People are Not Animals!

[Bushido216]

Word count: 125
Content: 0
Grade: F

You could try responding to my points rather than arrogantly dismissing them.

 

[juvenissun]

You could try responding to my points rather than arrogantly dismissing them.

Why should I respond to an essay which totally missed the point?

 

[Scotishfury09]

You may laugh as much as you like to. I am not arguing with you and I don't care. I admit I do not know animals. I am just asking question.

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar:

So, I know it does not refer to a penis. I can see the tail of a croc looks like a cedar. What else has that kind of tail? Dino is the only alternative I can imagine.

Moveth - Hebrew chaphets
1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
a) (Qal)
1) of men
a) to take pleasure in, delight in
b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
2) of God
a) to delight in, have pleasure in
b) to be pleased to do
2) to move, bend down
a) (Qal) to bend down


This is the only place where this verb is translated as "move" or "bend". Seems there's a lot of pleasure, delight, and desire connected to this verb, don't you think?

You also forgot the rest of the verse:

the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. (KJV)

What do you think his "stones" are?

 

[Melethiel]

You may laugh as much as you like to. I am not arguing with you and I don't care. I admit I do not know animals. I am just asking question.

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar:

So, I know it does not refer to a penis. I can see the tail of a croc looks like a cedar. What else has that kind of tail? Dino is the only alternative I can imagine.

It doesn't say "looks like a cedar". It says "moves like a cedar."

 

[Mallon]

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar:

So, I know it does not refer to a penis.

What an in-depth exegesis that was. Went all the way back to the original Hebrew, eh?
In fact, many believe that "tail" is simply a euphemism for "penis" and that the verse reads better as "his penis stiffens like a cedar". Google it.

I can see the tail of a croc looks like a cedar. What else has that kind of tail? Dino is the only alternative I can imagine.

I think you might have missed my first point (a), which was: the movement of the appendage is what was compared to a cedar, NOT the shape or size. Besides, there are many other reasons why Behemoth couldn't have been a dinosaur, but we're covered those ad nauseum here already.

And please don't belittle Bushido216, juvie. It's not very becoming of a Christian.

 

[Bushido216]

Why should I respond to an essay which totally missed the point?

Because it didn't. You used an arguement from personal incredulity and I showed why it's a ridiculous form of logic to use.

You can either respond to that point or continue to post your witticisms. What I am seeing more and more is a refusal on your part to engage in a serious discussion of the facts. Mores the pity.

 

[juvenissun]

Moveth - Hebrew chaphets
1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
a) (Qal)
1) of men
a) to take pleasure in, delight in
b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
2) of God
a) to delight in, have pleasure in
b) to be pleased to do
2) to move, bend down
a) (Qal) to bend down


This is the only place where this verb is translated as "move" or "bend". Seems there's a lot of pleasure, delight, and desire connected to this verb, don't you think?

You also forgot the rest of the verse:

the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. (KJV)

What do you think his "stones" are?

Wow... Thanks to you, Mallon and Melethiel. (sincerely)

Is the truth revealed here quite literal?

So, it refers to a hippo. Any problem with it? Where could one see a hippo in the Middle East? Jordan Valley? Lower Nile? or Euphrates?

 

[juvenissun]

Moveth - Hebrew chaphets
1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
a) (Qal)
1) of men
a) to take pleasure in, delight in
b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
2) of God
a) to delight in, have pleasure in
b) to be pleased to do
2) to move, bend down
a) (Qal) to bend down


This is the only place where this verb is translated as "move" or "bend". Seems there's a lot of pleasure, delight, and desire connected to this verb, don't you think?

You also forgot the rest of the verse:

the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. (KJV)

What do you think his "stones" are?

OK, then the question would be:

Why did nearly all English translations translate this word as "tail" but not a "penis" or "appendage" or something else?

 

[Mallon]

So, it refers to a hippo. Any problem with it? Where could one see a hippo in the Middle East? Jordan Valley? Lower Nile? or Euphrates?

Hippos used to be common along the Nile until they were extirpated. Otherwise, you can still find them over much of east Africa:

 

[Mallon]

OK, then the question would be:

Why did nearly all English translations translate this word as "tail" but not a "penis" or "appendage" or something else?

Because the euphemism was lost in translation. Don't kid yourself; no translation of the Bible is perfect.

 

[Vance]

Is there ANY advantage in believing biological evolution? Limited fragmental evidences of evolution really do not deserve such a loyalty from people. The Bible does not say anything about evolution, even figuratively. The Bible does say many times about creation.

Why would people who knows very little about anthropology insist that we are descendants of apes? There must be something going on. Is that the devil's advocate?

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. The evidence that God created via evolutionary processes is as overwhelmingly supported as just about any concept is biology or science generally. That is why 99.85% of the scientists in the relevant fields of study accept it, including the vast majority of scientists who also happen to be devout Christians (thus showing that it is not the result of atheistic bias).

I really must insist that anyone who wants to make claims like that above, about the *lack* of support for evolution must first confirm that they have read the following essay (written by a Christian) first, and can still make the same statement:

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

I really don't have any use for people making claims about something they insist on remaining ignorant about. And, getting information about a subject entirely from sources that oppose that subject is really choosing willful ignorance. Getting information about evolution entirely from creationist sources (which many here clearly have) will achieve the same result as getting all of one's information about Christianity from atheist sources.

As for the advantage in accepting the scientific evidence for evolution as the means by which God created, it is the same benefit the Church has received from accepting the scientific truth of heliocentrism, which is also not found in Scripture, and which seems to contradict Scripture (we all thought for hundreds of years). That benefit is in removing a stumbling block that exists in the path to the Cross and avoiding the damage to faith that can occur in countless people who are honest enough to accept the overwhelming nature of the evidence.

 

[Paul365]

Is there ANY advantage in believing biological evolution? (...)There must be something going on. Is that the devil's advocate?

You can of course attribute evolution to the devil. But when you take it more seriously, you might consider that there may be other reasons than the devil why the vast majority of Christian scientists support evolution. Maybe the reason why they find so much evidence for evolution is just... because evolution is true?

When human reason and your interpretation of Scripture contradict each other, either human reason is right, or your interpretation of Scripture is right, but not both. I'd vote for human reason.

 

[Vance]

You can of course attribute evolution to the devil. But when you take it more seriously, you might consider that there may be other reasons than the devil why the vast majority of Christian scientists support evolution. Maybe the reason why they find so much evidence for evolution is just... because evolution is true?

When human reason and your interpretation of Scripture contradict each other, either human reason is right, or your interpretation of Scripture is right, but not both. I'd vote for human reason.

Not to mention the evidence of God's Creation, a form of revelation from God itself.

 

[Scotishfury09]

OK, then the question would be:

Why did nearly all English translations translate this word as "tail" but not a "penis" or "appendage" or something else?

Because it was taboo to do such a thing. Feet is also used as a euphemism for reproductive organs.

Isaiah 6:2 - Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying

Or when Naomi tells Ruth to go visit Boaz at the threshing floor:

Ruth 3:4 - When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.

It's the same reason we say someone "slept" with someone else, and the Bible says so-and-so "knew" so-and-so.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it was taboo to do such a thing. Feet is also used as a euphemism for reproductive organs.

Isaiah 6:2 - Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying

Or when Naomi tells Ruth to go visit Boaz at the threshing floor:

Ruth 3:4 - When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.

It's the same reason we say someone "slept" with someone else, and the Bible says so-and-so "knew" so-and-so.

Thank you, and Mallon, very much for the education.

No more question at this time.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. The evidence that God created via evolutionary processes is as overwhelmingly supported as just about any concept is biology or science generally. That is why 99.85% of the scientists in the relevant fields of study accept it, including the vast majority of scientists who also happen to be devout Christians (thus showing that it is not the result of atheistic bias).

This is because there is no alternative model except the creationism, which is taken as an easy way out (in fact, it is not). And I am not saying that evolution theory lacks evidence. I am saying the questions so raised is not fewer than the evidence. If a theory is supported by 50% evidence (no matter how "overwhelming" they are) and has 50% question remained, why would people want to be so faithful to it and defend it to death. That is ridiculous.

I may be ignorant to biologic fact, but I am not to science and logic. In fact, I am very good at it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Fallacy of Appealing to Masses (in a sense).

You were saying...what about logic?

 

[juvenissun]

You can of course attribute evolution to the devil. But when you take it more seriously, you might consider that there may be other reasons than the devil why the vast majority of Christian scientists support evolution. Maybe the reason why they find so much evidence for evolution is just... because evolution is true?

An innocent person was set by 100 false evidences and was put in jail, it does not mean the person is a criminal. But it would need a super lawyer (or detective) to overturn it.

When human reason and your interpretation of Scripture contradict each other, either human reason is right, or your interpretation of Scripture is right, but not both. I'd vote for human reason.

This is too general. It has to be evaluated on each individual case. And for each case, the vote does not determine the truth.

 

[Vance]

This is because there is no alternative model except the creationism, which is taken as an easy way out (in fact, it is not). And I am not saying that evolution theory lacks evidence. I am saying the questions so raised is not fewer than the evidence. If a theory is supported by 50% evidence (no matter how "overwhelming" they are) and has 50% question remained, why would people want to be so faithful to it and defend it to death. That is ridiculous.

I may be ignorant to biologic fact, but I am not to science and logic. In fact, I am very good at it.

But it is NOT 50%, that is what I am saying. The fact that there are two theories does not mean there are two *equally supported* theories! The evidence is dramatically overwhelming, entirely contrary to your post I quoted.

Really, go read that article, then we can talk. Even if you don't buy it, you will have the benefit if knowing what evolution is really all about, and what evidence supports it, which would be a huge improvement, even if you wanted to argue against it.

 

[sago]

How do we get to 50% evidences, 50% questions?

Last year alone in the three major international journals on biology (out of several hundred peer reviewed journals and conferences) there were over a hundred papers containing evidence confirming of evolution.

On the other hand we have no observations that could not be accounted for by the theory. In other words there is overwhelming evidence in support and no disconfirming evidence. Overwhelming is a good term. Ask any first year doctoral candidate in biology and they'll tell you just how much stuff they are trying to read through. And inevitably they'll be reading just the tiny fraction that applies to their speciality.

It is hard to convey to people outside science just how much content there is. When scientists say that rock strata confirm chronologies, they aren't talking about five confirmations. They are talking about literally thousands. When we talk about fossils observations, we aren't even talking thousands: there is a beach just half an hour from my house where you can collect thousands of fossils from three different strata in an afternoon.

Genetic evidence is truly overwhelming. Now we can sequence DNA we can show that the date of nearest common ancestor, as predicted by evolutionary theory, is directly correlated to the amount of DNA two species share. There have been no examples where this has produced disconfirming results. And we're talking uncomprehensible amounts of data: literally trillions of trillions of comparison sites.

Every other hypothesis has been roundly disconfirmed. You think that DNA is shared because of similar physical properties? Nope, there are hundreds of examples where similarity has evolved in different lines and hence the DNA is different, and exactly correlated to the predicted lines of evolution. You think that fossils could have been laid down in a flood with animals of different physical properties settling at different rates to account for the incredible consistency? Nope - every physical characteristic is present at every strata except the very earliest (where only simple creatures had evolved).

Every piece of evidence brings up questions, but they aren't questions of the veracity of the evidence. Any good bible study should leave you with many questions you want answered, that doesn't mean the study was bunk.

The only people who dare claim there is poor evidence for evolution are those that haven't honestly attempted to look for it, or those who make their careers out of deliberately ignoring it. If your knowledge of science is derived from AiG and sermons, then it is no wonder you think that the evidence isn't overwhelming.