Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 269
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That is a surprising interpretation of what is actually written there:

    If those sentences don't mean that fowls were made after Adam, then I guess you can interpret just about anything into any text.
    You are assuming that the writer was intending to communicate sequence.

    The key to the text is that Man was coming into recognition that the other living things were not compatible. Though they shared origins (formed from the ground), and though they shared characteristics, they were distinct and not suitable for mating.

    The timing of the forming of the lving things is irrelevant to the point of compatibility and suitability. The articulation of the forming of the animals could be parenthetical.
    Last edited by shopharim; 03/02/2005 at 09:47 AM.
  2. #42  
    All this talk of grasshoppers has me thinking I'm watching reruns of Kung Fu.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    How do grasshoppers walk?
    They actually stroll. Many of the gentleman carry walking sticks with gold butterflys on the handle.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    They actually stroll. Many of the gentleman carry walking sticks with gold butterflys on the handle.
    You're starting to "make history", CG
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    You are assuming that the writer was intending to communicate sequence.
    You are assuming the writer doesn't, but when you looking at the text, it is clearly a sequence. It cannot be for you because that would reveal errors in the bible, but again, from reading the text it is clear.

    What is your explanation for the following contradiction?

    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.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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.
    Well, not really, but it is a long story...


    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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?
    Here the quote again:
    "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."
    So now you try to tell me this does not mean that beetles and grasshoppers have four feet? That's not very convincing, I guess most if not all people would be 100 % sure the above means just that... but that cannot be, so I guess you will come up with some explanation?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Well, not really, but it is a long story...
    It is the long story that interests me.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Here the quote again:
    So now you try to tell me this does not mean that beetles and grasshoppers have four feet? That's not very convincing, I guess most if not all people would be 100 % sure the above means just that... but that cannot be, so I guess you will come up with some explanation?
    I have not tried to tell you anything. I asked a question, which you opted not to answer.

    Interstingly though, in your own quote there is the possibility to identify 5 distinct species:

    "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."
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is the long story that interests me.
    Sorry, but I can't go through all the details starting from DNA structure to population genetics. You can find the summary of the basics on Wikipedia, or in Biology textbooks.


    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interstingly though, in your own quote there is the possibility to identify 5 distinct species:

    "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."
    They are not species, but groups of species. However, they have one thing in common: all of them are insects, and insects ivariably have six feet/legs, in contrast e.g. to spiders which have eigth feet/legs.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sorry, but I can't go through all the details starting from DNA structure to population genetics. You can find the summary of the basics on Wikipedia, or in Biology textbooks.
    ok, so give me enough of the the summary version to tell me why you rejected by supposition that even a dominate characteristic would be weaned out if mating did not occur with a like-mutated partner.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    They are not species, but groups of species. However, they have one thing in common: all of them are insects, and insects ivariably have six feet/legs, in contrast e.g. to spiders which have eigth feet/legs.
    Can, I conclude, then, that your position is there is not and never has been a living thing which qualifies as a "teeming thing which is flying, and hath four feet"?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ok, so give me enough of the the summary version to tell me why you rejected by supposition that even a dominate characteristic would be weaned out if mating did not occur with a like-mutated partner.
    "Dominant" means that a genetic trait (e.g. a novel trait resulting from a mutation) is expressed in the organism. Think about a mutation causing a hare to be white (sort of albino maybe) which is good for a hare if climate changes have lead to more snow and a white background of the landscape.

    So it is now more easy for that hare to hide and escape predators. It can collect more food and has a larger number of offspring. Half of that offspring will also carry the mutation and will also be white and will therefore also have more offspring. Obviously, the number and the percentage of individuals carrying the mutation will rise over generations. Sooner or later, also two white animals will mate, leading to some individuals which have two copies of the mutation in their genome, etc., etc. ... simple and straightforward, no? In one word, evolution: mutation and selection for individuals with more offspring.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Can, I conclude, then, that your position is there is not and never has been a living thing which qualifies as a "teeming thing which is flying, and hath four feet"?
    I am not sure what you are up to. You are well aware that the bible mentions grasshoppers, locusts and beetles. You seem to be looking for a funny way out of this, some really twisted interpretaton of what is written in the bible, only to make it sound reasonable?

    However, in order to anser your question: I am aware of only two past or present groups of animals that have four legs and fly: bats, a mammal species like you and me, and birds (not that most people would recognise the wings as legs, but they developed from legs, so I give you the benefit of the doubt). However, let me tell you that bats were already mentioned in Leviticus a bit further up, together with storks, vultures and other "birds". So I guess that rules out that bats are meant in this context, and also other "birds".
    Last edited by clulup; 03/02/2005 at 05:03 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
    -- Ashley Montague
    I like the quote. It shows the openness of science: Science is always open to change in the face of new results.

    One has to be careful about "certainty", though. Because science is always aware of the fact that better data may lead to new conclusions, scientific facts are not labelled as "certain". But, from a practical point of view, what sciene considers a valid idea is very, very, very certain according to "normal life" standards.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    "Dominant" means that a genetic trait (e.g. a novel trait resulting from a mutation) is expressed in the organism. Think about a mutation causing a hare to be white (sort of albino maybe) which is good for a hare if climate changes have lead to more snow and a white background of the landscape.

    So it is now more easy for that hare to hide and escape predators. It can collect more food and has a larger number of offspring. Half of that offspring will also carry the mutation and will also be white and will therefore also have more offspring. Obviously, the number and the percentage of individuals carrying the mutation will rise over generations. Sooner or later, also two white animals will mate, leading to some individuals which have two copies of the mutation in their genome, etc., etc. ... simple and straightforward, no? In one word, evolution: mutation and selection for individuals with more offspring.
    Thank you. Now I can further investigate.

    As I understand your explanation, the principle is that given a "significantly" larger amount of offspring from the mutated hare, even if only half of that offspring receive the expression of the mutation, of that 50% each will have it's on 50%, and so on.

    If I'm understanding that baseline correctly, the key to this selection process bringing a change in the mass population is that the mutation causes a large advantage.

    Otherwise, you would face the following:

    Imagine having 100 ajdfkl's who each normally produce 4 surviving offspring in a lifetime (surviving being defined as live long enough to produce offspring as well)

    If one ajdfkl mutates in a non-advantageous way, the next generation would have 398 regular ajdfkl's and 2 mutated ajdfkl's. The subsequent generation would then have 1596 (398*4+2+2) regular ajdfkl's and 4 (2+2) mutated ajdfkl's The following would have 6390 (1596*4+2+2+2+2) regulars and 8 (2+2+2+2) regulars). At this rate, the mutated population will grow, but never overtake.

    If, however, one ajdfkl mutates in a slighly-advantageous way, to the extent that one regular ajdfkl does not produce offspring, the next generation would have 394 (98*4+2) regular ajdfkl's and 2 mutated ajdfkl's. The subsequent generation would then have 1572 (392*4+2+2) regular ajdfkl's and 4 (2+2) mutants. The next generation would yield 6280 (1568*4+2+2+2+2) regulars and 8 (2+2+2+2) mutants. Again, the mutated population would grow, but not overtake. Though, the growth rate of the regulars would be slower than before. For while the mutants would be doubling, the regulars would be "just-shy-of-quadrupuling."

    Even If, one ajdfkl mutates in an highly-advantageous way, to the extent that 50 regular ajdfkl's do not produce offspring, the next generation would have 198 (49*4+2) regular ajdfkl's and 2 mutated ajdfkl's. The subsequent generation would then have 396 (98*4+2+2) regular ajdfkl's and 4 (2+2) mutants. The next generation would yield 792 (196*4+2+2+2+2) regulars and 8 (2+2+2+2) mutants. The next would yield 1594(392*4+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2) regulars and 16 (2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2) mutants. Again, the mutated population would grow, but not overtake. It just so happens that both populations would be doubling.

    Now, if the mutants begin mating with each other, I suppose you could expect 3 to 4 mutants to result. This would tip the scales in favor of the mutants.

    So, for the mutants to take over, the advantage would have to be large enough to cause a mass majority of the regulars to become obsolete in the next generation. And, the mutants would soon have to mate exclusively with each other. AND, no other factors could change.

    Yet, Dawkins argues that the mutation 'x' would have to be sufficiently small enough to avoid death itself. Recall that a large leap in bio-morph was statistcally ruled out (though illogically in my estimation).

    So, now we're saying that a very small 'x' is producing so huge an advantage as to not only increase its own survival, but to also eliminate the survival of most of its siblings/cousins.

    This makes sense in small populations. But given the relative "rarity" of mutations, it is not statistically sound to assume that a given species will maintain a small population.

    What am I missing?
    Last edited by shopharim; 03/02/2005 at 05:55 PM.
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am not sure what you are up to. You are well aware that the bible mentions grasshoppers, locusts and beetles. You seem to be looking for a funny way out of this, some really twisted interpretaton of what is written in the bible, only to make it sound reasonable?

    However, in order to anser your question: I am aware of only two past or present groups of animals that have four legs and fly: bats, a mammal species like you and me, and birds (not that most people would recognise the wings as legs, but they developed from legs, so I give you the benefit of the doubt). However, let me tell you that bats were already mentioned in Leviticus a bit further up, together with storks, vultures and other "birds". So I guess that rules out that bats are meant in this context, and also other "birds".
    I'm not up to anything. I'm simply trying to address your question. Your whole supposition as I understand it is that the Bible is not to be relied on because of contradictions. You offer the 4 vs 6 leg insect as an example of that. I'm merely pointing out that in the literal translation you offered, the text does not specifically say that the grasshopper has 4 legs. It speaks of a teeming flying thing with 4 legs.

    I actually think you draw a reasonable conclusion that if the writer refers to locusts, bald locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles, the 5th entity would likely be in that same classification. However, your conclusion is not specifically borne out by the text. And, since you have made it a point to attack the credibility of the Bible on such literary precision, it is only appropriate that your conclusions be held to the same standard.
  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #54  
    bravo, shopharim!
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
    -- Ashley Montague
    I was going to let this stand as an interesting anecdote. However, this morning I realized that it presents a false dichotomy. Creationism is in the pale of science. It is one of the plausible, viable schools of thought within the scientific community. Science has not ruled out creationism, some scientists have.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    bravo, shopharim!
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I was going to let this stand as an interesting anecdote. However, this morning I realized that it presents a false dichotomy. Creationism is in the pale of science. It is one of the plausible, viable schools of thought within the scientific community. Science has not ruled out creationism, some scientists have.
    Creationsm is not part of science because it totally lacks scientific evidence. Creationsts believe in creationism because of what the bible says, not because of data they have. Science is about data and evidence, creationism isn't.

    Can you show me a single publication of evidence for creationism which was published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, and not in creationist publications or in news-papers or creationist books?
    Last edited by clulup; 03/03/2005 at 10:02 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #58  
    You seem to be under the impression that the calculations behind evolution have not been thoroughly tested and thoroughly thought through in theory as well as tested and checked in nature... Clearly, you totally underestimate the processes on which science is based on.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    If one ajdfkl mutates in a non-advantageous way, the next generation would have 398 regular ajdfkl's and 2 mutated ajdfkl's.
    No, this is not correct. The carrier of the disadvantageous mutation will have less (or no) offspring, not the same number as the others, so your calculation is wrong.
    If, however, one ajdfkl mutates in a slighly-advantageous way, to the extent that one regular ajdfkl does not produce offspring, the next generation would have 394 (98*4+2) regular ajdfkl's and 2 mutated ajdfkl's.
    Wrong again. The carrier of the advantageous mutation will have more offspring than the rest. Your calculation does not work.
    What am I missing?
    You miss how sound the evidence for evolution is. It has been tested, calculated, observed, challenged, reconsidered, and found valid again and again.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I actually think you draw a reasonable conclusion that if the writer refers to locusts, bald locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles, the 5th entity would likely be in that same classification. However, your conclusion is not specifically borne out by the text. And, since you have made it a point to attack the credibility of the Bible on such literary precision, it is only appropriate that your conclusions be held to the same standard.
    99.999 % of the people who can read Leviticus 11 would agree that this text says that grasshoppers and beetles belong to a group of animals which fly and have four legs. You seem to be willing to switch off common sense and accept some extremely far fetched interpretation of the text, only to evade the obvious: that the bible says beetles and grasshoppers have four legs. You do not accept what is actually written there because it is against your belief that everything in the bible is literally true.


    Look at these lines from the New Testament:

    1. John:
    "He [Jesus] said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".

    2. Luke:
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."

    (A) Do you agree with me that these lines are from the bible?

    (B) Do you agree with me that, from reading what is actually written there, both texts claim to describe what Jesus said immediately before he died?

    (C) Do you agree with me that the two texts state totally different things about what Jesus said immediately before he died?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    I am not a great fan of the Roman Catholic church, but since it represents by far the largest Christian congregation, I think the following view is of interest in this discussion (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

    Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
    ...

    In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position: "In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines." [9]
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions