Why Literal?

Here is a source regarding the enzymes in humans and chickens:Page not found : Stanford Universitywj:
Your personal remarks and irrevelant attacks are neither needed, nor appreciated. If you expect a legitimate, scientific, one-on-one debate, cut out the CRAP!!!

Let's get things back on topic, or this one's closing down.Also, wj, we could much do without the "boobootroll".Adminnemooseus

I'd have to agree with admin and his comment on BBTroll. BBC has not run off to hide. He has continued to post and work on the issues. We may have thought he was a troll but he hasn't fullfilled those concerns to date (it just started to look like that). Some of us can't be on here all the time and our responses may be slower than others.

Thank you for the source.
Here is a relevent quote from it:
"very similar to those of humans have been described in mice, chickens, and frogs. "
The issue isn't whether there is similarity between humans and chickens and frogs. Since we are all related you'd expect that.
The issue was whether these similarities where closer here than between humans and chimpanzees.The sources given to you claim that the human and chimp aren't just "very similar" but are identical.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-01-2003]

Good point, Ned.
That website did not mention chimpanzees (it only mentioned that the Myb is similar only to frogs, chickens, and humans). From that, I would probably conclude that, if humans and chimpanzees were more closely related between THAT enzyme, then that website would have mentioned apes along with the chickens and the frogs.I was just curious (it's not hard evidence for either side, or else it would be trustworthey for one or the other.)Anyway, back to the point:
Why do the atheists claim that Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict? THey don't. If you read the two chapters carefully, you'll notice that Gen 1 was referring to the creation of the entire world in the order it happened, while Gen 2 was referring to ONLY the creation of the Garden of Eden, and the creation of plants within thereof. You see, God wanted Adam to SEE God make the garden, because otherwise he would have been tempted into trusting Satan (notice that only Eve was decieved into believing Satan because she wasn't there with Adam to see God create Eden, so Eve was decieved, and then Adam ate the fruit along with Eve because he was decieved by the woman, not directly by Satan).

When I read Gen 2, it says "...the Lord formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..." (emphasis mine). The clear, literal reading is that this is referring to every beast and bird, not just the ones in the Garden.So the question to you is, why do so-called biblical literalists take such liberties with the reading?

Did you read ALL of Gen 2? You see, in verse 1 it says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed..." Then it goes on to say, in verse 8: "And the LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden..."
Then, in verse 9 it explains that "out of the ground the LORD God aused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight..." You see, when going in chronological order for the verses, they make perfect sense.Notice that verse 9 did NOT say "out of the ground came every plant over the entire earth..." it only said "out of the ground came every plant..." Also notice that, beginning with Gen 1:1 and going through Gen 2:3 there was a different author writing that, for in Gen 2:4 it BEGINS to refer to God as "the LORD God" and not just "God." That is found in every Bible I've ever seen. Also, the writing style is slightly different between Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-- for the former mentions "evening, morning, and the numbered day," while the latter mentions only the events and not the time at which they took place, and indicates a change in authors, which would also explain the slight confusion, if you're still not understanding.

No, I understand it's two authors. That's why I have an easy time explaining the discrepancies between Genesis accounts by assuming they're two different stories about the same thing. It's not unreasonable for me to assume that the writers of the Hebrew bible synthesized two similar but different genesis stories, from two separate oral traditions (brought together by a desire to have a written bible, perhaps.)But then, I'm not constrained by the belief that the bible is to be taken literally, so I don't have to use textual gymnastics to rationalize discrepancies.

I will desist from the Boobootroll. However I will continue to call a troll a troll when that is the case.I have now made the effort to redirect the discussions on lysozyme and GLO pseudogenes onto appropriate threads. I understand that administration has previously directed Booboocruise to post on these topics in the appropriate threads (message #89) but he has failed to heed that warning. I don't wish Booboo to be suspended or punished but I suggest that administration chastise him for continuing to post off topic messages in this thread and giving the impression that he is trying to avoid genuine and full debate on the points that he has raised.

First of all, if you think that I am going to take you scientifically seriously, you'd better wise-up. (You have the attitude of an 8th grader). Actually, it's too late. Don't expect me to take you seriously any more.By the way, my last post (regarding the Genesis accounts of creation) WAS posted in the right thread (this one). So, YOU are the one out of line.
Also, you need to worry about yourself (I have lots of work and little time for this bogus chit-chat, so don't call me lazy or incompetent if I happen to miss out on replying to this forum every once in a while).wj: If you think you're scientifically wise/smart, then show it, don't downcast others for their beliefs. You'll never find me insulting any atheist or evolutionist on this site, etc., so why do you feel you have the goal to just ridicule others?

I've never managed to get one passed about three, so anything
over that is good going in my book. Female rats are
more likely to develop tumours too. Over a period of about
5 years I had around 15 male rats and only 1 developed a
tumour, while a friend had about 8 females and five suffered
tumours that ultimately led to their demise.

I always thought that the myth about apricot kernels and cancer was about laetrile, not amygda-something like Boo is talking about.Here is a great site which deals with such isses from an evidence standpoint:Home Page | Quackwatch...and here is a page devoted to the apricot kernels:http://www.quackwatch.org/...atedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Cancer is also much more common today because people don't die anywhere near as often as they used to of a whole bunch of other reasons, like child birth, influenza, tuberculosis, smallpox, etc.There were a lot more work-related deaths back in the day, too, before we had worker safety laws, which required protective clothing and safe equipment.

Dr. Comninellis is a medical doctor and a assistant professor of community and family medicine at the University of Minessota, Kansas City. He graduated in 1882.He doesn't seem to be an Oncologist, so I don't know why he would pretend to be an expert in cancer.Oh, and BooBoo, do you actually believe that a huge discovery like "apricot kernels prevent ALL CANCER" wouldn't earn someone the Nobel?If your assertion that all doctors everywhere are "covering up" this "incredible truth", just for the money, then why didn't they do the same thing each time another huge discovery was made which put a bunch of people out of business?

Dr. Comninellis wasn't used in reference to cancer (I don't think) it was as a reference to the differences and commonality of some proteins. BBC hasn't gotten back to that yet.BBC, there is a separate topic for the protein issue. Please address what is there.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-01-2003]