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.
The translation involved in conferring the English word "rib" to tzeilah, the Hebrew word
in Genesis, is very questionable. Some scholars believe the word could be referring
to Adam's penis bone.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Quote:
Once again we must bow to AREQUIPPA's authority just because he says so.
Paul was honest to a hurt with himself and others. He told the truth. My point has validity which for thousands of years has stood the test of time.
For us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is."
God is the source of all and Christ is the channel of all.
Paul didn't tell the truth because Paul didn't know the truth.Paul had no idea of reason, logic, or science. Paul could only frame his teachings within the superstitious, ignorant, primary agrarian goat herding bronze aged populations that he was talking to.
Paul didn't have a clue about the universal truths, truth we are just now beginning to unravel.
Paul was a wonderful salesman, who borrowed from other myths that had existed for centuries in the area, and package them as a new deal. It is no surprise that the gospels were written after Paul got done with his preaching.
No, Paul did not know the truth, nor do t teach the truth, he perpetuated myths.
The translation involved in conferring the English word "rib" to tzeilah, the Hebrew word
in Genesis, is very questionable. Some scholars believe the word could be referring
to Adam's penis bone.
It really does not matter since it is a completely false man made up story to begin with.
Don't believe it just take a look at a modern human male skeleton....you won't find a baculum anywhere.
Again we know how life evolved on this Planet and how humans came into existence. You should take a look at the evidence yourself. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it null.
Last edited by Matadora; 05-25-2015 at 01:58 PM..
Reason: Added Supporting Evidence ;)
So wording is only important to describe the events we see.
Me too! Wording is very important especially when discussing science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
"evolution" is not the facts to me. It is a unifying story to describe the interactions of the "facts" used to make man.
Evolution is not a fact it is a Theory just like Gravity is a Theory. The Theory of Evolution came about due to all of the millions of pieces of solid evidence that has been discovered all over this Planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
They said man came from dirt. Man did come from dirt.
We are composed from some of the atoms of Stars. The Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms in our bodies, as well as atoms of all other heavy elements, were created in previous generations of stars over 4.5 billion years ago. Because humans and every other animal as well as most of the matter on Earth contain these elements, we are literally made of "star stuff".
All organic matter containing Carbon was produced originally in stars. The universe was originally Hydrogen and Helium, the Carbon was made subsequently, over billions of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
This way, the term "evolutionist" is often misapplied to anyone working in the natural sciences, even astronomy and astrophysics or worse, it equates evolution with atheism. That's the prejudicial rhetorical device.
Good catch! It certainly is the problem that scientists usually encounter when talking about a Theory to non-scientific folks. The people who try to debunk any scientific theory are the ones with the least knowledge about the theory leading to the prejudicial rhetorical device.
As Einstein once said: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
Me too! Wording is very important especially when discussing science.
Evolution is not a fact it is a Theory just like Gravity is a Theory. The Theory of Evolution came about due to all of the millions of pieces of solid evidence that has been discovered all over this Planet.
Just one quick comment, it's both. Just like in my earlier illustration with music. Music Theory explains the facts (the observations) of music. GToR explains the facts (the observations) of gravity. The same is with Evolution. The Theory explains the facts - the observations.
Off the top of my head, the earliest fish ancestor was a sort of sea -worm with a cartilaginous vertebra. This became bonier and the eel -like body developed paddles (fins) to assist swimming. As I mentioned earlier, air -sacs were developed to assist in flotation rather than for breathing but finding the need to survive on land (as lungfishes do) the air -sac became a feature that served two purposes thus enabling the form to be viable during the process of developing a new feature - which is a practical example of why Behe's Irreducible complexity argument fails. The lobe -fins (like Coelacanth) also had advantages in enabling the creature to move on land and the stronger these became the better the survival chances.
Tiktaalik is, as I said, the 'Lucy' of this process, having features midway between fish and amphibian. I believe the gills had become ears, but I'll check that. (1)
From then on the amphibians spent as much time on land as on the water, but probably (like frogs) spent a lot of time near water. While the ones with more fish -like swimming features (newts and salamanders) lived more in water. Thus we move to the large amphibians of the Permian era and await arrival of reptiles, dinosaurs and the first proto -mammals, themselves a 'transitional form'.
(1) As other fossils reveal, the hyomandibula would evolve in a small bone that came into contact with the skull, able to transmit vibrations from the air. In other words, it became the stapes. A diagram below shows some stages in this transition.
What’s particularly cool about the evolution of our ear is that it was assembled over hundreds of millions of years from other parts. Tiktaalik helps reveal how the stapes evolved some 370 million years ago, but there are other bones in the ear-the incus and malleus-that transmit vibrations in our heads. They only evolved 150 million years later from some bones in the back of the jaw. They too were liberated from old jobs, and free to take on new ones. The ear was not an overnight invention, but the product of an inconceivably long evolutionary tinkering.
Just one quick comment, it's both. Just like in my earlier illustration with music. Music Theory explains the facts (the observations) of music. GToR explains the facts (the observations) of gravity. The same is with Evolution. The Theory explains the facts - the observations.
I appreciate what you are saying believe me I do.
The reason science is so careful to not use the word fact is because the word fact implies absolute truth. A theory implies that science is always open to changing the theory based on new evidence or observations.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day."
A perfect example of this the Creationist Myth. They even to the ultimate mistake by automatically discounting any evidence that is contrary to their unproven hypothesis.
The reason science is so careful to not use the word fact is because the word fact implies absolute truth. A theory implies that science is always open to changing the theory based on new evidence or observations.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
In "science," the facts ARE the observations - that's what we scientists call the observations. Theories explain the facts. Laws are merely observations (facts) that are so reliable and ubiquitous that they are able to be expressed formally as mathematical equations. Laws of Thermodynamics, Einstein's field equations in GToR comprise our current laws of gravity, etc. That is another error when lay people think that theories become laws when "proven." In quotes because even proofs are not a part of science. They don't, what they are doesn't mystically change. Explanations remain explanations. It is the theory that explains the law and other observations - the facts. Theories are not some incremental level on a scale of certainty. That's the layperson's take on it. So when someone says that evolution or gravity in not a fact but rather a theory, that would be wrong - they are both. This is why the "music is just a theory" is such a good illustration of the absurdity of the either/or statement, and really drives home what a Scientific Theory entails. When discussing science I am naturally inclined to restrict myself to use the terms scientifically.
Stephen J. Gould explained it pretty succinctly in his essay, Evolution as Fact and Theory.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of
confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and
do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the
theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the
theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument
before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign
rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been
challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as
infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in
a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas
that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to
explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend
themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors
whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics
flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the
empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and
then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only
mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very
beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely
understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
So you are saying that sponges, for example, are still around why? Newts and salamanders are transitional species that never fully evolved then?
What is found to have purpose in the environment just stopped evolving?
You have to fully understand how Natural Selection works.
As long as the conditions exist for things to evolve then evolution will continue. It is a continues process based on several factors. It takes billions of years for evolution to occur which is why the naysayers have difficulty understanding Evolution.
Bacteria and viruses evolve very quickly. In medicine we are always trying to stay one step ahead of these evolving "bugs". If scientists had no understanding about genetic mutations we would be on a greater losing end with respect to battling these "bug".
We have seen in our lifetime the evolution of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria.
Look at dogs today...do you ever wonder how they became so diverse?
Evolution is an ongoing process. But fossil records show that species often remain unchanged for millions of years.
Paul didn't tell the truth because Paul didn't know the truth.Paul had no idea of reason, logic, or science. Paul could only frame his teachings within the superstitious, ignorant, primary agrarian goat herding bronze aged populations that he was talking to.
Paul didn't have a clue about the universal truths, truth we are just now beginning to unravel.
Paul was a wonderful salesman, who borrowed from other myths that had existed for centuries in the area, and package them as a new deal. It is no surprise that the gospels were written after Paul got done with his preaching.
No, Paul did not know the truth, nor do t teach the truth, he perpetuated myths.
When will the catholic religion accept Paul's teachings? It's really sad to see them continue to bash Paul. Jesus thought He made the right decision when He picked Paul as an Apostle, why can't men accept that?
Oh, I know, because Paul speaks against their religion.
Over an over, everywhere you go on the net it's easy to see the bashing against the Apostle Paul ~sad.
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.
