who came first; God or man? [Archive]

Valley Oak

01-11-2008, 01:08 AM

Man came first.

Both sides cannot be right. The religious interpretation of reality and the scientific interpretation of reality are mutually exclusive. At least science repudiates religion. The religious community can choose to interpret nature however it pleases them; they always have and always will.

A true scientist cannot believe in something that does not exist, especially when there is no evidence (science) to indicate the presence of a divine being.

Edward

I am still sitting on that chicken and the egg thing.
Who came first?
or to be more precise when did it all start and how?

On the one side we have God as the creator of all, on the other side there is an evolution-theory and not much in the middle.
Both of these theories are based on a belief-system without any concrete proof, alot of circumstantial evidence and alot of self-serving conclusions.

For example, we can prove a relationship between fish and reptiles, but not that one came from the other. or when it happened.
and if it did happen, then why isn't it still happening? or why can't we recreate it?

All lot of creation is described in the bible, we are still discovering (eg,the Wall of Tower Built by Nehemiah) that stories that were presumed anecdotal are factual indeed.

But if the evolution theory were true, that could mean that we all came from one and the same source if we were to go back far enough.
What would that source be? Could that be God?
that would mean both sides are right

mykil

01-11-2008, 09:58 AM

Hmmm; wow, what a mind you must endure to come up with such amazing display of thought and curiosity! It alwayz makes me wonder what goes through that mind of yours?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Since I MYSELF believe WE ARE GOD, GOD IS LOVE, AND LOVE IS WE, I still wonder what in the hell did get around to bringing in our own consciousness? My theory is our conscience evolved just like that of this Bulletin Board. Not all at once but slowly and over time. As we crawled out of the ocean and began to bring on our own animal traits that we are still today trying to rid our selves of we started to manifest our own consciousness and therefore bring on GOD as we now it today. Our own psychic intent is the all knowing power we all hold in ourselves and use on a daily basis to live our lives to its fullest.
<o:p></o:p>
You know about twenty-five years ago I was laying around watching the NEWS on the big TV and there was a story about scientists coming to some sort of conclusion that dogs had feelings. I w2as like OH REALLY NOW? It took you how long to decide that animals really had feelings? LMAO!! I looked at my dog and told her to go get me a beer out of the fridge, she moaned and got up and brought me the beer and dove on me and started licking my face just to get my goat like I got hers by making her get me that beer! She was a good dog! She would ride a skateboard, ride on the back on my little motorcycle, we even tripped on shrooms together on a few occasions. Now I was in my teens and I already was aware that animals had feelings and it has alwayz stuck with me that all that brain power around the world and they finally decided to give dogs a chance. No wonder we had so much segregation in the early part of the evolution process!
<o:p></o:p>
Any way my answer would have to be; I think we evolved hand in hand with god in the same way we are evolving with the automobile, electricity, pollution, global warming, love, happiness, and with our own world as we know it today. Allot of mistakes have been made [the bible, now who the hell wrote that ignorant thing anyway?] but GOD is an evolution in progress and sometimes it is better than others.
<o:p></o:p>
As far a the chicken thingy is concerned only a fool would think the chicken came first, its more on the lines of when did we start calling it a chicken?
<o:p></o:p>
AS far as a true scientist is concerned Edward, when they truly believe that an animal has a conscience, they might also conceder that there is a god of sorts and start to work on how god works and no debunk the theory of something other than just being here in each individual perspective and really start to understand what is go9ing on around us. Someday I want my grandchildren sitting around watching some news on a really big screen TV and have scientists come out and say “WE NOW UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS WORLD FOR WE HAVE FOUND GOD”. LMAO!!!!

MsTerry

01-11-2008, 09:59 AM

Edward, you are either missing the point or messing with me.
there is no solid proof or evidence for the evolution theory.
it is all circumstantial.
there are no eyewitnesses and it can't be recreated in the lab!
why is that? why can't we turn afish into an amphibian etc.?
science is famous for revising its own finding

Man came first.

Both sides cannot be right. The religious interpretation of reality and the scientific interpretation of reality are mutually exclusive. At least science repudiates religion. The religious community can choose to interpret nature however it pleases them; they always have and always will.

A true scientist cannot believe in something that does not exist, especially when there is no evidence (science) to indicate the presence of a divine being.

Edward

Valley Oak

01-12-2008, 12:06 AM

Oh, come on, Mystery, I would NEVER mess with you. That would only accomplish finding my head below water! Not a good thing.

Darwin's scientific research was well done and is accepted as solid evidence supporting his theory of evolution. Since Darwin's day, we have accumulated an almost unfathomable amount of hard, scientific evidence further supporting evolutionary theory.

The creationist stance that it cannot be recreated in a lab or that we cannot turn a fish into an amphibian is irrelevant.

Scientists have the wisdom of constantly revising their own findings with newer and better information. Religionists and creationists would do well to follow this example.

Edward

Edward, you are either missing the point or messing with me.
there is no solid proof or evidence for the evolution theory.
it is all circumstantial.
there are no eyewitnesses and it can't be recreated in the lab!
why is that? why can't we turn afish into an amphibian etc.?
science is famous for revising its own finding

Kermit1941

01-12-2008, 01:39 AM

I am still sitting on that chicken and the egg thing.
Who came first?
or to be more precise when did it all start and how?

If we consider that God created the Universe, or is related to the Universe in some way independently of mankind, then of course we must say that God came first.

If we consider that God is only an idea that humans made up, then of course we must say that mankind came first.

We should avoid using words which do not have a clear meaning.
Therefore I suggest that we do not use the word "God" in discussing this issue.
:)

On the one side we have God as the creator of all, on the other side there is an evolution-theory and not much in the middle.
Both of these theories are based on a belief-system without any concrete proof, alot of circumstantial evidence and alot of self-serving conclusions.

Children who are faced with this same contradiction usually come up with the obvious compromise, that God, the creator of all, created the process of evolution for life on Earth.

What is a theory?

Scientists use the word theory with a meaning different than in common language usage.

In common language usage, "theory" is a derogatory term referring to a set of unfounded speculations. In science, "theory" means a logically consistent set of axioms and theorems that make sense out of what has been observed in nature.

If some part of a scientific theory fails to predict correctly, we do not discard the theory. We simply patch it up, make amendments to it until it predicts correctly.

Evolutionary theory is a biological science theory.

It is a lens through which we can understand life and efficiently organize our observations of all life on Earth.

For example, we can prove a relationship between fish and reptiles, but not that one came from the other. or when it happened.
and if it did happen, then why isn't it still happening? or why can't we recreate it?

Evolution is a very gradual process. It is continuing today exactly as it did 200 million years ago.

You see evolution in action when you see that your children are like you in many ways, and unlike you in many ways.

What would you like us to do to experimentally demonstrate an evolutionary process?

Does animal breeding for special characteristics count?

Does re-recombinant DNA creation of seeds by Monsanto Corporation count?

When the trees in the rural area around London become covered with soot from the urban industries, the black beetles that blended in with the soot
were safe from being eaten by the birds. During this time, almost all the observed beetles were black.

After London cleaned up their air, the speckled beetles that blended in with the normal bark now had the advantage. And the black beetle had the distinct dis-advantage.

This is one of the rare cases where we can see evolution proceeding quite rapidly.

All lot of creation is described in the bible, we are still discovering (eg,the Wall of Tower Built by Nehemiah) that stories that were presumed anecdotal are factual indeed.

I suspect people will be arguing about it for a long time.

How about the city of Troy. We found ruins that matched Homer's description of Troy. But then we found several layers of earlier civilizations beneath those ruins.

I don't find it surprising that we can match legends and Bible stories to these historical discoveries.

But if the evolution theory were true, that could mean that we all came from one and the same source if we were to go back far enough.
What would that source be? Could that be God?
that would mean both sides are right

:)

Usually the truth is some combination of both sides.

It is likely that each side has some part of the truth. The only mistake is to believe that you have all of the truth.

Biologists have stated the hypothesis ( Note that I am not calling it a theory.) that all life on Earth begin about 2 billion years ago in the ocean.

They paint a picture of tidal forces, lightning storms, and other high energy processes causing the chemical reactions that led to the first life.

Once there was an entity that could reproduce itself, eat, grow, and eliminate unusable food, it rapidly filled the available food supply region.

Evolution principles applied from that point on.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Lenny

01-12-2008, 06:52 AM

So it comes down to either only matter was/is here, or some "spirit" or "outside of matter" issue preceded all of this plural-verse. Is that about it?
If matter were THE ONLY thing, then evolution would make sense, but we could not "know" anything outside our own nervous system. So the taste of "strawberry" would be meaningless, as one would never "know" what it means to another person. We would simply agree. Very solipsistic and could only lead to the "I am god" routine, but then that would be meaningless too!
Ms. Terry, I would LIKE to thank you for bringing this up, but I've got to go and unwind my belly button.:2cents:

I am still sitting on that chicken and the egg thing.
Who came first? or to be more precise when did it all start and how?...

Frederick M. Dolan

01-12-2008, 12:06 PM

You haven't said whose God you're talking about, but if you refer to the God of the Jewish Bible, the text of Genesis doesn't suggest that He was "the creator of all," at least if we understand creation as creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. Like most creation myths, he seems to have imposed order on an original chaos for which He Himself was not responsible. I mention this because I wonder whether it suggests that there is in fact something "in the middle." Might God simply be a principle of order? Of course that doesn't account for God's personal interest in the Jewish people....

I am still sitting on that chicken and the egg thing.
Who came first?
or to be more precise when did it all start and how?

On the one side we have God as the creator of all, on the other side there is an evolution-theory and not much in the middle.
Both of these theories are based on a belief-system without any concrete proof, alot of circumstantial evidence and alot of self-serving conclusions.

For example, we can prove a relationship between fish and reptiles, but not that one came from the other. or when it happened.
and if it did happen, then why isn't it still happening? or why can't we recreate it?

All lot of creation is described in the bible, we are still discovering (eg,the Wall of Tower Built by Nehemiah) that stories that were presumed anecdotal are factual indeed.

But if the evolution theory were true, that could mean that we all came from one and the same source if we were to go back far enough.
What would that source be? Could that be God?
that would mean both sides are right

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 12:27 PM

[quote=Frederick M. Dolan;47090]You haven't said whose God you're talking about, but if you refer to the God of the Jewish Bible, the text of Genesis doesn't suggest that He was "the creator of all," at least if we understand creation as creation ex nihilo, out of nothing.
I think we can call God as the one "force" that is able to create at will.
whether it is done in a Jewish, Christian, Islamic or any other fashion doesn't really matter to me
how the creation was done, is a different discussion
how "god" was created is of course an entire different story all together

Like most creation myths, he seems to have imposed order on an original chaos for which He Himself was not responsible. I mention this because I wonder whether it suggests that there is in fact something "in the middle."this could be an interesting digression, but we would still have to solve the beginning

Of course that doesn't account for God's personal interest in the Jewish people....I assume you are quoting the Bible here.
Are you just picking and choosing what you like to believe from the Bible
and then call what you don't like a myth?
Do you believe there are factual accounts in the Bible?

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 12:33 PM

Edward
I am expecting more from you!!!
Especially now that you are out of the closet and consider yourself The Phiant!!!

Oh, come on, Mystery, I would NEVER mess with you. That would only accomplish finding my head below water! Not a good thing.

Darwin's scientific research was well done and is accepted as solid evidence supporting his theory of evolution. Since Darwin's day, we have accumulated an almost unfathomable amount of hard, scientific evidence further supporting evolutionary theory.

The creationist stance that it cannot be recreated in a lab or that we cannot turn a fish into an amphibian is irrelevant.

Scientists have the wisdom of constantly revising their own findings with newer and better information. Religionists and creationists would do well to follow this example.

Edward

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 01:03 PM

!!!

I

We should avoid using words which do not have a clear meaning.
Therefore I suggest that we do not use the word "God" in discussing this issue.I think we can call God as the one "force" that is able to create at will.
whether it is done in a Jewish, Christian, Islamic or any other fashion doesn't really matter to me
how the creation was done, is a different discussion
how "god" was created is of course an entire different story all together

Children who are faced with this same contradiction usually come up with the obvious compromise, that God, the creator of all, created the process of evolution for life on Earth.

What is a theory?

Scientists use the word theory with a meaning different than in common language usage.

In common language usage, "theory" is a derogatory term referring to a set of unfounded speculations. In science, "theory" means a logically consistent set of axioms and theorems that make sense out of what has been observed in nature.

If some part of a scientific theory fails to predict correctly, we do not discard the theory. We simply patch it up, make amendments to it until it predicts correctly.

Evolutionary theory is a biological science theory.

It is a lens through which we can understand life and efficiently organize our observations of all life on Earth.A theory of course contains facts, the problem begins when we assume that the conclusion or positioning of these facts, all of a sudden is presented as a new fact

.

What would you like us to do to experimentally demonstrate an evolutionary process?

Does animal breeding for special characteristics count?I think that is a good example.
if you take a certain breed of dogs and let it breed with other breeds, you will find that it will lose it characteristics, in fact if you let them go wild, they will return to the kind of street dog you will find in developing countries. The evolution is not going forwards but backwards!!!!

Does re-recombinant DNA creation of seeds by Monsanto Corporation count?Monsanto is a criminal organisation, please don't get me started on them

When the trees in the rural area around London become covered with soot from the urban industries, the black beetles that blended in with the soot
were safe from being eaten by the birds. During this time, almost all the observed beetles were black.

After London cleaned up their air, the speckled beetles that blended in with the normal bark now had the advantage. And the black beetle had the distinct dis-advantage.

This is one of the rare cases where we can see evolution proceeding quite rapidly..
this not an evolution but an opportunistic event

I suspect people will be arguing about it for a long time.

How about the city of Troy. We found ruins that matched Homer's description of Troy. But then we found several layers of earlier civilizations beneath those ruins.One does not disprove the other

I don't find it surprising that we can match legends and Bible stories to these historical discoveries.My point was that the Old Testament contains historical facts that we are still discovering,
where do we draw the line of what is truth or myth?

Usually the truth is some combination of both sides.

It is likely that each side has some part of the truth. The only mistake is to believe that you have all of the truth.Agreed

Biologists have stated the hypothesis ( Note that I am not calling it a theory.) that all life on Earth begin about 2 billion years ago in the ocean.

They paint a picture of tidal forces, lightning storms, and other high energy processes causing the chemical reactions that led to the first life.

Once there was an entity that could reproduce itself, eat, grow, and eliminate unusable food, it rapidly filled the available food supply region.

Evolution principles applied from that point on.it is kind of a cop out to say, something chemical happened first and from then on out we evolved.
we should be able to recreate chemical reactions and conditions wouldn't you say?

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Valley Oak

01-12-2008, 01:31 PM

Geeez, you're just like my instructors at SSU! Very demanding.

The bit about the Phiant was a sarcastic joke to blow off a lurker who had nothing to say. There is NO ONE who can fill the glass slippers of the late Phiant! We should build an electronic monument to him/her in the Wacco Kingdom in his/her memory.

But I'm glad I caught your attention.

Edward

Edward
I am expecting more from you!!!
Especially now that you are out of the closet and consider yourself The Phiant!!!

Frederick M. Dolan

01-12-2008, 02:51 PM

Are you just picking and choosing what you like to believe from the Bible
and then call what you don't like a myth?
Do you believe there are factual accounts in the Bible?

I suppose there are facts in the Bible in the sense that there are factual elements in "Moby Dick," but facts aren't the point. Both are works of the imagination and must be approached as such if we are to reap their insights. Taking the Bible literally, as fundamentalists do, impoverishes it as much as a reading of "Moby Dick" for its plot alone would eviscerate that work of its deeper meanings.

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 03:37 PM

From your remarks I must surmise that you never had the pleasure to study or even read the Bible.
Do you treat evolutionist with the same kind of respect?

I suppose there are facts in the Bible in the sense that there are factual elements in "Moby Dick," but facts aren't the point. Both are works of the imagination and must be approached as such if we are to reap their insights. Taking the Bible literally, as fundamentalists do, impoverishes it as much as a reading of "Moby Dick" for its plot along would eviscerate that work of its deeper meanings.

Frederick M. Dolan

01-12-2008, 05:19 PM

From your remarks I must surmise that you never had the pleasure to study or even read the Bible.
Do you treat evolutionist with the same kind of respect?

I'm mystified by your reaction, MsTerry! In what way do my remarks suggest a lack of acquaintance with the Bible? They were meant to indicate that it is a rewarding work of literature indeed.

Neshamah

01-12-2008, 05:52 PM

Science describes existence to the extent we can measure it. Science cannot explain why there is existence at all. If all we can see is all there is, then pantheism is true. If there is more to reality than can be observed, then some form of theism is likely true.

Something exists with or without us, and existed long before us, so G-d came first. Unless of course all you mean by G-d are idols, i.e., the feeble words and definitions we come up with. That's all 'atheists' ever reject. I do not know of anyone alive who sincerely believes nothing, not even thought, exists. That is absurd and contradicts all possible experience, let alone scientific rigor.

As for the evolution 'debate,' that belongs in the realm of science. It is about the nature of existence and has nothing to do with whether there is existence. Science assumes that something exists. Evolution is fact. Natural selection is in my view a sufficient explanation for the evolution that has occurred in the fossil record. Personally, I think Divine intervention along the way would be a sign the universe did not come out the way G-d wanted it in the first place.

~ Neshamah

Kermit1941

01-12-2008, 07:52 PM

I think we can call God as the one "force" that is able to create at will.
whether it is done in a Jewish, Christian, Islamic or any other fashion doesn't really matter to me
how the creation was done, is a different discussion
how "god" was created is of course an entire different story all together

I have a suggestion about creation.

If we ask, how was matter created from nothing, we are baffled.

But I observe that mathematics is self-creating.
Mathematics does not have to be created. It just is.

I suggest that Mathematics is the "Prime Mover".

If God is that which creates at will, then perhaps we must agree that
God is mathematics.

A theory of course contains facts, the problem begins when we assume that the conclusion or positioning of these facts, all of a sudden is presented as a new fact

I make a guess that this problem of confusing theory with fact is the result of bad education.

The scientist who develops the theory understands the difference between the theory and the facts that it summarizes.

Unfortunately, when this scientist tries to explain to others about the theory, this understanding gets lost.

People who do not have the experience of developing scientific theories are liable to mis-understand the intentions of the scientist explaining the theory.

if you let them go wild, they will return to the kind of street dog you will find in developing countries. The evolution is not going forwards but backwards!!!!

I expect that biologist do not think of evolution as going forward or backward.

It's less confusing to define evolution as always going forward, even in the
case of evolving into wild dogs.

We should not confuse our personal values of outcomes with the direction of evolution.

Evolution generally produces more complex biological organisms from simpler organisms. This is one measure of forward evolution.

this not an evolution but an opportunistic event

????

Opportunistic events are examples of evolution.

My point was that the Old Testament contains historical facts that we are still discovering,
where do we draw the line of what is truth or myth?

Certainly not arbitrarily.

What is true is true.
What is false is false.

Myths contain truths , but often not at the level we naively expect.

We cannot know from the Old Testament alone which parts are historically true, and which parts are confused comments about historical facts.

When we discover by other means exactly what part of the old testament is true, then we can separate the true part from the false part, at all the different levels of interpretation.

That might never happen.

it is kind of a cop out to say, something chemical happened first and from then on out we evolved.
we should be able to recreate chemical reactions and conditions wouldn't you say?

Agreed.

We have no choice but to "cop out" given our current level of understanding of biology.

As far as recreating the chemical reactions and conditions that led to life,

I fully anticipate that withing a few centuries biologists will do exactly this.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 09:57 PM

Frederick
Here is the quote

I suppose there are facts in the Bible in the sense that there are factual elements in "Moby Dick," but facts aren't the point. Both are works of the imagination
when someone equates the Old Testament with Moby Dick and a fiction of the imagination, I start to wonder.
Of course if you are trying to imply that ALL books are works of the imagination, I'll take it back. After all books or any writing are a very subjective way of viewing the world

I'm mystified by your reaction, MsTerry! In what way do my remarks suggest a lack of acquaintance with the Bible? They were meant to indicate that it is a rewarding work of literature indeed.

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 10:20 PM

I have a suggestion about creation.

If we ask, how was matter created from nothing, we are baffled.

But I observe that mathematics is self-creating.
Mathematics does not have to be created. It just is.

I suggest that Mathematics is the "Prime Mover".

If God is that which creates at will, then perhaps we must agree that
God is mathematics.
nice try, but mathematics, just as language, is a man made concept or more accurately maybe, a conspiracy

I make a guess that this problem of confusing theory with fact is the result of bad education.

The scientist who develops the theory understands the difference between the theory and the facts that it summarizes.

Unfortunately, when this scientist tries to explain to others about the theory, this understanding gets lost.

People who do not have the experience of developing scientific theories are liable to mis-understand the intentions of the scientist explaining the theoryYes and No.
I think a lot of scientists feel the need to have their theory accepted as "the truth", for various reasons.
the step from The New Truth to A Fact is small.

I expect that biologist do not think of evolution as going forward or backward.

It's less confusing to define evolution as always going forward, even in the
case of evolving into wild dogs.

We should not confuse our personal values of outcomes with the direction of evolution.

Evolution generally produces more complex biological organisms from simpler organisms. This is one measure of forward evolution.
My point was that people are able to breed dogs, but are not able to reproduce evolution. The resulting wild dog from non-breeding is most likely the dog, that the domesticated dog came from in the first place.
that is going backwards or standing still at best.

Certainly not arbitrarily.

What is true is true.
What is false is false.what is true today, is false tomorrow
such is our fate

Myths contain truths , but often not at the level we naively expect.

We cannot know from the Old Testament alone which parts are historically true, and which parts are confused comments about historical facts.

When we discover by other means exactly what part of the old testament is true, then we can separate the true part from the false part, at all the different levels of interpretation.Just because we don't know what happened, that doesn't mean it is a myth until proven otherwise!

We have no choice but to "cop out" given our current level of understanding of biology.

As far as recreating the chemical reactions and conditions that led to life,

I fully anticipate that withing a few centuries biologists will do exactly this.
Ah, but that is a cop-out or maybe even a myth as well, for you and I won't be alive.
It is akin to saying on judgement-day you will be proven wrong!
Kermit Rose < [email protected] >[/quote]

MsTerry

01-12-2008, 10:32 PM

Evolution is fact.
~ Neshamah[/quote]

Well,that is something we are not sure about, but we assume that that is what happened. We assume some evolutions through deduction, but is it a fact?

Valley Oak

01-13-2008, 07:30 AM

Absolutely, evolution is fact.

Creationism and a religious interpretation of reality (whether it be of evolution, anything else in life, human nature, or the universe) is what is bogus. It's very disheartening to see that the majority of Americans today are so ignorant, superstitious, and backwards so as to continue believing in something that doesn't exist (religious mythology), and therefore view the world through mysticism, magic, and ghosts (holy ghost, etc).

We are still a very primitive society in the year 2007. We continue to interpret reality through idealism (religion) and also mass murder one another in bloody rituals called 'wars.'

Edward

~ Neshamah

Well,that is something we are not sure about, but we assume that that is what happened. We assume some evolutions through deduction, but is it a fact?[/quote]

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 09:16 AM

Fact in science

<dl><dd>Further information: scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and philosophy of science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)</dd></dl> Just as in philosophy, the scientific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science).
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) and verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable) observation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation); in contrast with a hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) or theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), which is intended to explain or interpret facts.<sup id="_ref-Gower000_0" class="reference">[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-Gower000)</sup>
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science. <sup id="_ref-Ravetz000_0" class="reference">[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-Ravetz000)</sup>

[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fact&action=edit&section=8)] Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science) and natural sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sciences) have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact.<sup id="_ref-18" class="reference">[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-18)</sup> Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;<sup id="_ref-19" class="reference">[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-19)</sup>
whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;<sup id="_ref-20" class="reference">[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-20)</sup><sup id="_ref-21" class="reference">[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-21)</sup>
to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation;<sup id="_ref-22" class="reference">[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-22)</sup> and
to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence) and consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_theory_of_truth), rather than a strictly systematic methodology.<sup id="_ref-23" class="reference">[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-23)</sup> Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism), some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn) and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils) is based on radiocarbon dating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_process) rather than a Bernoulli process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_process)). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Williams_Bridgman) is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization), which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fact&action=edit&section=9)] Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.<sup id="_ref-24" class="reference">[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-24)</sup> Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.<sup id="_ref-The_Nature_of_Suffering_and_the_Goals_of_Medicine_0" class="reference">[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-The_Nature_of_Suffering_and_the_Goals_of_Medicine)</sup> In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) and accreditation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accreditation), that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.<sup id="_ref-25" class="reference">[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-25)</sup>
Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.
In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vise versa.
Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

Absolutely, evolution is fact.

Creationism and a religious interpretation of reality (whether it be of evolution, anything else in life, human nature, or the universe) is what is bogus. It's very disheartening to see that the majority of Americans today are so ignorant, superstitious, and backwards so as to continue believing in something that doesn't exist (religious mythology), and therefore view the world through mysticism, magic, and ghosts (holy ghost, etc).

We are still a very primitive society in the year 2007. We continue to interpret reality through idealism (religion) and also mass murder one another in bloody rituals called 'wars.'

Edward

Well,that is something we are not sure about, but we assume that that is what happened. We assume some evolutions through deduction, but is it a fact?[/quote]

Kermit1941

01-13-2008, 12:35 PM

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) and verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable) observation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation); in contrast with a hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) or theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), which is intended to explain or interpret facts.<sup id="_ref-Gower000_0" class="reference">[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-Gower000)
</sup>

This is also the meaning I use for the words "fact" and "theory".

as operationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization), which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

I agree with operationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization). Which facts we notice depend on our language and our hypotheses.

Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.<sup id="_ref-The_Nature_of_Suffering_and_the_Goals_of_Medicine_0" class="reference">[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#_note-The_Nature_of_Suffering_and_the_Goals_of_Medicine)</sup>

Provided they agree on language and hypotheses.

Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

It is still a fact that from the Earth we see planets change direction from time to time.

It is still a fact that from the Earth we see planets and stars circle the Earth once daily.

The other planets change direction with respect to the Earth. This is a fact.

The stars with Earth as reference, do circle the Earth daily. This is a fact.

We choose to not see it that way because we have a simpler astronomical theory now. Now we measure the planet's movement with respect to the sun instead of from the Earth.

And since we interpret the stars movements with respect to the Sun instead of the Earth, we choose to not say that the stars circle the Earth.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vise versa.

It is a confusion of language to say that the facts changed.

It is not the facts which changed, but our analysis of the facts which changed.

Analysis of facts is called theory.

It is the theory which changed, not the facts

We changed our theory of Astronomy to make the Sun the reference point instead of the Earth. This changed the way we interpreted the facts.

Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

The words "fact" and "theory" are used differently by scientists and non-scientist.

It's perfectly ok for non-scientists to use these words differently.

If we are speaking to a non-scientist, ( or a scientist who uses these words in the non-scientific way ) then we should be alert to this.

The burden should be on the listener to gauge the meaning that the speaker intends for eir words.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Frederick M. Dolan

01-13-2008, 12:38 PM

Frederick
Here is the quote

when someone equates the Old Testament with Moby Dick and a fiction of the imagination, I start to wonder.
Of course if you are trying to imply that ALL books are works of the imagination, I'll take it back. After all books or any writing are a very subjective way of viewing the world

I still don't understand what you're wondering about, and why my understanding of the Bible as a work of imaginative literature suggests to you that I haven't read it. There's an enormous scholarship on the Bible as literature which has been growing for the last couple of hundred years. Mine is hardly a controversial position.

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 12:52 PM

I agree that your position is hardly a new one, but it is a dismissive one without merit. The Bible is only approached from the point of view that it simply can not be true, therefore it is a myth.
Were the evolution theory held to the same kind of standards, but it is not, we would consider it a myth.
Fact is we have found Dinosaur skeletons. How they evolved from a lizard size animal, we don't know. Does that mean it is a myth since it is physiological impossible to achieve?

I still don't understand what you're wondering about, and why my understanding of the Bible as a work of imaginative literature suggests to you that I haven't read it. There's an enormous scholarship on the Bible as literature which has been growing for the last couple of hundred years. Mine is hardly a controversial position.

Kermit1941

01-13-2008, 01:12 PM

nice try, but mathematics, just as language, is a man made concept or more accurately maybe, a conspiracy

I see I need to distinguish between Mathematics and our development of mathematics.

In Spanish people count

1. uno
2. dos
3. tres
4. cuatro
5. cinco
6. seis
7. siete
8. ocho
9. nueve
10. diez

and in English we count

1. one
2. two
3. three
4. four
5. five
6. six
7. seven
8. eight
9. nine
10. ten

The language we use do describe our understanding of mathematics is NOT the same as the mathematics.

Mathematics exists independently of human beings.

Yes and No.
I think a lot of scientists feel the need to have their theory accepted as "the truth", for various reasons.
the step from The New Truth to A Fact is small.

If so, then that is unfortunate.

I would make a judgement ( and I have tried to not make any judgements about people ) that a person ( scientists or not ) that insists that his theory is true and refuses to listen to argument about it, is not competent.

My point was that people are able to breed dogs, but are not able to reproduce evolution. The resulting wild dog from non-breeding is most likely the dog, that the domesticated dog came from in the first place.
that is going backwards or standing still at best.

We apparently have different concepts of evolution.

For me, breeding particular traits within successive generations is exactly guiding evolution.

I do not consider it valid to say that evolution to a form similar to a past form is de-volution or backward evolution.

We probably have different concepts of evolution because of our different background information.

I accept as given the claim that dogs left to their own resources develop the skills of wild dogs.

We choose to interpret this fact differently. We have different hypotheses and theories to account for it.

what is true today, is false tomorrow
such is our fate

Again we find a case where we use words differently.

For me, what is true today must be true forever.

What is false today must be false forever.

I do not apply the words true or false to statements that
change in meaning between today and tomorrow.

Just because we don't know what happened, that doesn't mean it is a myth until proven otherwise!

Agreed! It is also true that

Just because we don't know what happened, that doesn't mean it's true until proven otherwise.

Ah, but that is a cop-out or maybe even a myth as well, for you and I won't be alive.
It is akin to saying on judgement-day you will be proven wrong!

Agreed. To anticipate biologists ability to re-create the beginning of life on Earth is a statement of faith.

I have faith in the biological theory that predicts that we will be able to do it.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[/quote]

Kermit1941

01-13-2008, 01:32 PM

I agree that your position is hardly a new one, but it is a dismissive one without merit.

An interesting judgment.

The Bible is only approached from the point of view that it simply can not be true, therefore it is a myth.

Perhaps some Bible analysts feel this way, but I don't expect it to be the norm.

And how do you evaluate whether or not the Bible is true?

Isn't that what the Bible analysis is all about?

Were the evolution theory held to the same kind of standards, but it is not, we would consider it a myth.

I believe that the evolution theory is held to a much stricter standard than Bible analysis.

In general, biological theories are required to explain many more facts than
social theories.

Fact is we have found Dinosaur skeletons. How they evolved from a lizard size animal, we don't know. Does that mean it is a myth since it is physiological impossible to achieve?

How do you know it's impossible to achieve?

Just because we haven't done it yet does not mean that it's impossible.

Also bear in mind the long long span of time that it took for the lizard sized animal to evolve into T-Rex.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 01:39 PM

I see I need to distinguish between Mathematics and our development of mathematics.

The language we use do describe our understanding of mathematics is NOT the same as the mathematics.

Mathematics exists independently of human beings.

Agreed.
The phenomena of mathematics is not limited by our way of describing it, using numbers and symbols.

We apparently have different concepts of evolution.
For me, breeding particular traits within successive generations is exactly guiding evolution.
I do not consider it valid to say that evolution to a form similar to a past form is de-volution or backward evolution.
We probably have different concepts of evolution because of our different background information.
I accept as given the claim that dogs left to their own resources develop the skills of wild dogs.
We choose to interpret this fact differently. We have different hypotheses and theories to account for it.

Agreed

Again we find a case where we use words differently.

For me, what is true today must be true forever.

What is false today must be false forever.

I do not apply the words true or false to statements that
change in meaning between today and tomorrow.

you are an Idealist.
for have you never loved someone and now find yourself at odds?

Agreed! It is also true that

Just because we don't know what happened, that doesn't mean it's true until proven otherwise.
As long as it isn't dismissed as imagination, I agree

Agreed. To anticipate biologists ability to re-create the beginning of life on Earth is a statement of faith.

I have faith in the biological theory that predicts that we will be able to do it.

This is a brave statement for an atheist! ( I assume you are from your website)
You are equating evolution with religion! A Faith based belief system. Bravo!!!
That was exactly my point............

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[/quote]

Frederick M. Dolan

01-13-2008, 02:52 PM

I agree that your position is hardly a new one, but it is a dismissive one without merit. The Bible is only approached from the point of view that it simply can not be true, therefore it is a myth.
Were the evolution theory held to the same kind of standards, but it is not, we would consider it a myth.
Fact is we have found Dinosaur skeletons. How they evolved from a lizard size animal, we don't know. Does that mean it is a myth since it is physiological impossible to achieve?

I still don't see what's dismissive about regarding the Bible as a work of imagination. As for evolution, that's not a theory but a fact. Natural selection is a theory put forward to explain the facts (of evolution).

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 04:07 PM

???

I still don't see what's dismissive about regarding the Bible as a work of imagination.The Old Testament shows the lineage of the Jewish people.
Would you consider that imagination, a myth, a fact or an historical testimony?

As for evolution, that's not a theory but a factWhen you use the word "Evolution", what are you referring to?
The assumption that we all came from amino acids, or the fact that everything changes?

Natural selection is a theory put forward to explain the facts (of evolution).What do you mean by natural selection?
Don't you have to prove the facts first, before you can make self-serving conclusions?

terriann

01-13-2008, 06:27 PM

Ms Terry, what happened to your science education? You clearly have no understanding of what a theory is and how science works. All I know is that, ascientific theory isn't the same thing as a guess. Anyone want to elucidate? I'm sure we have an accommodating scientist among us who would be willing to give you a short-course. I get it. It's just that explaining it is not my forte.

Do you remember, in your basic history of science, how people in the past didn't know that there are such creatures as bacteria and viruses? Then along came germ "theory". Do you get a flu shot or have a loved one who does, or have you ever used antibiotics? Do you understand why our over-use of antibiotics is cause for so much concern? Do you own a dog or cat? Do you like to grow roses or fuschias or camellias or pelergoniums? What traits did you inherit from your parents? Which are you passing down to your children (if you have any)? Have you heard about super bugs? The pesticides we make to kill them require continual "improvement" because the creatures they are meant to eradicate multiply in short order and each subsequent generation is able to evolve traits that make them resistant to the chemicals that did in their progenitors.

How about if we make a new law and all the people who think evolution is bunk are denied access to all products of evolution until they pass a course showing they can demonstrate a working understanding of its principles? Sorry, no immunizations or antibiotics for them. No plant or animal products that are a result of hybridization. (e.g.: Remember, in our grandparent's days, that a certain amount of marbling--interstitial fat--in beef was desirable? Now we like our meat lean, and the ranchers have bred their stock accordingly). No GMO products (that would be a relief, no?). No cotton, angora, silk, alpaca, or wool clothing. No pets. Well, maybe a snake or ant colony or snail? Certainly nothing that was ever bred for particular characteristics. And none of this business of having offspring. You might inadvertently pass on some traits. Unless you can figure out how to do it without a mate--no co-mingling of chromosomes allowed. Wait . . . someone did that once, I heard.

I'm sure some of our fellow Waccovians could have fun adding to this short list.

And guess what? It's okay to to accept evolution and believe in God at the same time. Science is about inquiry and understanding what we can know. Belief in God or a "higher power" is (so far, Mykil?) about faith. I think there's room enough in the universe for all of it.

--Terriann

Edward, you are either missing the point or messing with me.
there is no solid proof or evidence for the evolution theory.
it is all circumstantial.
there are no eyewitnesses and it can't be recreated in the lab!
why is that? why can't we turn afish into an amphibian etc.?
science is famous for revising its own finding

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 09:08 PM

now that was quite a mouthful terriann!
you make a great case for why we shouldn't listen to scientists! they seem to change their mind whenever it is convenient with a new "theory"

just because we can impersonate nature by breeding dogs or cats, that doesn't prove that we came from that primordial soup, to millions of species with different DNA. Or does it?

Ms Terry, what happened to your science education? You clearly have no understanding of what a theory is and how science works.

MsTerry

01-13-2008, 09:18 PM

What the heck, Let's see what the scientist have to say about Dinsaours.
That should be easy one to figure out, easier than evolution. Right?

By now, scientists have a pretty good idea of what conditions were like in the Cretaceous period, which started about 135 million years ago, and came to a sudden end 70 million years later, with the death of the dinosaurs. Or rather, they think they do — but two new sets of research results suggest there's a lot more to learn.
    Related Articles

Fossils Fuel a Chinese Boom (https://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1656527,00.html)

Psst! Want to buy the remains of a dinosaur? You've come to the right place
 

 https://dynamic.fmpub.net/adserver/adview.php?what=zone:411&n=950973446&source=TIMEINLINE_SIDE https://stats.sphere.com/widgets/sphereit/?action=display&siteid=time_health_inline
  <script type="text/javascript"> tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1290760, 180, 200, -1); </script><form id="qas_frm" name="qas_frm" method="get" action="" target=""><input name="ie52_mac_only" value="" type="hidden"></form><iframe name="adsonar_serve106240" id="adsonar_serve106240" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="https://ads.tw.adsonar.com/adserving/getAds.jsp?previousPlacementIds=&placementId=1290760&pid=755774&ps=-1&zw=180&zh=200&url=http%3A//www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1702501%2C00.html&v=5" frameborder="0" height="200" scrolling="no" width="180"></iframe>

 The first has to do with the period's cataclysmic close. In lots of people's minds, the mystery of what killed the dinosaurs and other species — paving the way for the rise of mammals — was solved a couple of decades ago: a giant asteroid or comet slamming into the Earth, resulting in a dust cloud that shrouded the sun, cooled the planet dramatically and killed off plants and animals wholesale. It's a compelling story, but plenty of scientists never completely bought it. The dinos died pretty quickly, they admit, but not quite abruptly enough to be explained this way. So alternate theories — the dinosaurs succumbed to allergies, from the rise of flowering plants, or to world-shaking volcanoes in what's now India, or to disease — have always bubbled around the periphery of the conventional wisdom. We wrote about one of these hypotheses (https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1682273,00.html) a couple of months ago.
Now the disease theory has gotten another boost, in the form of a book titled What Bugged the Dinosaurs, from the Princeton University Press. Authors George and Roberta Poinar (George is a zoologist at Oregon State University and a former World Health Organization consultant on infectious disease) specialize in ancient insects preserved in amber (a key plot element in the movie Jurassic Park) and also in fossilized dinosaur poop. Among other things in their lode, they've found ticks, nematodes, biting flies and all sorts of other nasties, including intestinal parasites, dating back to the Cretaceous period. From some of the insects, the Poinars have extracted microbes that cause leishmania and malaria — evidently new pathogens back then, against which dinosaurs wouldn't have had much resistance.
The authors aren't arguing that the dinos all died in a massive epidemic; rather, the constant wear and tear of illness weakened the dinosaurs so that other catastrophes, like comets and volcanoes, could have finished them off. Still, the Poinars couldn't resist a bit of made-for-Hollywood drama. One great quote from the book: "The largest of the land animals, the dinosaurs, would have been locked in a life-or-death struggle with for survival."
The other recent challenge to conventional Cretaceous wisdom comes from a paper in the journal [I]Science, published Thursday. It's pretty certain from many lines of evidence that the world was much hotter then (which is why a post-comet cold snap would have been pretty tough on the dinosaurs). During a period called the Turonian, about 90 million years ago, things got especially toasty: In some places, during what's often called the "super-greenhouse" years, the ocean's surface temperature approached 100 degrees F, and alligators thrived in the Arctic.
So, how come there were massive glaciers in Antarctica at the time? Paleo-climate experts have seen hints of this oddity before, but the new Science paper nails it down much more firmly. Andre Bornemann, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, along with several colleagues, got their information by analyzing the amount of the isotope oxygen-18 in foraminifera, tiny, shelled sea dwellers that thrived at the time. It turns out that when water evaporates from the sea but doesn't return (implying that it's trapped up on land somewhere, frozen), the ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 in seawater changes (O-18 is heavier, so it evaporates less). The foraminifera aren't picky; they just incorporate oxygen into their shells, in whichever form.
What researchers found was a stretch of a few hundred thousand years during which foraminifera shells were unusually rich in oxygen-18, suggesting the presence of glaciers. Though changes in ocean temperature can also alter the oxygen balance, sea-bottom temperatures don't vary much no matter what's happening up top, yet the bottom-dwelling foraminifera still exhibited an oxygen imbalance, implying that the ice effect was more likely. Nobody can explain how you can have glaciers in a superhot world. But then, nobody can really explain how the world got quite that hot in the first place.
Taken together, the hothouse glaciers and the sickly dinosaurs suggest a conclusion that should serve nicely as the new conventional wisdom about the paleontological past: Don't take conventional wisdom too seriously

Frederick M. Dolan

01-14-2008, 12:39 AM

The Old Testament shows the lineage of the Jewish people. Would you consider that imagination, a myth, a fact or an historical testimony?

Like the traditional lineages handed down among all peoples, it's a combination of all of the above.

When you use the word "Evolution", what are you referring to?
The assumption that we all came from amino acids, or the fact that everything changes?

What do you mean by natural selection?
Don't you have to prove the facts first, before you can make self-serving conclusions?

I mean "evolution" and "natural selection" in their ordinary, commonly accepted senses.

Facts, of course, are by their nature slippery and ambiguous and hard to get hold of. Nothing is easier to deny or harder to establish than a fact. It takes a certain degree of honesty and integrity to face up to them. I don't believe anyone not obviously motivated by ideology denies the phenomenon of evolution, but I guess I could be wrong. Whether natural selection is the main driver of evolution is, I gather, more controversial (cf. the work of Lyn Margulis). What any of this has to do with religion is beyond me. The author of Genesis, and its first readers, certainly did not take it literally -- why should we?

Lenny

01-14-2008, 06:09 AM

I've no answer for Ms. Terry.
When one hears and listens to a song and is moved by it, that one way to connect.
When one reads a dynamic piece or listens to a great speech, that is another way for inspiration.
The Bible may be written in song form, while Science is a speech.
Science measures what is "outside", stands to correct itself when wrong (few disciplines area so constructed) and answers "how".
Religion measures another dimension for us, and as all philosophers would recognize "that anything from God is true", need not correct itself. From time to time we may correct OUR view of the infinite, being not so, and adjust our way.
Utilizing 18th/19th century approaches to subjects that go back thousands of years is beginning to seem to be a narrow approach to what is as vital to humans as the very food we eat. :2cents:

MsTerry

01-14-2008, 09:53 AM

Facts, of course, are by their nature slippery and ambiguous and hard to get hold of. Nothing is easier to deny or harder to establish than a fact.I wonder if when you state "evolution is a fact", you use the same standards as above

. Whether natural selection is the main driver of evolution is, I gather, more controversial (cf. the work of Lyn Margulis).natural selection is another slippery slope. As mentioned before the dogs we currently use for our pets would not be if wasn't for our sustained manipulation of nature.
To believe in natural selection and evolution would also require us to believe that all species have a inherent intelligence to make or change body parts to grow as needed. It requires us to accept that all species have a self-image and are aware of its strengths and weaknesses and are able to compensate for it.

What any of this has to do with religion is beyond me.That it is faith to think the above/

Frederick M. Dolan

01-14-2008, 04:04 PM

I wonder if when you state "evolution is a fact", you use the same standards as above

Of course I do. It took lots of effort to establish that fact.

natural selection is another slippery slope. As mentioned before the dogs we currently use for our pets would not be if wasn't for our sustained manipulation of nature.

I don't get this.

To believe in natural selection and evolution would also require us to believe that all species have a inherent intelligence to make or change body parts to grow as needed. It requires us to accept that all species have a self-image and are aware of its strengths and weaknesses and are able to compensate for it.

I don't get this, either.

That it is faith to think the above/

Religious faith, as generally understood, is different from ordinary belief. Religious faith has to do with fidelity to a revelation preserved by tradition. It's about loyalty and identity and commitment. That's a bit different from forming beliefs about the natural world that are warranted by evidence available to all.

MsTerry

01-14-2008, 09:51 PM

Frederick M. Dolan;47253]
I don't get this.

OK, let's simplify things.
I am sure you are familiar with the images of how man came to be, especially the one from ape to modern man.
first there is a monkey it gets bigger, becomes more human, Neanderthal and finally voila; homo erectus to modern man.
WHO could deny that that doesn't make sense.
Well, there are a few omissions with that picture.
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

Braggi

01-15-2008, 08:08 AM

...
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

TP, are you saying you are so crippled in your thinking or so impoverished in your education don't understand even the most basic assumptions of the theory of evolution?

Are you saying you believe the God of the Bible created everything, including the fossil record, from nothing, with a thought and a word? Let's get specific here.

If you are a fundamentalist "believer," let's talk about the name of God. Do you know what the name of the God of the Bible is? I noticed one poster used the alternative "name," (which is not a name at all but a title or description) "G-d." That I've never understood. I've also never understood the question over the name of that particular god since it is clearly, unequivocally stated at least twice in the Holy Bible itself.

I have my own definition(s) of God(s). Yours probably doesn't agree with mine which I'll save for another thread, in which I intend to challenge Edward, who I do not believe to be an atheist despite his constant refrain.

In answer to your original question, in my home, it is usually God(dess) who comes first, but not always.

-Jeff

Valley Oak

01-15-2008, 08:32 AM

Challenge me, challenge me! Is this going to be as much fun as some of those parties we've been to?

Edward

TP, are you saying you are so crippled in your thinking you or so impoverished in your education don't understand even the most basic assumptions of the theory of evolution?

Are you saying you believe the God of the Bible created everything, including the fossil record, from nothing, with a thought and a word? Let's get specific here.

If you are a fundamentalist "believer," let's talk about the name of God. Do you know what the name of the God of the Bible is? I noticed one poster used the alternative "name," (which is not a name at all but a title or description) "G-d." That I've never understood. I've also never understood the question over the name of that particular god since it is clearly, unequivocally stated at least twice in the Holy Bible itself.

I have my own definition(s) of God(s). Yours probably doesn't agree with mine which I'll save for another thread, in which I intend to challenge Edward, who I do not believe to be an atheist despite his constant refrain.

In answer to your original question, in my home, it is usually God(dess) who comes first, but not always.

-Jeff

Frederick M. Dolan

01-15-2008, 12:24 PM

If you are a fundamentalist "believer," let's talk about the name of God. Do you know what the name of the God of the Bible is? I noticed one poster used the alternative "name," (which is not a name at all but a title or description) "G-d." That I've never understood. I've also never understood the question over the name of that particular god since it is clearly, unequivocally stated at least twice in the Holy Bible itself.

I have my own definition(s) of God(s). Yours probably doesn't agree with mine which I'll save for another thread, in which I intend to challenge Edward, who I do not believe to be an atheist despite his constant refrain.

In answer to your original question, in my home, it is usually God(dess) who comes first, but not always.

-Jeff

Some observant Jews still observe the medieval proscription against writing God's name in full. Of course, in the Jewish Bible God is referred to by two names, Yahweh and Elohim, which reflect two originally distinct traditions that were stitched together by the Redactor to create Genesis.

mykil

01-15-2008, 12:25 PM

I sometimes prefer the conclusion a few have come to believe in, that a spaceship crashed on earth sometime ago and had sex with a few apes to preserve it’s spices. Thus humans came about and that is where the line on intelligent came along. This actually makes since to me!!! LMAO!!! Thus, our higher consciousness takes into effect and sometimes compensates for our animal like instincts that we all have and are stuck with. All in all the two go hand in hand in our new world that has come to be visited by our ancestors over and over again, probably with them in disbelief and shaking there heads on there way out wondering what they had done and if there will ever been enough evolution to fix what they had started?

shellebelle

01-15-2008, 02:20 PM

WOW Sex preserves spices! Damn Mykil you know all sorts of good stuff!! So sex in the pantry is very good I assume! ROFLMAO

JK but do love it!

I sometimes prefer the conclusion a few have come to believe in, that a spaceship crashed on earth sometime ago and had sex with a few apes to preserve it’s spices.

Braggi

01-15-2008, 09:43 PM

Some observant Jews still observe the medieval proscription against writing God's name in full. Of course, in the Jewish Bible God is referred to by two names, Yahweh and Elohim, which reflect two originally distinct traditions that were stitched together by the Redactor to create Genesis.

Well, I've heard a lot of this and there's even some archeological evidence to support it, or so I've read (on the YHWH thing anyway). Thing is, God isn't a "name." It's a title so observant Jews are ... uh, not being so observant it seems.

No, it's simpler than any of that. There are two places in the Holy Bible where "God" declares in no uncertain terms what his name is. I'm surprised nobody's come up with it yet. And it so fits His personality. It's a perfect name for so arrogant, petty and rude a god. As St. Terrence put it: "Not the kind of a guy you'd want to invite to a garden party." No indeed.

Come on Frederick, do some research. :wink:

-Jeff

PS. Bonus question: anyone know why there is a prohibition on "naming" your God to unbelievers?

MsTerry

01-15-2008, 09:43 PM

Jeffi,

I am going to assume that you are addressing me.
so here it is:
"The fossil record is life’s evolutionary epic that unfolded over four billion years as environmental conditions and genetic potential interacted in accordance with natural selection. It could be likened to a movie recording the history of life across nearly four billion years of geological time. The problem is that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved, and those that have been preserved have often been chronologically scrambled. "

Now I would like you to answer my question:

I am sure you are familiar with the images of how man came to be, especially the one from ape to modern man.
first there is a monkey it gets bigger, becomes more human, Neanderthal and finally voila; homo erectus to modern man.
WHO could deny that that doesn't make sense.
Well, there are a few omissions with that picture.
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

TP, are you saying you are so crippled in your thinking or so impoverished in your education don't understand even the most basic assumptions of the theory of evolution?

Are you saying you believe the God of the Bible created everything, including the fossil record, from nothing, with a thought and a word? Let's get specific here.

If you are a fundamentalist "believer," let's talk about the name of God. Do you know what the name of the God of the Bible is? I noticed one poster used the alternative "name," (which is not a name at all but a title or description) "G-d." That I've never understood. I've also never understood the question over the name of that particular god since it is clearly, unequivocally stated at least twice in the Holy Bible itself.

I have my own definition(s) of God(s). Yours probably doesn't agree with mine which I'll save for another thread, in which I intend to challenge Edward, who I do not believe to be an atheist despite his constant refrain.

In answer to your original question, in my home, it is usually God(dess) who comes first, but not always.

-Jeff

MsTerry

01-15-2008, 09:48 PM

OK Edward,

Dolan ain't answering, Jeffi probable won't.
That means that you are the last honest guy who gets to answer this simple question:

I am sure you are familiar with the images of how man came to be, especially the one from ape to modern man.
first there is a monkey it gets bigger, becomes more human, Neanderthal and finally voila; homo erectus to modern man.
WHO could deny that that doesn't make sense.
Well, there are a few omissions with that picture.
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

Challenge me, challenge me! Is this going to be as much fun as some of those parties we've been to?

Edward

Frederick M. Dolan

01-15-2008, 10:24 PM

Frederick M. Dolan

01-15-2008, 10:28 PM

I still don't get it: what do those old textbook illustrations have to do with natural selection and evolution, except for the fact that they were used to (rather misleadingly) illustrate it?

Jeffi,

I am going to assume that you are addressing me.
so here it is:
"The fossil record is life’s evolutionary epic that unfolded over four billion years as environmental conditions and genetic potential interacted in accordance with natural selection. It could be likened to a movie recording the history of life across nearly four billion years of geological time. The problem is that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved, and those that have been preserved have often been chronologically scrambled. "

Now I would like you to answer my question:

I am sure you are familiar with the images of how man came to be, especially the one from ape to modern man.
first there is a monkey it gets bigger, becomes more human, Neanderthal and finally voila; homo erectus to modern man.
WHO could deny that that doesn't make sense.
Well, there are a few omissions with that picture.
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

Braggi

01-15-2008, 10:34 PM

Jeffi,

Now I would like you to answer my question:

Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?
and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

How do you know the "last" person is white? Evolution is still happening to humans, as it is to all other species. It's actually happening much faster lately, due, strangely enough, to exactly the reasons Willie was saying it's not happening: travel, intermarriage and protecting genes that would otherwise be lost. I think the most evolved humans we can come up with at this time will be a mix of all the races we can throw into the pot, assuming pregnant women are well taken care of and babies are allowed to develop under optimum conditions.

What came before that little monkey is the monkey's ancestor. Duh. The fossil record pretty clearly shows apes and humans evolved from common ancestors. It's not that hard to understand. Do some research. The most interesting thing I've read recently is that the chimps and humans had a common ancestor, split genetically from that ancestor, and then some millions of years later, were sharing genes again! So the early hominids were doing the Bonobo with the Bonobos! Assuming that theory is correct.

The genetic splits into the "races" we recognize now were much more recently and much more quickly developed than has previously been thought, according to a newish report.

You should subscribe to National Geographic's free email newsletter. You'll be able to keep up on all the latest developments along these lines. Just go to their website and sign up.

Evolution is a fact as well as a theory, just as the "cell theory" describes the little bits that make up our bodies and the "germ theory" describes little critters that make us sick. A theory is not a guess or a supposition, but a deduction reached through research and development of ideas. Good theories are based on facts and the theory of evolution is a good one supported by mountains of evidence. The fact that there are gaps in the record doesn't mean it isn't a valid record.

By the way, modern humans are NOT descended from Neanderthals, despite evidence to the contrary from the White House. Perhaps that's a throwback to those chimpanzee genes I mentioned earlier. The Neanderthals died out and there are no known surviving descendants. Neanderthals and our "modern human" ancestors walked the Earth at the same time, but apparently didn't interbreed successfully. Too bad. We could use more diverse genetic material.

So, learn anything?

-Jeff

Frederick M. Dolan

01-15-2008, 10:40 PM

If memory serves, the common ancestor was some sort of tree shrew. A friend of mine thinks that much is to be made of the fact that our ancestors were prey animals who evolved relatively recently into predators. He seems to think this explains a lot of our conflicts.

How do you know the "last" person is white? Evolution is still happening to humans, ...

theindependenteye

01-15-2008, 10:43 PM

>Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?

This seems to be a description of a mediocre elementary school textbook. My guess is that the guy who drew the Caucasian was white. In fact, when i look around I see a wide variety of the human species. (Though we do all seem to be fighting it out to be "last.")

>and how come there is a little monkey at the beginning of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

Previous mammals, it seems likely, who derived from earlier evolutionary attempts to have their cake & eat it. Is this a trick question?

Of course the ape-fucking space-men are a possibility. Should we maybe consider whether this was consentual, or if an ape's consent would stand up in a court of law? This leads us into strange pathways that may have serious implications in the evolution of WaccoTalk.

My own notion is that evolution is a well-supported theory but that it's cyclic. That is, the little monkey in the chain is something we've evolved from, but now we're going back toward it. By election day we'll have come full circle.

Cheers--
Conrad

Braggi

01-15-2008, 10:58 PM

Oh Frederick! You're working too hard!

This easy. Go to the Source man!

-Jeff

Oh, you mean what the Hebrew God calls Himself, not what others call Him. That's another matter. However, it's by no means the case that He declares His name "in no uncertain terms": the translation of "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh" is notoriously problematic (I am what I am, I will be what I will be, etc.) -- though I guess they could all be considered a bit haughty. There's also the divine name, the one that people don't like to write out in full.

Kermit1941

01-15-2008, 11:08 PM

Jeffi,

I am going to assume that you are addressing me.
so here it is:

Ms Terry, Ms Terry.

I will make my own comments here.

The conflict you are seeing is a conflict between the religious way of seeing things and the scientific way of seeing things.

I will guess that Jeff would chose to not answer you because your questions make no sense from the scientific way of seeing things.

"The fossil record is life’s evolutionary epic that unfolded over four billion years as environmental conditions and genetic potential interacted in accordance with natural selection. It could be likened to a movie recording the history of life across nearly four billion years of geological time.

You quoted a nice summary of the evolution theory there.

The problem is that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved, and those that have been preserved have often been chronologically scrambled. "

I must emphasize that from the scientific way of seeing things that
the fact that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved

IS NOT A PROBLEM.

IS NOT A PROBLEM

IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Science is based on doubt.

Religious creeds are framed in terms of certainty.

Science is based on doubt.

In science we start with doubt, and move gradually to more firm knowledge.

Science denies that we can ever be certain about anything.

The basic premise of scientific philosophy is that only by allowing yourself to doubt the truth of something can you ever achieve reliable knowledge.

Now I would like you to answer my question:

I am sure you are familiar with the images of how man came to be, especially the one from ape to modern man.
first there is a monkey it gets bigger, becomes more human, Neanderthal and finally voila; homo erectus to modern man.
WHO could deny that that doesn't make sense.

I will guess that you do deny that this picture of small monkey to man can make sense.

Well, there are a few omissions with that picture.

Again I must emphasize:

The omissions are not a problem.

THE OMISSIONS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

THE OMISSIONS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?

LOL.

IT is NOT true that the last person on the lineage is White ( Caucasian)!

No one branch of the human species evolution is last. All are at the same level.

and how come there is a little monkey at the begining of the line, what happened before that? Where did that little monkey evolve from???

I personally don't know the evolutionary history from one celled animal to human, and I don't need to know for my day to day work.

TO answer the question of evolution into humans, we describe what information we have that is relevant to human evolution.

It's not necessary to trace our ancestry back to the non-life stage
to prove evolution.

I will emphasize that we do not use fossils to prove a theory of evolution.

The purpose of the theory of evolution is to provide an explanatory framework for the fossils we do find, to provide an explanatory framework for the commonalities and differences we find in animals alive today.

A scientific theory like the theory of evolution is quite unlike a religious dogma.

Religious dogmas are supposed to be believed without logical justification.

Religious dogmas are believed because you have trust in your instructors.

There are no scientific dogmas.

Every scientific theory must be supported by being consistent with reality.

When scientist change their mind about a theory, it is not a weakness of the theory.

Scientists do not consider a theory to be weakened by contradictory observations.

Instead, the theory is strengthened by being modified to include the new observations.

It is not possible to argue about science from the religious point of view.

If you believe that you can know some things with certainty, then it will not be possible for you to argue about scientific theory.

Kermit Rose < kermit @ polaris.net >

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 12:09 AM

Oh Frederick! You're working too hard!

This easy. Go to the Source man!

-Jeff

The source of what?

Valley Oak

01-16-2008, 12:55 AM

Can you detail some examples of the conflicts you are talking about? War? Social classes? Culture wars? Etc.

So, since we have a genetic history of both prey and predator, that means the modern day conflicts humans experience arise from this antagonistic dual personality? It's like a genetic class struggle?

Edward

If memory serves, the common ancestor was some sort of tree shrew. A friend of mine thinks that much is to be made of the fact that our ancestors were prey animals who evolved relatively recently into predators. He seems to think this explains a lot of our conflicts.

Braggi

01-16-2008, 07:22 AM

The source of what?

You missed the capital "S" in Source.

The "Word" of "God," of course. The quotes from the Guy Himself. "Old Testament," of course.

You're so much of a scholar you want to look to secondary sources. At least twice in the Good Book God states flat out what his name is. It's not in Popeye code (as in "I am what I am") it's clearly stated. "... My name is ..." or something along that line.

Somebody who has read the Bible help Frederick out here.

What, no Bible scholars on this board?

I've read it. All the way through, cover to cover, twice. I've studied it for decades. I know what it says. Any Christians out there know that the Book says?

What is God's name?

-Jeff

Valley Oak

01-16-2008, 08:05 AM

doesn't it say something like Jehovah or Yahweh?

Edward

The "Word" of "God," of course. The quotes from the Guy Himself. "Old Testament," of course.

You're so much of a scholar you want to look to secondary sources. At least twice in the Good Book God states flat out what his name is. It's not in Popeye code (as in "I am what I am") it's clearly stated. "... My name is ..." or something along that line.

Somebody who has read the Bible help Frederick out here.

What, no Bible scholars on this board?

I've read it. All the way through, cover to cover, twice. I've studied it for decades. I know what it says. Any Christians out there know that the Book says?

What is God's name?

-Jeff

Braggi

01-16-2008, 08:18 AM

doesn't it say something like Jehovah or Yahweh?

Edward

Nope.

-Jeff

PS. Maybe we ought to start a Bible study thread. This group needs help.

mykil

01-16-2008, 10:11 AM

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Imagine if you will, the birth of a consciousness. The birth of a world. Being bombarded by everything from the skies above. With this invasion came water, fuel, and even life. Life in the form of minerals life in the form of5the waters we drink today, life in the form of a little far our conscience. Settling in for the long hall, taking over our ocean waters as if to call them home. Breathing in the new found fuel being delivered to its early soul. Growing to the point that is needs more. Seeing that the war is over the world around has been healing form the scars on its face, it takes a leap of faith and expands it’s horizon. LAND behold here is the word of god for we can call this new dry land home. With this expansion comes a new thought, new hope new opportunity. WE are growing with this new world as if it were apart of us all. One thought, one love one conscience!
<o:p></o:p>
Where in this place will we go next? There is only one direction in our eyes, to the heavens above and this is still home. This is life above us; this is what we call gods home. If we are to survive we need to follow god and find a way to the stars we need to expand and evolve pass this tiny minute planet and follow out souls, our conscience, our god. God wants us to survive, for we are god’s children, god is in us all. The big book sayz so, cause we are god and we are still here in each and every eye on this earth
<o:p></o:p>
Ever notice some souls are deeper brighter and older than others? I believe this to be our true mentors and our true teachings in this world today. Ever notice hope mumbled and confusing the ole bible is? That was as far as our own conscience was at that time in our life [notice I did not say lives}. That was the teachings in that time. Not now! WE have new meanings to discover and mentor in this new day and age. Dwelling on something that old that is already in each and everything on this earth is like dropping back in time to get a cookie recipe from auntie Jane that wasn’t that good to begin with. IT has been discovered and each and everyday has been improved. Why start over again? Someone write a new bible and get on with it already. Does anyone even know how many versions are out there? Which version might you have read Fred?
<o:p></o:p>
I believe we are one, I know that everyone has an opinion about this, Braggi has expressed over and over how each is completely different, yet after a day on this earth we all do the same things. WE all act the same, we all eat the food we all burn the fuel, no matter how green you think you are, you still burn the fuel. WE all live in a house made of wood, poor little trees! We all stay warm in one way or another. No one is better than the next! No one has the right to there own god! God belongs to all and can’t be taken away! Everything on this earth has to do with the conscience we all created, we are the creators and we are what we make of ourselves. WE may wear a special little hat we may have severe health issues, we may be the happiest of all happiness. But at the end of the day WE ARE WE WE ARE GOD WE ARE LOVE!
<o:p></o:p>
Keep quoting lectures and passes from an age we’ve all grown pass if you will. That is about as boring as studying tits on a bull from to me and really even harder to read. I have said my peace and will move on to the next thread. Someone come up with something that has evolved past going back to the bible PLEEEASSSEEEEEEE!!! Someone say something that has to do with the future of man kind that is not whining about the destruction predicted for the future. Someone tell us how we will survive and evolve past all this. Someone tell us what will the future hold for man kind, someone evolve to our new god and write the future as is should be. Happy, fruitful, full of love, hope and wealth beyond our wildest dreams…and without to much drama.

Lorrie

01-16-2008, 10:23 AM

Elohim?
This is all I will contribute to this thread... I don't usually get involved in conversations of politics, religion, or math. But I liked this question.:heart:

Nope.

-Jeff

PS. Maybe we ought to start a Bible study thread. This group needs help.

Lorrie

01-16-2008, 10:37 AM

What do you think? Today is National Religious Freedom Day, which commemorates the January 1786 decision of the Virginia General Assembly to adopt the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Written by Thomas Jefferson, this statute ultimately solidified the separation of church and state in the U.S. and led to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment. Thus, in times like these, so divided by religious differences, today's celebration reminds us that we are all energetically connected, no matter what we believe religiously. Celebrate diversity today - and the fact that we are all entitled to a spirituality of our choosing!

shellebelle

01-16-2008, 10:43 AM

Just a thought - maybe not many Christians are reading this because they don't question it. No need to discuss it. Might also be true for practicing Jewish?

Science Questions - Believers Believe

And yes I am Christian (which means for me Christ was more than a man), I am Jew by law (which means to me my heritage is incredible, amazing and welcoming) and I am Spiritual beyond both

Nope.

-Jeff

PS. Maybe we ought to start a Bible study thread. This group needs help.

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 11:55 AM

I'm not relying on any secondary sources but, like you, my knowledge of the Bible. As I think I mentioned, or at least implied, in Exodus God offers Moses the divine name, YHYH, or Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton. If I'm missing something, why not tell me what? Why so coy??

You missed the capital "S" in Source.

The "Word" of "God," of course. The quotes from the Guy Himself. "Old Testament," of course.

You're so much of a scholar you want to look to secondary sources. At least twice in the Good Book God states flat out what his name is. It's not in Popeye code (as in "I am what I am") it's clearly stated. "... My name is ..." or something along that line.

Somebody who has read the Bible help Frederick out here.

What, no Bible scholars on this board?

I've read it. All the way through, cover to cover, twice. I've studied it for decades. I know what it says. Any Christians out there know that the Book says?

What is God's name?

-Jeff

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 12:02 PM

Nope.

-Jeff

PS. Maybe we ought to start a Bible study thread. This group needs help.

No? God does indeed tell Moses, In Exodus, that his name is YHYH or Yahweh. Perhaps he gives other names to other people in other parts of the Bible -- if so, why not enlighten us?

Kermit1941

01-16-2008, 03:05 PM

No? God does indeed tell Moses, In Exodus, that his name is YHYH or Yahweh. Perhaps he gives other names to other people in other parts of the Bible -- if so, why not enlighten us?

I googled

God name old testament

to come up with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

* Ehiyeh sh'Ehiyeh — "I Am That I Am": a modern Hebrew version of "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh".
* Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov — "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob".
* El ha-Gibbor — "God the hero" or "God the strong one".
* Emet — "Truth".
* E'in Sof — "endless, infinite", Kabbalistic name of God.
* HaKadosh, Baruch Hu — "The Holy One, Blessed be He".
* Kadosh Israel — "Holy One of Israel".
* Melech HaMelachim — "The King of kings" or Melech Malchei HaMelachim "The King, King of kings", to express superiority to the earthly rulers title.
* Makom or HaMakom — literally "the place", meaning "The Omnipresent"; see Tzimtzum.
* Magen Avraham — "Shield of Abraham".
* Ribbono shel `Olam — "Master of the World".
* Ro'eh Yisra'el — "Shepherd of Israel".
* YHWH-Yireh (Jehovah-jireh) — "The Lord will provide" (Genesis 22:13-14).
* YHWH-Rapha — "The Lord that healeth" (Exodus 15:26).
* YHWH-Niss"i (Yahweh-Nissi) — "The Lord our Banner" (Exodus 17:8-15).
* YHWH-Shalom — "The Lord our Peace" (Judges 6:24).
* YHWH-Ra-ah — "The Lord my Shepherd" (Psalm 23:1).
* YHWH-Tsidkenu — "The Lord our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6).
* YHWH-Shammah (Jehovah-shammah) — "The Lord is present" (Ezekiel 48:35).
* Tzur Israel — "Rock of Israel".

Barry

01-16-2008, 04:02 PM

Thanks, Kermit. I like "E'in Sof " And I must say I have a problem with "Kadosh Israel" and other names that associate G-d with Jews or Isreal. I also have a problem with the whole "chosen people" schtick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schtick)! What were we chosen for? Persecution and real estate with serious title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance) problems?

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 04:50 PM

I thought the question was what God says his name is, not all the names by which he has been called. Offhand I can think of only two of the former, both of which are from Exodus: "Eyeh-Asher-Eyeh" (I am that I am, I will be what I will be) and YHYH (Yahweh). If there are other instances I wish someone would inform us!

Barry

01-16-2008, 06:36 PM

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 06:50 PM

Kermit1941

01-16-2008, 07:22 PM

The Sufis hold that God has 99 names (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_God_in_the_Qur%27an) as well as one name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_%28Sufism%29). Here's an interesting site (https://www.yhwh.com/GINGN/gingn.htm) about God's name. I think god's name is Fred... or is it Eric (https://www.ericclapton.com/)? Whatever it is, I'm still waiting for him to sign up as a supporting member (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/membership.php)!

Hello Barry. I reviewed those three web sites that you showed us.

In one of them I found this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God

I remember reading this story decades ago.

The Nine Billion Names of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nine Billion Names of God is a 1953 short story by Arthur C. Clarke;
the phrase also appears in the title of a collection of Clarke's short stories,
The Nine Billion Names of God: The Best Short Stories of Arthur C. Clarke (1967).

It was the winner (in 2004) of the retrospective Hugo Award for Best Short Story
for the year 1954.

Summary

This short story tells of a Buddhist monastery whose monks have long sought to discover the one true name of God. The monks create a writing system in which, they calculate, they can encode all possible names of God in no more than nine characters, according to a set of constraints. For example, no words can have the same character repeating more than three times consecutively.

They purchase a computer capable of printing all the possible permutations, and they hire two Westerners to install and program the machine. The computer operators are skeptical, but the monks believe that when the computer has printed all the names, existence will lose all meaning, and God will "wind up" the universe.

The operators engage the computer. After three months, as the job nears completion, they fear the reaction of the monks when existence will fail to end. The men decide to flee the monastery some hours before the computer finishes its task. After their successful escape, they pause on their way back to civilization at about the same time the computer prints the final name. And then, "overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."

Braggi

01-16-2008, 08:48 PM

No? God does indeed tell Moses, In Exodus, that his name is YHYH or Yahweh. Perhaps he gives other names to other people in other parts of the Bible -- if so, why not enlighten us?

Oh, sigh! Not only no Bible scholars, nobody reading here even knows how to do a search on a computer when I stated flat out to go to the Source.

Here's how to do it: find one of the hundreds of searchable online Bibles.

I like "The Unbound Bible."

https://unbound.biola.edu/

I happen to know the name of God is Jealous because I've read the Bible so I searched on "name" and "jealous."

Here's the first citation: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
</td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Exodus <bdo dir="ltr">34</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=02O&from_chap=34&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">14</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--</td></tr></tbody></table>
Here's the second: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> </td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Ezekiel <bdo dir="ltr">39</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=26O&from_chap=39&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">25</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name.</td></tr></tbody></table>
There you have it. The God of the Holy Bible is named Jealous. I challenge any of you to find a more clear statement concerning the name of the God of the Hebrews. If there is one, I'd like to see it.

You could have just searched on God and Name and had a lot of passages to sift through, but you would have gotten there.

I know lots of other interesting things based on my Bible studies. Hmmm. I just deleted what I was going to post because ... it's off topic for this thread.

I'll just let you know this. About 18 years ago I did a lot of "religious" study because I was trying to define my budding new self identification as a Pagan. So I read a whole pile of books on the mythologies of the Middle East, partly since they have such a dramatic impact on the Earth and Her peoples and partly because I was raised a Christian and I want to learn how the Christian religion developed and from what. It was quite an education and I decided to hone my new knowledge by interacting with an online bulletin board. It was a BB of Messianic Jews. Yup, the Jews for Jesus. Not only Chosen, but Saved!

So I spent some of time discussing the history of their religious path(s) and basically had a great time. Funny how each thread I participated in kind of ended after I asked questions they didn't want to answer. I was also impressed at the intensity of the foul language they pummeled me with. Mykil would have been ROTFLHAO!

Oh well, it was a good experience for me and I did learn a few things.

-Jeff

Barry

01-16-2008, 08:50 PM

Done!Well, I was close (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=47439#post47439)! Apparently his name is Fredrick! Thanks for your support, G-d! :hifive:

Hummingbear

01-16-2008, 09:21 PM

Well, I've heard a lot of this and there's even some archeological evidence to support it, or so I've read (on the YHWH thing anyway). Thing is, God isn't a "name." It's a title so observant Jews are ... uh, not being so observant it seems.

No, it's simpler than any of that. There are two places in the Holy Bible where "God" declares in no uncertain terms what his name is. I'm surprised nobody's come up with it yet. And it so fits His personality. It's a perfect name for so arrogant, petty and rude a god. As St. Terrence put it: "Not the kind of a guy you'd want to invite to a garden party." No indeed.

I agree that God is a title. As to the Biblical record of his name, I can only think of one: the burning bush encounter. But the text is, of course, ambiguous. When answering the question "who are you" with "JHVH", was this a sentence ("I am that am"), or just a name?

It's absurd to think that a transcendent deity would be bound by something as artificial as language, let alone a single name (in Islam, at least 99 names are recognized, although these are acknowledged as attributes of the unique divine being). So I'd like to think that Moses was being given a practical clue, not just a 'handle'. The clue is simple: whatever is, is divine. In India, the Vedas provide an identical formula for naming the most transcendent forms of the divine, even though they also use a multitude of more personable names.

A similar device appears in the Tao Te Ching. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal name." Names only apply to immanent objects; transcendence, by definition, goes beyond the mechanism of naming.

As long as we're posting under the question that opened the thread, I'll offer this answer:
God is not bound by time; therefore, you can't measure him chronologically. So the question, which assumes a common time scale, is meaningless. It's like asking "which is larger, an orange or a blue?"

Hummingbear

nurturetruth

01-16-2008, 09:49 PM

This has been a GREAT discussion everyone! I have enjoyed immensly!

I have loved what everyone has dug up and what sense of "truth" everyone has to offer!

Until I have reason to altar my sense of truth, I would have to agree with Hummingbear, that these words: God and Man are all "just labels and titles"...... , however,

In reference to Braggi's mentioning that God's name is "Jealous" :

that kinda makes me recall where the English Word, " LOVE" originally came from. LOVE came from the Sanskrit word, "LOBHA", meaning, GREED.
It may have just been coincidence that the English word LOVE..grew out of the Sanskrit word meaning greed, but my feeling is that it cannot be just coincidence.
There must be something more mysterious behind it, there must be some alchemical reaction behind it.
Perhaps, it is greed, "Lobha", digested well, which becomes love. Lobha becomes love as far as inner alchemy is concerned.

The vibration I enjoy most, regardless of the "chosen word" , is love-oriented.
I can drop the word : God, very easily- there is no problem-but I cannot drop the word love. If i have to choose between the 2 words, I would choose love; I will forget all about God, because those who know love are bound to know the Divine ! But it is NOT vise versa. Those who think about God and philosophize about God may never know about love- and might not ever know about Divine Bliss!"

BUT....

*** "Whatever IS.... is DIVINE! " :thumbsup: (thank you Hummingbear!) *****

And WAIT! Didn't womyn come before man, anyhow? !!! :wink:

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 10:38 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm still of the opinion that so far as his name is concerned, what God says in Exodus 3 is a lot clearer than Exodus 34 or Ezekiel 39. In Exodus 3 Moses explicitly asks God what his name is, and God answers with "Eyeh Asher Eyeh," adding "This shall be my name forever; This my appellation for eternity" for emphasis. In Exodus 6 he gives his name as YHWH, which some people argue is a version of the verb "to be" in accordance with Exodus 3.

By the way, "jealous" is a controversial translation. "Passionate" is a more neutral possibility. One commentator suggests that the sentence where God states that his name is "jealous" is a pun on a possible root meaning of "Yahweh" (which, it's argued, can connote "craving"). If so, the statement in Exodus 33 would confirm the primacy of God's name as Yahweh, as he would really be saying "My name, Yahweh, also means 'jealous'."

I'm not sure what's at stake in all this.

Oh, sigh! Not only no Bible scholars, nobody reading here even knows how to do a search on a computer when I stated flat out to go to the Source.

Here's how to do it: find one of the hundreds of searchable online Bibles.

I like "The Unbound Bible."

https://unbound.biola.edu/

I happen to know the name of God is Jealous because I've read the Bible so I searched on "name" and "jealous."

Here's the first citation: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
</td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Exodus <bdo dir="ltr">34</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=02O&from_chap=34&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">14</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--</td></tr></tbody></table>
Here's the second: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> </td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Ezekiel <bdo dir="ltr">39</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=26O&from_chap=39&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">25</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name.</td></tr></tbody></table>
There you have it. The God of the Holy Bible is named Jealous. I challenge any of you to find a more clear statement concerning the name of the God of the Hebrews. If there is one, I'd like to see it.

You could have just searched on God and Name and had a lot of passages to sift through, but you would have gotten there.

I know lots of other interesting things based on my Bible studies. Hmmm. I just deleted what I was going to post because ... it's off topic for this thread.

I'll just let you know this. About 18 years ago I did a lot of "religious" study because I was trying to define my budding new self identification as a Pagan. So I read a whole pile of books on the mythologies of the Middle East, partly since they have such a dramatic impact on the Earth and Her peoples and partly because I was raised a Christian and I want to learn how the Christian religion developed and from what. It was quite an education and I decided to hone my new knowledge by interacting with an online bulletin board. It was a BB of Messianic Jews. Yup, the Jews for Jesus. Not only Chosen, but Saved!

So I spent some of time discussing the history of their religious path(s) and basically had a great time. Funny how each thread I participated in kind of ended after I asked questions they didn't want to answer. I was also impressed at the intensity of the foul language they pummeled me with. Mykil would have been ROTFLHAO!

Oh well, it was a good experience for me and I did learn a few things.

-Jeff

Frederick M. Dolan

01-16-2008, 11:11 PM

It's absurd to think that a transcendent deity would be bound by something as artificial as language, let alone a single name (in Islam, at least 99 names are recognized, although these are acknowledged as attributes of the unique divine being). So I'd like to think that Moses was being given a practical clue, not just a 'handle'. The clue is simple: whatever is, is divine. In India, the Vedas provide an identical formula for naming the most transcendent forms of the divine, even though they also use a multitude of more personable names.

I agree completely that the idea of a transcendent being is at odds with the idea of dependence on language, but the Jewish God doesn't strike me as all that transcendental. And remember that language is essential to God's creative activity ("God said Let there be light, and there was light"). We moderns may be used to seeing language as human and therefore not divine, but the Jewish tradition tends to see language itself as a divine attribute. So did the ancient Greeks, in their way, but whereas Plato and Aristotle associated the highest kind of language with knowledge, language in the Hebraic tradition, to judge from Genesis, is more closely linked with power or creativity.

theindependenteye

01-16-2008, 11:41 PM

>I'm not sure what's at stake in all this.

I think it's a question of whether you address your prayers to "Dear God," "You Am What You Am," "Fukin Bastard!" or "To Whom It May Concern." For myself, I only pray to gods who don't exist, preferring to stay out of the spotlight. If my prayers aren't answered, that's just to be expected; if they are, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Seriously, for me the answer to the Who first? question of this thread is, well, God. i hear that term as referring to the whole dynamic & fabric of the universe, implying both unity of prime principles and incredible diversity of manifestation. Consciousness or intention? That's utterly unknowable except as we project our anthropomorphic illusions upon it. I wouldn't call that an agnostic viewpoint, though, because we *are* discovering small bits and pieces of that overwhelming fabric, a fabric of incredible beauty.

For me, though, the search for a superhero style of god, compassionate while maintaining a huge database of worshipful ant-like souls, is terribly limiting: it's like searching for gold and ignoring all the precious stones you're digging among. What do we need that for? To deflect responsibility for facing up to the need for creating an ethics & morality & intention that's truly worthy of our brainpower and our opposable thumbs?

But does this reduce the idea of God to a pointless "Rocks are people too" triviality? I don't think so. Anti-God rhetoricians seem to want to force us all into a fundamentalist definition -- the genocidal psychotic who became a nicer guy when he had a son who got killed -- so that they have an easy target. It's always fun to beat a dead horse: it's big and smelly and very dead. But I choose tp define words the way I choose to define them (yeh, I guess like the caterpillar in Alice Underground), and I'd love to see the word "God" rehabilitated. The beauty and majesty and joy and hideous terror I find in the natural world are the same as resonate in the last chapters of the Book of Job before it reduces itself to a fake little morality play.

i don't know where I'm going with this, so enough God stuff for now, I'm heading for bed.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 12:19 AM

Jeffi
I am surprised that you never read the Bible from the beginning, because it is right there:
" In the beginning was the word, and the word was God "( or in earlier translations it is "The Unspeakable" )
So you might still wonder what was that sound.
Many say it is the A-U-M from the Tibetans.
where the A-sound comes from the stomach
the U from the heart chakra
and the M from the head chakra

Try it, it might bring you closer to God than you'll ever be

Oh, sigh! Not only no Bible scholars, nobody reading here even knows how to do a search on a computer when I stated flat out to go to the Source.

Here's how to do it: find one of the hundreds of searchable online Bibles.

I like "The Unbound Bible."

https://unbound.biola.edu/

I happen to know the name of God is Jealous because I've read the Bible so I searched on "name" and "jealous."

Here's the first citation: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
</td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Exodus <bdo dir="ltr">34</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=02O&from_chap=34&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=02O&chapter=34)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">14</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--</td></tr></tbody></table>
Here's the second: <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
</td> <td colspan="1" align="left"> <b>Ezekiel <bdo dir="ltr">39</bdo></b> [Context] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=name%20AND%20jealous&book=26O&from_chap=39&hide_context=1) [Commentary] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) [Map] (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=maps.showMapResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39) https://unbound.biola.edu/images/image.png (https://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=illustrations.showIllustrationResults&book_index=26O&chapter=39)
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"><bdo dir="ltr">25</bdo>. </td> <td align="left" valign="top">Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name.</td></tr></tbody></table>
There you have it. The God of the Holy Bible is named Jealous. I challenge any of you to find a more clear statement concerning the name of the God of the Hebrews. If there is one, I'd like to see it.

You could have just searched on God and Name and had a lot of passages to sift through, but you would have gotten there.

I know lots of other interesting things based on my Bible studies. Hmmm. I just deleted what I was going to post because ... it's off topic for this thread.

I'll just let you know this. About 18 years ago I did a lot of "religious" study because I was trying to define my budding new self identification as a Pagan. So I read a whole pile of books on the mythologies of the Middle East, partly since they have such a dramatic impact on the Earth and Her peoples and partly because I was raised a Christian and I want to learn how the Christian religion developed and from what. It was quite an education and I decided to hone my new knowledge by interacting with an online bulletin board. It was a BB of Messianic Jews. Yup, the Jews for Jesus. Not only Chosen, but Saved!

So I spent some of time discussing the history of their religious path(s) and basically had a great time. Funny how each thread I participated in kind of ended after I asked questions they didn't want to answer. I was also impressed at the intensity of the foul language they pummeled me with. Mykil would have been ROTFLHAO!

Oh well, it was a good experience for me and I did learn a few things.

-Jeff

Frederick M. Dolan

01-17-2008, 12:30 AM

That paraphrase isn't from the beginning of the Bible. It's from the Gospel according to John. And "Word" translates the Greek "logos," which certainly can't be thought of as unspeakable!

Jeffi
I am surprised that you never read the Bible from the beginning, because it is right there:
" In the beginning was the word, and the word was God "( or in earlier translations it is "The Unspeakable" )
So you might still wonder what was that sound.
Many say it is the A-U-M from the Tibetans.
where the A-sound comes from the stomach
the U from the heart chakra
and the M from the head chakra

Try it, it might bring you closer to God than you'll ever be

Frederick M. Dolan

01-17-2008, 12:36 AM

I think it's a question of whether you address your prayers to "Dear God," "You Am What You Am," "Fukin Bastard!" or "To Whom It May Concern." For myself, I only pray to gods who don't exist, preferring to stay out of the spotlight. If my prayers aren't answered, that's just to be expected; if they are, I'm pleasantly surprised.

A wise policy!

But does this reduce the idea of God to a pointless "Rocks are people too" triviality? I don't think so. Anti-God rhetoricians seem to want to force us all into a fundamentalist definition -- the genocidal psychotic who became a nicer guy when he had a son who got killed -- so that they have an easy target. It's always fun to beat a dead horse: it's big and smelly and very dead. But I choose tp define words the way I choose to define them (yeh, I guess like the caterpillar in Alice Underground), and I'd love to see the word "God" rehabilitated. The beauty and majesty and joy and hideous terror I find in the natural world are the same as resonate in the last chapters of the Book of Job before it reduces itself to a fake little morality play.

I share your sensibilities (and your reading of Job). God is an aesthetic not an epistemology, beautiful or sublime as the case may be.

Braggi

01-17-2008, 06:44 AM

>
...
But does this reduce the idea of God to a pointless "Rocks are people too" triviality? I don't think so. Anti-God rhetoricians seem to want to force us all into a fundamentalist definition -- the genocidal psychotic who became a nicer guy when he had a son who got killed -- ...

I once heard a talk from the Catholic nun and radical thinker Sister Miriam Theresa McGillis. The talk was taking place in a hall at the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange in the City of Orange. She was talking about the wonders of evolution and the awesome sweep of time. TP, you would have loved it because she explained evolution in terms that would have been understandable even to you. One of the elderly Sisters in the audience asked if all this didn't conflict with her training and the image of God put forth by the Church. Her answer was simple, direct, and covered the issue very completely. She said, "I think our images of the Divine are too small." She got a standing ovation at that point.

-Jeff

alanora

01-17-2008, 09:41 AM

I am understanding of late that the words in their hebrew letters are more closely linked to the actual light of creation, and that they are encoded within us as well...evolutionary aids.

That paraphrase isn't from the beginning of the Bible. It's from the Gospel according to John. And "Word" translates the Greek "logos," which certainly can't be thought of as unspeakable!

Lenny

01-17-2008, 12:20 PM

OK Edward,
Since the first hominids are believed to be from Africa, how come the last person on this lineage is WHITE, or Caucasian?

So, like Darwin, in his original title of Origins, folks from Africa are less evolved? I mean that IS what his book was about, partially.
That is why some folks have problems wit 'dat guy.:2cents:

Lenny

01-17-2008, 12:33 PM

You missed the capital "S" in Source.

The "Word" of "God," of course. The quotes from the Guy Himself. "Old Testament," of course.
You're so much of a scholar you want to look to secondary sources. At least twice in the Good Book God states flat out what his name is. It's not in Popeye code (as in "I am what I am") it's clearly stated. "... My name is ..." or something along that line.

Somebody who has read the Bible help Frederick out here. What, no Bible scholars on this board?
I've read it. All the way through, cover to cover, twice. I've studied it for decades. I know what it says.
What is God's name?
-Jeff

Isn't "God" and old Teutonic word?
Sometimes folks call him The Big Muffin.
And for your Jehovah issue, that was an answer to a question in Exodus 3:13, with an additional confusing answer in 3:15.
But now that you have read the Book through twice, did you learn anything more the second time? And more so the more you study it?:2cents:

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 01:00 PM

Lenny,
What I was pointing out, besides the racism, is that monkeys are dark-skinned and so are people from Africa,
How did we get the white skinned ones? (from albino monkeys, right Jeff?)
Does that mean that the black people are our ancestors?

So, like Darwin, in his original title of Origins, folks from Africa are less evolved? I mean that IS what his book was about, partially.
That is why some folks have problems wit 'dat guy.:2cents:

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 01:10 PM

I wasn't referring to "word" as being unspeakable but God.
And "word" is most commonly used but it should be sound.

That paraphrase isn't from the beginning of the Bible. It's from the Gospel according to John. And "Word" translates the Greek "logos," which certainly can't be thought of as unspeakable!

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 01:16 PM

Jeffi,

I like that ;"I think our images of the Divine are too small."
How that explains evolution from day 1 is a Mstery to me.
But then again you also think that I am the resurrection of someone who recently died. Besides the sex-change you forced on me, I like that too!!!

I once heard a talk from the Catholic nun and radical thinker Sister Miriam Theresa McGillis. The talk was taking place in a hall at the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange in the City of Orange. She was talking about the wonders of evolution and the awesome sweep of time. TP, you would have loved it because she explained evolution in terms that would have been understandable even to you. One of the elderly Sisters in the audience asked if all this didn't conflict with her training and the image of God put forth by the Church. Her answer was simple, direct, and covered the issue very completely. She said, "I think our images of the Divine are too small." She got a standing ovation at that point.

-Jeff

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 02:22 PM

I'd like to get back to my basic question, the one that is posted at the beginning of all this: who came first the chicken or the egg?
If we are to believe Willie, (Both came at the same time) we need a outside source to create this.
Either Living Creatures have an inherent intelligence source or there is an outside intelligence. (I know Fred, you didn't get this before, I'm trying again)
For instance for a fish to decide that crawling onto land is more fun than floating in water, that takes a big leap of faith, I mean evolution.
To have a fish conjure up the need to have wings instead of fins and then to turn his scales into feathers!!!! WOWOOWOWOWOW That is HUGE.
How did their intelligence evolve to this kind of advanced aerodynamics?
When splashing around in a big pool of water, there is no evolutionary need to fly.
When you you are a monkey on all fours, I can see that you might desire to become erectus.
But a fish?
Did they get a little help from an outside source?
God maybe?

mykil

01-17-2008, 02:51 PM

Theories and fiction beyond the bible, oh ya! Now you have my attention again!!! Everyone write an essay of no less than 100 words on there theories or fantasy on evolution and that might make this thread worth reading once again. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

I'd like to get back to my basic question, the one that is posted at the beginning of all this: who came first the chicken or the egg?
If we are to believe Willie, (Both came at the same time) we need a outside source to create this.
Either Living Creatures have an inherent intelligence source or there is an outside intelligence. (I know Fred, you didn't get this before, I'm trying again)
For instance for a fish to decide that crawling onto land is more fun than floating in water, that takes a big leap of faith, I mean evolution.
To have a fish conjure up the need to have wings instead of fins and then to turn his scales into feathers!!!! WOWOOWOWOWOW That is HUGE.
How did their intelligence evolve to this kind of advanced aerodynamics?
When splashing around in a big pool of water, there is no evolutionary need to fly.
When you you are a monkey on all fours, I can see that you might desire to become erectus.
But a fish?
Did they get a little help from an outside source?
God maybe?

Kermit1941

01-17-2008, 03:51 PM

I'd like to get back to my basic question, the one that is posted at the beginning of all this: who came first the chicken or the egg?

Hello Ms Terry.

I see from the remainder of this post that your question is not really about which came first.

You seem to be asking for the details of how a non-chicken evolved into a chicken.

I don't know whether or not any biologists has researched this question and hypothesized an answer.

I certainly don't know the details.

If we are to believe Willie, (Both came at the same time) we need a outside source to create this.

Depends on how great an interval of time is meant by
"At the same time".

If by "at the same time", you mean an interval of one second, then we
are logically assured that in every location the egg came first because the first chicken had to hatch from an animal that did not yet have all the qualities needed to be called chicken.

If by "at the same time" you mean a few thousand years or hundreds of thousands of years, then yes, you would have to say the egg and chicken came at the same time.

Either Living Creatures have an inherent intelligence source or there is an outside intelligence. (I know Fred, you didn't get this before, I'm trying again)

This is not the way biologists think of evolution!!!!

Intelligent design has no place in evolution theory!!!!

For instance for a fish to decide that crawling onto land is more fun than floating in water, that takes a big leap of faith, I mean evolution.

There is speculation for how the fish could have evolved into amphibians.

But as far as I know, it is still only speculation.

Sometimes small ponds dry up, and the fish that is able to
craw across the small stretch of land to the next larger pond
can survive to pass on its ability to its descendants.

If a marsh land begin to slowly dry up, over millions of years,
then we can imagine that the only survivors of the marshland
would be the fish that evolved into amphibians.

To have a fish conjure up the need to have wings instead of fins and then to turn his scales into feathers!!!! WOWOOWOWOWOW That is HUGE.

Today there is a fish that is called a flying fish. It's fins have evolved to be such a shape that it can use those fins to glide through the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish

The last speculation I heard about how wings evolved was that
reptiles evolved large membranes for storing heat and that these membranes eventually evolved into wings.

How did their intelligence evolve to this kind of advanced aerodynamics?
When splashing around in a big pool of water, there is no evolutionary need to fly.

Well, as demonstrated by the flying fish referred to earlier, they do need to escape their predators and flying out of the water would be one way to escape.

But I have never heard any speculation that fish evolved into birds.
I have heard only of the speculation that reptiles evolved into birds.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501100950.htm

https://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm

https://nationalzoo.si.edu/publications/zoogoer/2005/3/birdevolution.cfm

This following web site is written by a person who does not believe in evolution, but even so provides good support for the evolution theory.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

When you you are a monkey on all fours, I can see that you might desire to become erectus.

Why?

Some biologists have speculated that the reason our primate ancestors began to walk was because the climate became very cold
and our primate ancestors quickly learned to stand up on two legs to preserve their body heat.

Of course those individuals that were better at navigating on two legs were better able to survive and to mate with others.

But a fish?

It is a basic observation from biology that animals have evolved to fit every livable place on Earth.

Did they get a little help from an outside source?
God maybe?

Individual biologists might or might not care about the image of God
directing the path of evolution.

As biologists, they are interested in knowing exactly what that path is.

We do not expect to need to use the image of God directing evolution in
order to explain how evolution happened the way it did.

But we of course are at liberty to accept this image, and say we know some of the ways in which God directed evolution.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 04:30 PM

Mykil. our archangel
You are usually the one who doesn't buy the party line in lockstep.
I want to hear your story

Theories and fiction beyond the bible, oh ya! Now you have my attention again!!! Everyone write an essay of no less than 100 words on there theories or fantasy on evolution and that might make this thread worth reading once again. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

MsTerry

01-17-2008, 05:00 PM

Hello Kermit.

I see from the remainder of this post that your question is not really about which came first.
they are related, who created who?

You seem to be asking for the details of how a non-chicken evolved into a chicken.

I don't know whether or not any biologists has researched this question and hypothesized an answer.

I certainly don't know the details.
I know, I don't either

Depends on how great an interval of time is meant by
"At the same time".

If by "at the same time", you mean an interval of one second, then we
are logically assured that in every location the egg came first because the first chicken had to hatch from an animal that did not yet have all the qualities needed to be called chicken.

If by "at the same time" you mean a few thousand years or hundreds of thousands of years, then yes, you would have to say the egg and chicken came at the same time.
I hadn't thought of that, knowing Willie, he'd probable pick the latter.
For me at the same time is at the same time or second

This is not the way biologists think of evolution!!!!
Intelligent design has no place in evolution theory!!!!
such is my dilemma

There is speculation for how the fish could have evolved into amphibians.

But as far as I know, it is still only speculation.

Sometimes small ponds dry up, and the fish that is able to
craw across the small stretch of land to the next larger pond
can survive to pass on its ability to its descendants.

If a marsh land begin to slowly dry up, over millions of years,
then we can imagine that the only survivors of the marshland
would be the fish that evolved into amphibians.

would that be an instant transition since these fish are near death if they don't have water. they need to develop not only feet, but also a complete new pulmonary system and skin.

Today there is a fish that is called a flying fish. It's fins have evolved to be such a shape that it can use those fins to glide through the air.
Yes, but the flying fish is akin to a bat. it can only fly when propelled

The last speculation I heard about how wings evolved was that
reptiles evolved large membranes for storing heat and that these membranes eventually evolved into wings.
check out a feather, it is pretty darn clever

Of course those individuals that were better at navigating on two legs were better able to survive and to mate with others.
Have you ever tried to mate in a tree upside down? LOL
four legs/hands and a prehensile tail sounds pretty slick to me

It is a basic observation from biology that animals have evolved to fit every livable place on Earth.
I agree, we are pretty adaptable

Individual biologists might or might not care about the image of God
directing the path of evolution.

As biologists, they are interested in knowing exactly what that path is.

We do not expect to need to use the image of God directing evolution in
order to explain how evolution happened the way it did.
But if you don't use all the tools available to you, we tend to become myopic.

But we of course are at liberty to accept this image, and say we know some of the ways in which God directed evolution.
there is light at the end of the tunnel?

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >[/quote]

Frederick M. Dolan

01-17-2008, 08:48 PM

I wasn't referring to "word" as being unspeakable but God.
And "word" is most commonly used but it should be sound.

No, "logos" doesn't mean sheer sound. It means intelligible speech. John is in Greek, and uses "Theos" to refer to God. "Theos" has a range of meanings in ancient Greek, and just what John meant by it is of course massively subject to dispute, but "unspeakable" is not a particularly good candidate.

Braggi

01-17-2008, 09:04 PM

Isn't "God" and old Teutonic word?

Well, no. It's English. Modern. The term in the "Holy Bible" is translated from various other languages.

The old Teutonic word was probably closer to "guthan" and nobody knows how it's pronounced because everyone who used it is dead. The word god was part of old German, and interestingly enough, prior to the coming of Christianity did not have a gender and was used for female as well male aspects of deity. Not sure how any of that relates.

Sometimes folks call him The Big Muffin.

Then I like Him hot with melted butter and a cup of good coffee.

And for your Jehovah issue, that was an answer to a question in Exodus 3:13, with an additional confusing answer in 3:15.

I don't think you'll find a Jewish scholar who states "Jehovah" appears in Exodus. Perhaps a Jehovah's Witness scholar ...

But now that you have read the Book through twice, did you learn anything more the second time? And more so the more you study it?:2cents:

Oh yes. I started reading it (cover to cover) when I was 18 and trapped in a terrible, guilt laden mind/emotional trip laid upon me during my upbringing. I read it to decide for myself whether the hypocrites who taught me knew what they were talking about. They didn't.

The more I study it the more I realize how horrible the original lawyers were and what a completely terrible system of government(s) they have created. I realize that the lies they have created in order to amass wealth and power are destroying the ability of the Earth to carry life as we know it.

I have realized that the ultimate crime is not disobeying The Father. The ultimate crime, punishable by eternal Death, is killing the Mother.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-17-2008, 09:18 PM

Lenny,
What I was pointing out, besides the racism, is that monkeys are dark-skinned and so are people from Africa,
How did we get the white skinned ones? (from albino monkeys, right Jeff?)
Does that mean that the black people are our ancestors?

Not all monkeys are dark skinned. Go to the zoo. You need some education.

The ancestors of the black people are also our ancestors. They are also the ancestors of peoples of all colors and shades.

You would do well to learn something about the topics you wish to discuss. I can heartily recommend the book by Carl Sagan, "The Dragons of Eden." Also Stephen J. Gould's "Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes."

Read those and then ask questions.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-17-2008, 09:27 PM

Jeffi,

I like that ;"I think our images of the Divine are too small."
How that explains evolution from day 1 is a Mstery to me.
But then again you also think that I am the resurrection of someone who recently died. Besides the sex-change you forced on me, I like that too!!!

Many things will remain a mystery as long as you cling to your ignorance religiously.

I know you are ThePhiant because you get some kind of pleasure out of making fun of people's names. That's a rare perversion. The writing styles are identical, except that I must say, you seem to be taking more time and giving more thought to your posts. I appreciate that. Your spelling is improving as is your ability to complete a thought in a sentence. Bravo!

It's Jeffy, by the way, with a "y." My mother and some of my lovers have referred to me that way. I take as a sign of affection.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-17-2008, 10:33 PM

Kermit Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> You seem to be asking for the details of how a non-chicken evolved into a chicken.

I don't know whether or not any biologists has researched this question and hypothesized an answer.

I certainly don't know the details. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: I know, I don't either

One can be certain the creature that evolved into the chicken was also considered food by its contemporaries.
  Kermit Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Depends on how great an interval of time is meant by
"At the same time".

If by "at the same time", you mean an interval of one second, then we
are logically assured that in every location the egg came first because the first chicken had to hatch from an animal that did not yet have all the qualities needed to be called chicken.

If by "at the same time" you mean a few thousand years or hundreds of thousands of years, then yes, you would have to say the egg and chicken came at the same time. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: I hadn't thought of that, knowing Willie, he'd probable pick the latter.
For me at the same time is at the same time or second

What he meant is during the same time frame. So yes, at the same time. The creature that was evolving into the modern chicken was also laying eggs. Both were changing over generations into the chicken (and her eggs).

  Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> This is not the way biologists think of evolution!!!!
Intelligent design has no place in evolution theory!!!! </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: such is my dilemma

It's only a dilemma because you cling to a black and white way of thinking. As you mature that may change.

  Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> There is speculation for how the fish could have evolved into amphibians.

But as far as I know, it is still only speculation.

Sometimes small ponds dry up, and the fish that is able to
craw across the small stretch of land to the next larger pond
can survive to pass on its ability to its descendants.

If a marsh land begin to slowly dry up, over millions of years,
then we can imagine that the only survivors of the marshland
would be the fish that evolved into amphibians.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: would that be an instant transition since these fish are near death if they don't have water. they need to develop not only feet, but also a complete new pulmonary system and skin.

Ever heard of a lungfish? Look it up.

Try this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-first-fossil-of-fish-that-crawled-onto-land-discovered.html

  Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">
Today there is a fish that is called a flying fish. It's fins have evolved to be such a shape that it can use those fins to glide through the air. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: Yes, but the flying fish is akin to a bat. it can only fly when propelled

A bat does not need to be propelled to fly. At least, not our local ones. A flying fish is not even close to evolving into a bird.

  Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">
The last speculation I heard about how wings evolved was that
reptiles evolved large membranes for storing heat and that these membranes eventually evolved into wings. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Actually, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which were not reptiles, but warm blooded creatures closer to modern day birds. Check out an emu sometime. They are pretty amazing. Their movements were studied by film crews before the production of Jurassic Park (the film) since they are perhaps the closest living relatives of dinosaurs.

 
 Quote: <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">
Individual biologists might or might not care about the image of God
directing the path of evolution.

As biologists, they are interested in knowing exactly what that path is.

We do not expect to need to use the image of God directing evolution in
order to explain how evolution happened the way it did. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: But if you don't use all the tools available to you, we tend to become myopic.

We become myopic when we believe that "God" created from nothing with a dry thought and a word in an instant instead of recognizing the reality that it was a living Goddess, Earth, that did the hard, wet work of evolution over millions and billions of years.

  Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> But we of course are at liberty to accept this image, and say we know some of the ways in which God directed evolution. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
MsTerry: there is light at the end of the tunnel?

I keep hoping for you, obviously, but it's a small hope. :wink:

-Jeff