lee_merrill

So the reply would be that with function (these regions seem to help combat retroviral infections, "Who Was Adam?", pp. 241-242) they could be doing the combat-the-viral-dna job (by perhaps resembling viral DNA?) in both primates and humans, and thus could be put in the genome from the beginning for that purpose.

spin

Ludditism has a cure.

Why don't you read what I've said on the subject?

Who's talked about any historical value in this thread?

So don't read the Vulgate.

Doh!

The name calling about the bible is a wasted effort. Usually one doesn't know enough about the book when they're at the name calling stage. Why attack the book when they should be dealing on the believer? It's a bit like shooting the Beatles for writing the lyrics that Charlie Manson based his crazed cult around. And it won't change the beliefs. Know the book better and you'll deal with the naive believer more efficaciously.

lee-merrill's stuff is his own angst in confronting the fact that the bible isn't scientific enough for his liking and he has to manipulate the bible to make it more acceptable.


spin

lee_merrill

Hi Spin,

Well, why specifically can these words not reasonably have these meanings in these passages?

As here?

Job 30:17 Night pierces my bones; my gnawing pains never rest.

As here?

2 Chronicles 36:21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed ...

Certainly the Sabbath is a principle, and not restricted to one 24-hour day.

Unless the radiation is for making, say, a solar system?

Blessings,
Lee

Sauron

When it comes to the sabbath mentioned in Genesis 1, is that an age as well? Is "night" in Genesis 1 an age as well?

The context does not support those readings. In addition, you are switching back and forth between age and literal day whenever it suits your needs.

As I told you: making this stuff up as you go isn't very convincing.

Obviously poetic passage. Not parallel.


No indication that an age is indicated here.

Except the passage from Chronicles indicates 24 hour days. That is why sabbath rests is plural.


You think radiation made the solar system?

lee_merrill

Well, I meant like clouds and vapor clearing.

That’s fine, I just used the late heavy bombardment as an example, but there hasn’t been land in every age.

Yet which stories, specifically? I’m interested in hearing similar creation stories.

I think “plants” could stand in well for algae/protozooans/etc., especially if in each age we are viewing the process, and more especially the start of that process, in this case, the start of plants, which are then traced to their developments.

There are some, but which ones did you have in mind?

Why do you conclude day 6 refers to insects and amphibians? The phrases there, I have argued, indicate larger animals such as mammals, especially if day five includes amphibians.

That could be, I don’t mind reptiles then, only I hold amphibians are indicated back on day five.

Well now, let's examine these conclusions. Neandertal DNA does indeed indicate that they may well not be part of the human descent tree, which they were thought to be before.

I’m willing to learn, now do you know of an instance where “olam” functions as a noun? I hope this is not just a blustery wind.

And common function, the facts fit either view, so this doesn’t decide it for us.

This was simply a way of showing that several remarkable correspondences are not erased by any accompanying errors.

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

No, that's what you *now* mean, since I corrected you. The problem still remains: Genesis speaks of a separation, yet no separation exists.

My, how quickly the backpedaling begins. The point is that the claim that the land and seas were separated is wrong, since land and seas have always been separated.

Your other made-up claim about "there hasn't been land in every age" is not merely wrong, it contradicts the Genesis claim. In v2 we see:

GEN 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So at the very start there were waters and earth - at least according to the mythology that the Hebrews borrowed from Mesopotamia.

As soon as you finish all your work in this thread, I can introduce you to other creation stories. However, I'm not going to allow you to de-rail this thread merely because you're in trouble. Stay on topic.

1. No, you'd *like* for that to be the case - desperately like for that to be the case, I'd guess. However, they are not plants.

2. What's more, Genesis does not list life in the ocean as the first life anyhow. It lists "grasses" on the land as the first life. A far cry from the origin of life as science describes it.


As I said: I'm not going to contribute to your often-observed tendency to sidetrack a thread when you're in trouble. Stick to the current topic first.

1. Because the text says "creeping things". That is far more than just mammals and livestock.

2. The only place in the creation myth where insects, lizards, etc. fall - without adding or rearranging the verses - is Day 6.

1. You have merely asserted - you have not argued anything;

2. There is no evidence that Day 5 included amphibians - but in a world where you consider yourself free to add, change, and remove text to support your creationism, I'm sure that's not a problem for you;

3. You are trying to make the text say only mammals and livestock. But the text says cattle, AND creeping things:

GEN 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Not only that, it also says EVERY thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Finally, this is the same term used in Leviticus to refer to kosher insects for the Hebrews to eat:

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

It must suck when skeptics know your bible better than you do. :rolling:

1. There is no evidence for amphibians on day 5, since they're a "creeping thing" they come on day 6.

2. You've just admitted that Genesis is wrong about the order of created animals. Just checking to make sure you realize that.

1. No, it does not indicate that.

2. Whether or not there was interbreeding has zero to do with the issue of special creation. There is no support in the fossil record for special creation, and invoking Neanderthals isn't going to help your case for special creation.

That isn't the question. The question is why should we trust you on the meaning of this word, when you have so often postured as being knowable about things in the past - only to be exposed as someone who willingly makes things up on the fly?

Moreover, olam also means "world" - as in "the world to come", or "el-elohay ha-olam", the god of this universe (world). So there are instances of it being used as a noun.

So at this point, it doesn't seem like you even know how to recognize a noun when you see it in a sentence. As I said: why should anyone trust your word about Hebrew? Or anything else?

No, it's an attempt to get you to tell us why anyone should take your word for anything at all.

Uh, wrong.

1. Your original position (italics above) was there was no reason for the two species to share it. Now that you've been informed otherwise, you're trying to shift the goalposts and say that it fits either framework (science vs. creationism).

2. The reason that the facts do not fit either view is because science has a observable, testable mechanism to explain the presence of these common genes. You have shown absolutely no such mechanism for your view - in spite of being asked multiple times to provide it.

The problem is that you haven't shown them to be (a) remarkable or (b) correspondences at all.

1. You've twisted the text, added to it, rearranged it to create what you think are corespondences - which means that probability doesn't apply anymore, because you are tampering with the initial conditions to create the outcome you desire; and

2. Even if correspondences occurred without your deliberate monkeying around with the Genesis text, you haven't demonstrated that such correspondences are unlikely or unusual. You are not going to be able to make a claim for a 1% chance without proving it. As I told you before: if you thought you were going to be able to pull a probabilty out of your ass and get us to simply accept the number at face value, you're sadly mistaken. Given your piss-poor understanding of probability and your past attempts to misuse it for your own ends, you are going to have to demonstrate where you got that 1% number.

spin

This is simple, lee_merrill. You have absolutely no evidence for reading the words any other way than what they simply mean in the passage.

[You work on the assumption that, if a text talks in the same passage of ducks, geese, chickens, cows and goats, without any indication that these are code words, we are almost certainly dealing with just plain ducks, geese, chickens, cows and goats.

A day has day and night, morning and evening. The combination insisted upon by the writer, without any indication that these are code words, must compel us to read them as they were written.]

Plainly the text itself compels you to read the word "night" differently from its simple meaning. We understand that from the textual evidence, which puts "night" into a different light, here "night" is the subject of a verb which usually requires a human subject. "Night" is obviously being used metaphorically.

Now, show me from the specific text any evidence which requires you to take day, night, morning and evening as anything but what their simple meaning communicates.

Would you like to try to explain untroubled sabbaths have anything to do with your unsupported redefinition of words in Gen 1?

Is this Star Trek physics?


spin

Joan of Bark

Oh, shoot, that's who I meant. I got him confused with a similarly named writer. Thanks for the correction.:redface:

lee_merrill

You should perhaps take this up with Gleason Archer, a recognized Hebrew scholar, much of this is his reading of the text.

As in when evening and morning are referred to before the sun is marking them off?

Well, they're sabbath years, you know, not sabbath days in this instance.

Not at all, radiation from a star clears the gas, the solar wind is involved, I think, and it might also help the clumping of gas into planets, but this I'm not sure of.

Regards,
Lee

Jedi Mind Trick

Where is this function published outside of a creationist's book?
I am going to start a thread back in E&C about this.


ETA: The new thread is here.