Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bats are birds. Just not our kind of bird.
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 31 of 39 (74173)
12-18-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Abshalom
12-17-2003 3:16 PM


Hope this is not too far afield for this thread, but I would like to know where you get your description of the events leading up to Day One. Sounds like rabbinic commentary. Yes? Also sounds like a lot to read into those simple phrasings we find in the primary text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Abshalom, posted 12-17-2003 3:16 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 10:09 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 39 (74233)
12-19-2003 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by doctrbill
12-18-2003 8:31 PM


Yes, Dr. Bill, I am partially plagarizing Maimonides in an effort to demonstrate the type of convoluted natural science that otherwise extremely keen minds can develop when trying to discover truth while perpetuating myth. For a more modern example of the same, click on this: http://www.e-universe.com/lmfhome/real_eve.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 12-18-2003 8:31 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by doctrbill, posted 12-19-2003 12:10 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 34 by doctrbill, posted 12-19-2003 12:30 PM Abshalom has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 33 of 39 (74250)
12-19-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Abshalom
12-19-2003 10:09 AM


Thanks for the link.
What you posted reminds me a bit of the philosopher Philo (early first century AD).
I have transcribed the following from: The Works of Philo, Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version, 1993, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 0-943575-93-1.
On the elements (Aristotle's) [I (3)] pg.191:
quote:
For after the Creator of the world, reducing that substance, which was in its own nature destitute of order and regularity, into a state of order, and bringing it from a condition of confusion into a distinct system, began to fashion and shape it, he placed the earth and the water in the middle, and the plants of air and fire he drew up from their previously central position to a lofty eminence; and the aether he arranged all round, placing it as a boundary to and preservation of the things within, from which also it seems that the heaven derives its name, causing the earth to be borne upon the water in such a way that it continues dry, which, however, there was reason to fear might be dissolved by water; and this great worker of marvels, moreover, united the air, which was exceedingly cold by its own nature, to fire which is very hot; a most surprising miracle.
About the earth [II (5)]pg. 191:
quote:
We must now therefore consider where God placed its foundations, and in fact, what foundation it has on which it is supported, as a statue is on a pedestal; ...
About animals [III (12)] page 192:
quote:
Those then that are affected by motion, inducing change of place, which we call animals, are attached to the most important portions of the universe; the terrestrial animals to the earth, the animals which swim to the water, the winged animals to the air and those which can live in the flame to the fire (which last are said to be most evidently produced in Macedonia), and the stars are attached to the heaven. For those who have studied philosophy pronounce the stars also to be animals, being endowed with intellect and pervading the whole universe; some being planets, and moving by their own intrinsic nature; and other, that is the fixed stars, being borne along with the revolutions of the universe; so that they likewise appear to change their places.
Philo's work certainly illuminates our understanding of geocentric philosophy as it existed at the time.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 10:09 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 34 of 39 (74255)
12-19-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Abshalom
12-19-2003 10:09 AM


I only quickly perused this article and added it to my favorites for further study. The thing which really grabbed my attention was that the author credits the Leakey family with the discovery of 'Lucy.'
I think Dr. Donald Johanson would take issue with that, especially after writing a book about how he found her!
Otherwise, the author makes a big deal about the Discovery program's lack of documentation while failing to provide documentation for his own wild assertions.
Did you notice the JW flavor of this article?
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 10:09 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Abshalom, posted 12-19-2003 3:37 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 39 (74316)
12-19-2003 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by doctrbill
12-19-2003 12:30 PM


Aristotle/Maimonides' Creation Views
Dr. Bill: (Re: Post #33) There does seem to be a close similarity between Aristotle and Maimonides (who I think were contemporaries) regarding their "scientific" views of material creation and placement of the stars and planets.
Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA
(sorry for the edits, but I'm having a little trouble with this link communicating with my printer or something. Anyway, the footnotes are as interesting as the text.)
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-19-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by doctrbill, posted 12-19-2003 12:30 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 36 of 39 (76959)
01-07-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Abshalom
12-18-2003 8:20 AM


I only raised it because someone suggested that 'bird'
was used to cover all flying non-insects. It seemed to me
that this could not be the case if they were specifically
mentioned later on.
Or maybe just written by different people(s) at different
times/levels of biological knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 8:20 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Abshalom, posted 01-07-2004 9:59 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 39 (76968)
01-07-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peter
01-07-2004 5:17 AM


Peter:
I provided the link to show that even "enlightened" contemporaries of Aristotle continued to interpret creation texts to indicate that birds and other flying, non-insects were assembled biologically, and fully mature, from elements extant in the "firmament above" as opposed to non-flying, land animals created from elements of the "firmament below."
Please excuse my mistakenly attributing the text to Moses ben Maimon. It was written by Moses ben Nachman, a kabbalist.
Either way, the level of biological knowledge should've been much higher than exhibited by Nachman's writing which only attempts to perpetuate antiquated creation myths by embellishing them with nearly incomprehensible, newfangled (for the times), metaphysical hogwash (much the same as we now see from so-called "creationist science").
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peter, posted 01-07-2004 5:17 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 39 (78508)
01-14-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Abshalom
12-16-2003 2:28 PM


There ARE NO errors in the bible.
Getting into technicalites and acting like a crackhead will get us no-where. lets keep this plain and simple.
- All of the highly-learned translators who have always translated the word into bird from its original context must not have found a better suiting word. All that means is that one word could have branched off into two seperate, more specific words.
Stop trying to tear down logic unless YOU have a better solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Abshalom, posted 12-16-2003 2:28 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 39 (78709)
01-15-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
12-15-2003 9:52 AM


I hope this helps where there was supernaturalism.
I agree with Brian here. It is not a semantic nonsense. I got his point. I would also point out that LAMARK was unable to put birds and mamamals on a line from progenitors"" that he terminated monotremes with birds and and mammals on the other side of the rest reptiles etc. If the lateral non-progressive progress of any cell death no matter the level of selection could indicate no matter the analogy the bats as we know them today be lateralled to the other side of Lamarks graph once modern issues of species selection stop being debated then it might be that bats are birds and we would have only a religous issue being discussed here instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 9:52 AM Dr Jack 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