Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Was that BEFORE you were mean; or as you were coming into it with gusto??
;^)
Where has 'man' applied this PRESSURE to a creature to get it to change to another?
If you drop something, the direction it travels is unguided (unless you believe that God is pushing it toward the earth). Does it travel in a random direction?
Such as?
as well as your lack of a spell checker.
Wow, I misplace a space (typing "certainlys eem" instead of "certainly seem"), and suddenly you go off on a cheap spelling flame. How utterly childish of you.
If you go back "hundreds" of years you get into Lamarkism and beyond.
So?
Hardly support for Darwinian gradualism, natural selection through random genetic mutation.
Learn to read. I spoke of "observations over the past several hundred years" being consistent in their support of Darwinian evolution. The fact that Darwinian theory itself was first published in 1859 doesn't change the fact that observations made prior to that date still provide support for the theory. Or did it escape your attention that even Darwin himself cited pre-1859 observations as being supportive of his theory? Indeed, the pattern of those observations was what had strongly suggested evolution to him (and others, such as Wallace) in the first place.
One of the very frustrating things about these threads is the lack of knowledge of the history of science.
Indeed, which is why I wish you'd stop sniping about my accurate statement of the timespan over which evidence supporting evolution has been gathered -- apparently based on your ignorance of the history of this field of biology.
As to the evidence against Darwinian gradualism,
Oh look, "shifting the goalposts". Why are you trying to change the subject all of a sudden? "Gradualism" is distinct from jwalsh07's "small changes over long periods of time" (since even punctuated equilibrium proceeds via "small changes over long periods of time"), and is worlds apart from your "Darwin got it wrong concluding random genetic mutation leading to natural selection from a 'war of the survival of the fittest' is the agent of change within species". Don't try to change the subject when you've stuck your foot in your mouth.
It appears that your "lack of knowledge of the history of science" causes you to misunderstand what is meant by "gradualism" in the field of evolutionary biology. It is not, as you falsely believe, synonymous with the concept of slow evolutionary change (slow by the standards of a human lifetime, that is), nor is it synonymous with the concept of relatively minor changes per generation eventually accumulating into large species-level changes. It denotes only the outmoded notion that evolutionary change occurs at a slow and *STEADY* continuous pace.
As for "Darwinian gradualism", there is no such thing, since Darwin himself did not believe in gradualism in this sense. Classic gradualism only came into vogue *after* Darwin, as subsequent thinkers overlooked or discounted Darwin's own caveats about the likely intermittency of evolution. Strict gradualism at the species level was mostly abandoned at the time of the Modern Synthesis in the 1930's and 40's, but phyletic gradualism was still considered likely to be true until questions were raised about it in the 1970's (primarily by Gould and Eldrige). But this was just a return to Darwin's original view of NONgradualism:
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)This is classic Puncuated Equilibrium -- from Darwin himself. But then, if you weren't suffering from a "lack of knowledge of the history of science", you'd already know this.But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
you might read Gould,
I have indeed, which is why I know that you *haven't*, because no one who has actually read Gould could possibly mischaracterize his writings as poorly and inaccurately as you have here:
who developed the PunkEek theory because he candidly recognized there was no evidence in support of gradualism.
Complete BS, son. Admit it -- you haven't read Gould, you've just read creationist propaganda about his work, and their dishonest out-of-context quotes from Gould.
Let's see what Gould *ACTUALLY* says on this subject, shall we?
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."Or as accurately summarized by another author:
- Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182"It [PE] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139"Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates."
-- Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., pp. 204-13"Many colleagues thought that we had raised the old anti-Darwinian specter of macromutationism, or truly sudden speciation in a single generation by a large and incredibly lucky mutation. I do not know why this happened; I think that all our articles and public statements were clear in separating human from geological rapidity. The theory, after all, is rooted in this distinction —- for punctuated equilibrium is the recognition that gradualism on our mortal measuring rod of three score years and ten translates to suddenness at the planet's temporal scale."
-- S. J. Gould, "Opus 200""For a variety of reasons, small isolated populations have unusual potential for effective change: for example, favorable genes can quickly spread throughout the population, while the interaction of random change (rarely important in large populations) with natural selection provides another effective pathway for substantial evolution. Even with these possibilities for accelerated change, the formation of a new species from a peripherally isolated population would be glacially slow by the usual standard of our lifetimes. Suppose the process took five to ten thousand years. We might stand in the midst of this peripheral isolate for all our earthly days and see nothing in the way of major change. But now we come to the nub of punctuated equilibrium. Five to ten thousand years may be an eternity in human time, but such an interval represents an earthly instant in almost any geological situation—a single bedding plane (not a gradual sequence through meters of strata)."
-- Ibid."What then is the expected geological expression of speciation in a peripherally isolated population? The answer is, and must be, punctuated equilibrium. The speciation event occurs in a geological instant and in a region of limited extent at some distance from the parental population. In other words, punctuated equilibrium—and not gradualism—is the expected geological translation for the standard account of speciation in evolutionary theory. Species arise in a geological moment—the punctuation (slow by our standards, abrupt by the planet's). [...] Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."
-- Ibid."Charles Darwin often remarked that his revolutionary work had two distinct aims: first, to demonstrate the fact of evolution (the genealogical connection of all organisms and a history of life regulated by "descent with modification"); second, to advance the theory of natural selection as the most important mechanism of evolution. Darwin triumphed in his first aim (American creationism of the Christian far right notwithstanding). Virtually all thinking people accept the factuality of evolution, and no conclusion in science enjoys better documentation. Darwin also succeeded substantially in his second aim. Natural selection, an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications, is surely a major cause of evolution, as validated in theory and demonstrated by countless experiments.
S. J. Gould, "The New York Review of Books", Volume 44, Number 10 · June 12, 1997"...may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes, eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently workable design."
-- Ibid.
"But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document."How many more quotes would you like me to provide to show you how badly you've misrepresented Gould? No one who has *actually* read Gould (which clearly leaves out yourself) could possibly have missed his frequent statements of conviction of the strength of the vast amount of evidence for Darwinian selection as the main engine of evolutionary change. Who lied to you and told you otherwise? And why are you repeating that propaganda here without verifying it yourself?
-- Laurie R. Godfrey, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion", 1984
When change occurs in organisms it occurs quickly and directly, without need for random mutation, many mutations of an organism and the good old "battle for survival of the fittest."
Uh huh... And where did you "learn" *this* amazing non-fact? Just for fun, let's see you cite three studies which support your fantasy. There are countless thousands which prove you wrong. Here's one for starters:
Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations.I'm sorry, what's that you were blathering about earlier? Something about, "Darwin theorized that random mutation would create many different versions of an organism who would compete against each other for resources until all but the best adapted to the environment have died out. Well there's just no evidence for that."? There are mountains of evidence for exactly that. Where on Earth did you get the bizarre notion that there's "just no evidence" for it?
Little do you know how little you know. So don't presume to try to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, son.
We know that change occurs, what is often referred to as the "fact" of evolution. What we don't yet know is the change agent.
*You* may not, but biologists have known -- and verified it -- for more than a century. Try reading some actual science journals for a change, instead of those creationist tracts which have led you astray and failed to teach you any actual biology.
I think we are in for some interesting surprises in the future as we unravel the secrets of the genome and the other structures and mechanisms that work with it and on it.
No doubt we are -- there have been many fascinating and interesting surprises already -- but you're not going to learn them from whatever sources you've been getting your current misinformation.
Look, contrary to the cartoon-version of evolutionary biologists put forth by the creationists, no biologist believes that natural selection is the *only* agent of evolutionary change. Not even Darwin believed that:
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."Biologists have long recognized that many other factors help shape evolution, include neutral drift, stochastic interventions such as meteor strikes, genetic predispositions, "lucky" developmental breakthroughs, geographic separations, and more. But as Gould (remember him?) succinctly wrote:
Charles Darwin, 1872 edition of The Origin of Species.
"I do not deny that natural selection has helped us to explain phenomena at scales very distant from individual organisms, from the behavior of an ant colony to the survival of a redwood forest. But selection cannot suffice as a full explanation for many aspects of evolution; for other types and styles of causes become relevant, or even prevalent, in domains both far above and far below the traditional Darwinian locus of the organism. These other causes are not, as the ultras often claim, the product of thinly veiled attempts to smuggle purpose back into biology. These additional principles are as directionless, nonteleological, and materialistic as natural selection itself -— but they operate differently from Darwin's central mechanism. In other words, I agree with Darwin that natural selection is "not the exclusive means of modification."So if you were hoping for some movement to remove natural selection as the well-documented central mechanism of adaptation, or for some "god of the gaps" mechanism to spring forth to satisfy yearnings for teleology, I'm afraid you're likely to be disappointed.
-- S. J. Gould
Like this?
NIV Genesis 12:1-3
1. The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2. "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.
3. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
And this?
NIV Genesis 12:7
The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 13:12-13
Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 14:20
And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 15:13-14
13. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.
14. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 15:18-21
18. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--
19. the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,
20. Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,
21. Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."
...and this...
NIV Genesis 16:12
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
...and this...
NIV Genesis 17:1-7
1. When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty ; walk before me and be blameless.
2. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."
3. Abram fell facedown, and God said to him,
4. "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.
5. No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.
6. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.
7. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
...and this...
NIV Genesis 19:5-7
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
...and this...
NIV Genesis 21:9-10
9. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,
10. and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."
.....which leads to THIS:
NIV Galatians 4:21-31
21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
23. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
25. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
27. For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."
28. Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.
30. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."
31. Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
But what does the Scripture say? Kinda hard to read BETWEEN; ain't it!
(The devil is in 'em!)
Care to provide any evidence for this assertion. HINT: pointing to any number of examples of systems in which this is true does not support this statement. All it takes to disprove this statement is ONE system for which it is untrue. Try making an argument using the ACTUAL laws of thermodynamics and not your misinformed version of them.
It says "like" a cedar, not the "size" of a cedar.
Hippos have hair bristles on on their noses, ears and tails. And the shape of the bristles on their tails can have the appearance of the limbs on a lebanese cedar tree.
.
.
.
The description in Job is a river animal.
It's a hippo.
NIV Job 40:15-24
15. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17. His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
21. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him.
23. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?
NIV Job 41:1-34
1. "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2. Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3. Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?
4. Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?
5. Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?
6. Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?
7. Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?
8. If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9. Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.
10. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?
11. Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12. "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.
13. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle?
14. Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15. His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;
16. each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.
17. They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.
18. His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.
20. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.
22. Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him.
23. The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.
24. His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.
25. When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.
26. The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27. Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood.
28. Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him.
29. A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30. His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31. He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32. Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair.
33. Nothing on earth is his equal-- a creature without fear.
34. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud."
Son, *YOU'RE* the one who raised that very topic when you asked a question which contained the (false) claim about who does or does not uncover "fakes":
How come the fakes are almost never found by Evos.?.You compounded this when you wrote:
[ Just who do you think are finding the fakes? ]So now that you have been challenged to support this falsehood, *NOW* you suddenly whine, "so we're supposed to get into a who shot John on who uncovered any evo "fakes" -- well *yeah*, since you were *CLAIMING* to know who uncovered any "fakes" when you made a CLAIM about the nature of the folks who allegedly had done so, implying that you had knowledge of who it was and whether they were "evos" or "non-evos".
Non-Evo scientists.. The Evo scientists are hampered by their own DOGMA(s)..
But *now*, when it's pointed out to you that your claim was *false*, you suddenly say it's a "joke" to expect you to know who did what at all (even though YOU were the one who RAISED that issue and made a claim about it as if you had some sort of -- any sort of -- knowledge on the subject).
Are you really as completely addle-brained as you appear, or is it just some sort of bizarre act?
I like to spit on my betters shoes..
Look, if you have some sort of hostility issues towards people who know more about a subject than you do, seek help, or keep it to yourself. Your personality problems are nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to indulge in public.
Are you my better.?.
As if that would be difficult...
Since there are two creation stories in Genesis, you tell me which one is the correct one.
Simple. Read 'em and decide for yourself!
|
Genesis 1
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. 6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. 9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. 14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. 20. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day. 24. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day. |
Genesis 2
1. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. 4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6. but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-- 7. the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10. A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." 18. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19. Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called `woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. |
Sure!
They're noncom's.
The OFFICERS got the little metal stuff on their shoulds.....
Now you done it!
Offended a LARGE group of folks who DO know Hebrew and have translated it into English.
You just said that they did not do their work worth a darn!
Of COURSE not!
It's mere chance PLUS something else!
It's exactly what it sounds like -- a dragon. Leviathan was a local version of the age-old dragon myth, which dates back to at least 5000 BC with the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the right time and place for the writers of the Bible to have heard and believed it and incorporated it into their writings.
Where is HIS fossil; since there appears to be NO creature like him to be found on Earth today.
Nor was there any such creature back in Biblical times. People have believed in a lot of myths through the ages.
(Even though in Job's time, men appear to have KNOWN about it.)
Men of ancient times also "knew" about griffons, flying horses, fairies, cyclopses, and countless various other mythical beings and monsters which we now know never actually existed.
The Green River Killer is the Crystal Geyser, a coupla miles south of town, on the east bank of the Green.
An old oil well exploratory hole, it now spews carbonated and EXTREMELY mineral filled water quite spectacularly into the air at a 13-17 hour interval.
A 5 mile trip down a dirt road will get you to it from the interstate junction.
How can you SAY this???
We've just not FOUND them yet!!!
If Evolution can produce the bombadier beetle, how DARE you say it cannot make a fire-breathing dragon!?!?!?
I only assert that it hasn't -- whether it could or not is another matter.
"...teaching evolution is .... a religious doctrine", said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers.
Mr. Carley ... expressed a desire that this reality continue to be kept secret from the students .. and futher reports that it is only Christians who are militant about this subject.
"Biology teachers are always a warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people, who never say unkind things about God, Jesus, or Christians", he said.
More - (excerpt):
"... Wayne Carley, executive director of the NABT ... [said] the change was made because they wanted "to avoid taking a religious position."
That is an admission that demonstrates the truth of what Christian critics have been claiming all along: The association's original platform - like Darwinism itself - exceeds purely scientific conclusions, and embraces distinctly religious ideas.
The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community. "That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry," ... "because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."
Some define faith as "belief that isn't based on evidence". Dawkins calls it the "principal vice of any religion". [Biblical] Christians realize that this definition of faith is a caricature.
Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic.
For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith.
There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else.
Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories.
We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it.
We cannot test the truth of the principle logically, for logic has as its subject matter static propositions.
Thus, induction and the law of contradiction, two of the bedrocks upon which all the rest of Richard Dawkins' knowledge is based, are both things he must accept on faith. ~ Jonathan Barlow
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.