• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Explanations for the why are further explored in another article from the same publication and same year. This gives new insights to what meiosis is doing. Very interesting re-evaluation of what advantages meiosis has.


. . . Three blind men could write tomes on what they think they were studying when their hands were led to an elephant. But if they don't know what it is, even the details they write about fail to go to the heart and soul of what they were feeling.

Writing pages and pages about various nuances of meiosis and polar body is not only possible, but it's been done. And I read my share. But most of the scientist discussing and trying to get a grip on what and why admit they don't have a clue.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Vague rhetorical questions are not how it works in science. For the bible to be considered scientific, you need to explain:
i) what the theory or theories is,
ii) what observations it predicts we should be able to make and
iii) what examples there are of these observations, that corroborate the theory.

. . . Three thousand years ago the Bible claimed that through Abram, and Abraham's seed, all the world would be blessed.

Nobel Prizes are given out to men whose accomplishments bless the human race. Ninety-nine percent of all Nobel Prizes have gone to Jews (Abram's seed) and Christians (Abraham's seed).

Is that what you mean about establishing a premise, i.e., through Abram and Abraham's seed all the world will be blessed, and then observing how the theory fairs (ninety-nine percent of all Nobel Prizes go to Abram and Abraham's seed), in order to corroborate the premise or theory?



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Why do you think God designed animals in such a way to survive the design of other animals? For example, why design the lion to eat the gazelle, and the gazelle to escape the lion?

are those other animals designed by somebody else, or is God like those people who play chess against themselves?

and, in your opinion, why was God so obsessed with apes, to design the pinnacle of His creation, the very being He created the whole Universe for, the very being He will incarnate in, to be an ape?

Ciao

- viole

. . . You might be missing my point. I'm claiming that the evolution of sex allowed the organisms to enter the realm of "selection" for survival where early on the environment alone determined which immortal organism would die, and which would survive.

Sex allows for the selection of mates deemed to add survival qualities to the mixing of the genes. Organisms select mates according to instincts for survival culled over eons and eons.

Every organism, like every nation, makes mindful choices about how to survive longer than other organisms or nations. The winners live. The losers die off.

The antediluvian nation of Lower Bohemia was wiped clean off the map by the wrath of God.



John
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
. . . Three thousand years ago the Bible claimed that through Abram, and Abraham's seed, all the world would be blessed.

Nobel Prizes are given out to men whose accomplishments bless the human race. Ninety-nine percent of all Nobel Prizes have gone to Jews (Abram's seed) and Christians (Abraham's seed).

Is that what you mean about establishing a premise, i.e., through Abram and Abraham's seed all the world will be blessed, and then observing how the theory fairs (ninety-nine percent of all Nobel Prizes go to Abram and Abraham's seed), in order to corroborate the premise or theory?



John
This doesn't make any sense at all.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
No, he can just read.

. . . So could Newton, Rashi, Nachmanides, Rabbi Hirsch, and Luther . . . but not a one of them is likely to accept his "interpretation" of the text.

All text requires interpretation. And no interpreter is as lame as the one who thinks he reads and exegetes without eisegetical prejudice birthing interpretations that look peculiarly like some in-breeding between prejudice and text is clearly taking place.

To the simpleton the meaning of the Bible is simple. And I fear that statement may cover this whole canvas with one brushstroke.


John
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
. . . You might be missing my point. I'm claiming that the evolution of sex allowed the organisms to enter the realm of "selection" for survival where early on the environment alone determined which immortal organism would die, and which would survive.

Sex allows for the selection of mates deemed to add survival qualities to the mixing of the genes. Organisms select mates according to instincts for survival culled over eons and eons.

Every organism, like every nation, makes mindful choices about how to survive longer than other organisms or nations. The winners live. The losers die off.

The antediluvian nation of Lower Bohemia was wipe clean off the map by the wrath of God.



John
This is crazy. Bohemia is what is now the Czech Republic.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
. . . So could Newton, Rashi, Nachmanides, Rabbi Hirsch, and Luther . . . but not a one of them is likely to accept his "interpretation" of the text.

All text requires interpretation. And no interpreter is as lame as the one who thinks he reads and exegetes without eisegetical prejudice birthing interpretation that look peculiarly like some in-breeding between prejudice and text is clearly taking place.

To the simpleton the meaning of the Bible is simple.


John
OK that's it.

This all sounds increasingly medical. I'm putting you on Ignore.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Except that in Genesis, it doesn't say that the initial life forms were immortal. Indeed, God is concerned that humans might eat of the tree of immortality...if they were immortal to begin with, then they wouldn't be able to eat of the tree...
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Except that in Genesis, it doesn't say that the initial life forms were immortal. Indeed, God is concerned that humans might eat of the tree of immortality...if they were immortal to begin with, then they wouldn't be able to eat of the tree...

. . . Except that it says if they eat of the tree of knowledge they will die. And then, we read, after they eat of the tree of knowledge, that they must leave the garden of immortality that they not also take from the Tree of Life and live forever, everlasting life vs. the mere immortality they lost by gaining knowledge of death.

That's what this thread is about: trading the knowledge of death for everlasting life. I.e., how to eat from the Tree of Life that leads not back to the garden of immortality, i.e., Judaism, but to everlasting life not even subject to death whatsoever, the Church.

If the Rock of Gibraltar fell from the sky and landed squarely on my forehead I would be no less alive than I am right now. I would, technically (but we shant get into that) be more alive.



John
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
. . . Which segues into the meat of this thread: the organism's desire to trade an immortality subject to environmental stresses leading to death, anyway, for true immortality and everlasting life.

You are imparting a level of consciousness to proto-bacteria that is completely unwaranted.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
. . . Except that it says if they eat of the tree of knowledge they will die. And then, we read, after they eat of the tree of knowledge, that they must leave the garden of immortality that they not also take from the Tree of Life and live forever, everlasting life vs. the mere immortality they lost by gaining knowledge of death.

That's what this thread is about: trading the knowledge of death for everlasting life. I.e., how to eat from the Tree of Life that leads not back to the garden of immortality, i.e., Judaism, but to everlasting life not even subject to death whatsoever, the Church.

If the Rock of Gibraltar fell from the sky and landed squarely on my forehead I would be no less alive than I am right now. I would, technically (but we shant get into that) be more alive.



John
It is clear that you have presumed your conclusion, and bent all your analysis to fit.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
. . . I think you may have made a semantic gaff since it's not that the scientists are unsure. They haven't a clue to be sure or unsure about. They have no theory for the existence of meiotic sex.

On the other hand, the Bible explains it to a tee in a manner that fits the current scientific framework of evolution and natural selection.



John
Meiosis is not sex. It is the division that leads to the germ cells (sperm and egg). The Bible says nothing on the subject and nothing in the Bible fits current scientific understanding of evolution.
 
Top