quote:4000 years ago. For the first time, dieties which can be seen and heard by the senses were overturned.
Please show us where you have evidence of this.
The source is the OT, which introduced monotheism. Abraham was 4000 years old; some of the laws were already given here [eg: circumsizion; ONE GD; etc], which is 400 years before Moses.
quote: Its a scientific premise: when one believes in a Creator - or any underlying control source, or even the lack of it - that source has to be, at least, transcendent of what is universe contained.
Why is this the case? Please clarify this statement. Thank you.
What I mean is, ultimately there is one source as far as origin ['first'] goes, and this applies to everything and all views. And whatever one believes or accepts as the creator of the universe - that source should be transcendent to the creation. This may appear to reverse evolution, which says growth comes by evolvement, as opposed the original source being the transcendent factor to all its subsequence. But this premise is based on a random growth with no origin or source or controller or control factor at the helm, which creationism rejects.
You do realise that the Epic of Gilgemesh is older? As is the Decent of Inanna.
Yes, for sure. The epic is not a book but a manuscript found in Persia, but subscribed as babylonian, and it is not in alphabetical script, as is the hebrew. The hamurabi docs dating is in dispute, and it has no surrounding evidence to affirm its date. However, lets give it the benefit of the doubt: it contains some laws which parallel the OT, and this is fine in such a case, because it can also serve as an affirmation of the flood, and that some of the OT laws were already in existence. Abraham appeared some 1600 years after Babylon, and the OT acts as a validation of which laws are correct and which were not, and thus the incorrect laws were discarded. It is harder to correct, than to study and understand MC2.
quote: This may sound familia:
The Flood… …. Thus was treated… Then did Nintu weep like a… The pure Inanna set up a lament for its people, Enki took counsel with himself, An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag…, The gods of heaven and earth uttered the name of An and Enlil.
Then did Ziusudra, the king, the pashishu of…, Build a giant…; Humbly, obediently, reverently he…, …the gods a wall… Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.
I know it well. It contains plural gods, and head bashing dieties which was not seen in the OT, while it also contained advanced laws for humanity, which are contained in the OT. This, and the pyramids, shows there is wisdom in all nations, extending to India and China; the OT may not be the first source for all good laws, but it is the most comprehensive set of laws, all of which are world accepted; its transcendence is in disregarding incorrect laws, while affirming correct laws, and also supplying 100s of new laws which never existed before, including monotheism, democracy, inalien human rights, equal rights for rich or poor, animal rights laws, environment laws, contractual and copyright laws, superannuation and welfare laws, etc.
quote: Even if Moses did write the Pentateuch he wrote it in a post Abrahamic time.
Correct. But he wrote it retroepctively, going well before Abraham. It contains archeologically authentic contemporary names, diets and places some 2000 years prior to Abraham, which is a point of mystery for me. These are not made up names later, and includes 1000s of names of generations, with dob and dod's, which inclusion in the OT seems a potent factor today.
quote: What was the city Abraham came from again? Could it be the post Sumerian flood city of Ur?
IamJoseph writes: Controversial issues such as incest and beastiality, which have never been confronted before, are dealt with in the most proper manner,
I dare you to read the Epic of Gilgemesh and say that again. IamJoseph writes: All laws, bar none, the world accepts in their institutions, have come from here - exclusively; how is this possible? Not a single worldly law comes from any other theology or philosophy till today.
LOL; never heard of the Code of Hammurabi, have you?
Ur. Yes, Hamurabi does contain the law of incest, I grant you this - though it was mandated for political reasons, to retain a family's wealth, as opposed its moral implications; the OT lists all the family trees which are regarded biologically incest. It is forbidden for a woman to marry her nephew, but not a man to marry his niece. But this belief system and nation does not exist anymore. My post says the correct laws are all contained in the OT, as opposed all originating there, and are the first alphabetical books.
quote: IamJoseph writes: Historically, a host of cultures, nations, countries, kings and events are mentioned which knowledge is not available elsewhere; 3000 year historical figures, such as King david, are scientifically proven - while we cannot do the same for 2000 and 1500 year figures.
Yawn. This is too easy. I take it you have never heard of the Sumerian King List?
I have heard of it. Very little data is here, relating to one spacetime only. In contrast, the OT lists 100s of such nations, with dates and aerial mapping descriptions of the terrain, which are not available elsewhere. All reference to Abraham and his thread of Ishmael and Isaac, is not seen anywhere else; same with the nations listed in what is the first recorded crossing of the Arabian desert via a new route.
quote: Hmmm, how about this for lasting appeal:
"So the Sumerians invented calendars, which they divided into twelve months based on the cycle of the moon. Since a year consisting of twelve lunar months is considerably shorter than a solar year, the Sumerians added a "leap month" every three years in order to catch up with the sun."
Lunar calendars were around, but not with lunar, solar and earth movements, the only one scientifically vindicated - and which came with the OT. This is the oldest and most accurate calender - it was required, as many OT laws were seasonal, date, day and time based.
Are you really comfortable with that, and does it mean it is thereby not possible for life to exist, emerge or evolve elsewhere [different conditions], or do you mean, other reasonably similar to earth conditions would surely result in life?
I mean you're not going to get a zebra on Pluto because Pluto is nothing like Earth. If there is life on Pluto it is very very very very very very different from life here. Pluto has a very thin atmosphere (during the parts of its orbit when it has an atmosphere) of nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide. It has a surface temp of around 44K. Zebras can't live under these condition. I would imagine that the vast majority of transitional species between your hypothetical virus and the zebra couln't live in these conditions.
If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
This is nonsense. All i'm trying to point out to you is that because of the extreme differences in enviroment between Earth and Pluto, you're not going to have the same organisms evolve. It has nothing to do with evolution only working on Earth.Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
If you know of an older, alphabetical book, then enlighten us?
The Bible isn't alphabetical; dictionaries are alphabetical. I think the word you mean is "phonetic", but the fact that Hebrew has a phonetic writing system doesn't strike me as anything but trivia, an artifact of Hebrew's descent from Aramaic (I'm talking about the writing system here), which itself descended from the Brahmic scripts of India.
And obviously, examples of that writing are known. People didn't invent writing to write the Bible, Joe. They had been writing for centuries before the first records of the texts that formed the Bible. Some of those manuscripts survive to this day.
I dont think so: the term legitimate is hardly limited to child birth or ToE, specially not so in the context it was positioned. The irrationality claim applies to faulty grammar rendering, and is yours. Ever heard of a legitimate defense?
You didn't answer my question again, but babbled on to yourself.
Babbling can also be described as not seeing where science is on display.
You didn't answer my question again, but babbled on to yourself.
I did refute them by showing numerous other reasonings apply than what was concluded in ToE. You did not refute nor acknowledge the first scientific reference to the universe as finite, a premise introduced in genesis.
Saying you did something you did not do is a falsehood. Babbling is not a refutation nor the presentation of an argument.
Equally, you show a delusion in not seeing science where it is evidenced. You have not shown any alternate scenario to the universe being finite.
Because it is irrelevant to evolution, and being irrelevant does not contradict - no delusion involved. Babbling about whatever comes into you head does not constitute an argument.
Babble is not being able to disprove by evidence, and resting on excuses resting on semantics only.
No, babbling is pretending to say something while talking about something else, usually fantasy, using words that are meaningless in the context used and terms that are used with non-standard but not provided definitions. Take:
Speciation is a form of osmosis: both incorporate change and exchange. Its about perspectives.
It can - by the princple basis being applied backwards. ToE is not a free floating principle without any foundation: nothing is.
As examples. Babble. A rational person wanting to talk about evolution uses the terminology of the science. Any person not using the proper terminology is not talking about the science, but something else.
Using technical seeming words in unusual ways, and in fields other than ones where they are normally used, shows both a lack of understanding of the terms and a lack of understanding of the fields being discussed. When you introduce unnecessary terminology and use words in ways such that their normal definitions cannot be applied, it does not enhance communication but obscures it. It is babble and the reason people treat your posts as if they were written by a babbling simpleton is because they are written in the way that a babbling simpleton writes.
Yes, it does. The 'result' best evidences and vindicates what a process is saying. And ToE relies on runaway time periods, qualified with elusive transit twists and turns, which results never vindicates itself in reality: this allows ToE an immunity from evidencing an amoeba or root plant becoming a zebra, even when this is exactly what it is saying when properly examined, and prefers not being asked to evidence itself as does genesis. Here, I pointed out that the time factor is irrelevent, and gave actual examples: the runaway immunity subsequently does not apply. ToE must thus evidence its claims in reality - as does genesis: if the time factor does not apply, the transit phase time factors also do not apply. This means to evidence ToE, a life form evolving into another should be seen as commonplace and pervasively. Pause from ToE an instant, and examine my premise in any reductionist example: I suggested blue marbles turning to red marbles every 10 days, on an on-going basis. The latter must thus be seen at all times occuring in our midst - w/o pause and w/o any other affectations applying.
Meaningless irrelevant babble, with nothing to do with evolution or a rational approach to understanding..
You introduced the mutation factor. I suggested it is not an evidence of speciation, only a deviation and still fully contained in that kind of life form. I gave an example that a percieved similarity on two life forms can have other reasons than that proposed by ToE.
Except you were talking about evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and cancer cell becoming zebras, not about speciation.
I did deal with the issue. It means life forms emulate traits they see elsewhere. Humans are a life form which emulates traits of other life forms: it does not evidence ToE. Humans in africa may become darker skinned by environmental factors - not by those listed in ToE: both, human traits and environmental effectations are examples of an effect independent of ToE claims.
You dodged again. You were talking about tail lights.
This is not so. It requires ToE to be demonstrated w/o the impact of the seed, irrelevent of the dna factor. This is especially the case if you view the dna as common to both premises is taken. E.g: if you say red marbles turn to blue marbles every 10 days, because of gravity appling to both colored marbles equally, then the gravity factor does not apply to any one marble only as being the source of effectation. The dna has no impact here, and must still be shown to foster the same result: this is not the case, and by your own criteria. In contrast, genesis does not suffer this problem: the seed transmission is uneffected by ToE claims, and thus stands as the operable factor.
Repeating your assertion and adding more irrelevant babble does not refute the issue of hereditary traits being only transmitted by DNA inside the fertilized egg cell. This is an observed demonstrated fact, as noted, and continued denial is just evidence of delusion.
Then take another stat in genesis: that life forms began as a dual-gendered entity. This is not babble but a variant logical and scientific premise: to get blue and red marbles from one original marble, it has to contain both propensity traits. The original seed has to contain a propensity to result in either male or female offsprings. Its not babble.
Which of course explains the fact that some 90% of life -- by weight -- is single celled and asexual. Looks like you are babbling again as there is no relationship between what you are saying and reality.
If the dna carries hereditory traits, ...
There is no "if" involved: DNA carries hereditary traits, this is an observed demonstrated fact.
... it corresponds with genesis and the host parentage source in an evidential and observable manner, as can be seen in dna evidencing in legal court actions today. But that a human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra, is not as evidential or observable, and has not been accepted or ratified in an open legal court case: why so? In any case, this dna connection corresponds with genesis, and is not a negating factor of it: yet you posit is as such, and accuse me of babble!
But it is babble because -- among other things -- nobody ever said that "human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra" and all the other nonsense you keep spouting.
quote:I mean you're not going to get a zebra on Pluto because Pluto is nothing like Earth. If there is life on Pluto it is very very very very very very different from life here. Pluto has a very thin atmosphere (during the parts of its orbit when it has an atmosphere) of nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide. It has a surface temp of around 44K. Zebras can't live under these condition. I would imagine that the vast majority of transitional species between your hypothetical virus and the zebra couln't live in these conditions. If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
This is nonsense. All i'm trying to point out to you is that because of the extreme differences in enviroment between Earth and Pluto, you're not going to have the same organisms evolve. It has nothing to do with evolution only working on Earth.
My point referred to the term, Adaptation, not the environment. Namely, does the provision of adaptation apply only to one set of harsh conditions, that of earth, and no other; this appears what is being said. There are a miriad of differing conditions on earth, so if adaptation has any substance, it should apply in other harsh conditions, at least one in our solar system or the nearest galaxy.
Otherwise, there may be another factor performing the work of adaptation, which in any case is only an improvised academic term applied to all changes and prevailings of life forms: it is not a provable factor, and is akin to Nature; Creator; Bad Luck; etc. We use the term Adaptation generically and pervasively, applicable to all life forms, in all manner of varying and differing harsh conditions on earth, without any proof whatsoever it is the factor responsible for what is claim of it - yet it is a blatantly absent factor outside earth.
There is no scientific verification process here, because only an academic name is available, and nothing else, making it akin to terms used in religious beliefs. The search for water has been made, with the assumption life cannot exist without it, which is here used as a substitute for adaptation, and to prove its validity. But this would not assist even if water was or was not found; it is the 'adaptation' factor which has to be substantiated - and this can only be validated if life existed in conditions 'different' from earth - else adaptation becomes defunct. It is reasonable to apply the same criteria of verification of ToE, as demanded of genesis, if not not far more: if adaptation was presented by genesis - it would be rejected as a myth absent of any proof. Yes/no/plausable?
Namely, does the provision of adaptation apply only to one set of harsh conditions, that of earth, and no other; this appears what is being said
And you're wrong, this is not what's being said. Way back in post #242 you asked:
would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
And my answer was:
No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.
Nobody said that evolution only occurs on Earth. What was said was that because of the different enviroment on Pluto you would not have any earth-like organisms evolve. I repeat: Evolution is not limited to life on Earth!.
Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
quote: The Bible isn't alphabetical; dictionaries are alphabetical. I think the word you mean is "phonetic", but the fact that Hebrew has a phonetic writing system doesn't strike me as anything but trivia, an artifact of Hebrew's descent from Aramaic (I'm talking about the writing system here), which itself descended from the Brahmic scripts of India.
Alphabetical books, not alphabetical listing, is what was obviously meant here.
Re descent of hebrew. I'm aware that most searched links place hebrew as 3rd or 4th atop the list, which is fine, because the hebrews were a relatively late comer in the ancient scene. India is an older culture, and should logically have pre-dating writings, because mental prowess is time related. However, my personal research and investigations show different results: India does not possess an earlier alphabetical writings in hard copy, certaonly no alphabetical books, and it should have abundent examples of these: she was a very active ancient trading nation, the red color in the pyramids was supplied by India 1200 years before Abraham existed. Additionally, there are no periodical transit writings throughout India's history, till much later on, to periods outside the early writings circle. Sanscrit is not as old as once imagined.
The current Hindhi alphabetical script is 99% the same as the hebrew, in alphabet designs and ancient word meanings: man;adam[heb];adami[hindhi]; 1000s of such examples are available. Here, unless hard copy precedent indian writings can be proved - I would say the indian alphabetical is derived from the Hebrew, probably around 700 BCE when the israelites were exiled to Babylon [Mesopotamia], and landed in India via the Mesopotamium empire invasion, at which time the hebrew was already in the alphabetical mode. There are some explanations how and why a later nation can emerge with a more advanced writings, but let me not deviate too far from the subject here.
In the m/e, the situation is even more surprising: despite that phoenecian alphabeticals are often referred to as a prototype of the hebrew, there is no alphabetical books found to identify this culture, which survived a 1000 years after the hebrews emerged, and were a far more mightier nation. Most of the phoenecian writings refer to bits and pieces of commercial reciepts and tomb epitaphs, w/o historical references such as dates. This syndrome also applies to ancient Egypt and Babylon: no alphabetical books for a 1000 years after the Hebrew. I see an anomoly here: either hebrew predates those, or some explanation is forthcoming of the inexplicable vacancy here.
quote: People didn't invent writing to write the Bible, Joe. They had been writing for centuries before the first records of the texts that formed the Bible. Some of those manuscripts survive to this day.
Sure, this is the commonsense and logical position, and any divergence from it requires serious substantiations. The aspect of which writings came first is not much of a merit, as this is time factored, and one nation cannot control when they emerged. But equally, can you offer any explanation why ancient egypt, sumerian, phoenecian, chinese or indian writings - have not the same ancient output as the hebrew, in most cases being bereft of any finds - in terms of hard copy proofs in a consecutive thread evidencing their history? Here, it is of coz possiible that these exist and may still turn up in the future, but it is somewhat suspicious in light of the many nations mentioned which display no such evidence of advanced or simple alphabetical books which describe their own histories. We know that there is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, jacob, etc from any other source than from the OT, despite that many nations interacted with these figures.
quote: And my answer was: No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.
Yes, you did say so, but does this not mean that Adaptation does not occur in other harsh environments than earth? Else how would one prove the premise of it? The other planets have a 'different' set of harsh conditions from pluto: but still no results any place.
Nobody said that evolution only occurs on Earth.
What is the basis for such a premise? On the probability factor, there is no life in the known and observable universe, which translates to no evolution elsewhere.
quote: What was said was that because of the different enviroment on Pluto you would not have any earth-like organisms evolve.
But there is no non-earth-like life either, any place we look, via space missions, telescopic views and other imprints - not for at least 4.5 Billion earthly years.
quote: Meaningless irrelevant babble, with nothing to do with evolution or a rational approach to understanding..
I gave you examples on the specific factors of ToE, which you responded as babble, namely an imprint in a fossil resembling another, does not necessaily prove what is concluded of it - that both are connected; numerous other reasons can apply. I sited that life forms can emulate other life forms traits, and this does not conclude speciation - the example of birds and planes here, is hardly outside the subject point or babble - even if it is not your preferred selection of criteria, as presented by ToE scientists!
Let me go further for you: even if 2 or 3 parts of a jigsaw puzzle [the kind we all used as children], were connected with exacting parts on two life form relics - it does not mean what ToE has concluded of it - even allowing for the notorious reconstructionism undergone in ToE science labs! Why? because we have no surrounding evidences which match that conclusion: those parts of the jigsaw could have been dislodged there by the wind or tsunami, or grown out of consumed foods and simply continued to grow for some time. Such periphery impressions, used to make epochial conclusions, at best come under circumstantial evidences, not proof, and they become cancelled as evdential candidates by the lack of required surrounding and extra back-up proof. No one found a half zebra and half-whatever; we should have millions of these, w/o pause.
Now I should accuse you of babbling: you had no response at all in defining what an 'on-going process' is, and how it must display itself against the millions of years scenario presented by ToE's casino science. I gave you examples of blue marbles turning red every 10 days [recall it?]: when exactly does the process cease in this on-going process - will we cease seeing blue marbles turning to red ever - why?
quote: There is no "if" involved: DNA carries hereditary traits, this is an observed demonstrated fact.
Don't believe everything you believe. FYI, I have no problem with an underlying imperical process in any of the universe's structures, in both the micro and macro, and this is blatant and not debatable. The human body, gravity and pineapples verify this. I have only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE, such as the extent of the pervasive speciation referred to therein, which I see as limited with definitive borders. I can see that graduations and advancements [adaptation] occur - as we see in ancient and modern man - however, this factor, as well as NS, are seed derived - but totally; and ToE cannot evidence itself independently of this factor.
Most ToE enthusiasts become lost in the nuts and bolts of premises provided by ToE scientists, who have already accepted ToE as the new, non-negotiable religion, and do not look elsewhere from it. The million years scenario is bunks - the basic maths fells it. Crocs and roaches are said to have not adapted much from the most prImodial periods: why not? Is there no more adaptation to be had - no more advancements than being crocs and roachs? Contrastingly, adaptation can also belong to a cat, which is a size-reduced feline from its past, which allows it better access to longevity of its kind than sabers. Endless other possibilities can apply: the one which wins is that which does not refer you to a bogus million year scenario, and displays its premises in our midst, without exceptions. Its an important, fulcrum issue for mankind, and should be demanded of more than is given: it is not a fact, but a theory with much disputation. Thus far, a host of unscientific premises have result, directly to uphold ToE: complexity from randomity, for example, which is a related and non-babble non-science.
Yes, you did say so, but does this not mean that Adaptation does not occur in other harsh environments than earth?
Not at all. What I am saying and I'll repeat it in bold and asscaps cause you don't seem to be grasping it is: THE OUTCOME OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IS DEPENDENT ON (AMONG OTHER THINGS) THE ENVIROMENT IN WHICH THE ORGANISM LIVES. BECAUSE PLUTO HAS A RADICALLY DIFFERENT ENIVROMENT THAN EARTH THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF EARTH LIKE LIFE EVOLVING ON IT. YOU WILL NOT GET A ZEBRA FROM A VIRUS ON PLUTO.
What is the basis for such a premise?
The fact that random mutation and natural selection occur in many different enviroments. We have yet to find an enviroment in which random mutation and natural selection do not occur in the life forms inhabiting it.
But there is no non-earth-like life either
Correct we have yet to find non-Earth life. But if there is life out there, then what would prevent it from evolving from other life. What enivroments would prevent random mutation and natural selection from occuring?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
Edited by DrJones*, : a little clarification
Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
quote: THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IS DEPENDENT ON (AMONG OTHER THINGS) THE ENVIROMENT IN WHICH THE ORGANISM LIVES
Your fulcrum factor here is, 'IN WHICH THE ORGANISM LIVES'. This means, where there is no life, there is no adaptation: a superflous statement. It also means, its verification remains non-conclusive, because life cannot occur or subsist w/o adaptation. This is the reason ToE cannot be disproven, because it adopts only those verifications which are non-conclusive. Its like saying there is no one with a red short on pluto, because there is no one on pluto.
In such a situation, we cannot pose that adaptation can subsist on the basis of its claims, and this has nothing to do with the process of adapting, and not verifying this process. It proves nothing.