Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

New Scientist ^

[allmendream]

The difference between our DNA and a chimps is testable, observable, and repeatable.

A measurement of the neutral mutation rate is testable, observable and repeatable.

An estimation of the amount of time it would take for our neutral DNA to change to accumulate as much difference as there is between our DNA and theirs is testable and repeatable and several independent measures arrive at something between 6-9 million years.

Any other questions about how phylogeny is established?

[editor-surveyor]

Your reply would be indicative of a lack of reading comprehension, if I didn’y know better. He spoke of the use of yom with a value, while you seek uses that are concatenary, or general. Is that a fine strawman, or are you playing a game?

[mnehring]

No, I was just using morning as an example, but Ereb for evening has similar variety of translations, such as specifically sunset but also ‘night’, both in the specific and general forms. For example, the same word is used in Exodus 16:6 the same word is used in: “In the evening you shall know the Lord has let you out..” as a general description of night or darkness as, in context, he was not saying that specific evening, but something like ‘in your darkest hour, you'll know..’ (trying to find a phrase we would use that is a good example.)

There is a similar use of both words in almost the same form in Job where the Bible says ‘at night you shall weep but joy comes in the morning’ (from memory so I may be a little off), the same forms of Ereb and Boqer, yet to describe a general, almost poetic concept, not a literal morning and evening.

[editor-surveyor]

"There is a similar use of both words in almost the same form in Job where the Bible says ‘at night you shall weep but joy comes in the morning’ (from memory so I may be a little off), the same forms of Ereb and Boqer, yet to describe a general, almost poetic concept, not a literal morning and evening."

Really not a good choice for your argument, since it substantiates mine through the division.

[mnehring]

Not playing a game because he used those two ‘proofs’ as separate contexts, but why not look at the context. First (echad) doesn't have just a mathematical value, but also means ‘each’ or is even used in the form of ‘an’. Second, (Sheniy) can mean second in order but also is used as ‘another’ or ‘again’ in many contexts. etc, etc.. I don't believe I will convince anyone of anything, I just want people to think and try not to keep creating (and limiting) God in man's image. We keep trying to put our very narrow, limited understanding as limits on God.

Think about it this way.
Five thousand years from now, If someone reads a note I wrote to you saying “I rode in my Jaguar to watch the Giants battle the Dolphins in the stadium.. the Dolphins killed the Giants and the fans were up in arms over the beating they took, but the Giants came back in the next field of combat and ate the 49ers for lunch...” What would that person think if they translated that with a very limited understanding of meanings other context, or concepts such as allegory.

I find it quite disturbing how few Christians even know what the term Pesharim (Pesher) means.

[editor-surveyor]

The early english translators did an excellent job of expanding the Hebrew idioms in Genesis 1, and now you try to second guess them for the sake of having an argument?

[aruanan]

Of course not, because it's only 6,000 years old.

The Bible has proven that God woke up at 8am on October 23, 4004 BC, showered at 8:30, made coffee and 8:45, and created the Earth at 9.

Why do some people feel compelled to exhibit a level of facetiousness that is neither instructive nor entertaining?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Nope; your information is incorrect. Same Bible Jesus and the apostles confirmed retrospectively, and Jesus prospectively. And yes, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church are wrong about a lot of things. I know that because of what the Bible teaches.

I see. So is that the Rabbinic Canon you study?

And what of the Book of Enoch, referred to in the New Testament Book of Jude? Or the first Church (the Churches written about in Acts) accepting the Song of Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

l say that as loud as I can. The word of God is shielded in numeric perfection that transcends all attempts to unravel it. Learn about it, and you won't look this foolish again.

Then explain the different timelines between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 creation stories. You know, the timelines of plants, animals, and man.

[GunRunner]

Are you asking me?

I'd say it's probably for the same reason that some people have no sense of humor.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

2 Peter 3:8 - Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

And Isaiah 57:15 - For thus says the high and lofty One--He Who inhabits eternity

So you will restrict God to a 24 hour period, with each hour being comprised of 3600 seconds, each second being defined by the vibrations of a caesium atom? He for Whom the Bible states that time is irrelevant, and lives in eternity?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

2 Peter 3:8 - Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

And Isaiah 57:15 - For thus says the high and lofty One--He Who inhabits eternity

So you will restrict God to a 24 hour period, with each hour being comprised of 3600 seconds, each second being defined by the vibrations of a caesium atom? He for Whom the Bible states that time is irrelevant, and lives in eternity?

[mnehring]

Not for the sake of having an argument, but a discussion. I don't believe in a God that tries to deceive people into not believing him. With all of the evidence of the universe being far older than the six thousand years that ‘literalists’ put forward and creation being a very long, slow process, instead of doubting God or believing he created ‘evidence’ that tricks people into not believing him, I feel sometimes it is simply good that maybe we should challenger our assumptions of how we, as a flawed man, have translated his message. Maybe we translated his message with a world view that couldn't comprehend an earth millions of years old and creation that spanned over those millions of years. We had to describe what we were translating with the best knowledge we had at the time.

[mnehring]

GunRunner may have meant to be facetious, but his point is good. We are trying to make God in our image by limiting Him to our worldview (at that a very narrow worldview based on the timeframe of the English translations of his Word.)

[GunRunner]

I'll take a look at John.

The one from Galatians has to do with the phrase "made from woman", and the original meaning of the word that "made" was translated from. Can't remember exactly.

But would you be willing to at least entertain the possibility that Mark and Paul either did not believe, were not aware of, or did not accept the virgin birth? I still include Paul, because considering his contributions to the New Testament, the fact that there's only one vague reference to it in all of his letters is at least a little curious.

[grey_whiskers]

They were ahead of their time.

With a stone house, appliances which are living animals, and a car powered by Fred's feet, think of their carbon footprint.

Besides, Dino *proves* that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together. /sarc>

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

We really need to stop applying man's rules and image to God.

Or at least to make sure that when we interpret Scripture, we allow for both possibilities--that God chose a certain form of revelation with the intent that it be picked up and interpreted a certain way; or alternatively that any particular interpretation is in fact a misunderstanding.

Deciding between the two is great popcorn fodder.

Cheers!

[BibChr]

Actually, I study the same Bible Jesus and the apostles confirmed retrospectively, and Jesus prospectively. The sixty-six books of the Bible.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The Bible of Jesus and the Apostles was most likely the Rabbinical Canon, which contains books not present in the Protestant Bible. The New Testament did not yet exist.

And of course, the Bible of the early Church is different as well, and the Canon’s evolution through the Catholic Church is different.

And of course the Rabbinical Canon is different from the Sadduccee Cannon, or the Samaritan Canon.

So you study a Bible different from that of Jesus and the Apostles, and from that of the earliest Christians. Unless you limit yourself to the Canon as studied by the Rabbis in 30 AD (which also means inclusion of the Book of Wisdom, Sir, and Enoch, which are not found in the Protestant Bible).

I say that not to denigrate, for we all study a different Bible! Rather, to clarify that the Bible itself is not infallible. The teachings and truths WITHIN it are infallible, but the actual words and the actual order and inclusion of books is not. Just as there are a dozen ways to teach 1+1 = 2, there are a dozen ways to say that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. It is the message - not the letters - that matters.

Otherwise, every Bible sold today is heretical, for it is a willful and continuing corruption of the direct Word of God; the belief in the infallibility of the exact words in the Bible are equivalent to the infallibility of the words of the Koran as believed by Muslims.

[BibChr]

Galatians 4:4 says γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον. It's a striking turn of phrase that, at least, goes well with the virgin birth.

"But would you be willing to at least entertain the possibility that Mark and Paul either did not believe, were not aware of, or did not accept the virgin birth?"

I don't care. It doesn't, in the final analysis, matter. The Word of God isn't hidden, unspoken notions in the back of the writers of Scripture. The Word of God is what they wrote. Paul and Mark, to say the least, wrote nothing contradicting the virgin birth. Matthew and Luke expressly recorded it. THAT is the word of God.

And so, as I already said: if someone isn't persuaded by accounts as unambiguous as Matthew's and Luke's, 475 other allusions wouldn't make any difference. We're talking about someone who hasn't yet come to grips with the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That's the real issue.