what the bible didn't see
bpuharic
in teh bible
yet the bible never mentions quantum mechanics. so, according to
creationists, computers can't work.
the bible never mentions relativity. yet gps systems still work.
so if we base our beliefs on what's NOT mentioned in the bible, then
none of modern science is possible.
AND creationists say that what happens in the bible is the ONLY thing
possible. 'each after its own kind'.
yet the bible never mentions any quantum observations, which we know
DO happen.
so where is the consistency of biblical literalism?
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
For the literalist, it is literally what they want it to mean.
TomS
<7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."
Because the Bible is silent about evolution, a Bible-only Christian
cannot say whether evolution is either true or false.
The Bible likewise is silent about the majority of life: microbes.
As well as some larger forms of life: fungi, marsupials, giant tube
worms. It doesn't confirm or deny the existence of the Loch Ness
monster or Big Foot.
The Bible is silent about irreducible complexity, fixity of species,
the Cambrian explosion, whether birds are related to dinosaurs, the
vertebrate eye (its origins or structure), natural selection, random
variation, genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, taxonomy,
fossils, the Grand Canyon, ...
--
---Tom S.
Be not ashamed to inform the unwise and foolish, and the extreme aged that
contendeth with those that are young: thus shalt thou be truly learned, and
approved of all men living.: Sirach 42:8
Davej
> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because it's not mentioned
> in teh bible
>
> yet the bible never mentions quantum mechanics. so, according to
> creationists, computers can't work.
Good grief, does the Bible even get simple geometry right? Does it
mention that the world isn't flat?
Otto
news:7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com...
The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist would dream
of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when they talk about the
truth of evolution they must mean something else than what they mean when
talking about the existence of McDonald's.
Otto
Mike Painter
lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Free Lunch
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Do creationists claim that the moon used to keep a different schedule?
Darrell Stec
Impossible. When the moon was made from green cheese, PDAs hadn't been
invented to keep its schedule on.
--
Later,
Darrell
JTEM
bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> it's not mentioned in teh bible
Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
is true because they claim to believe that the bible
is literally true, and the bible does include a
creation story. So, according to them, that creation
story is literally true.
Darrell Stec
The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
Creationists tend to mix and match, confusing the stories, depending upon
the version of "truth" they believe.
--
Later,
Darrell
jillery
Yes, and creationists consider both creation stories mutually
exclusive to evolution.
On top of that, they have other entirely different stories to say why
evolution is false.
No wonder creationists can't keep their stories straight.
John Wilkins
<dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
> >
> > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
> >
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
> even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
John Wilkins
<fbdac4af-a1ac-4d0b...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, well, I have other
principles" - Groucho Marx.
Otto
8LXfn.31441$OX4....@newsfe25.iad...
To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a star
like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been called the
Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible in the day sky, and
its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more familiar - if the fact of our
Sun being a star is the point you are trying to make ?
Otto
Steven L.
news:ed3c4804-dad5-4a3d...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
Isaiah 40:22 states, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
earth"
After it was firmly established that the earth is roughly spherical,
Christians reinterpreted this line to mean that the earth is a sphere.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Frank J
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:31:16 -0500, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote in
But notice how literalists are "evolving," increasingly making excuses
for those whose "literal" interpretations clearly contradict theirs.
Even those who don't make excuses (e.g. WND's Joseph Farah, a YEC who
admitted to me by email that he thinks OECs are just as wrong as
"Darwinists") rarely *volunteer* to remind anyone that other "literal"
interpretations contradict theirs.
If "literalists" regularly challenged other literalists, it could be
easily dismissed as widespread self-delusion. But there must be
something else going on.
jillery
This is an expressed part of ID's Wedge Strategy. It's also an
example of the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The differences among different creationists are viewed as normal
denominational nitpicking when compared against the blasphemy of
godless evolution.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
It's like a dysfunctional family. They fight fiercely among themselves,
often splitting into ever smaller denominations, but when the general
ideas of their doctrines are challenged, they pull together against the
threat.
Frank J
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
And in the process, shouting as loud as they can, in so many words:
"of course you are right that we have no alternate science, but as
soon as our target audience figures that out they either join the scam
or become critics like you."
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Painter
>>>>
>>>
>>> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist
>>> would dream of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when
>>> they talk about the truth of evolution they must mean something
>>> else than what they mean when talking about the existence of
>>> McDonald's.
>> Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from
>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>> also.
>
> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
> trying to make ?
perspective does not apply.
The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star, contrary to
what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light, just a reflection, one
that shirks it's duties for most of the month and isn't evn in the night sky
part of it.
Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume that
the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.
JTEM
Darrell Stec <dars...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> >creationstory. So, according to them, thatcreation
> > story is literally true.
>
> The bible contains TWO creation stories,
That's okay, NOBODY accepts the bible as literally true,
not even creationists. They say they do, but it don't
exactly take a lot of digging to prove otherwise.
Take Leviticus, for example. That's the book which bans
eating any part of a pig (bacon, ham, pork sausages) or
even shellfish. It also dictates the appropriate sacrifice
one is to make at the temple. Leviticus is routinely
ignored as "Quaint Jewish Cultural Law" AND wielded as
the very word of God -- all depending on whether or not
they are applying the food & sacrificial bits to themselves
or what they mistakenly interpret as a condemnation of
homosexuality to gay people.
> Creationists tend to mix and match, confusing the stories,
> depending upon the version of "truth" they believe.
I'm not about to accuse them of consistency either.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > and
> > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> >
And a partridge in a pear tree.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Michael Siemon
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam &
> > > Eve
> > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > and
> > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> > >
>
> And a partridge in a pear tree.
Please cite chapter and verse... :-)
Desertphile
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > and
> > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> And a partridge in a pear tree.
It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
jillery
wrote:> > In article <210220101905111112%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > > and
> > > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> > > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> > And a partridge in a pear tree.
>
> It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!
NO. Cast off your shoes!
Walter Bushell
<41241ecb-10aa-4789...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sinners of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your shoes!
rmacfarl
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-671357....@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net...
The Gourd! Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
Paul J Gans
>In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
>> > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
>> > and
>> > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
>> two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
>> >
>And a partridge in a pear tree.
Actually, I think that was left out. No room left...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Darrell Stec
I just checked out a book from the library called The Genesis Enigma: Why
The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate by Andrew Parker. The blurb on the
cover says "Andrew Parker is known by many as the scientist to best explain
biology's Big Bang theory of the diversity of life that emerged during the
Cambrian period (542 to 488 million years ago). Now he has a powerful,
profound, and more personal discovery to report. Simply put, he has found
the divine within the confines of scientific thought." The blurb goes on
and on ending with, "The Genesis Enigma is an unprecedented rational
argument for the existence of God that is sure to fascinate intellectual
curious believers and nonbelievers alike." It extols his virtues as one of
the foremost evolutionary biologists/scientists of modern day, though not in
those words.
The glaring problem of a very brief perusal of this book shows he is using
the same poor translation of the bible to prove his point. He ignores the
fact that there are two creation stories and uses verses in a hodgepodge
order from either account depending upon the point he wishes to proselytize.
I wonder if I will be able to get to the end of the book without vomiting?
--
Later,
Darrell
jillery
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:proto-671357....@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
Splinter!
Desertphile
Oh good bloody grief! Something that contradicts itself many
hundreds of times cannot be accurate, let alone scientifically
accurate. Scientists tend to hate contradictions.
> cover says "Andrew Parker is known by many as the scientist to best explain
> biology's Big Bang theory of the diversity of life that emerged during the
> Cambrian period (542 to 488 million years ago). Now he has a powerful,
> profound, and more personal discovery to report. Simply put, he has found
> the divine within the confines of scientific thought." The blurb goes on
> and on ending with, "The Genesis Enigma is an unprecedented rational
> argument for the existence of God that is sure to fascinate intellectual
> curious believers and nonbelievers alike." It extols his virtues as one of
> the foremost evolutionary biologists/scientists of modern day, though not in
> those words.
So he is an Old-Earth Creationist who wants to deceive rational
people into believing the gods exist by claiming his occult
beliefs are "scientific." Golly, he's the sixth one I've seen do
that this morning.....
> The glaring problem of a very brief perusal of this book shows he is using
> the same poor translation of the bible to prove his point. He ignores the
> fact that there are two creation stories and uses verses in a hodgepodge
> order from either account depending upon the point he wishes to proselytize.
Like "Chariot of the Gods?" no doubt.
> I wonder if I will be able to get to the end of the book without vomiting?
It depends on how much insulting of your intelligence you can
take.
--
Walter Bushell
"rmacfarl" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
We have to untie the Gourdian not.
Walter Bushell
<aa437bb3-3340-4ee0...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Splingter!
Mike Lyle
Somewhere among my books is a rather old "Holy Land" flora, but I can't
tell where. So I can only ask, was _Pyrus pyraster_ or _P communis_
actually found there in Biblical times?
--
Mike.
John McKendry
"The common pear, Pyrus communis L., native to Russia, is now cultivated
in the Holy Land and even occurs there subspontaneously, but could not
have been known in Biblical days. The Syrian pear, P. syriaca Boiss.,
occurs on rocky hillsides throughout the area..." - Moldenke and
Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, Chronica Botanica Company, Waltham,
MA, 1952.
John
Paul J Gans
If it isn't in the King James Version, it isn't real.
Paul J Gans
Seems like a bit of post hoc agriculture...
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
No other books are needed, for they will either contradict it, in which
case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are
superfluous. Therefore all other books should be used as tinder for the
bathhouse.
Steven L.
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7ujqk4...@mid.individual.net:
Take Dramamine one half hour before reading.
-- Steven L.
Bob Berger
Could be post hoe, or maybe even post hole?
Dan Drake
(in article <hm4s0p$8ir$7...@reader2.panix.com>):
Funny you should mention that. Just last night I ran across something I
decided to mention here: a new scholarly edition of Darwin's very
controversial piece (which I now know better than to call his most
successful):
http://www.ianmonroe.com/index.php/portfolio/writing/the-_____-of-_____/
This edition, available through Lulu as a bound book or free download, gives
the full text of
The --- of --- By Means of Natural ---;
Or the --- of Favoured --- in the Struggle for Life
in which all words not present in the King James Version are blacked out.
(Creative Commons license) Thus, a famous passage with deleted words
represented here as "gggg",
It is ggggg to ggggg an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many
kinds, with birds
singing on the bushes, with ggggg ggggg ggggg about, and with worms ggggg
through the ggggg earth, and to ggggg that these ggggg ggggg forms, so ggggg
from each other, and ggggg on each other in so ggggg a manner, have all been
ggggg
by laws ggggg ggggg us. These laws, taken in the ggggg sense, being Growth
with
ggggg
; Inheritance which is almost ggggg by ggggg; ggggg from the ggggg
and direct ggggg of the ggggg conditions of life, and from use and ggggg; a
ggggg
of Increase so high as to lead to a ggggg for Life, and as a ggggg to
Natural ggggg,
ggggg
ggggg of ggggg and the ggggg of less-ggggg forms. Thus, from the war
of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are ggggg
of conceiving, namely, the
ggggg
of the higher ggggg, directly ggggg. There is ggggg in this view of life,
with its
several powers, having been ggggg breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one; and that, whilst
this ggggg has gone ggggg on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being,
ggggg.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
Eric Root
> JTEM wrote:
>
> > �bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive; and
> even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>
> the version of "truth" they believe.
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell
or depending on what's coming out both sides of their mouths at the
current time.
Eric Root
Paul J Gans
Exactly, which is why so little remains of many native literatures
that were run over during the Christian Religious Conquests. These
obviously include native American material, but also thata of several
Baltic cultures, much Celtic and Basque material, and so on.
Indeed if the religious would have had their way, little or nothing
would survive of Greek and Roman material either. Luckily Charlemagne
had a different view. But we came THAT close...
Of course today we are totally sophisticated and so we only ban
pornography and philosophers, both being dangerous to the established
order.
Paul J Gans
That's what you posted, so it must be so.
Michael Siemon
Yeah -- but Wilkins was in fact quoting the (apocryphal...) words of
the early Muslim conqueror of Egypt, with regard to the Library at
Alexandria... :-)
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-04ECCF...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Written 300 years after the supposed event, by a Christian critic.
Irony...
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hm6m0c$jjo$2...@reader2.panix.com:
Actually, more than those I'm afraid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
-- Steven L.
Walter Bushell
<24698140-0497-46d4...@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
Satyrically speaking they do tend to blow hot and cold from the same
mouth.
James Beck
wrote:
>In article
I read a story like that once that involved ice cubes, but I always
thought it would hurt too much.
Otto
news:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
>> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> is literally true, and the bible does include a
> creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> story is literally true.
>
Even if you don't interpret the Bible as being literally true, the creation
story even if not taken literally still is a creation story of some kind.
There is still the aspect of a conscious being being behind the creation.
So you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe in a spiritual cause
behind the existence of matter.
Otto
Otto
news:wzign.38281$Ee1....@newsfe12.iad...
> Otto wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist
>>>> would dream of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when
>>>> they talk about the truth of evolution they must mean something
>>>> else than what they mean when talking about the existence of
>>>> McDonald's.
>>> Or the idea that the greater light is a little bit different from
>>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>>> also.
>>
>> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
>> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
>> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
>> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
>> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
>> trying to make ?
> This is allegedly the word of god that is telling this story, human
> perspective does not apply.
What I meant to say is, the human perspective as I wrote it here doesn't
invalidate what you were quoting from the bible, whether you think it is the
word of God, or you don't.
> The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star, contrary to
> what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light, just a reflection,
> one that shirks it's duties for most of the month and isn't evn in the
> night sky part of it.
It is not contrary to what the bible says. The bible calls it - a certain
people did in ancient times, not just the bible - the greater one of the two
lights, which it is, and which tallies with what I said was from the human
perspective. There is no contradiction, whether you know the Sun is in fact
a star or you don't. There are basically, apart from the countless stars in
the night sky, two lights in the sky, a greater one which lights the day,
and a lesser one during night time. What more is there to say about it ? You
are just splitting hairs.
>
> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume
> that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.
What two different stories of creation ?
Otto
Darrell Stec
>> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to assume
>> that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither were true.
>
> What two different stories of creation ?
>
> Otto
>
Is that a serious question? There are the bible is a somewhat expert
blending of four different traditions each with similar but differing
stories.
In one creation story the Elohim, the sons of god (the god El), also called
the council of god, worked the earth and world that already existed. In the
other story of of the 70 sons of El, called Yahweh who because the tribal
god of the Hebrews, filled up the earth.
In one scenario Adam and Eve were created at the same time from the dust of
the earth and then the animals were made and the couple named them. In the
other story the animals were made first and then Adam. Adam tried mating
with all the different animals but was disappointed. So Adam was split in
half (Adam was a hermaphrodite) and Eve was created from his feminine side.
Note that the common usage of rib is an incorrect translation and facade or
side is closer to the meaning.
The order of the creation differs in the two stories too.
There are also two different Noah and the Ark stories interwoven. And at
least two of the same stories of Abraham (including the Abraham and Isaac
story where in one Isaac is saved and in the other his death is insinuated).
Since you are most likely depending upon a translation and may not have
studied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts much of that has been glossed over
and is not apparent. However in Hebrew it is as apparent as if you were
reading two stories interwoven one by Dr. Seuss and the other by William
Shakespeare.
Biblical scholars have been discussing this for about two centuries now.
Bill Moyer's Genesis separates the two creation accounts side by side, so
you can see the different but somewhat parallel story lines and then the
continuity becomes obviously. One story is definitely poetry and the other
more prose.
--
Later,
Darrell
Wombat
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news messagenews:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because
> >> it's not mentioned in teh bible
>
> > Not even close. Fundamentalists claim that creationism
> > is true because they claim to believe that the bible
> > is literally true, and the bible does include a
> > creation story. So, according to them, that creation
> > story is literally true.
>
> Even if you don't interpret the Bible as being literally true, the creation
> story even if not taken literally still is a creation story of some kind.
> There is still the aspect of a conscious being being behind the creation.
The creation story in Genesis is a rewrite of an older Sumerian
creation myth. Then add in the flood purloined from the Epic of
Gilgamesh and some invented history to give the Israelites some
background and voila, the first book of the Bible is born.
Wombat
JohnN
> "bpuharic" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in news messagenews:7kufn59cjojvufgqk...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > creationistst tell us evolution isnt true because it's not mentioned
> > in teh bible
>
> > creationists, computers can't work.
>
> > the bible never mentions relativity. yet gps systems still work.
>
> > so if we base our beliefs on what's NOT �mentioned in the bible, then
> > none of modern science is possible.
>
> > AND creationists say that what happens in the bible is the ONLY thing
> > possible. 'each after its own kind'.
>
> > yet the bible never mentions any quantum observations, which we know
> > DO happen.
>
> > so where is the consistency of biblical literalism?
>
> The bible doesn't mention McDonald's either, but no creationist would dream
> of denying the existence of McDonald's. So I think when they talk about the
> truth of evolution they must mean something else than what they mean when
> talking about the existence of McDonald's.
>
The Bible will never mention McDonald's because the cheeseburger is an
abomination onto the Lord.
JohnN
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news message
> news:wzign.38281$Ee1....@newsfe12.iad...
>>>> the lesser light and that the greater light is a star.
>>>> Gen"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
>>>> the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
>>>> also.
>>>
>>> To us, from a human perspective, the greater light has never been a
>>> star like the stars we observe in the night sky and has always been
>>> called the Sun. Being so close to us, and so overwhelmingly visible
>>> in the day sky, and its effects so omnipresent, it's kind of more
>>> familiar - if the fact of our Sun being a star is the point you are
>>> trying to make ?
>> This is allegedly the word of god that is telling this story, human
>> perspective does not apply.
>
> What I meant to say is, the human perspective as I wrote it here
> doesn't invalidate what you were quoting from the bible, whether you
> think it is the word of God, or you don't.
Perhaps you have a different meaning for "invalidate" than I do. When I say
the world is flat and somebody shows me that it is an oblate spheroid, I
caonsider that does invalidate my belief.
>
>> The , obvious to me anyway, point is that teh sun is a star,
>> contrary to what teh bible says and that the moon is not a light,
>> just a reflection, one that shirks it's duties for most of the month
>> and isn't evn in the night sky part of it.
>
> It is not contrary to what the bible says. The bible calls it - a
> certain people did in ancient times, not just the bible - the greater
> one of the two lights, which it is, and which tallies with what I
> said was from the human perspective. There is no contradiction,
> whether you know the Sun is in fact a star or you don't. There are
> basically, apart from the countless stars in the night sky, two
> lights in the sky, a greater one which lights the day, and a lesser
> one during night time. What more is there to say about it ? You are
> just splitting hairs.
Who called the sun the greater light in anciet times?
How can you make a flat statement that the sun is the greater light when the
moon is not a light.
Do you call mirrors lights? When I shine a light on a car and it reflects
light, do you now call the car a light?
>
>>
>> Since tehre are two different stories of creation it is safe to
>> assume that the people who recorded these stories knew that neither
>> were true.
>
> What two different stories of creation ?
The one i Chapter One and teh other one in Chapter two.
>
> Otto
bpuharic
wrote:
you do have to be a fundamentalist to believe the spiritual power
caused it directly instead of using a natural process like evolution
>Otto
>
Eric Root
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news messagenews:22f6268e-fb71-4966...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
But you have to be a fundamentalist to think you have actually
evidence for it, so that people who disagree with you must be
suppressed.
Eric Root
Mike Painter
You don't have to be but the bible is no different from any other creation
story that came from that and earlier time periods. A bird, a fox, a wolf,
or one of the gods made things from existing material.
That is, in fact what the christian bible says.
The idea of creation from nothing came much later.
Otto
news:7vcqha...@mid.individual.net...
What you are saying is very interesting. I know the four gospels each gives
a somewhat different version of Jesus's life, with different emphasis, but I
suppose that's not what you are talking about when you mention the Elohim.
You explain the word "Elohim" as "the sons of God" which you say is "El".
But "Elohim" is the plural form of the word "Eloha". I don't think "Eloha"
means "son of God".
Could you show where the Bible says Adam and Eve were created at the same
time ? Your claim of the existence of two different creation stories is
interesting, but you should show where it says so. Same for Noah.
Otto
Darrell Stec
I think he had cheeseburgers in mind when he formulated boiling a kid in its
mother's milk. That was an abomination for which the penalty was stoning to
death. Still researching if you can have fries with that. Mickey D's
started out with a simple menu -- hamburger, fries and shake. Mixing dairy
and meat is a no no.
--
Later,
Darrell
Darrell Stec
No it is not. You cannot use Strong's. It is not a lexicon but rather a
cross reference to the badly translated KJV. It is full of circular
reasoning. It obfuscates the fact that early Hebrews were polytheistic and
goes to great lengths to make excuses why that might be so. Of course
archaeologists have discovered evidence of polytheism and that there were
statuettes of Mrs. god. The Hebrews were just like their neighbors and in
fact indistinguishable from them. Their history as it appears in the bible
was INVENTED much later.
> I don't think "Eloha"
> means "son of God".
>
> Could you show where the Bible says Adam and Eve were created at the same
> time ?
Try Genesis 1:27. Compare that with the different story in Genesis 2. It
helps if you could read the actual Hebrew.
> Your claim of the existence of two different creation stories is
> interesting, but you should show where it says so.
I gave you a reference to Bill Moyers book. It is very detailed in the
explanation. As I said it is the same as if you blended a story by
Shakespeare with one by Dr. Seuss. It would be obvious who wrote what
verse. Maybe I jumped to a conclusion by assuming you are familiar with
both authors?
Scholars have been aware of the different sources of material for Genesis
for a few centuries now. You might want to read up on the Documentary
Hypothesis.
> Same for Noah.
>
Read your own bible. Compare that one story in Noah has him bringing a pair
of animals aboard Ye Olde Ark. (Genesis 6:19) The other story has him
bringing seven pair of clean animals and two pair of unclean aboard.
(Genesis 7:1)
> Otto
Very careful reading of the bible is important, otherwise you will miss
much. For example most people think Adam and Eve were kicked out of the
garden. Genesis very clearly says only Adam was kicked out. Why? Because
the Elohim did not want him to eat the fruit of the other special tree and
gain immortality and thus become gods like them. Apparently knowledge plus
immortality made one a god in the early Hebrews thinking.
Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh?
--
Later,
Darrell
Walter Bushell
Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> No it is not. You cannot use Strong's. It is not a lexicon but rather a
> cross reference to the badly translated KJV. It is full of circular
> reasoning. It obfuscates the fact that early Hebrews were polytheistic and
> goes to great lengths to make excuses why that might be so. Of course
> archaeologists have discovered evidence of polytheism and that there were
> statuettes of Mrs. god. The Hebrews were just like their neighbors and in
> fact indistinguishable from them. Their history as it appears in the bible
> was INVENTED much later.
>
Mrs. God, why how Mormon of them.
Much later? Like after the return from Exile? When those documents
showed up in the Second Temple and nothing like them had been seen?
Darrell Stec
> In article <7vnbng...@mid.individual.net>,
> Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> No it is not. You cannot use Strong's. It is not a lexicon but rather a
>> cross reference to the badly translated KJV. It is full of circular
>> reasoning. It obfuscates the fact that early Hebrews were polytheistic
>> and
>> goes to great lengths to make excuses why that might be so. Of course
>> archaeologists have discovered evidence of polytheism and that there were
>> statuettes of Mrs. god. The Hebrews were just like their neighbors and
>> in
>> fact indistinguishable from them. Their history as it appears in the
>> bible was INVENTED much later.
>>
>
> Mrs. God, why how Mormon of them.
>
Well Joe did a fair job of plagiarizing the professor from Pa who seems to
have read Proverbs (or was prescient about the Nag Hammadi library and
Gnostic works).
> Much later? Like after the return from Exile? When those documents
> showed up in the Second Temple and nothing like them had been seen?
>
Of course, normally a Second Temple would have followed a First Temple.
Something for which no evidence yet has been found.
--
Later,
Darrell
Otto
> Otto wrote:
>
>> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news message
>> news:7vcqha...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Otto wrote:
>>>
I am sorry, I just can't give this the needed attention now. I will reply in
the next few days, if I can. Just one thing: no, I didn't read the Gilgamesh
epic, but I am interested. I read something about how the inhabitants of the
city tried to get the wild man Gilgamesh into their power by using a virgin,
who thought the best way to do this was to go lie in his sight on her back
stark naked with her legs spread (sorry for the details); and yes, he was
looking her way. Very funny.
But do you actually read Hebrew ?
Otto
Darrell Stec
A new book which compares versions was recently published. Luckily our
local library (which is miniscule) had a copy).
> But do you actually read Hebrew ?
>
Yes, and ancient Greek and Latin.
But of course Gilgamesh was not Hebrew. It and the Enuma Elish (which
followed it) are where many of the stories from Genesis came from. In fact
much of the invented bible was borrowed. See http://www.sacred-
texts.com/ane/index.htm.
> Otto
--
Later,
Darrell
Mark Isaak
> [...] Just one thing: no, I didn't read the
> Gilgamesh epic, but I am interested. I read something about how the
> inhabitants of the city tried to get the wild man Gilgamesh into their
> power by using a virgin, who thought the best way to do this was to go
> lie in his sight on her back stark naked with her legs spread (sorry
> for the details); and yes, he was looking her way. Very funny.
As I recall, it was Enkidu who was tamed by a prostitute. Enkidu later
became Gilgamesh's friend, and his death is what motivated Gilgamesh to
seek out Utnapishtim (the Babylonian Noah) to learn the secret of
immortality.
Stephanie Dalley's _Myths from Mesopotamia_ has the Gilgamesh epic plus
several other Babylonian and Sumerian myths.
> But do you actually read Hebrew ?
I am told that Everett Fox, in _The Five Books of Moses_, has given a
rather literal rendering of the Hebrew, endeavoring to capture its sound
and meaning at the expense of smooth English syntax.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Walter Bushell
Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Except for the manuscripts "found" in the Second Temple? You're saying
that AFAWK the whole pre-exile history of the Hebrews is fiction?
I would not be surprised to find out that that thesis is correct.
Mike Painter
Mostly fiction with a bit of fact here and there. "The Bible Unearthed "
covers it.
Darrell Stec
If it were true, not one shred of evidence has been found to corroborate it.
There doesn't seem to be a first foundation under the Temple for instance.
No evidence of Moses, nor three million plus people and their animals
roaming around the desert for 40 years (quite a feat since archaeologists
can find evidence of a small group of twelve roaming a larger area in parts
of the world more than 8,000 years ago -- its all in the shit). nor the
huge, glorious combined kingdoms of David and Solomon, etc.
> I would not be surprised to find out that that thesis is correct.
>
--
Later,
Darrell
Walter Bushell
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Facts for truthlikeness. Not AIU as close to the feelings as Michener's
_Hawaii_. More like the tales of King Arthur.
Darrell Stec
Does Michener write anything other than fiction? Judging from his book on
the Kent State University killings (of which I have considerable knowledge),
it was total fiction from cover to cover.
--
Later,
Darrell
jillery
Michener wrote mostly fact-based novels, but unless you already know
what the facts are, you would be hard-pressed to correlate it. Lots
of people questioned his historical distortions, especially
historians, and his answer was he was trying to avoid lawsuits and
other harassment. He wrote an autobiography and some travelogues that
are supposed to be nonfiction, but I wouldn't depend on it.
John Wilkins
See also
Mark Smith _The Early History of God_ (Harper & Row, 1990), or his
_The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background
and the Ugaritic Texts_
_The Triumph of Elohim_, ed. Diana V. Edelman (Eerdmans, 1995)
David Penchansky _Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible_
(Westminster John Knox, 2005)
adam...@comcast.net
adam...@comcast.net
alias Ernest Major
> Fred Lathrop wrote: What is your evidence to support evolutionary theory? You have some, but not enough to show that species change.
>
mountains of evidence and billions of observations - supporting
evoltionary theory.
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery
fossil record.
eridanus
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:20:28 -0500, Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Adam & Eve
> > > > stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories, mutually exclusive;
> > > > and
> > > > even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus ministry,
> > > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
>
> > And a partridge in a pear tree.
>
> It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!
>
>
> --
> http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> "Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
it was not a fig tree, it was a mustard tree. It has the smallest seed
and become a great tree, that gives us shade and the birds made nests
in it.
Eri
TomS
<3b52e9b1-a5f0-4403...@googlegroups.com>, adam...@comcast.net
stated..."
>Fred Lathrop wrote: What is your evidence to support evolutionary theory? You
>have some, but not enough to show that species change.
>
<http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use>
Answers in Genesis
<http://web.archive.org/web/20041011014318/www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp>
--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.
eridanus
> You have some, but not enough to show that species change.
Just a common dude that loves to read some books.
Being not an expert, and even not having read even the book of Darwin, not
yet, I found amazing the great variety of cats, dogs, cows, horses, goats,
sheep, etc. that humans had been able "to create". That is not counting the
great number of plants of a class or other that had been changed by the
hand and actions of humans. Try to compare the primitive fruit of maize with
the modern corn, or even with the great variety of maize corn.
Of course these humans actions had not created a new species, but they are
so different, that they look like different species. These changes had been
accomplished by humans in a few centuries. An spectacular change of the Siberian Silver fox was achieved in some 40 years, in which trying to tame
those dangerous animals. They raised taken as puppies and held in cages
for the value of their coats. Someone had the idea of domesticate this aggressive animal to make it less dangerous, and easy to raise up. They
achieve their goal in 35 generations, and obtained a new animal as sweet
as any doggy; but alas! this new animal, do not looked like a silver fox anymore; but like a common ordinary dog with the fur in mixed colors, and
even the tail turn up like in some breeds of dogs and not very hairy as
the foxes had. By looking for a tamed fox, they got instead a sort
of fox-dog. And his fur was not worth a dime in the fur trade.
Then, as I am not scientists, this concept alone, the great capacity of
animals to change their appearance, was discovered casually by humans.
Something similar had occurred with some common plants used in agriculture.
These facts alone were enough argument to convince me of the theory of
evolution. If humans could cause these visible changes in some centuries,
it was clear that the animals could changed alone in a few million years,
on certain conditions; like during the great extinctions.
I am using the word great extinctions referring to a great number of species
or individuals. Just imagine that 95% of living animals were affected by
a huge catastrophe. Some species were totally exterminated, while others
were almost exterminated as well. Just figure small groups of some species
that survived in some refugia in the planet, where life was possible, even
if not very easy. This group would eventually recuperate and start to breed.
As the circumstances had changed, the former genetic make up was not the
best in those circumstances, and some changes occurred. If those changes
were not good, they would had not survived. But other animals or plants
with other changes would survive. You need only to imagine some tens of
thousands of these refugia to imagine that in some places, some animals
or plants, have had different changes than other animals or plants in other
places. As the planet was recuperating some normal conditions for life,
those animals and plants were invading new lands that had become favorable.
This refugia could had been considered like islands with a handful of survivals. They felt free to change, in a similar conditions the humans
used to change domestic animals. By segregating the rare animals or plants
from the rest of the crowd. By this segregation, the humans were creating
"like islands of survival" for those rare animals. If they were had been
left among the crowd of other animals, these rare physical characters would
had been lost. The domestication and selection of rare animals can be well
compared to effect seen in some islands, where some animals were evolving
alone without outside interference. The great variety of turtles of the
Galapagos islands, a different turtle in each island, suggest that they
evolved naturally thus. In South America you cannot see these variety of
turtles. It is absurd to think that a divine creator made those turtles
of the Galapagos, each one different for each island, while made only a
few species for the whole South America.
Then, I had never needed to study the theory of evolution to accept that
was real. You can challenge a detail here or there in the theory of
evolution, but the whole concept is consistent, and you cannot challenge
it as a whole system.
This is using only the common sense.
You cannot use common sense to defend the idea that "god did it. Nobody has
ever seen god doing the universe, the plants, animals and all that. This
is simply a religious myth, that exist in old ancient cultures, but invented
as a different story.
Summing up. I can use common sense to imagine the theory of evolution.
But you cannot use common sense to prove the stories of the gods are real.
The stories of the gods are in the same category as the centaurs, the
flying dragons, the flying horses, the unicorns, or the monsters of Hades,
a fierce dog with seven heads, etc.
Eri
,
TomS
<1f07d753-5131-4715...@googlegroups.com>, eridanus stated..."
[...snip...]
>ever seen god doing the universe, the plants, animals and all that. This
>is simply a religious myth, that exist in old ancient cultures, but invented
>as a different story.
If you will allow me, I will suggest a somewhat different tack on
this.
(1)"God/designer(s) did it" is an answer to a different question than
(2)"it came about by evolution (or reproduction, or the Big Bang)"
answers.
We can describe what happened, when and where in the case of (2). We
can tell what sorts of things are less likely to happen. We can
describe a connection between the properties of the agency and the
outcome (if things were different then there would be different
outcomes).
(1) is not an alternative to (2), because (1) does not answer the
same question.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by adam...@comcast.net:
>Fred Lathrop wrote: What is your evidence to support evolutionary theory? You have some, but not enough to show that species change.
evidence of speciation.
Wait; what?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
presumably of many other things.
eridanus
To explain some questions like living beings, it is done it rationally
by using with more of less success "common sense". Science works on
common sense. Understanding common sense after achieving some training
in thinking. To reason does not guaranty us against errors. This outcome
can give us some confidence that most of the times we are in the right
track.
the other question: God did it.
I do not see how this argument can be validated by common sense.
I had been for years trying to find a rational argument to justify the
existence of a god interested in humans as to interact with them,
and to send us messages.
I do not feel in mood in this moment to develop these arguments, for
I am a little tired... or perhaps... for I think nobody would care in
the least.
Eri
eridanus
> theory? You have some, but not enough to show that species change.
It depends on the definition of change. There is moth that changed its
color due to the soot of the industrial pollution in places where there
was much coal burning. To see if this moth is a different species, we
should see if it can breed with the whitish moth. Perhaps it is only
a simple mutation and not a new species.
But other than microbes, that can breed rather fast, and some pretend that
they had changed as much as to be different microbia... this can be also
rejected. But this is not the real question of evolution. The idea of
species that changes in other different, or rather different and unable to
interbreed with other relatives had not been observed... for different
reasons. This had occurred mostly in the past some millions of years ago.
The circumstances of this changes are not well totally known, but we had
not been yet able to observe them. We had concluded this by some inductive
reasoning not by observing this as a fact.
The change of a species into another close but different, requires also a
lot of time, but we do not know yet how much. In some conditions it can
occur in 50 thousand years, but it can be also 100 or 500 thousand years.
But if you pretend that we can prove that a species can change into another
close but different, we cannot prove other than by some theoretical argument.
I would like you to make the theoretical argument of ancient Jews, or
even medieval thinkers to prove that god did it.
Have you any vintage theoretical argument, to prove that "god did it?"
Eri
John S. Wilkins
specialist can tell you. Jesus (or Matthew) was no botanist.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Glenn
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message news:1lotsl7.7iu17v5saaioN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
being so small you can't see them, and have the poor farmers thinking he was crazy, talking shit that didn't matter.
But apparently you do.
Öö Tiib
that there is better shade and place to build nests of some
other plants? I have always thought that mustard is made from
kind of yellow flowers.
deadrat
But Glenn beat me to it.
Sneaky O. Possum
news:1lotsl7.7iu17v5saaioN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> El martes, 23 de febrero de 2010 18:25:17 UTC, Desertphile escribi�:
>> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:20:28 -0500, Walter Bushell
>> > <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> > > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive;
>> > > > > TWO Adam & Eve stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark
>> > > > > stories, mutually exclusive; and even TWO Abraham & the
>> > > > > Pharaoh stories, mutually exclusive.
>> > > >
>> > > > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus
>> > > > ministry, two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
>> >
>> > > And a partridge in a pear tree.
>> >
>> > It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!
>>
>> seed and become a great tree, that gives us shade and the birds made
>> nests in it.
>> Eri
>
> Except that the mustard seed is *not* the smallest seed, as any fern
> specialist can tell you. Jesus (or Matthew) was no botanist.
--
S.O.P.
John S. Wilkins
Mark Isaak
micrometers, they are too small to see without magnification. But even
many more familiar seeds, such as begonia and petunia, are smaller than
mustard.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
alias Ernest Major
Ferns produce spores, not seeds.
--
alias Ernest Major
RSNorman
know that spores are single cells while seeds are not only
multicellular but contain multicellular components of three different
genotypes of very different origins. John is excused because the job
of a philosopher is to sit and think deeply about issues. Going out
and looking at the actual world is a task better assigned to others.
John is also excused because he is no doubt like almost the entire
population of students in intro biology who forget that information
the instant the final exam is over (if not earlier).
alias Ernest Major
clearly a case of a secondary loss. (And I presume that double
fertilisation still happens; it's just that the endosperm doesn't
develop.) On the other hand I would expect that some seed ferns
primatively lacked endosperm.
> John is also excused because he is no doubt like almost the entire
> population of students in intro biology who forget that information
> the instant the final exam is over (if not earlier).
>
alias Ernest Major
RSNorman
too great --- still I would imagine that the endosperm has already
been consumed as nutrition for the developing embryo.
OK, I did look it up and my imagination was quite wrong. "Although
double fertilization takes place in a number of species, the primary
endosperm nucleus degenerates, and endosperm is not formed (Savins,
1974)."
Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and
Germination
Carol C. Baskin, Jerry M. Baskin
P. 483
The tiny size and small number of cells (and consequent lack of
development) in the embryo and the lack of nutrient stores usually
requires that the seeds be infected with a fungal symbiote in order to
germinate presumably to provide proper nutrition. Of course, some
species can be cultured in vitro with special growth media lacking the
fungus.
As to the evolutionary origin of endosperm, seed ferns are the wrong
place to look. They relate to the evolution of the seed itself, a
much earlier invention. The non-flowering seed plants, the
gymnosperms (conifers, ginkgos, cycads, and Ephedra), use the large,
multicellular haploid state (gametophyte) as nutrient for the embryo
in the seed. Only later did a second fertilization produce the
triploid endosperm. As far as I can tell (from a casual google
search), the evolutionary origin of the endosperm is still an open
question.
You made me look all this up! And I learned stuff along the way.
Thank you for that.
eridanus
word of botanic.
Now I remember a case that happened. A new neighbor arrived and visited
me. I let her pass to my garden that was very nice at this moment,
with many class of flowers, and some trees. It caught her attention
some narcissus in bloom and she asked what they were? I told her
"they are narcissus." Then she said, "what a wonder that such a small
plant could become such a huge tree." "What tree are you talking about?"
"Oh, that huge tree with flowers like this, in the old house down there."
"You mean the old house down there?" "Yeah, that precisely." Then,
I tend to be naive and told her: "Well, this huge tree is not a narcissus
but a tuliperos of Gabon." "That is what I am saying. What a wonder that
such a small plant you have here, would become such a huge amazing tree."
I had not realized yet I was talking to a stupid. Then, I said, "but his
flower never becomes a tree, it just state this size all its life."
"how you dare to contradict me. The times I had been walking near this
house and I asked my friends what tree is this, and they said to me, this
is a narcissus."
Then, I realized I was talking to a mental retarded and said, "you must be
right."
In another occasion I saw her on the balcony, and she greeted me. I replied
to her greeting and she said, "My husband is coming now from Germany and
is bringing a German dog. This would be a problem, for none in the house
can speak any German." "Yeah. This must be a problem at the start, but
do not worry. The dog would soon learn to speak Spanish."
eri
eridanus
> On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 05:43:10 UTC+3, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
> > eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > El martes, 23 de febrero de 2010 18:25:17 UTC, Desertphile escribi�:
> > > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:20:28 -0500, Walter Bushell
> > > > <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <210220101905111112%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > The bible contains TWO creation stories, mutually exclusive; TWO
> > > > > > > Adam & Eve stories, mutually exclusive; TWO Noah's ark stories,
> > > > > > > mutually exclusive; and even TWO Abraham & the Pharaoh stories,
> > > > > > > mutually exclusive.
> > > > > > Four incompatible resurrection stories; two versions of Jesus
> > > > > > ministry,
> > > > > > two theologies of grace in the NT, etc...
> > > > > And a partridge in a pear tree.
> > > > It was a fig tree! Follow the shoe!
> > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> > > > "Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
> > > it was not a fig tree, it was a mustard tree. It has the smallest seed
> > > and become a great tree, that gives us shade and the birds made nests
> > > in it.
> > > Eri
>
> > Except that the mustard seed is *not* the smallest seed, as any fern
> > specialist can tell you. Jesus (or Matthew) was no botanist.
> Perhaps I miss part of pun here? Can't any botanist also tell
> that there is better shade and place to build nests of some
> other plants? I have always thought that mustard is made from
> kind of yellow flowers.
four feet in the best environment. Then, it is not a tree and do
not provide any meaningful shade. Perhaps it was an error of the writer
that do not knew any botanics. The writers rarely knew about botanics
in those times.
Eri
alias Ernest Major
used as a source of the mustard of commerce are members of the Sinapis
and Brassica genera. Other mustards are found in Alliaria (garlic
mustard), Sisymbrium (hedge mustard) and Hirschfeldia (hoary mustard); I
wouldn't be surprised if there were more.
--
alias Ernest Major
eridanus
I felt very lazy to look what sort of plant it was. I had read some time
ago and it was not a tree. It was a sort of weed.
eri