Original Sin - Injustices - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Badsidhe	Veggie or no veggie	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3171 05/04/08 16:23:55	Howdy, NannyG123... From reading your comments about my post, I'm not sure you understood my meaning and intent. I will help by explaining to the best of my ability and by responding to your questions and points. First... The reason I'm pulling this in as a ''quote'' is that I don't want you to be able to delete it later. OK. I've never deleted anything before. But there is no way you could know that. My curiosity over this event brings two questions: a) why do you believe I would want to delete this post, and b) why would you seek to prevent me if that was my desire? So, let me got it straight, you don't believe in evolution? You got it straight. I don't believe in evolution. It seems a very reasonable idea. It starts with an observable fact: organisms tend to vary slightly from their progenitors. The implications of this seem very straighforward. You describe some of these in your post, so I will assume you are already familiar with the idea. But to answer your question: I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe in gravity. If you think that "believe" is the correct word to use to describe my observation of these events, then that is fine, but I think it likely (from personal experience) that you will introduce some personal bias based on your own definition of "believe" that simply does not accurately describe my point of view on evolution or gravity. They are just good ideas that describe observable phenomena. I don't owe them any allegiance. I have no emotional attachment to them. I will expand on this idea if it is important to you. You think all life today is EXACTLY like how it was at the Creation? No. There are physical representations of forms of life found in geographic strata that resemble life found today, but overall the reasonable story given by observable phenomena is that life changes over time. It is readily apparent that I am not EXACTLY like my father. Further, I don't claim to know what, where, or if of this "Creation" with a capital "C". If you are (likely) speaking in Biblical terms, then you should know that I value making reasonable assessments about the nature of reality by looking at the whole of reality itself, not just at the limiting contents of one book. That, by reason, seems a severe limitation to me on the ability to gather evidence and formulate ideas. You're more anti-science than the Catholic Church! I doubt that. Although Pope JPII did seem more open to the idea of science, Pope Benny seems to have taken a step back. Or maybe I have the two confused. In any case, the Catholic Church seems way more open to science than most Protestantism here in the USA. I recently was informed -many times- that the Catholic Church has no problem with the mechanics of Darwinism in terms of the incremental changes over time......they only oppose it as a 1st cause of life itself. There is nothing to oppose. Darwinism says nothing about the "1st cause" of life itself. If you have not been informed about this before, now you have something else to add to your list. The next time you are speaking to a Catholic and they bring up this objection, you now have the information to correct their mis-statement. Before even a 1st DNA change.....basically before and REAL evolution..... Before even one DNA change? So the very same exact organism? Do you understand that except in the case of clones, the DNA of the parent lizard is different than the DNA of the offspring lizard? Also, I am unsure of what you mean by "REAL" evolution. Can you expand on this? these transplanted lizards (moved from a neighboring island, Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, had made two visible evolutionary changes! No doubt! Except -again- in the case of clones, there are observable differences between the parent and offspring. So, all lizards used to eat plants and therefore had the genetic ability to revert to these previous adaptations (which goes back to the Garden of Eden) without any DNA change. That is quite a conclusion! Please reread the very last paragraph of the post you quoted from me. How did you conclude that since these lizards were able to adapt to eating plants, that therefore all lizards used to eat plants? Is this the norm for your logical conclusions? Do you believe that since some lizards do not have legs, that therefore all lizards used to not have legs? Why didn't you conclude that since some animals eat meat today, that therefore all animals used to eat meat? I don't understand the stream of logic you are using here. Can you explain this a little better for me? Also, again you say "without any DNA change". It is pretty well established that the DNA in offspring differs from the DNA in parents (excluding the aforementioned clones). What is your understanding of this observation? Oh, yeah, and only 1% of all lizards have these adaptations because MOST lizards eat meat....nowadays.....since the Flood. Obviously, due to your observations of the "Pod Mrcaru" lizard story, you understand that lizards can adapt to eat vegetation in less than 36 years. Since it is easier to hunt down and capture plants than it is other animals, why do believe that only 1% of all lizards have adapted to eat vegetation in the past 6000 (or so, few agree on the "Flood" timing) years, when this scrappy little lizard did it in less than 36? But, since you're not a believer in evolution, you reject all of this, along with other adaptation, geographic isolation, more breeding by the ''fittest'' who live the longest, thereby getting more mating opportunities. More information for you to adopt for the future (in case you were not already aware): "fittest", while technically accurate, is misused and abused. There are cases where sexual selection is based on otherwise non-useful physical structures. A stronger, faster bird may in fact escape from predation, only to be ignored by a female bird choosing a "prettier" male. So, you're retrograde......but.....brilliant.....according to your sycophants. I keep my elephants healthy. Did you really need to end your post by attacking somebody else personally? Certainly you realize that "sycophant" has negative connotation? Perhaps you have some personal history with them, but as you have none with me yet, can we keep things as civil between me and you as long as is possible? I don't want to be called anything negative by you, as it may bias you to judge me by the character you choose to perceive, and not by the usefulness of my ideas. Abviously, the post that you are responding to (my post on Wonder Veggies) was not in entirely serious terms. I thought "up to 70mph in order to get to the salad bar before the gazelles ate all of the choice broccoli" was a dead-giveaway. I honestly don't believe you took me seriously, although your response was coy in that regard. Even though I was not entirely serious, I nonetheless provided serious ideas, some of which addressed common Creationist claims. I'm sure you recognized them. Do you wish to respond to those ideas? Do you need me to elaborate on them? I don't think your lizard observations really had much to do with the meat of my post, but they are interesting, and I thank you for them. If you are willing, as an act of good faith, can you tell me in your own words what the actual ideas I was presenting are? Are you willing to engage in real dialogue with me, or have I blown it with my attempt at humor?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 457 05/04/08 16:46:31	Badsidhe wrote: Howdy, NannyG123... If you are willing, as an act of good faith, can you tell me in your own words what the actual ideas I was presenting are? Are you willing to engage in real dialogue with me, or have I blown it with my attempt at humor? Thanks for admitting it was just over the top humor. Unfortunately, in internet time, mine is going to be very limited during this next week, as I have out-of-town guests. But, if you will forgive the delay of a week, I'd be more than happy to get back to you later. Thanks again.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
corwin17		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1783 05/04/08 20:04:50	A stronger, faster bird may in fact escape from predation, only to be ignored by a female bird choosing a "prettier" male. THAT BITCH!! [lurk] "Ah! Arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient of you." -- Londo Mollari "Put your face in the book." -- G'kar If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll do it for you! ;) We now return you to your regularly scheduled dementia.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Drcal	Is it evolution or not?	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1190 05/05/08 12:09:08	The reviews of this article on the internet are a bit confusing because they do not clearly state what "genetically identical" really means. This is what the original article, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, says about "genetically identical." "Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrcaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population." Thus, it is in mitochondrial DNA, not in chromosomal DNA, that the two populations of lizards were seen do be indistinguishable. The conclusion to be drawn from this bit of evidence is only that the population on the second island originated from the population on the first island. Mitochondrial DNA is quite conservative and changes very slowly, despite rapid changes that may be occurring simultaneously in chromosomal DNA. Now does this rapid change in body structure and food choice really indicate evolution? Despite the fact that the authors continually use the term evolution to describe what they have observed, they have not definitively established that as the case. It is known that some individual birds change their gut length and complexity in a matter of days when they switch from a fruit diet to an insect diet, so dramatic changes in morphology can occur quickly in some animals, without of course any genetic changes. Although it is quite likely that the changes observed in these lizards are indeed evolutionary, the authors still felt it necessary to issue this warning in their paper. "Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed." Thus, without a genetic analysis of the genes involved in these changes in body structure and food choice, one cannot definitively establish that such changes are evolutionary rather than just phenotypic plasticity. Last Edited By: Drcal 05/05/08 19:12:32. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 460 05/05/08 12:20:45	Drcal wrote: The reviews of this article on the internet are a bit confusing because they do not clearly state what "genetically identical" really means. This is what the original article, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America, says about "genetically identical." "Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrcaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population." Thus, it is in mitochondrial DNA, not in chromosomal DNA, that the two populations of lizards were seen do be indistinguishable. The conclusion to be drawn from this bit of evidence is only that the population on the second island originated from the population on the first island. Mitochondrial DNA is quite conservative and changes very slowly, despite rapid changes that may be occurring simultaneously in chromosomal DNA. Now does this rapid change in body structure and food choice really indicate evolution? Despite the fact that the authors continually use the term evolution to describe what they have observed, they have not definitively established that as the case. It is known that some individual birds change their gut length and complexity in a matter of days when they switch from a fruit diet to an insect diet, so dramatic changes in morphology can occur quickly in some animals, without of course any genetic changes. Although it is quite likely that the changes observed in these lizards are indeed evolutionary, the authors still felt it necessary to issue this warning in their paper. "Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed." Thus, without a genetic analysis of the genes involved in these changes in body structure and food choice, one cannot definitively establish that such changes are evolutionary rather than just phenotypic plasticity. You are making my point. Basically, all animals could have been eating vegetation before the Flood of Noah's day then some, switched to eating meats afterward. AND it could have taken place within one generation. Thanks for discussing this. I haven't had much time for more than hit-and-run posting.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
jeff		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2332 05/05/08 21:19:42	Basically, all animals could have been eating vegetation before the Flood of Noah's day then some, switched to eating meats afterward. AND it could have taken place within one generation. this sounds easily testable to me. all one would have to do is take a group of herbivores (like cows, say) and put them on a diet of meat. they should quickly adopt this phenotypic plasticity, and you'd have carnivorous cows within a generation, right? on another note, why do you pick the flood as the point of time for this change and not the fall? gen. 4 says that abel was a 'keeper of sheep' - why keep sheep if you're not going to eat them and they have no natural enemies?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 462 05/06/08 07:16:59	jeff wrote: Basically, all animals could have been eating vegetation before the Flood of Noah's day then some, switched to eating meats afterward. AND it could have taken place within one generation. this sounds easily testable to me. all one would have to do is take a group of herbivores (like cows, say) and put them on a diet of meat. they should quickly adopt this phenotypic plasticity, and you'd have carnivorous cows within a generation, right? on another note, why do you pick the flood as the point of time for this change and not the fall? gen. 4 says that abel was a 'keeper of sheep' - why keep sheep if you're not going to eat them and they have no natural enemies? Your first idea is backwards, jeff, God never turned cows into meat eaters, ever......and you know that. As to Abel, the first thing God did after he ordered the first pair out of the Garden of Eden was to make them their first clothes.....fashioned from animal skins....see Gen 4:21. So, think of the need for coverings from clothes to blankets and you might understand that Abel was the first one to ''keep'' animals for that purpose.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	More uses for sheep	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3178 05/06/08 08:25:42	jeff, don't forget that God loves the smell of burning animal flesh. Having a ready stock of sacrifices seems a good idea. Your first idea is backwards, jeff, God never turned cows into meat eaters, ever......and you know that. Yeah jeff, the cows decided to be turned into meat eaters on their own: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSSP25712220070307
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 464 05/06/08 17:31:23	Badsidhe wrote: jeff, don't forget that God loves the smell of burning animal flesh. Having a ready stock of sacrifices seems a good idea. Your first idea is backwards, jeff, God never turned cows into meat eaters, ever......and you know that. Yeah jeff, the cows decided to be turned into meat eaters on their own: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSSP25712220070307 When we started creating cattle feed as cheaply as we could we added animal protein to it, the parts we couldn't sell to humans for food. Basically, cattle will eat protein from any source, and, if they are fed poorly enough, they will try to get that needed protein any way they can before starving to death.. As to that one animal which killed chickens, wow! (But was it documented, or could a human have stolen the chickens and simply tried to shift the blame to the cow?) As to the rest of cattle kept by men, we got a new disease as a result of our cheap animal protein going into cows' feed......BSE, commonly called mad cow disease. You simply cannot grind up sheep's brains and feed them to cattle forever without some bad effect when scrapie (the same disease as BSE only in sheep) is so common in sheep. Do you eat hamburger? 1 pound of hamburger can include the flesh of as many as 300 old dairy cows. All my beef comes from Australia and is grass fed, never feed lot fattened, never commercial feed at all.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Eat more chikin	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3181 05/06/08 20:10:11	As to that one animal which killed chickens, wow! (But was it documented, or could a human have stolen the chickens and simply tried to shift the blame to the cow?) It is important to always be skeptical about what you read, especially when what you read doesn't comport with what you observe in the world around you. Strangely, some people are skeptical about cows eating chickens, but are not skeptical about such things as "virgin births", "resurrection from death", "all animals being vegetarians", or "the Creator of the universe approves of eternal torture". Odd, it seems. Here is a video of a cow eating a chick. Basically, cattle will eat protein from any source, and, if they are fed poorly enough, they will try to get that needed protein any way they can before starving to death.. Imagine, if you will, a cow eating another animal to get those nutrients. Now imagine a lion, designed to capture, consume, and digest another animal, but not well designed to consume and digest plant material. Is it even slightly possible that perhaps even the "first" lions strayed from their God-mandated prohibition against eating other animals? After all, although the Bible may say green herb is provided, it does not say green herb is strictly adhered to. Is it a possibility, or is your mind made up? Do you eat hamburger? I don't really enjoy meat, except fish. Strangely, every few months, I do have a desire for a greasy burger. Just like perhaps a normally strict herbivore may desire chicken. Or perhaps like a normally strict carnivore may desire zebra. In your opinion, why do animals (and humans) crave eating animal flesh?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 467 05/07/08 05:59:39	Badsidhe wrote: In your opinion, why do animals (and humans) crave eating animal flesh? In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood. After the Fall in Eden they had children no more ''perfect'' than themselves....and getting further from perfection with each generation. By the time Noah and his extended family left the ark humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. I have a younger brother who is a nurse and nutritionist. He pointed out to me, years ago, how easily beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Some people (like Hispanics) already figured that out. Did early humans figure that out, too? Maybe, but probably not universally or - in some cases - for centuries. I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Food spoilage or picky eaters?	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3182 05/07/08 08:25:42	In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood Were plants no longer able to produce these nutrients that humans needed? What was the rate of decline in these plant-born nutrients from the "Fall" to the "Flood"? Or, perhaps it was a change in humans, no longer able to extract the extant nutrients? Is this what you mean by "getting further from perfection with each generation"? The plants weren't changing, just the humans. humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. Or was it the plants again? Or maybe both? The "first harsh seasons" didn't occur until after the "Flood"? What about after the "Fall"? You have some theories that can be explored here. Do you have any physical evidence and observations that 6-10 thousand years ago, humans (and carnivores/omnivores) suddenly stopped being able to derive nutrients (for one reason or another) from vegetation? Do you have any evidence from the real, observable world? Or are you basing your theory entirely on a few lines found in a book? God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. Were men not fearful enough as it was? Are animals incapable of learning without God directly altering them? Which animals did you observe this change in, in order to formulate this theory of yours? beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Are all of God's mandates so easily defied? I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran). I'm not sure what this has to do with eating vegetables, but I will address your concerns about it: Believers never produce a "God" to back up their claims. Instead, they produce a "Bible". The first time a believer actually shows me a "God", then I will at that point in time decide whether or not to be skeptical about it. Until that time, I will continue to be skeptical about the "Bible", since that is where believers lie all of their claims. Does this sound reasonable to you? Using "X is true because the Koran says so" is just as feeble as "X is true because the Bible says so". Strangely, Christians can agree with the first part, but even though they use the exact same reasoning as Muslims, fail to see the same fault with their own reasoning. I criticize each equally based on merit, but precedence given to the one that most directly affects me at any given time. Does this sound reasonable to you? Have you ever noticed, when debating a Muslim, how they simply rest all of their arguments on "the Koran says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter"? Isn't it strange that Christians do the same thing? "The Bible says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter." Why do you think this happens? What kind of reasoning is the Muslim using? The Christian? Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things Naturally, people are fully capable of drawing incorrect conclusions about the object they study. But which of these two study materials is in closer contact with the object being studied? The actual object itself, or a book claiming to be about the object? What is your opinion on this matter? Are people being foolish for studying the objects themselves to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Should they instead just believe what a book about talking animals says to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Which of these two options is more likely to produce useful conclusions?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 469 05/07/08 11:52:28	Badsidhe wrote: In my opinion, humans were able to perfectly obtain all the nutrients they needed from vegetation before the Flood Were plants no longer able to produce these nutrients that humans needed? What was the rate of decline in these plant-born nutrients from the "Fall" to the "Flood"? Or, perhaps it was a change in humans, no longer able to extract the extant nutrients? Is this what you mean by "getting further from perfection with each generation"? The plants weren't changing, just the humans. If you'd ever read the Bible you wouldn't need me to tell you. The GROUND was cursed after the Fall. So, yes, the plants could not deliver as high a quality food as when the ground was blessed. (I'm insisting that you find this in your own Bible, online or whatever. It is there. humans would need animal protein for their own health as a result of the first harsh seasons on the planet. Or was it the plants again? Or maybe both? The "first harsh seasons" didn't occur until after the "Flood"? What about after the "Fall"? See above....look up the account to find your answer. You have some theories that can be explored here. Do you have any physical evidence and observations that 6-10 thousand years ago, humans (and carnivores/omnivores) suddenly stopped being able to derive nutrients (for one reason or another) from vegetation? Do you have any evidence from the real, observable world? Or are you basing your theory entirely on a few lines found in a book? God evened the playing field by putting some ''fear of man'' into most animals. Were men not fearful enough as it was? Are animals incapable of learning without God directly altering them? Which animals did you observe this change in, in order to formulate this theory of yours? Besides years of evidence which made the DoDoBird a notable exception, I've hunted all my life. It is easy to see that, if you're not really sneaky, your prey escapes you. beans and rice can be converted into all the proteins we need by the addition of lemon/lime juice and heat. Are all of God's mandates so easily defied? There's nothing defiant in making a complete set of aminos out of a combination of vegetation. Most American vegans have to learn the hard way after a bout with some horrid deficiency. I think that most here are only Bible skeptics, not really God skeptics. (It is so easy to criticize the Bible, not so worry-free to criticize, say, the koran). I'm not sure what this has to do with eating vegetables, but I will address your concerns about it: Believers never produce a "God" to back up their claims. Instead, they produce a "Bible". The first time a believer actually shows me a "God", then I will at that point in time decide whether or not to be skeptical about it. Until that time, I will continue to be skeptical about the "Bible", since that is where believers lie all of their claims. Does this sound reasonable to you? Sure. God produced the Bible so humans, you included, could learn about Him and, if you chose to do so, draw close to Him and gain everlasting life. He gives us all a choice and all the info we'd need to make it. Yours is yours, mine, mine. Using "X is true because the Koran says so" is just as feeble as "X is true because the Bible says so". Strangely, Christians can agree with the first part, but even though they use the exact same reasoning as Muslims, fail to see the same fault with their own reasoning. I criticize each equally based on merit, but precedence given to the one that most directly affects me at any given time. Does this sound reasonable to you? You are making a hasty generalization based on less knowledge of the Bible and the Koran, like many people. The Bible actually tells readers to use their power of reason to make sure of things. The koran, in contrast, penalizes the person who presumes to think for himself/herself. That is a death offense. Criticizing the Bible gets you a nice conversation. Do the same with a Muslim and you might be hunted down and killed. Have you ever noticed, when debating a Muslim, how they simply rest all of their arguments on "the Koran says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter"? Isn't it strange that Christians do the same thing? "The Bible says so, and that is what I believe, so that's the end of my thoughts on the matter." Why do you think this happens? What kind of reasoning is the Muslim using? The Christian? What you think you are noticing is not true. Muslims won't even tell you that. They will (even here a few have) try to direct you to an imam. They are not even secure in their beliefs to presume to teach. Look at threads here to see this. Christians are expected to use their own reasoning to help others and have many examples from the Bible of both Jesus and early Christians doing the same. They follow their master in this. Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things This is a false dilemma. A combination of the two works for me. Naturally, people are fully capable of drawing incorrect conclusions about the object they study. But which of these two study materials is in closer contact with the object being studied? The actual object itself, or a book claiming to be about the object? What is your opinion on this matter? Are people being foolish for studying the objects themselves to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Should they instead just believe what a book about talking animals says to draw their conclusions (right or wrong)? Which of these two options is more likely to produce useful conclusions? It isn't an ''either/or.'' I have said here many times that God did not put the Bible here to teach humans about His Creations. He put it here to teach us about Him so we can draw closer to Him and gain life through His arrangements. So, to learn about ''objects'' one must study the objects. I have no problem with that.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Veggie combo	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3183 05/07/08 13:10:33	(NannyG123): If you'd ever read the Bible you wouldn't need me to tell you. I am not interested in what the Bible says, I am interested in what you say. People throughout history have read the Bible, and people throughout history have come to different conclusions about what the Bible says. I do not want to make too many assumptions about your specific beliefs, so I must ask you what your beliefs are, not ask the Bible what your beliefs are. Is this reasonable? (NannyG123): The GROUND was cursed after the Fall. What does "cursed" mean? Did God remove naturally occurring elements from the ground? Do you have any measurements from pre-6/10 thousand year ago soil to compare with post-6/10 thousand year ago soil? What was removed? What was added? What is the difference between the two samples? (NannyG123): See above....look up the account to find your answer. Looking up "the account" will give me my own interpretation, or another person's interpretation, of an event described in the Bible. What it will not do is give me your interpretation, which is the one I am after. Personal experience has shown me that whenever I read the Bible for myself, I will always get it "wrong" compared to the person I am debating with. Can we just save a step in the process and let me know what is "right" from the start? (NannyG123): I've hunted all my life. It is easy to see that, if you're not really sneaky, your prey escapes you. Humans are very sneaky. Very successful hunters. (NannyG123): There's nothing defiant in making a complete set of aminos out of a combination of vegetation. Excellent! It just seems odd that God would curse the ground only to have humans nullify the results. And again, back to the question, what is "cursing" the ground? Apparently a "combination of vegetation" is all it takes to get all the needed nutrients from the ground. Before the "curse", did humans/animals not need to partake in "combinations of vegetation", but got along fine on one type of herb? What prevented carnivores from eating "combinations of vegetation" to avoid having to kill other animals for these nutrients? (NannyG123): God produced the Bible so humans, you included, could learn about Him That may be what the Bible says. Have you ever observed any Gods giving humans a book? To you, which is more likely to be an important factor in determining if an event has occurred: you directly observe the actual event/events similar to it, or you have read it in a book? (NannyG123): Criticizing the Bible gets you a nice conversation. Do the same with a Muslim and you might be hunted down and killed. I have no doubt that today, I am incredibly much more likely to be killed for criticizing the Koran than the Bible. I recognize and appreciate that. I also have no doubt that if we were having this conversation anywhere from 600 to 6000 years ago, my life would be in peril. The Bible and its instructions haven't changed, only interpretation and acceptance therof. This is another important reason why I am after your interpretations, not somebody else's. (NannyG123): Christians are expected to use their own reasoning to help others Unless that reasoning conflicts with the book, right? (Badsidhe): Which do you think is a more effective method to discover the nature of things: a) study the nature of things b) study an old book about talking animals that claims to be about the nature of things (NannyG123): This is a false dilemma. A combination of the two works for me. When you studied the composition of the earth, what measurements did you make to differentiate between "cursed" earth and non-"cursed" earth? When you studied the dietary habits of 6-10 thousand year old carnivores, what features did you measure to determine that they subsisted on a diet of plants before that barrier, but meat afterwards? What "combination" of natural observation/old book would you say formed your final conclusion? 50% nature observations/50% old book? 25% nature observations/75% old book? How did it work for you?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 470 05/07/08 16:47:04	Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. All you get is one person or another's opinion. You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it from the ''horse's mouth'' for yourself......Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Badsidhe	Pick up line?	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3184 05/07/08 19:11:26	(NannyG123): Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. I have "picked up the book", and as I alluded to in my previous post, my interpretations conflict with yours just as yours conflict with the next Christian. (NannyG123): All you get is one person or another's opinion. Well, I try, at least. But that only works if they answer my questions. Are you willing to do so? (NannyG123): You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. I don't understand what you are referring to here. (NannyG123): Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. I'm not sure what "facts" and "timeline" you are referring to. (NannyG123): You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it What "thing"? What is "it"? (NannyG123): ....Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave. The allegory of the cave speaks of people only being allowed to see part of reality, and making their judgements based only upon the parts that they are allowed to see. Which fits very nicely into the line of questions from my last post that you did not answer. In your opinion, what percentage of your interpretation of reality do you base on observing reality itself (everything that can possibly be observed), and how much do you base on only the contents of a book (which is obviously a subset within everything that can possibly be observed)? I have addressed all of your comments. Will you address my comments, and questions from my previous posts? Or shall we leave this at "Badsidhe is ignorant"? --------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout all my time debating with believers, I've only gotten two different reactions at the close of our relationship. Both reactions, I believe, are based on the same prime motivation (which will go undiscussed as a huge tangent unless you really want to hear it). The two reactions are this: a) Believer starts making personal attacks in lieu of answering questions. b) Believer dusts off sandals/stops casting me pearls. In lieu of answering questions. Please don't tell me you've reached this point with me already. Two extra notes: a) Since your complaint is "Badsidhe not willing to pick up the book" and I addressed your complaint with "Badsidhe has picked up the book", are you willing to concede that your complaint is without merit and continue from where we left? b) You have not convinced me that I should even pick up the book to begin with. Why should I believe this book has any merit, when you won't answer questions that pertain to ascertaining its merit?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NannyG123		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 472 05/07/08 23:36:52	Badsidhe wrote: (NannyG123): Badsidhe, if you are not even willing to pick up the book to check things for yourself you will remain in ignorance. I have "picked up the book", and as I alluded to in my previous post, my interpretations conflict with yours just as yours conflict with the next Christian. (NannyG123): All you get is one person or another's opinion. Well, I try, at least. But that only works if they answer my questions. Are you willing to do so? (NannyG123): You can then do your ''moral equivalence'' thing with them. I don't understand what you are referring to here. (NannyG123): Your ''facts'' and timeline are based on ignorance. I'm not sure what "facts" and "timeline" you are referring to. (NannyG123): You misunderstand the simplest thing because you refuse to make sure of it What "thing"? What is "it"? (NannyG123): ....Plato taught thinking people to at least do that. In his world you would be in the cave. The allegory of the cave speaks of people only being allowed to see part of reality, and making their judgements based only upon the parts that they are allowed to see. Which fits very nicely into the line of questions from my last post that you did not answer. In your opinion, what percentage of your interpretation of reality do you base on observing reality itself (everything that can possibly be observed), and how much do you base on only the contents of a book (which is obviously a subset within everything that can possibly be observed)? I have addressed all of your comments. Will you address my comments, and questions from my previous posts? Or shall we leave this at "Badsidhe is ignorant"? --------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout all my time debating with believers, I've only gotten two different reactions at the close of our relationship. Both reactions, I believe, are based on the same prime motivation (which will go undiscussed as a huge tangent unless you really want to hear it). The two reactions are this: a) Believer starts making personal attacks in lieu of answering questions. b) Believer dusts off sandals/stops casting me pearls. In lieu of answering questions. Please don't tell me you've reached this point with me already. Two extra notes: a) Since your complaint is "Badsidhe not willing to pick up the book" and I addressed your complaint with "Badsidhe has picked up the book", are you willing to concede that your complaint is without merit and continue from where we left? b) You have not convinced me that I should even pick up the book to begin with. Why should I believe this book has any merit, when you won't answer questions that pertain to ascertaining its merit? If you are a person worthy of merit you will pick it up again for this purpose: Read about the ground being cursed. (Gen. 3) Let me know. Different translations use different terms for ''thorns and thistles,'' but trust me, even the animals are stuck with having to eat them. In fact I made almost $300,000 once because I explained to non-hunting researchers into chronic wasting disease that deer in the wild more often than not have cuts and sores on their tongues as a result of eating thorny forage. All their experiments in the controlled environment with commercial deer feed were in vain. Deer don't get CWD orally unless their tongue is cut because it takes so long to incubate they die of old age first. But when their tongue is cut it only takes 43 days. I invested in their research and it worked out well for all concerned.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection

Yuku free message boards