Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

I've admitted when I'm wrong. In cases where it has yet to be shown I'm wrong there is nothing to admit. Hence your last post. Its all your interpretation.

The animals didn't mate until they were in front of the branches hence the interpretation that it helped them mate.

quote:

---

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.

---

Branches in front of animals and when in heat and came to drink THEN THEY MATED

quote:

---

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,

---

The females were in heat, jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so THEY WOULD MATE near the branches

In both cases the branches were there and they came in front of the branches AND THEN THEY MATED... READ...

Edited by Alias, : ERR

NoNukes writes: I don't care what you said in post 17.

You started it just like paul and CS.

If you think my statement comments ridicule, then you are extremely weak (and that is ridicule). Perhaps you should have taken my comment to about the weak and ineffective nature of the content in your posts in which you simply state that arguments are moot, go back and read post 17 which does not even address the arguments and contains bad info to boot.

Now were talking translation issues which I've mentioned. It uses the word heat in the NIV instead of conceive from the KJV.

That's a much better argument than the one you used before in which you simply badly paraphrased the KJV version. Let's not pretend that it is the same argument you used before.

Your current argument still begs the question of why you think the strong animals in heat needed help mating, and how the production of colored goats from white goats actually happened. And why would verses 41 and 42 result in Laban getting weak cattle.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

IF you read my last sentence in 132 this is what I said about your post 130...

FYI: I will not be responding to post 130 you should find those answers here.

Yes, that would seem to cover it. Except that most of the answers to post 130 were not in your other response. I note that some of the missed points were in your last post. You still haven't address some of the issues I raised.

quote:

---

I've admitted when I'm wrong. In cases where it has yet to be shown I'm wrong there is nothing to admit. Hence your last post. Its all your interpretation.

---

In other words you refuse to admit that you're wrong even though it has been shown.

quote:

---

The animals didn't mate until they were in front of the branches hence the interpretation that it helped them mate.

---

An assertion that in no way answers the reasoning I put forward.

Hey Paul guess what? I'm going to let the facts I've exposed be interpreted by those reading. I'm done with you. Say what you want. Does not matter to me. FYI: facts don't speak interpret the facts exposed.

Edited by Alias, : Err

nonukes writes: Let's assume that those posts resolve the issue. Given that they were made after your post which drew my response, and even after my response, they don't rebut my comments about your position prior to your being persuaded by Catholic Scientist.

I've answered all your prev questions. If I didn't disagree with a broader point you made that covered all the small points you made then I didn't have an issue with what you said.

Alias post 112 writes: The story reads in 41 that jacob put the branches in front of the strong animals so they would mate in front of the branches. Whenever the animals were weak he did not place them in front of the branches they just went to laban as per 42. Strong to Jacob weak to laban. Says nothing of what you posted.

nonukes post 113 writes: That's exactly what we've been telling you since you joined this thread. And it is entirely consistent with what I said in message 96. Jacob did not put the rods in front of weak, non-colored parents because he did not want to get stuck with the resulting weak colored offspring. By withholding the rods he allowed Laban to get the offspring of weak parents which presumably would also be weak and non-colored.

I never disagreed with this issue. Not sure why you are coming off this way.

nonukes post 96 writes: The point to the story was that Jacob did not make very many weak colored cattle. Any weak colored sheep that got made would still belong to Jacob.

Alias post 114 writes: No actually in verse 41-42 (NIV) it also matters whether or not the animals were strong or weak if they were breed by jacob. Yes weaker animals were possibly permitted to mate but it does not describe it. All it says is that 41 jacob would put the rods in front of the stronger animals to mate when in heat but 42 when the animals were weak he did not have the rods in front of them EVER and that the weaker animals went to laban and stronger animals to jacob (it's an assumption that the weak animals mated, no information is provided as to that point. Hence why I noted that jacob did not breed weak animals.).

nonukes post 96 writes: The story works out perfectly well if Jacob is able to get white cattle of his own choosing to produce dark cattle. And verse 41 says that Jacob can do exactly that.

Verse 41 does not say that jacob can produce dark cattle from white cattle. No where does it read that this happened. This is a interpreted idea based on 37-39 (you don't need to tell me this is what you have been trying to tell me I've understood it was an argument the entire time. I agree it is a possibility but I doubt it is what the story is in genesis 30. Hence all the chit chat...

nonukes writes: What I actually said was that verses 35 and 36 make it was clear that someone removed the animals. Do you disagree with that?

Yep. I've already answered this question though if you look through the posts. It is precisely what we've been talking about in post 17. Some of that post has been debunked. I am still firm on the main idea of that post which is that there was no con and there was no eugenics. Read more recent posts...

nonukes post 27 writes: That's fine. But the claim I am asking you defend is the one I quote below in which you claim that the sheep breeding story can be taken literally.

It can be taken literally. Read the most recent posts. FYI: At the time I think you missunderstood my argument. I was arguing that jacob removed the animals in 35 not lab, and had them with him when he was making the speckled, spotted, and streaked animals of 39. However this idea has been debunked and now it is that laban removed some of the speckled spotted colored animals in 35 but not all of them. Some of them were left AND he had access to some in v 40. It is easier if you follow posts 122-124, 126-129, 132, and 134-137.

nonukes writes: Further, one of your reasons for disagreeing with the mainstream interpretation is wanting to establish that Jacob was not a con artist.

Follow post 121-123.

nonukes writes: I think your efforts would be better addressed at explaining Jacob's tricking his brother out of his birthright or at Jacob's whining like a puppy when he faces his brother after leaving Laban. Esau appears to be 10 times the man Jacob was.

These do not conflict with the idea that there was no eugenics and no con in gen 30. All it means is that jacob was not conning laban in 30 and that there was no eugenics in 30. We can keep the idea that laban was trying to cheat jacob though as he did remove the animals in gen 30:35.

nonukes writes: It appears to me that your sole issue is to rebut the idea that the Bible says that striped rods cause plain cattle to produce colored cattle. You seem to think that CS nitpicking (in my opinion) over the possibility that not all of the colored animals were removed fixes thing. Well actually that nitpicking is unhelpful. The reason is that even if some colored sheep did not get removed, we know that colored goats are not sired or born by sheep of any color. Yet all goats with any white on them had been removed from Laban's herd. So you still need an explanation of where speckled goats came from. If the answer is facing colored sheep, that answer is just as silly as proximity to striped rods.

It does not read ANYWHERE that goats were born it merely reads young were born. In ch 31 where a dream is talking about it it is just referring to a dream (the dream does not state that it happened).

nonukes writes: Frankly, I think the best assumption to attack is the assumption that white animals cannot have speckled offspring. If coloring were recessive, you could expect a fraction of the births to white sheep to be colored. Of course I don't actually know who goat/sheep genetics works...

This does not happen in genetics that I've seen/ read. In my understanding of human genetics for you to have a different color skin than your mom she has to have children with somebody that has different colored skin. The genetic information has to be introduced for a color change. Two white people will not have a black kid and vice versa. A white female having children with a black male may have a black child. I know you know this stuff, it is the same for animals. A white sheep is not going to bear children of speckled, spotted, or streaked without mating with that kind to introduce the alleles/DNA to the oocyte being fertilized. I think it also depends on whether or not there are dormant genes that become active in the offspring. Dormant genes that become active in the off spring might be able to produce something of different color skin say from a white to a darker white.

Edited by Alias, : add

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : Err

I'll respond when I get home to show you.

Thanks for giving me your posting schedule, but I really don't need it.

nonukes writes: Thanks for giving me your posting schedule, but I really don't need it.

I was being considerate. I enjoy reading through these debates and sometimes when the response does not come quickly it is a little annoying but we are all busy with life. :-) Anyway I reposted.

quote:

---

Hey Paul guess what? I'm going to let the facts I've exposed be interpreted by those reading. I'm done with you. Say what you want. Does not matter to me. FYI: facts don't speak interpret the facts exposed.

---

In other words you can't answer my argument so you're going to run away. So much for admitting that you're wrong.

And here's your reaction to NoNukes version of the same argument:
Message 141

nonukes post 113 writes: That's exactly what we've been telling you since you joined this thread. And it is entirely consistent with what I said in message 96. Jacob did not put the rods in front of weak, non-colored parents because he did not want to get stuck with the resulting weak colored offspring. By withholding the rods he allowed Laban to get the offspring of weak parents which presumably would also be weak and non-colored. I never disagreed with this issue. Not sure why you are coming off this way. nonukes post 96 writes: The point to the story was that Jacob did not make very many weak colored cattle. Any weak colored sheep that got made would still belong to Jacob. Alias post 114 writes: No actually in verse 41-42 (NIV) it also matters whether or not the animals were strong or weak if they were breed by jacob. Yes weaker animals were possibly permitted to mate but it does not describe it. All it says is that 41 jacob would put the rods in front of the stronger animals to mate when in heat but 42 when the animals were weak he did not have the rods in front of them EVER and that the weaker animals went to laban and stronger animals to jacob (it's an assumption that the weak animals mated, no information is provided as to that point. Hence why I noted that jacob did not breed weak animals.).

So you say that you've never disagreed with it, and then you repeat your disagreement.

However it's not an assumption that the weak animals mated, it's a conclusion as explained in my earlier post Message 135. The argument that you refuse to even acknowledge.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

You have yet to show a problem. I don't disagree with nonukes post nor your quote of mine. The rods were not used in front of weak animals so it does matter whether the animals were strong or weak as to if Jacob breed them. Also it is an assumption if weak animals mated because it does not say they were breed. A conclusion is based on evidence. An assumption is not based on evidence. When it reads the weak animals went to laban the conclusion is he had weak animals prior to the breeding event that went to laban. So I don't disagree that it is possible weak animals were born (which is why I don't disagree with his quote even though he concluded the eugenics interpretation which is also possible I just don't pref it) but it does not talk about it and I've concluded that they were not. However that point is moot. Whether weak or strong animals were both mated or not does not alter the overall story/my thought that eugenics never happened. See Paul something you don't seem to get is I don't accept just one thought. I've accepted two interpretations thus far. The eugenics and non eugenics story are both equally plausible. I'm just fighting for the non eugenics thought it is the one I accept most. I think it is unnecessary to interpret it that way. The story works fine without it (it is plausible though).

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : err

hat's exactly what we've been telling you since you joined this thread. And it is entirely consistent with what I said in message 96. Jacob did not put the rods in front of weak, non-colored parents because he did not want to get stuck with the resulting weak colored offspring. By withholding the rods he allowed Laban to get the offspring of weak parents which presumably would also be weak and non-colored.

I never disagreed with this issue. Not sure why you are coming off this way.

Because in fact, you did disagree. The last message I saw from you still insists that the weak cattle might not have even mated. You then proceed to argue that it does not matter. Actually it does matter immensely, because weak colored goats belong to Jacob, and weak white goats go to Laban. You claim that you agree with this.

Verse 42 says that the result was that Laban's flock grew weak. This means that there must be a production of white, weak, goats and streaky, speckled sheep for Laban to have. This fact closes the loop on the argument.

By contrast, your preferred mechanism leaves no method for Laban's flock to go bad.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When it reads the weak animals went to laban the conclusion is he had weak animals prior to the breeding event that went to laban.

The alternate conclusion is based on evidence despite your claim to the contrary.

Would it be proper to say that Laban's own animals "went" to Laban? No, because he already owned them. Your reading is a forced an unnatural interpretation, that is absolutely necessary for you. And of course that necessity means that your own interpretation is forced. And given that your purpose for being here at all is reaching that conclusion, we know how to weight your conclusion.

And you do know that weak cattle were born cause that's what cattle do. And you still are attributing some magical affect to rods that was withheld from weak cattle. That needs explaining.

But if the cattle in question were offspring as is strongly implied by the pair of verses 41-42, then the statements makes perfect sense. No need to stretch them beyond recognition. That's evidence.

So both interpretations are possible, but yours is forced in the way I describe above. You conclude otherwise, but I ignore your conclusion as self-serving if not just plain silly. And in any event, it isn't what any literalist could or does use. And that is the topic of this thread.

I'm done with this line of inquiry. It is sufficient for me that you acknowledge the interpretation that forms the basis or this thread. That's progress.

Tone down

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I did not disagree. I said it is possible but I prefer the interpretation that eugenics did not happen and that Jacob did not breed weak animals also that it is not written that weak animals were born.

Apparently you are reading a different version of 42 because NIV reads the weak went to laban not that labans flock grew weak. If we read that they grew weak it does not deter from my pref above regarding eugenics. Could a coupke things. Such as the weak mated and had young or could just mean old like they grew old (weak).

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : Err

CS, please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot.

Then stop acting like an idiot.

I have a bachelor's degree in applied science.

I have also studied the bible since I was about 10 which is roughly 22 years.

You must be doing it wrong, because you've argued against some very basic Biblical concepts - like saying that Jacob wouldn't con somebody when he tricked his own father.

FYI: main stream thoughts are always changed.

So you denegrate main stream thought, but you hail yourself for having a bachelor's degree

But whatever, it doesn't matter because I'm done arguing with you. You've admitted that you're not interested in supporting your arguments with evidence, and that is what we expect aroung here.

quote:

---

(just like CS noted glad he realized that is what I was doing even though he positioned it like it is a bad thing I disagree. I was purposely using the people in this thread to do their own research against their own claims. I don't care about typical processes I do things my way always. Eff main stream thought. If you are going to make a CLAIM and you want to have a conversation about it I am going to MAKE you do the research and post your thoughts exposing why YOU could be WRONG. You will see this is my tac in this thread. Don't care how you feel about it.

---

Yeah well, fuck you and your "tac". I'm not playing that game.