just mosquitoes. In fact studies of bats in the wild have shown that they consume mostly beetles, wasps, moths, and these same studies have shown that mosquitoes make up less than 1 percent of their total diet. While they are not the voracious mosquito eaters that some people claim them to be, bats are extremely beneficial little creatures. Though they have a unearned reputation as something to be feared bats do us a great service by eating a huge amount of other flying insects and consequently help to control some dangerous and harmful pest.

    Dragonflies as well as being a natural predator of the mosquito are a fascinating and unique group of insects. Dragonflies are often referred to as "mosquito hawks" for their supposed ability to kill thousands of mosquitoes. Though they do consume their fair share of mosquitoes, dragonflies like most natural predators of mosquitoes do not consume enough mosquitoes to cause a significant impact on mosquitoes populations in the wild. However, one thing that makes the dragonfly a better predator than most is the fact that in the aquatic larval stage one of their food sources is mosquito larvae. Actually it is during this stage (which can last up to six years) that they will do their most damage to mosquito populations, the reason being that as adults they typically like to feed during the day which is when most mosquitoes are hiding in bushes and timberlines. These dragonfly naiads as they are called are voracious and bold little predators and will take on almost any aquatic animal including other naiads.

    Damselflies and their naiads are another natural predator of mosquitoes but probably not to the extent of their larger brother the dragonfly. Damselfly adults are easy to tell apart from their larger cousins because of obvious size difference, however their naiads are very similar and have the same predatory traits as dragonflies. These beautiful insects come in a wide array of colors and their naiads are considered fairly good predators of mosquito larvae especially in the early instars.

    Frogs, toads and their young called tadpoles are often touted as excellent for mosquito control. In reality, while they do consume their fare share once again it is not enough to seriously put a dent in vast mosquito populations. When frogs and toads do consume mosquitoes it is usually after they have transformed from tadpole to adult. Tadpoles are mostly herbivorous and usually feed on algae and plants, although some larger species will occasionally prey on mosquito larvae. Although they are not the mosquito vacuum cleaners we want them to be, frogs are extremely beneficial little creatures and are usually a measuring stick for a healthy environment."

    http://www.wbrcouncil.org/Departments/Mosquito-Abatement/Natural-Mosquito-Killers

    Kind Regards,
    Boston Lad
  12. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36571
    22 Feb '14 20:58
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Note: You may find this multi-faceted resource helpful: http://www.blueletterbible.org/bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&t=NASB
    I love the BLB. It's a good resource. If I recall, someone here recommended it to me, maybe it was josephw, not sure. Interesting thing is, you can also flip a switch to turn on 'red-letters' for Jesus quotes. Lots of Bible translations, something for everyone, as it were. I just wish they'd include the NWT so I can make accurate comparisons more quickly.
  13. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    22 Feb '14 21:091 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I love the BLB. It's a good resource. If I recall, someone here recommended it to me, maybe it was josephw, not sure. Interesting thing is, you can also flip a switch to turn on 'red-letters' for Jesus quotes. Lots of Bible translations, something for everyone, as it were. I just wish they'd include the NWT so I can make accurate comparisons more quickly.
    Thanks for your timely comment. I recently enjoyed reading Genesis Chapter One in the Blue Letter Bible (NASB).
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    23 Feb '14 00:11
    Originally posted by CalJust
    So, in summary, your position is: THIS (i.e. My articulated opinion) is the way it is because God says so.

    Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.

    Have we learnt nothing during the past few centuries?

    They were also 100% convinced, just as you and RJH are today, that THEIR interpretation of ...[text shortened]... o mistaken??

    (And when you admit that, you won't have to sacrifice your Faith even one iota!)
    Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.
    This.
    If you're old enough, you can remember a time when programmers were viewed with the same level of patronizing disdain as is reserved for members of the local Ham Radio Operator's Club.

    They were both hobbies of peculiar bents, whose practitioners were most likely socially awkward (if not anti-social) and generally inept at interpersonal relationships; instead pouring all of their energies into these meta-worlds of formulas, radio frequency spectra, wireless experimentation and other sci-fi-rich landscapes.

    Both the HRO's and the early pioneers of programming were little more than extensions of their precursors, the scientists.
    Scientists were viewed as 'just a bit off,' in the sense that folks were "geeking" out on a minor point of life by putting far too much emphasis on it while at the same time, minimizing the more important aspects of life.

    TO THIS DAY, whether the world is flat or not has STILL had literally zero impact on how man lives: he continues living in the manner he was living before the knowledge became more widespread.

    Back when local folks thought the world was flat, they viewed those who made it an issue with a certain level of distrust.
    Not even concerned about whether or not the world is flat, the real issue was that it was being made an issue.
    Only a few people thought it was not flat; most people--- including those who would be considered scientists--- thought it was flat.

    Proponents will say the 'who cares' were brought kicking and screaming into the 'modern world.' Just so.
    But a big part of the protest was more related to the concept of making it an issue in the first place.
    Who cares, and how does this knowledge change anything?

    If we are to believe CalJust, ALL scientists have ALWAYS thought the world was round, but it took time for the rest of the world to come around.
    Wrong.
    MOST scientists of those times either had no opinion on the matter or considered the world flat.
    Of the scientists who considered the world's shape, it didn't take too long of an observation period for them to figure out the facts.
    Nothing life-changing at all, really.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    23 Feb '14 01:38
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]Not much different from the position which your forefathers had to the idea of a flat earth.
    This.
    If you're old enough, you can remember a time when programmers were viewed with the same level of patronizing disdain as is reserved for members of the local Ham Radio Operator's Club.

    They were both hobbies of peculiar bents, whose practitioners ...[text shortened]... f an observation period for them to figure out the facts.
    Nothing life-changing at all, really.[/b]
    But the Holy Bible had it right all along.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree