Science today
-
From the story:
... The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. ...
Translaton: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is! :laugh: edit: What a stirling example of what Stanley Fish was talking about.
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:43 AM
Ilíon wrote:
Translaton Translation: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is!
Tell me, do you believe in mutation and genetic variation? Also, do you believe in heredity? Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
-
Ilíon wrote:
Translaton Translation: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is!
Tell me, do you believe in mutation and genetic variation? Also, do you believe in heredity? Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
-
More from the story:
... Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. ...
:laugh:
You didn't answer my questions. Fatass.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
I thought you were all for your friends and neighbors getting together and persecuting those who disagree with them? Oh, it's only your friends and neighbors persecuting people who disagree with them.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
I thought you were all for your friends and neighbors getting together and persecuting those who disagree with them? Oh, it's only your friends and neighbors persecuting people who disagree with them.
Thanks for proving my point, Tim
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
You didn't answer my questions. Fatass.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I thought you were all for your friends and neighbors getting together and persecuting those who disagree with them? Oh, it's only your friends and neighbors persecuting people who disagree with them.
Thanks for proving my point, Tim
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for proving my point, Tim
No, Stan, it is you who have proved his point many times over and when called on it have proudly proclaimed that you indeed want a country where majority dicatorships and thought police rule.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You didn't answer my questions.
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fatass.
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Looking in the mirror, for you, must be a laugh-a-second.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You didn't answer my questions.
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fatass.
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Hey, I may be simple-minded, but at least I understand evolution.
Ilíon wrote:
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
All I ever hear is the sound of rain falling on the ground I sit and watch as tears go by
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic? Christian is free to correct me on this point, but my understanding is that he is basing his statements on a reading of one or more English translations (as a fallback position, I will be very surprised if his stance depends on discrepancies between an Aramaic version and available English versions). I am responding on the same playing field. I don't claim any expertise in Biblical scholarship, but I can imitate a Biblical literalist by reading a couple of chapters of the Bible and giving them the interpretation that the words themselves most naturally support. For that, only literacy is required and I fancy that my level of literacy is fairly high. I might also point out that the mere fact that a person believes certain Christian doctrines is not, in itself, a theological qualification, so I don't feel the need to retreat to the shadows merely because a "believer" makes a claim about the Bible. The exchange was prompted by a question from Josh Gray who asked: "Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?" I'm not certain if Josh had in mind an Aramaic or an English version of Genesis, but I would be prepared to bet a dollar that it was an English version.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Says who? The Pentateuch is an attempt to set down in writing the verbal legends, histories and half-remembered tales of a people who were in the process of becoming civilized. I suppose there are some unwashed, flea-bitten preachers in the backwoods of Ohio who still claim that every word of the Old Testament is true, but they are hardly mainstream and given very little shrift except by other illiterates and religion-bashers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Says who? The Pentateuch is an attempt to set down in writing the verbal legends, histories and half-remembered tales of a people who were in the process of becoming civilized. I suppose there are some unwashed, flea-bitten preachers in the backwoods of Ohio who still claim that every word of the Old Testament is true, but they are hardly mainstream and given very little shrift except by other illiterates and religion-bashers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Well, it's certainly assertive enough to imply that it's supposed to be taken seriously, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to base your life on a book that by your own admission is full of lies. How else are you supposed to take it if not literally? Could some incredibly devout person go to hell simply because they misunderstood the Bible?
-
Oakman wrote:
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic? Christian is free to correct me on this point, but my understanding is that he is basing his statements on a reading of one or more English translations (as a fallback position, I will be very surprised if his stance depends on discrepancies between an Aramaic version and available English versions). I am responding on the same playing field. I don't claim any expertise in Biblical scholarship, but I can imitate a Biblical literalist by reading a couple of chapters of the Bible and giving them the interpretation that the words themselves most naturally support. For that, only literacy is required and I fancy that my level of literacy is fairly high. I might also point out that the mere fact that a person believes certain Christian doctrines is not, in itself, a theological qualification, so I don't feel the need to retreat to the shadows merely because a "believer" makes a claim about the Bible. The exchange was prompted by a question from Josh Gray who asked: "Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?" I'm not certain if Josh had in mind an Aramaic or an English version of Genesis, but I would be prepared to bet a dollar that it was an English version.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic?
Dunno. Don't care. I would be surprised to discover that he isn't aware of the problem of taking the English translations as perfect, though. Usually it's the guys who think they are proving something who need do that - True Believers both pro and con.
John Carson wrote:
I am responding on the same playing field.
Not from where I sit. He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally. You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
John Carson wrote:
"Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?"
And the proper answer is: from my limited experience, the third-hand translations that I have read indicate that the world was created in 4004 BC. Obviously this is does not gibe with current archeological findings which demonstrates that the translations may be imperfect, my understanding of those translations may be imperfect, the scribes who set down the verbal histories of the Tribes of Judah may have not remembered the timespans correctly, or that God created the world then, but also created millions of years of prehistory at the same time. Since any and or all of these answers may be wholly, partially, or not at all true, the question is moot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Well, it's certainly assertive enough to imply that it's supposed to be taken seriously, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to base your life on a book that by your own admission is full of lies. How else are you supposed to take it if not literally? Could some incredibly devout person go to hell simply because they misunderstood the Bible?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How else are you supposed to take it if not literally?
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed.
Actually, there's a lot more. For starters, Gen 1 repors God creating men and women. Gen 2 says he formed one man and one woman after that.
John Carson wrote:
As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother.
*grin* I hope you realise that I knew that. But, he was expelled, and in his expelled state, he found a wife.
John Carson wrote:
The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Are you suggesting that who Cain married gives you direction in life ? Well, that could be true, in that I am certain that inbreeding is forbidden under the law, but, broadly speaking, the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics. As such, the record it gives of things such as Gen 1, is very vague. Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ilíon wrote:
Translaton Translation: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is!
Tell me, do you believe in mutation and genetic variation? Also, do you believe in heredity? Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How else are you supposed to take it if not literally?
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.