Biblical Biology, Genesis 30:37-42

[Audie]

Exactly. They seem to think that if they show that Darwin or Dawkins is wrong about something, then the whole of evolutionary science will crumble.

But, science doesn't have prophets in that way. It has people who have insights and make advances. But *never* is the word of one scientist the final say on *anything*. The insights they have are discussed, criticized, extended, modified, and generally investigated by others to see just how far they go. Never are the insights taken as true without doubt.

It isn't the word of the scientist that determines what is correct: it is the repeatable, testable observations.

Darwin had a great insight into a *mechanism* for evolution. But evolution was already 'in the air' because it had already been noted that species change over time. They question was why and how. And Darwin wasn't the only one who had that insight: Wallace did as well. Furthermore, that insight gave testable predictions that held up to observation.

Until creationists realize evolution isn't some grand conspiracy to negate the Bible, but is instead an honest attempt to understand how things work in the real world, they will never understand its reason for existence and why it is so important for biology.

But will any of our fundys read this with comprehension? Nothing of their religious faith is compromised by understanding the above listed bssics.

 

[Audie]

Based on what, exactly?

It just could not possibly be true.

 

[Audie]

I have seen no such quotes as you claim.

Nobody has

 

[thomas t]

I have seen no such quotes as you claim.

two examples come to my mind, one in RF
How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?
the other is on CF
A Christmas Story

 

[thomas t]

Based on what, exactly?

the number of clicks. It's about 5 m. So I thought they must have done something right.

 

[McBell]

the number of clicks. It's about 5 m. So I thought they must have done something right.

So you did not bother to look and see that the vast majority of the clicked views are by theists?

 

[Audie]

First these outrageous stupid videos would not be popular with atheists nor anyone else with a basic education is science.

This is bogus par excellence.

Back-fire.

 

[McBell]

two examples come to my mind, one in RF
How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?
the other is on CF
A Christmas Story

Please see post #20

 

[thomas t]

So you did not bother to look and see that the vast majority of the clicked views are by theists?

actually I didn't.
What makes you think it is as you say?

 

[McBell]

actually I didn't.
What makes you think it is as you say?

It appears that your use of the word "research" is not to be trusted.

 

[thomas t]

It appears that your use of the word "research" is not to be trusted.

so, can you back up what you say?

 

[Audie]

So you did not bother to look and see that the vast majority of the clicked views are by theists?

Haha.

As for doing something right being evidenced by number of clicks...

Check out "who needs a movie " on YouTube.
1.7 million Views!

Its not a parody, popularity is i guess that its so bad its good.

 

[thomas t]

Its not a parody, popularity is i guess that its so bad its good.

If I ever even reached half of the clicks for my channels they get for theirs... I'd be a rich man, I think.

 

[wellwisher]

This is a very popular atheist video on youtube
It's a reflection of the Jacob story.

Biblical Baby Mamas



According to the video (minute 8:40 ff.) , Jacob "used the [...] concept of getting animals to look at white branches while they mated so that they would produce white streaked offspring."

View attachment 45783

In my opinion, this is a misrepresentation of what the author calls Biblical Biology.
In Genesis 31:9 Jacob explains - God is the author of this in a situation of unsolved conflict. Not the method.

So in my opinion, the equation is: God + a method = offspring. This equation only applies to situations in which there is no standard way of solving conflicts, such as presenting the issue to the whole community, I think.

I think, it's not the branch. In a situation in which standard ways of solving conflicts aren't availabe but God being with you... you could use no matter what method to get the offspring. This is at least my opinion on the matter.

Something analogous to the white stick, today, is the observation that many small children are able to use cell phones like an adult. Cell phones have only been around, in bulk, for a decade or two, so there is not enough time for Darwin, DNA, biology to explain how small children know how to work a cell phone, innately.

Did one of the parents use the cell phone, instead of a white stick, while having sex? Or was this done during pregnancy? Is there another side to the story that biology is missing? This behavior in many small children has occurred in one generation. How does biology explain this with the theory of evolution?

In terms of the white stick experiment, how did the chameleon evolve the ability to copy the white stick? In other words, how did the link between eyes, brain, and skin all link up, so the chameleon could do the white stick trick in real time and on demand?

 

[Audie]

Something analogous to the white stick, today, is the observation that many small children are able to use cell phones like an adult. Cell phones have only been around, in bulk, for a decade or two, so there is not enough time for Darwin, DNA, biology to explain how small children know how to work a cell phone, innately.

Did one of the parents use the cell phone, instead of a white stick, while having sex? Or was this done during pregnancy? Is there another side to the story that biology is missing? This behavior in many small children has occurred in one generation. How does biology explain this with the theory of evolution?

In terms of the white stick experiment, how did the chameleon evolve the ability to copy the white stick? In other words, how did the link between eyes, brain, and skin all link up, so the chameleon could do the white stick trick in real time and on demand?

Is this a parody? If so, of what?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wow. Of that whole video, the only thing you have an issue with is one part at the end?

This is exactly what I was wondering after watching the video and then thinking of the OP in that context. There are plenty of foolish things that happen in The Bible that the video highlights... like people being tricked with ridiculously inept ploys that even a complete dolt couldn't find himself tricked by. It's basically a very, very badly written soap opera for ancient times.

 

[Audie]

This is exactly what I was wondering after watching the video and then thinking of the OP in that context. There are plenty of foolish things that happen in The Bible that the video highlights... like people being tricked with ridiculously inept ploys that even a complete dolt couldn't find himself tricked by. It's basically a very, very badly written soap opera for ancient times.

The lousy literary quality is not what you'd expect from Mr. Omni.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Something analogous to the white stick, today, is the observation that many small children are able to use cell phones like an adult. Cell phones have only been around, in bulk, for a decade or two, so there is not enough time for Darwin, DNA, biology to explain how small children know how to work a cell phone, innately.

Did one of the parents use the cell phone, instead of a white stick, while having sex? Or was this done during pregnancy? Is there another side to the story that biology is missing? This behavior in many small children has occurred in one generation. How does biology explain this with the theory of evolution?

In terms of the white stick experiment, how did the chameleon evolve the ability to copy the white stick? In other words, how did the link between eyes, brain, and skin all link up, so the chameleon could do the white stick trick in real time and on demand?

This is very, very strange. What are you going on about? We have a huge PLANET-SIZED load of evidence that the human mind is entirely capable of engrossing itself in just about any intellectual pursuit it fancies - which includes cell phone use. If the human mind wants to understand something desperately enough, that is capable of being understood, and enough time is spent on the particulars, then a thing will be mastered. If you are incapable of understanding this, then try not speaking or writing... AT ALL. It will be better for you, I can assure you. Again... your reply is entirely strange and displays huge gaps in understanding and interpretation of how humans are constantly demonstrated to behave.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The lousy literary quality is not what you'd expect from Mr. Omni.

Indeed. I'm sure that's why the video puts God in the position of sitting around laughing about how stupid everyone is being. That's really one of the only ways this story makes any sense with God's involvement taken into consideration.

 

[Audie]

Indeed. I'm sure that's why the video puts God in the position of sitting around laughing about how stupid everyone is being. That's really one of the only ways this story makes any sense with God's involvement taken into consideration.

I didn't watch the vid so I don't know about that.

Now, go forth and watch " who needs a movie?"