dallashistory

Quote:
I don't know what the functional purpose of a Dodo bird could have been
End quote.

Perhaps you've answered this and I just didn't get it, but what I'm trying to ask is what you think about why God would create a imperfectly adapted species that later would became extinct in a particular environment? What purpose do you think that serves?

BTW: Regarding humans, I think I understand the Biblical lessons about original sin, the garden of Eden, and falling from grace; but I didn't think those concepts applied to plants and (non-human) animals.

adam wrote:Perhaps you've answered this and I just didn't get it, but what I'm trying to ask is what you think about why God would create a imperfectly adapted species that later would became extinct in a particular environment? What purpose do you think that serves?

It could have been the animal that was needed "in that time and place"; but it not needed anymore?

More likely, this is a demonstration of the law of entropy. The number of species in recorded human history has always been in a steady decline. Some extinctions have been induced by human activity; but I think overall it is just a process of species losing their ability to thrive, as the earth and nature undergo change as they wind down. It is the opposite picture from that painted by evolution; I find it hard to believe that man is the cause for evolution to reverse itself, and that no new species has evolved in 2,000+ years of human history (if this indeed was occuring.)

Some obviously think that eventually humans will also disappear one day; or else there wouldn't be a television series on what earth will be like after all the humans are gone.

BTW: Regarding humans, I think I understand the Biblical lessons about original sin, the garden of Eden, and falling from grace; but I didn't think those concepts applied to plants and (non-human) animals.

It occurs to me for about the thousandth time here--after reading what you guys are discussing and what is being said about political beliefs on the other sub forum-- that no one will cross the great divide from whatever side they are on. Each is firmly entrenched and immovable.

Scientific Evolutionists will never put down their evidence arguments just as Christians will never relinquish theirs.

Case in point--Lee Strobel. Google any of his Case for Creation series and you will find derision and scorn by so called scientists and support from Christians.

Still I have enjoyed the exchanges.

In part, Sharon Marsalis wrote:

Scientific Evolutionists will never put down their evidence arguments just as Christians will never relinquish theirs.


Actualy there has been progress. The clerics once held that the earth was at the center, not the sun, but I don't believe that idea has been part of any textbook controversy recently.

Maybe next year there will be more people with a similar understanding. If so there will be more who want science, whether evolution or physics or mathmatics taught in the classroom and the real lessons of the Bible in church.

And - this of course is not a new idea - it is to be hoped that someday all who believe in a young earth or creationism (however named) will someday realize that the problem is NOT the physical record of the world which is there for us to see but rather THEIR understanding of what they hold to be the word of God.

Quote:
It occurs to me for about the thousandth time here--after reading what you guys are discussing and what is being said about political beliefs on the other sub forum-- that no one will cross the great divide from whatever side they are on. Each is firmly entrenched and immovable.
End quote.

I view the entrenched and immovable opinions of all those involved in our discussions to be a plus. I made my inquiry above to see what James (and others) thought about my question. I never expected him to modify his view. Same with you (i.e., Sharon), I don't expect to change your view on matters of faith and politics. I like it that we aren't all the same, but have a good diversity of views.

Having said that, I do modify my views almost continually. Early on I came to the view that the Bible could not be literally truth, especially Genesis. For a few years that allowed me to be a pest toward my slow-witted older brother as I debunked one myth after another, but eventually I came to the view that the greater challenge for me was to see the value in the Bible. It took several more years to realize that belief in God and belief in the Bible were two different things. Most of the people I have known, both believers and the other kind, equated belief in the Bible with belief in God.

What I realized very early, possibly in 8th grade general science was that the earth was very old, much older than implied in Genesis. I also figured out that the person (i.e., human) writing Genesis could not have been there when the Universe was created. It didn't take me long to figure out that living things and non-living things were different. Something had to create that difference. By the time I was starting to shave I had my concept of God, defined as the creator of living things. Nothing in science contradicts or negates that definition of God. That God has to exist. At one time there was no life on earth, but later life did exist on earth. That early life was very simple. Scientists can't be absolutely sure what form of single cell creatures or bacteria came first. Multi-cell organisms came later (much later). Humans came much later still.

Early humans did not know how to explain marine fossils that can be found everywhere (e.g., the white cliffs of Dover), even on mountain tops. Being creative myth makers, humans devised possible scenarios that would explain that anomaly. Thus, the many forms of flood myths. These early myth makers did not realize the flaws in tales like the Biblical myth about Noah's Ark. [All living things could not fit on an ark. There's no way for the land animals on other continents to get to the ark, etc.] Even a small child can see the flaws. Still, adults, including smart educated adults, repeat the myth as fact. They devise explanations and avoidance methods to defend their core beliefs. That is what interests me. I know Noah's Ark is a myth. James knows it isn't. That interests me. I don't expect James to capitulate. I sure don't expect you (i.e., Sharon) to capitulate on your core beliefs. I honor your choice to your own beliefs. I appreciate it when others honor my beliefs, but I don't expect it. I've lived my whole life being slightly out of step with others. I was pretty old before I found that lots of other educated people saw things the way I did. For the longest time I thought I was the only one. If I didn't change then, when I thought I was alone, then it's unlikely that I would change later.

Still, I learn. One of the things I have learned is to be tolerant of others. I try to empathize with people who don't see things my way. I think I understand why some people hold tight to concepts I consider myths, but I can never be sure.

What I do know, is that I appreciate the conversation.

Thanks to all,
adam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_cliffs_of_Dover

The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white limestones with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean and, together with the remains of bottom-living creatures, formed sediments. Flints and quartz are also found in the chalk.[1]

White cliffs like those of Dover (but smaller) are also found on the Danish islands of Mon and Langeland or the coasts of the island of Rügen in Germany. The cliff face continues to erode at an average rate of 1 centimetre (0.39 in) per year, although occasionally – most recently in 2001 – large chunks of the edge, up to several metres at once, will fall into the channel with little warning. Visitors are, therefore, urged to remain at least five metres back from the edge.[citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone

The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.

Gilbert Burnett (1643-1715), “Bishop Burnet,” Scottish theologian and writer, who shows up in the notes accessed by the second link is an interesting man. He had quite advanced views – some would say liberal -for the 17th Century. But the quotation we have just plain makes sense and I’ll claim him as a conservative churchman! Probably you have noticed by now that I claim science as the conservative position.

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world, in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which he had made scripture to assert. . . . We are not to suppose that any truth concerning the natural world can be an enemy to religion; for truth cannot be an enemy to truth, God is not divided against himself.”

WIKI – Gilbert Burnett:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Burnet

Bishop Burnett is quoted in the work of another interesting Scot, John MacCulloch (1773 -1835) who is remembered as one of the first to describe the geology of the highlands and Scottish islands.

WIKI-John MacCullouch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_MacCulloch

A reproduction of Burnett’s advice printed in MacCulloch’s A System of Geology, with a Theory of the Earth and an Examination of its Connection with the Sacred Records , page 34 is found at the following imposing address. The book was printed in two volumes in 1831. It is worth looking at the page. MacCulloch also had a advanced view when he mentioned the Biblical flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... S311&q=%22%7Tis+a+dangerous+thing+to+engage+the+authority+of+scripture+in+disputes+about+the+natural+world%2c+in+opposition+to+reason%3b+lest+time%2c+which+brings+all+things+to+light%2c+should+discover+that+to+be+evidently+false+which+he+had+made+scripture+to+assert.+.+.+.+We+are+not+to+suppose+that+any+truth+concerning+the+natural+world+can+be+an+enemy+to+religion%3b+for+truth+cannot+be+an+enemy+to+truth%2c+God+is+not+divided+against+himself.%22

In the interest of a little lagniappe I’ll also give a link for William Smith (1769-1839) who is regarded as the “father of English Geology.” Unlike Burnett and Macculloch, Smith’s origins were humble and his recognition for his contribution was late in coming. Smith is recorded as identifying strata by the fossils contained and realizing they were uniform throughout the British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_(geologist)

I wonder why that Google link didn't wrap? Stretched out your post.

Don't know. Sorry. I just tried editing it, no improvement. The original spacing was probably different but I don't believe I added any carriage retursns. I suppose the post needed the attention of one of the more adept people on the board.

It was one of the longer addresses I've ever seen.

Here is the address again from my draft. On ten (10) lines as displayed on the entry screen.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... imself.%22

Bill, only you and the moderator can fix your stretched out url.

Try editing the whole sentence search out. For some reason the url won't shorten. Then go to one of the links and copy and paste the quote.

I get a whole page touting Stephen Jay Gould's books with the quote in the center of each.

When I try the last link given I get only about half a dozen possibilities. The last one is the book, scanned I suppose, with the quote highlited. It is a "GOOGLE book result." I have given the address that displays then below,

My vision is not good enough to try to trace through and see how it differs.

If Cedar, who I see is my moderator, or another wants to work with this, then that is fine with me. My computer skills are very limited. I don't know what else to do.


http://books.google.com/books?id=oFQ1AA ... t&resnum=6

LOL, RONNIE!

I have always wondered the same!

This qoute came from my daughter:

“If evolution really works, how come mothers only have two hands?”

A QUOTE that was probably asked in good humor and also knowing the answer that would be given:

If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

First of all, monkeys and apes exist today because there is a niche in the world they fill better than any other creatures who want to live there. As population increases and habitats not previously exploited by men are taken over for our activities that is changing and will likely change further still.

Second, humans and apes had a common ancestor. We descended with the apea and not from them. So did humans and apes and monkeys have a common ancestor. I would have to admit that most would probably call the common ancestors "apes" or "monkeys" on the basis of general appearance but actually they were different species than now seen.

One of Dawkins' book, The Ancestor's Tale, discusses our common ancestory with a number of interesting species, Some of them still exist, some don't.

Re:
In fact, and to me this is a lighter note, I should not visit any church. I had a vasectomy some years ago and a strict reading of Deuteronomy 23:1 makes me ineligible to attend the assembly.



IIRC; the idea behind that was that no-one with a defect in their body could attend the assembly. This law disappeared along with the one about Jews only back in the early church. Good thing; or my Down's son and many others may not attend church, either.

You may have your reasons for doing so; I leave that matter between you and God. But a vasectomy is not a reason for not attending church.

"The rule was that strangers and foreigners, for fear of friendship or marriage connections with them leading the people into idolatry, were not admissible till their conversion to the Jewish faith. But this passage describes certain limitations of the general rule. The following parties were excluded from the full rights and privileges of citizenship: (1) Eunuchs-It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great. (2) Bastards-Such an indelible stigma in both these instances was designed as a discouragement to practices that were disgraceful, but too common from intercourse with foreigners. (3) Ammonites and Moabites-Without provocation they had combined to engage a soothsayer to curse the Israelites; and had further endeavored, by ensnaring them into the guilt and licentious abominations of idolatry, to seduce them from their allegiance to God."

Like most of the Laws and prohibitions found in the Hebrew Testament there were reasons.
Idolatry (same for today) with all its ramifications and consequences was the major reason.

Those under Grace for the last 2000 years are free from such legalism. The Law has been fulfilled.

Sharon ~ missed you So glad to see your name

And sorry not to have been following the thread as I should have done, Bill. But long urls are a-okay with me. Is it working for you now?

You guys are silly sometimes

James, I don't think I've mentioned before that my teenaged nephew has Down's. He is my sister's firstborn - of nine - and a precious blessing. I just wish that I could see him more often, as my sis and her family live in Houston.

Continuing on this light note, I have a friend who is very drawn to Judaism and I myself have always been interested in the Mosaic faith ~ attended temple with a Jewish family, in fact, more often than I did church as a child. Anyway, was doing a little reading along with my friend this past week re: conversion to Judaism and well ... I'd long known that an adult, Gentile male (my friend is female ) who wished to join an Orthodox or some Conservative congregations was required to undergo circumcision if need be. What I hadn't known is that even those who have experienced the procedure as infants pass through a ceremony (at least in some congregations) during which which blood is drawn in a symbolic manner. I'm not sure exactly where this blood comes from but do suspect that the old Jewish prayer books have it all wrong: I thank God I was born a woman!

Pleasant dreams, everyone

adam wrote:Quote:
I had a vasectomy some years ago and a strict reading of Deuteronomy 23:1 makes me ineligible to attend the assembly.
End quote.

This necessitated a trip to Google for me.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm

Quote:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

Men have it pretty easy when it comes to reproduction.
At one time Circumcision made it easy to tell who was or wasn't a Jew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Quote:
There is controversy regarding circumcision. Advocates of circumcision argue, for example, that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[10] Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that it adversely affects normal sexual pleasure and performance, is performed due to excuses and myths believed or conjured by parents and health providers, is extremely painful, and is comparable to female genital cutting.[11]
It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility, as a means of suppressing sexual pleasure or to increase a man's attractiveness to women, or as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, among other possibilities. Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practicing circumcision, leading to its spread regardless of whether the people understood this.[15] It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons.
Family circumcision set and trunk, ca. eighteenth century Wooden box covered in cow hide with silver implements: silver trays, clip, pointer, silver flask, spice vessel.

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt.[16] Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples.[17] In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.[18]

Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[19]
[edit] Non-religious circumcision in the English-speaking world

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practiced universally.[20] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[20] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[21] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[22] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produce paralysis).[20] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.[20]

Although it is difficult to determine historical circumcision rates, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 32% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1933.[23] Laumann et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was approximately 70%, 80%, 85%, and 77% for those born in 1945, 1955, 1965, and 1971 respectively.[23] Xu et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was 91% for males born in the 1970s and 84% for those born in the 1980s.[24] Between 1981 and 1999, National Hospital Discharge Survey data from the National Center for Health Statistics demonstrated that the infant circumcision rate remained relatively stable within the 60% range, with a minimum of 60.7% in 1988 and a maximum of 67.8% in 1995.[25] A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[26] However, a later study speculated that an increased recognition of the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision may have been responsible for the observed increase in the US rate between 1988 and 2000.[27] A report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality placed the 2005 national circumcision rate at 56%.[28]

In 1949, the United Kingdom's newly-formed National Health Service removed infant circumcision from its list of covered services, and circumcision has since been an out-of-pocket cost to parents. As a result, prevalence in the UK is age-graded, with 12% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised and 20% of those aged 40–44 years,[29] and the proportion of newborns circumcised in England and Wales has fallen to less than one percent.

The circumcision rate has declined sharply in Australia since the 1970s, leading to an age-graded fall in prevalence, with a 2000-01 survey finding 32% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised, 50% for 20–29 years and 64% for those aged 30–39 years.[30][31]

In Canada, Ontario health services delisted circumcision in 1994.
End quote.

Men have it pretty easy when it comes to reproduction.
~ Adam

Oh, ya think so Nah ...

Adam wrote
Men have it pretty easy when it comes to reproduction.

Yup. Easy AND fun.

Hey, we ladies get to have fun, too We luv to reproduce

This thread is beginning to remind me of a recent performance given by Mr. Bob Schneider in Cowtown. He had been spending some time in jolly ol' England, and shared with us an ethnographic observation of the males he'd encountered while there. They made him feel like a duck-billed platypus!

Love that Bob



The Evolved Homo sapiens sapiens

Must be my long lost brother. He looks a lot like me.

That's just how I envision you, Adam!

I wish. I did actually look a lot like that when I was younger, only better, more rugged, more worldly. The brow ridges, the eyebrows, the hair color, nose, chin. I think it's a look common to many men of northern england, scotland, and parts of Ireland. Quite a few actors with those looks. Dark and handsome.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0604747/

Now that I've aged some, I probably look more like my great uncle, Pan Troglodytes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Chimpanzee

Of course, mentally, I think of myself more along the lines of Pan paniscus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

I'm a better swimmer, however.