Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 1:22 PM
56 online now:
edge, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 50 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,592 Year: 3,629/19,786 Month: 624/1,087 Week: 214/212 Day: 29/27 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 271 of 302 (408614)
07-03-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by IamJoseph
07-02-2007 6:10 AM


This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution: butterflies show no self in-put in the designs of their wings - its totally involuntary, and what's more the complexity of the universe predates life and evolution. If anything, they attest as a proof only of Creationism.

Of course butterflies show no input. Evolution says nothing about a species "deciding" how to evolve - there is no conscious thought in the process whatsoever. Exactly as is observed. Evolution is the result of random mutation and natural selection producing gradual generational changes.

And the complexity of the universe is irrelevant - evolution says nothing about anything other than how species arise from other species.

You're fond of making strawman arguments, aren't you.

If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant:

'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.

Appeal to authority, and entirely incorrect, as evidenced by the very picture you were responding to! Complexity, as seen in ice crystals, does NOT require conscious input, and CAN result from random chance.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 6:10 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 272 of 302 (408626)
07-03-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by rakaz
07-03-2007 3:51 PM


Re: Re Evidence
First of all, I do not believe Genesis 1:1 is preposterous.

You sure fooled me on that one.

I think it is highly unlikely and that it defies common sense to believe in something so unlikely.

I find it just as highly unlikely that a singularity suddenly appeared, something about the size of a dime. Of which no one knows the origin, how or why it suddenly appeared. Since there was no before where did it come from. But that is not my biggest problem.
That is how do you pack everything in the entire universe into that something about the size of a dime that suddenly appeared from ?????

Science is by definition based on evidence.

What evidence does science have for the hypothesis of the beginning that I do not have for Genesis 1:1?

The logical conclusion is that the theory proposed by science is more likely, simply because any evidence is better than no evidence at all.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7324.html
Why is nothing (singularity had to come from nothing) did it better than God did it?

The universe is full of galaxies and their stars. Probably, hopefully, there is other life out there and background light and maybe some ripples in space. There are bright objects and dark objects. Things we can see and things we can't. Things we know about and things we don't. All of it. This glut of ingredients could carry on in every direction forever. Never ending. Just when you think you've seen the last of them, there's another galaxy and beyond that one another infinite number of galaxies. No infinity has ever been observed in nature. Nor is infinity tolerated in a scientific theory - except we keep assuming the universe itself is infinite.

It wouldn't be so bad if Einstein hadn't taught us better. And here the ideas collide so I'll just pour them out unfiltered. Space is not just an abstract notion but a mutable, evolving field. It can begin and end, be born and die. Space is curved, it is a geometry, and our experience of gravity, the pull of the earth and our orbit around the sun, is just a free fall along the curves in space. From this huge insight people realized the universe must be expanding. The space between the galaxies is actually stretching even if the galaxies themselves were otherwise to stay put. The universe is growing, ageing. And if it's expanding today, it must have been smaller once, in the sense that everything was once closer together, so close that everything was on top of each other, essentially in the same place, and before that it must not have been at all. The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. What sways me even more, if an ultimate theory of everything is found, a theory beyond Einstein's, then gravity and matter and energy are all ultimately different expressions of the same thing. We're all intrinsically of the same substance. The fabric of the universe is just a coherent weave from the same threads that make our bodies. How much more absurd it becomes to believe that the universe, space and time could possibly be infinite when all of us are finite.

quote:
There was once nothing and now there is something.

I am not sure about that any evidence thing.

I have seen a lot of fabricated evidence in my lifetime about a lot of different things.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by rakaz, posted 07-03-2007 3:51 PM rakaz has not yet responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 2993 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 273 of 302 (408632)
07-03-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Equinox
07-03-2007 12:59 PM


Earth calling Equinox!

Nimrod
It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong)
Equinox
OK, I read those posts, and agree that there is a lot of information you have checked into. I also agree that there is plenty of room for translation problems and other transmission corruption to have occurred. I didn’t see anything that changed what I think your position is, but feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.

But with all of that, I don’t understand why you try so hard (and contradict modern scholarship) to claim that Babel and a global flood happened. There are tons of reasons to reject both – especially something like the flood. Your view that the ideas in Genesis went through tons of incorrect translations and transmission corruptions means that you’ve already discarded the idea that one can read the Bible and know what is the word of God and what isn’t. So I guess I don’t understand why you care to preserved a divine origin, if that divine origin is so far removed that one may as well read the Enuma elish , which is therefore one step closer to God than the Bible.
Nimrod
.(reminder; I am just looking at what ancient peoples wrote down, and then stacking it up with comparitive anthropology and THEN looking at what is scientifically possible POSSIBLE)

Equinox
Well, yes you are – but then you are going past that to insert modern science into Genesis where it doesn’t match what you want, and adding speculations that aren’t supported so as to come up with this convoluted history that somehow serves your desires. Claiming that there was a global flood and a real tower of Babel goes beyond linguistics and legends – it makes testable claims about the physical world which have been tested and shown to be false.

The comparison of the earlier flood and such stories could be a good thread, and there are no doubt others here who are better versed on this than I (Arach?). Anyway, let’s see if there is energy around that next week. I’ll be out until then.
Nimrod
The issue that people (like you!) demand that Genesis should have seperated every last stage of evolution.Therefore the fact that it mentions the category of water life as coming before all other life (lets the waters bring...)simply isnt enough because people like you think it should be a 2007 science textbook to be credited as a document that could have (maybe) been descended of a revelation from God in the pre/proto historic period in amns past.
Equinox
No, I only ask people to back up their own claim. What usually happens is someone says that the Bible is inerrant and that the order in Genesis is correct, something that has odds of 1 in ((insert large number)). Then, when the story is looked at, it’s clear that it’s not at all in the correct order, at which point the original claimant starts making excuses, like the ones you have been making, for why it’s not in order. So that makes me wonder why they even bother, if they are going to negate their own claim? Actually, it used to make me wonder – it doesn’t anymore. It’s very smart marketing – if the listener is gullible, then they swallow the “correct order” line. If the listener is not gullible, then all one has to do is make some lame excuses, and quietly exit to go on to repeat the “correct order” line to some new potential convert, thus the gullible are selected to be Bible believers.

In your case, you’ve already dispensed with the claim of inerrancy – blaming errors on transmission. So since it’s clearly in the wrong order, it’s convenient to blame any errors on corruption – I could do the same with any creation myth, or indeed any story, saying that it really describes, say, the water cycle, or plate tectonics, or whatever.
Nimrod
Equinox clearly is one of those kids who failed every teaching in school but self-esteme.
Equinox
I hope you feel better. If you’ve put forward your views in Christian forums or in churches, I doubt you’ll get as tolerant response as you gotten here. Try it – see if anyone objects to your saying that the story in Genesis is incorrect due to transmission corruption, something that most of us here agree with you on.

Have a fun day-

Did you even bother to see the thread I linked you to?

Here is a better way for you to find my posts.

Click on my name in THIS post and see my post history.

Click on the Babylonian Genesis Heidel (titled) post.

But dont start there.I have 3 more posts (different screen name) in a row right above it.Plus there was 3-4 posts above that between Arach and me.

It will be about 8 posts for you to read.

Also,I need to advise you of something: I plan on making a new thread (if allowed) when I get a computer (and can paste better),and I intend to past EVERY last post I have made in this thread into the opening thread(s) of that new thread.Since I think (?) I have pasted every last comment of yours in my posts(here), then that means everybody will see your responces.Make then good beacuse many will see them for years right at the start of a thread.I dont plan on responding anymore on THIS thread so your next responce(s) will be the end of our debate (presently) BUT then I will past and respond to it sometime in the new thread (if the MODs allow me to start it) in the future.

I advise you to start researching better before posting or you WILL be made into quite an example.

Granted Creationists (at least the ones who post here) have no shame in
letting their unresearched crack show 24/7-post after post.Standards are rather low around here to be sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Equinox, posted 07-03-2007 12:59 PM Equinox has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-03-2007 10:23 PM Nimrod has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 274 of 302 (408635)
07-03-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Nimrod
07-03-2007 10:03 PM


accounts merged
Nimrod, your accounts have been merged under your new name.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 273 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 10:03 PM Nimrod has not yet responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 275 of 302 (408639)
    07-03-2007 10:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by Vacate
    07-03-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
    quote:
    vacate

    So how would you decide what to believe regarding the results of the scientists? Who was it that proved 50% of the OT narratives? The same people who you reject; believing that their evidence as imagination.


    What's your problem here? The last major thud faced by scholars was with their bold declaration king david was a myth - they're still recovering from that fall. Every week a major discovery is unearthed in Palestine - that ground talks, and verifies its declared history, math and science. There is no document with more stats and none which contents have been equally vindicated.

    quote:

    I am still trying to figure out how you get proof without science, yet reject any and all science that differs from the biblical interpretations that you insist science has proven.

    Science, history and math have to prove themselves too. There is scientific proof of a 3000 + years egyptian stele which mentions a war with *ISRAEL*; there is mathematical proof the Genesis calendar is the most accurate one in existence; there is historial proof the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by europeans and pre-islamic arabs.

    quote:

    not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.

    In Baltimore, Maryland, it is not legal to take a lion to the movies

    In Greene, New York, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks

    *copy/pasted from here*
    http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php


    Ok, the world's Institutions follow all the dumb laws of the OT: but you have not come up with one from elsewhere. Take your time.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 2:43 PM Vacate has not yet responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 276 of 302 (408640)
    07-03-2007 10:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by Vacate
    07-03-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
    quote:
    raven

    Of course butterflies show no input. Evolution says nothing about a species "deciding" how to evolve - there is no conscious thought in the process whatsoever. Exactly as is observed. Evolution is the result of random mutation and natural selection producing gradual generational changes.

    And the complexity of the universe is irrelevant - evolution says nothing about anything other than how species arise from other species.


    Ok, then tell me this - anyone can - which came first: Evolution - or Wisdom? There is NO bypassing that Q.

    quote:

    Appeal to authority, and entirely incorrect, as evidenced by the very picture you were responding to! Complexity, as seen in ice crystals, does NOT require conscious input, and CAN result from random chance.


    The designs on abutterfly are not random - you act like you just proved they are. Its like finding a car on Mars and declaring it random - just to justify another insane premise.

    'TO COVER ONE INSANITY - A 1000 INSANITIES MUST BE COVERED'

    Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 2:43 PM Vacate has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 280 by Rahvin, posted 07-04-2007 12:34 AM IamJoseph has responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 277 of 302 (408641)
    07-03-2007 10:55 PM


    quote:
    icant
    You sure fooled me on that one.

    he did'nt fool me. He never mentioned what in genesis was at odds with science, math or histor.


      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 278 of 302 (408643)
    07-03-2007 11:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 269 by Vacate
    07-03-2007 4:13 PM


    Re: the question posed
    quote:
    vacate

    IamJoseph writes:
    *snip* according to genesis and my understandinging of it, neanderthal or any other life form, and human derivitive from them, has no impact here. Whether neaderthal constitutes a prototype of modern humans, or of another life form (a certain ape?), does not negate or impact, because genesis, which is minimilist *snip*

    *emphasis is mine

    This is just a dodge of the issue. You claim that the definition of "Kind" has no impact merely because genesis is minimilist. Yet you use it as a method of disproving evolution?


    Since when is referring to the actual texts, a *DODGE* of the issue - and by whom - the dodger?

    quote:

    One that you brought up, (nighttrain asked for clarification in message 216) and I requested that you create another thread to specifically address. What is the IamJoseph definition of "kind", in such that it shows the Theory of Evolution to be incorrect?


    Well, why don't you read the texts and give your appraisal - if this is a battle of textual comprehension I welcome it? My reading of it says genesis separates life forms as vegetation - meaning all plants which do not talk and talk; fish are ocean based; birds are flying things; the last life form is one that TALKS! etc. The distinction made by genesis is correct - and it stands today after 3500 years - why are you confused - you have to explain your display of aghastness.

    quote:

    So your position regarding "kind" is that it could mean all of biology, kingdom, class, species or {speaks/does not speak}.


    Obviously, you are not addressing anything in the text, while accusing me of selecting what I want to. Its not about me - its about what the text says, and you have not addressed it. The texts clearly describes what it means by 'kind' - for fish (swarming in the oceans) and for birds (who have flight), and same for vegetation (a myriad of plants and shrubs of every kind). Genesis, IMHO, is correct to its texts. The last life form - before which none others had speech - also is correct and vindicated. Cross-specie has some way to go - even by its own manipulations in dividing humans by skeletal design: as if this is the differentials between animals and humans! - no sir - skeletal design and life are common to all life forms.

    quote:

    Depending on what one you decide to choose at any given moment you can immediatly conclue that Darwin is incorrect. This is hardly a strong case against Evolution, and I ask again if you would be willing to create a new thread to clarify your definition of "kind" so you can once and for all put this silly Theory of Evolution to rest?

    Genesis is not out to prove or disprove darwin. Its the other wy around - and Genesis is winning.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 269 by Vacate, posted 07-03-2007 4:13 PM Vacate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 284 by Vacate, posted 07-04-2007 2:01 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 279 of 302 (408645)
    07-03-2007 11:31 PM


    Vacate

    Here is Genesis' reading of what it means by 'kind' - an apt term used for all generations of mankind's understanding:

    Vegetation - a comprehensive, non-confusion description:

    quote:

    11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

    Another descriptive 'KIND' (aka FISH):

    quote:

    20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

    Mammals and crawleys:

    quote:

    And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

    ETC, ETC, ETC.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 281 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 12:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

      
    Rahvin
    Member (Idle past 1264 days)
    Posts: 3964
    Joined: 07-01-2005


    Message 280 of 302 (408656)
    07-04-2007 12:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 276 by IamJoseph
    07-03-2007 10:44 PM


    Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
    Ok, then tell me this - anyone can - which came first: Evolution - or Wisdom? There is NO bypassing that Q.

    This response really doesnt make any sense whatsoever. But there are two different answers. If you are asking whether the mechanism we call evolution existed before wisdom, the answer is an obvious "yes!" The mechanism was at work long before humanity arose and developed the concept or attributes of "wisdom." If you're asking whether the theory that describes the mechanism came before wisdom, then obviously the theory came later.

    This is entirely irrelevant, however. I dont think you read what I posted. There is no "wisdom" or intelligence or anything else acting on evolution or the formation of ice crystals. Evolution is guided solely by natural selection, selecting from the random mutations to continue those versions that survive to reproduce. Species do not "decide" to grow wings or develop sentience - the concepts of intelligence and wisdom are completely irrelevant. If you disagree, and you believe some form of wisdom guides evolution, then explain why evolution makes such idiotic "decisions" as the human appendix, or the flawed human eye, or the fact that we use a single tube for breathing and food intake, allowing for easy choking.

    The designs on abutterfly are not random - you act like you just proved they are. Its like finding a car on Mars and declaring it random - just to justify another insane premise.

    I didnt say they were random. I said that evolution uses natural selection to select from natural random mutations to cause gradual change over generations. That's entirely different from saying they are random. The point was to show that complexity does NOT require an intelligence to guide it - the patterns on butterfly wings do not require a painter to come and draw them, and neither do ice crystals need to be sculpted by hand.


    Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 276 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 10:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 282 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 1:20 AM Rahvin has responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 55 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 281 of 302 (408659)
    07-04-2007 12:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 279 by IamJoseph
    07-03-2007 11:31 PM


    is this even on-topic?
    Here is Genesis' reading of what it means by 'kind' - an apt term used for all generations of mankind's understanding:

    and yet, evidently, misunderstood by you. when the text says "after its kind" it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing it names is a "kind." it means that those things have subsets that breed amongst themselves and the author doesn't want to list them all.

    if you're particularly interested, here is a post i made a while back cross-referencing the "kinds" listed in leviticus 11 with their place in linean taxonomy, where i show that the usage of the word is closer to family or genus, and obviously colloquial and not scientific (as it's all over the map).


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 11:31 PM IamJoseph has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 1:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 282 of 302 (408667)
    07-04-2007 1:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 280 by Rahvin
    07-04-2007 12:34 AM


    Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
    quote:
    rahvin
    Species do not "decide" to grow wings or develop sentience - the concepts of intelligence and wisdom are completely irrelevant. If you disagree, and you believe some form of wisdom guides evolution, then explain why evolution makes such idiotic "decisions" as the human appendix, or the flawed human eye, or the fact that we use a single tube for breathing and food intake, allowing for easy choking.

    I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything.

    Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system.

    quote:

    I didnt say they were random. I said that evolution uses natural selection to select from natural random mutations to cause gradual change over generations.


    The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved; using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise. There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'.

    quote:

    That's entirely different from saying they are random. The point was to show that complexity does NOT require an intelligence to guide it - the patterns on butterfly wings do not require a painter to come and draw them, and neither do ice crystals need to be sculpted by hand.

    Your premise is random and nothing else. Pushing the buck further does not change it. Its like saying a car does not result by random, but each car part's metal did not require 'an intelligence to guide it': who says that is not random!?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by Rahvin, posted 07-04-2007 12:34 AM Rahvin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 285 by Rahvin, posted 07-04-2007 2:11 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1746 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 283 of 302 (408670)
    07-04-2007 1:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 281 by arachnophilia
    07-04-2007 12:52 AM


    Re: is this even on-topic?
    quote:
    arach
    and yet, evidently, misunderstood by you. when the text says "after its kind" it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing it names is a "kind." it means that those things have subsets that breed amongst themselves and the author doesn't want to list them all.

    Interesting that you debated this factor - it shows deliberation is required with the exacting texts of the OT. While i agree there is no need to list all in a kind or group, I found the OT texts remarkable in positing a premise with the most appropriate and shortest measure of words. This indicates a majestic mastery of words and what it is saying: 'NOT TO OVERLOAD A DONKEY' aplies for all domestic working animals - no need to list them all.

    Reading your link, there is no question the OT undrstands minute breakdowns and variances of life forms, and this pertains also to the 'hidden' biological structures of life forms. The pig is noted for having a hidden attribute not shared by any animal, and this is vindicated till today: how was this info derivable, considering we could not perform this feat even in today's computer archives and biology prowess with animals - how would the OT know there is no similar animal harbouring that hidden attribute in the amazon, tasmania, africa or iceland? Fluke or guessmatics are out - it goes on to do the same with fish hidden in the oceans, and other animals displaying the reverse of the pig! I find the uninitiated have not regarded impacting, relevent factors and determined selectively.

    The variations between kinds, eg different sub-groups with animals and birds, does not impact Genesis at all. We will probably find more sub-groups within the sub-groups in the future, and devise new categories. But the mode of genesis' separation is a big picture view, and more importantly, it is fully in keeping with the relevent premise it makes. Genesis separates humans from other life forms in accord with the only unique factor applicable: speech; birds by flying; fish by water submerged; etc. It would have been ubsurd to nominate hidden, internal structural and skelatal factors here - they would be meaningless and superflous. There was never any need to list non-unique factors between humans and other life forms: Genesis, IMHO, is 100% correct and vindicated. Describing humans as 'son of man' (from the seed of man); from and to the dust (particles of matter); as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 281 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 12:52 AM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 287 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 2:50 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
     Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2007 4:53 AM IamJoseph has responded

      
    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 2678 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 284 of 302 (408672)
    07-04-2007 2:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 278 by IamJoseph
    07-03-2007 11:13 PM


    Re: the question posed
    Since when is referring to the actual texts, a *DODGE* of the issue - and by whom - the dodger?

    You are attempting to use the Biblical text in an effort to show the Theory of Evolution incorrect. You have simply insisted that the text is adequate, but when I have asked for more information about your definition of "kind" you said it had no impact. I call this a dodge.

    why are you confused

    Several reasons. I will select a few quotes from you to show my confusion.

    it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis

    Kind seems to imply "anything thats not rock" here.

    If you do not see a problem with this suggestion, I will remind you that Noah took 2 of every kind on the ark. It also leaves scant time for macro evolution to have produced the millions of species we see today.

    Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam. Genesis does not negate pre-speech prototypes.

    Here you have decided that a Kind is at the species level. You also include humans at the species level. The only justification for these two at this level seems to be that Neaderthal didnt speak, and Humans do.

    There is a mysterious statute in the OT which says the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form

    Without including the possibility of evolution how does the pig become seperate from all the other kinds? Was the pig also its own kind? (species level once again)

    My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans).

    Equinox pointed out the errors in this classification attempt in message 247

    Your simple separation of animals/plants is based only on its obvious attributes (flies, swims, speaks, produces milk, or is plant-like). There are many very obvious problems with this method of classification.


    • Penguin - Obviously a bird, but does not fly.
    • Duck-billed Platapus - Bird, Reptile, or Mammal? How about the Obdurodon, slightly more confusing as this kind had teeth.
    • Virus - Its own kind? Its technically not even alive.
    • Fungus - Absorbs nutrients after decomposing organic material, do we still place this with the plant kind?
    • Bacteria - Do we insert prokaryotic organisms as its own kind?

    My point here is that your generalized definitions do not help in being clear why you feel the bible successfully rules out evolution. As I have said already - you have classifications range from all of biology to the species level.

    If each example of species is a kind they cannot all fit on the ark. If all of biology is one kind then there would be no need for an ark (a canoe would suffice) but you have let macroevolution run rampant.

    What's your problem here?

    Now do you see what my problem is, and why I am confused? I see no reason for you to immediatly "vindicate" Genesis when there are so many issues that you fail to address first. Genesis is not vindicated until you are able to deal with the obvious contradictions to your claims.

    Genesis is not out to prove or disprove darwin. Its the other wy around - and Genesis is winning.

    Last that I looked neither Darwin nor the Theory of Evolution set out to disprove the bible. I don't believe that either is at odds personally. Its your literal interpretation that is at odds.

    Edited by Vacate, : Fixed link to wrong post!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 278 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 11:13 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    Rahvin
    Member (Idle past 1264 days)
    Posts: 3964
    Joined: 07-01-2005


    Message 285 of 302 (408673)
    07-04-2007 2:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 282 by IamJoseph
    07-04-2007 1:20 AM


    Re: Ah. Here is the problem.
    I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything.

    There is no intelligence guiding the process. Hence, wisdom is irrelevant.

    Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system.

    When the appendix is removed, absolutely no harm results unless complications occur in the surgery (infection, etc - irrelevant to the appendix itself). The human eye has a blind spot other, more distantly evolved creatures (octopi and birds, for instance) lack. There can be no purpose for a blind spot in an eye.

    And of course the "jitterbugging particles" are idiots. The only one ascribing any intelligence to any process is you! Not I. The genetic code is not intelligent, nor does anyone claim it to be so. Again, you're attacking strawmen. You clearly have no concept of what evolution DOES say.

    The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved;

    That's not a definition for the word "random." No intelligent source governs the evaporation of water, but we know that it's not random whether water will evaporate or not. It's a direct cause-effect relationship based on ambient temperatures, humidity, and the basic physical properties of water. No intelligence, not random.

    using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise.

    How so? I see no contradiction.

    There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'.

    There most certainly IS such a thing as natural selection, and it's an obvious, direct observation. You don't seem to understand that the process of evolution has actually been directly observed in a laboratory. Some of the very members of this board have been involved in such research. We KNOW that random mutation happens. We KNOW that beneficial and neutral mutations survive to reproduce while detrimental ones fail.

    Look, Joseph. None of your responses make any sense whatsoever. I'm done here - this discussion is off topic for this thread anyway, and I have no desire to attempt to understand your ramblings about "wisdom" or any other irrelevant topic.


    Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 282 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 1:20 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    161718
    19
    2021Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019