Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer

What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: darwin; epigenetics; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; lamarck; lysenko; naturalselection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-871 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; metmom

ping


2 posted on 03/19/2010 4:59:52 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“You shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them, for I am Hashem, your G-d - a jealous G-d, Who visits the sin of the fathers upon children to the third and fourth generations, for My enemies”

- Exodus, 20:5


3 posted on 03/19/2010 5:09:59 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Call the local offices of Congresscritters. They are still answering the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; metmom
Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress-inducing henhouse, say, or overeating in northern Sweden – can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable."

Hmmm...

4 posted on 03/19/2010 5:13:28 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Help me out here. My one and only daughter was born when I was 26 years old and in svelte, trim and fit condition. The genetics I passed on to her were the best they could ever be.

In subsequent years I kind-of let down my guard, hit the smorgasbord a little too often, worked in a fairly high pressure business and never got more than 6 hours sleep a night in the last 50 years. Possible detrimental influences on my genes.

Please tell me in what way that will affect my grandchildren.
Thanks


5 posted on 03/19/2010 5:20:07 PM PDT by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; SunkenCiv; Slings and Arrows

Will these twinkies make my daughter’s butt look big?


6 posted on 03/19/2010 5:20:19 PM PDT by fanfan (Why did they bury Barry's past?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Hey! Quit being logical!!!!


7 posted on 03/19/2010 5:30:21 PM PDT by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

“Who visits the sin of the fathers upon children to the third and fourth generations, for My enemies”

Yup, you over-eat and gorge yourself, you wind up with kids that have heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc and die young - to the third and fourth generations.

And that btw is not intended to be a put down to your post. I agree with you, and I believe that even as God was in control in those times, he is now. The sun did stand still (the earth stopped rotating) and that day was lost. And so on. The whole point of evolutionary argument is to ‘prove’ that there is no God.


8 posted on 03/19/2010 5:30:45 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
There are those that believe that beside disease/bugs you catch from another via casual contact, you also are subjected to a dose of their DNA.

Think of it like a process not unlike a dog sniffin a newcomer mutt's tailwind.

There is much to be said to this thinking that has yet to be written but suffice it is to say, highly plausible.

It explains many things from “group think” to collapse walled off societies.

9 posted on 03/19/2010 5:37:52 PM PDT by winoneforthegipper ("If you can't ride two horses at once, you probably shouldn't be in the circus" - SP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Don’t ask me this yet; I’m still trying to figure out the article... ???


10 posted on 03/19/2010 5:47:55 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

This is not new only ignored. There has been evidence for lamarkian processes in evolution for the past 20 years or more. Evolution has faced the same kind of leftist narrow often idiotic interpretation that we see coming out of environmental and social sciences. We live in generation where the information is everywhere and few comprehend the significance of anything.


11 posted on 03/19/2010 5:55:43 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Confiscation of wealth with out explicit consent is not charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Wow, that article was almost as long as a pre-trib rapture piece.


12 posted on 03/19/2010 5:58:49 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The Swedish chicken study was one of several recent breakthroughs in the youthful field of epigenetics, which primarily studies the epigenome, the protective package of proteins around which genetic material – strands of DNA – is wrapped. The epigenome plays a crucial role in determining which genes actually express themselves in a creature's traits: in effect, it switches certain genes on or off, or turns them up or down in intensity. It isn't news that the environment can alter the epigenome; what's news is that those changes can be inherited. And this doesn't, of course, apply only to chickens: some of the most striking findings come from research involving humans.

This can explain why certain households in this country have generational problems even with the best intentions fail to correct.

Very interesting theory

13 posted on 03/19/2010 5:59:53 PM PDT by Popman (Balsa wood: Obama Presidential timber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celmak; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
What if Darwin's theory of evolution – or, at least, Darwin's theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it – is, in crucial respects, not entirely accurate?

Such talk, naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage, or, in the case of Richard Dawkins, into even more of a rage than usual. They have a point: nobody wants to provide ammunition to the proponents of creationism or "intelligent design", and it's true that few of the studies now coming to public prominence are all that revolutionary to the experts.

But, but, but,.... what about consensus? And peer review?

14 posted on 03/19/2010 6:39:03 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: celmak

I recall hearing recently, in the last couple years, that if a woman smokes during her pregnancy, that her grandchildren, who had never been exposed to the cigarette smoke directly, stood a greater than average chance of developing asthma.

My m-i-l, who is not a Christian or creationist, was concerned about this and felt bad thinking that something she did may have contributed to the potential for asthma in our kids.


15 posted on 03/19/2010 6:41:46 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

If you read the article and understand about passing things on genetically, you’d realize that they’re talking about children conceived after the stress.

How would your daughter, who was conceived and born when you weren’t under stress, pass on possible genetic problems that occurred to you after her birth?


16 posted on 03/19/2010 6:44:07 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
In subsequent years I kind-of let down my guard, hit the smorgasbord a little too often, worked in a fairly high pressure business and never got more than 6 hours sleep a night in the last 50 years. Possible detrimental influences on my genes. Please tell me in what way that will affect my grandchildren.

They might hate being around you.... ;-)

17 posted on 03/19/2010 6:44:12 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: celmak; WKB; greyfoxx39; Sopater
The Swedish chicken study was one of several recent breakthroughs in the youthful field of epigenetics, which primarily studies the epigenome, the protective package of proteins around which genetic material – strands of DNA – is wrapped. The epigenome plays a crucial role in determining which genes actually express themselves in a creature's traits: in effect, it switches certain genes on or off, or turns them up or down in intensity. It isn't news that the environment can alter the epigenome; what's news is that those changes can be inherited. And this doesn't, of course, apply only to chickens: some of the most striking findings come from research involving humans.

What's interesting, is that in light of how environment can affect genes to generations down the road, much of what God instituted in the Law, begins to make a lot more sense. As do the continual references to curses being passed down to the third and fourth generations.

18 posted on 03/19/2010 6:52:36 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: celmak; 2Jedismom; 6amgelsmama; AAABEST; aberaussie; adopt4Christ; Aggie Mama; agrace; ...
But Lamarck was scorned for a much more general apparent mistake: the idea that lifestyle might be able to influence heredity. "Today," notes David Shenk, "any high school student knows that genes are passed on unchanged from parent to child, and to the next generation and the next. Lifestyle cannot alter heredity. Except now it turns out that it can . . ."

Time to rewrite the biology textbooks.

19 posted on 03/19/2010 6:57:24 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate?

What if evolution is a bunch of brain-dead BS....

20 posted on 03/19/2010 7:19:05 PM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

Lol!


21 posted on 03/19/2010 7:19:22 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (Proverbs 18:2 A fool has no delight in understanding but in expressing his own heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fanfan; neverdem; LibWhacker; NormsRevenge; chessplayer; decimon; fightinJAG; FReepaholic; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks fanfan! First topic of next week's Digest. ;') The reader comments in the Guardian article are a hoot! Not pinging, just adding the keyword, because there's been so much about epigenetics in the past, even in the recent past, about half of it worth a look. ;')

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


22 posted on 03/19/2010 7:35:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://themagicnegro.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Interesting. Will read it all later!


23 posted on 03/19/2010 7:47:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Time to rewrite the biology textbooks."

Again? How many times do we have to do this? Won't the theory of Evolution ever get it right? Seems like it changes about 10 times a year! Has the Bible ever changed?

.

24 posted on 03/19/2010 8:09:24 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
It sounds like two scholars debating over a point in the Talmud. And about as useful.
25 posted on 03/19/2010 9:02:05 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks SunkenCiv


26 posted on 03/19/2010 9:18:43 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metmom

LOLOL!


27 posted on 03/19/2010 9:47:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The Guardian
28 posted on 03/19/2010 10:16:35 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Has the Bible ever changed?

Yes, certainly.

It started with a few books, several thousand years ago, and kept changing, book by book, until a bunch of people got together and declared it was finished and done changing.

And then later on, another bunch of people got together and declared the earlier bunch of people didn't have it quite right, and they removed some bits the earlier bunch of people had included.

Or didn't you know this?

It took many centuries from its earliest writings for the Bible to be finalized in its current form. Forms, actually, since Jews, Catholics, Protestants (and also Mormons) all disagree on which books are included. By comparison, the theory of evolution only originated around 150 years ago. So it's had much less time to assume its final form than the Bible has had to assume its final forms.

29 posted on 03/19/2010 11:40:49 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom

//what about consensus? And peer review?//

Oh those tools still have their place for the evolutionists. “Science” is just a cover with them you know.


30 posted on 03/20/2010 2:24:49 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

If you die early you’ll not influence them at all. ;-]


31 posted on 03/20/2010 5:30:41 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield; metmom
” Yes, certainly.” And, ”Or didn't you know this?”

Let me be more specific. I realize that the whole Bible added books and subtracted books to what we have today, there were times when men decided which books were inspired and which were not. So let me be more specific; did they ever change the meaning of any individual book (or chapter, verse, or sentence for that matter)? I am not asking about trivial translations either; i.e., the translation from the original Hebrew or Greek, such as the difference between “thee” and “thou.” And I am not asking about a simple sentence change, such as, “As Jesus started on His way…,” vs., “And as He was setting out on the journey…;” THE MEANING IS THE SAME. I am asking if there has been any changes in the meaning of any book of the Bible.

As to the Old Testament books; has the meaning of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and all through Malachi changed? And for those who have the not divinely inspired books (Apocrypha); i.e., the books of Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, etc, has their meaning been changed? Has the content of the books of the New Testament; i.e., Mathew through Revelation, been changed? If any meaning of these books has changed, what meaning changed?

32 posted on 03/20/2010 9:32:56 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: celmak; john in springfield

The *changes* that are asserted that the Bible has undergone, are changes in our understanding of some things. The original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic documents have not changed, even though our understanding of the languages has improved and allowed for more accurate translations.

Improving a translation is not *changing* the meaning of the Scripture and is not *changing* the original documents.

The kinds of *changes* that people like to try to tear down the veracity of Scripture with are insignificant to the kinds of changes anything scientific has undergone.

Scientific theories generally go and have gone major revisions, even to the point of being scrapped. The Genesis account in the Bible has been the same for thousands of years.


33 posted on 03/20/2010 12:14:11 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: celmak
So let me be more specific; did they ever change the meaning of any individual book (or chapter, verse, or sentence for that matter)?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

If you're asking whether the TEXT has been changed, the answer to that is: little if any. The scribes who copied the manuscripts over the centuries were as careful as human beings could possibly be. From all I've seen, there were extremely few transcription errors over the centuries, and of those extremely few transcription errors, only a minuscule portion of those would have any bearing on actual meaning.

However, meaning has been "changed" and sometimes lost in the sense that modern people often do not understand the scriptures in quite the same way they were understood by their original recipients. This is inevitable because of the distances in time, culture and language between the original audience and the audiences of today. One only needs to look at the large number of denominations that disagree on various points of doctrine to realize that most people must misunderstand something about the Bible.

But the question itself isn't very meaningful. It's like asking whether the text of Darwin's Origin of Species has changed over the last 150 years. No, it hasn't. But our understanding of evolution has changed over time. So has our understanding of God. A more meaningful comparison would be to say that our understanding of the development of life is changing over time, just as we've gone through changes in our understanding of theology and the world - including some major revolutions such as the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance, and so forth.

34 posted on 03/20/2010 12:43:32 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The *changes* that are asserted that the Bible has undergone, are changes in our understanding of some things. The original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic documents have not changed, even though our understanding of the languages has improved and allowed for more accurate translations.

Yep.

Scientific theories generally go and have gone major revisions, even to the point of being scrapped. The Genesis account in the Bible has been the same for thousands of years.

True. However, the Bible was not intended to be a detailed scientific analysis of scientific processes. And, our understanding of that account has changed, at least for many of us.

Many of us now understand that account in a less literal, more allegorical way. Which, actually, I'm not sure isn't the way it was originally understood in the first place. People in the Middle East, to this day, do not necessarily speak quite as literally as we do in the west. It was and is a different culture from the European one we inherited.

It's not hard to imagine someone in the middle east threatening to swoop down on you with an army of ten million men, when what he really means is that whatever size army he does have, he's going to hit you with as hard as he can.

35 posted on 03/20/2010 12:50:54 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
In subsequent years I kind-of let down my guard, hit the smorgasbord a little too often, worked in a fairly high pressure business and never got more than 6 hours sleep a night in the last 50 years. Possible detrimental influences on my genes.

Please tell me in what way that will affect my grandchildren.

The point of the article was not that changes in your body after giving birth would have any effect on your descendants.

The point was that changes in your body after you were born, but BEFORE giving birth, can affect your descendants.

36 posted on 03/20/2010 12:53:07 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

.


37 posted on 03/20/2010 1:03:27 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield; celmak

The Bible is adequate to explain things, even those scientific in nature.

Evos tend to be among the worst Bible literalists going, because demanding THEIR own strict, unbending, unrealistic interpretation of Genesis is the only way they can attempt to discredit it, so they either demand their interpretation, or a completely allegorical one. They leave on room for anything else because it’s simply not useful to them for writing God out of the equation.

************************************************************

The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

The creation of time.

“Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: “There is evening and morning, Day One.” But the second day doesn’t say “evening and morning, Day Two.” Rather, it says “evening and morning, a second day.” And the Torah continues with this pattern: “Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day.” Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not “first day,” but “Day One” (”Yom Echad”). Many English translations make the mistake of writing “a first day.” That’s because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between “one” and “first.” One is absolute; first is comparative.

Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That’s a phenomenal insight. Time was created. You can’t grab time. You don’t even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah’s use of the phrase, “Day One.” And that’s exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself. “

************************************************************

That does not mean, however, that even if there is an allegorical component to the creation account, that it is also not literal and true. The Bible contains a lot that has both meanings. God did create life and there is NO indication that He used evolution to do it. Scripture is clear that He used the *dust of the earth* to create mammals and mankind in separate acts of creation and that He created birds and fish in separate acts of creation.

Simply because the Bible does not mention the specific mechanism He used, does not give scientists liberty to conclude that He used their preferred method.

I find it amusing to see evos who regularly try to discredit the Bible, then try to appeal to it to win over creationists and other religious folks to the TOE by claiming that God used evolution, when the Bible itself makes no such claim.


38 posted on 03/20/2010 3:25:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield; celmak

Nothing like changing the subject because the TOE and scientific credibility (rapidly becoming an oxymoron) is taking a beating.......


39 posted on 03/20/2010 3:33:32 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield; metmom
"It's like asking whether the text of Darwin's Origin of Species has changed over the last 150 years. No, it hasn't. But our understanding of evolution has changed over time. So has our understanding of God."

So in comparison to Darwin’s book on his theory, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"; would you say that the same kind of textual changes that would have to be made in Darwin’s book to meet the understanding we have today of his theory would have to be made in the Bible to meet our understanding of God?

In other words; Darwin’s book would go through a radical change to meet our understanding of evolution; do you think the Bible needs to go through the same change to meet today’s understanding of God?

40 posted on 03/20/2010 3:38:18 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Hee, hee, hee...

;)

41 posted on 03/20/2010 3:39:06 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Look, you asked a question: “Has the Bible ever changed?” I replied, quite accurately, that yes, it quite certainly had. I even pointed out HOW it had changed; none of which has been disputed - nor CAN it be disputed, since it’s acknowledged as fact by Christians, non-Christians, anyone who’s familiar with the history.

I still don’t really know what your point was, although I suspect it’s the typical fallacy that seems to be pushed a lot. Every time we find that some aspect of our understanding of evolution has been a bit too simplistic (in this case it was simply the assumption that genetic nature is fixed at birth rather than somewhat flexible with genetic changes gained during life passable to succeeding generations), a bunch of people jump up and say, “SEE! SEE! THAT MEANS THE WHOLE THING IS FALSE!”

But it means no such thing. Scientists (and the general population) are not abandoning evolution. Over time, even as our understanding of the process becomes more complex, the opposite is happening.

It’s pretty silly, really. It’s kind of like standing up and proclaiming “Henry Ford was WRONG! The Wright brothers were WRONG!” simply because we now have better automobiles than the much more rudimentary versions they produced.


42 posted on 03/20/2010 4:52:12 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Darwin’s book would go through a radical change to meet our understanding of evolution; do you think the Bible needs to go through the same change to meet today’s understanding of God?

And incidentally, the Bible already HAS gone through EXTREMELY radical changes to create your current understanding of God!

If we start with the first books, they were written... when? At least around 1500 BC?

Books were continually written and started to be accepted as "scripture" over the next 1500 years.

No sooner did the Jews start to decide exactly which books were in the official Bible and which were out, than along comes an entire new movement which RADICALLY departed from the prevailing understanding of God. All of a sudden God wasn't just the holy and transcendent Creator God, he was also (and more primarily) a Father who was prepared to sacrifice His Son for the sins of mankind.

This was such a radical change that it didn't just modify Judaism, it created an entire new major world religion.

I think your point was along the lines of "Darwin didn't get it right, but the Bible has always been right and hasn't had to be changed."

Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Our understanding of God, even the basic form of todays Bible, has taken, at a bare MINIMUM, at least 1,500 years of thought, debate and councils to take shape. Our understanding of evolution has only been in play for 1/10th of that amount of time.

43 posted on 03/20/2010 5:26:47 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
"Will these twinkies make my daughter’s butt look big?"

Hopefully.

44 posted on 03/20/2010 9:46:51 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Nothing like changing the subject because the TOE and scientific credibility (rapidly becoming an oxymoron) is taking a beating.......

I didn't change the subject; celmak did (from an article pointing out a refinement in our understanding of the processes by which evolution happens), by asking the question "Has the Bible changed?" Presumably his point was that the Bible, and our understanding of God, has not gone through the same kind of process as our understanding of evolution.

But this idea is entirely not true, and I explained why. That's all.

45 posted on 03/20/2010 9:51:53 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Its always a laugh to see someone that considers themself a scientist acting as though they really believe that evolution could have happened.

Or is it just the goofy writers?


46 posted on 03/20/2010 9:58:41 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield; metmom
”And incidentally, the Bible already HAS gone through EXTREMELY radical changes to create your current understanding of God! “

There have been books added since the book of Genesis (which is over 2000 years old at the least), yes; but the following books, have they been consistent with what Genesis states about God? Or have they contradicted, or found inaccurate, what Genesis states? Please give an example of any part of the text of the book of Genesis in the Bible that is different from our understanding of God today.

And how does Darwin’s theory in “On the Origin of Species” do as to consistency with new findings? Do you think that new findings in evolution compliment or contradict, or even find Darwin to be inaccurate? There have been books on the theory of evolution since “On the Origin of Species”, yes; but have these books been consistent with what “On the Origin of Species”states about evolution? Or have they contradicted, or found inaccurate, what Darwin wrote?

”All of a sudden God wasn't just the holy and transcendent Creator God, he was also (and more primarily) a Father who was prepared to sacrifice His Son for the sins of mankind.”

I see a compliment here, where is the contradiction?

”Our understanding of God, even the basic form of todays Bible, has taken, at a bare MINIMUM, at least 1,500 years of thought, debate and councils to take shape. Our understanding of evolution has only been in play for 1/10th of that amount of time.”

Do you equate the changes of our understanding of God with what has been written in the text? I see a difference between understanding and what has been written. Our understanding is nothing more than what we see at our vantage point, this can be different from person to person; but the text of Genesis has not changed over the 2000 years to say that God is any different from the God of the rest of the books in the Bible, or vice versa. Can you say that “in 1/10 of the time” the writings of the theory of evolution are no different from the theory of evolution’s genensis in the text of “On the Origin of Species?”

“Scientists (and the general population) are not abandoning evolution. Over time, even as our understanding of the process becomes more complex, the opposite is happening.”

I believe your right about the opposite is happening, but could it be because more and more scientist are trying to come up with a new theory to combat the vacuous holes in the theory of evolution?

47 posted on 03/21/2010 1:27:05 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: celmak

When the enlightenment comes you will understand it isn’t time that moves back. I have 10,000 year old coins in my possession that reminds me. What moves back is still a mystery to me but it happens. I am not at liberty.


48 posted on 03/21/2010 1:35:01 AM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: celmak
There have been books added since the book of Genesis (which is over 2000 years old at the least), yes; but the following books, have they been consistent with what Genesis states about God? Or have they contradicted, or found inaccurate, what Genesis states? Please give an example of any part of the text of the book of Genesis in the Bible that is different from our understanding of God today.

This isn't specific to Genesis, but the entire New Testament radically modifies not only people's understanding of the Old Testament, but people's understanding of God. People are "no longer under the Law."

And yes, this is understood as a modification of the way people relate to God, and not a contradiction. I get that.

But new discoveries in the field of evolution are also a modification of our understanding of the original basic concept.

Incidentally, the New Testament itself outlines how radically different Jesus' teaching was from what the Jewish people (and their leaders) were expecting. Why do you think they railroaded him and handed him over to be crucified?

There are also a couple other problems here.

1) There were many ancient stories of origins that could've been incorporated into the Bible, and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the canon. It is therefore no surprise that the Bible is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.

If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.

2) While Darwin's theory is actually falsifiable (which also means that it is subject to the scientific method), the book of Genesis is NOT falsifiable. Darwin's theory can be TESTED. The book of Genesis CAN'T.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the Genesis account (however you interpret it) is either untrue or inaccurate. But it does mean that it is simply not subject to any known scientific-type test of its proof.

Or, to put it another way: Genesis talks about WHO did something. Evolution talks about HOW a natural process happens over time.

One can be tested. The other can't.

Again, I'm not alleging contradiction between the old and new testaments. But the New Testament CERTAINLY MODIFIED people's understanding of God.

I believe your right about the opposite is happening, but could it be because more and more scientist are trying to come up with a new theory to combat the vacuous holes in the theory of evolution?

Given that Darwin's basic idea continues to gain acceptance, I think you're incorrect about their being "vacuous holes." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're incorrect.

49 posted on 03/21/2010 1:58:27 AM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: celmak
If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.

Sorry. I should've underlined that rather than italicizing. By italicizing it looked like a quote. I meant to emphasize.

50 posted on 03/21/2010 2:01:44 AM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-871 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson