Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 269
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    So go find your purpose and fufill it. Make history.
    Precisely my view.
    If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, then you're an accident, a random convergence of genes and dna...
    This view has nothing to do with the theory of evolution at all. If you really think evolution is about "random convergence of genes", then you don't know the slightest thing about what you claim to be wrong.

    How about reading "The Blind Watchmaker", too?
    ...and you have no purpose whatsoever, so do whatever you want because it won't matter once you're gone.
    I lead a life that has meaning and sense in itself. Maybe you need a god that controls you and an afterlife in heaven as a reward for following his rules, I don't. Maybe YOU would be criminal without believing in god (though I doubt it), I behave quite nicely without that belief, much better actually than many people who believe in god.

    You know, there are so many people who claim they follow your god's rules in a much better way than you do, yet they are just cruel idiots. Leading a good and meaningful life has nothing to do with believing in a god (whichever god that may be) or not.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I do not find this explanation convincing at all. If you look at what is actually written in Genesis 2, I guess there is no way around seeing at least SOME contradictions. Clearly, Genesis 2 mentions a succession of events. For instance, it says: "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." From this text, it seems obvious to me that god made Adam first and "all the birds of the air" later, no? In addition, Genesis 2 does not "zoom in on day six" as your source says, because birds were made on day five according to Genesis 1.
    Which version are you reading from? In the NASB Genesis 2:4 is the demarcation between the two accounts and says" This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.". Which clearly separates the two accounts. I f you choose to ignore that sentence then I can see how it would be confusing to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess you will deny this, but in my view, your rejections is mosty triggered by the belief that it HAS to be true word by word, not by what is actually stated. I am not saying all the bible must be nonsense because some parts don't fit to the others, but in my view, there are clear contradictions, so a literal, word by word understanding is not possible. Just as the Catholic church, I also don't see any advantage in a word by word understanding.Ok, I will gladly take your offer (same source as before):
    We're (well at least I'm not) not talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible as we see it published. Many versions are interpretations of other versions, which can lead to grammatical errors and even substitive textural mistatements. I choose to use the NASB simply because it is a very accurate translation of the original texts in the original languages as written. I believe that many people choose to believe as you do simply because it enables them to have a "backdoor" when it comes to issues that arise from trying to apply Biblical teaching to life. Quakers have similar beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    According to the bible, the last words of Jesus (what he said just before he "yielded/gave up his ghost") are:
    Matt.27:46,50: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    Luke23:46: "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
    John19:30: "It is finished"
    Why are they so different?
    This is an easy one. First you need to read before and after these three quotes. They all mention other events that place them, without contradiction, in a timeline. You imply that all these events were supposedly occurring at the same time, so how could they be different.
    It sounds a little different if you read a liitle more.

    Matthew 27:45-51
    "Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.
    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?" that is, [B] "My God, My God, Why hast Thou Forsaken Me?"
    And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, "this man is calling for Elijah."
    And immediately one of them ran and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink.
    But Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
    And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split."

    Luke 23:44-46
    "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour,
    the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
    And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last.

    John 19:26-30
    "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
    Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!"
    After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture might be fufillied said, "I am thirsty."
    A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of sour wine upon a branch of Hyssop, and it was brought up to His mouth.
    When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit."

    First note that only John was present of the three. His account is also the only mentioning Jesus' statements to His mother and "the disciple, whom He loved." John, of course, was that disciple. Even he wasn't present for the whole crucifixion as he, at one point, ran back to Jerusalum.
    Matthew and Luke had to depend on the words of witnesses who were there. Is it hard to believe that they spoke to different people who had focused on what had happened a little differently?
    Recall that Matthew didn't say that the words he quoted were the last Jesus spoke. Jesus did, according to his account, cried out again in a loud voice. What did He say? Matthew didn't appear to know, but he knew Jesus said something.
    The contradiction you specifically mention, the last words of Christ, appear to the casual peruser to be insurmountable, but are they? We've already seen that the words Matthew mentioned aren't necessarily "the last words of Christ", as He did say something later. Let's move on to what Luke and John say. Luke says "and having said this, He breathed His last" while John says
    "And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.". Luke the "beloved physician" of Col. 4:14, was a close companion of Paul the Apostle. Luke, a Gentile, was relying on the memories of witnesses several years after the incident.
    John, though, was there. His focus seemed to a little different. He makes no mention of the two thieves, the torn veil, or the hours of darkness. Does that mean they didn't happen?
    A more complete essay dicussing this topic may be found at http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2391
    I found it to be way more exhaustive then I could be on the subject.

    I humbly suggest that there is no contradictions between the three tellings. Simply different views of the same events. Place the same number of witnesses at a crime scene and you would find a similar amount of discrepancies when the police interview them. People who believe generally do so with the belief that the original texts of the Bible as penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God, but written by the hand of man.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the claimed husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham (verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH. How can both versions be true simultaneously?
    Simply because Matthew is giviong Jesus' geneology from His Joseph's side,
    while Luke emphasis was on Mary's family.
    Matthew, the Jew, was making the connection between Jesses and David to Jesus. Luke, the Gentile, was making the connection to Adam. The other discrepancy (you don't specifically mention) was when Luke stated that Joseph was the son of Heli, while Matthew stated he was the son of Jacob.
    The Jerusalem Talmud shows that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Joseph's father was Jacob. It was customary to refer to a son-in-law as a son in the first century. So Luke's statement was culturally correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    LEV 11:" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

    ... Insects with four feet? I can easily understand that a priest who writes down rules about eating animals gets the number of feet insects like crickets or grasshoppers have wrong. But surely god would know crickets and grasshoppers have six feet?
    The literal translation from the Hebrew is "swarming things with wings." No mention of legs in the original text as written. No contradiction here, simply less than perfect translation. We can continue with this for the rest of the year if you'd like.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So far I have failed to see scientific implausibility in evolution. Can you show me some concrete examples?
    There has never been a case study which proves that genetic mutations can be passed on. Darwins work on speciation, which is a fancy study of breeding, was meant to prove that through a process he called "natural selection" animals would "adapt" to their enviroment, commonly refered to as "survival of the fittest". So far science has proven that life can adapt to their enviroment through breeding, but only so far as their genes/dna will allow. Mutations, or the creation of a new attribute not already inherent in a living forms genes/dna, have not been observed to be able to be passed on.
    The central theme in evolution is that given enough time a species can "evolve" into a new, different, species; ie, a small rodent-like creature can change over time into a primate and then into a human. While it makes great sci-fi ("He's mutated into a "telepathic/name your magic power enabled" higher life form!"), it's mathematically impossible. The time necessary for something like this to happen, using evolutionists own numbers/timelines yields impossibly long times. Research intended to bolster The Theory of Evolution continually brings up more questions and anomolous data, which is why The Theory of Intelligent Design (which can or cannot be associated with Creationism depending on the researcher) has been gaining more attention.
    Can you give me unassailable proof that evolution is more than a theory?
    I doubt you can, that's why it's still officailly a theory.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Precisely my view.
    This view has nothing to do with the theory of evolution at all. If you really think evolution is about "random convergence of genes", then you don't know the slightest thing about what you claim to be wrong.
    Actually I do, which is why I used the words I did. If evolution isn't random, what is it? Who directs it?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    How about reading "The Blind Watchmaker", too?
    I did. Found it unconvincing to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I lead a life that has meaning and sense in itself. Maybe you need a god that controls you and an afterlife in heaven as a reward for following his rules, I don't. Maybe YOU would be criminal without believing in god (though I doubt it), I behave quite nicely without that belief, much better actually than many people who believe in god.
    You've really misunderstood everything I've said about God and His decision to make us in His image, meaning having the ability to create, destroy, and with Free Will. that means I don't HAVE to follow God. I CHOOSE to follow Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You know, there are so many people who claim they follow your god's rules in a much better way than you do, yet they are just cruel idiots. Leading a good and meaningful life has nothing to do with believing in a god (whichever god that may be) or not.
    Never said that. I said I believe we were created with a purpose and meaning beyond mere existence.
    Evolution states that life has no purpose other than to live and adapt (in a way dictated by random mutations and viability of said mutattions to the enviroment around them.
    Your philosophy may, or may not, be the same. If you choose to believe evolution is more than theory than you have put your foot in that camp. You may decide to find purpose in your life, but you are making a statement that you weren't created with a purpose in mind. You're simply a by-product of a chain of events that had no deeper purpose than survival. If there is to be any other purpose for your life, than you have to make one up. You're simply saying you, and only you, have a say in what that purpose. That way I guess you can't choose the "wrong" purpose, since you're the only one that gets a say. That leads to the slippery slope of no absolute truth, in which everyone is right and no-one is wrong. Sounds like anarchy and chaos to me.
    Your comments on people on following "your god's rules in a much better way than you do, yet they are just cruel idiots." is amazing to me as I don't believe you actually can quote me any of those rules that I'm following or not following. You can quote Leviticus at me I guess, but since I'm not Jewish those rules are not meant for me, or any other Gentile. I think you're very confused, to say the least, about what Christianity means. Maybe you had incorrect or incomplete teaching when you were younger, there's been a lot of that in history.
    I don't see this going anywhere, but around in circles. I'll continue, though, as long as you'd like.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    There has never been a case study which proves that genetic mutations can be passed on.
    I am shocked. If you are right, all I ever learned about molecular biology (the field of biology dealing with DNA and it's role in organisms), and all of my experiments in the field of genetic engineering, and all of my Ph. D. thesis is wrong. Generations of scientist would build their results on an illusion, all of their findings concerning the hereditary nature of mutations would be a fraud.

    So far, I cannot believe you are right, and thousands of results of science wrong, over decades and centuries. Please detail what you mean by "genetic mutation" and what you mean by "passed on", so that I can address this point specifically.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am shocked. If you are right, all I ever learned about molecular biology (the field of biology dealing with DNA and it's role in organisms), and all of my experiments in the field of genetic engineering, and all of my Ph. D. thesis is wrong. Generations of scientist would build their results on an illusion, all of their findings concerning the hereditary nature of mutations would be a fraud.

    So far, I cannot believe you are right, and thousands of results of science wrong, over decades and centuries. Please detail what you mean by "genetic mutation" and what you mean by "passed on", so that I can address this point specifically.
    Specifically I'm talking about attributes not present in a organism before, ie an opposable thumb, or wings, or feathers.
    If you're a scientist you know that a human being is an incredibly complicted being that requires each of it's diverse parts to function in a specific way or the entire organism fails.
    Evolution dictates that this incredibly complicted organism slowly developed (and is still changing) over billions of years from a simple one celled organism.
    Yet if we change one simple cells ability to function within the human blood system we can cause the entire organism to fail. There are no extra cells in the bloodstream. They all function as a part of the whole and rely on other parts to function as they do.
    Evolution can't explain this and generally those that purport to believe in it side step such basic questions with the magic mantra of invoking time as the solution, or the equally encompassing "natural selection" instead of squarely confronting the question. How does a being evolve from a simpler creature if it can't work without any of it's myriad components? How can bigger changes happen if the smaller ones can't.
    Describe to me how anything you've learned and observed can't be also explained by intelligent design.
    How is mutation good for the long term survival of a species? Mutation presupposes that the gene existed before and it's a varient of the pre-existing gene.
    Stephen Gould recogized the difference between mutations and evolution. He wrote (first in Natural History and later in Paleobiology) that while evolution involves "profound structural transistions" such as the change from fish to philosopher (macroevolution), mutations produce only minor variations, like we see in "flies in bottles" that start out as flies and end in flies. He goes on to say that "Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transistions..." For the old line mutation-selection evolutionist, "Macroevolution (major structural transistions) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in the bottle) extended" And then he asks, "How can such processes change a gnat or a rhinoceros into something different?" Answering himself in the later article he simply says, "That theory (orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationism) as a general proposition is effectively dead, despite it's persistence as textbook orthodoxy.
    So what did Gould (an evolutionist) replace the old school of thought with? "Hopeful Monsters", that is evolution occuring in giant steps, radical restructuring of whole DNA sets producing what he called those "Hopeful Monsters". His new theory (because the old one was no longer had scientific validity for him) instead was one that he openly admitted had never been observed either. So to him it was valid because it hadn't been disproved, but's that what a theory is.
    This is stuff I learned years ago while I was in college. Long before I became a Christian. At it's heart evolution is a type of shell game. Whenever it's questioned it's proponents have a tendacy to bluster and bluff without actually producing evidence that it works. You seem to be discussing microevolution, while I'm discussing macroevolution.
    Which do you want to focus on. I'm much more knowledgable about macroevolution and what it entails.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #26  
    There are tons of examples showing the transition from one species to the other, including the gradual changes involved. There is really nothing mysterious about that. I will look up one as soon as a find the time.

    In the meanwhile, I have to say that I am not convinced about your reply to the contradictions in the bible.

    John writes
    "He [Jesus] said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".
    Luke writes
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."

    Clearly, both describe what Jesus said immediately before he died, but they tell us a totally different version. It is obvious that e.g. John and Luke contradict each other, I think we can agree on that? I am aware of the reasons which lead to that contradiction: unreliable eyewitness reports, faulty memories of the writers, etc. and I agree with you about the reasons for the conflicting statements, but the fact remains, the contradiction is there. I don't think this is any problem for Christian beliefs, it just shows that a literal understanding is not possible.

    You did not comment on my Genesis 2 example. In order to rule out mistranslation as much as possible, I will refer to "Young's Literal Translation... This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings."

    There, we find in Genesis 2: "And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
    19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name."

    It is obvious from this that god made "every fowl of the heavens" AFTER he made Adam, or am I mistaken here? When reading the text, I fail to see another possible interpretation.

    However, according to Genesis 1 (again Young's Literal Translation):
    "and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth.
    20And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'
    21And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good."

    So from this text, it seems totally clear that god made fowls (birds) on day four, while he made Adam on day six... Or what do I get wrong, here?


    Now, about Leviticus 11... You state "The literal translation from the Hebrew is "swarming things with wings." No mention of legs in the original text as written. No contradiction here, simply less than perfect translation. We can continue with this for the rest of the year if you'd like."

    Well, you know, I am not so convinced legs (or feet) are not mentioned in the original text... maybe you have better sources, but Young's Literal Translation, an "extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.", mentions legs/feet several times... what makes you think the original text does not say that insects have four legs? Here that part in YLT:

    "Only -- this ye do eat of any teeming thing which is flying, which is going on four, which hath legs above its feet, to move with them on the earth;
    22these of them ye do eat: the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the beetle after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind;
    23and every teeming thing which is flying, which hath four feet -- an abomination it [is] to you."

    Last time I checked beetles, grasshoppers and locusts (which are grasshoppers, too) had six feet... So, again, quite an obvious biological error in the bible. Understandable that an Israelite priest does not know how many legs grasshoppers have, but still, it is wrong.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/01/2005 at 05:45 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    If evolution isn't random, what is it? Who directs it?
    Take a book or a pen or something and hold in front of you, then let go. Does it make a random movement?

    No? It falls toward earth. What, directed movement? Who directed it? Who is the great director that moves all things toward earth? As you know, it is gravity...

    I guess also in the case of evolution you know better. Evolution is NOT random, as you like to claim. In evolution, only the changes on the DNA (gene) level are not directed, the next, even more important step, is TOTALLY directed: SELECTION for those traits which confer an advantage, meaning selection for traits which allow the carrier of the mutation to have more offspring. Just like gravity: a simple mechanism with a great effect.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #28  
    "I guess also in the case of evolution you know better"

    -clulup

    it wouldnt hurt to discuss things a bit more tactfully, like a gentleman.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    "I guess also in the case of evolution you know better"

    -clulup

    it wouldnt hurt to discuss things a bit more tactfully, like a gentleman.
    BobbyMike read "The Blind Watchmaker", which details the basic mechanism of evolution: random mutation and directed selection. I guess it is fair to assume that he knows evolution is not just random. Sorry if it sounded rude, that was not my goal.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    BobbyMike read "The Blind Watchmaker", which details the basic mechanism of evolution: random mutation and directed selection. I guess it is fair to assume that he knows evolution is not just random. Sorry if it sounded rude, that was not my goal.
    Busy day here today, will comment on all later. Just because I read the book doesn't mean I agree with the findings. Evolution is a blind random chance kind of thing as it supposedly works. It's a crapshoot. As you describe it, the "good" mutations would have to outway the "bad" mutations for it to be a successful system. That's not statistically probable, unless some force directs the mutations. Are you suggesting there is a guiding intelligence behind evolution?
    Later,
    Michael

    PS I do think your not getting a decent translation of the the original languages. For example, look at Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraic for what's considred the most literal translation of the ancient Hebrew text. As to your comment about a Hebrew priest not knowing how many legs a grasshopper has - isn't that kind of silly? You would think that a desert dwelling people would know how many legs a locust has.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Evolution is a blind random chance kind of thing as it supposedly works. It's a crapshoot. As you describe it, the "good" mutations would have to outway the "bad" mutations for it to be a successful system. That's not statistically probable, unless some force directs the mutations. Are you suggesting there is a guiding intelligence behind evolution?
    It's SELECTION, SELECTION, SELECTION that guides evolution. Carriers of "good" mutations have more offspring (that is what makes the mutation "good"), hence the mutation spreads in the population. Small changes accumulate over generations, leading to new species (evolution has got lots of time, more than 4 billion years).


    PS I do think your not getting a decent translation of the the original languages. For example, look at Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraic for what's considred the most literal translation of the ancient Hebrew text. As to your comment about a Hebrew priest not knowing how many legs a grasshopper has - isn't that kind of silly? You would think that a desert dwelling people would know how many legs a locust has.
    I agree it is silly to say that grasshoppers have four legs. But why did they write in the bible then? Besides, you keep mentioning better translations of the bible, so apparently Young's Literal Translation is not good enough? Why do they constantly publish faulty translations?

    I wonder though, how difficult can it be to translate a number, like, e.g. "four"? Shouldn't that be the easiest part of a translation...?

    Looking forward to you answers to this and the other questions... Happy Busy day!
    Last edited by clulup; 03/01/2005 at 12:18 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's SELECTION, SELECTION, SELECTION that guides evolution. Carriers of "good" mutations have more offspring (that is what makes the mutation "good"), hence the mutation spreads in the population. Small changes accumulate over generations, leading to new species (evolution has got lots of time, more than 4 billion years).
    After being away for the weekend, I was wondering where to jump in. I suppose here is as good a place as any....

    4 billion years is a long time for continual mutations. But, Dawkins suggests that there are likely extended periods of generations without changes. Further, there are likely "relapses" in changes where previous "bad" characteristics are revisited. Wouldn't these two facets "shrink" the clock for evolution to get from simple to complex?

    Granted, in the computer simulation, Dawkins shows how complex the design can get in a relatively small number of generations, but, as BobbyMike offered, in that case, all the characteristics were already in the gene pool. A new species introduces "new" characteristics, rather than just varied expressions of the same characteristics.

    The logical way around that is to offer that all living things share the same genetic possibilities. The problem, though, is that in so saying, you lose your rationale for only seeing small changes. There is nothing genetically that makes survival of multiple concurrent mutations any more or less probable than survival of single mutations. Dawkins rules out large leaps across the Biomorphic space by virtue of the ever larger number of ways to be dead. But that does not distinguish large leaps from small leaps.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    After being away for the weekend, I was wondering where to jump in. I suppose here is as good a place as any....
    Hi Shopharim. Since you did not comment on the points about the bible I quoted, I assume you agree with me that the bible does contain contradictions (e.g. the one in Genesis 1 and 2 about the creation of fowls mentioned in one of my last posts, as well as the other examples there) and that a literal, word-by-word interpretaion is not possible? Or do you know how the contradictions in the examples I mentioned can be solved?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Hi Shopharim. Since you did not comment on the points about the bible I quoted, I assume you agree with me that the bible does contain contradictions (e.g. the one in Genesis 1 and 2 about the creation of fowls mentioned in one of my last posts, as well as the other examples there) and that a literal, word-by-word interpretaion is not possible? Or do you know how the contradictions in the examples I mentioned can be solved?
    Actually, I opted to allow you and BobbyMike to enjoy that tangent. I started this thread to discuss the book you recommended I read, and especially to address perceived "flaws" in the thesis.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Actually, I opted to allow you and BobbyMike to enjoy that tangent. I started this thread to discuss the book you recommended I read, and especially to address perceived "flaws" in the thesis.
    Well, the title of the thread says "evolution and related topics". Surely Genesis 1 and 2 are related to evolution, no? After all, most if not all of the rejection of evolution in the US (only the US, actually), stems from evolution not fitting to the bible, which cannot be, because the bible is literally true according to some. So I think it is fair to question whether the bible really is literally true, or whether it cannot be because some parts contradict others.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am shocked. If you are right, all I ever learned about molecular biology (the field of biology dealing with DNA and it's role in organisms), and all of my experiments in the field of genetic engineering, and all of my Ph. D. thesis is wrong. Generations of scientist would build their results on an illusion, all of their findings concerning the hereditary nature of mutations would be a fraud.

    So far, I cannot believe you are right, and thousands of results of science wrong, over decades and centuries. Please detail what you mean by "genetic mutation" and what you mean by "passed on", so that I can address this point specifically.
    I thought of something this morning that I think puts this aspect of the disucssion in light: why is that people with albinism do not necessarily produce offspring with albinism?

    Is not the genetic expression that results in Albinism a "mutation" that would be "passed on"? It seems that regardless of whether it is a "good" or "bad" mutation, it does not necessarily appear in the next generation.

    ====================================================

    I realize with this group, I do not need to leave open ended questions. So, I offer the answer to my own inquiry, per wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albino):

    In ocular-cutaneous albinism, individuals inherit an "albinism gene" from both parents. Where an individual receives one albinism gene and one normal gene, that person will not show outward signs of the condition, but will become a carrier of the recessive gene. Where two carriers of the recessive gene have a child together, that child will have a one in four chance of receiving two albinism genes, and having albinism. The child will have one in four chances of getting neither albinism gene, having normal pigment, and not being a carrier. The child has two in four chances of getting one normal and one albinism gene, having normal pigment but being a carrier.
    Given that the transmission of the characteristic is a result of the merged contirubtion of both parents, in at least the case of sexually reproducing species, would not the random mutation that is subsequently selected have to have 1) occured in at least two entities within the same time/space, and 2) been passed on by both parents, who happened to have mated (possibly more likely given that they would have experienced the same random mutation)?
    Last edited by shopharim; 03/02/2005 at 08:38 AM.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Well, the title of the thread says "evolution and related topics". Surely Genesis 1 and 2 are related to evolution, no? After all, most if not all of the rejection of evolution in the US (only the US, actually), stems from evolution not fitting to the bible, which cannot be, because the bible is literally true according to some. So I think it is fair to question whether the bible really is literally true, or whether it cannot be because some parts contradict others.
    It is a fair question. However, rejection of evolution does not necessitate acceptance of the Bible or the God it reveals. RicoM even offered earlier that the two fit together nicely.

    That notwithstanding, since my comment is so greatly desired...

    Genesis 2:19 does not state that the forming of the animals and the subsequent parading of them before the Man happened in strict succession. There is nothing about that text that excludes the formation of Man from occurring between the two discrete mentioned activities.
  18. #38  
    You learn fast...
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Given that the transmission of the characteristic is a result of the merged contirubtion of both parents, in at least the case of sexually reproducing species, would not the random mutation that is subsequently selected have to have 1) occured in at least two entities within the same time/space, and 2) been passed on by both parents, who happened to have mated?
    No. For instance, some mutations are dominant, meaning that they are also expressed in the individual if only one chromosome carries the mutation. These questions have been taken into consideration since decades or centuries, they are absolutely no reason for evolution not to work.

    I have a question, too: do you agree with me that grasshoppers, beetles and locusts (which are grasshoppers, too), have six legs, although Leviticus 11 says they have four (according to every translation of the bible I have seen, even the "literal" translation of Young, see quote above)?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Genesis 2:19 does not state that the forming of the animals and the subsequent parading of them before the Man happened in strict succession. There is nothing about that text that excludes the formation of Man from occurring between the two discrete mentioned activities.
    That is a surprising interpretation of what is actually written there:

    "And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
    19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name."
    If those sentences don't mean that fowls were made after Adam, then I guess you can interpret just about anything into any text.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You learn fast... No. For instance, some mutations are dominant, meaning that they are also expressed in the individual if only one chromosome carries the mutation. These questions have been taken into consideration since decades or centuries, they are absolutely no reason for evolution not to work.
    Accepted. However, statistically speaking, the chance of survivial to the point of domination within the species would require mating with like-mutated entities. Else, the dominant characteristics would be weaned out.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I have a question, too: do you agree with me that grasshoppers, beetles and locusts (which are grasshoppers, too), have six legs, although Leviticus 11 says they have four (according to every translation of the bible I have seen, even the "literal" translation of Young, see quote above)?
    I lack expertise on grasshoppers. Help me, please.

    I understand that Grasshopers leap with their hind legs.
    I understand that Grasshoppers fly with their wings.
    How do grasshoppers walk?
    Last edited by shopharim; 03/02/2005 at 09:37 AM.
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions