Evolution, creation or something else?

[taks]

doesn't matter. given such a large universe, this scenario is actually likely to happen at least _somewhere_ (as we can see, it did), and the results are thus the conditions for life. for all we know, this has happened in many other galaxies, triggering the same conditions for life there as well. i.e., trying to extrapolate a small probability for a single event, based on a very narrow view of the entirety of the universe, to the entirety of the universe over the length it has existed is a fruitless effort.

 

this is sort of like a random noise experiment. given a noise source with a mean voltage of 0 V, say a 10 V threshold has a probability of occurring once per trillion seconds. in 13 B years (the age of the universe give or take), a trillion seconds elapses 390000 times. the likelihood that at least one 10 V crossing has occurred is nearly 100% (i'd have to get out a book to tell you exactly, it's not as straightforward as it seems), even though the original occurrence only had a probability of 0.0000000001%.

 

taks

[Xard]

I thought you had enough of this here.

 

I haven't read full topic yet, but using Bible as a infallible source of info is ridiculous. Logical errors and downright silliness aside, even mere number of retranslations makes things vague. For instance, whole virgin birth thing. Hebrew word used for Mary is almah, which means young girl/woman. Being virgin is not part of the word.

 

"Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14."

 

That's how wiki puts it.

 

Of course, it's clear both Matthew and Luke meaned that Mary was virgin (it's clearly visable from thier narrative) and almah's were mostly virgins, but this is still great example of how fallible translations tend to be. Also, useful "affirming" for those constructing historical Jesus

 

Here's table for comparison for those interestested.

 

"From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of almah in Isaiah 7:14.[17] Because the author of Matthew 1:23, believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, he quoted Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son" as a proof-text for the divine origin of Jesus. Jewish scholars declare that Matthew is in error, that the word almah means young woman (just as the male equivalent elem means young man). It does not denote a virgin or sexual purity but age. Because a different Hebrew word, bethulah ("בתולה"), is most commonly used for virgin even in modern Hebrew, the prophet could not have meant virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

 

Many Christian apologists respond that throughout the Old Testament, in every other instance where a girl is described as almah, she is a girl who has never known a man carnally or had intercourse. Moreover, the word bethulah is sometimes used to describe women who are arguably not virgins (Joel 1.8 and Esther 2:8-17), and in at least two cases (Genesis 24: 16 and Judges 21: 12), an additional phrase in the text explains that that the bethulah has "not known a man." Thus, they argue, almah refers to virgins more consistently than does bethulah. Most importantly, the Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always[18] means "virgin". Since these Jewish scholars were well acquainted with the meaning of the old Hebrew words as well as the Greek, their interpretation (developed hundreds of years before Jesus) should be given special weight.

 

Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah and almah are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity. Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms"

Edited July 19, 2007 by Xard

[taks]

there's also question as to whether the "parting of the red sea" should actually have been translated as "the parting of the reed sea," which brings up questions of that account.

 

taks

[Xard]

actually that would've been much better example, since unlike this Virgin Birth thing, there isn't other sources in scriptures that makes up the "correct" translation (as virgin is correct translation here)

[taks]

yeah, the "virgin" thing seems to be implied in context in many of its other references (though never really explicitly stated from what i gather). also, using the term "young maiden" or even "young girl" at that time often implied virgin anyway since pre-marital sex wasn't nearly as common then as now.

 

anything that was written several thousand years ago, in a language that otherwise no longer exists, with translations, retranslations, committee rewrites (new testament) and what have you, is bound to have tons of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in it.

 

taks

[Sand]

You don't need God to have a virgin birth anyway. Every heard of parthenogenesis? In any case I think the mistranslation is the most probable. When works get translated and retranslated over and over again meanings tend to change and the original account or intent of the author is lost.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Sand

[Xard]

^ That isn't possible for mammals

[Nick_i_am]

Shh, don't spoil it for him.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

^ That isn't possible for mammals

 

It's not the same, but it's close...

Article by Jessica Ruvinsky

Discover Magazine, June Edition, Page 17

 

 

Microbiologist Karim Nayernia of the Northeast England Stem Stem Institute just took a step towards rendering men obsolete. By immersing stem cells harvested from men's bone marrow in a ****tail of chemicals that mimic the environment of the testes, Nayernia and his team turned the stem cells into immature sperm. The experiment marks the first time that any non reproductive human tissue has been transformed into gametes. If the cells can be grown into mature sperm, the technique would allow men without functioning sperm, or even testes. to father children.

 

Nayernia says the technique could enable women to have a biological child with two mothers and no father. their offspring would always be daughters, though, because sperm made from a female cell would always carry an X instead of a Y chromosome. Weirder still, a woman could conceivable use sperm made from her own bone marrow to inseminate her own eggs.

 

Nayernia's work has already raised a few ethicist's eyebrows. And some scientists doubt that Nayernia's engineered sperm could ever be functional enough to inseminate an egg successfully. Rene Reijo Pera, a biologist at Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, points out that earlier attempts to create offspring with sperm from embryonic stem cells resulted in short-lived mouse pups that were either giants or midgets.

 

Nayernia says that's is possible that transplanting his immature sperm cells into human testes could make them functional - but he's awaiting permission for the experiment from his institutes's ethics board.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Hurlshort]

Xard, the problem with you not reading the entire thread, is that NO ONE has claimed the bible is an infallible source. In fact in the whole discussion, the people who believe in creationism have not brought up the bible once. The fact is creationism is a philosophy, it requires faith, and it should be taught in a Social Science classroom. It only should be mentioned in Science classes to illustrate the point that their are different beliefs and opinions in our world.

 

edit: Eh, I'm starting to hate the term creationism. It's been manipulated too much by a single religion. Maybe there is a better term for the idea that a higher power is resonsible for life.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Hurlshot

[Sand]

^ That isn't possible for mammals

 

What? Translated and mistranslating texts isn't possible for mammals to do?

[Gfted1]

A brief article regarding some newly discovered "transition" species.

 

Dinosaurs, Ancestors May Have Coexisted

 

Jul 19, 2:06 PM (ET)

 

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dinosaurs shared the Earth for millions of years with the species that were their ancestors, a new study concludes.

 

Dinosaurs arose in the Late Triassic, between 235 million and 200 million years ago, and came to dominate the planet in the Jurassic, 200 million to 120 million years ago.

 

Scientists had thought the dinosaurs rapidly replaced their ancestor species. Indeed, until 2003, when a creature called Silesaurus was discovered in Poland, no dinosaur precursors had been found from the Late Triassic.

 

Now, researchers report in the journal Science they have evidence from northern New Mexico that dinosaurs and their precursor species coexisted for tens of millions of years.

 

 

Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosauria at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said there has been a long-standing debate over whether dinosaurs replaced earlier species gradually or suddenly.

 

"What they have is a snapshot of the transition, and it's clear there is a persistent environment with dinosaurs and these other older animals. So, at least in this place in the southwestern U.S., it was not abrupt," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

 

"Finding dinosaur precursors ... together with dinosaurs tells us something about the pace of changeover. If there was any competition between the precursors and dinosaurs, then it was a very prolonged competition," Randall Irmis, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of the report, said in a statement.

 

The team reported finding 1,300 fossil specimens, including several complete bones, at Hayden Quarry at Ghost Ranch, an area made famous through the paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe.

 

There were no complete skeletons, and researchers are continuing to work at the site.

 

Their finds included bones from both early dinosaurs and dinosaur precursors as well as remains of crocodile ancestors, fish and amphibians, all dating between 220 million and 210 million years ago.

 

Included were leg bones of the carnivorous Chindesaurus bryansmalli, a close relative of the Coelophysis, a well-known Triassic dinosaur. They said both walked on two legs, reminiscent of the much later Velociraptor depicted in the film "Jurassic Park."

 

They also found remains of a Dromomeron romeri, a relative of the 235 million-year-old Argentinian middle Triassic precursor called Lagerpeton. Dromomeron was between three and five feet long, the authors concluded.

 

Another discovery was an unnamed, four-footed beaked grazer about three times the size of Dromomeron, they said.

 

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Fund and the Jurassic Foundation.

 

---

 

On the Net:

 

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

[Nick_i_am]

^ That isn't possible for mammals

 

What? Translated and mistranslating texts isn't possible for mammals to do?

 

He was refering to virgin births among animals that normally reproduce sexually. Sharks would be an example of this being that, in population crises, female sharks of cirtain species can create clones of themselves, giving birth normally.

[Sand]

He was refering to virgin births among animals that normally reproduce sexually. Sharks would be an example of this being that, in population crises, female sharks of cirtain species can create clones of themselves, giving birth normally.

Yes, I know. I was giving a snarky reply. Besides just because it hasn't happened as of yet, doesn't mean it can't happen at all. Anything may be possible, just very very very highly improbable.

[Nick_i_am]

Evolution!

[Calax]

don't you know? Dinosaurs were living in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve!

[Sand]

So, Theia struck the earth and we have the moon? So, we have two planetary bodies collide which only one is destroyed and we get a moon out of it. What are the chances of that?

 

1 in 278, to be exact.

That isn't as high as I thought it would be. Hmmm...

[WITHTEETH]

don't you know? Dinosaurs were living in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve!

Yeah, Velosa raptors were vegetarians until Adam took a bite of the fruit! Boy did he screw up!

[seejai]

The Bible is not proof of creationism. It is an account of creationism based on conjecture and the understanding of the world and universe in the mindset of a primitive being who had no idea why it rained, why fire hurts, nor what causes him to get sick.

what i am trying to say is that if you have faith in God its obviously proof enough for you. im talking more about beliefs which we dont need to go into

 

 

Faith is not proof.

 

wow i've said like 40 times that this is basically a proofless subject. no ones gonna find proof that will prove anything to the other person. i said that for me, personally, faith is proof

[metadigital]

Actually, Dawkins propounds a almost perfect proof of the non-existence of God in his book The God Delusion ... so, for those that believe, faith is in spite of proof to the contrary.

[seejai]

like i said... that proof isnt enough for me and mine wont be enough for u

[Deadly_Nightshade]

like i said... that proof isnt enough for me and mine wont be enough for u

 

So we are at an impasse...

[WITHTEETH]

The Bible is not proof of creationism. It is an account of creationism based on conjecture and the understanding of the world and universe in the mindset of a primitive being who had no idea why it rained, why fire hurts, nor what causes him to get sick.

what i am trying to say is that if you have faith in God its obviously proof enough for you. im talking more about beliefs which we dont need to go into

 

 

Faith is not proof.

 

wow i've said like 40 times that this is basically a proofless subject. no ones gonna find proof that will prove anything to the other person. i said that for me, personally, faith is proof

I have faith theres a diamond in my back yard... I sure hope my faith is correct too!

[Cantousent]

"There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor. Paul Davies's The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism - for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion). . . ."

 

Other than being little more than petty diatribe, the main problem with the passage is that Dawkins is prepared to tell us the best way to interpret what someone else has said rather than letting us read and evaluate the passages for ourselves. Of course, the debate over atheism and theism existed during Einstein

[Xard]

Xard, the problem with you not reading the entire thread, is that NO ONE has claimed the bible is an infallible source. In fact in the whole discussion, the people who believe in creationism have not brought up the bible once. The fact is creationism is a philosophy, it requires faith, and it should be taught in a Social Science classroom. It only should be mentioned in Science classes to illustrate the point that their are different beliefs and opinions in our world.

 

edit: Eh, I'm starting to hate the term creationism. It's been manipulated too much by a single religion. Maybe there is a better term for the idea that a higher power is resonsible for life.

 

I'd read most of it by the time I wrote that post. And even if no one had claimed Bible being infallible, at least original post seemed to give great scientifical merit for Bible (Noah's ark being found etc.)

 

On that Nightshade's post... truly humans are playing gods.