Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing sea creatures
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 85 (175734)
01-11-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thor
01-10-2005 9:36 PM


I would say that this is nitpicking on a new low level.
A possible answer that I could see is that God did not want to spoon feed us everything. It was also written for the people of the past. Imagine if the writer of Genesis had write the book and kept having to ask God, "what was that... tec-to-nic... plates... again, God?"
This is like asking why didn't God give us the speed of light or the exact rate of acceleration by any object toward Earth, otherwise known as g.
I could very easily ask you why Darwin never mentioned anything about genetics, a very vital part of the theory of evolution today, but that would be committing a logical fallacy.
One of the few facts that creos and evos agree on is that the bible ain't a science textbook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thor, posted 01-10-2005 9:36 PM Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Thor, posted 01-11-2005 6:19 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 29 by DBlevins, posted 02-13-2005 11:26 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 85 (175860)
01-11-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Thor
01-11-2005 6:19 AM


Thor writes:
Saying "creatures of the sea" rather than "fish of the sea" is not what I would call "spoon feeding" us the secrets of science.
You also have to remember that Genesis was translated at least 4 times before the English version we have today. Ancient Hebrew was very primitive. The writing language itself had no vows, spaces in between the words, and punctuations.
We really have no idea how the ancient people used the word that eventually got translated to "fish" for. It is entirely possible that they used the Ancient Hebrew word to describe "fish" as well as other sea creatures.
To use modern way of thinking on something as ancient as Genesis is simply silly, oh great god of the Norse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Thor, posted 01-11-2005 6:19 AM Thor has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 85 (184746)
02-12-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
02-12-2005 5:23 PM


Re: how are you
the frog writes:
Right, but presumably God knows the difference, and its his book, isn't it?
Yes, but it was man that wrote them down.
I don't know about you, but when I tell people what I learn in my physics classes (quantum, electrodynamics, etc...), I often find myself having to use lots and lots of layman's terms just so they could understand.
Perhaps when God inspired people of the accounts of Genesis people were primitive enough not to see a difference between fish and everything else in water. After all, they were all water dwelling creatures, and their name was "fish".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2005 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 11:11 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 16 of 85 (184759)
02-12-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nighttrain
02-12-2005 6:49 PM


Nighttrain writes:
Does this include bacteria? Creatures moving along the ground? How about viruses? Or hadn`t they been 'created' yet?
One might also say that viruses and bacteria are the only creatures left that we haven't been able to dominate over. If anything that can dominate over us, it's viruses and bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nighttrain, posted 02-12-2005 6:49 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 85 (184869)
02-13-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 11:11 AM


Perhaps, but again you are trying to use YOUR understanding of the matter and try to apply that to ancient people.
Here is an example of how a primitive language can resemble so-called retardedness.
In the Vietnamese language, there is only 1 word for "green" and "blue". Wait a second, were the Vietnamese in ancient times all colorblind? Were they all retarded enough to not notice the difference between something that is green and something that is blue?

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 11:11 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 11:44 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 25 by Nighttrain, posted 02-13-2005 7:35 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 20 of 85 (184876)
02-13-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 11:44 AM


the frog writes:
What is the difference, exactly? Is it possible that people in English-speaking cultures are percieving a difference that isn't necessarily there simply because we have words for the difference?
Bingo!

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 1:39 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 22 of 85 (184903)
02-13-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 11:44 AM


the frog writes:
You don't have to have a concept of the wavelength of light to understand that not everything in the sea is built the same way, and that fish are built differently than things that are not fish.
I could say the same thing about blue and green, and that there is a distinct difference between the two color (plants and the sky). Yet, people chose not to use two different words for the two colors.
I am stating that it might have been the case that to the people back then it wasn't important to distinguish between different creatures of the sea and that they were all "fish"- sea dwelling creatures.
Ancient people who were not retards. Honestly how long do you think it would take to explain to someone that not everything that lives in the sea was a fish? Especially if you're God?
I seem to recall stating before that a loving God would have not spoon feed every single detail of the natural world to his children. Otherwise, what's the point of human endevor?
Adam: Hey God, what's light made of?
God: I ain't doing your homework for you. Figure it out yourself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 2:33 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 85 (184947)
02-13-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 2:33 PM


the frog writes:
But God would have known that it was important, since he did create them in different kinds and all. So don't you think he would have insisted on the right nomenclature? And don't you think his people would have taken his word for it?
Depends on what you mean by the right nomenclature... whatever that word means.
The problem here is we are second guessing what God ought to have done. Not how it works. Remember that you can poke holes in anything if you nitpick it hard enough.
And I agree, of course. But that's not the kind of God that would expect Genesis to be taken as a literal science textbook.
I am stating that it might have been the case that to the people back then it wasn't important to distinguish between different creatures of the sea and that they were all "fish"- sea dwelling creatures.
But God would have known that it was important, since he did create them in different kinds and all. So don't you think he would have insisted on the right nomenclature? And don't you think his people would have taken his word for it?
I seem to recall stating before that a loving God would have not spoon feed every single detail of the natural world to his children.
And I agree, of course. But that's not the kind of God that would expect Genesis to be taken as a literal science textbook.
Well, you've taken the YEC crackpots' words too seriously. See this post.

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 2:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 7:58 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 30 of 85 (185005)
02-13-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by DBlevins
02-13-2005 11:26 PM


DB writes:
The point being that if god had given "breath" to the biblical writers, you would think that he would have made his "supreme" knowledge unequivocal.
Well, here is something to think about.
I am a starcraft player, a damn good one, too! You know what us sc players do beside playing against one another? We would try to find every bug there is and use it to our advantage. I'm proud to say that I was one of the first to figure out how to "float a drone", for those of you that are sc literate. We have also invented tactics that the original creators of sc never intended. We have given names to countless strategies that were never thought of by the original creators. We have created literally thousands and thousands of different scenarios that were never intended by the programers.
For example, I took part in designing a scenario called WW2. In it, there are 7 players and a computer. Players would control Spain, France, Germany, England, USSR, Italy, and Norway. The comp controls all the neutral nations in the world.
We have also created a world wide war. In this, we have USA, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, England, and Japan. The comp controls every nation in the world. It took us a long time to create all the triggers (like d-day, battle of the bulge, pearl harbor attack, battle of midway, etc) and give everyone the man power and resources that resembles the real war.
Was any of this intended when they created SC? Hell, no.
Actually, I know some people that have beaten some original programers at their own game.
The point is the designer would design stuff but then how to classify, use, or whatever is left to the users. Sometimes, we even name and do things that was never intended by the designer.
Perhaps the bible is as vague as it is because God wanted us to be creative.
I seriously doubt that I would be as good as I am in starcraft if I was spoon fed every strategy from the beginning.
My point being that he could have put science in there to make a case for his supreme-ness a lot stronger.
Look, I could have put in permanent marker on my forehead the words "I'm gay" just so it would be easier for other gays to recognize, but I, as an intelligent and sentient being, chose not to. After all, have you any idea how hard it is to find other gay guys outside of clubs and stuff? And no, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a gay-dar.
This message has been edited by Jacen, 02-13-2005 23:45 AM

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by DBlevins, posted 02-13-2005 11:26 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 02-17-2005 2:58 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 47 of 85 (186429)
02-17-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Brad McFall
02-17-2005 9:07 PM


Re: Crtitique of teleological judgement
Dude, I have no idea how to take that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2005 9:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 02-23-2005 2:40 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024