Summer means no religion or politics?

[Nathan]

Wow, yeah, that's exactly my definition of literalist.

Alright, just curious:
1) Why do men have nipples?
2) How come we never find fossils of current animals like rabbits or lions?

I don't know for the first one, but does it really matter?  I'm not going to question why god made people a certain way.  But if your looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint it makes as little sense.  I would say it makes more sense that we were created that way because it's an aesthetic similarity between men and women, while it serves no purpose on men, why would evolution allow such a pointless thing?  Sorry if I misunderstand what you mean.

Because they decay to quickly to even have the chance of forming into fossils (I don't really know how fossils are made this is just a guess) I'm a bit confused about the second question. Could you clarify what you mean by it?

[Ultra Magnus]

So it seems realistic to me that two of every kind could fit into the ark.

Or seven.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

Or maybe fourteen.

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

How come we never find fossils of current animals like rabbits or lions?

He already answered that one by saying it was possible that the Ark only held representatives of each species as a whole, from which lions and rabbits may have been bred since.

[Khris]

1)
Quote:
"The answer is that as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!"

That, however, points strongly to the evolutionary side, away from creation. (God specifically created a male and female version, so why give the man useless nipples? He didn't give the woman a useless penis.)

2)

Because they decay to quickly to even have the chance of forming into fossils (I don't really know how fossils are made this is just a guess) I'm a bit confused about the second question. Could you clarify what you mean by it?

Well, if all species were created at the same time, we should find fossils of all of them, not just those who died millions of years ago according to the scientific view.

Edit: Ultra Magnus: That wasn't an answer.

[Ethan D]

Or seven.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

Or maybe fourteen.

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

As far as the seven pairs or just seven of every clean animal that's just a translation issue.  But God commanded first that he bring two of every kind so that the earth could be repopulated. Then later, god commanded that he bring extra of every clean animal.  There could be several reasons for this.

1) The 'clean' animals were ones that were fit to be offered as sacrifices to god not unclean animals and since Noah was in the ark for more than one hundred and fifty days.  So Noah would need animals to offer to god as a sacrifice during this time considering that he was a holy man in comparison to the people of his time and surely he gave offerings.  

2) 'Clean' animals were also able to be used for food as opposed to the unclean animals.  So it seems to me that the extra clean animals were taken because they were supposed to be used at various times during the time on the ship. As it says in the latter half of the verse "to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth"  so for the unclean animals two was enough because they were not meant to be killed for any reason but the clean animals have reason to be killed for offerings and possibly for food.

1)


That, however, points strongly to the evolutionary side, away from creation. (God specifically created a male and female version, so why give the man useless nipples? He didn't give the woman a useless penis.)

There are plenty of things that differ between male and female but there are also things that are uselessly similar maybe simply for the purpose that it would be clear that they are almost the same.  The only differences that really matter between male and female are that females are made to be able to take care of children.

Well, if all species were created at the same time, we should find fossils of all of them, not just those who died millions of years ago according to the scientific view.

Have there been any very small fossils found?  Or is it mainly large fossils? I am sorry I don't know much about this field.

[Nathan]

Have there been any very small fossils found?  Or is it mainly large fossils?

I looked it up and there definitely have been small fossils found... Once again though, this subject is way over my head.  Although fossils seem to be the strongest evidence against literalism so I'm going to have to start researching it.

[Ultra Magnus]

God specifically created a male and female version, so why give the man useless nipples? He didn't give the woman a useless penis.

It's called a clitoris: the only organ in the human anatomy (incl. males and females) that serves no pertinent function, other than "it feels a bit good when you touch it".

Ultra Magnus: That wasn't an answer.

How was that not an answer?
You're alluding to the presence of animal fossils that aren't rabbits, but resemble them on a DNA level, thus proving evolution.
But why can't those fossils just be the pre-Ark-era rabbits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Bible only states that mankind and the animals were created without evolution, not that those animals couldn't have evolved since they were created. And that's what (I think) Nathan was saying about the many different animals around these days being bred up from one or two on the Ark.

Although he seems to have copped out of this point, so maybe I just read him wrong.

As far as the seven pairs or just seven of every clean animal that's just a translation issue.  But God commanded first that he bring two of every kind so that the earth could be repopulated. Then later, god commanded that he bring extra of every clean animal.  There could be several reasons for this.

I'm aware of that, my point was simply that it was a load more animals that needed to fit onto that boat.

[Atelier]

It's called a clitoris: the only organ in the human anatomy (incl. males and females) that serves no pertinent function

Don't forget the appendix, which could/could not have been useful for the digestion of cellulose at some point in our history. And look at your hands - those stunted connections of skin between your fingers could be devolved webs? From when we rose out of the sea?

I don't believe anything any which way, mind you.

[Ultra Magnus]

These aren't my rules, but I don't think the appendix strictly counts because it did have a use at one point, whereas the clitoris has always just been there.

Also, I think I read/heard somewhere (probably QI) that if a person were to go feral and start eating grass and leaves again, after an initial period of being really quite ill, the appendix would slowly work it's way back into the digestive rotation, if you catch my drift.

Think of it as a muscle that's atrophied: it was useful once, it's pretty much dead weight as is, but with proper stimulation and exercise it can become strong and healthy again.

Of course, I can't remember where I got this info, so I could well just be repeating spurious bollocks.

[Nathan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Bible only states that mankind and the animals were created without evolution, not that those animals couldn't have evolved since they were created. And that's what (I think) Nathan was saying about the many different animals around these days being bred up from one or two on the Ark.

The bible does not say anything against the possibility of natural selection and therefore of evolution, it only says that they were created so yes I would definitely say that they could evolve from the time they were created.  Considering that there would be a very large area for animals to move into with vegetation after the flood the rate at which they could reproduce and therefore experience natural selection would be unprecedented.

[Lionmonkey]

We USE those inventions, we KNOW that they work! 'nuff said.

'Nuff said, not 'nuff thought: How is it different from people USING prayer healing and KNOWING that it works then?

Of course we don't know everything, but more and more is being illuminated. You know, explanations can be falsified and other explanations can replace those. That's what science is all about. But simply blaming stuff that cannot be explained at the moment onto god is a simple way of not asking further questions.

First of all, that part of my post was nothing about a god. Second, you've missed it's point: Let's take gravity for exaple.  Obects with mass attract one another. But why? Here's an answer from answers.com for example:

A fundamental force in the universe, and one that is characteristic of all matter, is gravity. It is a force that always acts to attract one mass to another.

Doesn't seem different from "goddidit". So by the mine I meant something that causes objects to attract each other and all the other forces that are responsible for axioms used in various sciences.

Getting a car to drive using fuel and some mchanics has nothing to do with flipping a coin or parallel universes. Of course it always works, because we know why it works. It has nothing to do with chance or probability.

Again, can we really completely know why it works, if studying the subject requires us to believe in one or more axioms, which are not explained? You can't really call a scientific approach much different than a religious one, can you?

Lionmonkey, are you serious?

Yes and no.

Do you actually live your daily life under the assumption that all natural laws could expire at any moment?

I try to leave out assumptions to forum discussions.

And are you aware that your story about the unknown mine explains exactly why people invented gods?

Yes. Why are you asking, it's not like I'm a believer myself?

Also, no scientist would conclude that all plants on planet x are blue after looking at a tiny part of x's plant life.

Okay, if you didn't get the methaphor, switch the little part of the planet witch Earth+what little outer space humanity is able to observe up to now, and switch the planet with the whole world including all the galaxies, universes and so on. And the plant's color with something more scientific, like linearity of time.

Bible literalism V.S Evolution

What if the god set Earth to rotate very very slowly after creating it, then placed some primordial soup, waited until it evolved and called it a day? (Just bainstorming.)

On a side note, someone who's not as lazy as I am should create a chronology to document how the topic of this thread changes from post to post and set on fire anyone who makes them repeat.

[Vince Twelve]

We USE those inventions, we KNOW that they work! 'nuff said.

'Nuff said, not 'nuff thought: How is it different from people USING prayer healing and KNOWING that it works then?

That's actually completely different.

There has never been any non-anecdotal evidence of prayer healing.  If you know of any, let me know.  The problem with all the anecdotal evidence that a faith healing advocate might supply, is that it's all very lightweight.  If faith healing is used in conjunction with medical attention, how do you know that the prayer is what did it, and not the demonstrably effective drug or medical treatment?  Sometimes illnesses go away by themselves.  How much can be better explained by a placebo effect?  I can however demonstrate faith healing not working.  Unless you think they were just doing it wrong.

On the other hand.  I know that a flashlight works because when I flip the switch, the light comes on.  It's completely observable and verifiable.  I say the light is on because flipping the switch connected a circuit between the batteries that is heating a filament that gives off light as designed due to years and years of experimentation and observation.  Would you argue that the light could be caused by something else?  Or that perhaps the light is not, in fact, on, and it is only that I think the light is on that makes it give off illumination?



As for the whole thing about why the axioms underlying the behavior of our universe work as they do, that just goes back to the creation of the universe.  Science does not yet explain several things, and you're free to fill in the gaps with goddidit.  I won't criticize anyone for doing so.  But know and understand that that is at least as big of a leap in logic as just calling those axioms and basing a system of knowledge and understanding on them.

All of that has already been covered in this thread.  So:

On a side note, someone who's not as lazy as I am should create a chronology to document how the topic of this thread changes from post to post and set on fire anyone who makes them repeat.

Consider yourself burned at the stake. 

No.  Which is why those two things are completely different.

[Jim Reed]

What can I say?
Go to a church, and ask where can you witness a miracle healing and/or prayer healing.

The people in the above mentioned article didn't have faith as it seems. They may have said that they do but that doesn't mean it's true.

I pray when I'm sick, and it works every time. I did it about 10 days back. So how can I not believe that there is God? Is it merly a coindence that happened the last ~20 times I did it? Or did the holy unicorn did it?

[Vince Twelve]

The people in the above mentioned article didn't have faith as it seems. They may have said that they do but that doesn't mean it's true.

They had enough faith to bet their own daughter's life that their god would heal her better than a doctor.  That's a pretty big helping of faith if you ask me.

I pray when I'm sick, and it works every time. I did it about 10 days back.

Cool.  What'd you have?  Was it diabetes?  Did you pay yourself?

[Jim Reed]

I don't know what they believed in. But they sure didn't have faith, obviously.

No, I don't pay myself.

I'm telling you where to find the evidence, Vince. And I try not to use an insulting tone while posting.

[Vince Twelve]

I thank you for trying to not be insulting.  I also try.  Let me know when I fail.  I already worked out one misunderstanding from this thread with my friend Miguel via PM.

But could you try to be a bit more patronizing?  (Not saying that sarcastically)  I'm hoping you can explain things more clearly and fully.  You generally use a sentence to sum up complicated issues, and I would appreciate more details.

What church should I ask about faith healing?  I have a feeling that if I went to the church I was baptized into (Methodist), the one I spent most of my childhood in (Unitarian), or the last one I attended (Unity), the ministers would tell me that prayer is a good thing, but that I should seek a doctor if I had a serious medical problem.  I'd be more than willing to test that hypothesis, however.

Also, seriously, what illness did you cure yourself of last week?

[Jim Reed]

Catholic curch for sure. I don't know about the other ones.

Insulting, yes, I explained twice in this thread why I demand payment. Do you think me a fool to explain it a third time?

I had a fever.

If you wan't to know more, just ask. I may have some knowledge that is relatively hard to come by.
I don't say here that I know everything, but I know a bit.

[Vince Twelve]

The question about paying yourself, while phrased somewhat jokingly, was meant to be a serious question.  I am still somewhat puzzled by the reasoning behind why you must be paid to heal someone.  As far as I know, the only answer you've given to that is that you were told that those are the rules.  Please correct me if I've missed something in this thread. 

I'm sorry I phrased my comment in an insulting manner.  Please accept my apology.

I have tried not to be condescending about anyone's beliefs in this thread, though I do tend to make jokes.  Again, let me know if you interpret anything as an mean-spirited.

On topic, I will contact a representative of the nearest catholic church in my area and get back to you.

Regarding your fever, I have often woken up feeling ill and experiencing a fever and had the fever dissipate on it's own and been up and on my feet in a couple hours.  Is it possible that this was the case with your fever?

[Jim Reed]

Those are the rules given to me personally, meaning that they apply to me only. Other people may have other rules or even the same ones.

And my apologies to you, for sometimes, I'm short-tempered.

There were times I was sick with more than a fever, and I'm pretty confident, from my expirience with being sick, that the prayer killed the diseases.
I had a vision the first time, and have had some expirience with prayer healing on me, done by another man.
I have some other things I'm able to do, and have some expirience with...how do I put this?... punishment for sins and their cause. Those expiriences could be described as very bad, if you are being cheerfull while describing them.

[Nathan]

I personally think that if someone decides to not offer their child medicine and opts for faith healing it's not really faith it's just a desire to see a miracle.  It's like a story I heard once.

A man was on a boat and the boat began to sink, he prayed and prayed and prayed and after a while of floating in the water, a man in a small boat came up and told the man to get into the boat.  The man said "No, my God will save me."  the man left after trying to get him to get into the boat.  This then happened with a larger boat and with a helicopter."  Same result.  When he got to heaven he asked God "Why didn't you save me?" "I believed!"  and God said "I sent two boats and a helicopter but you wouldn't take them!"

I think if you refuse to take a solution that God has given for and instead ask him to give you things. (Like refusing medicine) Then he will not give it to you because it is not really faith.  You can give a child medicine and still pray.

Those are the rules given to me personally, meaning that they apply to me only. Other people may have other rules or even the same ones.

Who gave you those rules?  Didn't Jesus say in regards to sending out his disciples  "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give."   (Matthew 10:8 )

[Jim Reed]

About the boat, I agree.

I told allready who gave me my rules. I'd give freely if I could. I will not brake the rules I was given. But on a side note, the amount is not defined, and I did it for about ~0.7 euros the other day. You cannot say that is very much.

When Jesus, or the man who gave me the approval/licence, says to me that I can work for free, I'll do it. Btw, the healing Jesus and his disciples performed, if I remember correctly, was in form of commanding the sickness to go away (I don't read the bible very much).

I can not do that at present.
I pray "Our father, who art in heaven...", I don't command diseases and/or sins to go away.