Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Intent Of the Bible
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 42 (10194)
05-22-2002 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 1:18 AM


[QUOTE] So eg, this means that horse/zebras/mules are a kind for example (I think). Biology and genomics is currently consistent with this idea. When more genomes are in this will clarify the issue. At the moment science is consistent with a world of several thousand distinct genomes.[/B][/QUOTE]
So, are Bonobos and Humans in the same "kind"?
They are at least as closeley-related as zebras and horses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 1:18 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 8:18 PM nator has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 42 (10197)
05-22-2002 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 2:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think it was a joke. We simply believe that God created several thousand distinct genomes which have diversified. With the genomes in hand it should be quite easy to re-catalog them into their kinds. We'll see.
What will baraminologists do, do you think, when molecular phylogenetic evidence (which they are using) puts man in the ape baramin, or shows a phylogenetic relationship between birds & reptiles, fish & amphibians etc. that is concordant with the fossil record, & mainstream paleontologies interpretations of it?
They will ignore it.
Practically any sort of phylogeny, regardless of the data it is derived from, puts man & apes in the same clade. This isn't science, it is an intellectually dishonest attempt to "prove" a pet theory by only using evidence that fits, & binning everything that doesn't.
Christian baraminologists WILL NOT show humans & apes to be related, regardless of evidence, BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THEIR FAITH. They simply WILL NOT admit it, but will accept phylogenies derived from the same data that puts chimps & gorillas together.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 2:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

private_universe
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 42 (10223)
05-22-2002 8:04 PM


I'm a newbie to this site, but I've been studying molecular biology for 4 years and never come across this "baramin" stuff. At the risk of sounding like an idiot could someone explain it to me? Never heard of it before.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 8:22 PM private_universe has not replied
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 05-22-2002 9:22 PM private_universe has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 42 (10225)
05-22-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
05-22-2002 9:19 AM


Have you got evidence for that? Zebras and Horses produce offspring that survive (although they might be sterile) don't they? I doubt that many people suspect that Bonobos and humans would produce viable offspring! %DNA similarity isn't that useful either. At the end of the day we really need the genomes (which we will have in about 5 years). At the edn of the day if you really want to believe that man evolved from a common ansecestor with apes over a period of 5-10 millions of years, feel free. However, we already know that the pattern of protein expression in brain is very different between man and apes. And we'll have a much more infomed discussion when the genomes are in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 05-22-2002 9:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 05-22-2002 11:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 42 (10226)
05-22-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by private_universe
05-22-2002 8:04 PM


It's a creationist idea that we think will align with the mainstream rewriting of taxonomy once genomes come in. Baramins is just a technical word for 'kinds' and some creationists have technical procedures for assigning baramins. My professional opinion is that this will be much easier once the gneomes come in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by private_universe, posted 05-22-2002 8:04 PM private_universe has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 42 (10234)
05-22-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by private_universe
05-22-2002 8:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by private_universe:
I'm a newbie to this site, but I've been studying molecular biology for 4 years and never come across this "baramin" stuff. At the risk of sounding like an idiot could someone explain it to me? Never heard of it before.
Hi pv,
Try this site, it contains a fair explanation.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm
Note guideline 1 that is going to trump all other considerations.
"1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2)."
Baraminology isn't science.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by private_universe, posted 05-22-2002 8:04 PM private_universe has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 42 (10250)
05-22-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
05-22-2002 8:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Have you got evidence for that? Zebras and Horses produce offspring that survive (although they might be sterile) don't they? I doubt that many people suspect that Bonobos and humans would produce viable offspring![/QUOTE]
Au contraire! MANY people suspect that Bonobos and Humans would produce living offspring (also thought to be sterile hybrids), but nobody is about to do the experiment for ethical reasons.
quote:
%DNA similarity isn't that useful either.
Why not?
quote:
At the end of the day we really need the genomes (which we will have in about 5 years). At the edn of the day if you really want to believe that man evolved from a common ansecestor with apes over a period of 5-10 millions of years, feel free.
Hmm, I'd like to be careful with the word "believe", here. I "believe" that humans and apes share a common ancestor, etc., in the same way I "believe" that the sun is a very nearby star, and that most of the other little pinpricks of light we see in the night sky are other stars, very much like our sun.
It is "belief" based upon evidence; upon the repeated passage through the rigors of the scientific method.
quote:
However, we already know that the pattern of protein expression in brain is very different between man and apes.
When you write of "pattern of protein expression in brain", what specific work are you referring to?
[QUOTE]And we'll have a much more infomed discussion when the genomes are in. [/b]
So far, all the genetic information we have is consistent with the morphological tree of life. What makes you think that things will be different in the future? Or, are you simply hoping against hope?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-22-2002 8:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-23-2002 12:25 AM nator has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 42 (10260)
05-23-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
05-22-2002 11:48 PM


Schraf, once the genomes are in we'll more easily be able to tell what sort of differences there are between man and apes. The protein expressin stuff was seondarily reported in Nature and New Scientist in the last month or so. %DNA doesn't tell us whether there are new protein families or not. Ultimately if there is no real difference in the genomes (ie apart from millions of point mutaitons) then I'll concede that your POV (on ape to man) is more likely than I had thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 05-22-2002 11:48 PM nator has not replied

PeterW
Guest


Message 39 of 42 (10284)
05-23-2002 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ PU, all non-naive models of the flood involve tectonic action as an instigator of the inundation of the continents with water from the oceans (we suspect the rain was condensing steam boiled t tectonic boundaries) as well as continental drift. Hence we're talking a lot of crustal movement up/down/horizontally. So we expect surges. The flood itself ocurred over 400 days (only the rain was for 40 days) and we wouldsuspect that retreat of waters took decades and that the current continental drift is an exponentially falling remnant of the initial catastrophically rapid drift.
So we can easily accomodate temporary resettling on recently created flood plains for days to weeks.

Do you beleive that the story of the Flood in Genesis is the
literal truth ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 12:59 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by werd19, posted 05-23-2002 4:31 PM You replied

  
werd19
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 42 (10298)
05-23-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by PeterW
05-23-2002 9:39 AM


ok heres the real story.
the flood in the bible correlates to the euphrates bursting its banks and flooding mesopotomia. this flood is similarly documented in mesopotomian literature (worldwide flood, only one family survived, etc). they figured out the time period that the story is looking at and backed it up archiologically. the flood story in the bible is based upon this story. that is why you cant figure out the timeline and such of the flood across the world.
similarly, in egyptian relion, there is a man named hesus i think or soemthign similar to that, who is born of a virgin, and led a life similar to that of jesus. this isnt to say that jesus didnt exist, or anything like that, im just saying, the facts of his life are twisted and embelished upon.
now for creationism. the story of adam and eve does not refer to the origins of man, but rather to the origins of society. in mesopotomia, a place called eden existed, (edin in mesopotomian religions, also the birthplace of man) where farming societies first arose, and the time refered to in the bible is archiologically backed up. man existed before this time but there were no cities or anything of that sort.
in sandland you have hinduism (which worships cows), islam, christianity, judaism. muhammed in a short amount of time got many many many followers. and he didnt live THAT long ago. the moral of the story is that the bible is based on other religions of long ago and also that sand people will beleive anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PeterW, posted 05-23-2002 9:39 AM PeterW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PeterW, posted 05-23-2002 6:35 PM werd19 has not replied

PeterW
Guest


Message 41 of 42 (10307)
05-23-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by werd19
05-23-2002 4:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by werd19:
ok heres the real story.
the flood in the bible correlates to the euphrates bursting its banks and flooding mesopotomia. this flood is similarly documented in mesopotomian literature (worldwide flood, only one family survived, etc). they figured out the time period that the story is looking at and backed it up archiologically. the flood story in the bible is based upon this story. that is why you cant figure out the timeline and such of the flood across the world.
similarly, in egyptian relion, there is a man named hesus i think or soemthign similar to that, who is born of a virgin, and led a life similar to that of jesus. this isnt to say that jesus didnt exist, or anything like that, im just saying, the facts of his life are twisted and embelished upon.
now for creationism. the story of adam and eve does not refer to the origins of man, but rather to the origins of society. in mesopotomia, a place called eden existed, (edin in mesopotomian religions, also the birthplace of man) where farming societies first arose, and the time refered to in the bible is archiologically backed up. man existed before this time but there were no cities or anything of that sort.
in sandland you have hinduism (which worships cows), islam, christianity, judaism. muhammed in a short amount of time got many many many followers. and he didnt live THAT long ago. the moral of the story is that the bible is based on other religions of long ago and also that sand people will beleive anything.

That's more or less my view ... with some additional wrinkles.
I was particularly interested in Tranquility Base's view on
the literalness(????) of the flood story in genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by werd19, posted 05-23-2002 4:31 PM werd19 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 42 (10308)
05-23-2002 6:35 PM



Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024