adolph nuttin up :)
Evolution and the Eye
-
Jen,
I agree with you. A history teacher I had once described history as his-story. The bible is no diffrent if I read a sacred text about a Scientologist that lived 2,000 years ago (that he or she would have thought of as a journal) I may not agree with some of his/her points of view but to see the math and science he used every day as well as getting a good look into their way of life is very interesting.
LT
-
:? :? :? Did Jen call the Bible a Science book?
-
@Cmdr:
No, it’s still the go too reference for history of the region, almost all of it’s history has been confirmed by other sources.
Forgive my ignorance but where besides the Bible is Jesus mentioned in the writings of his contemporaries?
Scientifically speaking it was way ahead of it’s time talking about the sun being locked in place, the earth being hung in the heavens (no stars directly beneath us we have found), paths in the oceans (currents), etc….yea, totally unscientific source.
Ummm? What do you mean none below us? There are Southern Circumpolar stars. As well as Northern Circumpolar stars.
Hell, Noah’s ark is what gives us our dimensions for ocean going cargo ships to this day because it’s the most stable form to put in the water.
Please cite present sea-going, freight-shipping examples that fit the classification ‘ark.’
-
Which Roman history book? Written by who? Contained in which library?
-
Yay, old Jen is back. :-D
-
Wasn’t Paul a Roman? <ouch brain=“” cramp=“” can’t=“” think=“” far=“” that=“” back=“” to=“” sunday=“” school.=“”>LT</ouch>
-
@Cmdr:
No, it’s still the go too reference for history of the region, almost all of it’s history has been confirmed by other sources.
The go to references for the region of which you speak are the Egyptians with honorable mentions to the Babylonians, Assyrians, and, later on, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
@Cmdr:
The question is, why are scientists loathe to use the Bible?
Well, you explained it in your last post.
@Cmdr:
And no, the Bible is not a “science” book. It’s a book that contains scientific facts, historical facts, medical facts, and stories passed from one generation to another.
The bible is a collection of documented oral histories. As a historical text it is unreliable, at best. NONE of the events described in the bible were actually documented at the time they occurred and are therefore subject to major discrepancies and bias by the writers. Much more so than the normal discrepancies and bias that happened when the ancients recorded events as they occurred. As it is, the New Testament was written at least 100 years AFTER Christ’s death and scholars are still unclear as to exactly when the Exodus occurred.
And no, very little of it’s history has been confirmed by other sources. For centuries, theologians, archaeologists, and lay people have been trying to prove the events of the bible and, for the most part, they’ve come up with bupkus. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were a nomadic people. The only time you can pin their history down is when they interacted with a known historical location and, even then, neither the events nor the time as described can be trusted. Only the location can.
The bible is no more a reliable historical document than the WWE is real wrestling. Looks real enough, but….
-
@Cmdr:
You may want to look at Josephus (sp?) as he is a historian who also documented many of the facts that are also documented in the recorded history of the Israelites and Romans. Just to give you one, very famous, name.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Although Christian apologists have listed a number of ancient historians who allegedly were witnesses to the existence of Jesus, the only two that consistently are cited are Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE.
-
@Cmdr:
You may want to look at Josephus (sp?) as he is a historian who also documented many of the facts that are also documented in the recorded history of the Israelites and Romans. Just to give you one, very famous, name.
I dug this up:
Titus Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.There are two extant references in Josephus on Jesus, the one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. These passages appear in The Antiquities of the Jews, written in the year 93 by the Jewish historian Josephus. All extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain the two passages about Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just.
His most famous work Antiquities of the Jews is mainly about Hebrew history over 1000 years after it occurred. Now explain to me how anything Josephus says could be considered concrete proof for anything the bible says.
@Cmdr:
Rome has records of Jesus being crucified and records of some of his disciples being imprisoned.
Source?
@Cmdr:
Egypt has records of the fleeing of the Israeli slaves.
Really? Egyptian records specifically mention, by name, the Exodus of the Hebrews? So then you can tell me, with 100% certainty, exactly which Pharoah was in power at that time. Please do so. I’m curious.
@Cmdr:
Ancient texts from the Germanic tribes and from Gaul show requests to King Solomon for loans.
Oooooh, I love this one. Aside from the fact that Solomon is another disputed historical figure, Gaul is the ROMAN name for that region, not the Hebrew one, if they even had a Hebrew name for it. I want you to provide me with solid evidence that King Solomon, if he did actually exist, had contact with people in southern France let alone was loaning them money.
-
@Cmdr:
If you close your mind and look to unsupported claims of the ignorant for your support, no one will ever be able to change your mind, Frimmel.
Change my mind to think the Bible is a science book? Change my mind to ignore the evidence that species change over time to favor traits that give a survival advantage? I don’t recall saying there is no God simply asking if his existence is relevant to whether evolution is a valid theory to explain the facts that species change over time.
Removed reference to deleted post df
Barring the destruction of a signifigant number of librarys or 180 degree turn in attitudes toward archiving history in 2000 years it will likely not be an issue of dispute that Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill or Babe Ruth or John Kennedy existed.
You can not provide me with ONE person who knew this Jesus person. A person who would surely have attracted considerable attention. The only person you can bring up was born many years after his supposed death?
While I suppose that is hardly conclusive proof that he did not exist the burden of proof is not mine to bear.
But I guess even in the days of old there were people who thought the world was flat and that telescopes were the work of the devil. So I will allow you to remain with your hatred and hope that you will one day out grow it.
Which is it? Are things to be taken on facts or faith?
You applaud those who questioned the FACT that the world is flat yet condemn me for questioning the FACT of the existence of Jesus?
-
I’m done discussing it with you, Frimmel. If you wish to blind yourself to reality, there is not a darn thing the world can do but hope you don’t stub your toe on the furniture or bang your head too hard on the walls.
-
I want the god like power of entering red text into another person’s comments. I think DF is some-kind of omnipotent diety. Muhahahahaha df
Here’s a question for you philosopher’s. Has this site evolved or did DJensen plan that it would evolve to this state….hmmmmm…
-
It’s also slightly smaller text, no I’m not omnipotent just potent…
-
This thread took an odd turn. I was mainly interested in if anyone had heard of a theory how a light-sensitive spot could evolve. The fossil record is very strong evidence that evolution occurs, but a good theory needs to answer all reasonable objections.
-
This thread took an odd turn. I was mainly interested in if anyone had heard of a theory how a light-sensitive spot could evolve. The fossil record is very strong evidence that evolution occurs, but a good theory needs to answer all reasonable objections.
No it doesn’t.
A good theory needs to explain a preponderance of the facts. When a theory such as gravity for instance answers all the ‘reasonable objections’ it becomes a natural law. And natural laws will get reexamined should new facts come to light.
That we do not have all the facts of how eyes came to be does not make evolution somehow ‘less.’ That sort of thing is a red herring of the creationists. A misunderstanding of the way science works. An objection of those who think evolution means ‘man came from monkeys’ (it does not by the way.)
Theories are used to explain facts. That you don’t have all the facts does not make the theory less sound.
-
I would think the vast array of different eyes would strengthen your belief that evolution is valid. Human eyes and bat eyes are very different yet they are both eyes correct? Just the differences amongst the raptor birds don’t do it for you?
That science has not been able to determine what an eye evolved from does not mean that eyes haven’t changed to give a species a survival advantage does it?
There was an episode of the Highlander TV series. Macleod was a spy in WW2 or just before smuggling a scientist out of Germany. The scientist says, “You don’t think science knows the answers do you Herr Macleod?”
“I don’t think science knows the right questions.”
Make sure you understand the question science is asking before you say that it is providing a wrong answer. :wink:
-
Here are a couple of things on eye evolution I found interesting.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://evolutionarynovelty.blogspot.com/2008/07/box-jellies-and-red-herring-of-eye.html
-
-
Here are a couple of things on eye evolution I found interesting.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://evolutionarynovelty.blogspot.com/2008/07/box-jellies-and-red-herring-of-eye.html
stop trying to enlighten people Frim. This should be a place of fun & ignorance. No learning allowed.
-
Thanks Frimmel that was interesting.
LT
Suggested Topics
