Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me reiterate, much to everyone's chagrin for I think you have forgotten the extent of the discussion:
1) Much confusion reigned while we explored whether 6 days is 6 days or can it be 6000 years, 60,000 years, 6 million years, 3.14 seconds, etc.
2) We discussed the origins of the 6000 year old Young earther's like to quote to have arrisen, at least in one case, from adding up the "known" ages of he family trees in the Bible.
3) dncngrl1964 also added that, regardless of this interpretation of time meant by 6 days, it doesn't mean those "6 days" just ended recently. There could, in fact, had some additional years pass since God's busy week ended.
4) But, just when you thought we left this topic for good, we received a "drive-by" posting from MAMS1554 which leveled all doubt and answered all of our questions with:
5) and now Ninewands has pulled out a great quote form the quintessential Christian's Christian, St. Thomas, that says "wake up you nut cases, Genesis is obviously not to be taken literally!"
Now, despite the fact that we have undoudtedly whipped this dead horse down to nothing more than a red stain on the pavement, I happen to think it to be a pretty shade of red!
LOL, that's good HopOnPop. I personally think it's time to rinse off the pavement and move on, ya think?
OK, where exactly is heaven? In the 16th century, the Catholic Church told the flocks that heaven was just beyond the clouds. Then Galileo invented the telescope and "walah", no heaven up there. The Catholic Church tried to have him killed for doing this. (Doesn't sound too much like "Love Thy Brother" to me). He also bore the brunt of the Catholic Church for other ideas, including the placement of the Earth in the solar system, etc.
Here is some additional insight:
Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.
Sounds to me like the Church didn't like competition, or at least conflicting opinions - and was even willing to torture or kill to get their way. Given the fact that during the time Galileo, Copernicus and their pals were living, the average Joe on the street was completely uneducated, very superstitious, and totally gullable. They believed whatever was dished out by the clergy - not just because they were ignorant, but the Church had a nasty habit of torturing and burning people who didn't tote the Church line 100%. So let some guy come along, who will go down in history as one of the greatest minds ever, and prove the Church wrong and all kinds of trouble starts. The Church fears the masses won't trust them and they'll lose immense power and wealth. So, let's round up the usual suspects and beat them into submission - or worse.
First off Buckhead nice to see you here
secondly
see me being a Catholic
I can tell ya that whenever something like that happens we have to find a new Martyr and sometimes its hard
now I know I am making light of it (no hatemail please) but actually it isn't to far off the truth
look back through history and during any great struggle in it you will find a Martyr
Okay, I will move on, reluctantly.
Perhaps, we all need to move to NEW JERSEY!
If some of you did...then it really WOULD be heaven!
On the other hand, if others did, well...never mind. Heh heh (snort), just playin', folks, just playin'.
Actually, NJ has such a bad reputation for such tiny pockets of its total geography. (New Jersey has pockets of industrialization--certain cities, actually--and those truly are frightening, I mean frightening. You'd be scared to wander in those areas from dusk onward, anyway. But the rest is lovely, especially northern NJ, where there are trees, trees and more trees, old, broad and beautiful, so tall and far-reaching that their tops touch and overlap from across the street...Okay, I'll stop now...)
FTR, I actually lived right by the mountains in the first pic I posted. But of course, that's a topic for the NJ forum, not this one. I just had some sort of a brain spaz and decided to be funny for a second, fully knowing what the responses were going to be if I postulated that New Jersey is heaven.
Getting back on topic. What do people think about the genetic level view of evolution? All our examples we have talked about have assumed natural selection favors the individual organism. However, a lot of evolutionary THEORY (and I mean that seperate from the theory that is fact) discusses a gene-centric view to natural selection. This effectively means that the genes, and not the organisms, are the true benificiary of natural selection. This means that organisms, even humans, are simply "survival machines" -- i.e. tools of the genes -- that genes (unconsciously, unwittingly, and without any forethought) made simply to help ensure their own survival. I felt the heresy of Copernicus pales in comparison to this kind of idea. This effectively treats humans as little more than an environment; a bag of liquid or a mobile swamp, per se.
This was the big issue that alarmed many when Dawkins published his first book, "The Selfish Gene". It wasn't his idea, but it was something he included because it was a widely accepted perception in evolutionary biology (and still is).
...or how about Dawkins big contrabution to evolutionary biology -- the extended phenotype -- which actually showed that through natural selection genes in some organisms were favored to benefit the survival of ANOTHER creature (which, indirectly, supports the above idea as well).
Anybody have an opinion -- does Dawkins suck eggs, or is he part genious?
Getting back on topic. What do people think about the genetic level view of evolution? All our examples we have talked about have assumed natural selection favors the individual organism. However, a lot of evolutionary THEORY (and I mean that seperate from the theory that is fact) discusses a gene-centric view to natural selection. This effectively means that the genes, and not the organisms, are the true benificiary of natural selection. This means that organisms, even humans, are simply "survival machines" -- i.e. tools of the genes -- that genes (unconsciously, unwittingly, and without any forethought) made simply to help ensure their own survival. I felt the heresy of Copernicus pales in comparison to this kind of idea. This effectively treats humans as little more than an environment; a bag of liquid or a mobile swamp, per se.
This was the big issue that alarmed many when Dawkins published his first book, "The Selfish Gene". It wasn't his idea, but it was something he included because it was a widely accepted perception in evolutionary biology (and still is).
...or how about Dawkins big contrabution to evolutionary biology -- the extended phenotype -- which actually showed that through natural selection genes in some organisms were favored to benefit the survival of ANOTHER creature (which, indirectly, supports the above idea as well).
Anybody have an opinion -- does Dawkins suck eggs, or is he part genious?
You know, I guess I never really thought of it as two separate "theories" of evolution. I have always thought that as a result of natural selection certain things evolve because the strongest genes essentially dominate to further the survival of the creature. To me, this theory, whatever category it falls into makes the most sense. Ultimately, the animal has to live long enough to breed and it's offspring do and so on and so forth. In order to allow the creature to survive in it's environment it has to have the proper genes passed down to it.
I read about a study in a Michael Crichton book (yes it was a real study but just used to back up the story in his book) that a scientist went into the African Sahara and painted a purple stripe on several of the zebras. The amazing part was that every time a lion attacked the herd, it ALWAYS went for the one with the purple stripe on it. The reason being is that in nature sometimes being different is a sign of weakness. So, if certain zebras were born with purple stripes on them the genes that hold that "purple stripe" information would not make it very long before all the lions ate the "purple striped" zebras. However, the ones without purple stripes would have more time to procreate and produce offspring without the cursed purple stripe syndrome. Does this make sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for I think you have forgotten the extent of the discussion:
