Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

An expansion on that story.Esau was the first born, and by tradition was due the birthright. That always seemed a bit arbitrary to me, but certainly having the oldest son get none of it as Jacob manages is no more fair. In his birth Jacob is described as clutching Esau's heel which was a Jewish metaphor for conning and theiving. Jacob's name means 'heel'.Jacob catches his brother at a weak moment in extreme hunger and gets him to turn over his birth right for some food. He does not bother to tell papa Isaac about the deal. I think the implication is that Dad would not have appreciated it, and would have forced Jacob to undo the deal. But never mind the implication.When Dad is on his dying bed, he sends his favored son Esau out for some food, and promises to give Esau his blessing when he returns. In Esau's absense, Jacob and Mom plot to fool Isaac into thinking Jacob is his twin brother, and Jacob executes the plot.Esau comes home, finds out what happens and is furious. Dad realizes his mistake but cannot undo it.After all of that stuff, why even entertain twisting the Jacob/Laban story for the purpose of making Jacob out not a conman. He certainly was.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ty for helping me break down your wittle op claim.Edited by Alias, : No reason given.Edited by Alias, : No reason given.

Alias has admitted his motivation: He doesn't want to bother with actually figuring anything out, so he just posts whatever bullshit he thinks up and lets us do all the leg work for him.

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.

---

and

quote:

---

Anyway, by throwing EVERYTHING at the issue (knowing I could be wrong) it has exposed (thank you for doing most of the research :-P) that we can read the text in a different way utilizing the very same facts

---

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. They must be just giving away those Bachelors degrees these day...Anyways, regarding the claim in my OP, that Jacob used the wood planks to affect the coloration of the offspring, I don't see that you've even bothered to come up with an argument against it.

I'm not Catholic, but my guess is that they might vary somewhat, but not clash.While that sentence specifies only Jacob's "relations", I think it could also sum up the belief that scientific details from Biblical times could have been different from scientific details that are observed happening today. Of course the scientific community believes that any natural law they discover hasn't changed in any way for millions of years, but much of what is recorded as happening in Biblical times doesn't agree with that, the really long lives of people such as Moses, Abraham, Isaac, many others as only one example.Even the scientific community has to admit that things used to be different on this planet than they are today.

So, where is the scientific evidence for those long lives?This thread is in the Science Forums, so evidence is required. Is there any confirmation of those extraordinary biblical claims?

I'd sure like to see you provide some support for that meaning coming from 'that' sentence. Whether or not the scientific laws could have been different, that sentence sure does not seem to say anything like that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You have yet to show a problem

---

The fact that you have yet to even try to refute my argument rather suggests that that isn't true - and you know it.

quote:

---

I don't disagree with nonukes post nor your quote of mine.

---

SInce the quote shows you disagreeing with NoNuke's point - after claiming that you didn't - as NoNukes has also observed that really can't be true.

quote:

---

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

---

I can't make sense out of that. Fix the grammar and try again.

quote:

---

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.

---

And I have evidence - and an argument using that evidence And you've seen that argument - at least you responded to the post containing that argument. However, here you are claiming that that argument doesn't even exist. Want to tell me how you could know that ?

quote:

---

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.

---

That doesn't make much sense because all the animals from the original herd - strong as well as weak - went to Laban. It also requires that all of the offspring were "coloured" which certainly is an assumption and not a very reasonable one.

quote:

---

Whether weak or strong animals were both mated or not does not alter the overall story/my thought that eugenics never happened.

---

Of course it didn't happen. It is a story, not historical fact.

quote:

---

See Paul something you don't seem to get is I don't accept just one thought. I've accepted two interpretations thus far.

---

Arguing for one interpretation over another is disagreeing with the second interpretation. The argument itself IS a disagreement.

quote:

---

The eugenics and non eugenics story are both equally plausible.

---

That's not true. The "eugenics" interpretation fits the story much better, as has been shown.

You'd be surpised. I don't see it saying anything like that at all.But how would that work anyways? You're saying that back in the day you could affect the offspring with pieces of colored wood, but now today you cannot? When did the change take place and why? Law are defined into place. Force equals mass times acceleration because that's how we've defined 'force'. The fact that its the product of those two, as opposed to the difference or whatever, is an undenyable fact.It doesn't matter what time period you're in, the law is the law.Other things we've discovered, though, are known to have varied over the milenia and we even know by how much they've changed. That's because the Bible gets some things wrong. Sure, like 400 million years ago the days were only 21 hours long.But a few thousand years ago, things were not different at all.

There's no scientific evidence for a lot of events that are recorded in the Bible. There's also no scientific evidence for a lot of secular events that have happened since the Bible was written. In addition to not being the only source of knowledge, science isn't the only source of evidence.

Maybe I would be, if I was shown any proof at all of your claim. The change took place about 90 A.D. (when the Bible was completed) God can do things any way he wants, and if he chose to be more visibly involved with biological things (or anything else) during Biblical times than he is today, the Bible tells us that can be quite possible, and logical. Just some things, or everything, according to you?

No problem. You deal with magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.I'll stick with science.

Yes, science, and as we see, emotion. One thing's for sure, if you only use those two and toss out things like written history, tradition, and morals, liberals love you!

What? How would you have me show you proof of what some priests told me when I asked them this question? I see. I would've been nice if he told us and didn't lead us to think otherwise.So, to recap: Your position is that when this story took place, you actually could affect the offsping of your animals by having them mate in front of colored wood. But, as of today, we cannot do that because God changed the world in 90 AD when the Bible was completed. Is that about right?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? Why has God hidden all the evidence of it from us? Well, I mean, it says some right there in what you quoted

You said earlier that you hadn't asked any priests, and I suspect it's because you don't know any priests. 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. "Lead us to think otherwise" - how? By listening to atheist scientists, who reach conclusions first, then find "evidence" that leads to them? That's pretty close. The period of time (1500 or so years) that scripture was being written was a different ~age~ than the time after the book was closed on it. As the final few verses of the book of Revelation clearly states, it is important that scripture not be added to, or subtracted from. From about 90 A.D. to now, has been the age of God's silence, to guard the record and the truth. If atheists choose to mock it, oh well. Satan did some mocking in Biblical times too, must be a coincidence. No way to tell, because I don't know how you're defining the term "evolution" in this particular case. I have no idea, but (as scripture says) his ways are sometimes beyond human understanding. I know that's laughable to atheists, their ingenious method of dealing with a God that they don't fully understand is to declare that he doesn't exist, similar to a child hiding from thunder and lightening under a bed. Well yes that's what you said in that one particular case, but I was just skeptical because of the bigger picture, like so many of your other atheist friendly messages throughout these forums, and your 9.9 member rating on an almost total atheist forum.