Thistle is the common name of a polyphyletic group of flowering plants characterised by leaves with sharp spines or prickles on the margins, mostly in the plant family Asteraceae. Their prickles often occur all over the plant, including on the stem and flat parts of the leaf. These are an adaptation to protect the plant against herbivorous animals, discouraging them from feeding on the plant.
-wiki

Thistles are plants. The plain reading of what Rosangela wrote was that God did not create thorny plants and thistles. This is clearly unscriptural as I showed above. If Ellen with the above statement meant that God did not create thistles, then Ellen was wrong.

Thomas,

I'm sure you understood the point. Satan cannot create anything, but he can modify things for worse, and this is what he has been doing since the entrance of sin. Everything that God created was good, and the fact that God overrules evil and sometimes makes what is evil to be useful doesn't mean He created what is evil. Do you think that God created (as they are today) pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Did He create the venomous serpents? Did He create ticks?

1. Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. Not one was left behind.

2. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Not one was saved.

3. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.

3SG 64
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. {3SG 64.1}

3SG 75
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

Mike,
My advice to you is that you spend a little less time with Ellen and a little more time with the bible. It seems to me that you have some priority issues between the two that would need to be resolved.

Much which we call evil is simply something which are good in its right place but cause suffering when in the wrong place. Thistles and roses are beautiful flowers to look at as long as you do not have to walk through them or they do not grow where you intended for something else to grow. Bacteria such as E. Coli participate in the work of intestines and you are healthier with them there than you would be without them. Occationally they gain virulent capabilities and then they cause you to be sick. But the non-virulent bacteria are still your allies to a good health. I am somewhat uncertain about what good viruses do, but considering that it is only a tiny minority which is known to cause sickness in humans and domestic animals, surely the great majority must be busy going about their Creators buisness. To what good God created ticks, I do not have the slightest idea. But considering that the creation of life is the exclusive domain of God, He must have had some purpose in mind.

Thomas,

I'm not saying God did not create those things. I'm saying that God created everything good, but that Satan and sin caused many changes for worse. It's a fact that mutations occur, and it's also a fact that many times mutations are harmful. Thus, it's easy to explain how some bacteria and viruses became pathogenic, and how bad changes in many plants and animals occurred. Many Christians see things in this way.
Besides, today we can see how easily hybrids may be created that God did not create.
Of course you have the right to disagree, however I don't see why you are finding fault with well-established scientific facts.

Usually one would say that a harmful mutation is such that it is negative to the entity that got it. A mutation that makes a bacteria pathogenic would not be viewed as a harmful mutation. That it makes the bacteria harmful for humans is a different thing. Interesting article. It will be interesting to find out if the researcher with the human brains in mouse bodies will succeed.

But considering the statements previously that I am "finding fault" with, that between creation and sometime in the late 19th century humans and animals underwent amalgamation and this can be seen in certain races of men, or that God did not create dinosaurs but that they were genetic experiments. None of these statements are "well-established scientific facts". That researchers today are finding ways to genetically modify animals to include human parts is an entierly different thing from saying that the anicents did the same, from any well-established scientific point of view. Also, mixing humans and mice is a different thing from creating a mouse from scratch. Maybe science will learn to do that aswell some day, but presently it is still not so as far as I know. Also, the race of humans which the anicents amalgamated with some unmentioned animals, which race would that be? Europeans? Asians? Brasilians perhaps?

It is indeed negative for the bacteria and virus themselves, because if they cause the death of the organism they invade, they are virtually causing their own death.


First, Ellen White is speaking of amalgamation of men and of animals, not of men with animals.
I'll transcribe from the White Estate, since there is no link:

Amalgamation of man and beast
Some have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in 1870) that humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced certain races that exist today. The statement reads: "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." [1]

No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals, the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements. Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.

Granted, her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean "amalgamation of man with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often, repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction. [2]

On other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings. [3] She also used it to describe the origin of poisonous plants and other irregularities in the biological world: "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. . . . 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." [4]

Recognizing that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of God's plan for man, beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen White may have meant when she described the results of amalgamation. That which "defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the species [of animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation of humans. Such "amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men," becomes understandable.

Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races of men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.

We recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings differ on what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term." [5]

[1] Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (page 75).

[2] "We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast" (Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308).

[3] "Those who profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies, cooperating with heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim" (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892; see also The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 144 and The Upward Look, p. 318).

[4] Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.

[5] Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308.

Who said any animal would have been created from scratch? Satan and humans can only make changes through genetic manipulation and engeneering. They can't create from scratch.

By the way, when Ellen White speaks of the evidence of amalgation in certain races of men, she may be referring to certain physical traits besides the spiritual aspect - perhaps a combination of both. Of course through amalgamation certain physical traits are reinforced or modified. This article and many others use the term "amalgamation" and comment about the effect of this regarding physical traits.