Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Interpreting fossils

The_Real_Hawkeye,



You want me to take you seriously when you are the guy who believes God looked down from His balcony in the sky and saw an ape and said, "I think it would make a perfect "Adam"?

You ever hear of context and metaphors?

Actually you are more wrong than right...

Mule deer are the result of crossing blacktail deer and whitetails when they met after the whitetail population moved north along the Pacific coast and evolved into blacktails. The cross was between a whitetail doe and blacktail buck as proven by mitochondrial RNA which comes from the mothers' side only.

The reason it happened that way is the blacktail habit of chasing does and the whitetail habit of waiting for the does to come to them.

Valerius Geist is the one that ironed the wrinkles out of the theory.

Today we still have blacktails named as though they are subspecies of mule deer, but that is taxonomically incorrect.

Speciation does not have to be an adaptation to different environments at all. Many are documented where they simply utilized different aspects of the same environment.

Leather from sheep:goat hybrids is fairly easy to come by though expensive due to its very fine, but extremely durable wear characteristics...

No, I said Adam was the first man. Homo sapiens are, zoologically, a species of ape, and one such became a man. All homo sapiens alive today are also men (that's not a gender designation).

He wasn't literally molded from mud. That's a metaphor. He was born of parents of the same animal species, homo sapiens. The metaphor means that his origins can be traced to earthly matter. Adam became a man, and no longer a mere member of the homo sapiens species, when God breathed a soul into him, as it says in Genesis. Eve was made from his rib, as it also therein states.

These latter two events were miracles. Adam's coming into existence as a member of the homo sapiens species was not. The latter was according to natural processes, as commanded by God: "And God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ..." Nowhere does it say that this command was fulfilled in an instant by our reckoning.

Because all this isn't explained in detail in the Bible doesn't mean you're prohibited from believing it. Pregnancy and birth are also referenced many times in the Bible, and no detailed explanations of the science involved is included, yet you believe there's science involved in pregnancy and birth, right? You're not adding to the plain words of the Bible because when pregnancy and birth are mentioned you assume all the scientific facts that go along with them, right? Same here.

In one of your earlier posts you stated you didn't know if God put an egg in an ape or exactly where Eve came from. Now you are claiming a miracle. If God can do A miracle with Eve, why can't He do lots of miracles? God wrote with His finger on stone that He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh so the Jews were to work six days and rest on the seventh. Two questions: If this isn't true, then why is there a work week for the Jews? If you try to allegorize This then why do you believe anything in the Bible?

You pick and choose like most liberals. Why don't you give up and be your own god? You would make more sense.

Yep, you're right. Evolution takes a long time to state it simply. You go around this area of Georgia and claim that cats and dogs are cousins and you might make the wrong dogs mad. No cats in this area big enough to worry about.
I love reading these types of discussions and had some lively ones when in school a while back. Lots of interesting unanswered questions about the development of many features of wildlife. I read about a species of lizards that has an all female population. No males. If we knew all the answers, life would be boring.

Why don't you stop believing in the biological explanations of pregnancy and birth, since both are spoken of in the Bible, yet the Bible contains no scientific explanations of them? You're just picking and choosing. If you're going to believe the Bible, you have to believe that pregnancy and childbirth just happen, without any science involved. Digestion, too, since eating and drinking is often mentioned, but no science related to it. You must therefore reject any scientific discoveries related to digestion in order to stay a Bible believing Christian, unless you can show me in the Bible where is says anything about it.

Work week reference.

You ever do hard physical labor, like on a farm, pitching bales, etc, from 5 am to 9 pm, including chores and meals? Once you do, it's pretty easy to figure out why that day of rest is in there!

Likewise many of the other strictures in the Bible and Quran. Pigs have trichinosis for example. Before science, the poor savages didn't know why they were getting sick from pigs- they just knew they were, and didn't know how to prevent it. But the practicing Jews and Muslims still abide by the prohibition against pork.

I never have figured out where the thing about not cooking a lamb in it's mother's milk came from, except as a form of respect perhaps?

The_Real_Hawkeye,



You brought up the Bible. Now you build a strawman so you can win a foolish argument when there is none.

las,



The short answer is, yes. I still remember my first day. I fell asleep at lunch time.



I don't know anything about respecting animals. Most of the Bible makes no sense to me.

Las,

I call it Marketing.

Come join us as you get:

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Not having to make all those statues is in effect a huge Tax Cut.

4. A day off.

Perhaps that is worth contemplating.

How is it foolish? Your position is that any scientific knowledge applied to descriptions of events in the Bible is "doing your own thing, man." Right? That makes one a liberal, you say. Aren't you a liberal, too, then, if you believe there's science behind pregnancy, childbirth, and digestion. All three of these subjects are referenced in the Bible. Therefore, following your reasoning, you must reject all the discoveries of science about those subjects, since no scientific details regarding them are contained in the Bible. You must therefore assume that these things just happen, with no science involved. Otherwise, you're a liberal, man. Right on.

antelope_sniper,



Guilty of that.

Another strawman!

Where am I wrong?

Let me help you:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

I know what a straw man is. I'm asking him to make the argument that my argument is that, and not a legitimate argument, i.e., not holding him to his own reasoning, which is what I assert my argument is doing.

You told me what my reasoning is. You didn't ask me. Then you proceeded to destroy the strawman you built with your imaginary thought about what I think.

still cracks me up people trying to strictly interpret something that was not ever written in english. it was written in very basic form Hebrew, translated into Greek and then translated into English. Quite a number of translation errors. 'Thou shall not kill" should actually be "Thou shall not commit murder" two very different statements. another good one is Aaron's rod, it doesnt turn into a snake when he throws it down before Pharaoh, the hebrew and greek words used mean crocodile not snake.

plenty more where those come from. strict interpretation in english is idiotic. especially the most popular versions.

You mean that King Jim and the boys might not be strictly correct?