100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It seems clear to me some would prefer to cling to an old book, then explore the marvelous world of nature all around us and actually witness the awe of creation. Genesis is an old tale. I implore everyone here to read, and attempt to understand relativity, what is known colloquially as the big bang, and (DNA) genetics/ evolution. Then and only then can you move your mental state to a place of knowledge, your faith will grow due to knowledge, not shrink. Finding 100% of your faith and belief from a single book to me is the epitome of close mindedness. That is my own belief. When people have guilt and insecurity issues they turn to religion in desperation. When they start talking about how everyone else will 'pay' for not following the religion it's a dead give away that they are desperate to convince themsleves that they have somehow found salvation. People who are truly religious don't behave this way. A genuinely religious person would never say anything negative to a non-believer. It just doesn't work that way. Truly religious people are actually nice.  ahh and this from some who does know me.......me insecure......hahhaha I don't think so.....I am no ones Judge......and how many times abra have I said that to you alone.....hmmmmm at least 2,000 And please all mighty abra........where did I say anything negative to a non believer.......the twists......again that you are so famous for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, abra. what's nice/ paying the electric bill? do you want me to vote for Obama? would you like me to make you a meal? is a friend of yours destitute and in need of more than you can provide to aid? is there a starving widow in your neighborhood? or children suffering deprivation? let me know.    I'll send you a check from California. Is that nice?  YES! that would be nice, but instead of sending me a check, send a check to a charity of my choosing . . . . are you being serious? Because I am! No it would be better yet......nicer even more so for you to send his check and one from you to me for the charity of my choice..... And I am dead serious |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 08/10/08 08:50 PM
|
|
Quote me. you rattle off quote so easily, quote me. Dissect my judgments of you, and I will quote you doing the same to EVERYONE in this thread that doesn't directly share your beliefs, in fact you are taking my argument against you and throwing it back in my face . . . .
Your life and your good deeds will speak for you, but that is what it is, and does not make you right about the literal interpretations of the bible. Separate the dogma from the tale. ok, abra. what's nice/ paying the electric bill? do you want me to vote for Obama? would you like me to make you a meal? is a friend of yours destitute and in need of more than you can provide to aid? is there a starving widow in your neighborhood? or children suffering deprivation? let me know. I'll send you a check from California. Is that nice? YES! that would be nice, but instead of sending me a check, send a check to a charity of my choosing . . . . are you being serious? Because I am! No it would be better yet......nicer even more so for you to send his check and one from you to me for the charity of my choice..... And I am dead serious OH yea, cause you are definitely closer to god and know what charity would be best right? I really do enjoy you, its something special to have such a wonderful conversation with someone, even if they get so upset so easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Sun 08/10/08 08:50 PM
|
|
Quote me. you rattle off quote so easily, quote me. Dissect my judgments of you, and I will quote you doing the same to EVERYONE in this thread that doesn't directly share your beliefs, in fact you are taking my argument against you and throwing it back in my face . . . . Your life and your good deeds will speak for you, but that is what it is, and does not make you right about the literal interpretations of the bible. Separate the dogma from the tale Don't believe as I do I have no problem with that.....And give me the same respect.....if not....then Beware!!!!!! You come into a thread after 50+ pages a spew your crap at me.......please give me a break. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, abra. what's nice/ paying the electric bill? do you want me to vote for Obama? would you like me to make you a meal? is a friend of yours destitute and in need of more than you can provide to aid? is there a starving widow in your neighborhood? or children suffering deprivation? let me know. I'll send you a check from California. Is that nice? YES! that would be nice, but instead of sending me a check, send a check to a charity of my choosing . . . . are you being serious? Because I am! Bushie, you like to be in control. So, why don't you tell us all about the charities you support first? Tell us all about your definition of religion. Everyone else here knows mine. Do you just bask in the glow? or do you ever get yourself dirty and do things for others without employing institutions that step on your funding?. The trouble with people like you is that you like to throw your money down the drain with corrupt and self serving tax dodges for the tax dodge you get for doing that, if in fact you have charities in mind that give you some sense of accomplishment from your inablility to get away from your duties armchair quarterbacking. come now. tell us your atory. convince us what a swell guy you are. Start by telling us how NICE you are. I am having trouble imagining that you are. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 08/10/08 08:56 PM
|
|
again what crap?
Quote away, and dissect away. Don't make judgments based on emotion, take things in context and you wont get offended. After reading many posts here I have already found many enlightening things said, I even mentioned it, by calling out someone on your friends list as having said things I found very special. I yet to see you concede a single point, perhaps I missed it amongst the page long quotes. . . . heheh or do you ever get yourself dirty and do things for others without employing institutions that step on your funding?. The trouble with people like you is that you like to throw your money down the drain with corrupt and self serving tax dodges for the tax dodge you get for doing that, if in fact you have charities in mind that give you some sense of accomplishment from your inablility to get away from your duties armchair quarterbacking. come now. tell us your atory. convince us what a swell guy you are. Start by telling us how NICE you are. I am having trouble imagining that you are. This series of statements says a whole lot about you sir. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, abra. what's nice/ paying the electric bill? do you want me to vote for Obama? would you like me to make you a meal? is a friend of yours destitute and in need of more than you can provide to aid? is there a starving widow in your neighborhood? or children suffering deprivation? let me know. I'll send you a check from California. Is that nice? YES! that would be nice, but instead of sending me a check, send a check to a charity of my choosing . . . . are you being serious? Because I am! Bushie, you like to be in control. So, why don't you tell us all about the charities you support first? Tell us all about your definition of religion. Everyone else here knows mine. Do you just bask in the glow? or do you ever get yourself dirty and do things for others without employing institutions that step on your funding?. The trouble with people like you is that you like to throw your money down the drain with corrupt and self serving tax dodges for the tax dodge you get for doing that, if in fact you have charities in mind that give you some sense of accomplishment from your inablility to get away from your duties armchair quarterbacking. come now. tell us your atory. convince us what a swell guy you are. Start by telling us how NICE you are. I am having trouble imagining that you are. I  U gigglesnort |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok below is what I found up to page 47 of the original post, in answer to Krimsa's Leviticus questions. OF COURSE those questions where never actually properly answered.
RE: Response to the Leviticus questions posted on PART I of this thread by Krimsa Page 48 midway down Krimsa asks Feral: “Your Point” to which Feral replies, “Your joking right!!!!!! answers you wanted em....I gave em to ya” Krimsa “Where?” YOU: lol now you being just an annoying lil girl..... read it yourself......not my job Actually I agreed with Krimsa as I saw nothing from you that could be construed as a response to her questions about women, sex and childbearing. Feral did not respond until AFTER Krimsa appreciated Wouldee for his own attempt. He did not give an adequate answer and Kimsa responded by restating her questions. Feral copied their discussion and type “ANSWERED” Krimsa then said: What is answered? Her cleansing period is still double for a female infant; she still can not touch holy objects until she pays a priest for atonement. Not to mention that she is to be considered "unclean" due to the act of child birth. Why else would she even require a priest to "ritually cleanse" her? I shudder to think what this "cleaning" entailed exactly at the hands of these thugs. Why don’t you explain it to us Deb? This one won’t magically leave you alone as much as you would like it to go. Take a crack at it. Feral responded “ANSWERED”. Krimsa typed: What is answered? No, it's not her period Deb. The priest isn’t referring to her needing a bath as "unclean". Try again A fool can read the passages she listed and know that what she says, here, is true. So why would ANYONE try to pass off that a woman needs to bathe before she can be considered clean. Feral writes: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Honestly Deb, is that an answer? You respond to a question about a scripture by repeating the scripture? And then tell that person her question is answered. Finally on page 44 Krimsa appeals once again for a logical response that can be understood and proven NOT to be inconsistent with the biblical teachings then and how they are approached now. "A man must not approach a menstruous woman for sexual relations or in any way to become ritually unclean by her. (Leviticus 18:19) 347." I hate to keep harping on Leviticus, but there it is again and it bugs me. Okay so that kind of falls in line with the out of proportion fear of menstrual blood. Notice "ritually unclean". Now what are they referring to exactly? I think it might just mean that for a man to get her menstrual blood on his thingy is a bad idea. It will make him "unclean" because of the curse of her blood. Now folks, we are adults here and hopefully have an understanding of the female anatomy and the basic principles of reproduction. What is the shedding of menstrual blood? It is the discarded lining of the uterus that is shed if no seed implants here and begins forming into a child. Once again, there is this vicious attack on a woman's body and the ability to create life. Another thing, generally women go through a condition known as amenorrhea which is a suspension of the menstrual cycle that occurs after birth for a period of time. Breast feeding will lengthen it. All of these women during the time of Jesus and before then were of course breast feeding. So that means shortly after giving birth, there were no periods for a time after. Therefore, your little claim that this "atonement" was for her own good because she was menstruating doesn’t hold water either. On page 45 Feral responds “ANSWERED” Krimsa asks “WHERE?” And like Krimsa, I have not seen a proper response to that point either. THEN SUDDENLY, as if Farel had finally found a link to a website that gave this information she posted the following: I think I might do a thread of the women of the Bible.....these were amazing, strong, independent women. Information you wanted before..... She probably began to menstruate at about 10-12 years of age. The onset of menstruation was celebrated, because it showed that the girl had passed from childhood into womanhood. At puberty she was introduced to the special customs that Jewish women followed, particularly those relating to menstruation. Actually Deb, I just learned in a class this summer that it was the industrial age that shifted the pubescent age of women. Prior to the industrial age, girls did not begin menstruating until about the age of 17, some later. It has only been since about the 1950’s that girls began to menstruate between the ages of 11 to 13. Kinda makes you wonder, all this stuff about arranged marriages and girls marrying at the age of 13 in biblical times. Just think, that fallacy may be the reason some cults like ‘some’ Mormons believe it’s acceptable to make wives of 13 year olds. Knowledge Deb, is definitely better than the hand me down beliefs of another. Feral continues: During her menstrual period, a Jewish woman was relieved of many of her normal duties. She was not required to draw and carry water from the well. She did not have to serve food to members of the family. She did not have to go to the marketplace. She did not have sexual intercourse. The days of her menstrual period were regarded as a time out, a time for herself. On these days, relieved of a number of her duties, she had time to think and rest. Please supply the reference material for this information. I realize that just like Christianity there are differences in beliefs in the Jewish faith, but what you have stated is a glorious fairy tale and not actually what they believe. Here’s a suggestion – look up how the early Jews viewed blood and how they related that to the blood of a woman’s cycle? Why was that considered unclean? Special rules guarded her privacy and rest at this time. They were called the ‘purity laws’. These laws made it impossible for members of her family to demand that she do her normal tasks. There were purity laws for men as well: men washed themselves and changed their clothes whenever they had a sexual emission. This was true, but the men were considered ‘spiritually’ unclean as they spilled the contents of that which created human life. It was NOT a matter of hygiene. I skip some here because the information provided, like above, and is not specifically directed to the questions. It is information gathered about something entirely different and then targeted as an answer to the scripture questions. There is no doubt that the hygiene that resulted from the purity laws was beneficial to the health of the whole population. Where mothers maintain personal cleanliness, there is much less infant mortality, and so the cleanliness of Jewish women benefited the whole population. It is difficult to say whether the laws regarding cleanliness arose from a conscious connection between cleanliness and good health, or an intuitive one. Indeed, Jews at the time (and now) would state that the ritual purity laws were obeyed not for their logic but because they were part of being a Jew. These last two statements are opinion and conjecture and have no basis as an argument or even in answer to the original questions. Feral would have people believing that Jewish people follow these laws today from ritual religious habit. Her eye sight is limited to the HAVEs of this country and the elites of other countries, where regular attention to hygiene is a ritual, regardless of faith. But not so of non-industrialized countries, not even for Jews. Feral continues with what might appear to be a cut and paste of Marriage in Jewish families. This becomes a section on BIRTH. In that section she writes this: A woman who gives birth has the status of a Niddah (a menstruant) who is both ritually impure and off-limits as far as intimate activity to her husband. The act of giving birth induces a special nidus state unrelated to the uterine bleeding that normally separates husband and wife. The QUESTION is WHY? Why is a woman “impure” unable to handle food, or be on holy ground or handle holy objects. Why ‘off-limits’ to her husband? If you understand what this “special nidus state” was, then explain it, don’t just say it existed. This special nidus extends for seven days after the birth of a son and fourteen days after the birth of a daughter. Since it is most unusual for a woman to stain for less than two weeks after childbirth, this special nidus has little practical application, except in some cases of cesarean delivery. The ritual after the end of the period is the same as in normal Niddah status: immersion in a mikveh. Deb, explain this. After a baby, whether you have cesarean or not, a woman will “STAIN”, for the same amount of time. So this gives us no new knowledge that will help in response to the questions. We don’t care when the ‘ritual’ is required or even what the ritual is, what we want to know is WHY it exists at all. You have, so far given us copies of scripture, the same scripture that is in question. Then you give us some Jewish fables about attempting to explain where the scripture came from, but STILL does not answer the original questions of Krimsa. During the time of the Beis HaMikdash (Holy Temple) there was an obligation to bring a korban (offering) forty days after the birth of a boy or eighty days after the birth of a girl. As to why the purification for the birth of a female is longer, the belief is that this is because since a female herself is capable of producing life, she is capable of imparting more ritual purity as well as impurity. FINALLY, there is a sentence almost addressing the question and it is simply skimmed over, added like the rest the comments, almost lost here in the end of the long, unrelated information. “SINCE A FEMALE HERSELF IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING LIFE, SHE IS CAPABLE OF IMPARTING MORE RITUAL PURITY AS WELL AND IMPURITY” So it really is the pregnant WOMAN who is impure, in a way that no man could ever be. Aha - But wait, what does that mean a female child can impart MORE ritual purity and impurity – wouldn’t that counterbalance and be no more impure that having a male child. REMEMBER HERE, the male child is not impure only the pregnant and post pregnant woman. However, the female child is impure simply by being female and make the woman more impure. BUT WHY IS THE WOMAN IMPURE? Why so when she bleeds, when she is with child, when she delivers? Is MAN punishing woman for the sin of Eve even though god already cast his punishment upon woman in extending ‘painful’ childbearing? What wickedness doth man intend upon the purity of woman????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 08/10/08 09:09 PM
|
|
This is religious chat . . . not character hunt.
Get back on topic, quote me if you like, I find great pleasure in people doing so (feel free to add that to your impression of my character heheh) Redy again, I have to offer a bit of praise. Yes, Leviticus is a book that clearly shows misogynists wrote the bible. The part about where a woman is "unclean" for a longer time when she gives birth to a female then a male . . . again more of the same . . . MY only point with saying anything about science is to reinforce the point of Krisma, we know more about anatomy now, we know more about genetics, we can debunk genesis as a literal story, we can debunk the superstitions of Leviticus, we can debunk the hatred of revelations. I wonder if there really is anyone so ignorant to think the bible a proper history? I find truth in its covers, but I find ALOT of hate, ignorance, and debauchery as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All her questions were answered when she originally asked them.....I answered a total of four times........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FERAL: And you can't just read what bits and points are making your point Krisma....It has to be read and studied in it's entirety.....I took me a year just to study Genesis......as well as all the books that long....especially Romans....and you honestly think you can get it just by glancing.,......doesn't work that way. This happened to remind me of a pin my son gave me. It was a memento of one of his vacations. It simply said “Why Yes, I am a rocket scientist” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/10/08 09:22 PM
|
|
Quicksteper wrote:
It's your choice to be "impressed" with anything you like redy. That's your "opinion" only. MANY valid responses were given & you don't have the right to discredit what YOU certainly can't dispute. You don't speak for anyone else's experience. There were no valid responses that would satisfy the questions. If you saw them, why don’t you try to give better explanation of them, because apparently only you and Feral believe they exist. I think it burns people up what the Christian experience is all about because you all feel left out. That's your own unbelief by your choice only. What happened to “You don't speak for anyone else's experience.” No I don’t but you certainly seem to. First you determine what other think (I think it burns people up) and then you tell them, well that’s just your choice. How many voices do YOU and Feral listen to in your little minds? Try accepting personal responsiblity like the rest of us did before you go around giving "opinions" like they are facts. Would you like to show me where I have tried to pass off my opinion as fact? I’d like to have an opportunity to make my proof or may amends. But then your judgment of me is neither here NOR there NOR anywhere. Thank you very much!!! I have to laugh at your "impressed???" "opinion" of a little girl who did nothing but make feeble attempts to put others down. That is laughable. Would you like to offer specifics? Otherwise this could be considered slander, you know. BTW...up until now I was giving you more credit than you deserve. I guess I was wrong. Too funny. And it’s up to you which humans should be credit worthy? In whose eyes? How far do you take your duties as assessor and judgment maker, and exactly how much worth do you think your opinion has in the eyes of your redeemer? At least the great ‘UNWASHED’ seem to provide amusement for you. Enjoy our brilliance at work! “Why yes, I am a Rocket Scientist” Thank-you very much for noticing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again what crap? Quote away, and dissect away. Don't make judgments based on emotion, take things in context and you wont get offended. After reading many posts here I have already found many enlightening things said, I even mentioned it, by calling out someone on your friends list as having said things I found very special. I yet to see you concede a single point, perhaps I missed it amongst the page long quotes. . . . heheh or do you ever get yourself dirty and do things for others without employing institutions that step on your funding?. The trouble with people like you is that you like to throw your money down the drain with corrupt and self serving tax dodges for the tax dodge you get for doing that, if in fact you have charities in mind that give you some sense of accomplishment from your inablility to get away from your duties armchair quarterbacking. come now. tell us your atory. convince us what a swell guy you are. Start by telling us how NICE you are. I am having trouble imagining that you are. This series of statements says a whole lot about you sir. bushie,  your mind is in overdrive. That was a lot of deflection. baiters don't do anything but fish for whatever will bite the hook. staying on topic is not easy for you. keep trying. you will get the hang of it sooner or later. welcome to the forum that is not for the weak. This where your mettle will be tested and your convictions and character will be scrutinized. I see your allies before you do. They are formidable and very well respected here. I hope you find a place here to voice your views and add to the flavor of what is known as 'us' . LOL Finding concessions from me will be a futile exercise. Please be mindful of that. a hint. the tenor of these threads has a history attached. Most of us in thie religion forum are a unique organism unto ourselves. we go round and round. some times lightheartedly, but always keeping our heads and hearts clear. We share, we jostle, we argue, we debate, we agree, we diagree, agree to disagree, we love, but we don't hate. But you will find that there are some extremely bright people here with big hearts. welcome to the forum. now go play and be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/10/08 09:29 PM
|
|
JB - you do come up with some very interesting ideas and in many ways when addressed against a scientific background, they are much more plausible than biblical ones.
There were other people on the earth when Adam and Eve were introduced to the breeding population. Have you ever heard of the wild mustang populations? They were ragged ugly horses until people introduced some fine breeding stallions to improve the current population. Now the wild mustangs are quite nice looking horses. That was the purpose of Adam and Eve. It was to upgrade the current primitive populations. (They were considered more like animals to the alien gods placing Adam and Eve with them.) But they were the humans that had been on the earth for a long time. They had no culture, and they lived in caves etc. The alien gods taught them how to farm, taught them about religion etc. Read all about this stuff in the Urantia book. It goes into a lot of detail about the genetic improvements they were introducing. Its interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 08/10/08 09:45 PM
|
|
JB - you do come up with some very interesting ideas and in many ways when addressed against a scientific background, they are much more plausible than biblical ones. There were other people on the earth when Adam and Eve were introduced to the breeding population. Have you ever heard of the wild mustang populations? They were ragged ugly horses until people introduced some fine breeding stallions to improve the current population. Now the wild mustangs are quite nice looking horses. That was the purpose of Adam and Eve. It was to upgrade the current primitive populations. (They were considered more like animals to the alien gods placing Adam and Eve with them.) But they were the humans that had been on the earth for a long time. They had no culture, and they lived in caves etc. The alien gods taught them how to farm, taught them about religion etc. Read all about this stuff in the Urantia book. It goes into a lot of detail about the genetic improvements they were introducing. Its interesting. I find that to be extremely true, and extremely saddening at the same time. Not in any sense to look down on JB. I am in no better position to discredit anything she has said then anyone else. I simple have to ask . . . what does this belief gain us? How does it help us? How could it change us? Just to me belief in and of itself can be very dangerous. I hope some day we will all believe like you Redy. To take rational thought instill our personal values and not look back. I think even Jesus had a belief based in purpose, certainly not in any church. My church is upon this rock . . . . If a person takes what they know of god and never speaks a word of it, but finds people in need and helps them. He/ She is closer to god then any proselytizer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person takes what they know of god and never speaks a word of it, but finds people in need and helps them. He/ She is closer to god then any proselytizer. This is so true. All that I post is mere speculation and part of my world view which is a work in progress. It is opinion or temporary conclusion. The reason I think what I do about the Adam and Eve idea is that mankind went from primitive caveman to modern man way too quickly, and they they advanced from there at an astonishing rate with culture and religion. An advanced society could well have had a hand in that. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 08/10/08 09:58 PM
|
|
If a person takes what they know of god and never speaks a word of it, but finds people in need and helps them. He/ She is closer to god then any proselytizer. This is so true. All that I post is mere speculation and part of my world view which is a work in progress. It is opinion or temporary conclusion. The reason I think what I do about the Adam and Eve idea is that mankind went from primitive caveman to modern man way too quickly, and they they advanced from there at an astonishing rate with culture and religion. An advanced society could well have had a hand in that. JB Well Id like to point out that we have LOTS of evidence that we did not advance nearly as quickly as might be thought. Please I really found alot to be learned and have really just came across much of this knowledge. I cannot claim to be so intelligent as to not fall prey to preconceived notions, I have and the greatest feelings of wonder have been when I have been shown how interesting the story is when the evidence jives with it. And to be quite honest my best moments have been when im dead wrong. Check out this guy on youtube, he is freaking amazing, intelligent, and 100% backed by the evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edyoZFW-Lg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A If you are open to another really smart guy and dont mind having creation debunked then you can watch this guy also, now he talks really fast, so if your like me feel free to visit his site and read his sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushi writes:
I find that to be extremely true, and extremely saddening at the same time. Not in any sense to look down on JB. I am in no better position to discredit anything she has said then anyone else. I simple have to ask . . . what does this belief gain us? How does it help us? How could it change us? Just to me belief in and of itself can be very dangerous. I hope some day we will all believe like you appear to Redy. I think even Jesus had a belief based in purpose, certainly not in any church. My church is upon this rock . . . . If a person takes what they know of god and never speaks a word of it, but finds people in need and helps them. He/ She is closer to god then any proselytizer. Here's the thing about JB. She jumps from this to that and she fits in the theories she encounters with what she sees as the IDEAL ideology. She never sets it in stone and it's subject to change at any given moment. WHY? Because she believes she learns from this physical existence everyday and part of what she has learned is that knowledge gained is likely to change your mind (literally and figuratively). What Bushi says "Just to me belief in and of itself can be very dangerous." and " what does this belief gain us? How does it help us? How could it change us?" are questions we could all benefit by asking ourselves AND ANSWERING. It's unfortunate that certain ancient belief systems that are set in rigid stone are so fundamentally adhered to today. Unfortunate because those who believe cannot ask the questions that could broaden the skope of knowledge for them. Just one point Bushi, I think the bottleneck you spoke of earlier has been calculated at about 10,000 not 1,000. If I remember correctly the figure of 10,000 was reached because it's believed that the human species would required about 10,000 samples to quantify the repopulation of the world without the harmful effects of inbreeding. Just a side note (off topic) scientists have estimated that the eruption of Yellow Stone National Park would be the equivalent of the catastrophe that created the original bottle neck. What they don't know is if enough would survive to effectively repopulate the human species. Ah but, I read that a few years ago, today is a new day, we even have a computer program capable of dismanteling a DNA strand, in pretty short order, compared to the many years they expected such a sequincing to take. whew! It's all about change, asking the questions, finding the answers, observing and questioning again. It's NOT about instilling a rigid and unbendable standard of belief. But we have to keep questioning, maybe someday a question will finally meet a dead end in the mind of someone ready to take a real leap of faith. EVERYONE - take a deep breath of helium and repeat after me.. follow the yellow brick road! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are refreshing! It is great to see such clarity! Yea I am by no mean an authority on this stuff. Im a very green behind the ears student of physics who happens to find some interest in genes, and evolution along with Anthropology. I concede your probably right about that it being 10K, that does sound right.
Thanks for your great perspective and having the courage to announce your stance to clearly! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/10/08 10:32 PM
|
|
Ok Feral we’ll go slow here, not too much information at once, ok? I get lost too easy.
Redy Ok – at this point god is making clothes for two human beings (remember this) Second point: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” Are good and evil qualities (maybe like jealousy) that pre-existed god? Or did god create good and evil and in the creation process became jealous of It’s own creation? Debbie's Answer: Because of their sin.....is why they needed covering. God was ashamed......and they knew it....and because of what they did generations to come would pay the price. We’ll take your comment first – god was ashamed because? Ashamed FOR Adam and Eve? I mean really, why would god be ashamed if his creation disobeyed him? Ashamed because HE had failed them? I mean who was there to see god’s shame, in fact doesn’t the emotion of shame indicate that one has done something wrong and realizes it? Please explain. ALSO, please respond to the following: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” Are good and evil qualities (maybe like jealousy) that pre-existed god? Or did god create good and evil and in the creation process became jealous of It’s own creation? |
|
|
|
|
