Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

The idea of abiogenesis is completely logical to many if not most theists as well.

no not really. Most theists believe in some format of religion. Very few fall into the free thought (my)neck of the woods.

Believing in religion has nothing to do with understanding science.Free thought is just cheap thought anyway.

Let's make at least a cursory attempt to stay on topic.

Correct. IT is very interesting that science, good philosophy and good theology agree. Free thought is much better than main stream thought.Edited by Alias, : additionEdited by Alias, : deletion

Philosophy has been trying to find it's navel for 2,500 years with no measurable success.Theology? That's a subject with no discernible subject matter.

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

​

Robert A. Heinlein

Science, on the other hand, has led us to huge advances in knowledge in the past few centuries, and in doing so has disproved many of the unevidenced tenets of religious belief and largely ignored the vacuous musings of philosophy.

He does not. Remember that it is your claim, and no one else's that Jacob is making speckled sheep strong.The Bible actually says Jacob manufactures marked sheep and goats, and that state of affairs is the entire point of this discussion. The Bible also says that Jacob chose the strong parents for his breeding experiment.

quote:

---

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

​

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

---

That's pretty danged clear. It is the offspring and not the original parents that are marked with color. And regardless of the fact that you interpret it differently, the above is also the way fundies read it. For example, here is Matthew Henry's commentary on the topic.

quote:

---

According to this bargain, those few that were party-coloured were separated, and put into the hands of Laban's sons, and sent three days' journey off so great was Laban's jealously lest any of them should mix with the rest of the flock, to the advantage of Jacob.

​

Now Jacob's contrivances were, 1. To set peeled sticks before the cattle where they were watered, that, looking much at those unusual party-coloured sticks, by the power of imagination they might bring forth young ones in like manner party-coloured, Genesis 30:37-39. Probably this custom was commonly used by the shepherds of Canaan, who coveted to have their cattle of this motley colour.

---

We can see that Jacob does not believe that the rods make animals or their offspring strong because Jacob only placed the rods in front of the strong parents. He made no attempt to strengthen the offspring of weak cattle.

quote:

---

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

---

And here he avoids putting rods in front of weak parents

quote:

---

42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

---

The result as described in verses 41 and 42 was strong speckled flock for Jacob, and weak, white flock for Laban. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Im guessing that you believe in evolution (understandable). Well greek philosophers argued evolution long before science theorized it. Seems like science is following the foot steps of philosophical idea.Theology has plenty of subject matter including suggestions that the earth brought forth life. It too discusses evolution. No disagreement but science is rather lost without fresh ideas, you know those imaginative ones that come from free thought.IMO, it is better to have free thought because it is the leading path way. I'm not arguing in favor of the toe, just making a point which renders your point and quotes moot.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Philosophy has had a remarkable lack of success over the centuries.And I don't "believe" in evolution--rather I accept the evidence for it. There is quite a difference between that and the approach of philosophy and religion. Theology = "Theology (from Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λογία, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and their influences and of the nature of religious truths..."It would seem only logical that such a study would start by proving the existence of god or gods, rather than assuming that existence and building massive houses of cards thereon. Free thought is a fine idea, but much of it became possible only after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment when people no longer had to kowtow to the dictates of religion.Religions in general, and fundamentalist religions in particular, abhor the very idea of free thought, or of following the evidence wherever it leads. They will tell you how you should believe, and no questions need to be asked!Bah!

Fact is not equal to the toe. The toe is an idea based on facts and so is creationism. Theories change like the wind. No I'm not confusing the usage of the word theory with that of speculation. Religion has never been in control of people except in very early times of most cultures. Religion has been a tool to control the people since the beginning though. I don't think hitler was all that religious do you? He is one example of secular thought that was evil. So don't get to high and mighty about secular thought. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power is the issue not religion. As for your comments on theology and proving that god exists, I don't think that is a fair and logical conclusion/thought since science can't even prove anything. Theories don't quantify to truth/proof. Evidence/facts don't quantify to truth. Ever think, what if god does not want you to know it exists absolutely but would rather have you be free from those chains to see what you will do without that fear/control? And if god was that way, that would be its choice. All the science in the world would be completely blind to it. Perhaps god wants you to have faith vs absolute knowledge... In that case I believe theology has lots to tell you. Do you ever ponder why particles come in infinite types? Even if they find the higgs bosson we still need to figure out those particles that are moving around creating larger mass. Then that will continue on forever to the next smaller particle. Why is it that now we live in a multi verse? What's next? It used to be just a universe.Edited by Alias, : 1 more pointEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : questionEdited by Alias, : gramEdited by Alias, : more

I'm afraid we are getting too far off-topic.I would encourage you to start a separate thread so we could continue these thoughts.

Did you actually refer to a commentary. Lol. OK so it was not to make them strong. Perhaps to help them mate then. Does not change much. Ref to verse 40, which you skipped, then back to my post 17. The rest of your post is moot. If laban removed any spotted flock, etc to cheat jacob how could jacob line up flock facing those spotted speckled flock in v 40??? Answer please! Jacob removed them in 35 had access to them in v 40 and used them to make new spotted ones in 37, 38, and 39. This entire thread is trying to bash the bible that is the point of it. It is not to discuss the verse logically or even friendly. Get it straight. Lol. This website is filled with atheists lol...Edited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : Err

Yes. But only to show you the fundamentalist interpretation. Is there anything inappropriate about that? I supported my own interpretation using words from the text Well that's a start.Apparently you are making this up as you go. Why not just use the reason actually given in the text which says that conceiving in front of the rods produced colored animals. Your post 17 is silly and full of errors at least two of which you have acknowledged. If you have a point, make it.I'll make a point for which it actually does not matter all that much who removed the spotted animals. What we can see from verse 36 is that the colored animals were removed from Laban's flocks (according to you by Jacob) and that Jacob was charged with tending the rest of Laban's flocks. That means Jacob was tending flocks with no colored animals.Again, you try to skip over any verses that disprove your point by labeling them moot. Those verses are not moot. They disagree with your interpretation. Verse 40 provides no help for you.Verse 40 completely trashes your interpretation. I quote it below followed by my comments.

quote:

---

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.

---

First of all, according to your interpretation, which streaked and dark-colored and streaked animals would have belonged to Laban at this point? Wasn't the agreement that all such animals would belong to Jacob? Yet Laban still has colored animals (after, according to you Jacob took all the colored animals). Can you explain that? Not without inventing more stuff, I'll wager.In fact, Laban must have a flock consisting only of colored animals in order for verse 40 to make any sense after verses 34-36. Hmm, I wonder where that flock came from if not from verses 35-36?Secondly, Jacob's animals simply faced in their direction. Yes it is true that those animals were described as being 3 days distant. But so what? That is not a problem with facing in their direction.Edited by NoNukes, : use generic words for flock animals

I am not an atheist and neither is Jar. I am a Christian.You don't believe Jesus walked on water. So why does my failure to believe that the incidents in Genesis 30-31 actually occurred a problem for you.There is value in the story, but the value is not produced by assuming that the rods actually had any biological effect on the sheep. The fundies assume that God's power was involved, but they don't find it necessary to misread the text the way you do. I would suggest that it is your non-textual reading that actually trashes the Bible.

35 does not make it clear laban removed the animals. It would be clear if it read laban removed the animals but that is not how it reads. And in your last paragraph when you admit they are facing laban's colored animals you expect me to believe that they were 3 days apart from Jacob??? Roflol. Now who's making stuff up... Jeez man all you have to do is admit you don't know instead of writing its so clear.... But I can tell you won't. I'll just take that last paragraph as you admitting you re making stuff up as you go... At least I admitted my mistakes. I predict you will respond saying oh no its so clear blah blah blah.. How about this, its clear this chapter is not clear what happened.... I'll agree to that long before I agree to a con/cheat occurring hence post 17 my last paragraph. And one last comment, in my prev posts when I say this or that is moot it's because at times I'm on my smart phone and don't have the ability to respond defeating your posts using quotes formating so to be clear I respond to the broader point that covers your smallers points and I toss in this or that is moot to let you know I read and argued those points in what I did post by defeating your broader point.