Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:46 AM
387 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,103 Year: 16,709/21,208 Month: 2,598/3,593 Week: 65/646 Day: 5/60 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 166 of 185 (707131)
09-23-2013 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by marc9000
09-23-2013 8:53 PM


Wrong...
By listening to atheist scientists, who reach conclusions first, then find "evidence" that leads to them?

That is the way religious apologists work, not the way scientists work.

And your extreme bias, referring automatically to scientists as "atheists" and misrepresenting the scientific method, is very telling.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by marc9000, posted 09-23-2013 8:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 167 of 185 (707153)
09-24-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by marc9000
09-23-2013 8:53 PM


You said earlier that you hadn't asked any priests, and I suspect it's because you don't know any priests.

Oh, well I do.

And I went throught 12 years of Catholic schools, so I've met many priests over the years... even some of those spec-op Jesuits that some protestants are on to.

Their beliefs vary by a significant amount, to the point that "clashing" is inevitable. Outsiders of Catholicism seem to think we're all just programmed drones or something. We actually have a decent amount of diversity.

If you just quoted me two conflicting answers from two different priests, I'd probably believe you, especially if I could confirm what they said by doing internet searches to find similar patterns within Catholic beliefs.

Well I already quoted and linked you the Catholics position on the matter, so I don't really see any reason to interview priests.

marc9000 writes:

The change took place about 90 A.D. (when the Bible was completed) God can do things any way he wants,

I see. I would've been nice if he told us and didn't lead us to think otherwise.


"Lead us to think otherwise" - how? By listening to atheist scientists, who reach conclusions first, then find "evidence" that leads to them?

No, by listening to Christian scienctists who arrived at that conclusion after following where the evidence lead. We have empirical evidence that suggests that no such change took place, and we don't have any empirical evidence at all that it did. That leads us to think that it didn't happen. If it really did happen, then we've been hoodwinked, and that wasn't very nice.

That's pretty close.

Ok, I've got the jist of it then.

Now, if what an animal is seeing during mating used to affect how their offspring came out, don't you think that would have a drastic effect on the animals' evolution?

No way to tell, because I don't know how you're defining the term "evolution" in this particular case.

I'm talking about how the animals have changed over time. All of our evidence suggests that the changes have been due to genetic mutations that are random with respect to the fitness of the animal. That is, that what the animal is looking at during mating does not have an affect on its offspring. We also lack any evidence that such thing is even possible, and no conceivable mechanism on how such a process could work.

The only way that it could have actually happened, was in a way that has been deliberately hidden from us.

Why has God hidden all the evidence of it from us?

I have no idea, but (as scripture says) his ways are sometimes beyond human understanding.

So then do you conceide that your position in this debate has God tricking us into thing that the Bible is wrong in this case?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by marc9000, posted 09-23-2013 8:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2013 8:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 168 of 185 (707514)
09-27-2013 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2013 10:03 AM


marc9000 writes:

You said earlier that you hadn't asked any priests, and I suspect it's because you don't know any priests.

Oh, well I do.

And I went throught 12 years of Catholic schools, so I've met many priests over the years... even some of those spec-op Jesuits that some protestants are on to.

Their beliefs vary by a significant amount, to the point that "clashing" is inevitable. Outsiders of Catholicism seem to think we're all just programmed drones or something. We actually have a decent amount of diversity.

I believe there's a lot of diversity within the Catholic church, but I'd like to see how much diversity there is on only this particular issue, that is, if the Bible is wrong in this particular case, concerning only Genesis 30; 37-40.

Well I already quoted and linked you the Catholics position on the matter, so I don't really see any reason to interview priests.

Yes, back in message 99, where you said that this particular issue wasn't addressed at all;

quote:
They just don't touch on the "eugenic" part of the story. I suppose they'd lean towards it being God's will and the carved wood not having anything to do with it, but we've never been that big on taking things super-literally.

So I was wondering what priests would say when directly confronted with the eugenic part of the story. If you don't want to check on it that's fine, let's just go with what you said above (message 99) if they would say it was just God's will and the wood didn't have anything to do with it. Isn't that much different than saying the Bible is wrong? What I'm wondering is if we have some strong evidence that you were programed out of your religious education as a child by an atheist bent science education as an adult?

No, by listening to Christian scienctists who arrived at that conclusion after following where the evidence lead.

So some Christian scientists believe that the Bible is subject to being authenticated by human scientific endeavors? They didn't find this in the Bible of course. I"m also wondering where non-Bible believing Christians get their information about Christianity, if not from the Bible.

We have empirical evidence that suggests that no such change took place, and we don't have any empirical evidence at all that it did. That leads us to think that it didn't happen. If it really did happen, then we've been hoodwinked, and that wasn't very nice.

So Moses parting of the Red sea - hoodwinked? Jonah spending some time in the belly of a whale - hoodwinked? Christ's virgin birth - hoodwinked? Christ's resurrection - hoodwinked? All these things are not scientifically "possible" according to today's scientific community.

I'm talking about how the animals have changed over time. All of our evidence suggests that the changes have been due to genetic mutations that are random with respect to the fitness of the animal. That is, that what the animal is looking at during mating does not have an affect on its offspring. We also lack any evidence that such thing is even possible, and no conceivable mechanism on how such a process could work.

So your belief is that God can do something only if scientists can understand it?

The only way that it could have actually happened, was in a way that has been deliberately hidden from us.

So you have a requirement of God that he makes sure not to hide anything from us? Where does this requirement come from?

So then do you conceide that your position in this debate has God tricking us into thing that the Bible is wrong in this case?

No, my position is that atheist scientists have tricked you into becoming one of them. Since you believe the Bible is wrong in some cases, do you think that God is a trickster?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2013 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2013 10:33 AM marc9000 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 169 of 185 (707672)
09-30-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by marc9000
09-27-2013 8:31 PM


I believe there's a lot of diversity within the Catholic church, but I'd like to see how much diversity there is on only this particular issue, that is, if the Bible is wrong in this particular case, concerning only Genesis 30; 37-40.

Typically, the amount of diversity is proportional to how vague the dogma is. In this particular case, the dogma is really vague, so I'd bet we'd get a whole range of positions on this particular one.

So I was wondering what priests would say when directly confronted with the eugenic part of the story. If you don't want to check on it that's fine, let's just go with what you said above (message 99) if they would say it was just God's will and the wood didn't have anything to do with it. Isn't that much different than saying the Bible is wrong?

It is. A priest who wanted to maintain an inerrant Bible would probably go that route, but one who wanted to be honest about it would probably admit that its just an error.

What I'm wondering is if we have some strong evidence that you were programed out of your religious education as a child by an atheist bent science education as an adult?

How does typing about what priests might say provide evidence for me being programmed? That line doesn't fit there at all. Did you throw that in there later, or something?

So some Christian scientists believe that the Bible is subject to being authenticated by human scientific endeavors?

Absolutely. It'd be silly to just assume that it got everything right and then not ever bother checking to make sure.

They didn't find this in the Bible of course. I"m also wondering where non-Bible believing Christians get their information about Christianity, if not from the Bible.

From out in the real world. We can test the information in the Bible to find out what works and what doesn't. Helping others works. Selling all your stuff doesn't.

You'll even find Bible-believing Christians that figured out that they aren't going to make it very long if they get rid of all their stuff. So they don't.

So Moses parting of the Red sea - hoodwinked? Jonah spending some time in the belly of a whale - hoodwinked? Christ's virgin birth - hoodwinked? Christ's resurrection - hoodwinked? All these things are not scientifically "possible" according to today's scientific community.

Certainly an almighty God can do all sorts of "impossible" things. When the Bible says that God was directly involved in a particular miracle, I have no problem going along with the story.

But in this particular case with Jacob, not only is God absent from direct involvement, the story tells us why the outcome was achieved: its a purely materialistic explanation where the stripes on the wood are what caused the offspring to be different.

That's why its an interesting case. If you want to say that God was involved, then the story is misleading. If you don't want to say that God was involved, then the explanation in the story is just plain wrong.

So your belief is that God can do something only if scientists can understand it?

No, but doing things to the world leaves behind evidence. Your claim about what God did would have left evidence of it happening. The only other option is God purposefully hiding it from us. And that is deception.

So you have a requirement of God that he makes sure not to hide anything from us? Where does this requirement come from?

From the idea that he's generally a pretty good guy. A guy that wouldn't lie to us about what he's having us see.

No, my position is that atheist scientists have tricked you into becoming one of them.

But I'm not an atheist...

Since you believe the Bible is wrong in some cases, do you think that God is a trickster?

I think people have put to much weight into his "authorship".

An all-knowing God, who was also honest, wouldn't tell us that you can colorize your goats by making stripes on wood and having them mate in front of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2013 8:31 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by marc9000, posted 10-01-2013 9:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 170 of 185 (707898)
10-01-2013 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by New Cat's Eye
09-30-2013 10:33 AM


It is. A priest who wanted to maintain an inerrant Bible would probably go that route, but one who wanted to be honest about it would probably admit that its just an error.

I don't think "honest" is the right word, when a priest compromises so much of what scripture says, to the point where he places more trust in the words of men than in the word of God.

How does typing about what priests might say provide evidence for me being programmed? That line doesn't fit there at all. Did you throw that in there later, or something?

Typing that the Bible is wrong is what provides me evidence that you may have been programed. It fits.

Absolutely. It'd be silly to just assume that it [the Bible] got everything right and then not ever bother checking to make sure.

Once Christianity is reduced so far that it's subject to scientific approval by humans, (prohibited at several places in the Bible) then there's no source of absolute truth, because human opinions of just what's right about it and what's wrong about it are never going to agree, especially when enthusiastic atheists are part of the process.

marc9000 writes:

They didn't find this in the Bible of course. I"m also wondering where non-Bible believing Christians get their information about Christianity, if not from the Bible.

From out in the real world.

That's what Catholic-scientist Kenneth Miller says. On page 258 of his book "Finding Darwin's God", he says this;

quote:
"...only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves."

He's actually claiming that nature shows us more about God than the word of God does, yet atheist scientists like Dawkins, Stenger, and many others claim that the same nature that Miller studies shows us that there is no God. It's logical that these two views would really be at odds with each other, that there would be a flurry of debate between these two beliefs. Is there, of course not, these two views UNITE against some political views of creationism, even though neither of them have complete scientific explanations for the origins of life. If Miller (and you) have the most basic knowledge of the seriousness of the conflict between science and religion, the importance of what God (through the teachings of Jesus) expects his followers to do concerning setting examples, spreading his word, and opposing Satan, then your zeal for downplaying the importance of scripture just doesn't pass the smell test.

We can test the information in the Bible to find out what works and what doesn't. Helping others works. Selling all your stuff doesn't.

You'll even find Bible-believing Christians that figured out that they aren't going to make it very long if they get rid of all their stuff. So they don't.

The "sell all your stuff" reference was Jesus talking to ONE man, a way of showing that even following the 10 commandments doesn't make a person perfect. It wasn't a requirement of all people in all situations.

There is a lot of difference in interpreting scripture to determine the best way to behave individually, versus putting actual Biblical history "to the test" (Matthew 4: v7)

Certainly an almighty God can do all sorts of "impossible" things. When the Bible says that God was directly involved in a particular miracle, I have no problem going along with the story.

Different non-Biblical Christians seem to have different problems about what to believe, with only nature as their guide, militant atheists always seem to be anxious to help them.

But in this particular case with Jacob, not only is God absent from direct involvement, the story tells us why the outcome was achieved: its a purely materialistic explanation where the stripes on the wood are what caused the offspring to be different.

That's why its an interesting case. If you want to say that God was involved, then the story is misleading. If you don't want to say that God was involved, then the explanation in the story is just plain wrong.

Of course he was involved - if you think that's misleading, it's because you're making the mistake of putting it to a secular test. Science sometimes thinks too highly of itself.

No, but doing things to the world leaves behind evidence. Your claim about what God did would have left evidence of it happening. The only other option is God purposefully hiding it from us. And that is deception.

So humans have the authority to dictate to God what he reveals to us? Maybe this is something that you and Miller find in nature, but you won't find it in the nature and personality of God, which is revealed to us in scripture.

marc9000 writes:

So you have a requirement of God that he makes sure not to hide anything from us? Where does this requirement come from?

From the idea that he's generally a pretty good guy. A guy that wouldn't lie to us about what he's having us see.

His one perfect plan is so far above and beyond human understanding, we can't even come close to judging his actions that are leading to it. That's something that I'd say even Catholics would agree with Protestants on.

I think people have put to much weight into his "authorship".

An all-knowing God, who was also honest, wouldn't tell us that you can colorize your goats by making stripes on wood and having them mate in front of it.

That's as far as we can go on it, I just think things were different in Biblical times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2013 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 11:42 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 171 of 185 (707933)
10-02-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by marc9000
10-01-2013 9:41 PM


So this thread is to question whether a particular passage really did get something wrong or not. If we're just going to assume that the Bible is God's word and therefore it cannot be wrong, then we can't even begin to ask the question. Or if you do assume that, then you need to reconcile the passage with reality.

Your reconciliation is that things were different back then, and that leads us to a god that is deceiving us. If you're fine with that, then I guess that's that.

It is. A priest who wanted to maintain an inerrant Bible would probably go that route, but one who wanted to be honest about it would probably admit that its just an error.

I don't think "honest" is the right word, when a priest compromises so much of what scripture says, to the point where he places more trust in the words of men than in the word of God.

What better word is there than "honest"? That's exactly what it is. Blindly accepting an assumed premise isn't honesty, questioning your beliefs and testing them for accuracy is.

Typing that the Bible is wrong is what provides me evidence that you may have been programed.

Ah, I see. But that's just based on a false dichotomy: that either you fully accept the Bible is God's inerrant word, or you've been programmed by atheists. There's plenty of grey between those two extremes, so the lack of the former is not evidence of the latter.

Once Christianity is reduced so far that it's subject to scientific approval by humans, (prohibited at several places in the Bible) then there's no source of absolute truth,

That's a good thing. Because what if your source of absolute truth is actually wrong about something? How could you ever know without testing it? You'd just go on believing a falsehood. And if you just assume that its true, you're never going to get past it.

Having a source that you think is absolute truth only hinders you from discovering the real truth. The truth is that you cannot affect the offspring of your goats by having them mate in front of colored wood. The Bible tells us that you can. If we never tested it, and relied solely on the Bible for absolute truth, then we would be thinking something is true when its not.

because human opinions of just what's right about it and what's wrong about it are never going to agree, especially when enthusiastic atheists are part of the process.

You say "especially" but what follows is irrelevant. People are going to have different opinions whether or not atheists are part of the process.

I mean, here we are, two Christians sans atheists who disagree about what the Bible is saying.

That's what Catholic-scientist Kenneth Miller says. On page 258 of his book "Finding Darwin's God", he says this;

quote:
"...only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves."

He's actually claiming that nature shows us more about God than the word of God does

Well sure. Men wrote the Bible, God wrote nature. I like this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:

quote:
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

yet atheist scientists like Dawkins, Stenger, and many others claim that the same nature that Miller studies shows us that there is no God. It's logical that these two views would really be at odds with each other, that there would be a flurry of debate between these two beliefs.

Well, there are debates about that. But also, in the grand scheme of things, its not something that really comes up in our day-to-day lives, so I wouldn't expect there to be a whole lot of noise about it.

Is there, of course not, these two views UNITE against some political views of creationism, even though neither of them have complete scientific explanations for the origins of life.

I believe that God created the world, so in some sense that makes me a creationist. But I also realize that the way the Bible says it happened isn't exactly the way it happened.

Its not a uniting against the belief that God created the world, its against the idea that because its in the Bible then it must of happened exactly that way, regardless of what nature reveals to us is what really happened. Blindly assuming the Bible is inerrant doesn't help us any of us at all.

If Miller (and you) have the most basic knowledge of the seriousness of the conflict between science and religion,

The conflict is only with some religions, particularly the ones that require the Bible to be inerrant.

the importance of what God (through the teachings of Jesus) expects his followers to do concerning setting examples, spreading his word, and opposing Satan, then your zeal for downplaying the importance of scripture just doesn't pass the smell test.

Your smell test needs to be calibrated. Just because I downplay the importance of scripture doesn't mean I've been programmed by atheists to oppose religion. That's just a false dichotomy you apparently believe in.

But in this particular case with Jacob, not only is God absent from direct involvement, the story tells us why the outcome was achieved: its a purely materialistic explanation where the stripes on the wood are what caused the offspring to be different.

That's why its an interesting case. If you want to say that God was involved, then the story is misleading. If you don't want to say that God was involved, then the explanation in the story is just plain wrong.

Of course he was involved - if you think that's misleading, it's because you're making the mistake of putting it to a secular test.

That's the purpose of this thread, though. To question whether a particular passage really did get something wrong or not. If we're just going to assume that the Bible is God's word and therefore it cannot be wrong, then we can't even begin to ask the question. Or if you do assume that, then you need to reconcile the passage with reality.

I think people have put to much weight into his "authorship".

An all-knowing God, who was also honest, wouldn't tell us that you can colorize your goats by making stripes on wood and having them mate in front of it.

That's as far as we can go on it, I just think things were different in Biblical times.

Then you're still left with a god who is deceiving us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by marc9000, posted 10-01-2013 9:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9651
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 172 of 185 (707939)
10-02-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2013 11:42 AM


Deception
Your reconciliation is that things were different back then, and that leads us to a god that is deceiving us. If you're fine with that, then I guess that's that.

I have to admit that I just cannot follow this line of argument. According to marc9000, the Jacob sheep genetics story was written back during the time when sympathetic genetics actually worked. If that is the case, why in the world would the story contain any reference to modern genetics?

If, in fact, no part of the Bible was written during the time of modern genetics, and that seems to be marc9000s position, how would any description of modern genetics appear in the Bible?

Quite frankly, I find marc9000's explanation a bit dubious. But I don't think the 'God is a deceiver' line of argument works here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 12:41 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 173 of 185 (707940)
10-02-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by NoNukes
10-02-2013 12:32 PM


Re: Deception
Your reconciliation is that things were different back then, and that leads us to a god that is deceiving us. If you're fine with that, then I guess that's that.

I have to admit that I just cannot follow this line of argument. According to marc9000, the Jacob sheep genetics story was written back during the time when sympathetic genetics actually worked. If that is the case, why in the world would the story contain any reference to modern genetics?

If, in fact, no part of the Bible was written during the time of modern genetics, and that seems to be marc9000s position, how would any description of modern genetics appear in the Bible?

Quite frankly, I find marc9000's explanation a bit dubious. But I don't think the 'God is a deceiver' line of argument works here.

I explained my reasoning in Message 167:

quote:
I'm talking about how the animals have changed over time. All of our evidence suggests that the changes have been due to genetic mutations that are random with respect to the fitness of the animal. That is, that what the animal is looking at during mating does not have an affect on its offspring. We also lack any evidence that such thing is even possible, and no conceivable mechanism on how such a process could work.

The only way that it could have actually happened, was in a way that has been deliberately hidden from us.


If sympathetic genetics used to work back in the day and modern genetics did not, then science would have discovered that to be the case. The fact that the world that God gave us tells science a story that is contrary to what is laid out in the Bible, is where the deception from God would enter.

So the deception would not be in the Bible, it would be in the world as we see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 12:32 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9651
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 174 of 185 (707942)
10-02-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2013 12:41 PM


Re: Deception
If sympathetic genetics used to work back in the day and modern genetics did not, then science would have discovered that to be the case.

How would science have discovered that CS? Sympathetic genetics is magic and thus it need not leave any impression on a sheep's DNA. And we cannot look at those old sheep now to determine that their phenotypes didn't match the colors that their DNA says they should have had. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that God did not magic up some sheep millenia ago.

So how would that particular bit of Biblical magic be detectable now? And why would God have done that? Well simply to help Jacob out of a jam.

Once magic has been invoked all bets are off, and what marc9000 has done is invoked magic.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 2:52 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 175 of 185 (707949)
10-02-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by NoNukes
10-02-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Deception
How would science have discovered that CS?

The same way we discovered that mutations are random with respect to fitness. We'd just have different data that told us that the environment can affect mutations.

Sympathetic genetics is magic and thus it need not leave any impression on a sheep's DNA.

No, I don't accept that. If the animals coats changed then their DNA had to have changed. And according to the story, it was the mating in front of the wood that caused the change to happen, not magic.

And we cannot look at those old sheep now to determine that their phenotypes didn't match the colors that their DNA says they should have had. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that God did not magic up some sheep millenia ago.

That's not the scenario I'm under the impression that we are in.

The scenario is that the world was different back then so that the mating environment could impact the changes that happen to the offspring. Not that God directly intervened in this particular case.

Once magic has been invoked all bets are off, and what marc9000 has done is invoked magic.

But his magic is a change to the whole world, such that things could have happened back then that don't happen today.

I'm saying that we would have evidence of this (unless it was hidden by God himself), and that since our evidence suggests that the change has not taken place, then either way we are being deceived.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 12:51 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 176 of 185 (707952)
10-02-2013 3:26 PM


I may have been completely wrong
In the OP I quoted Genesis 30, here's the longer version:

quote:
Gen 30 (NIV)

31 “What shall I give you?” he asked.

“Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied. “But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them:

32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.
33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen.”
34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.”
35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.
36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.
38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.
40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.
41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches,
42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.
43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.


My understanding of the story was that Laban was going to give Jacob the, I'll just call them "colored", colored animals from his flock as a wage. In order to cheat Jacob out of the wage, Laban removed the colored animals from his flock so that Jacob would get nothing. Then, Jacob used the colored pieces of wood to have the non-colored animals breed colored ones so that he would actually get a wage.

I read it as saying that seeing the colored wood is what cause the animals to have colored offspring.

Now, if we look to the next chapter, Jacob has a little more to say about the situation:

quote:
Gen 31 (NIV)

4 So Jacob sent word to Rachel and Leah to come out to the fields where his flocks were.
5 He said to them, “I see that your father’s attitude toward me is not what it was before, but the God of my father has been with me.
6 You know that I’ve worked for your father with all my strength,
7 yet your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times. However, God has not allowed him to harm me.
8 If he said, ‘The speckled ones will be your wages,’ then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, ‘The streaked ones will be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore streaked young.
9 So God has taken away your father’s livestock and has given them to me.

10 “In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted.
11 The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’ 12 And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.


Well, for one, that does have God being involved in the whole thing so this outcome of colored animals could be just an act of God. With just the section from chapter 30, there's no mention of God directly intervening.

But further, it seems to be suggesting that the male goats that were mating were already colored ones. That would be the source of the colroation as opposed to the wood causing it.

It really doesn't paint a clear picture though, and its rather confusing. The colored goats were removed from the flock, but could the flocks still interact with the non-colored ones and reproduce?

Does anyone else want to take a shot at interpreting what is going on in this story?


Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 5:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2013 2:18 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 10-03-2013 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9651
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 177 of 185 (707954)
10-02-2013 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2013 3:26 PM


Re: I may have been completely wrong
But further, it seems to be suggesting that the male goats that were mating were already colored ones. That would be the source of the colroation as opposed to the wood causing it.

I don't see any support whatsoever for this interpretation.

Perhaps it is time to move on to another Bible story?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 5:22 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 178 of 185 (707956)
10-02-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by NoNukes
10-02-2013 5:15 PM


Re: I may have been completely wrong
But further, it seems to be suggesting that the male goats that were mating were already colored ones. That would be the source of the colroation as opposed to the wood causing it.

I don't see any support whatsoever for this interpretation.

Gen 31:10-12

quote:
10 “In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted.
11 The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’
12 And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.

The male goats that were mating were colored. Maybe the wood planks were just to draw the colored males over from Laban's flock to Jacob's, or something?

Perhaps it is time to move on to another Bible story?

I don't have this one figured out yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 5:15 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 7:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9651
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 179 of 185 (707958)
10-02-2013 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2013 5:22 PM


Re: I may have been completely wrong
I see it!

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 5:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12769
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 180 of 185 (707975)
10-03-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2013 3:26 PM


Re: I may have been completely wrong
I think the issue is that what Jacob says in chapter 31 doesn't appear earlier in the story and seems to be at odds with it.

There is another way to explain that. Jacob was lying.

And I think that's the answer. We know that Jacob is a trickster-type. We know that it would be perfectly easy for the author to use Jacob's explanation from chapter 31 instead of the story we do get. So why didn't he ? Why is the author's version of the events so different from Jacob's ?

I think that Jacob is saying that God did it to cover up his trickery and justify his claim to the animals. It's the sort of thing that he would do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2013 10:17 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017