God and Science - Theology and Observations - Origins and Creation
Are God, Theology, & Science compatible? I think so.
God is the Creator: The Bible does not argue about whether there is God. The Bible assumes that God exists and takes it from there. The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, is necessary to fully understand God. To believe or not believe in God is is a personal choice. Our belief, or lack thereof, does not change the fact that there is Something There.
Theology says God provided the energy and superintended the creation of the universe. Science tries to explain what our physical senses can touch, see and hear, a restricted view, to be sure. God and science are not nearly as mutually exclusive as some would have us believe.
Something for scientists to ponder:
During those first seconds/minutes/hours of Creation - all of the rules (that we have identified) by which this world is organized - came into being; among them gravity, electromagnetism, the laws of physics and chemistry and mechanics.
-----------------------
Something for Christians and scientists to ponder:
Did God create mankind, man, in Genesis 1? Or did He just create one man?
Read this carefully - and consider this with a fresh set of eyes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And 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.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And 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.
25And 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.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm just wondering.....................................
The Bible says...
Let us make man (not a man).
Let them have dominion (not the man).
Plural?
Man - could be men and women.
The 2nd creation account in Genesis 2 could be the description of a special creation of Adam and Eve, and a 'chosen' race - created to bring the word of God to the world.
Is it possible that more than one man, more than one woman, were created that day, day six, based on the verses?
I am well aware that you could say - 'this could not possibly have been missed by all the theologians'. But it's happened before. I missed it, until just recently. Bet you did too.
And what about the scientists, and their eye for detail?
Hopefully - we'll get some serious considerations here, and not just a bunch of personal attacks, bias, and nonsense replies. I'm not here for arguments and personal attacks, I'm here to figure out things. You just might be able to help. So, if you don't have anything useful and good to say.....
For those of you who cannot stomach the Bible, you will see these words through a veil of bitterness - I suggest that you just walk on by.
It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
Thanks for your thoughts,
QUOTE (Messenger+)
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Messenger: I've only got a couple of minutes...I'm heading out the door soon.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit...The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."(I Corinthians 15:45, 47)
Adam was "the first man". No others before him.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."(Genesis 5:1-2)
There's your "plurality". God "called their name Adam". It was Adam(the male) who renamed Eve.
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."(Genesis 3:20)
Adam(the male) renamed Eve and she was "the mother of all living". Again, no offspring before them.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come..."(Romans 5:12-14)
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:22)
"Sin entered the world" by Adam. "Death reigned from Adam..." "In Adam all die..." Since there was no "sin" among men prior to Adam and since "the wages of sin is death"(Romans 6:23), how then would any pre-Adamites have died? They would still be alive. This path has been traveled down by many prior to you. It leads to a ditch. Hope this info helps. Gotta run.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Messenger: I've only got a couple of minutes...I'm heading out the door soon.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit...The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."(I Corinthians 15:45, 47)
Adam was "the first man". No others before him.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."(Genesis 5:1-2)
There's your "plurality". God "called their name Adam". It was Adam(the male) who renamed Eve.
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."(Genesis 3:20)
Adam(the male) renamed Eve and she was "the mother of all living". Again, no offspring before them.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come..."(Romans 5:12-14)
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:22)
"Sin entered the world" by Adam. "Death reigned from Adam..." "In Adam all die..." Since there was no "sin" among men prior to Adam and since "the wages of sin is death"(Romans 6:23), how then would any pre-Adamites have died? They would still be alive. This path has been traveled down by many prior to you. It leads to a ditch. Hope this info helps. Gotta run.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 27 2006, 06:02 AM)
Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
In the Bible many animals are mentioned, like dogs, lions, bears, etc.
I wonder why are the cats excluded?
In the Bible many animals are mentioned, like dogs, lions, bears, etc.
I wonder why are the cats excluded?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 27 2006, 06:02 AM)
God and Science - Theology and Observations - Origins and Creation
It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
Thanks for your thoughts,
The literal / metaphoric boundary again. It is impossible to "take something at its word" while at the same time trying to "figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors". As proof I quote you: "people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away". Different people decide upon different boundaries between the literal / metaphor boundary. And beyond personal belief, there is no external "test" to validate / invalidate any of these personal literal / metaphor boundaries. Your boundary seems to be a little higher than Newguy's or Jerryduke's, and Grumpy's (contains some worthwhile lessons in it) seems to be much, much higher than yours.
The fact that planets are never mentioned in the bible simply means they never noticed them. If I read the descriptive geographic passages taken "at its word", I end up with a "model" of the world as a flat circular disk, overarched by a dome (like a hammered out vessel), the stars affixed to it, the sun and moon traveling across it, and the throne of God sitting on top of it. That's the most consistent view presented, taking everything at its word, without "so much twisting, so much explaining away". So what's the big deal with that? Do you really think the intent of the bible was to end up with an earth sciences or biology textbook?
I read the passages you posted as an extended metaphor. That's where my personal literal / metaphor boundary lies. Yours is different. Its a subjective, personal "decision", which is fine. But science cannot operate with the subjective. If it did, it would have as much forward momentum as this forum does! Science concerns itself with the physical phenomena, because the physical has the best chance of objectivity. Because science is not equipped to deal with the subjective and non-physical does not say those don't exist, are wrong, or less important in life. They are simply areas science cannot address.
It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
Thanks for your thoughts,
The literal / metaphoric boundary again. It is impossible to "take something at its word" while at the same time trying to "figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors". As proof I quote you: "people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away". Different people decide upon different boundaries between the literal / metaphor boundary. And beyond personal belief, there is no external "test" to validate / invalidate any of these personal literal / metaphor boundaries. Your boundary seems to be a little higher than Newguy's or Jerryduke's, and Grumpy's (contains some worthwhile lessons in it) seems to be much, much higher than yours.
The fact that planets are never mentioned in the bible simply means they never noticed them. If I read the descriptive geographic passages taken "at its word", I end up with a "model" of the world as a flat circular disk, overarched by a dome (like a hammered out vessel), the stars affixed to it, the sun and moon traveling across it, and the throne of God sitting on top of it. That's the most consistent view presented, taking everything at its word, without "so much twisting, so much explaining away". So what's the big deal with that? Do you really think the intent of the bible was to end up with an earth sciences or biology textbook?
I read the passages you posted as an extended metaphor. That's where my personal literal / metaphor boundary lies. Yours is different. Its a subjective, personal "decision", which is fine. But science cannot operate with the subjective. If it did, it would have as much forward momentum as this forum does! Science concerns itself with the physical phenomena, because the physical has the best chance of objectivity. Because science is not equipped to deal with the subjective and non-physical does not say those don't exist, are wrong, or less important in life. They are simply areas science cannot address.
Messenger
I sit here amazed!!! For once you are making sense!!!
If you read the first chapters of Genesis as an aligory that makes these points:
1 God created the universe
2 God created the Earth
3 God created all life
4 God created man
5 God did a good job and took a day off.
Science would have no objection to your assertions. Nor would I.
If you read Genesis literally as a description of HOW GOD DID THE ABOVE,Science has already shown that your opinion is in error. The belief in the following stories or points in Genesis are also not supported by scientific evidence:
1 The six day creation(13.7 billion year universe 4.5 billion year Earth 3.7 billion year life on Earth)
2 Adam and Eve as the first two humans 6500 years ago
3 Noah and the world wide flood
I have avoided any Theological questions(like the Fall) as they are not susceptible to scientific analysis.
I realize this is just the opening salvo in what is likely to be a protracted conflict but it is never the less the bottom line as far as science and the Bible being not in conflict.
Grumpy
I sit here amazed!!! For once you are making sense!!!
If you read the first chapters of Genesis as an aligory that makes these points:
1 God created the universe
2 God created the Earth
3 God created all life
4 God created man
5 God did a good job and took a day off.
Science would have no objection to your assertions. Nor would I.
If you read Genesis literally as a description of HOW GOD DID THE ABOVE,Science has already shown that your opinion is in error. The belief in the following stories or points in Genesis are also not supported by scientific evidence:
1 The six day creation(13.7 billion year universe 4.5 billion year Earth 3.7 billion year life on Earth)
2 Adam and Eve as the first two humans 6500 years ago
3 Noah and the world wide flood
I have avoided any Theological questions(like the Fall) as they are not susceptible to scientific analysis.
I realize this is just the opening salvo in what is likely to be a protracted conflict but it is never the less the bottom line as far as science and the Bible being not in conflict.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, is necessary to fully understand God.
In your biased view, yes. I'm sure Muslims, Hindus, and all the non-Judaism/Christian religions would disagree. THAT SAID, science and religion need not be completely separated. As you've completely ignored before, Messy, there are quite a large number of religious scientists, Christian or otherwise, and almost every single one of whom acknowledge the truth of the theory of evolution. The problems arise when religion begins to dictate what science may or may not address.
As a former Christian, I've read those passages dozens of times, and the conclusion I have reached is (drum roll, please): it's all a metaphor. But you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? It's no different than (I can't remember the civilization that believed) the teaching of a massive celestial spider spinning the universe from her fantastically fine silk.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, is necessary to fully understand God. |
In your biased view, yes. I'm sure Muslims, Hindus, and all the non-Judaism/Christian religions would disagree. THAT SAID, science and religion need not be completely separated. As you've completely ignored before, Messy, there are quite a large number of religious scientists, Christian or otherwise, and almost every single one of whom acknowledge the truth of the theory of evolution. The problems arise when religion begins to dictate what science may or may not address.
As a former Christian, I've read those passages dozens of times, and the conclusion I have reached is (drum roll, please): it's all a metaphor. But you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? It's no different than (I can't remember the civilization that believed) the teaching of a massive celestial spider spinning the universe from her fantastically fine silk.
Is it possible that more than one man, more than one woman, were created that day, day six, based on the verses?
Is it possible that it is another one of thousands of examples of early man attempting to reconcile the origins of humankind? Much like Noah's Ark, which is a morality tale stating that God will wipe out those who are unworthy of him, and also becomes an ancient "scientific" explanation for why rainbows exist. You speak of the twisting and strangling of scripture to explain things - many theologians have twisted science in order to attempt to force it to conform to a belief that rainbows didn't exist before the tale of Noah.
To answer your actual question: yes, according to ONLY the passages you put there, it is possible that God created more than one person. It's possible he created more than two. In order to prevent crossbreeding, it's entirely possible that he created dozens upon dozens of humans. But as NewGuy posted, there's other scriptures that contradict that belief. So it becomes obvious: the Elohim of the bible are gods of incest. Eeeew!
QUOTE
For those of you who cannot stomach the Bible, you will see these words through a veil of bitterness - I suggest that you just walk on by.
I can stomach these scriptures quite easily. It's the passages full of misogyny, slavery, genocide, and rape that I read through a veil of bitterness. So much cruelty demanded by Yahweh... It makes baby Jesus cry, I'm sure.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 27 2006, 12:26 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 27 2006, 06:02 AM)
Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
In the Bible many animals are mentioned, like dogs, lions, bears, etc.
I wonder why are the cats excluded?
"New International Bible for Cats"
Quoted from Genesis Chapter 1
On the first day of creation, God created the cat.
On the second day, God created man to serve the cat.
On the third day, God created all the animals of the earth to serve as food for the cat.
On the fourth day, God created honest toil so that man could labor for the good of the cat.
On the fifth day, God created expensive furniture so that the cat would have objects whereon to sharpen its claws.
On the sixth day, God created veterinary science to keep the cat healthy and the man broke.
On the seventh day, God tried to rest, but He had to scoop the litterbox.
A couple of quibbles: A Muslim would argue the Q'uran, which references the old testament and the words of Jesus, is necessary to understand God. Your premise limits understanding of God to Christians. "Something" need not be limited or constrained by a written work.
And that there is Something There is not what is generally considered to be a "fact"
Not that a lot, probably most, people don't want or feel it in their bones... but the feeling is a "fact", not the "Something"
A couple of quibbles: A Muslim would argue the Q'uran, which references the old testament and the words of Jesus, is necessary to understand God. Your premise limits understanding of God to Christians. "Something" need not be limited or constrained by a written work.
And that there is Something There is not what is generally considered to be a "fact"
Not that a lot, probably most, people don't want or feel it in their bones... but the feeling is a "fact", not the "Something"
Theology says God provided the energy and superintended the creation of the universe. Science tries to explain what our physical senses can touch, see and hear, a restricted view, to be sure. God and science are not nearly as mutually exclusive as some would have us believe.
No real ly major problem with that statement. Most scientists don't have a problem with it either. Most of the "science" side of this forum doesn't have a big problem with it that I have seen... as long as theology is not put forth as science.
Again, most scientists don't have a problem with this. The may not all agree, but they also realize they can't scientifically prove otherwise. Many scientists indeed study those rules because they want to understand how God fashioned the world and God's creation works. And most will accept the possibility that a Supreme Being could have arranged everything in advance so that the universe would, at this point in time, be the way it is. Accepting the possibility, even beliving it, however, is different from proving it scientifically.
Again, most scientists don't have a problem with this. The may not all agree, but they also realize they can't scientifically prove otherwise. Many scientists indeed study those rules because they want to understand how God fashioned the world and God's creation works. And most will accept the possibility that a Supreme Being could have arranged everything in advance so that the universe would, at this point in time, be the way it is. Accepting the possibility, even beliving it, however, is different from proving it scientifically.
The Bible says...
Let us make man (not a man).
Let them have dominion (not the man).
Plural?
Man - could be men and women.
The 2nd creation account in Genesis 2 could be the description of a special creation of Adam and Eve, and a 'chosen' race - created to bring the word of God to the world.
Is it possible that more than one man, more than one woman, were created that day, day six, based on the verses?
I am well aware that you could say - 'this could not possibly have been missed by all the theologians'. But it's happened before. I missed it, until just recently. Bet you did too.
And what about the scientists, and their eye for detail?
I've always read the Bible that way. Of course there are other verses eleswhere that would give a different impression. One has to choose which interpretation to accept. And there you go... you are interpreting the Bible. When you do that you can also see that 6 days do not nescessarily represent 144, 60 minute hours. The Bible was written, translated and edited by human beings. Imperfect, imprecise, error prone human beings. More importantly, humans use metaphor.
The Bible and what it says, with interpretation, is not incompatible with science. Taking everything in the bible as literal truth even when in conflict with observed reality... that is incompatible with the scientific method.
Again, I would agree, and think there is much of value in the bible ( as there are in other religious works. ) Some of the bible is quite remarkable in it's historical accuracy over a period of thousands of years. But it is also a book of morale wisdom, theological doctrine and politics of the time. Those that edited and re-wrote it over the years, if not the authors themselves, often had a point to make or an ulterior motive.
How to figure out what is what? Well, if you believe God created man, he gave us reason and logic and our physical senses. Tools to understand creation, and to puzzle out what to take litteraly and what is metaphor.
There you go, a serious reply.
In the Bible many animals are mentioned, like dogs, lions, bears, etc.
I wonder why are the cats excluded?
"New International Bible for Cats"
Quoted from Genesis Chapter 1
On the first day of creation, God created the cat.
On the second day, God created man to serve the cat.
On the third day, God created all the animals of the earth to serve as food for the cat.
On the fourth day, God created honest toil so that man could labor for the good of the cat.
On the fifth day, God created expensive furniture so that the cat would have objects whereon to sharpen its claws.
On the sixth day, God created veterinary science to keep the cat healthy and the man broke.
On the seventh day, God tried to rest, but He had to scoop the litterbox.
Thank you for your replies - I will be responding as soon as I get a chance. But I have a question in the meantime........
Is it possible (1), and is it relatively easy (2), for an African Black Male and Black Female to produce white children through genetic changes not affected by the sun or climate? (or Oriental, Indian, or other races)
Is the reverse possible or easy? A white male and a white female producing black children?
Or are all races descended from black Africans? From what I understand about what evolution claims, it is only possible to get white, oriental, indian, etc., from black skinned people. Is this what you believe to be true?
Or, do you believe the races 'evolved' from different varieties of ape like creatures? Different ape, different race - but several varieties evolved into humans? Or, one ape, one race - but further evolved due to sun and climate?
My motivation for asking is to see how strongly you hold to this theory. I'm beginning to wonder if different races were created. Just wondering, for now.
Or, if my ramblin' thoughts are confusing to you - please explain your best theory, in easy to understand language, on the subject of the different races.
P.S. Upisoft, I have a dog, and I don't believe in cats. Therefore, I don't believe your creation story.
Thanks again,
Is it possible (1), and is it relatively easy (2), for an African Black Male and Black Female to produce white children through genetic changes not affected by the sun or climate? (or Oriental, Indian, or other races)
Is the reverse possible or easy? A white male and a white female producing black children?
Or are all races descended from black Africans? From what I understand about what evolution claims, it is only possible to get white, oriental, indian, etc., from black skinned people. Is this what you believe to be true?
Or, do you believe the races 'evolved' from different varieties of ape like creatures? Different ape, different race - but several varieties evolved into humans? Or, one ape, one race - but further evolved due to sun and climate?
My motivation for asking is to see how strongly you hold to this theory. I'm beginning to wonder if different races were created. Just wondering, for now.
Or, if my ramblin' thoughts are confusing to you - please explain your best theory, in easy to understand language, on the subject of the different races.
P.S. Upisoft, I have a dog, and I don't believe in cats. Therefore, I don't believe your creation story.
Thanks again,
Messenger
One line leading to modern man. Skin color is simply adaptation to lesser or more sunlight which came about over thousands of years.
Occasional Albino children are born to all races but a caucasion child would only arise from black forefathers after hundreds(or thousands) of generations in a lower sunlight environment.
Grumpy
One line leading to modern man. Skin color is simply adaptation to lesser or more sunlight which came about over thousands of years.
Occasional Albino children are born to all races but a caucasion child would only arise from black forefathers after hundreds(or thousands) of generations in a lower sunlight environment.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
Thank you for the quick reply.
I'm confused by your answer.
So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin?
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Thanks again,
Thank you for the quick reply.
I'm confused by your answer.
So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin?
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Thanks again,
Hi Grumpy, Messenger, all.
The accepted 'interpretation' of christians and other 'bible' sects has been that, before the 'fall' when death and decay came to pass, there was no such thing as death and decay.
Questions:
- Did A & E eat without uprooting/killing anything (ie, nothing had to die in order to feed them)?
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
That's all, folks. Ciao.
RC.
.
The accepted 'interpretation' of christians and other 'bible' sects has been that, before the 'fall' when death and decay came to pass, there was no such thing as death and decay.
Questions:
- Did A & E eat without uprooting/killing anything (ie, nothing had to die in order to feed them)?
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
That's all, folks. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 26 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE
God is the Creator: The Bible does not argue about whether there is God. The Bible assumes that God exists and takes it from there. The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, is necessary to fully understand God. To believe or not believe in God is is a personal choice. Our belief, or lack thereof, does not change the fact that there is Something There.
A couple of quibbles: A Muslim would argue the Q'uran, which references the old testament and the words of Jesus, is necessary to understand God. Your premise limits understanding of God to Christians. "Something" need not be limited or constrained by a written work.
And that there is Something There is not what is generally considered to be a "fact"
Not that a lot, probably most, people don't want or feel it in their bones... but the feeling is a "fact", not the "Something"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| God is the Creator: The Bible does not argue about whether there is God. The Bible assumes that God exists and takes it from there. The entire Bible, Old and New Testament, is necessary to fully understand God. To believe or not believe in God is is a personal choice. Our belief, or lack thereof, does not change the fact that there is Something There. |
A couple of quibbles: A Muslim would argue the Q'uran, which references the old testament and the words of Jesus, is necessary to understand God. Your premise limits understanding of God to Christians. "Something" need not be limited or constrained by a written work.
And that there is Something There is not what is generally considered to be a "fact"
Not that a lot, probably most, people don't want or feel it in their bones... but the feeling is a "fact", not the "Something"
Theology says God provided the energy and superintended the creation of the universe. Science tries to explain what our physical senses can touch, see and hear, a restricted view, to be sure. God and science are not nearly as mutually exclusive as some would have us believe.
No real ly major problem with that statement. Most scientists don't have a problem with it either. Most of the "science" side of this forum doesn't have a big problem with it that I have seen... as long as theology is not put forth as science.
QUOTE
Something for scientists to ponder:
During those first seconds/minutes/hours of Creation - all of the rules (that we have identified) by which this world is organized - came into being; among them gravity, electromagnetism, the laws of physics and chemistry and mechanics.
During those first seconds/minutes/hours of Creation - all of the rules (that we have identified) by which this world is organized - came into being; among them gravity, electromagnetism, the laws of physics and chemistry and mechanics.
Again, most scientists don't have a problem with this. The may not all agree, but they also realize they can't scientifically prove otherwise. Many scientists indeed study those rules because they want to understand how God fashioned the world and God's creation works. And most will accept the possibility that a Supreme Being could have arranged everything in advance so that the universe would, at this point in time, be the way it is. Accepting the possibility, even beliving it, however, is different from proving it scientifically.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Something for scientists to ponder: During those first seconds/minutes/hours of Creation - all of the rules (that we have identified) by which this world is organized - came into being; among them gravity, electromagnetism, the laws of physics and chemistry and mechanics. |
Again, most scientists don't have a problem with this. The may not all agree, but they also realize they can't scientifically prove otherwise. Many scientists indeed study those rules because they want to understand how God fashioned the world and God's creation works. And most will accept the possibility that a Supreme Being could have arranged everything in advance so that the universe would, at this point in time, be the way it is. Accepting the possibility, even beliving it, however, is different from proving it scientifically.
The Bible says...
Let us make man (not a man).
Let them have dominion (not the man).
Plural?
Man - could be men and women.
The 2nd creation account in Genesis 2 could be the description of a special creation of Adam and Eve, and a 'chosen' race - created to bring the word of God to the world.
Is it possible that more than one man, more than one woman, were created that day, day six, based on the verses?
I am well aware that you could say - 'this could not possibly have been missed by all the theologians'. But it's happened before. I missed it, until just recently. Bet you did too.
And what about the scientists, and their eye for detail?
I've always read the Bible that way. Of course there are other verses eleswhere that would give a different impression. One has to choose which interpretation to accept. And there you go... you are interpreting the Bible. When you do that you can also see that 6 days do not nescessarily represent 144, 60 minute hours. The Bible was written, translated and edited by human beings. Imperfect, imprecise, error prone human beings. More importantly, humans use metaphor.
The Bible and what it says, with interpretation, is not incompatible with science. Taking everything in the bible as literal truth even when in conflict with observed reality... that is incompatible with the scientific method.
QUOTE
There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
Again, I would agree, and think there is much of value in the bible ( as there are in other religious works. ) Some of the bible is quite remarkable in it's historical accuracy over a period of thousands of years. But it is also a book of morale wisdom, theological doctrine and politics of the time. Those that edited and re-wrote it over the years, if not the authors themselves, often had a point to make or an ulterior motive.
How to figure out what is what? Well, if you believe God created man, he gave us reason and logic and our physical senses. Tools to understand creation, and to puzzle out what to take litteraly and what is metaphor.
There you go, a serious reply.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2006, 02:57 AM)
- Did A & E eat without uprooting/killing anything (ie, nothing had to die in order to feed them)?
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
Eh, I suspect A & E had to eat only fruits.
No, The fruits were perfect, and they hadn't any gut microbes. No decay, matter - energy conversion had to be the case. I suspect that, if they were perfect, they had no need to go to toilet
No, no... All microbes have used photosynthesis for their energy needs. No decay!
Ney. Microbes were not created later. They mutated. The apple must contained those 'gut microbes' you're talking about
Do yo like this one? Is it consistent?
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
Eh, I suspect A & E had to eat only fruits.
No, The fruits were perfect, and they hadn't any gut microbes. No decay, matter - energy conversion had to be the case. I suspect that, if they were perfect, they had no need to go to toilet
No, no... All microbes have used photosynthesis for their energy needs. No decay!
Ney. Microbes were not created later. They mutated. The apple must contained those 'gut microbes' you're talking about
Do yo like this one? Is it consistent?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 27 2006, 07:36 PM)
Grumpy,
Thank you for the quick reply.
I'm confused by your answer.
So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin?
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Thanks again,
"White" people are the genetic adaptation to lesser amounts of sunlight. You can chart sunlight / skin colour ( before we all moved around and got pleasantly mingled ) and find a pretty much perfect match. ( Innu are one of the exceptions but then they are relatively recent migrants to the high arctic .) The fairer skin, the less annual sunlight.
Why? Vitamin D
The body needs sunlight to produce Vitamin D. A deficiancy in this results in rickets.
It's not as common now as we add vitamin to D food. Even so, in northern countries ( like mine ) vitamin D deficiency is not uncommon among darker skinned children with a poor diet.
( Just as "white" australians are more supsceptible to skin cancer than citizens whose ancestry grants them a dark skin. )
if people with dark skin live enough generations in a climate with little sunlight, and if the ability to produce vitamin D is enough of a survival advantage, then yes, their distant decendants will have pale skin.
But as mentioned before, we can now get Vitamin D from supplements, so it is probably not such a survival advantage... probably not as important these days as lookng good in a suit.
As to how people got to other parts of the world, for the most part they walked. Population increases, so some of our ancestors head over the hills where it's less crowded and there is less competition for food. Over ten's of thousands of years it's easy enough to cover global distances. ( or to use a biblical example, look how much travelling Abraham did. )
Thank you for the quick reply.
I'm confused by your answer.
So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin?
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Thanks again,
"White" people are the genetic adaptation to lesser amounts of sunlight. You can chart sunlight / skin colour ( before we all moved around and got pleasantly mingled ) and find a pretty much perfect match. ( Innu are one of the exceptions but then they are relatively recent migrants to the high arctic .) The fairer skin, the less annual sunlight.
Why? Vitamin D
The body needs sunlight to produce Vitamin D. A deficiancy in this results in rickets.
It's not as common now as we add vitamin to D food. Even so, in northern countries ( like mine ) vitamin D deficiency is not uncommon among darker skinned children with a poor diet.
( Just as "white" australians are more supsceptible to skin cancer than citizens whose ancestry grants them a dark skin. )
if people with dark skin live enough generations in a climate with little sunlight, and if the ability to produce vitamin D is enough of a survival advantage, then yes, their distant decendants will have pale skin.
But as mentioned before, we can now get Vitamin D from supplements, so it is probably not such a survival advantage... probably not as important these days as lookng good in a suit.
As to how people got to other parts of the world, for the most part they walked. Population increases, so some of our ancestors head over the hills where it's less crowded and there is less competition for food. Over ten's of thousands of years it's easy enough to cover global distances. ( or to use a biblical example, look how much travelling Abraham did. )
Messenger
Africa and they were black,not brown(few Americans have ever seen a pure African black man, they are not brown they are ebony black)
Africa and they were black,not brown(few Americans have ever seen a pure African black man, they are not brown they are ebony black)
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
The skin generates certain vitamins in the presence of sunlight but too much sunlight leads to cancers. There is a selection pressure on primative humans(those not sheltered or clothed as we are today) for the melanin content of the skin to adjust over generations to maintain a balance between those two facts. The Darkest colored people are found near the equator, the lightest are in the Artic regions.
Over the course of many generations that would likely happen, however inter mixture through inter marriage will probably mask the slow progress such a change would take. Such is the experience in America with the blacks forcibly brought to our country. Few actual black people are left in our country because of mixing with other peoples.
Over the course of many generations that would likely happen, however inter mixture through inter marriage will probably mask the slow progress such a change would take. Such is the experience in America with the blacks forcibly brought to our country. Few actual black people are left in our country because of mixing with other peoples.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Mostly they walked. During the height of the last advance of our present ice age there were land bridges between France and England and between Siberia and North Western Canada as well as others. Anthropological evidence suggests they followed the waters edge and ate much fish and shellfish(high powered brain food).
Grumpy
QUOTE
So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin?
Africa and they were black,not brown(few Americans have ever seen a pure African black man, they are not brown they are ebony black)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So where, geographically, in evolution; did modern man first appear, and what color was their skin? |
Africa and they were black,not brown(few Americans have ever seen a pure African black man, they are not brown they are ebony black)
Guessing that you'll say black, and then when they moved around to Europe, and the middle east, their colors gradually lightened?
The skin generates certain vitamins in the presence of sunlight but too much sunlight leads to cancers. There is a selection pressure on primative humans(those not sheltered or clothed as we are today) for the melanin content of the skin to adjust over generations to maintain a balance between those two facts. The Darkest colored people are found near the equator, the lightest are in the Artic regions.
QUOTE
So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions.
Over the course of many generations that would likely happen, however inter mixture through inter marriage will probably mask the slow progress such a change would take. Such is the experience in America with the blacks forcibly brought to our country. Few actual black people are left in our country because of mixing with other peoples.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, by this logic, if blacks remain in certain climates, they will eventually not be black? No sarcasm, just asking for your opinions. |
Over the course of many generations that would likely happen, however inter mixture through inter marriage will probably mask the slow progress such a change would take. Such is the experience in America with the blacks forcibly brought to our country. Few actual black people are left in our country because of mixing with other peoples.
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
Mostly they walked. During the height of the last advance of our present ice age there were land bridges between France and England and between Siberia and North Western Canada as well as others. Anthropological evidence suggests they followed the waters edge and ate much fish and shellfish(high powered brain food).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 27 2006, 06:35 PM)
Thank you for your replies - I will be responding as soon as I get a chance. But I have a question in the meantime........
Is it possible (1), and is it relatively easy (2), for an African Black Male and Black Female to produce white children through genetic changes not affected by the sun or climate? (or Oriental, Indian, or other races)
Is the reverse possible or easy? A white male and a white female producing black children?
Or are all races descended from black Africans? From what I understand about what evolution claims, it is only possible to get white, oriental, indian, etc., from black skinned people. Is this what you believe to be true?
Or, do you believe the races 'evolved' from different varieties of ape like creatures? Different ape, different race - but several varieties evolved into humans? Or, one ape, one race - but further evolved due to sun and climate?
My motivation for asking is to see how strongly you hold to this theory. I'm beginning to wonder if different races were created. Just wondering, for now.
Or, if my ramblin' thoughts are confusing to you - please explain your best theory, in easy to understand language, on the subject of the different races.
P.S. Upisoft, I have a dog, and I don't believe in cats. Therefore, I don't believe your creation story.
Thanks again,
It is possible for "black" parents to have "white" children and vice versa... but it isn't common.
However, there aren't really "races" like that, only a collection of physical traits. Take a look at B&W photos and play with the brightness and contrast. You can vary easily erase "racial" identifiers.
I once did a painting of a "black" amazon warrior. People are always suprized to find that the woman I used as a model was a blond blue eyed Ukranian. I changes the skin tone, eye colour and hairstyle and *poof* instant "black"
There is no single visual feature found in "white","oreiantal", or "black" people that can't be found in the others, it is only the certain groupings that we identify as "race". And many of those features are grouped together simply because of the fact that people tend to breed with people nearby, leading to the predominance of certain features.
Did all the variations in appearance in modern humans come from variation from a group "out of africa" or did the development of modern humans occur concurrently in various places? This is currently a big question and lively subject of debate in anthropology and paleontology. There is evidence for both sides and we simply don't know enough to say for sure yet. However, even if modern humans evolved in several areas concurrently it is likey that they came from Homo-erectus, more manlike than apelike in many ways. Also, it is almost certain that there would be acertain amount of intermixing going on at all times. Thus you would have, as today, local variations of one species rather than seperate races.
Neanderthal is the closest you would have to a completely seperate race of human, and even then, there is debate as to whether they interbred with modern humans or not.
Is it possible (1), and is it relatively easy (2), for an African Black Male and Black Female to produce white children through genetic changes not affected by the sun or climate? (or Oriental, Indian, or other races)
Is the reverse possible or easy? A white male and a white female producing black children?
Or are all races descended from black Africans? From what I understand about what evolution claims, it is only possible to get white, oriental, indian, etc., from black skinned people. Is this what you believe to be true?
Or, do you believe the races 'evolved' from different varieties of ape like creatures? Different ape, different race - but several varieties evolved into humans? Or, one ape, one race - but further evolved due to sun and climate?
My motivation for asking is to see how strongly you hold to this theory. I'm beginning to wonder if different races were created. Just wondering, for now.
Or, if my ramblin' thoughts are confusing to you - please explain your best theory, in easy to understand language, on the subject of the different races.
P.S. Upisoft, I have a dog, and I don't believe in cats. Therefore, I don't believe your creation story.
Thanks again,
It is possible for "black" parents to have "white" children and vice versa... but it isn't common.
However, there aren't really "races" like that, only a collection of physical traits. Take a look at B&W photos and play with the brightness and contrast. You can vary easily erase "racial" identifiers.
I once did a painting of a "black" amazon warrior. People are always suprized to find that the woman I used as a model was a blond blue eyed Ukranian. I changes the skin tone, eye colour and hairstyle and *poof* instant "black"
There is no single visual feature found in "white","oreiantal", or "black" people that can't be found in the others, it is only the certain groupings that we identify as "race". And many of those features are grouped together simply because of the fact that people tend to breed with people nearby, leading to the predominance of certain features.
Did all the variations in appearance in modern humans come from variation from a group "out of africa" or did the development of modern humans occur concurrently in various places? This is currently a big question and lively subject of debate in anthropology and paleontology. There is evidence for both sides and we simply don't know enough to say for sure yet. However, even if modern humans evolved in several areas concurrently it is likey that they came from Homo-erectus, more manlike than apelike in many ways. Also, it is almost certain that there would be acertain amount of intermixing going on at all times. Thus you would have, as today, local variations of one species rather than seperate races.
Neanderthal is the closest you would have to a completely seperate race of human, and even then, there is debate as to whether they interbred with modern humans or not.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 27 2006, 09:41 AM)
[QUOTE=Upisoft,Jan 27 2006, 12:26 PM]
"New International Bible for Cats"
LOL
"New International Bible for Cats"
LOL
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 28 2006, 01:35 AM)
P.S. Upisoft, I have a dog, and I don't believe in cats. Therefore, I don't believe your creation story.
I had dog too. What do you mean saying that you don't believe in cats? They do exist, don't they?
I found another persistence in the Bible. It states many times that we use our heart to think, remember, and have feelings. Brain does not exist, like the cats. Does that mean that who wants to believe in what is written in the Bible must not have brain?
I had dog too. What do you mean saying that you don't believe in cats? They do exist, don't they?
I found another persistence in the Bible. It states many times that we use our heart to think, remember, and have feelings. Brain does not exist, like the cats. Does that mean that who wants to believe in what is written in the Bible must not have brain?
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 28 2006, 03:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2006, 02:57 AM)
- Did A & E eat without uprooting/killing anything (ie, nothing had to die in order to feed them)?
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
Eh, I suspect A & E had to eat only fruits.
No, The fruits were perfect, and they hadn't any gut microbes. No decay, matter - energy conversion had to be the case. I suspect that, if they were perfect, they had no need to go to toilet
No, no... All microbes have used photosynthesis for their energy needs. No decay!
Ney. Microbes were not created later. They mutated. The apple must contained those 'gut microbes' you're talking about
Do yo like this one? Is it consistent?
Hehehe! Nice try, Upi!
So they had a mouth but no anus etc? (no need for 'toilet', so no solid/liquid waste products!). Interesting.
Then did the ANIMALS TOO not produce faeces/urine/perspiration or any form of 'waste'? (they produced nothing which the 'plants' could utilise for THEIR nutrients).
In which case, what was the 'growing medium' for the plants (no faeces/urine/decay and worms etc to 'digest/till' the 'soil' thus produced when these are mixed with minerals from 'eroded' rock, means no new soil).
And even photo-synthetic microbes must have mineral/fixed-Nitrogen essential nutrients to 'grow' (so fruit trees grow out of thin air, so the apples contain nothing but 'fresh air').
So, they eat 'fruit' only, heh? (no gas/diarhea problems since no microbes inside; and only a 'mystery-nuclear' reaction matter-energy conversion system).
So they need only have eaten ONE apple every millenium then? (because 100% matter-energy conversion---no excreta you said, remember?---- of just one apple would give energy output equivalent to that of several Hydrogen Bombs, I'd recommend a VERY VERY SLOW 'mystery-nuclear' reaction 'digestion process' over a long, long time...otherwise BOOM!...no more A&E).
So, the 'apple did it' after all (Satan/Serpent + apple, and all that), heh? (since that's where the bacteria that mutated came from; which means all bacteria is BAD...which is a shocking revelation, meaning that my digestive tract has been utilising BAD & BADDER micro-flaura/fauna to help me get the most out of my non-perfect food/energy-extraction system).
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Thanks for playing, mate!
RC.
.
- Did enzymes and gut microbes not 'break down' that food within their digestive tract (microbial life did not cause 'decay' breakdown back to basic protein/sugar-molecules/etc for absorption into the blood stream)?
- If there were no microbes to cause decay, does that mean they were 'created' LATER?
- And if there were microbial life, did they not 'live' to 'decay' things so as to re-cycle nutrients to the plant/Animal life?
What is a consistent explanation, please...anyone?
Eh, I suspect A & E had to eat only fruits.
No, The fruits were perfect, and they hadn't any gut microbes. No decay, matter - energy conversion had to be the case. I suspect that, if they were perfect, they had no need to go to toilet
No, no... All microbes have used photosynthesis for their energy needs. No decay!
Ney. Microbes were not created later. They mutated. The apple must contained those 'gut microbes' you're talking about
Do yo like this one? Is it consistent?
Hehehe! Nice try, Upi!
So they had a mouth but no anus etc? (no need for 'toilet', so no solid/liquid waste products!). Interesting.
Then did the ANIMALS TOO not produce faeces/urine/perspiration or any form of 'waste'? (they produced nothing which the 'plants' could utilise for THEIR nutrients).
In which case, what was the 'growing medium' for the plants (no faeces/urine/decay and worms etc to 'digest/till' the 'soil' thus produced when these are mixed with minerals from 'eroded' rock, means no new soil).
And even photo-synthetic microbes must have mineral/fixed-Nitrogen essential nutrients to 'grow' (so fruit trees grow out of thin air, so the apples contain nothing but 'fresh air').
So, they eat 'fruit' only, heh? (no gas/diarhea problems since no microbes inside; and only a 'mystery-nuclear' reaction matter-energy conversion system).
So they need only have eaten ONE apple every millenium then? (because 100% matter-energy conversion---no excreta you said, remember?---- of just one apple would give energy output equivalent to that of several Hydrogen Bombs, I'd recommend a VERY VERY SLOW 'mystery-nuclear' reaction 'digestion process' over a long, long time...otherwise BOOM!...no more A&E).
So, the 'apple did it' after all (Satan/Serpent + apple, and all that), heh? (since that's where the bacteria that mutated came from; which means all bacteria is BAD...which is a shocking revelation, meaning that my digestive tract has been utilising BAD & BADDER micro-flaura/fauna to help me get the most out of my non-perfect food/energy-extraction system).
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Thanks for playing, mate!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2006, 04:44 AM)
So they need only have eaten ONE apple every millenium then? (because 100% matter-energy conversion---no excreta you said, remember?---- of just one apple would give energy output equivalent to that of several Hydrogen Bombs, I'd recommend a VERY VERY SLOW 'mystery-nuclear' reaction 'digestion process' over a long, long time...otherwise BOOM!...no more A&E).
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Hi RC,
I think that the VERY SLOW process should do the trick. They required more energy than we do. Do you want to know why? Adam lived 930 years. Obviously he used Relativity, and by running very fast (speed near c), he slowed his aging process...
Yep! That has to be. Don't you think so?
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Hi RC,
I think that the VERY SLOW process should do the trick. They required more energy than we do. Do you want to know why? Adam lived 930 years. Obviously he used Relativity, and by running very fast (speed near c), he slowed his aging process...
Yep! That has to be. Don't you think so?
QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 28 2006, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2006, 04:44 AM)
So they need only have eaten ONE apple every millenium then? (because 100% matter-energy conversion---no excreta you said, remember?---- of just one apple would give energy output equivalent to that of several Hydrogen Bombs, I'd recommend a VERY VERY SLOW 'mystery-nuclear' reaction 'digestion process' over a long, long time...otherwise BOOM!...no more A&E).
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Hi RC,
I think that the VERY SLOW process should do the trick. They required more energy than we do. Do you want to know why? Adam lived 930 years. Obviously he used Relativity, and by running very fast (speed near c), he slowed his aging process...
Yep! That has to be. Don't you think so?
By Jingo! Could be! But is that 'pre-split-Light' © or 'post-split-Light' ©?
......Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about: see "dad1" posting history, hehehe.
What about the rest of the story? I'll catch up tomorrow, mate! G'night.
RC.
.
Hahaha. Does your answer sound consistent to you, Upisoft?.....in light of my above observations? hehehe.
Hi RC,
I think that the VERY SLOW process should do the trick. They required more energy than we do. Do you want to know why? Adam lived 930 years. Obviously he used Relativity, and by running very fast (speed near c), he slowed his aging process...
Yep! That has to be. Don't you think so?
By Jingo! Could be! But is that 'pre-split-Light' © or 'post-split-Light' ©?
......Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about: see "dad1" posting history, hehehe.
What about the rest of the story? I'll catch up tomorrow, mate! G'night.
RC.
.
RealityCheck,
Eh, dad1... 18 pages of posts. I got bored pretty soon and couldn't find anything about pre-split-Light' © or 'post-split-Light' ©.
The rest of the story have to wait. My muse has day off.
QUOTE
By Jingo! Could be! But is that 'pre-split-Light' © or 'post-split-Light' ©?
......Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about: see "dad1" posting history, hehehe.
What about the rest of the story? I'll catch up tomorrow, mate! G'night.
RC.
.
......Oh, and if you don't know what I'm talking about: see "dad1" posting history, hehehe.
What about the rest of the story? I'll catch up tomorrow, mate! G'night.
RC.
.
Eh, dad1... 18 pages of posts. I got bored pretty soon and couldn't find anything about pre-split-Light' © or 'post-split-Light' ©.
The rest of the story have to wait. My muse has day off.
Sorry to jump in here guys, but don't forget that there was a LOT of extra moisture in the air before The Flood ©, and all that water floating above the firmament would have increased atmospheric pressure by multiple times, so just resting on the chesterfield reaching for a beer would be ever so much more taxing than going for a jog in modern times.
Absolutely hilarious! My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow. I had to put on my goalie equipment for protection when attempting to remove said claw. My story has nothing to do with the present discussion, but your NIV for cats just gave me an excuse to post it.
EDIT:
Absolutely hilarious! My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow. I had to put on my goalie equipment for protection when attempting to remove said claw. My story has nothing to do with the present discussion, but your NIV for cats just gave me an excuse to post it.
EDIT:
I found another persistence in the Bible. It states many times that we use our heart to think, remember, and have feelings. Brain does not exist, like the cats. Does that mean that who wants to believe in what is written in the Bible must not have brain?
Upisoft, check out this website describing a couple of articles written by the Jehovah's Witnesses in past Watchtower magazines. I am quite aware that Newsie, Messy, and other Christians here will take offense to my inclusion of JW's as Christians, but I think the idea that the heart is the emotion center of the human consciousness is another "literal" bible topic that doesn't seem to get much attention. When we say "I know in my heart", where do we get that expression? In ancient times, the belief was the heart was the seat of emotions, and you'd think God would've mentioned that the brain contains all of the human consciousness.
QUOTE
"New International Bible for Cats"
Absolutely hilarious! My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow. I had to put on my goalie equipment for protection when attempting to remove said claw. My story has nothing to do with the present discussion, but your NIV for cats just gave me an excuse to post it.
EDIT:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "New International Bible for Cats" |
Absolutely hilarious! My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow. I had to put on my goalie equipment for protection when attempting to remove said claw. My story has nothing to do with the present discussion, but your NIV for cats just gave me an excuse to post it.
EDIT:
I found another persistence in the Bible. It states many times that we use our heart to think, remember, and have feelings. Brain does not exist, like the cats. Does that mean that who wants to believe in what is written in the Bible must not have brain?
Upisoft, check out this website describing a couple of articles written by the Jehovah's Witnesses in past Watchtower magazines. I am quite aware that Newsie, Messy, and other Christians here will take offense to my inclusion of JW's as Christians, but I think the idea that the heart is the emotion center of the human consciousness is another "literal" bible topic that doesn't seem to get much attention. When we say "I know in my heart", where do we get that expression? In ancient times, the belief was the heart was the seat of emotions, and you'd think God would've mentioned that the brain contains all of the human consciousness.
sinned34,
That's not funny. The worst part of it is that you've tried to help, but that help isn't going to do any good. Eh, except for the allergic woman.
My cat is the same. He doesn't allow to be touched by anyone except me and my wife.
That's not funny. The worst part of it is that you've tried to help, but that help isn't going to do any good. Eh, except for the allergic woman.
My cat is the same. He doesn't allow to be touched by anyone except me and my wife.
I am quite aware that Newsie, Messy, and other Christians here will take offense to my inclusion of JW's as Christians, but I think the idea that the heart is the emotion center of the human consciousness is another "literal" bible topic that doesn't seem to get much attention. When we say "I know in my heart", where do we get that expression? In ancient times, the belief was the heart was the seat of emotions, and you'd think God would've mentioned that the brain contains all of the human consciousness.
Yeah, I know that. It's pretty common expression in many languages. My point was that the Bible NEVER speaks about the brain. The brain is probably the most important organ. Doctors can replace your heart with an artificial one. They can use a big machine to do the job your kidneys are supposed to do, if they're failing. However, if your brain takes heavy damage and cease to function, they're helpless.
So, my question is -- Why the Bible never mentions the brain, if it's so important? Is that because who wrote the book didn't know?
Or perhaps it's more likely that the answer is the same as the answer of the question: "Why the Bible never mentions cats".
I prefer the latter and I think the both brain and cats aren't mentioned in the Bible on purpose. You know there is a pretty big story about Jews escaping Egypt. Jews hated Egyptians. Egyptians worshiped cats. Egyptians made first known brain surgeries. You only have to add 0 and 0 (eh, 1 and 1 - hi steve ) to get the answer.
Newguy,
This would contradict Genesis 1.
When they say 'so it is written' - I sure would like to see those written words.
Like in II Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Which scriptures are they referring to? The Old Testament, the Torah? The writer obviously had no idea that his letter would someday be considered scripture.
The verse again, in full:
1 Cor:45-50
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
The only concept we are to take out of this is our new spiritual likeness.
Physical life comes first, then spiritual--
We are born again - of the spirit--
Newguy,
This would contradict Genesis 1.
When they say 'so it is written' - I sure would like to see those written words.
Like in II Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Which scriptures are they referring to? The Old Testament, the Torah? The writer obviously had no idea that his letter would someday be considered scripture.
The verse again, in full:
1 Cor:45-50
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
The only concept we are to take out of this is our new spiritual likeness.
Physical life comes first, then spiritual--
We are born again - of the spirit--
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."(Genesis 5:1-2)
There's your "plurality". God "called their name Adam". It was Adam(the male) who renamed Eve.
The NIV Genesis 5:1-2
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "
God called them, (both male and female), Adam or man (mankind).
He created both male and female and blessed them, the whole human race.
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."(Genesis 3:20)
Adam(the male) renamed Eve and she was "the mother of all living". Again, no offspring before them.
You quote Genesis 5 - and then go backwards. So it would seem that you are twisting scripture here.
I believe there is misinterpretation here. Adam has been translated as man (mankind) and as the name for Adam. If we say that God created mankin in their image, first. Then apparently he created Adam and Eve, perhaps as a special race to carry the message of God to the world. If we do this, there is no contradiction, and no scripture twisting necessary.
You quote Genesis 5 - and then go backwards. So it would seem that you are twisting scripture here.
I believe there is misinterpretation here. Adam has been translated as man (mankind) and as the name for Adam. If we say that God created mankin in their image, first. Then apparently he created Adam and Eve, perhaps as a special race to carry the message of God to the world. If we do this, there is no contradiction, and no scripture twisting necessary.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come..."(Romans 5:12-14)
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:22)
"Sin entered the world" by Adam. "Death reigned from Adam..." "In Adam all die..." Since there was no "sin" among men prior to Adam and since "the wages of sin is death"(Romans 6:23), how then would any pre-Adamites have died? They would still be alive. This path has been traveled down by many prior to you. It leads to a ditch.
By one man (Adam or Eve?) sin entered the world. Or, if it is through Adam, as you are assuming, then there is no sin in women, death is not passed upon all women?
So are they referring to Adam the man here, or are they referring to Adam the mankind?
Since there was no 'sin' among men prior to Adam & Eve - that is why there was no death before Adam & Eve. The pre-Adamites would not have died, at least not until Adam & Eve came along. Because death did not enter the world until Adam & Eve sinned, because the Bible says the wages of sin is death. The bible says 'death reigned from Adam'.
See, no contradictions, no scripture twisting.
Thank you Newguy, for you pleasant response. I'm not looking for an argument, only pleasant discussion. Like you, I believe the RCC has perpetuated certain 'myths' in order to remain in control. At this point, it is not evident to me that the Bible can be the only authority on certain issues.
I have recently been studying how Paul (who wrote about half of the New Testament) may have been in disagreement with Jesus' own apostles. Sometimes you find truth in the strangest places. I'm currently reading a book called Custodians of Truth by Tim Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins. They bring up the fact that Paul is seen defending himself on several occasions against Jesus' own apostles. Now who are we to believe - Jesus' own original apostles, or the 'Paul come lately'? I won't get into that right now, though.
Well, if you discover that the RCC has been misleading people for hundreds of years, based on misinterpretations, just so they could maintain control - then you begin to realize just how important it is to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical.
If I raise my standard to Grumpy's 'much, much higher' standards - I'm afraid (metaphorically speaking of course) I'll talk myself out of a god. The standards are set by God, not by men.
Well, if you discover that the RCC has been misleading people for hundreds of years, based on misinterpretations, just so they could maintain control - then you begin to realize just how important it is to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical.
If I raise my standard to Grumpy's 'much, much higher' standards - I'm afraid (metaphorically speaking of course) I'll talk myself out of a god. The standards are set by God, not by men.
The fact that planets are never mentioned in the bible simply means they never noticed them. If I read the descriptive geographic passages taken "at its word", I end up with a "model" of the world as a flat circular disk, overarched by a dome (like a hammered out vessel), the stars affixed to it, the sun and moon traveling across it, and the throne of God sitting on top of it. That's the most consistent view presented, taking everything at its word, without "so much twisting, so much explaining away". So what's the big deal with that? Do you really think the intent of the bible was to end up with an earth sciences or biology textbook?
Well then, you have also misinterpreted the Bible, and can now join the RCC.
I take this same scenario to be a metaphor. God is above it all, and 'sitting' is the same as 'ruling' in this case.
No I do not think the Bible is a science book. But science should not think the Bible is false, either. The Bible is not a book of moral values, although it does contain the morals we can and should live by. The story of the Bible is the key to changing your life.
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing.
Thanks,
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind.
Throughout history?
"Science" as in investigation using thie scientific method has only been around under 300 years. Even if you stretch back to the first movements towards using objective observations and physical experimentation you are only speaking of 400 years.
And that methodology was first applied only to certain areas of study ( and by the way, seeing as how many of the people that first studied things like astronomy and geology faced persecution for it, that might have held up progress just a teensy bit you know. )
The tools and techniques for an ethical scientific study of the human mind are in some cases only just becoming available. Up until 60 years ago, short of unacceptable and dangerous physical and mental experiments on humans the only tool to investigate the human mind was pretty much to talk to people. That is a technique with a lot of problems
Now, should we compare the track record of religion "throughout history" on it's failings with the physical world of anatomy, medicine, immunology, meteorology, astronomy, physics, optics, chemistry, geology,and zoology just for starters?
Or should we just not throw rotten vegetables at one another and accept that science deals at the physical reality, and religion deals with the spiritual reality? And then concentrate on reconciling the spiritual and the physical?
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
QUOTE
My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow
That's not funny. The worst part of it is that you've tried to help, but that help isn't going to do any good. Eh, except for the allergic woman.
My cat is the same. He doesn't allow to be touched by anyone except me and my wife.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My wife and I just took a six-year old cat into our house from a gentleman who's fiance is allergic, and that cat just absolutely does not like ANYBODY in our home. We can't even enter the same room as her without receiving hissing. She already scrapped with our cat we had previously, and he left a claw in her eyebrow |
That's not funny. The worst part of it is that you've tried to help, but that help isn't going to do any good. Eh, except for the allergic woman.
My cat is the same. He doesn't allow to be touched by anyone except me and my wife.
I am quite aware that Newsie, Messy, and other Christians here will take offense to my inclusion of JW's as Christians, but I think the idea that the heart is the emotion center of the human consciousness is another "literal" bible topic that doesn't seem to get much attention. When we say "I know in my heart", where do we get that expression? In ancient times, the belief was the heart was the seat of emotions, and you'd think God would've mentioned that the brain contains all of the human consciousness.
Yeah, I know that. It's pretty common expression in many languages. My point was that the Bible NEVER speaks about the brain. The brain is probably the most important organ. Doctors can replace your heart with an artificial one. They can use a big machine to do the job your kidneys are supposed to do, if they're failing. However, if your brain takes heavy damage and cease to function, they're helpless.
So, my question is -- Why the Bible never mentions the brain, if it's so important? Is that because who wrote the book didn't know?
Or perhaps it's more likely that the answer is the same as the answer of the question: "Why the Bible never mentions cats".
I prefer the latter and I think the both brain and cats aren't mentioned in the Bible on purpose. You know there is a pretty big story about Jews escaping Egypt. Jews hated Egyptians. Egyptians worshiped cats. Egyptians made first known brain surgeries. You only have to add 0 and 0 (eh, 1 and 1 - hi steve
) to get the answer.QUOTE
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit...The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."(I Corinthians 15:45, 47)
Adam was "the first man". No others before him.
Adam was "the first man". No others before him.
Newguy,
This would contradict Genesis 1.
When they say 'so it is written' - I sure would like to see those written words.
Like in II Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Which scriptures are they referring to? The Old Testament, the Torah? The writer obviously had no idea that his letter would someday be considered scripture.
The verse again, in full:
1 Cor:45-50
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
The only concept we are to take out of this is our new spiritual likeness.
Physical life comes first, then spiritual--
We are born again - of the spirit--
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit...The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."(I Corinthians 15:45, 47) Adam was "the first man". No others before him. |
Newguy,
This would contradict Genesis 1.
When they say 'so it is written' - I sure would like to see those written words.
Like in II Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Which scriptures are they referring to? The Old Testament, the Torah? The writer obviously had no idea that his letter would someday be considered scripture.
The verse again, in full:
1 Cor:45-50
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
The only concept we are to take out of this is our new spiritual likeness.
Physical life comes first, then spiritual--
We are born again - of the spirit--
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."(Genesis 5:1-2)
There's your "plurality". God "called their name Adam". It was Adam(the male) who renamed Eve.
The NIV Genesis 5:1-2
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "
God called them, (both male and female), Adam or man (mankind).
He created both male and female and blessed them, the whole human race.
QUOTE
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."(Genesis 3:20)
Adam(the male) renamed Eve and she was "the mother of all living". Again, no offspring before them.
You quote Genesis 5 - and then go backwards. So it would seem that you are twisting scripture here.
I believe there is misinterpretation here. Adam has been translated as man (mankind) and as the name for Adam. If we say that God created mankin in their image, first. Then apparently he created Adam and Eve, perhaps as a special race to carry the message of God to the world. If we do this, there is no contradiction, and no scripture twisting necessary.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."(Genesis 3:20) Adam(the male) renamed Eve and she was "the mother of all living". Again, no offspring before them. |
You quote Genesis 5 - and then go backwards. So it would seem that you are twisting scripture here.
I believe there is misinterpretation here. Adam has been translated as man (mankind) and as the name for Adam. If we say that God created mankin in their image, first. Then apparently he created Adam and Eve, perhaps as a special race to carry the message of God to the world. If we do this, there is no contradiction, and no scripture twisting necessary.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come..."(Romans 5:12-14)
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:22)
"Sin entered the world" by Adam. "Death reigned from Adam..." "In Adam all die..." Since there was no "sin" among men prior to Adam and since "the wages of sin is death"(Romans 6:23), how then would any pre-Adamites have died? They would still be alive. This path has been traveled down by many prior to you. It leads to a ditch.
By one man (Adam or Eve?) sin entered the world. Or, if it is through Adam, as you are assuming, then there is no sin in women, death is not passed upon all women?
So are they referring to Adam the man here, or are they referring to Adam the mankind?
Since there was no 'sin' among men prior to Adam & Eve - that is why there was no death before Adam & Eve. The pre-Adamites would not have died, at least not until Adam & Eve came along. Because death did not enter the world until Adam & Eve sinned, because the Bible says the wages of sin is death. The bible says 'death reigned from Adam'.
See, no contradictions, no scripture twisting.
Thank you Newguy, for you pleasant response. I'm not looking for an argument, only pleasant discussion. Like you, I believe the RCC has perpetuated certain 'myths' in order to remain in control. At this point, it is not evident to me that the Bible can be the only authority on certain issues.
I have recently been studying how Paul (who wrote about half of the New Testament) may have been in disagreement with Jesus' own apostles. Sometimes you find truth in the strangest places. I'm currently reading a book called Custodians of Truth by Tim Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins. They bring up the fact that Paul is seen defending himself on several occasions against Jesus' own apostles. Now who are we to believe - Jesus' own original apostles, or the 'Paul come lately'? I won't get into that right now, though.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Messenger @ Jan 27 2006, 06:02 AM)
God and Science - Theology and Observations - Origins and Creation
It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
QUOTE by Birdan,
The literal / metaphoric boundary again. It is impossible to "take something at its word" while at the same time trying to "figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors". As proof I quote you: "people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away". Different people decide upon different boundaries between the literal / metaphor boundary. And beyond personal belief, there is no external "test" to validate / invalidate any of these personal literal / metaphor boundaries. Your boundary seems to be a little higher than Newguy's or Jerryduke's, and Grumpy's (contains some worthwhile lessons in it) seems to be much, much higher than yours.
God and Science - Theology and Observations - Origins and Creation
It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes.
QUOTE by Birdan,
The literal / metaphoric boundary again. It is impossible to "take something at its word" while at the same time trying to "figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors". As proof I quote you: "people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away". Different people decide upon different boundaries between the literal / metaphor boundary. And beyond personal belief, there is no external "test" to validate / invalidate any of these personal literal / metaphor boundaries. Your boundary seems to be a little higher than Newguy's or Jerryduke's, and Grumpy's (contains some worthwhile lessons in it) seems to be much, much higher than yours.
Well, if you discover that the RCC has been misleading people for hundreds of years, based on misinterpretations, just so they could maintain control - then you begin to realize just how important it is to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical.
If I raise my standard to Grumpy's 'much, much higher' standards - I'm afraid (metaphorically speaking of course) I'll talk myself out of a god. The standards are set by God, not by men.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Messenger @ Jan 27 2006, 06:02 AM) God and Science - Theology and Observations - Origins and Creation It's amazing what you find in the Bible - people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away. Why not just read it - and try to take it at its word, try to understand it more fully and completely? There are many parables, and it can be a challenge to figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors. Forget everything you've ever heard, and read the words with a fresh set of eyes. QUOTE by Birdan, The literal / metaphoric boundary again. It is impossible to "take something at its word" while at the same time trying to "figure out what to take literally and what to take as metaphors". As proof I quote you: "people have wrought so many misconceptions, so much twisting, so much explaining away". Different people decide upon different boundaries between the literal / metaphor boundary. And beyond personal belief, there is no external "test" to validate / invalidate any of these personal literal / metaphor boundaries. Your boundary seems to be a little higher than Newguy's or Jerryduke's, and Grumpy's (contains some worthwhile lessons in it) seems to be much, much higher than yours. |
Well, if you discover that the RCC has been misleading people for hundreds of years, based on misinterpretations, just so they could maintain control - then you begin to realize just how important it is to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical.
If I raise my standard to Grumpy's 'much, much higher' standards - I'm afraid (metaphorically speaking of course) I'll talk myself out of a god. The standards are set by God, not by men.
The fact that planets are never mentioned in the bible simply means they never noticed them. If I read the descriptive geographic passages taken "at its word", I end up with a "model" of the world as a flat circular disk, overarched by a dome (like a hammered out vessel), the stars affixed to it, the sun and moon traveling across it, and the throne of God sitting on top of it. That's the most consistent view presented, taking everything at its word, without "so much twisting, so much explaining away". So what's the big deal with that? Do you really think the intent of the bible was to end up with an earth sciences or biology textbook?
Well then, you have also misinterpreted the Bible, and can now join the RCC.
I take this same scenario to be a metaphor. God is above it all, and 'sitting' is the same as 'ruling' in this case.
No I do not think the Bible is a science book. But science should not think the Bible is false, either. The Bible is not a book of moral values, although it does contain the morals we can and should live by. The story of the Bible is the key to changing your life.
QUOTE
I read the passages you posted as an extended metaphor. That's where my personal literal / metaphor boundary lies. Yours is different. Its a subjective, personal "decision", which is fine. But science cannot operate with the subjective. If it did, it would have as much forward momentum as this forum does! Science concerns itself with the physical phenomena, because the physical has the best chance of objectivity. Because science is not equipped to deal with the subjective and non-physical does not say those don't exist, are wrong, or less important in life. They are simply areas science cannot address.
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing.
Thanks,
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 30 2006, 07:31 PM)
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind.
Throughout history?
"Science" as in investigation using thie scientific method has only been around under 300 years. Even if you stretch back to the first movements towards using objective observations and physical experimentation you are only speaking of 400 years.
And that methodology was first applied only to certain areas of study ( and by the way, seeing as how many of the people that first studied things like astronomy and geology faced persecution for it, that might have held up progress just a teensy bit you know. )
The tools and techniques for an ethical scientific study of the human mind are in some cases only just becoming available. Up until 60 years ago, short of unacceptable and dangerous physical and mental experiments on humans the only tool to investigate the human mind was pretty much to talk to people. That is a technique with a lot of problems
Now, should we compare the track record of religion "throughout history" on it's failings with the physical world of anatomy, medicine, immunology, meteorology, astronomy, physics, optics, chemistry, geology,and zoology just for starters?
Or should we just not throw rotten vegetables at one another and accept that science deals at the physical reality, and religion deals with the spiritual reality? And then concentrate on reconciling the spiritual and the physical?
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 31 2006, 02:31 AM)
......
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been asked before now to distinguish between the PERSONS (and their 'motives') and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been asked before now to distinguish between the PERSONS (and their 'motives') and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
On the skin color issue,
I have been reading that skin color is not determined by exposure to sunlight for thousands of years - one example given is that of the aborigines in Australia, a temperate climate. Eskimos are another example that contradicts this theory - they should by all rights be very fair skinned, if the evolutionary theory is correct - but they are not.
This issue is another area of division among theologians and evolutionists. If theologians say that the races are genetic differences that can occur in one generation based upon their parents genes.....evolutionists will disagree and say that this cannot happen except over thousands of years.
We could prove the evolutionary view to be false by conducting very simple experiments. But of course they'll argue that it can happen their way as well - but yet they won't be able to prove it. So, while science and theology can be compatible, and are, in the case of skin color. Science, theology, and evolution are at odds.
Here's two versions, both scientific, of the race issue:
Theological view: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html
Evolution view: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution.
Take a fair skinned person, and move them to a warm climate (sounds good to me).
If the body evolves - then the body would provide the adjustments in their lifetime - otherwise how do they benefit?
If they're just going to get skin cancer, then evolution doesn't work.
Evolutionists will say:
1. Some will get skin cancer and die.
2. Some will not get skin cancer, but will pass on a stronger gene, developed during their lifetime, that will allow their offspring to get darker skin (more melanin), thus more protection in the next generation.
But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this?
Or, in reverse. Take a dark skinned person, and move them to a cold climate (not fun, I'm sure).
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
I think a dark skinned person is dark skinned, an ebony dark skinned person would certainly be the result of sun exposure - the same thing that would have happened to a fair skinned person with a lot of sun exposure - a very dark tan, or very red sunburn.
If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution.
Take a fair skinned person, and move them to a warm climate (sounds good to me).
If the body evolves - then the body would provide the adjustments in their lifetime - otherwise how do they benefit?
If they're just going to get skin cancer, then evolution doesn't work.
Evolutionists will say:
1. Some will get skin cancer and die.
2. Some will not get skin cancer, but will pass on a stronger gene, developed during their lifetime, that will allow their offspring to get darker skin (more melanin), thus more protection in the next generation.
But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this?
Or, in reverse. Take a dark skinned person, and move them to a cold climate (not fun, I'm sure).
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
I think a dark skinned person is dark skinned, an ebony dark skinned person would certainly be the result of sun exposure - the same thing that would have happened to a fair skinned person with a lot of sun exposure - a very dark tan, or very red sunburn.
QUOTE quote by Messenger,
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
quote by Grumpy,
Mostly they walked. During the height of the last advance of our present ice age there were land bridges between France and England and between Siberia and North Western Canada as well as others. Anthropological evidence suggests they followed the waters edge and ate much fish and shellfish(high powered brain food).
Do you have proof of evolution occuring on this trail?
Do you have an explanation for the contradictions in skin colors, such as the Eskimos and the Aborigines?
Are you saying that the further away they get from Africa, the smarter they get, because they're eating 'high powered brain food'? Just what did you mean by this?
-----
Scientists and theologians agree that all humans are basically the same, with the exception of skin color and other surface distinctions. This is a good thing.
-----
You are basically proposing the answers in genesis viewpoint with this theory.
You are basically proposing the answers in genesis viewpoint with this theory.
quote by Grendle,
Did all the variations in appearance in modern humans come from variation from a group "out of africa" or did the development of modern humans occur concurrently in various places? This is currently a big question and lively subject of debate in anthropology and paleontology.
Do you have any websites that you can refer me to - I would like to see this debate? I'm beginning to agree with this theory (concurrently, in various places).
There are many people living in Europe today, that have the same features as your neanderthal man.
----
There are many people living in Europe today, that have the same features as your neanderthal man.
----
quote by Grendle,
"Science" as in investigation using thie scientific method has only been around under 300 years. Even if you stretch back to the first movements towards using objective observations and physical experimentation you are only speaking of 400 years.
Current scientific method.
Science has existed since the beginning. Usually as part of philosophy, mathematics, or astronomy.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860975.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia
Oh well, just some more thoughts.
I hope so. But frankly, I think this is not true. Too much is at stake, for both sides.
I hope so. But frankly, I think this is not true. Too much is at stake, for both sides.
Hi Messenger.
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
RC.
.
I have been reading that skin color is not determined by exposure to sunlight for thousands of years - one example given is that of the aborigines in Australia, a temperate climate. Eskimos are another example that contradicts this theory - they should by all rights be very fair skinned, if the evolutionary theory is correct - but they are not.
This issue is another area of division among theologians and evolutionists. If theologians say that the races are genetic differences that can occur in one generation based upon their parents genes.....evolutionists will disagree and say that this cannot happen except over thousands of years.
We could prove the evolutionary view to be false by conducting very simple experiments. But of course they'll argue that it can happen their way as well - but yet they won't be able to prove it. So, while science and theology can be compatible, and are, in the case of skin color. Science, theology, and evolution are at odds.
Here's two versions, both scientific, of the race issue:
Theological view: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html
Evolution view: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
QUOTE
The skin generates certain vitamins in the presence of sunlight but too much sunlight leads to cancers. There is a selection pressure on primative humans(those not sheltered or clothed as we are today) for the melanin content of the skin to adjust over generations to maintain a balance between those two facts. The Darkest colored people are found near the equator, the lightest are in the Artic regions.
If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution.
Take a fair skinned person, and move them to a warm climate (sounds good to me).
If the body evolves - then the body would provide the adjustments in their lifetime - otherwise how do they benefit?
If they're just going to get skin cancer, then evolution doesn't work.
Evolutionists will say:
1. Some will get skin cancer and die.
2. Some will not get skin cancer, but will pass on a stronger gene, developed during their lifetime, that will allow their offspring to get darker skin (more melanin), thus more protection in the next generation.
But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this?
Or, in reverse. Take a dark skinned person, and move them to a cold climate (not fun, I'm sure).
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
I think a dark skinned person is dark skinned, an ebony dark skinned person would certainly be the result of sun exposure - the same thing that would have happened to a fair skinned person with a lot of sun exposure - a very dark tan, or very red sunburn.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The skin generates certain vitamins in the presence of sunlight but too much sunlight leads to cancers. There is a selection pressure on primative humans(those not sheltered or clothed as we are today) for the melanin content of the skin to adjust over generations to maintain a balance between those two facts. The Darkest colored people are found near the equator, the lightest are in the Artic regions. |
If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution.
Take a fair skinned person, and move them to a warm climate (sounds good to me).
If the body evolves - then the body would provide the adjustments in their lifetime - otherwise how do they benefit?
If they're just going to get skin cancer, then evolution doesn't work.
Evolutionists will say:
1. Some will get skin cancer and die.
2. Some will not get skin cancer, but will pass on a stronger gene, developed during their lifetime, that will allow their offspring to get darker skin (more melanin), thus more protection in the next generation.
But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this?
Or, in reverse. Take a dark skinned person, and move them to a cold climate (not fun, I'm sure).
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
I think a dark skinned person is dark skinned, an ebony dark skinned person would certainly be the result of sun exposure - the same thing that would have happened to a fair skinned person with a lot of sun exposure - a very dark tan, or very red sunburn.
QUOTE quote by Messenger,
This leads me to ask - how did they get to these other parts of the world? What's the evolution theory behind that?
quote by Grumpy,
Mostly they walked. During the height of the last advance of our present ice age there were land bridges between France and England and between Siberia and North Western Canada as well as others. Anthropological evidence suggests they followed the waters edge and ate much fish and shellfish(high powered brain food).
Do you have proof of evolution occuring on this trail?
Do you have an explanation for the contradictions in skin colors, such as the Eskimos and the Aborigines?
Are you saying that the further away they get from Africa, the smarter they get, because they're eating 'high powered brain food'? Just what did you mean by this?
-----
Scientists and theologians agree that all humans are basically the same, with the exception of skin color and other surface distinctions. This is a good thing.
-----
QUOTE
Quote by Grendle,
There is no single visual feature found in "white","oreiantal", or "black" people that can't be found in the others, it is only the certain groupings that we identify as "race". And many of those features are grouped together simply because of the fact that people tend to breed with people nearby, leading to the predominance of certain features.
There is no single visual feature found in "white","oreiantal", or "black" people that can't be found in the others, it is only the certain groupings that we identify as "race". And many of those features are grouped together simply because of the fact that people tend to breed with people nearby, leading to the predominance of certain features.
You are basically proposing the answers in genesis viewpoint with this theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quote by Grendle, There is no single visual feature found in "white","oreiantal", or "black" people that can't be found in the others, it is only the certain groupings that we identify as "race". And many of those features are grouped together simply because of the fact that people tend to breed with people nearby, leading to the predominance of certain features. |
You are basically proposing the answers in genesis viewpoint with this theory.
quote by Grendle,
Did all the variations in appearance in modern humans come from variation from a group "out of africa" or did the development of modern humans occur concurrently in various places? This is currently a big question and lively subject of debate in anthropology and paleontology.
Do you have any websites that you can refer me to - I would like to see this debate? I'm beginning to agree with this theory (concurrently, in various places).
QUOTE
Neanderthal is the closest you would have to a completely seperate race of human, and even then, there is debate as to whether they interbred with modern humans or not.
There are many people living in Europe today, that have the same features as your neanderthal man.
----
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Neanderthal is the closest you would have to a completely seperate race of human, and even then, there is debate as to whether they interbred with modern humans or not. |
There are many people living in Europe today, that have the same features as your neanderthal man.
----
quote by Grendle,
"Science" as in investigation using thie scientific method has only been around under 300 years. Even if you stretch back to the first movements towards using objective observations and physical experimentation you are only speaking of 400 years.
Current scientific method.
Science has existed since the beginning. Usually as part of philosophy, mathematics, or astronomy.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860975.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia
Oh well, just some more thoughts.
QUOTE
quote by Grendle,
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
I hope so. But frankly, I think this is not true. Too much is at stake, for both sides.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 31 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE
quote by Grendle,
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
Yes, there are some - on both "sides" that have no interest in reconciliation. I like to think they are the minority.
I hope so. But frankly, I think this is not true. Too much is at stake, for both sides.
Hi Messenger.
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 30 2006, 10:04 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 31 2006, 02:31 AM)
......
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been aksed before now to distinguish between the PERSONS and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
1. You and Steveo are going to have to duke it out. If you come up with a suitable term for 'evolutionists', other than scientists (like Steveo suggests), please let me know.
Because I try not to offend one, I offend the other.
2. Failed at what? 1/3 of the world are 'Christians', and 95% or more believe in God. Just what is it that we've failed at?
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
quote by RC,
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
Correct, science, in and of itself, did not create those sides. The scientists (the people holding the gun) did.
At stake for religion is their very foundation, it will change, but it will be painful.
At stake for science is their credibility. Especially in the area where you can provide the most help to people - which is what it's all about, Alfie.
Medicine/Pharmaceuticals - both for people and animals. The lack of credibility in this area is getting bigger by the moment.
Psychology - a non-spiritual approach to psychology, using drugs instead of understanding and compassion, is destroying a considerable number of individuals.
Thanks,
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been aksed before now to distinguish between the PERSONS and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
1. You and Steveo are going to have to duke it out. If you come up with a suitable term for 'evolutionists', other than scientists (like Steveo suggests), please let me know.
Because I try not to offend one, I offend the other.
2. Failed at what? 1/3 of the world are 'Christians', and 95% or more believe in God. Just what is it that we've failed at?
QUOTE
3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question: Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way? |
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
quote by RC,
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
Correct, science, in and of itself, did not create those sides. The scientists (the people holding the gun) did.
At stake for religion is their very foundation, it will change, but it will be painful.
At stake for science is their credibility. Especially in the area where you can provide the most help to people - which is what it's all about, Alfie.
Medicine/Pharmaceuticals - both for people and animals. The lack of credibility in this area is getting bigger by the moment.
Psychology - a non-spiritual approach to psychology, using drugs instead of understanding and compassion, is destroying a considerable number of individuals.
Thanks,
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 31 2006, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 30 2006, 10:04 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 31 2006, 02:31 AM)
......
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been aksed before now to distinguish between the PERSONS and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
1. You and Steveo are going to have to duke it out. If you come up with a suitable term for 'evolutionists', other than scientists (like Steveo suggests), please let me know.
Because I try not to offend one, I offend the other.
2. Failed at what? 1/3 of the world are 'Christians', and 95% or more believe in God. Just what is it that we've failed at?
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
quote by RC,
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
Correct, science, in and of itself, did not create those sides. The scientists (the people holding the gun) did.
At stake for religion is their very foundation, it will change, but it will be painful.
At stake for science is their credibility. Especially in the area where you can provide the most help to people - which is what it's all about, Alfie.
Medicine/Pharmaceuticals - both for people and animals. The lack of credibility in this area is getting bigger by the moment.
Psychology - a non-spiritual approach to psychology, using drugs instead of understanding and compassion, is destroying a considerable number of individuals.
Thanks,
Dear Mess.
What are Steveo and I to 'duke out'? Evolution is a scientific discipline applying scientific method in concert with other relevant disciplines. Get over your prejudice, please...it doesn't become a person who is purportedly out to re-interpret the 'bible'.
And why are you still being dishonest?.........
You say 'scientists' hold the gun and makes the 'sides'. Didn't you we agree that it is PEOPLE and not religion/science per se that does the deed? In this case, even NOW, it is these 'perjurious' ID/CSers that seek the confrontation, not science. Or are you going to revert to your slimy evasion of that fact and pretend it is science doing the deed?
And religion has failed for thousands of years or what was and is happening THEN and NOW would not be such a sorry story, heh?
And AGAIN, if science has had ONLY a couple hundred years, HOW can you judge its efficacy or otherwise; especially since it is only recently that 'religious' control/censorhip has given way to true seeking after objective knowledge (again, try to separate your hate for 'certain scientist' PERSONS from the science itself....or is that too difficult for you in your blinkered state?...since I am perfectly capable of separating 'certain religious' PERSONS from spirituality itself).
And for the last time (I hope), try to tell the difference between science (and knowledge thus gained) and the 'technology' created by PEOPLE from that knowledge. Just as I try to tell the difference between 'religious views' and the PEOPLE who USE those views. Science is KNOWLEDGE; people/politicians/companies/societies DECIDE what to do with the technology/medicine etc. that it makes possible. I notice that you don't mention the Polio Vaccine; the Malaria drugs; the safe drinking water treatment systems; the tuberculosis cure etc etc which have saved countless MORE lives than PEOPLE misusing science ever did (or for that matter, people merely 'practising religion' ever did).
For a while there, Mess, I honestly thought you might be 'genuine' from now on; but I see from the above that the leaopard hasn't changed its spots. YOU are the one who created, and then by dishonest debating tactics such as the above, 'forces' people here to choose, 'sides'. And THEN you have the temerity to pretend it was none of your doing. Hypocrite again. Do these terms have any meaning in your 'biblical' lexicon at all. Can't you even recognise what it is you are showing everyone when you do such things that warrant these epithets being applied to you?
RC.
.
Because science concerns itself only with the physical, this is precisely why science has failed throughout history in so many areas, and particularily in the area of the human mind. Although you claim you cannot examine the spiritual, it is in fact being examined by certain scientists at this very moment. The agenda of certain scientists is to distance itself from religion/God and act like there is no spiritual, or to say that science explains everything. Because if it cannot explain why 95% or more of the world believes in God, then it is failing. .....
Hi Messenger.
Three brief comments/questions.
(1) These 'certain scientists' (if they are about what you say they are about) are merely SOME scientists among MANY. You have been aksed before now to distinguish between the PERSONS and the METHOD/KNOWLEDGE of science. Please try to remember that next time you are tempted to AGAIN tar every scientist and science ITSELF with that broad brush of yours (you don't like it when 'christian' PERSONS are pointed to as BAD examples of "christianity", heh?).
(2) The 'bible' and its 'message' and its 'adherents' have failed for thousands of years. Does that tell you anything at all (apart from claiming "it was prophesied")?
(3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
That's it, Mess. Catch you later. Cheers!
RC.
.
1. You and Steveo are going to have to duke it out. If you come up with a suitable term for 'evolutionists', other than scientists (like Steveo suggests), please let me know.
Because I try not to offend one, I offend the other.
2. Failed at what? 1/3 of the world are 'Christians', and 95% or more believe in God. Just what is it that we've failed at?
QUOTE
3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question:
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way?
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) And lastly, will you also please answer this question: Since the modern scientific method/system and modern scientists have been around LESS than 200yrs (and even for most of that time they had to cowtow-to and/or carry religious baggage, institutions and censorship), would it be only FAIR to allow 'equal time'-----say 2000-6000yrs-----for scientists and the scientific method/system to do ITS stuff and THEN compare notes on what BOTH spirituality and science have discovered each in their own way? |
3. Positively, absolutely NOT!!!!
Your science (scientific method) has done more damage than the past 6000 years put together.
Let's talk about a few, shall we?
Bombs - dreamed up (or should I say observed, tested, and approved by) by the current scientific method.
medicine - good and bad, and verry verry bad - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Hormones - given to the animals we eat - transmitted to humans (causes obesity, mental health problems, and who knows what else yet) - also dreamed up by the current scientific method.
Genetically engineered seeds - so bad I'm not even going to go there.
Shall I go on?
You will not get my permission to continue in this way for another 2000 plus years. You will get my admonishment to improve, or else.
quote by RC,
Science did not 'create' those 'sides', PEOPLE do, even now, in our courts.
Science does its 'stuff' perfectly well without any 'sides' involved.
And please tell me, Mess, what exactly IS 'at stake' for 'both sides'?
Correct, science, in and of itself, did not create those sides. The scientists (the people holding the gun) did.
At stake for religion is their very foundation, it will change, but it will be painful.
At stake for science is their credibility. Especially in the area where you can provide the most help to people - which is what it's all about, Alfie.
Medicine/Pharmaceuticals - both for people and animals. The lack of credibility in this area is getting bigger by the moment.
Psychology - a non-spiritual approach to psychology, using drugs instead of understanding and compassion, is destroying a considerable number of individuals.
Thanks,
Dear Mess.
What are Steveo and I to 'duke out'? Evolution is a scientific discipline applying scientific method in concert with other relevant disciplines. Get over your prejudice, please...it doesn't become a person who is purportedly out to re-interpret the 'bible'.
And why are you still being dishonest?.........
You say 'scientists' hold the gun and makes the 'sides'. Didn't you we agree that it is PEOPLE and not religion/science per se that does the deed? In this case, even NOW, it is these 'perjurious' ID/CSers that seek the confrontation, not science. Or are you going to revert to your slimy evasion of that fact and pretend it is science doing the deed?
And religion has failed for thousands of years or what was and is happening THEN and NOW would not be such a sorry story, heh?
And AGAIN, if science has had ONLY a couple hundred years, HOW can you judge its efficacy or otherwise; especially since it is only recently that 'religious' control/censorhip has given way to true seeking after objective knowledge (again, try to separate your hate for 'certain scientist' PERSONS from the science itself....or is that too difficult for you in your blinkered state?...since I am perfectly capable of separating 'certain religious' PERSONS from spirituality itself).
And for the last time (I hope), try to tell the difference between science (and knowledge thus gained) and the 'technology' created by PEOPLE from that knowledge. Just as I try to tell the difference between 'religious views' and the PEOPLE who USE those views. Science is KNOWLEDGE; people/politicians/companies/societies DECIDE what to do with the technology/medicine etc. that it makes possible. I notice that you don't mention the Polio Vaccine; the Malaria drugs; the safe drinking water treatment systems; the tuberculosis cure etc etc which have saved countless MORE lives than PEOPLE misusing science ever did (or for that matter, people merely 'practising religion' ever did).
For a while there, Mess, I honestly thought you might be 'genuine' from now on; but I see from the above that the leaopard hasn't changed its spots. YOU are the one who created, and then by dishonest debating tactics such as the above, 'forces' people here to choose, 'sides'. And THEN you have the temerity to pretend it was none of your doing. Hypocrite again. Do these terms have any meaning in your 'biblical' lexicon at all. Can't you even recognise what it is you are showing everyone when you do such things that warrant these epithets being applied to you?
RC.
.
Messenger
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
The body does not evolve, nor are any traits picked up in life passed on to following generations.
The British wear a lot of clothes compared to the Africans. They also live indoors more and purposely seek shelter. The Dutch sourced Boers ARE getting darker skins in South Africa. Both groups have the capacity for very dark tans.
The British wear a lot of clothes compared to the Africans. They also live indoors more and purposely seek shelter. The Dutch sourced Boers ARE getting darker skins in South Africa. Both groups have the capacity for very dark tans.
Do you have an explanation for the contradictions in skin colors, such as the Eskimos and the Aborigines?
Ironicly from the same site you posted
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
Are you saying that the further away they get from Africa, the smarter they get, because they're eating 'high powered brain food'? Just what did you mean by this?
The marine diet is rich in vitamin D and certain fatty acids which promote the development and growth of the brain. There are scientists who posit an semi-aquatic era in man's development(Ah, tropical beach living). This would explain the loss of hair, our tendency to carry a subcutaneous layer of fat, the infant's responsis to being underwater, our concious control of our breathing, etc. It would also be a reason for our sudden burst of growth in intellegence due to a food rich in vit. D(as in milk) and fatty acids.
QUOTE
If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the body evolves - then this should be a perfect example of evolution. |
If the body evolves - then the body would......would what? Go backwards? Provide them with less protection? Sort of like de-evolution? They'll lose the ability to produce melanin, because they don't need it any longer?
The body does not evolve, nor are any traits picked up in life passed on to following generations.
QUOTE
But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this?
The British wear a lot of clothes compared to the Africans. They also live indoors more and purposely seek shelter. The Dutch sourced Boers ARE getting darker skins in South Africa. Both groups have the capacity for very dark tans.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But in reality, this is not what happens. You see fair skinned people, who have been living in Africa for hundreds and/or thousands of years now, especially those Brits, and their children are as pale as they come, no? Even after many generations, no changes whatsoever. How do evolutionists explain this? |
The British wear a lot of clothes compared to the Africans. They also live indoors more and purposely seek shelter. The Dutch sourced Boers ARE getting darker skins in South Africa. Both groups have the capacity for very dark tans.
Do you have an explanation for the contradictions in skin colors, such as the Eskimos and the Aborigines?
Ironicly from the same site you posted
QUOTE
But things aren't always what they ought to be. That is the case with Eskimos and other inhabitants of northern Alaska and northern Canada. "Looking at Alaska, one would think that the native people should be pale as ghosts," Jablonski says. One of the reasons they're not is that these populations have not lived in the region very long in terms of geological time. But more importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood. They've consumed huge doses of vitamin D, so they haven't had to undergo the same reduction in pigmentation that would otherwise be required at such high latitudes. "What's really interesting is that if these people don't eat their aboriginal diets of fish and marine mammals, they suffer tremendously high rates of vitamin D-deficiency diseases such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults," Jablonski says.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But things aren't always what they ought to be. That is the case with Eskimos and other inhabitants of northern Alaska and northern Canada. "Looking at Alaska, one would think that the native people should be pale as ghosts," Jablonski says. One of the reasons they're not is that these populations have not lived in the region very long in terms of geological time. But more importantly, their traditional diet is rich in fish and other seafood. They've consumed huge doses of vitamin D, so they haven't had to undergo the same reduction in pigmentation that would otherwise be required at such high latitudes. "What's really interesting is that if these people don't eat their aboriginal diets of fish and marine mammals, they suffer tremendously high rates of vitamin D-deficiency diseases such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults," Jablonski says. |
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...line_extra.html
Are you saying that the further away they get from Africa, the smarter they get, because they're eating 'high powered brain food'? Just what did you mean by this?
The marine diet is rich in vitamin D and certain fatty acids which promote the development and growth of the brain. There are scientists who posit an semi-aquatic era in man's development(Ah, tropical beach living). This would explain the loss of hair, our tendency to carry a subcutaneous layer of fat, the infant's responsis to being underwater, our concious control of our breathing, etc. It would also be a reason for our sudden burst of growth in intellegence due to a food rich in vit. D(as in milk) and fatty acids.