We Dodged Extinction

ABCNews ^ | Lee Dye

[dead]

Barely.

[realpatriot71]

Chimps are HARDLY clean! Ask a rabbi if he'd eat one. Sheeesh.

Lev. 11:1-8

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep!

[AndrewC]

I don't believe in Cleveland. Yet Cleveland exists.

A good example of self-contradiction.

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.

1. To accept as true or real:

re·al¹ (rl, rl)
adj.

1. 1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
   2. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
   3. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real.

[another cricket]

Chimps are HARDLY clean! Ask a rabbi if he'd eat one. Sheeesh.
Lev. 11:1-8

I think that non-carnivorous animals were considered "clean" at this point in time. After all, the only two commandments given after the flood were:
1.) If a man sheds another mans blood, then by man shall his blood be shed.
2.) Every living creature I have given to you as meat but the blood that is the life you shall not eat.

No mention of the split hoofed, cud chewers being the only clean animal allowed for dinner.

A. Cricket

[John O]

I stand (possibly) corrected. While chimps are not clean according to Mosaic law, what was the definition to Noah (who was dead well before Moses was born)?

(Of course this is drifting off topic just slightly.)

GSA(P)

[John O]

Yah, what another cricket said!

(Thanks AC)

GSA(P)

[realpatriot71]

You think if he was such an all powerful being, he could make DNA that didn't have sibling problems. You make him sound like a hacker banging out a quick and dirty work around to a bad initial design.

I didn't make God sound like anything. I was throwing out ideas. You're the one making inferences.

A perfect creation, I would imagine, had one one set of traits per gene, all dominant. However, because the affects of time, the enviroment, and sin in the world after the fall of man, mutations, in an otherwise perfect creation, manfested themselves as recessive traits, and sometimes as dominant traits.

[realpatriot71]

I was hasty, and forgot about the generation times of chimps. I'm still searching how much affect generation time has on rate of mutation, and whether this is enough to give the significant amount of variation seen in chimps versus humans from a gene pool the size of that after the flood.

[Baseballguy]

A Stormy Past

Noah!!! God is a real part of our being.

[realpatriot71]

Well the next place we read about clean and unclean animals is in Lev. 11. I would personally think, that the nature of God, as expressed in the Bible, would be one that is not arbitrary. I would think that an unclean animal in Levitcus was unclean before then, and still is today. I would thik that it would be quite silly for it to be otherwise.

[Sabertooth]

I didn't make God sound like anything. I was throwing out ideas. You're the one making inferences.

Bingo. See my post at #113.

Interesting that it's the dogmatists on both sides who are quickest to grind the theological axes. Desperation is a funny thing, isn't it?

[AndrewC]

Interesting that it's the dogmatists on both sides who are quickest to grind the theological axes.

God rated parts of creation "good" and his total creation "very good", thus not perfect.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.

[another cricket]

I would personally think, that the nature of God, as expressed in the Bible, would be one that is not arbitrary. I would think that an unclean animal in Levitcus was unclean before then, and still is today. I would thik that it would be quite silly for it to be otherwise.

When the Law was given to Moses it was refined from the simple commandments given before and immediately after the flood. The Law clearly laid out what meant what, with all ifs, ands or buts covered.

Take rule one for example.

1.) If a man sheds another mans blood, then by man shall his blood be shed.

Very simple and basic. However in the Law of Moses you find many examples of where the rule is refined. Cities of Refuge and the difference between Homicide and Involuntary Manslaughter being just two examples.

2.) Every living creature I have given to you as meat but the blood that is the life you shall not eat.

Rule two has many of the same refinements.

Prior to the flood there were clean and unclean animals but the rule had nothing to do with eating the animal. Another refinement, if you will. Arbitrary? No. Refined? Yes.

A. Cricket

[John O]

I would personally think, that the nature of God, as expressed in the Bible, would be one that is not arbitrary. I would think that an unclean animal in Levitcus was unclean before then, and still is today

We are not talking about the nature of God changing. We are talking about the nature of animals changing.

I find nothing scriptural that details what is clean and unclean prior to the flood. Seems that the only command was that quoted by AC earlier. Every beast is for food.

GSA(P)

[Torie]

Here's my layman's theory. Humans are very agressive and mobile. The varient of human that had a competitive advantage in rather short order wiped out all competitors to its niche.

[JerseyHighlander]

It might not be PC, but has anyone postulated that those chimpanzee communities are extremely inbred, and the inbreeding has caused huge amounts of genetic mutations over the millenia. Looking at it in this light, it seems more to represent differing methods of population propagation between humans as opposed to chimpanzees and Saddam Hussein's clan.

[jlogajan]

However, because the affects of time, the enviroment, and sin in the world after the fall of man, mutations, in an otherwise perfect creation, manfested themselves as recessive traits, and sometimes as dominant traits

So God neglected to think ahead. Kind of a flawed super-being you have there. But continue to make excuses for him. It is fun to watch.

[jlogajan]

The varient of human that had a competitive advantage in rather short order wiped out all competitors to its niche.

That sounds reasonable. But I think a lot of DNA variation doesn't really manifest itself outwardly. For instance, two DNA divergent chimps might look very similar. So not much to select each other for or against.

However, I do agree that aggressive humans were pretty good at "trimming" divergent branches (killing strangers.) Humans are effective and practiced killers of themselves.

[realpatriot71]

Honestly, I feel you guys are rationalizing. My point about the nature of God is that he doesn't change, so why would God's list of clean and unclean animals change? What were the criterea for clean and unclean before the flood, if not consumtion, then what?