Did Reptiles Evolve?

[AV1611VET]

Jesus taught me evolution!!

The Jesus of the Bible didn't.

 

[Dale]

AV1611 in post #37:
"The Big Bang didn't happen --- instead, God created ex nihilo."

The scholars will tell you that Jews and their Rabbis never saw ex nihilo in the Old Testament. Catholic thinkers came up with ex nihilo in the first centuries of the Christian era.

 

[AV1611VET]

Racial diversity is an effect of the Fall?

There is no such thing as racial diversity. The Bible teaches one race --- the human race --- period.

Why did God create diverse environments if he did not want humans and other animals to adapt to them?

He didn't create diverse environments. Diverse environments are the result of the Fall, which occurred in Genesis 3. God's creation is found in Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

The scholars will tell you that Jews and their Rabbis never saw ex nihilo in the Old Testament.

I only use ex nihilo as a 21st century term. It was never a consideration until science became so bloated it can't see its shoes.

The BC term is "God said" --- the AD term is "ex nihilo".

Catholic thinkers came up with ex nihilo in the first centuries of the Christian era.

Only as a label --- and a good one at that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

There is no such thing as racial diversity. The Bible teaches one race --- the human race --- period.

The Bible teaches that the Jews were the chosen race, and that the Medianites and the Canaanites (among many others) needed to be exterminated outright. Many races, and much racism.

 

[Dale]

AV1611 in post #43:
"There is no such thing as racial diversity. The Bible teaches one race --- the human race --- period."

You are using the word "race" in two different senses, resulting in confusion.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Your Bible quotes will be irrelevant to this discussion.

Bet me.

OK, we're talking about aspects of biology which the Biblical authors knew nothing at all about. I mean c'mon, they actually thought that if a pregnant cow saw a stick with stripes on it, they would give birth to striped calves. That ain't how it works.

There is a reason why most evolutionists are Christian, and most Christians are evolutionists, and don't forget that some of our leading evolutionary scientists are also members of Christian clergy.

Good for them - they'll be held accountable for what they teach, too.

Some of them have already won considerable accolades both from the scientific and religious communities. Since they know so much more than you do, evidently about both subjects, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge them. Doesn't your Bible say something about not making the sort of judgements you just made? And against fellow Christians no less!

Now, I'm still waiting for your answers to my initial questions: Do you understand and accept what I have explained to you in post # 11? Or do you not? And if not, why not?

I understand why people have different physical characteristics, yes.

• [bible]Acts 17:26[/bible]

Your Bible quote had nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. So I'll need to clarify this before we continue: You understand and accept everything I've told you so far, and have no questions about any of it yet, is that right? Answer with a yes or no, followed by any questions or contentions you may have. I want to move on to the next stage of this as quickly as possible, please.

 

[shinbits]

It is easy to picture how this feature came about. A snake, or the ancestor of modern snakes, was born with this feature of teeth tilted backwards. When the first individual or brood hatched out with this feature it would have looked like a birth defect. Nevertheless, it turned out to be a positive adaptation and it spread through the population.

This explanation is logical, but not backed up by any facts whatsoever. This is an "answer" which is purely made up.

Where did snakes come from? A lizard without legs starts to look a lot like a snake. It may not have happened all at once. A lizard may have hatched out with short, stumpy legs. When this creature did okay, the trend to shorter legs continued, combined with the development of slithering muscles.

again, no facts whatsoever, this is purely made up. There's no scientific process in this explanation.

 

[PacificPandeist]

The Jesus of the Bible didn't.

I assure you, my friend, that I have personally communed with the Jesus whose tale is shoddily recounted in the Bible, and my direct contact with the spirit of Jesus has educated me far more than the pages of that mistranslated, misinterpreted, and manipulated book.... a good book, yes, but the truth has so much more richness!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[Aron-Ra]

This explanation is logical, but not backed up by any facts whatsoever. This is an "answer" which is purely made up.
again, no facts whatsoever, this is purely made up. There's no scientific process in this explanation.

The way science works is that we take observations, like the similarities between snakes and other squamates (lizards) and compose explanations for them that are not only testable, but make predictions about future observations. In this case, after we proposed that snakes once had legs, we found considerable evidence to back that up. For example, some phythons still retain hind leg spurs and even a pelvis.

It would seem then that snakes lost thier front legs first while their hind legs, though greatly diminished remained a while longer. Proof of that came in the form of three Cretaceous fossils, Pachyrhachis problematicus, Eupodophis descouensi, and Haasiophis terrasanctus.

Each of these still retain most of their hind legs, complete with knees and even toes.

But the front limbs were gone completely, and the hind limbs were way too small to be useful for anything anymore, -except obviously for mating, which some snakes still keep vestigial leg spurs for.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible teaches that the Jews were the chosen race, and that the Medianites and the Canaanites (among many others) needed to be exterminated outright. Many races, and much racism.

The Jews are God's chosen "people". The word "race" is a bigoted concept.

The Midianites (from Abraham and Keturah) were wealthy Arabs who made their living by plundering.

The Canaanites were living in a country that did not belong to them, and rather than relinquish their territory to its owner, they fought tooth-and-nail and treated the Jews as invaders. Something they still do to this day.

Never and at no time were the Jews ever to pursue and exterminate a nation by virtue of the fact that they existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, we're talking about aspects of biology which the Biblical authors knew nothing at all about. I mean c'mon, they actually thought that if a pregnant cow saw a stick with stripes on it, they would give birth to striped calves. That ain't how it works.

You may have missed the 2 or 3 times I've posted this footnote to Genesis 30:38, from the Defender's Study Bible, so here it is again:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

Some of them have already won considerable accolades both from the scientific and religious communities. Since they know so much more than you do, evidently about both subjects, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge them. Doesn't your Bible say something about not making the sort of judgements you just made? And against fellow Christians no less!

All I said was that they'll be held accountable for what they teach. Now I get this paragraph, as if you thought I was condemning them. Don't you want to be held accountable for what you teach?

Your Bible quote had nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. So I'll need to clarify this before we continue: You understand and accept everything I've told you so far, and have no questions about any of it yet, is that right?

That is wrong. Especially where you attempt to inject racism into the Scriptures. And quite frankly, I found your use of pictures of little children as an attempt to show me some aspect of evolution disturbing.

Answer with a yes or no, followed by any questions or contentions you may have. I want to move on to the next stage of this as quickly as possible, please.

How did you get so racist?

 

[AV1611VET]

I assure you, my friend, that I have personally communed with the Jesus whose tale is shoddily recounted in the Bible, and my direct contact with the spirit of Jesus has educated me far more than the pages of that mistranslated, misinterpreted, and manipulated book.... a good book, yes, but the truth has so much more richness!!

No you haven't, either --- not my Jesus, anyway:

• [bible]Mark 13:21[/bible]
• [bible]1 John 4:1-3[/bible]
• [bible]2 John 1:9-10[/bible]

 

[Aron-Ra]

The Jews are God's chosen "people". The word "race" is a bigoted concept.

The word, "race" means nothing more than lineage. Whether Picts and Celts are the same race or not depends on how much of the human lineage you're looking at.

The Midianites (from Abraham and Keturah) were wealthy Arabs who made their living by plundering.

There is no excuse for what the Jews were permitted by God and ordered by Moses to do to them; the murder of whole families, genocide, vandalism, arson, and worst of all, the keeping of traumatized pre-teen slaves for implied sexual purposes.

The Canaanites were living in a country that did not belong to them, and rather than relinquish their territory to its owner, they fought tooth-and-nail and treated the Jews as invaders. Something they still do to this day.

According to the Bible, the Jews were invaders. God decided he liked one race better than another, and promised to clear the bad race out.

Never and at no time were the Jews ever to pursue and exterminate a nation by virtue of the fact that they existed.

There is no justification for the racism in the Bible, and this is not the thread to discuss it. Quit trying to change the subject, and get back on topic please, because I'm not going to talk about this subject anymore in this thread.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You may have missed the 2 or 3 times I've posted this footnote to Genesis 30:38, from the Defender's Study Bible, so here it is again:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

Sorry, but that's even sillier than the original version. Streaked rods as bull viagra?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You may have missed the 2 or 3 times I've posted this footnote to Genesis 30:38, from the Defender's Study Bible, so here it is again:

• These striped rods were not for the purpose of inducing some "pre-natal influence" on the animals. With his seventy years or more of practical experience with large flocks, Jacob knew better than that. Either the chemicals from the wood or the sight of the streaked rods must have served as an aphrodisiac for the animals, inducing them to mate as they came to the troughs. Jacob only used the rods with the stronger animals, so that the progeny would also be strong. Under usual conditions, this stratagem should have greatly benefited Laban's flocks.

If you have a study reflecting how these "chemicals from the wood" could have somehow been ingested by the cattle to produce any predictable effect in whether the calves had stripes or not, I'd like to see it. But until then, this is only a rationalization, and my point still stands. Besides, the Bible specifies the cattle must 'see' the stakes, not smell or eat them. There is no way that straked stakes could influence the color patterns on cattle.

All I said was that they'll be held accountable for what they teach. Now I get this paragraph, as if you thought I was condemning them. Don't you want to be held accountable for what you teach?

I already am. Its something I insure in myself.

Your Bible quote had nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. So I'll need to clarify this before we continue: You understand and accept everything I've told you so far, and have no questions about any of it yet, is that right?

That is wrong.

What is? Be specific.

Especially where you attempt to inject racism into the Scriptures.

I didn't "inject" it. Its there, and I just can't ignore it the way you can.

And quite frankly, I found your use of pictures of little children as an attempt to show me some aspect of evolution disturbing.

How could you possibly find that disturbing? Evolution is all about reproduction; embryology, neotony, evo devo, population genetics, and derived family traits. It is hardly possible to discuss evolution without discussing how genetic variation is reflected in children, or the offspring of whatever other species we may focus on.

Answer with a yes or no, followed by any questions or contentions you may have. I want to move on to the next stage of this as quickly as possible, please.

How did you get so racist?

I'm not of course, but you won't really understand why not until we get a bit further into this, if that ever happens. You won't be able to insult me. Your comment here is just an empty accusation and a sad attempt to change the subject. We have an awful lot to cover, and you're already squirming. If you didn't understand something I tried to explain, please read over post #11 again. Tell me what you have a problem with, and why. Please be specific. If you still don't get that, then we can't continue, and there is so much more you would need to know just to understand the basics. You will also have no means of objection until then either, and even young earth creationists almost universally accept everything I've told you so far. So what didn't you get? What do I need to explain again a different way? Seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

The word, "race" means nothing more than lineage. Whether Picts and Celts are the same race or not depends on how much of the human lineage you're looking at.

Oh, please, that's not even close. What about two different lineages within the same lineage? But for the sake of arguing, it looks like we're on the same page here. That is, everyone comes from a common ancestor.

There is no excuse for what the Jews were permitted by God and ordered by Moses to do to them; the murder of whole families, genocide, vandalism, arson, and worst of all, the keeping of traumatized pre-teen slaves for implied sexual purposes.

Why don't we just get off this train wreck, okay? Bring your Bible with you before debarking.

According to the Bible, the Jews were invaders.

You anti-Zionists are all alike --- but the Bible exposes you, and it's no wonder you don't like it.

God decided he liked one race better than another, and promised to clear the bad race out.

Riiiiight --- the Jews didn't even exist until Abraham. How could God have picked them over anyone?

There is no justification for the racism in the Bible, and this is not the thread to discuss it. Quit trying to change the subject, and get back on topic please, because I'm not going to talk about this subject anymore in this thread.

Are you willing to remove your little photo album from the thread, then? Or would you like further information from the Scriptures as to who belongs where?

 

[AV1611VET]

We have an awful lot to cover...

Like Helsinki, we do. The only think we need to cover is educating you on the Scriptures. I'm not in the least interested in your evolution garbage. You can keep your cute pictures, graphs, and statistics to yourself, as far as I'm concerned.

...and you're already squirming.

That'll be the day.

 

[Psudopod]

This stuff about accusing God of deception or lying because He did other than what your scientific paradigms predict He did is starting to wear thin.

No one is accusing God of lying. What people are pointing out is that if God created exactly as literally laid out in the bible, then he must have altered his creation to make it seem as if he created it a different way.

For example: If the universe is ~6000 years old, and matured with embedded age, then we should see history beinnging at 6000 years. There should be evidence of anything happening before this point, as obviously nothing was there. However, we do so things. We see older cultures, we see gelogical events like earthquakes, impact craters etc. We see supernova reminants. Why, if nothing was there before six thousand years, would God put the carcuss of a star in the sky that died millions of years before start of everything?

If you want to show us that there is nothing prior to 6000 years and we're all mistaken, then you've got to refute an awful lot of science. Don't forget that this science is used day in day out. It produces results. It's not a perfect process, there are mistakes, but it works to discover and correct them and once you cna use that knowledge in real life applications, its a fairly good sign you're on the right track.

I know I've said this before, but I don't think I've ever had an answer from you on it:
Creating a 6000 year old universe with 13.7 billion years of history is like creating Adam on day one as a 20 year old man, but with not only a navel, but an appedictomy scar, a trick knee from a riding accident that never happened and a dislike of shellfish because he remebers them making him puke when he was three, evn though he's never eaten them!

 

[Aron-Ra]

The word, "race" means nothing more than lineage. Whether Picts and Celts are the same race or not depends on how much of the human lineage you're looking at.

Oh, please, that's not even close.

It is exactly correct.

What about two different lineages within the same lineage?

That's what Picts and Celts are.

But for the sake of arguing, it looks like we're on the same page here. That is, everyone comes from a common ancestor.

Then why did you say I wasn't even close?

Bring your Bible with you before debarking.

You're not making sense.

According to the Bible, the Jews were invaders.

You anti-Zionists are all alike ---

As if that's not a bigoted statement!

but the Bible exposes you, and it's no wonder you don't like it.

I'm not an "anti-zionist", nor am I zionist. I am indifferent to zionism. Your labels are irrelevent to me.

God decided he liked one race better than another, and promised to clear the bad race out.

Riiiiight --- the Jews didn't even exist until Abraham. How could God have picked them over anyone?

I was talking about the time of the exodus when God promised to evict the Canaanites from land he promised to the Jews under Moses.

There is no justification for the racism in the Bible, and this is not the thread to discuss it. Quit trying to change the subject, and get back on topic please, because I'm not going to talk about this subject anymore in this thread.

Are you willing to remove your little photo album from the thread, then? Or would you like further information from the Scriptures as to who belongs where?

What the hell are you talking about now?