Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Evolution works in mysterious ways

Evolution works in mysterious ways

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
htmlcomannouncement
286 Posts 22 Posters 27.8k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Matthew Faithfull

    Fisticuffs wrote:

    Also, while most mutations may be deleterious over enough time (as has been demonstrated) beneficial mutations can occur and accumulate after selection.

    This is the key point and why you need to understand some mathematics. Lets break it down. "most mutations may be deleterious" These will accumulate until they become fatal, i.e. 100% negative for passing on of genes. "Beneficial mutations can occur and accumulate after selection" These will accumulate faster until they take over the population but only if they actually confer selective advantage. If the probability of the mutation being deleterious is too high deleterious mutations will always swamp beneficial ones regardless of selective advantage especially as they will accumulate in those survivors which have the selective advantage until they cause equal selective disadvantage. I hope you can see the problem. Only mutations which confer immediate benefit actaully confer any selective advantage and that is only probabalistic. These cannot survive long enough to build into complex features because they are swamped by the higher probability deleterious mutations that cannot be avoided in each generation. The only way to get a complex feature is for it to slip through by chance. When you work out the probability of this actually occuring it is less than that of spontaneous generation. :laugh: More time does not help you, only more mutations per generation could do that, it just makes things worse. Mathematics has a thing called proof by induction which can be used to show that if your species doesn't evolve over n generations then it doesn't evolve over 2n either. If it de-evolves over n generations then it's going to be extinct in some multiple of n. Interestingly the 'more mutations per generation' model has been tried and found to be even worse, ie, more destructive. Again simple math tells you if more at once is bad then more generations of a little is also bad. It's the 'if you're in a hole stop digging' principle. I only wish evolutionists would get it and stop wasting their time.

    "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #92

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    These will accumulate until they become fatal, i.e. 100% negative for passing on of genes.

    Wrong.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    Only mutations which confer immediate benefit actaully confer any selective advantage and that is only probabalistic.

    Wrong - there are mutations that are neutral, then a subsequent mutation can result in a different selectable phenotype. See examples in RNA folding.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    If the probability of the mutation being deleterious is too high deleterious mutations will always swamp beneficial ones regardless of selective advantage

    What?!?!?! Deleterious phenotypes are outcompeted by definition. How can something that's deleterious outcompete something that's beneficial? What you're saying is false by definition. The bad mutations disappear. The good ones don't. That's not only the fundamental concept of evolution, that's just common sense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    More time does not help you

    Actually, yes it does.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    I only wish evolutionists would get it and stop wasting their time.

    Why don't you go write a paper on it, genius?

    - F

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • O Oakman

      Matthew Faithfull wrote:

      but there is nothing false in it as there is nothing false in its author

      You have, of course, read it in the original Aramaic?

      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

      M Offline
      M Offline
      Matthew Faithfull
      wrote on last edited by
      #93

      No, I have not, and why would that make the slightest difference?:~

      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

      O 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Matthew Faithfull

        So you'd prefer to listen to someone who doesn't actually believe anything and has no moral restraint against telling you a pack of lies than to someone who holds a consistent set of beliefs including a moral imperative to tell you the truth, interesting. Your choice of course.

        "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

        L Offline
        L Offline
        leckey 0
        wrote on last edited by
        #94

        No, I prefer someone who is unbiased.

        CP Offenders: Over 50 offenders and growing! Current rant: "Me thinks CP needs an application process!" http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]

        I L 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          "part bird, part reptile and part lactating mammal" Reminds me of a girl I used to know...:suss:

          Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

          C Offline
          C Offline
          CataclysmicQuantum
          wrote on last edited by
          #95

          Your mom? Do you like smelly raw fish?

          The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

          P L 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • M Matthew Faithfull

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            Wrong. De novo mutations conferring resistance over time and appropriate exposure has been demonstrated in the lab.

            In bacteria as I freely conceeded.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            Wrong. In certain cases, the mutations confer a higher growth rate and stability to the organism. This would also be true by definition - mutations that enable an organism to survive in a stressor (artificial or not) still means they survive, even if there is a cost.

            If the cost makes the species more prone to extinction then there is no species evolution only specialisation towards a dead end.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            Bacteria do not become horses, bacteria and horses share a common ancestor. The distinction is critical.

            Drivel, the distinction is an irrelevance unless the ancestors of the bacteria contained the information necessary to grow a horse, i.e. an extreme de-evolutionary scenario.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            As Ravel has pointed out, your semantic distinction between evolution and "deevolution" is nothing but rhetoric, devoid of meaning.

            And he was wrong just as you are, de-evolution is unidirectional, to derive a mouse it requires a better mouse, evolution cannot create the better mouse or the mouse without having a mouse, it is nodirectional. :)

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            Evolution could be falsified easily by never finding any fossil variation

            Double negative, is gravity falsifiable by never finding anything falling, no.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            never seeing any extinct species

            Extinct species are evidence of de-evolution.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            finding an ancestral species and a modern species in the same dated strata

            Happens frequently usually followed by a redating of the strata, ancestoral speicies is of course a derivative concept and cannot be used as evidence for evolution, that would be a circular argument. :laugh:

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            not seeing any variation in population genomes that are differentially selected on

            Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

            Fisticuffs wrote:

            not being able to

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #96

            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

            Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

            You should stop changing your mind - I thought you said the principle of science was falsifiability, not proof. Go get an education.

            - F

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M Matthew Faithfull

              Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

              Have any reason for saying so

              Yes but probably not one you'd accept. We've been around this debate before, I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is. Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse, I laugh, you post links to lots of evidence for de-evolution misdiagnosed as evidence for evolution, proving my point but not seeing it and everyone goes away none the wiser. I can only suggest that you look for yourself, you're more capable than me in math and shouldn't have any problem demoshing the paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins. The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

              "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

              C Offline
              C Offline
              CataclysmicQuantum
              wrote on last edited by
              #97

              Aren't programmers suppose to be smart? What happened did mother shake you as a baby?

              The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Matthew Faithfull

                Same places you learned about Adam and Eve and about neanderthals ( which probably never existed as anything other than a tribal variation of humans ). Appears we understood what we were hearing to a differing degree. :)

                "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                O Offline
                O Offline
                Oakman
                wrote on last edited by
                #98

                Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                Same places you learned about Adam and Eve and about neanderthals

                Did they pray over you until you got it right?

                Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Matthew Faithfull

                  No, I have not, and why would that make the slightest difference?:~

                  "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                  O Offline
                  O Offline
                  Oakman
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #99

                  Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                  why would that make the slightest difference

                  Well the translations don't always agree with each other and maybe it's only the size of my non-neaderthal brain, but I have trouble understanding how all of them can be right. You aren't one of these guys who thinks that God spoke Elizabethan English, are you?

                  Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • 7 73Zeppelin

                    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                    The Central Limit theorum contradicts basic arithmetic

                    No it doesn't. But it's not surpise to me that you're in denial of reality[^]. Law of large numbers[^]. Why do you make these discussions like pulling teeth?

                    M Offline
                    M Offline
                    Matthew Faithfull
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #100

                    Ah, :-O got the wrong limit theory, it's the one at the root of calculus that I was thinking of. Still neither of these teeth pullingly overwritten statements of tautology makes a dint in what I've said. If anything the LLN backs me up, not that I'd want to rely too heavily on the square root of 0. I'm on much safer ground with a conceptual argument I reckon, but thanks all the same.

                    "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                      Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

                      You should stop changing your mind - I thought you said the principle of science was falsifiability, not proof. Go get an education.

                      - F

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Matthew Faithfull
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #101

                      Fisticuffs wrote:

                      I thought you said the principle of science was falsifiability

                      Exactly my point, I'm, glad you're catching on. None of the double negatives you presented is capabale of falsifying anything any more than Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye meant there weren't any ships. I have an education thanks, do you need to borrow it?

                      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • M Matthew Faithfull

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Point mutation - change of one nucleotide to another

                        Can constitute information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Insertion - insertion of 1+ nucleotides

                        Has a high probability of disrupting any exisiting gene function. This along with the above is the 'traditional' model of gene mutation driven evolution which has been shown to be inadequate to explain observation.

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Deletion - removal of 1+ nucleotides

                        Information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Translocation - a gene can be placed under the control of another promoter

                        Information neutral. All necessary information gain must already have occured to form the potentially useful gene.

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Inversion - can have weird and interesting effects, but does appear to occur regularly

                        Information neutral over a population as nothing is added or removed, will be destructive or neutral in the majority of cases where a gene is functional.

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Transformation/Conjugation

                        Information neutral?

                        Fisticuffs wrote:

                        Infection/Transduction

                        Do non destrcutive casses occur in nature? If so could they ever occur to any effect in a multi cellular organism. Not a lot of information increase there. Granted we probably have different concepts of information. None of the mechanisms you mention is capable of producing the observed species even given the unrealistic time frames usually quoted. You might also want to note that these are the ways we know of that a genome can change. Especially as you're going to need to find some new ones to hold on to your evolutionary delusion. :)

                        "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #102

                        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                        Can constitute information loss, has a high probability of disrupting any exisitng gene function.

                        What's the probability? Show your work.

                        - F

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M Matthew Faithfull

                          Fisticuffs wrote:

                          I thought you said the principle of science was falsifiability

                          Exactly my point, I'm, glad you're catching on. None of the double negatives you presented is capabale of falsifying anything any more than Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye meant there weren't any ships. I have an education thanks, do you need to borrow it?

                          "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #103

                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                          None of the double negatives you presented is capabale of falsifying anything

                          Sure they are - because they are ways of falsifying the theory of evolution, that have been tested, that have failed to disprove the theory. Therefore, evolution has not been disproven. Therefore, it remains the best explanation of diversity of life and a highly useful tool to all scientific and medical professionals.

                          - F

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L Lost User

                            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                            These will accumulate until they become fatal, i.e. 100% negative for passing on of genes.

                            Wrong.

                            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                            Only mutations which confer immediate benefit actaully confer any selective advantage and that is only probabalistic.

                            Wrong - there are mutations that are neutral, then a subsequent mutation can result in a different selectable phenotype. See examples in RNA folding.

                            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                            If the probability of the mutation being deleterious is too high deleterious mutations will always swamp beneficial ones regardless of selective advantage

                            What?!?!?! Deleterious phenotypes are outcompeted by definition. How can something that's deleterious outcompete something that's beneficial? What you're saying is false by definition. The bad mutations disappear. The good ones don't. That's not only the fundamental concept of evolution, that's just common sense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

                            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                            More time does not help you

                            Actually, yes it does.

                            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                            I only wish evolutionists would get it and stop wasting their time.

                            Why don't you go write a paper on it, genius?

                            - F

                            M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Matthew Faithfull
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #104

                            Fisticuffs wrote:

                            Wrong.

                            I think you mean you disagree but can't think why. :)

                            Fisticuffs wrote:

                            Wrong - there are mutations that are neutral,

                            And therefore don't confer selective advantage as I said.

                            Fisticuffs wrote:

                            What?!?!?! Deleterious phenotypes are outcompeted by definition. How can something that's deleterious outcompete something that's beneficial?

                            Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

                            Fisticuffs wrote:

                            That's not only the fundamental concept of evolution

                            it's also false.

                            "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                            L 2 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • M Matthew Faithfull

                              Fisticuffs wrote:

                              Wrong.

                              I think you mean you disagree but can't think why. :)

                              Fisticuffs wrote:

                              Wrong - there are mutations that are neutral,

                              And therefore don't confer selective advantage as I said.

                              Fisticuffs wrote:

                              What?!?!?! Deleterious phenotypes are outcompeted by definition. How can something that's deleterious outcompete something that's beneficial?

                              Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

                              Fisticuffs wrote:

                              That's not only the fundamental concept of evolution

                              it's also false.

                              "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                              L Offline
                              L Offline
                              Lost User
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #105

                              Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                              Because randomness swamps fractional selective advantage, 500 bad chess players can beat one good one on average, especially if pieces don't always move as either side chooses.

                              Not if they die before they play the game, you idiot. Not if they have no arms or eyes. Get the point?

                              Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                              I think you mean you disagree but can't think why. [Smile]

                              No, you're wrong. That's not how mutations accumulate. Check the literature, check the genomes at BLAST. Consider the redundancy in the triplet code. It's self-evident with a little knowledge of genetics.

                              - F

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C CataclysmicQuantum

                                Your mom? Do you like smelly raw fish?

                                The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

                                P Offline
                                P Offline
                                Paul Watson
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #106

                                What are you, 5? "Your mom" replies are for infants.

                                regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                                Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                                At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                                C E 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • M Matthew Faithfull

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  Wrong. De novo mutations conferring resistance over time and appropriate exposure has been demonstrated in the lab.

                                  In bacteria as I freely conceeded.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  Wrong. In certain cases, the mutations confer a higher growth rate and stability to the organism. This would also be true by definition - mutations that enable an organism to survive in a stressor (artificial or not) still means they survive, even if there is a cost.

                                  If the cost makes the species more prone to extinction then there is no species evolution only specialisation towards a dead end.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  Bacteria do not become horses, bacteria and horses share a common ancestor. The distinction is critical.

                                  Drivel, the distinction is an irrelevance unless the ancestors of the bacteria contained the information necessary to grow a horse, i.e. an extreme de-evolutionary scenario.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  As Ravel has pointed out, your semantic distinction between evolution and "deevolution" is nothing but rhetoric, devoid of meaning.

                                  And he was wrong just as you are, de-evolution is unidirectional, to derive a mouse it requires a better mouse, evolution cannot create the better mouse or the mouse without having a mouse, it is nodirectional. :)

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  Evolution could be falsified easily by never finding any fossil variation

                                  Double negative, is gravity falsifiable by never finding anything falling, no.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  never seeing any extinct species

                                  Extinct species are evidence of de-evolution.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  finding an ancestral species and a modern species in the same dated strata

                                  Happens frequently usually followed by a redating of the strata, ancestoral speicies is of course a derivative concept and cannot be used as evidence for evolution, that would be a circular argument. :laugh:

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  not seeing any variation in population genomes that are differentially selected on

                                  Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

                                  Fisticuffs wrote:

                                  not being able to

                                  L Offline
                                  L Offline
                                  Lost User
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #107

                                  Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                  Another, proof by blindness, double negative.

                                  Science works on models. A model that explains observed phenomena is accepted as true until an observation that contradicts it is made. So, complete knowledge of all mutations is not necessary to hold theory of evolution as scientifically valid. For example: Newton's laws does not paint an accurate picture of all the forces involved in a given situation, but is a very good approximation for most real world situations. There is a certain expectation of evidence needed for a model to be discarded or modified. I am sure the evolution, natural selection models must have been modified many times. For instance, there is no dispute yet in the scientific community regarding the common origins of the animal kingdom; in case of microbes, there are disagreements (obviously not big enough to discredit the whole theory). I think that it is everyone's duty to aid the scientific process rather than doggedly standing your ground with no evidence. Maybe, one day a living human being may know everything that is to know. Evolution may be wrong; it may be discredited in the future; but please bear in mind that proving that the theory of evolution is wrong does not automatically prove the theory of creation. I get a distinct feeling of pride of your theory being vindicated when you discredit another.

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • M Matthew Faithfull

                                    Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

                                    Have any reason for saying so

                                    Yes but probably not one you'd accept. We've been around this debate before, I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is. Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse, I laugh, you post links to lots of evidence for de-evolution misdiagnosed as evidence for evolution, proving my point but not seeing it and everyone goes away none the wiser. I can only suggest that you look for yourself, you're more capable than me in math and shouldn't have any problem demoshing the paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins. The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

                                    "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                    P Offline
                                    P Offline
                                    Paul Watson
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #108

                                    Just curious if that is your real name... Matthew Faithful. Never heard the surname Faithful before. It is like African tribesmen who select an English name and end up with kids named Precious, Beautiful, Innocent and Cocacola.

                                    regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                                    Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                                    At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • M Matthew Faithfull

                                      So you'd prefer to listen to someone who doesn't actually believe anything and has no moral restraint against telling you a pack of lies than to someone who holds a consistent set of beliefs including a moral imperative to tell you the truth, interesting. Your choice of course.

                                      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                      P Offline
                                      P Offline
                                      Paul Watson
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #109

                                      I am an aethist and I have moral restraint. Haven't bashed your brains in yet, have I? Stuck. Record.

                                      regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                                      Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                                      At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                                      M 7 2 Replies Last reply
                                      0
                                      • P Paul Watson

                                        What are you, 5? "Your mom" replies are for infants.

                                        regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                                        Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                                        At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                                        C Offline
                                        C Offline
                                        CataclysmicQuantum
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #110

                                        Paul Watson wrote:

                                        What are you, 5?

                                        How can I be a number? Yes, I am the number 5. Brilliant!

                                        The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

                                        P 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • O Oakman

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          why would that make the slightest difference

                                          Well the translations don't always agree with each other and maybe it's only the size of my non-neaderthal brain, but I have trouble understanding how all of them can be right. You aren't one of these guys who thinks that God spoke Elizabethan English, are you?

                                          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                                          M Offline
                                          M Offline
                                          Matthew Faithfull
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #111

                                          Oakman wrote:

                                          Well the translations don't always agree with each other

                                          Those who have never read the whole tend to massively exagerate the trivial differenes between translations for their own ends. It's seldom even worth arguing about. There are now unfortunately a number of highly corrupted modern 'translations' particularly coming out of the US, stick with an NIV or Good News or something with equivalent academic pedigree and you won't go far wrong.

                                          Oakman wrote:

                                          You aren't one of these guys who thinks that God spoke Elizabethan English, are you?

                                          I'm sure he did at the time, he's considerate like that. :)

                                          "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                          O 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups