Hyper evolution in the bible

If the bible is just baloney, why try to pretend it says something other than the guy had some fantastic changes? Who cares whether you believe it or not? Thats what it says.
Da 4:33 - The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
Eagle feather -like hairs and claws, and a digestive system to eat the grass of the field, like cattle, happening all in a moment-'that same hour'?
Nails don't grow like claws and eagle feathers etc all right away on humans! You call it similies, and baloney, but that only describes your opinion of it. A biased, and weak opinion.

Similes are similes. That is not a matter of opinion.Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar acted like a beast, he did not become one. The only changes were his hair and nails growing longer and it does not say that that happened rapidly. In "the same hour" the change began. It doesn't say anything about how long it took.Your inability to read the Bible does not strengthen your case.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Similes are similes. That is not a matter of opinion.
[Roses are roses as well, but this verse is neither]Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar acted like a beast, he did not become one. The only changes were his hair and nails growing longer and it does not say that that happened rapidly. In "the same hour" the change began. It doesn't say anything about how long it took.The only changes you refer to in acting like a beast, and his hair and nails growing longer are incorrect.16 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him;
and--
they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen
Not to mention some dew of heaven that he was wet with that seems to have helped this happen quickly.
Also the thing was fulfilled that same hour, not 'started to be fulfilled'.
Definition : fulfilled "to be fulfilled, be completed, come to an end
(P'al) to be fulfilled, be completed
(Aphel) to put an end to "
Major changes here happened and quickly. Nowhere does it say it was a simile. All we can do is take it or leave it for what it is, and says.
Like the twig or Aaron's rod that budded, or the garden God planted, and had grown in a few days, or the long lifespans, etc. Things that require some spiritual addition to the physical.
Like heaven, and the tree that has a different fruit every month there, and where people live forever, and the sun never burns out, and such, that require a spiritual aspect as well. No denying possible, just rejecting, or disbelieving. But all the forces are there to explain the flood, and all that we know about, and are told about in the bible, and by science.

THE WORD "LIKE" SAYS IT WAS A SIMILE.If you can't read plain English, you're just wasting my time.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The word like doesn't do it. If we'd never seen anything quite like the feathers this chap grew (not like grew) we describe them as like eagles feathers. The key word feathers, not like. Also claws, not bird. And I already well went over the verse here.
When we put it on the pile of bible evidence, we see there is plenty to use to explain all science mysteries.
Even animal instinct is overridden. We see the cow, carrying the ark of the covenant leave her calve, and head directly where God needed it to go.

Yes, because it is part of the definition of biological evolution: diversification by imperfect reproduction and natural selection.What is important to realise here, is that individuals don't evolve. So whatever happened to Nebuchadnezzar, it wasn't evolution, let alone hyper-evolution. Not 'who'. 'What'. The proper question is "What reproduced the first lifeform?"And the answer is: a non-life form.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

What is important to realise here, is that individuals don't evolve. So whatever happened to Nebuchadnezzar, it wasn't evolution, let alone hyper-evolution.

---

Was the first lifeform an indiviual?

quote:

---

Not 'who'. 'What'. The proper question is "What reproduced the first lifeform?"

​

And the answer is: a non-life form.

---

God breathing life into man is out, then. Some non evidenced non life form did the deed here. Flukes, and non life was all that was needed. Before this, No creator either, just an expansion of the universe from a tiny hot soup that came ready made with the universe conveiniently in it. Galaxies, sun, moon, stars, and the works. Where this came from is not important, long as again, God didn't doit! I can see why you chose a science fiction character for an avatar!

Apart from the fact that it is a bit tenuous to draw the line between non-life and life as sharply as is suggested by the way you talk about it: yes, the first lifeform was an individual, in the sense that it was an individual example of its kind. The non-lifeforms that preceded it were also individual examples of their kind.I think I know where you want this to go: when I say that the first lifeform was an individual, you come out triumphantly with "Gotcha! So individuals can evolve!"But your ploy fails. All that evolved was a population of non-lifeforms, which subsequently also contained lifeforms. By saying that, I also hope it's becoming a bit clearer that the distinction between non-life and life isn't even all that important for the process of evolution to take place. Well, it's a nice metaphor, but as far as explanations are concerned, yes, it's out. Let's call that A and contrast it with B: "some non evidenced supernatural entity did the deed here". For A, there is a proposed mechanism, it's plausible, and it explains a lot. B, however, has no mechanism, is not very plausible, and has no explanatory power whatsoever. I know which one I prefer. There is no rule in science that says that anything but God is allowed as an explanation. If God really did it, then science will eventually find that out. So far, science is moving further and further away from the God explanation. And since science keeps progressing, and produces some very useful results along the way, its trustworthiness is a lot higher, in my view, than the stagnant creation myth.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You need to head back to grade school English, simple. Similie: A comparison using "like" or "as".

Yes, and No!If you mean that the literal direct creation of man by GOD as something unique as described in Genesis, then yes, that's out for sure. There has been nothing ever found that seems to imply that man, or cats, or pine trees are some unique creation.But that does not eliminate GOD from the picture. If GOD created the universe and the rules that govern it, then the laws of chemical bonding were part of that creation.The more we learn the more likely it becomes that chemical bonding leading towards the precursors of live, the basic amino acids, is an inevitable result of those rules governing this universe. Life almost has to begin.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I suggest that you review a number of other threads where simple has been involved. Talking to him is, indeed, an utter waste of time.

quote:

---

yes, the first lifeform was an individual, in the sense that it was an individual example of its kind. The non-lifeforms that preceded it were also individual examples of their kind.

---

How do you know this? -That non life created life? And do you know how many individuals there were? Just the one of it's new kind? Or were there millions of this individual all appearing at once?

quote:

---

All that evolved was a population of non-lifeforms, which subsequently also contained lifeforms

---

So this granny, (or was there millions of grannies) evolved a poulation of non lifeforms. Or were this lifeless horde before granny?

quote:

---

God breathing life into man is out, then.

​

Well, it's a nice metaphor, but as far as explanations are concerned, yes, it's out.

---

So by virtue of the part of science we know now, based only on the physical, (which cannot recognize anything spiritual, even if it landed on the microscope)-and that can't say how or where this lifeform appeared from hordes of non lifeforms, we can deduce that no God exists, to do what He wrote about using men? Science fiction indeed!

quote:

---

Let's call that A and contrast it with B: "some non evidenced supernatural entity did the deed here". For A, there is a proposed mechanism, it's plausible, and it explains a lot

---

So how do you know it was not supernatural, in your story about the population of the unborn spawning a lifeform? If you know it was not-what was it? If you do not know, and it might have been, then you admit to a spiritual, perhaps a God? If there is a God, then we can bring it to a ground where we see what is the best evidence for this God. If not, you remain into the mystic, and to dress it in science is a cheap tactic.

quote:

---

If God really did it, then science will eventually find that out. So far, science is moving further and further away from the God explanation. And since science keeps progressing, and produces some very useful results along the way, its trustworthiness is a lot higher, in my view, than the stagnant creation myth.

---

God is a spirit, and not physical. They cannot find Him out with their cavemanish abilities. By assigning all things a physical only based orgin, science will only get further from the truth. Only the truths of the box remain, (which is the box of the physical only).
I have illustrated that at least the bible goes far beyond those box boundries. Lets see science grow a forest in 2 days, with fruit in the fruit trees! Let's see science try to make me live a thousand years even! Or produce a water canopy that could flood the world, and move continents with little heat, and blow dry a world of water, clear into space, a lot of it, also without heating up the planet to kill life!!! No, the physical only cannot do these things, and so much more!!

And this is only the physical part of the universe! Imagine the wonders when we include the spiritual part as well! Only then would we begin to comprehend the meaning of life. We get a glimpse of this in the spiritual document of the bible. Life where there is no curse, no weeds, no death, no disease. Life that is everlasting, and where animals are as harmless and friendly as can be, even lions. There it is a tame lion! No more meat eating, or any eating much required, but we can and will as we wish eat things like heavenly fruit on trees that have a new fruit every month. A new revealed, unfolded merged universe, that is different looking enough to be called a new heaven, where we will see all these things we now cannot. etc. Restricting ourself to the paltry prison of the physical only is unthinkably unacceptable.

It is more of a descriptive adjective here.

In case there are any lurkers who might be taken in by this lunacy, I'll try one last time:In the English language, a comparison using the word "like" is a simile. By definition. Period.You can not use the word "like" in a comparison without it being a simile. Period.It is a figure of speech, by definition. Period.It is not to be taken literally. Period.If it was not intended as a figure of speech, the word "like" would not be there. The translators obviously intended it as a figure of speech, or they would not have used the word "like". If the simple-minded don't want it to be a figure of speech, they need to argue with the translators, not with the English language.As it applies to the example, Nebuchadnezzar's hair was like eagles' feathers - it did not become eagles' feathers. His nails were like claws - they did not become claws. He ate grass like oxen - he did not become an ox.There was no evolution involved. Period.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-09 09:27 AM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.