|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by blitz77:
Not really. If you mean by sermons by the clergy, sure, they usually aren't in any real depth. But many Christians are in Bible study groups, in which we study each book of the Bible (about 1/2 to 1 term to study one book). In these groups, we discuss and learn about them as a group-we did Revelation last year. Right now we're doing Deuteronomy (which you'd probably agree is one of the harder to understand books). Many such groups may do this, but the vast majority of Christians don't. They completely depend on what their clergy tells them. It has always been like this. Anyway, if you've ever read the Left Behind fiction series (By Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins) about Armageddon, you quite quickly realize how Revelation is applicable. The series has sold >50 million books, so it shouldn't be too hard to find those apocalyptic fiction books (theres about 10 in the series right now). Anyway, even if you don't believe in Christianity, the books are a fun read. (Books #7,8,9,10 have all reached the #1 position on New York Times Bestseller list). I know about this series of books and movies and it is nothing more than fear mongering. They're like that fake news program with Jack Van Impe and his wife where they go through obscure newspapers and magazines looking for whatever they can find which they believe proves that the end of the world is coming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Exactly. They think that they are documentaries in disguise as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But who among you, in these study groups, has any grounding in hebrew, or the culture and history of the time when the Bible is written, so you can make intelligent interpretations and judgements about what the Bible says? I mean, generations upon generations of Biblical scholars who have all the background expertise still do not all agree upon a lot of what it means, so why do you think that a lay-person can? Furthermore, Who among you understands how and where and why all of the various translations came about; there were many political and social agendas which predicated changes to the text. How do you even know which Bible to use if you (most likely) don't know the history of all the changes it has gone through?
quote: Um, that's like saying,"If you've ever seen Star Trek; The Next Generation, you quickly see how time travel is possible." Or,"If you've ever read Nostradamus' prophecies, you quickly see how accurate they are if you liberally-interpret them." [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit fromthe tree of knowledge of good and evil ... it is sufficient to know that god has said you will die if you eat it. They need to be afraid of death for that to work though,so that begs the question were Adam and Eve immortal before the 'fall'? Perhaps they were immortal in the same way that the Norse godswere ... they could be killed but they would not age and die of natural causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Peter:
They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit fromthe tree of knowledge of good and evil ... it is sufficient to know that god has said you will die if you eat it. Why? What is die? What child knows of death and they were as innocent as children. There was no need or experience for any higher level of understanding. As I had said in order to understand negative consequences one first must know and understand right from wrong and good from bad(evil) and thus would have had no need to eat of the apple. They need to be afraid of death for that to work though,so that begs the question were Adam and Eve immortal before the 'fall'? Since there was no death before they ate of the apple than it stands to reason that they were immortal as well. Perhaps they were immortal in the same way that the Norse godswere ... they could be killed but they would not age and die of natural causes. Unlikely since there was no death at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You don't need to understand right and wrong to understandnegative consequence. You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, andthat it is undesireable. The above is the basis of all animal training (although onecannot proove that other animals do not know right from wrong current assumptions are that they do not). If I tell my daughter that she must not do something orI will be cross with her, she does not need to know the difference between right and wrong, only that she does not like it when I am cross with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: And how do people (Adam and Eve) understand the nature of the consequence of death as well as that it is undesireable if they have never know any being or creature that has experianced death?
quote: I willing to bet that the animals learn the consequences from experiancing them, not from being told what they are.
quote: She can only know that she doesn't like you being cross with her if she has experianced you being cross with her, or anyone else, before. Adam and Eve had never died before, neither had they ever seen someone or something die. Your analogies are false. In both cases it is a knowledge or experiance of the consequences that cause obedience to a specific instruction. Adam and Eve had no such knowledge or experiance of death. ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Peter:
You don't need to understand right and wrong to understandnegative consequence. You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, andthat it is undesireable. And how do you know this if you have no concept of pain or suffering either? What is desireabble, or undesireable? The above is the basis of all animal training (although onecannot proove that other animals do not know right from wrong current assumptions are that they do not). They know pain and suffering from experience so pain is bad. There was no pain in the garden before they ate of the apple. If I tell my daughter that she must not do something orI will be cross with her, she does not need to know the difference between right and wrong, only that she does not like it when I am cross with her. Because she may have had previous experience when you being angry with her when she did something wrong. Adam and Eve were kicked out the very first time and never had a chance to learn this. I gave an exampele of a three year old who was told not to go out of the yard into the street yet did the very first time the gate was left open. Do you go by your god's example and toss her out on her own because of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to knowabout good and bad, only about the desirability or otherwise of the consequence. Not the same thing. In your three year old example (which in my experience isvery treu to life) then the child would be scolded, and told that they would be scolded again for not doing as told. The god of the bible's reaction is pretty extreme (I agree withthat), but then this is a being who is so self obsessed that he/she/it created an entire universe whose only purpose was to worship him. Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't guessed, he's not my god ...I don't have one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Peter:
The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to knowabout good and bad, only about the desirability or otherwise of the consequence. Not the same thing. Yes, it is the same thing. How does one know what is desireable or not if one doesn't know what is good and what is bad? Desireable (good), undesireable (bad). In your three year old example (which in my experience isvery treu to life) then the child would be scolded, and told that they would be scolded again for not doing as told. Adam and Eve were not allowed to learn from experience. The god of the bible's reaction is pretty extreme (I agree withthat), but then this is a being who is so self obsessed that he/she/it created an entire universe whose only purpose was to worship him. Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't guessed, he's not my god ...I don't have one. Any parent who acts in this manner doesn't deserve to have any "children". They are totally unfit to have any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn't
really give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending that god's actions. However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous todesireable and undesireable. The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating itthey saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example. It's a social morality thing. It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolutionof socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal morality on others. I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god'sover reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate consequence with good/evil judgements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
In terms of transitionals though, how would anyone
care to interret the following from http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2905/zebxing.html "The Grevy's however is a different species, as donkeys are to zebras or horses. Their actual chromosome count is not the same as theGrants types (Types is used for Wild animals, Breeds for domestic ones) or the Mountain zebras. The offspring do have mixed patterns, but there are very few examples to work from. Many times the offspring are not viable and the mares don't carry to term. They are not as fertile in zebra/zebra hybrids as in horse/donkey hybrids, since the chromosome counts and possible relationship between the species is generally far more removed. (the Grevy's zebra has 46 chromosomes, the Mountain zebras has 32, while the plains hve 44. Interestingly, though the Grevy's seems to be the most primitive appearance-wise, chromosomally speaking, the Mountain zebra is the farthest removed genetically. Also, the Mountain zebra has a body type and pattern which appears to be median between Grevy's and Plains - ie sweeping stripes on rump, but partial gridiron and white belly like Grevy's - so could Mountain zebras be closer to a common ancestor?)." Although I guess that would be a 'root' rather than a 'transitional'it is perhaps incative of evolution in progress?? Or will this 'just' be micro-evolution despite emerging breedingbarriers? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Peter:
I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn'treally give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending that god's actions. However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous todesireable and undesireable. The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating itthey saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example. It's a social morality thing. It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolutionof socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal morality on others. I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god'sover reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate consequence with good/evil judgements.[/QUOTE] They are equated to each other. Bad is synonymous with evil. One can't make any such judgements unless one first understands the difference. They knew no different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Peter: I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn'treally give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending that god's actions. However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous todesireable and undesireable. The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating itthey saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example. It's a social morality thing. It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolutionof socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal morality on others. I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god'sover reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate consequence with good/evil judgements.[/QUOTE] They are equated to each other. Bad is synonymous with evil. One can't make any such judgements unless one first understands the difference. They knew no different.[/B][/QUOTE] Not having knowledge of right and wrong (which is effectivelythe issue) does not mean that one cannot understand a warning not to do something. Modifying ones behaviour based upon a warning requires onlyan understanding of the consequence as undesireable ... not as evil. So 'bad' is not equal to 'undesireable' in this context. 'Don't eat that because it's poisonous and will kill you.'Requires you only to understand what 'eating' is and what it means to 'be killed'. It does not require any knowledge of anyone's morality. God, in genesis, doesn't say it's poisonous, he says that'if you eat it you will die' ... unless he is a very dim-witted creator he would not issue a threat which could not be understood by the very creatures that he had created. The interpretation that there was no death at all before thefall is even contentious amongst religous scholars ... as I found in another thread a few months back. Regardless of that disagreement between our two views, I do agreethat God's response was wrong (even if Adam and Eve understood the warning). It is not the act of the god of love of the NT and modern christianity. Before you respond further ... I think we broadly agree on thispoint, it is on the necessary where-withall to understand a warning that we differ, and that is largely irrelevant to the current debate on transitionals or the lack of them. I'll not respond further, because I would like to see thisthread remain open, and back on track. Perhaps you could make a new thread in coffee house or somethingto discuss this matter further. If you decide to do that please let me know and I'll continue there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024