How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
The problem with the "Left Behind" series, like the Perretti books a few years ago, is that too many folk read them as theology tomes.

---

Exactly. They think that they are documentaries in disguise as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
All I am going to say is that anyone who claims to understand the bad acid trip that is the Book of Revelations is talking out of their arse.

---

​

Just wanted to say thanks for writing "arse" - made me quite nostalgic for home.

​

And of course you're right about Saint John the Crackhead ...

​

LOL!!!

​

---

quote:

---

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).

---

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:

---

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.

---

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I don't think it requires a knowledge of
good and evil to guess that something bad has been
threatened if you do something.

​

---

​

Yes, it does. They wouldn't have known what bad was without knowing what evil was beforehand as well.

---

They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit from
the 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 gods
were ... they could be killed but they would not age and die
of natural causes.

Originally posted by Peter:They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit from
the 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 gods
were ... they could be killed but they would not age and die
of natural causes.Unlikely since there was no death at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

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.

---

You don't need to understand right and wrong to understand
negative consequence.You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, and
that it is undesireable.The above is the basis of all animal training (although one
cannot 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 or
I 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

You don't need to understand right and wrong to understand
negative consequence.

​

You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, and
that it is undesireable.

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

The above is the basis of all animal training (although one
cannot proove that other animals do not know right from wrong
current assumptions are that they do not).

---

I willing to bet that the animals learn the consequences from experiancing them, not from being told what they are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

If I tell my daughter that she must not do something or
I 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.

---

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

Originally posted by Peter:You don't need to understand right and wrong to understand
negative consequence.

​

You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, and
that 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 one
cannot 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 or
I 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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Peter:

​

You don't need to understand right and wrong to understand
negative consequence.

​

You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, and
that 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 one
cannot 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 or
I 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?

---

The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to know
about 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 is
very 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 with
that), 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.

Originally posted by Peter:The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to know
about 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 is
very 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 with
that), 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.

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 to
desireable and undesireable.The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating it
they 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 evolution
of 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's
over reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate
consequence with good/evil judgements.

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 the
Grants 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 breeding
barriers?

Originally posted by Peter: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 to
desireable and undesireable.

​

The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating it
they 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 evolution
of 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's
over 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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Peter: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 to
desireable and undesireable.

​

The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating it
they 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 evolution
of 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's
over 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 effectively
the issue) does not mean that one cannot understand a warning
not to do something.Modifying ones behaviour based upon a warning requires only
an 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 the
fall 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 agree
that 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 this
point, 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 this
thread remain open, and back on track.Perhaps you could make a new thread in coffee house or something
to discuss this matter further. If you decide to do that
please let me know and I'll continue there.