Topic: The THEORY of Evolution.
no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:29 PM


Dont forget time and place, the only adults around then were men, women, children, slaves, animals...all property of the adults IE men..this DOES make a difference when interpreting scripture.


Women didn't belong to their husbands and had the right to divorce their husband for lack of affection. Women could and did own property, including slaves and animals. I don't know where you are hearing these interpretations of the Bible, but they are not grounded in fact.


perhaps you might want to freshen up on ancient history.

no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:37 PM



Jesus, the jewish rabbi? Or Jesus, the martyr of christians?
..I ask this not to be trite, it does make a difference in point of view about what it being said....

you dont get to "imply" the meaning of gods word. only obey...it not a buffet, you cant pick and choose what is conveniant. If you can't find the the answers you seek in the torah (the old testament) its because you're not asking the right questions.


That's a rather lame dodge. The scripture I quoted clearly said that WHOSOEVER works on Sabbath shall be stoned. So God demands that women work on Sabbath and demands they be killed for it? Something is wrong with this picture.


Its not a lame dodge, its a point of view. Different from yours but no less valid. You are implying that your way is the only way. I certainly am not interested in converting anyone, I only want to engage in an exchange of ideas.


This is a lame dodge.

you dont get to "imply" the meaning of gods word. only obey...it not a buffet, you cant pick and choose what is conveniant. If you can't find the the answers you seek in the torah (the old testament) its because you're not asking the right questions.


You didn't address the argument, you simply accused me of "cafe Christianity". A dodge. Ignore the flaws in your arguments and instead attack the person you are talking to.

So the 4th Jewish commandment, the Sabbath, does not apply to women? Surely that means that the 10th commandment does not apply to women either.


Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.


Notice that it clearly says "you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife", meaning that a wife could covet another's husband.

Also, what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I am intriged by your use of the word "god". I've never seen a Jew not capitalize the "G" or blank out the "o".

cuzimwhiteboy's photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:39 PM
TO Untamed:

Thanks. I'll see if my library has it. If you're really interested in understanding evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, Massimo Pigliucci, Richard Dawkins and David Sloan Wilson are authors worth reading up on.

Good luck. drinker

no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:39 PM



Dont forget time and place, the only adults around then were men, women, children, slaves, animals...all property of the adults IE men..this DOES make a difference when interpreting scripture.


Women didn't belong to their husbands and had the right to divorce their husband for lack of affection. Women could and did own property, including slaves and animals. I don't know where you are hearing these interpretations of the Bible, but they are not grounded in fact.


perhaps you might want to freshen up on ancient history.


laugh Maybe I will, maybe I will. But I do know that what you said isn't true about Judaism. Jewish wives were given rights of divorce under certain circumstances and they were allowed to own property. Sarah gave Abraham her servant to make a baby with. Notice that the scripture is clear, the servant belonged to Sarah.

no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:46 PM
Notice that it clearly says "you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife", meaning that a wife could covet another's husband.

Also, what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I am intriged by your use of the word "god". I've never seen a Jew not capitalize the "G" or blank out the "o".
----------------------------------------------------------------
...the commandment specifically points out neighbor coveting another's wife,no other meaning is intended or it would have been stated. The commandment is pretty clear to me.

would my point be more or less valid depending on what "branch" I hang from? I use the word god as a common denominator that you can understand.

no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:51 PM

Notice that it clearly says "you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife", meaning that a wife could covet another's husband.

Also, what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I am intriged by your use of the word "god". I've never seen a Jew not capitalize the "G" or blank out the "o".
----------------------------------------------------------------
...the commandment specifically points out neighbor coveting another's wife,no other meaning is intended or it would have been stated. The commandment is pretty clear to me.

would my point be more or less valid depending on what "branch" I hang from? I use the word god as a common denominator that you can understand.


So a woman can lust after any man she wants? Since all commandments are addressed to men, a woman can steal, murder, commit adultry, covet and lust with impunity? That seems strange to me, don't you find it the least bit odd?

Didn't you say this earlier?


I certainly am not interested in converting anyone, I only want to engage in an exchange of ideas.


I just wanted to know what branch of Judaism you belong to. If that's a personal question, I'm sorry. But since you speak differently from any other Jew I have met, I do wonder. I guess I will be left to wonder, but I'll learn to live with it.

no photo
Thu 01/24/08 06:55 PM
Well, I'm done hijacking this thread. Maybe it will get back to where it started in the first place, I think it was evolution, wasnt' it?
smokin

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 01/24/08 07:33 PM
Getting frustrated Abra?


Clearly you wish. laugh

I’ve quit reading you posts because your statements are so totally nonsensical that I have better things to do with my time than listen to uneducated ratings.

Your single-flood conjecture has been refuted many years ago by geologists. That argument is almost as old as the story of Noah itself. laugh

It can’t possibly be true because that argument would require a single large layer of mud that all occurred at a single point in time. You can’t argue against this fact whilst still maintaining the “single flood” hypothesis.

Since that’s not what is seen in nature the single-flood conjecture can’t possibly be true. There are literally thousands of layers of fossil records all laid down from different periods in history, each containing animals from a different epoch.

To entertain your arguments would be like giving a pacifier to a baby. There’s nothing to entertain but the arguer himself.

Clearly you have serious fears concerning the truth of evolution since you are scraping the bottom of the barrel using old ideas that have long since been refuted.

Whatever is causing your phobia of evolution, it is totally unfounded, I assure you. :wink:

yzrabbit1's photo
Thu 01/24/08 07:37 PM







Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist.

Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation.

There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking.


So in your concept you're assuming that the mice were able to evolve to rondent form without being attacked ever and only when they were WARM BLOODED ANIMALS did the mutation of blood clotting form?

Im no scientist either but I think I beat your personal-best of 15 seconds there.

and about the Jesus thing;

You had a post which stated :"Im waiting for my apology"
in which my reply included debunking your half-assed attempt at debunking Jesus.

THEN, after you saw this, you wen back and edited you post to a

]


and proceeded to hide from the fact that your claim was obliterated.

You're right, I just might go over and re-open that thread so that everyone can see.


You didn't ask me to explain how all things evolved to that point you gave a very specific task of Blood not being able to coagulate. I started with an animal full of blood and showed you how it comes to coagulate. Simple problem simple solution, to late to change the parameters now.


You concept is insane!
do you not see the flaws in it?
its alll goood if you make assumptions like THAT but you have to be REALISTIC - which you are not.





It's not my concept its yours here are your words


Now, if you have NO blood clotting system and you cut yourself; you bleed to death.
So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex; tell me how did the lifeforms evolve to create the ability of blood clotting?
if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right?
no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right?

but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death.
Remind me, can your species evolve into a stronger, fitter life form if you (the one that experienced and therefore the catalyst for evolution along your offspring) are dead?


There are no flaws in it. Your assumptions are the ones I used. I worked within your parameters. If it will make you feel better lets put it this way.

I believe that God made everything up to the point of the mice with non-coagulating blood and then let them evolve from there. He had no idea what would happen just let evolution work.


YOUR concept of the MICE is flawed.
Your mice were able to survive 'MILLIONS' (since thats how long its supposed to take to evolve from whatever amoeba to a mammal) of years WITHOUT getting CUT....then suddenly, they are wounded and some survive passing on the gene.

Millions of years. and they didnt get cut during their entire evolutionary process?
You concept goes hand in hand with straight-jackets.


My concept says that God created mice with non-coagulating blood. You are now saying it is crazy to believe that God could creat mice like this?

Chazster's photo
Thu 01/24/08 10:03 PM
Whether or not you believe that humans evolved from some other species or not you cannot say that evolution doesn't exists. There is scientific proof that other organisms have and still do evolve to become better suited to their environment. Does that mean God did not create them. I would think not. It would only mean that they were created to have this ability to change.

Abracadabra's photo
Fri 01/25/08 12:31 AM

Faith cannot be proven.

False.
millions of Christians around the world will give you testimony to faith.
Its what I've been saying all along: EXPERIENCE.
Once you've had it, you KNOW.


Emotional instability is hardly proof of faith.

It’s more likely a sign of poor diet and lifestyle.

It can also be a symptom of brainwashing.

See your doctor for a professional evaluation.

(Sorry Barry, I just can’t help myself, this is too much fun. laugh )

Abracadabra's photo
Fri 01/25/08 12:57 AM

UNtamed a true person seeking knowledge reads more than one book,even ones that don't agree with his preconceived notions.
evolution has more basis in fact then a man screwing his sister and producing genetically mutated offspring.I also can't believe one couple could produce so many children in such a short time yet you buy this.Did it ever occur to you that God has a hand in evolution?After all we are God's ant farm...drinker


I must confess Jax, that your Ant Farm theory makes more sense than anything that Untamed has suggested thus far. laugh

At least that would lead to a picture of an honest God. :wink:

no photo
Fri 01/25/08 05:44 AM
Edited by voileazur on Fri 01/25/08 05:45 AM

Well, I'm done hijacking this thread. Maybe it will get back to where it started in the first place, I think it was evolution, wasnt' it?
smokin



Please reconsider 'symbelmyne'!!!

You are a 'grounded' voice of light, ... and boy does this place need light!!!

"... Everything which goes up eventually converges..." dixit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

You definitely are one whom carries it 'UP' !!!

Don't allow the primitive brain 'agents' to invalidate your spirit.

Stick around! Keep writing!

A fan!

:)


Amorwm7's photo
Fri 01/25/08 12:00 PM

Well, the bottom line as I showed unequivocally is that a verbatim 6-earth-day-creation interpretation of the Bible = a deceptive God.

So those who proclaim that the Bible must be taken verbatim are proclaiming that God deceives.

And here’s a question for you Spider,…

Why is it that you are so willing to re-translate all other interpretations (such as ‘rest’ actually meaning to simply 'stop creating'), yet, you aren’t willing to re-translate ‘day’ to mean ‘eon’ as Lording has suggested?

Clearly you are writing your own Bible via the interpretations that YOU choose!

Why is it that you cannot see your own folly in this?

You claim to be taking the Bible ‘verbatim’ but then you define what ‘verbatim’ means by your own personal choices in what you decide to accept as a translation from the original tongue. As Lording pointed out, he feels that ‘yon’ translates to ‘eon’, and not to ‘day’.

So you’re creating your own dogma with absolutely no support for your own personal choices for translations.

Moreover, why is it so important for you that the world was actually created in 6 earth days? Why do you feel that this is such a mandatory interpretation? Can you not see how this interpretation leads to a God who deceives?

Seems to me that you would want to favor interpretations that actually agree with Creation itself.

Why choose an interpretation that suggests that God is deceptive when you can just as easily choose an interpretation that favors harmony?

It’s clearly your own personal choice, yet you apparently prefer to take the negative path.

Why is that?



I agree to some of your point because if we look at the bible from the old Testament and New. Taking verse in to account and the meaning of the verse can not bring about litheral intrepartation of what the story. When the stories are then examined can one look at the METHAPHORIC, SYMBOLIC, MATHAmathical, pscyhology and spritual meaning. The bible was written by those that interpreted the WORD of GOD. But due to the politic and greed, power and control. The bible then is intrepated to others but breaking certain pieces and adding others. If any one on this site believes the bible is to be used in this manner and that it was not changed and fashioned to be used by our follow kings and the vatican,then sonmething passed you over in life. If for example, we take the KING james version, the were several scholars and only two Hebrew scholar. The bible during this priod was written in Greek ans hebrew. Before the King James bible was completed the two Rabbi's had died. So the rest was left to the King'S servant and guess what. Know what happened to all the other books and scroll. The true Holy Grail? Which in my opinion but the Bllod and lineage of Dragon Kings and Queen, who held the secrets of Alchemy and Star Fire Medicine.our But again the bible or any other rigiuos text, need to be examine for a Myth perspective that carries Metaphors and symbolism thought being aligned with one self in order to exacts the metaphyscial intrepretation of the test, who wrote it, what is the voice. I am not Christian. I am a student of Orunmila who brought IFa into the world. Our Odus are broken down through a system of divination dating back 70, 000 yrs. and who writings follow protocol via a mathemathical system of tretragram, geomantry, metaphysic ,and system to guide current event in out lives. But even our odu need to be carefully examined via divination and then put into the current present state of the individual, environment, and family. I can look at Genesis and prove that there are two creation stories. Now I can intrepret this how. My answer, go to Iraq, for eample, dig twenty feet down and you will find proff of the flooding that took place. In IFa, we know this via scientific and oral tradition that account for these facts via cuurent written work but more importantly the myths and stories that are pass and show that there was more then one flood. Another thing to know that when you use, our current calendar, be it Georodian or not, these calender does not relate to the sequence of events in the bible. My culture uses a 5 day cycle, look at the Mayan recorded history of time, they do not match up with the new from of time and space, the 7 day calendar which prevented believer from accessing the five day cycle. We beleive that during the 4th. day, a portal is opened fron AYE to Orun and this allow for the white light of ELA (one of the many consciousness of GOD)to process up with truth and solutions to the problem of ORI (our consciousness). During the conquest, etc. these truth where taken by the Catholic church that manipulated the truth to it peoeple. So we use the seven day, and you worship on the seven.

So my point is reading a text like the bible lithery is crazy, for a lack of a better word. a good referrence some of what I am talking was taught by the reknonwn and most expertise in religion, culture and myths, would be Joseph Campel. He wrote book like the hero journey, a hero with a thousand faces...I think he wrote approximately 30 books and was about to finish the enclyclophedia on Myth before he died. Star Wars is best on his interpretations when the original writer was stuck. WILL

Bearsman's photo
Sat 01/26/08 10:39 PM
God IS the answer!

yzrabbit1's photo
Sun 01/27/08 03:20 PM

God IS the answer!


And the question is


What has sparked more wars and caused more pain then all other causes?

Abracadabra's photo
Sun 01/27/08 03:41 PM
Thanks for the belly laugh Rev. I needed that just now. bigsmile

Bearsman's photo
Sun 01/27/08 07:13 PM
You are in Jeopardy!

yzrabbit1's photo
Sun 01/27/08 07:52 PM

You are in Jeopardy!


I gotta admit it that is very funny laugh laugh laugh

no photo
Sun 01/27/08 07:56 PM
Back by popular demand blushing