|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:29 am
Well, since I can't see your bible and what it says, then there is no point in arguing this anymore.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:38 pm
GuardianAngel44 Well, since I can't see your bible and what it says, then there is no point in arguing this anymore. Then go ahead and address my other contradictions, if you wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:28 am
Lethkhar I don't need a reason for them to come in 7's, I need an explanation for why He contradicted Himself and also said a pair of them. Collect the food first. After reading through it again, this makes more sense to me. 7 is an important number in the Bible. It means perfection, or completeness. 7 is exactly the number of every clean animal they would need to feed all the humans and all the animals on the ark. Then, an additional 2 to repopulate with. I mean, God could have said bring me two of everything except these things. Bring me nine of them. But he didn't. It's not a contradiction, it's just wordy. GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar How long did he rule over Jerusalem? (a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8 ) (b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) 7:10 days doesn't make much of a difference. 2 Chronicles was probably being more exact. I have to agree with this one also. Humans as a whole have a way of rounding things off. Like my marriage lasted 2 years and 11 months, but I just round it off to three years. We do it with dollars, we do it with time, we do it with whatever we can ever since we learned what it was. *shrug* Lethkhar Then go ahead and address my other contradictions, if you wish. Aw, and you didn't even find the GOOD contradictions yet. crying There are some really nice ones, I must admit. Then I have to go with the symbolism argument, and that creates a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:37 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar I don't need a reason for them to come in 7's, I need an explanation for why He contradicted Himself and also said a pair of them. Collect the food first. After reading through it again, this makes more sense to me. 7 is an important number in the Bible. It means perfection, or completeness. 7 is exactly the number of every clean animal they would need to feed all the humans and all the animals on the ark. I really, really doubt that. Do you have any idea how much a lion or a boa constrictor eats? There's no way only 7 of each animal could support two of every single animal on the planet for 40 days and 40 nights. I'd never actually thought about where he got all that food... Quote: Then, an additional 2 to repopulate with. I mean, God could have said bring me two of everything except these things. Bring me nine of them. But he didn't. It's not a contradiction, it's just wordy. 2 isn't nearly enough to repopulate a species. There's not enough gene variation. Plus, the Bible is totally against incest, so how did humanity repopulate after the flood? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth, for that matter? Quote: GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar How long did he rule over Jerusalem? (a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8 ) (b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9) 7:10 days doesn't make much of a difference. 2 Chronicles was probably being more exact. I have to agree with this one also. Humans as a whole have a way of rounding things off. Like my marriage lasted 2 years and 11 months, but I just round it off to three years. We do it with dollars, we do it with time, we do it with whatever we can ever since we learned what it was. *shrug* It's a contradiction nonetheless. Quote: Lethkhar Then go ahead and address my other contradictions, if you wish. Aw, and you didn't even find the GOOD contradictions yet. crying There are some really nice ones, I must admit. Then I have to go with the symbolism argument, and that creates a mess. Oh, I've found about 500 of them, which I highlighted and noted as I was reading the Bible for the third time. Right now I'm just flipping to random pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:54 am
Lethkhar I really, really doubt that. Do you have any idea how much a lion or a boa constrictor eats? There's no way only 7 of each animal could support two of every single animal on the planet for 40 days and 40 nights. I'd never actually thought about where he got all that food... 40 is another important number. It's not literal. All 40 means whenever you see it in the Bible is "the amount of time that it took." I mean, I have a hard time imagining that it only took a month to wipe out everything on land. But, if you think about it... there really isn't a long list of things that they WEREN'T allowed to eat. So, seven of everything that weren't horses and pigs and things, and wasn't a predator. That's a load of animals. Lethkhar 2 isn't nearly enough to repopulate a species. There's not enough gene variation. Plus, the Bible is totally against incest, so how did humanity repopulate after the flood? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth, for that matter? Well, given the subject that we're talking about, I could always just say that this is God and he forestalled all the mutations and whatnot until the earth was repopulated. But, on a more scientific note, at that time, mutations had to have been less likely because there was less corruption already present. They simply hadn't been around long enough for incest to be considered a problem. Besides, if you read through the OT, there's daughters sleeping with fathers, brothers sleeping with sisters, and all that comes of it is hard feelings. In the NT, incest is bad for the same reason it's bad today. Our genes have been so mixed and muddled that mutations are more likely to occur. As for your second question... I think that goes back to the chat we had in the evolution thread, and I won't repeat it here. Lethkhar It's a contradiction nonetheless. And I don't see it as a contradiction. That would be like saying I sat at the doctor's office for 2 hours, when it was 2 hours and 5 minutes. Clarification, perhaps, but not a contradiction. However, you see the color as orange-red and I see it as red-orange, and I'm not going to argue this point any further. Lethkhar Oh, I've found about 500 of them, which I highlighted and noted as I was reading the Bible for the third time. Right now I'm just flipping to random pages. Have you found the website with the ridiculously long list? heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:48 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar I really, really doubt that. Do you have any idea how much a lion or a boa constrictor eats? There's no way only 7 of each animal could support two of every single animal on the planet for 40 days and 40 nights. I'd never actually thought about where he got all that food... 40 is another important number. It's not literal. All 40 means whenever you see it in the Bible is "the amount of time that it took." I mean, I have a hard time imagining that it only took a month to wipe out everything on land. But, if you think about it... there really isn't a long list of things that they WEREN'T allowed to eat. So, seven of everything that weren't horses and pigs and things, and wasn't a predator. That's a load of animals. Yeah, but there are also loads of predators that eat more than one animal a day. And if we're talking about it being even longer than 40 days and 40 nights...That's totally ridiculous. Quote: Lethkhar 2 isn't nearly enough to repopulate a species. There's not enough gene variation. Plus, the Bible is totally against incest, so how did humanity repopulate after the flood? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth, for that matter? Well, given the subject that we're talking about, I could always just say that this is God and he forestalled all the mutations and whatnot until the earth was repopulated. But, on a more scientific note, at that time, mutations had to have been less likely because there was less corruption already present. They simply hadn't been around long enough for incest to be considered a problem. That's not how mutations work. It's not about how "pure" your genes are (Whatever that means...), it's about how closely related the genes are. Mutations are part of the genetic makeup. Mutations don't make the genetic makeup imperfect, even though they're often called "mistakes". That's not the problem with incest. The problem with incest is that because the gene variation is so small genetic diseases are developed out of a single mutation that can dominate the entire species. Quote: Lethkhar It's a contradiction nonetheless. And I don't see it as a contradiction. That would be like saying I sat at the doctor's office for 2 hours, when it was 2 hours and 5 minutes. Which, considering God' infallibility, is a contradiction. Quote: Lethkhar Oh, I've found about 500 of them, which I highlighted and noted as I was reading the Bible for the third time. Right now I'm just flipping to random pages. Have you found the website with the ridiculously long list? heart I'm sure I could. I'm surprised you're actually arguing this with me. I mean, I realise that eventually you're just going to start saying totally ridiculous things like "500=6900!", but it's fun nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:42 am
Lethkhar Yeah, but there are also loads of predators that eat more than one animal a day. And if we're talking about it being even longer than 40 days and 40 nights...That's totally ridiculous. Okay then, back to my original argument. God made it so. J/k. xd I'm leaving off this point as well, given that I believe I answered your original question. I could give you a list of numbers and what they mean in the Bible, but given that I don't want your eyes to bleed, I'll leave off that as well. But sometimes it's good to know. Lethkhar That's not how mutations work. It's not about how "pure" your genes are (Whatever that means...), it's about how closely related the genes are. Mutations are part of the genetic makeup. Mutations don't make the genetic makeup imperfect, even though they're often called "mistakes". That's not the problem with incest. The problem with incest is that because the gene variation is so small genetic diseases are developed out of a single mutation that can dominate the entire species. Yes, and what I'M saying, is things were less closely genetically related. Before you start typing, the only reason I say outrageous things like this is because I've asked around. Granted, I asked my college biology and physics professors, not someone who practices in their field every day, but they told me that what I said just now was likely. Lethkhar I'm surprised you're actually arguing this with me. I mean, I realise that eventually you're just going to start saying totally ridiculous things like "500=6900!", but it's fun nonetheless. >.< You know, I might change my mind on that list of numbers thing. xd But surely you give me a BIT more credit than that. I've always done my arguments in a way that doesn't involve "because God said so."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:34 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar That's not how mutations work. It's not about how "pure" your genes are (Whatever that means...), it's about how closely related the genes are. Mutations are part of the genetic makeup. Mutations don't make the genetic makeup imperfect, even though they're often called "mistakes". That's not the problem with incest. The problem with incest is that because the gene variation is so small genetic diseases are developed out of a single mutation that can dominate the entire species. Yes, and what I'M saying, is things were less closely genetically related. Before you start typing, the only reason I say outrageous things like this is because I've asked around. Granted, I asked my college biology and physics professors, not someone who practices in their field every day, but they told me that what I said just now was likely. So you think that Adam and Eve's children were not closely related? confused I have college professors on my side, too. Yay for appealing to authority!! mrgreen Quote: Lethkhar I'm surprised you're actually arguing this with me. I mean, I realise that eventually you're just going to start saying totally ridiculous things like "500=6900!", but it's fun nonetheless. >.< You know, I might change my mind on that list of numbers thing. xd But surely you give me a BIT more credit than that. I've always done my arguments in a way that doesn't involve "because God said so." *Shrugs* You'd be surprised at what some people end up saying in defense of the Bible. It's always fun to come across an apologist who actually has an idea of what they're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:11 pm
Lethkhar So you think that Adam and Eve's children were not closely related? confused I have college professors on my side, too. Yay for appealing to authority!! mrgreen w00t! Anyhow, to put the other two arguments into a single sentence, DNA was less closely linked at the time of Adam and Eve, therefore less mutations were likely to occur. And then there's always the problem of those random other people showing up in Genesis. ninja Lethkhar *Shrugs* You'd be surprised at what some people end up saying in defense of the Bible. It's always fun to come across an apologist who actually has an idea of what they're talking about. I'm not sure if you're talking about me or not. But I'll take it as a compliment nonetheless. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:37 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar So you think that Adam and Eve's children were not closely related? confused I have college professors on my side, too. Yay for appealing to authority!! mrgreen w00t! Anyhow, to put the other two arguments into a single sentence, DNA was less closely linked at the time of Adam and Eve, therefore less mutations were likely to occur. And then there's always the problem of those random other people showing up in Genesis. ninja Yeah, Cain's wife? I would think that the DNA would've been more closely linked due to the fact that the population was so small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:43 pm
Lethkhar Yeah, Cain's wife? I would think that the DNA would've been more closely linked due to the fact that the population was so small. More closely linked, but perhaps with a broader range of proteins? Whatever allowed them to interbreed with the people who WEREN'T siblings? I'm not sure. Biology isn't exactly my life passion. sweatdrop I'm more of a brain-picker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:56 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar Yeah, Cain's wife? I would think that the DNA would've been more closely linked due to the fact that the population was so small. More closely linked, but perhaps with a broader range of proteins? Whatever allowed them to interbreed with the people who WEREN'T siblings? I'm not sure. Biology isn't exactly my life passion. sweatdrop I'm more of a brain-picker. Believe it or not, I'm more of a humanities person myself. I enjoy science, but it's not something I would ever consider as a profession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:58 pm
Lethkhar Believe it or not, I'm more of a humanities person myself. I enjoy science, but it's not something I would ever consider as a profession. I like the parts of science that make scientists and everyone around the world pull out their hair and say "this doesn't fit with ANYTHING!" twisted lol Kinda llike the huge bit of nothing floating about in the universe when physics has said for years that nothing can't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:02 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar Believe it or not, I'm more of a humanities person myself. I enjoy science, but it's not something I would ever consider as a profession. I like the parts of science that make scientists and everyone around the world pull out their hair and say "this doesn't fit with ANYTHING!" twisted lol Kinda llike the huge bit of nothing floating about in the universe when physics has said for years that nothing can't exist. I don't think physics has ever said that, at least not in the past century. confused It's cool, nonetheless. That's the whole point of science, really: Discovery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:46 pm
Lethkhar ryuu_chan Lethkhar Believe it or not, I'm more of a humanities person myself. I enjoy science, but it's not something I would ever consider as a profession. I like the parts of science that make scientists and everyone around the world pull out their hair and say "this doesn't fit with ANYTHING!" twisted lol Kinda llike the huge bit of nothing floating about in the universe when physics has said for years that nothing can't exist. I don't think physics has ever said that, at least not in the past century. confused It's cool, nonetheless. That's the whole point of science, really: Discovery. CHEESEMUFFINS!!!!!!! sorry, I'm trying to bring these threads back to life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
