Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

[MikeG]

......The rib is a metaphor for the hard erect penis and sexual intercourse. Get it?.........

Not if the babble is the literal word of god. In that case, there are no metaphors, and there really are talking snakes and a ban on coats of two different materials. This is what we seem to be dealing with here.

 

[Garrette]

......The rib is a metaphor for the hard erect penis and sexual intercourse. Get it?.........

Not if the babble is the literal word of god. In that case, there are no metaphors, and there really are talking snakes and a ban on coats of two different materials. This is what we seem to be dealing with here.

I'm willing to accept metaphorical interpretations of the Bible but only with caveats.

First, an open acknowledgment that such an interpretation is -- in the main -- a relatively recent development, particularly amongst the lay people, and even where it has not been recent amongst the theologically educated, that groups has done little to correct the lay folk.

Second, the strict criteria by which one determines what is metaphorical and what is literal. Failing the criteria, an acceptable substitute is a formalized agreement amongst the majority of Christian theologians on what passages are literal and what are metaphorical. Note that this alternative is acceptable only insofar as theologically objective academicians with the correct credentials (historians with the ability to read ancient Greek and Hebrew, as an example) agree that the chosen metaphors are supported by an academic analysis.

That's just the start.

 

[Designated Hitter]

Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers. Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise.

 

[Slowvehicle]

LOL You are not that naive are you? The rib is a metaphor for the hard erect penis and sexual intercourse. Get it? Adam giving Eve his "rib"? Part of the larger symbolism of marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." We don't speak in metaphors much anymore. Some, but ancient Hebrew was a language of mostly metaphors. Any attempt by you to translate them literally will always fail miserably.

Let's not you make that same mistake please. You laugh at people who comment about science while ignorant of science. It does your case little to make the same mistake in reverse by commenting on religion out of ignorance. All it does is widen the very divide you rant against.

Then again, not if one reads Hebrew:

http://blog.chron.com/iconia/2011/0...s-to-say-eve-created-from-penis-bone-not-rib/

Note the problem with the plural, if nothing else...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

LOL You are not that naive are you? The rib is a metaphor for the hard erect penis and sexual intercourse. Get it? Adam giving Eve his "rib"? Part of the larger symbolism of marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." We don't speak in metaphors much anymore. Some, but ancient Hebrew was a language of mostly metaphors. Any attempt by you to translate them literally will always fail miserably.

Let's not you make that same mistake please. You laugh at people who comment about science while ignorant of science. It does your case little to make the same mistake in reverse by commenting on religion out of ignorance. All it does is widen the very divide you rant against.

Care to give me a quote from a mainstream church that acknowledges to its flock that Adam's rib is really his penis?

You start by telling the folks at http://www.gotquestions.org/Adams-rib.html which is the first site that Google finds for me that is not about a rib house restaurant. They apparently have a different explanation, viz:

This raises the possibility that Eve could have been fashioned of more than just Adam’s rib. In the Genesis 2 passage, tsela could actually be translated as Adam’s “side,” rather than Adam’s “rib.” If the appropriate translation is that God removed Adam’s side, how much of his side did God remove? It is possible that Eve was constructed literally from half of Adam. This would bring added meaning to Adam’s declaration that Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Bonus points if you can give me a quote that says the burning bush is lit natural gas escaping from the ground, the voice of the Lord from it is the roaring noise the burning gas makes, that the staff into snake trick is just poor snakes going catatonic at being held by their tales and the pillars of salt are just natural phenomena.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers. Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise.

And yet, you have not demonstrated yourself capable of dealing with a single one of the factual explanations with which you have been presented, beyond bare dismissal without pursuit.

Which "version" of biopoesis is it to which you ascribe?

How is it that you presume to use terms in a way inconsistent with the way they are used by scientists?

Was it not you who at least implied that derision did not answer questions?

What alternative to evolution by natural selection, which has, in fact, been observed, do you offer?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That's just the start.

That is also a subject for a different forum. This is the science forum. Actually MikeG shouldn't have brought the "rib" subject up at all in this forum. But he tried to ridicule religion out of ignorance and by doing so opened himself up to that same ridicule back on himself.

A far better strategy would be to discuss the actual merits of the science behind modern evolutionary synthesis. It is quite robust enough to stand on its own without resorting to ridicule.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers. Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise.

There is none so blind as those that will not see.

If you are so smart, please give us an example of why any of the answers that you have been given are "deadbeat"?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That is also a subject for a different forum. This is the science forum. Actually MikeG shouldn't have brought the "rib" subject up at all in this forum. But he tried to ridicule religion out of ignorance and by doing so opened himself up to that same ridicule back on himself.

A far better strategy would be to discuss the actual merits of the science behind modern evolutionary synthesis. It is quite robust enough to stand on its own without resorting to ridicule.

And yet, I would still like an answer or two. We came start a new thread if
you wish.

 

[Garrette]

That is also a subject for a different forum. This is the science forum. Actually MikeG shouldn't have brought the "rib" subject up at all in this forum.

It is consistent with the reasoning quoted in the OP, i.e., it demonstrates the flaws in that quoted reasoning so it was quite apropos.

But he tried to ridicule religion out of ignorance and by doing so opened himself up to that same ridicule back on himself.

That is the fact in contention, and you have yet to demonstrate that your claim of metaphorical interpretation is the correct one. And to be precise, he did not try to "ridicule religion." At most he ridiculed one specific religion, but more accurately he ridiculed the thinking quoted in the OP.

A far better strategy would be to discuss the actual merits of the science behind modern evolutionary synthesis. It is quite robust enough to stand on its own without resorting to ridicule.

I agree with your assessment of the science behind evolution. You may also be correct about the strategy, but being a better strategy is a far cry from being mistaken or being in the wrong forum.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That is also a subject for a different forum. This is the science forum. Actually MikeG shouldn't have brought the "rib" subject up at all in this forum. But he tried to ridicule religion out of ignorance and by doing so opened himself up to that same ridicule back on himself.

A far better strategy would be to discuss the actual merits of the science behind modern evolutionary synthesis. It is quite robust enough to stand on its own without resorting to ridicule.

Wait. Having introduced the idea that "אחת מצלעתיו" (literally, "one-of the ribs-of-him") is to be taken metaphorically (ripped untimely from the Creation Account, MkII); and ignoring the problem that claiming that 'god' took "one of Adam's penises" (or penis bones ["bacula"], either way) is even more silly than the rest of the story; NOW you are going to play the OT card?

Tsk, tsk.

 

[marplots]

Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers. Just admit it's just a theory and you'll sleep better, I promise.

I admit it. It's a theory. It's a good theory though, one that seems to fit the facts pretty well.

I would be happy to entertain a different theory if one is available?

 

[MikeG]

Just as I thought. A bunch of deadbeat answers.

No, you got some good answers. Were there any in particular that you need a little more help with?

Just admit it's just a theory

That's the troublesome word. You do understand that theory is the highest category of certainty in life sciences, don't you? It doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't a guess, as you might use it colloquially.

It's 200 years since Darwin, and disproving evolution is trivially easy: all you have to do is find incontrovertible evidence of, say, a modern mammal living alongside, say, dinosaurs. A rabbit in a T Rex's stomach, for instance. A modern horse skeleton in a 200 million year old shale bed. That sort of thing. You people have scoured the world for 2 centuries trying to find any such evidence, because everlasting fame and fortune awaits (as evidenced by the willingness to carve fakes in an attempt to claim the prize). Can you think of any particular reason why no such thing has ever been found?

and you'll sleep better, I promise.

I sleep well enough already, but thanks for your interest.

 

[MikeG]

That is also a subject for a different forum. This is the science forum. Actually MikeG shouldn't have brought the "rib" subject up at all in this forum. But he tried to ridicule religion out of ignorance and by doing so opened himself up to that same ridicule back on himself........

Do you struggle with logic? How about re-reading the sequence of posts for some context. It might help you fire your barbs in a direction other than at your foot.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I agree with your assessment of the science behind evolution. You may also be correct about the strategy, but being a better strategy is a far cry from being mistaken or being in the wrong forum.

Point well taken. I also object to the thinking presented in the OP. But you may be right. There is some room for the religious context behind the OP in a science forum. Although I still believe thoughtful discussion trumps ridicule in this case. And it would be VERY easy to get side tracked and off topic and the thread degenerating into atheist/theist name calling if we stray too far down that slippery slope.

 

[tsig]

What are you not understanding, sphenisc? Semantics aside, which part of the fact that humans are animals are you struggling with?

She ain't no monkey but a child of god with a soul and everything.

 

[tsig]

Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.

Have you ever looked at an ape, I mean take a really close look, how do you explain all the similarities?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Keep in mind that your answer is in your own words. Although I admit you said it sarcastically. The theory is in fact based on evidence. Rightly so. Also keep in mind the evidence for modern evolutionary synthesis is not only fossils, but also Mendelian genetics and population genetics, observable microevolution, several branches of biology and medicine, organic chemistry, physics etc... EACH has supporting evidence for modern evolutionary synthesis. The very reason modern evolutionary synthesis is so robust, and we can say with a high degree of certainty that mankind did in fact evolve from earlier forms, is that these separate lines of evidence are complementary and not in conflict with each other.

If you wish to single out mankind as a special case different than the rest, you would need evidence for that too. Since you haven't presented such evidence, I am guessing you don't have any.

 

[Elind]

Please post the DNA changes from our "ape-like" ancestor, step-by-step over millions of years. Please explain EXACTLY how they occurred and why they occurred.

Good luck.

What's the point? Clearly you are not able to understand the answers based on your previous posts.

Why science deniers think they should be educated by online forums instead of textbooks I never understood.

 

[marplots]

Have you ever looked at an ape, I mean take a really close look, how do you explain all the similarities?

Pareidolia.