It seems that Ellen White's comment about the "confused species" which did not enter the Ark (because they weren't a part of God's original creation) is referring to the dinosaurs. The antediluvians must have figured out how to manipulate the DNA of animals in order to create dinosaurs.

Also, I've visited some of the dinosaur national parks around the USA and it is pretty clear that there were a whole bunch of dinosaurs roaming the globe. I have no problem envisioning thousands of them living before the Flood. Apparently, there was a whole lot more habitable real estate back in those days. So there would have been plenty of room for thousands of those huge toothy reptiles.

What was not created by God was a "tare" and these were instigated by Satan. This would apply to the toothy giants as well.....i would think


Manuscript Releases Volume Sixteen----PG- 247

"Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matt. 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."

Does this passage suggest that man created the dinosaurs?

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 69, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Flood
But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.

Avalee, you're funny. Thanx for the good insights. I also suspect the reason the dino's didn't make it one the Ark is because they weren't part of God's original creation.

I also suspect that post-Flood mankind has been unable to duplicate dinosaurs, thus they haven't roamed the earth since before the Flood. So, all the tracks and bones found here and there are from before the Flood.

But now that we are learning how to clone animals it may not be very long before dinosaurs begin showing up again. And then we will able to say - It is now as it was in the days of Noah.

A couple of comments on this interesting subject:

a) Donkey, mule, ass: This is a hybrid, and it is not a clone. Hybrids often can not reproduce. Clones are expected to reproduce.

b)As a member of a hospital ethics committee that deals with issues of medical ethics, I can clearly state that I do not believe that any member of our committee would agree to experiments with human cloning in our research center.

c) Species: As one who has a strong background in the biological sciences, I can not believe that EGW used the word "species" in the same sense of a scientist. Species is an artificial word that was contrived by the taxonomists. Ellen White was not a scientist. We can not expect her to use scientific words with the 21st Cent. scientific meaning.

d) It appears to me that some here believe that genetic manipulation is immoral, on both the plant level, and the animal level. Also, that some believe hybridization of plants to be immoral. Again, genetic manipulation is not cloning. While I respect their postion, I am astounded that some would think that the production of a hybrid species is immoral. If this is immoral, what is your ethical obligation in regard to the use of that hybrid species. Do you eat corn? It is likely that the corn you eat is a hybrid species. Do you plant hybrid flowers in your garden?

e) Some so-called diseases are genetic in origin. The only cure (not treatment) is likely to be genetic. Is it immoral for humans to attempt genetic manipulation to cure a disease? I remind you that genetic manipulation is not necessarly cloning.

=====

I assume that reming is actually intended as remind? - Daryl

[ January 03, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Gregory ]

I stand corrected. I just looked for further information on the subject of the ability to reproduce. In that case, as soon as scince is regularly producing healthy offspring by this method - and I'm not sure that's yet - then there is no reason to be against the procedure. My only reservation - and there may be answers to this already - is that if a clone comes from the one parent, is there more likelihood of the kinds of effects seen when closely related humans produce offspring? Oh, and I was wrong on two major counts. They can produce males from cloning, if they use the cells from a male. Fascinating stuff.

Hybridisation is not genetic manipulation. Genetic manipulation alters the structures that exist naturally. But the conversation was about two different things - cloning, and whether EGW's writings were talking about cross-breeding humans with animals.

I fully support all genetic investigation to cure disease, but I don't want to eat what may have been turned into non-food by a scientist.

As part of our SS discussion this past Sabbath, we discussed this cloning issue. The discussion leader posed the question, "Will God allow human cloning?" with the intent of exploring class member's perceptions of the moral implications of human cloning. Among the various ideas that came out is one that I would like to float here in order to take some of the heat of Mike.

Consider that at creation God did the first combination human cloning/genetic engineering. Eve was taken from Adam and replicated into a female which would have required some genetic manipulation to change the gender of Adam's clone. This would further support the original creation thesis of God to create male and female in the image of God, separate distinct beings that are one. A significant element of "in God's image" is the creative/re-creative desire and ability. Consider that procreation is modified cloning, rather than taking DNA from one donor it is taking DNA from two donors to create a copy of the two donors. But human cloning is far more common than we think - identical twins are exact genetic copies sharing the same DNA - and naturally occuring with the apparent blessing of God. And finally consider the possibility that the Trinity of the Godhead may represent divine cloning - One God in Three beings.


Tom

Ahem...Excuse me... Did that last post leave everyone speechless? Baffled? Frightened? Concerned? Apathetic? Angry? Amused? Confused?

Just wondering....

Tom

It's a conspiracy Tom!