In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >
> >>How would you interpret that?
> >
> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >
> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >has to be taken literally?
>
> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> he wants...there's an idea....
>
> >How do you know every passage still has
> >merit today?
>
> How do you know it doesn't?

What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
merit? What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
those still have merit? How do you know?

Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
sentence? Obviously not. So how do you know that your interpretation of
the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

>In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
>> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
>> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
>> >
>> >>How would you interpret that?
>> >
>> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
>> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
>> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
>> >
>> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
>> >has to be taken literally?
>>
>> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>> he wants...there's an idea....
>>
>> >How do you know every passage still has
>> >merit today?
>>
>> How do you know it doesn't?
>
>What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
>merit?

Is it been disproven?

> What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do

What about them?

>those still have merit? How do you know?

>Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
>scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
>were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
>their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
>sentence? Obviously not.

Which parts, just out of curiosity?

> So how do you know that your interpretation of
>the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
>tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?

If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
understand with no better information than anyone else.

In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >> >
> >> >>How would you interpret that?
> >> >
> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >> >
> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >> >has to be taken literally?
> >>
> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> >> he wants...there's an idea....
> >>
> >> >How do you know every passage still has
> >> >merit today?
> >>
> >> How do you know it doesn't?
> >
> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> >merit?
>
> Is it been disproven?

Pretty much.

I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
evolution.


> > What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
>
> What about them?

By giving speciffic rules about who can be taken as slaves and even how
they are to be treated, the Bible seems to be endorsing the ownership of
slaves.

> >those still have merit? How do you know?
>
> >Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
> >scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
> >were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
> >their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
> >sentence? Obviously not.
>
> Which parts, just out of curiosity?
>
> > So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
> >tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>
> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> understand with no better information than anyone else.

Forget the second question for a moment. Which versions of the Bible do
you read? If it's not the original Greek and Aramaic, then you're
reading a translation and an interpretation. So... how do you know yours
is correct?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >> >
> >> >>How would you interpret that?
> >> >
> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >> >
> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >> >has to be taken literally?
> >>
> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> >> he wants...there's an idea....
> >>
> >> >How do you know every passage still has
> >> >merit today?
> >>
> >> How do you know it doesn't?
> >
> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> >merit?
>
> Is it been disproven?
>
> > What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
>
> What about them?
>
> >those still have merit? How do you know?

You didn't supply any substantive response there.

> >Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
> >scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
> >were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
> >their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
> >sentence? Obviously not.
>
> Which parts, just out of curiosity?

This is a bit of an odd question, seeing as how you and Mayor keep going
on about this phenomenon every time I point out some absurdity in the OT.

Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.

> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>
> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> understand with no better information than anyone else.

I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is correct
if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
everything up.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
>> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
>> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
>> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
>> >> >
>> >> >>How would you interpret that?
>> >> >
>> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
>> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
>> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
>> >> >
>> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
>> >> >has to be taken literally?
>> >>
>> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>> >> he wants...there's an idea....
>> >>
>> >> >How do you know every passage still has
>> >> >merit today?
>> >>
>> >> How do you know it doesn't?
>> >
>> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
>> >merit?
>>
>> Is it been disproven?
>
>Pretty much.
>
>I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
>geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
>the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
>evolution.

Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
they'll be thrilled to hear about it.

>> > What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
>>
>> What about them?
>
>By giving speciffic rules about who can be taken as slaves and even how
>they are to be treated, the Bible seems to be endorsing the ownership of
>slaves.

It treats it as a fact of life, because it was. It also reported on
all kinds of other things - did it endorse those, too? Jews were
slaves - do you think that meant slavery was endorsed?

>> >those still have merit? How do you know?
>>
>> >Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
>> >scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
>> >were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
>> >their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
>> >sentence? Obviously not.
>>
>> Which parts, just out of curiosity?
>>
>> > So how do you know that your interpretation of
>> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
>> >tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>>
>> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
>> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
>> understand with no better information than anyone else.
>
>Forget the second question for a moment. Which versions of the Bible do
>you read? If it's not the original Greek and Aramaic, then you're
>reading a translation and an interpretation. So... how do you know yours
>is correct?

One can compare the translations to copies of original texts found
every so often and both agree. The Bible is one of the most copied
books in history - copies of Homer's Illyead don't even compare.
Given all of the source material floating around (and there are
hundreds) it would be trivial to disprove a modern Bible if one could.

In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> >> >merit?
> >>
> >> Is it been disproven?
> >
> >Pretty much.
> >
> >I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
> >geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
> >the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
> >evolution.
>
> Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> they'll be thrilled to hear about it.

Your analysis comes from a complete misunderstanding of many things in
science, ranging from how science works to what scientists have
discovered.

Evolution happens rather slowly, as the result of changes in the
environment. So no, you will not suddenly see gorillas raising human
babies. The likelihood of any plany or animal leaving a fossil is very
remote to begin with: a special set of circumstances has to occur, and
then the fossil has to be found. So the "lack" of intermediate forms
doesn't prove or disprove anything. What's interetsing is that
intermeidate forms are being discovered all the time, in all branches of
zoology. Archaeologists interested in certain questions of evolution are
looking for specific intermediate forms, and eventually may (or may not)
find them. Enough fossils have been found that it is a scientific
certainty that the theory of evolution describes what happened to such a
degree that, lacking a better theory, one might as well accept it as
fact.

A theory is not a hypothesis, it's a system of observations,
explanations, and predictions that coincide with reality. Engineers talk
about the theory of flight or the theory of electronics ... you're not
going to dismiss airplanes or computers as flights of fantasy. Proof of
evolution is all around us, even in mundane things such as corn and
cattle. Maize is so well adapted to humans' needs that it cannot
reproduce on its own. It requires human farmers to shuck it and spread
the seeds. Older foms of maize, found in early remains of human
settlements, more closely resemble the more "primitive" wilder forms
that do reproduce. Cattle havem, through seletive breeding, become
specialized into various types, some being better for beef and others
being better for producing milk.

No, the story is not complete -- no one ever claimed it was. There are
details missing, but the overall picture is quite clear.

> >> > What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
> >>
> >> What about them?
> >
> >By giving speciffic rules about who can be taken as slaves and even how
> >they are to be treated, the Bible seems to be endorsing the ownership of
> >slaves.
>
> It treats it as a fact of life, because it was. It also reported on
> all kinds of other things - did it endorse those, too? Jews were
> slaves - do you think that meant slavery was endorsed?

There are specific ways in which Jews were permitted to take slaves.
Sounds like an endorsement to me.

> >> >those still have merit? How do you know?
> >>
> >> >Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
> >> >scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
> >> >were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
> >> >their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
> >> >sentence? Obviously not.
> >>
> >> Which parts, just out of curiosity?
> >>
> >> > So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
> >> >tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
> >>
> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
> >
> >Forget the second question for a moment. Which versions of the Bible do
> >you read? If it's not the original Greek and Aramaic, then you're
> >reading a translation and an interpretation. So... how do you know yours
> >is correct?
>
> One can compare the translations to copies of original texts found
> every so often and both agree. The Bible is one of the most copied
> books in history - copies of Homer's Illyead don't even compare.
> Given all of the source material floating around (and there are
> hundreds) it would be trivial to disprove a modern Bible if one could.

It's an interesting question of whether modern Bibles agree with the
ancient texts. In another post someone just pointed out how three
different words for prostitute were conflated into a single English
word. And not only are the books of the Bible in a different order than
they are in the Torah, but some are missing entirely. There were some
Vatian Councils at which these questions were decided. So no, the texts
do not agree.

Which versions of the Bible do you read?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:53:41 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
>> >> >merit?
>> >>
>> >> Is it been disproven?
>> >
>> >Pretty much.
>> >
>> >I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
>> >geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
>> >the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
>> >evolution.
>>
>> Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
>> still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
>> this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
>> but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
>> evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
>> they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
>
>Your analysis comes from a complete misunderstanding of many things in
>science, ranging from how science works to what scientists have
>discovered.
>
>Evolution happens rather slowly, as the result of changes in the
>environment. So no, you will not suddenly see gorillas raising human
>babies. The likelihood of any plany or animal leaving a fossil is very
>remote to begin with: a special set of circumstances has to occur, and
>then the fossil has to be found. So the "lack" of intermediate forms
>doesn't prove or disprove anything. What's interetsing is that
>intermeidate forms are being discovered all the time, in all branches of
>zoology. Archaeologists interested in certain questions of evolution are
>looking for specific intermediate forms, and eventually may (or may not)
>find them. Enough fossils have been found that it is a scientific
>certainty that the theory of evolution describes what happened to such a
>degree that, lacking a better theory, one might as well accept it as
>fact.
>
>A theory is not a hypothesis, it's a system of observations,
>explanations, and predictions that coincide with reality. Engineers talk
>about the theory of flight or the theory of electronics ... you're not
>going to dismiss airplanes or computers as flights of fantasy. Proof of
>evolution is all around us, even in mundane things such as corn and
>cattle. Maize is so well adapted to humans' needs that it cannot
>reproduce on its own. It requires human farmers to shuck it and spread
>the seeds. Older foms of maize, found in early remains of human
>settlements, more closely resemble the more "primitive" wilder forms
>that do reproduce. Cattle havem, through seletive breeding, become
>specialized into various types, some being better for beef and others
>being better for producing milk.

The fact that species can change over time isn't the same as what the
theory of evolution says. Evolution says we came from nothing,
evolved, and - strangely enough - have now stopped evolving (or we do
so now so slowly no one can tell) into other species.

>No, the story is not complete -- no one ever claimed it was. There are
>details missing, but the overall picture is quite clear.

We'll agree the story isn't complete.

>> >> > What about the rules governing slave-related transactions? Do
>> >>
>> >> What about them?
>> >
>> >By giving speciffic rules about who can be taken as slaves and even how
>> >they are to be treated, the Bible seems to be endorsing the ownership of
>> >slaves.
>>
>> It treats it as a fact of life, because it was. It also reported on
>> all kinds of other things - did it endorse those, too? Jews were
>> slaves - do you think that meant slavery was endorsed?
>
>There are specific ways in which Jews were permitted to take slaves.
>Sounds like an endorsement to me.

And Jews were slaves, too - often for tens and hundreds of years - was
that an endorsement of holding a Jew as a slave?

>> >> >those still have merit? How do you know?
>> >>
>> >> >Or, I'll try another approach. You believe that Jesus showed up on the
>> >> >scene a couple of thousand years ago, and explained to people that they
>> >> >were misinterpreting parts of the OT -- very unequivocal parts. Did
>> >> >their interpretations only become wrong the instant he uttered that
>> >> >sentence? Obviously not.
>> >>
>> >> Which parts, just out of curiosity?
>> >>
>> >> > So how do you know that your interpretation of
>> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show up
>> >> >tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>> >>
>> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
>> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
>> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
>> >
>> >Forget the second question for a moment. Which versions of the Bible do
>> >you read? If it's not the original Greek and Aramaic, then you're
>> >reading a translation and an interpretation. So... how do you know yours
>> >is correct?
>>
>> One can compare the translations to copies of original texts found
>> every so often and both agree. The Bible is one of the most copied
>> books in history - copies of Homer's Illyead don't even compare.
>> Given all of the source material floating around (and there are
>> hundreds) it would be trivial to disprove a modern Bible if one could.
>
>It's an interesting question of whether modern Bibles agree with the
>ancient texts. In another post someone just pointed out how three
>different words for prostitute were conflated into a single English
>word. And not only are the books of the Bible in a different order than
>they are in the Torah, but some are missing entirely. There were some
>Vatian Councils at which these questions were decided. So no, the texts
>do not agree.

The *texts* agree; the books in the Bible are different, though.

>Which versions of the Bible do you read?

I'm happy to read whatever you've got.

In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>, foo
<foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> but we don't.

Man did not come from apes. Instead, there was a race of creatures
who's members evolved into differnt directions. Some became monkeys,
some apes, and some the various humanoids that led to humans. There are
no "ape-men" running around for the same reason there are no monkeys
walking around that look like their ancestors did. Those who didn't
adapt and evolve died off.

As for intermediate steps... Take a look at the Special Edition of
Scientific American on news stands now.

> There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> evolution.

Yes, because it takes a hell of a lot for something to become a "Law".
Do you have the same reservations about the Theory of Relativitiy due
to it still having that name?

> If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
>
We have proof that things evolve: we've seen it first hand within the
lifetime of individual scientists. So the only question becomes why,
how, and in what direction.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

In article <noulgvgnesdjmkfv3ksk6kgc5qhkfgmoi6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> The fact that species can change over time isn't the same as what the
> theory of evolution says.

It is one of the foundations of the theory.

> Evolution says we came from nothing,

Darwin's theory of the evolution of species and how it has been extended
and refined explains very well how species evolve in response to
environmental pressures. When Darwin wrote his book, the basic
mechanisms of molecular biology weren't even dreamed of. DNA's structure
and how it fits into the whole picture wasn't really discovered until
barelyhalf a century ago. There are scientists working on the problem of
how life first appeared. The whole collection of sciences -- cosmology,
geology, biochemistry -- are putting together a coherent picture. The
details aren't there, but as I said before, that's not particularly
worrisome. We'll figure it out.

> evolved, and - strangely enough - have now stopped evolving

Nope.

> (or we do
> so now so slowly no one can tell)

Well, which way is it?

> into other species.

It's not going to happen in your lifetime, and no one can make the claim
that it should.

Species evolve (or go extinct) as the result of environmental change. We
humans are beginning to change the environment to suit us. That will
have unpredictable effects on our evolution.

The other thing you neglect is that some species, whose environments
have changed very little, are still essentially in the same form they
had many millions of years ago. Cockroaches, for instance, and certain
sharks, trilobytes, and coelecanths are examples of "living fossils,"
animals that have hardly changed since they first appeared.
Stromatolites are billion-year-old layered rocks that remarkably
resemble modern collections of algae in mineral ponds. Those primitive
critters haven't changed since they appeared.

Evolution is fact. If you have proof that it is wrong, scientists would
be glad to hear about it.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <080720031355256205%invid[at]localnet.com>,
Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com> wrote:

> In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>, foo
> <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> > still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> > this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> > but we don't.
>
> Man did not come from apes. Instead, there was a race of creatures
> who's members evolved into differnt directions. Some became monkeys,
> some apes, and some the various humanoids that led to humans. There are
> no "ape-men" running around for the same reason there are no monkeys
> walking around that look like their ancestors did. Those who didn't
> adapt and evolve died off.
>
> As for intermediate steps... Take a look at the Special Edition of
> Scientific American on news stands now.

Scientific American has become fluffy in the past few years. (Either
that or I've become an awful lot smarter.) In any case, thanks for
pointing it out. I shall hve to pick that up.

Foo, Scientific American is not the Bible, but if your'e going to try to
discount evolution, then you should at least read up on it.

> > There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> > evolution.
>
> Yes, because it takes a hell of a lot for something to become a "Law".
> Do you have the same reservations about the Theory of Relativitiy due
> to it still having that name?

Or the Theory of Flight...

> > If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> > they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
> >
> We have proof that things evolve: we've seen it first hand within the
> lifetime of individual scientists. So the only question becomes why,
> how, and in what direction.

"Why" can be too philosophical for my more practical tastes. On the
other hand, I like the idea that God was lonely, and because He wanted
friends, He split Himself into a zillion parts. Alternatively, since we
are made of the very stuff of the stars themselves and are organized by
rules encoded in the physical laws of the universe, and these rules
allow for the creation of complex systems that can symbolize data, we
are a way for the universe to know itself.

"How" is fairly well establlished in the big picture, with perhaps
details here and there to fill in. Evolution is so well understood that
it is fair to say it is the indispensible basis for all biological
sciences.

"In what direction" is anybody's guess. It is important to remember that
evolution is not goal-directed. The "choices" made by the system about
which species lived and which died were not made with humans as the end
result. They were made with the immediate survival and reproduction of
the currently living individuals, and nothing else.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <woofbert.spam-9C2098.12401508072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <080720031355256205%invid[at]localnet.com>,
> Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com> wrote:
>

> >
> > As for intermediate steps... Take a look at the Special Edition of
> > Scientific American on news stands now.
>
> Scientific American has become fluffy in the past few years. (Either
> that or I've become an awful lot smarter.) In any case, thanks for
> pointing it out. I shall hve to pick that up.
>
True. Some of it is still over my head, but it's now been "dumbed down"
enough that I can get through most of an issue without be bogged down
in equations. Not sure if I'll keep getting both it and Discovery, as
there's quite a bit of overlap. SA has more theory and in depth
articles, Discovery a larger number of shorter articles.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:

[snip]

> >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
> >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
> >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
>
> Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
> interpretations of religious leaders.

Exodus 31:15:

"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
surely be put to death."

> >> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
> >> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
> >>
> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
> >
> >I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is correct
> >if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
> >so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
> >everything up.
>
> Like I said it wasn't the interpretations so much as the application.
> There was a very good reason that God told the Jews not to eat food
> that had been cooked a day before. They didn't have any way to
> regularly safely store it. Eating leftovers was a bit like playing
> Russian roulette. That's not true anymore.

It seems to me you can make almost exactly the same sort of argument
about homosexuality, and several other sexual practices that [some
people believe] the Bible bans. The guidelines set out seem designed to
minimize the risk of STDs and (in the case of the prohibitions against
heterosexual 'fornication') to prevent children from being born without
a stable family group to take care of them. Modern technology can
provide solutions to these problems that don't require abstinence.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <znu-C24CC6.04401610072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> > bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
> > >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
> > >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
> >
> > Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
> > interpretations of religious leaders.
>
> Exodus 31:15:
>
> "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
> holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
> surely be put to death."

Do we have to wait until Monday to stone someone who worked on Sunday,
or do we have to get off our asses and do it right away?

Does God know about the International Date Line?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> >> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>How would you interpret that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >> >> >has to be taken literally?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> >> >> he wants...there's an idea....
> >> >>
> >> >> >How do you know every passage still has
> >> >> >merit today?
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know it doesn't?
> >> >
> >> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> >> >merit?
> >>
> >> Is it been disproven?
> >
> >Pretty much.
> >
> >I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
> >geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
> >the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
> >evolution.
>
> Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> they'll be thrilled to hear about it.

You're an evolution denier? Oh, this is just too funny. And to think
I've been trying to have reasonable discussions with you for all these
years!

You're not even a very good evolution denier.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Fossil Hominids
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Actually though, you'd better start with this:

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[snip]

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <znu-4C4C80.12065910072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
> > <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
> > > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> > >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> > >> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> > >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> > >> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> > >> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
> > >> >> >>God?
> > >> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> > >> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>How would you interpret that?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> > >> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> > >> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every
> > >> >> >passage
> > >> >> >has to be taken literally?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say
> > >> >> whatever
> > >> >> he wants...there's an idea....
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >How do you know every passage still has
> > >> >> >merit today?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How do you know it doesn't?
> > >> >
> > >> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> > >> >merit?
> > >>
> > >> Is it been disproven?
> > >
> > >Pretty much.
> > >
> > >I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
> > >geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
> > >the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
> > >evolution.
> >
> > Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> > still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> > this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> > but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> > evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> > they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
>
> You're an evolution denier? Oh, this is just too funny. And to think
> I've been trying to have reasonable discussions with you for all these
> years!
>
> You're not even a very good evolution denier.
>
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> Fossil Hominids
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
>
> Actually though, you'd better start with this:
>
> Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>
> [snip]

For an alternative viewpoint, see http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

In article <compuser-83548A.10412410072003[at]corp.supernews.com>,
compuser <compuser[at]compuser.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-4C4C80.12065910072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU
> <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:31:54 GMT, Woofbert
> > > <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <surkgvst57vtrrv8d1ptc3rg0tjdnqrnv4[at]4ax.com>,
> > > > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:08:28 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> > > >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> > > >> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> > > >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> > > >> >> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> > > >> >> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
> > > >> >> >>God?
> > > >> >> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
> > > >> >> >>nor
> > > >> >> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>How would you interpret that?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> > > >> >> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something
> > > >> >> >like
> > > >> >> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such
> > > >> >> >thing.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every
> > > >> >> >passage
> > > >> >> >has to be taken literally?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say
> > > >> >> whatever
> > > >> >> he wants...there's an idea....
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >How do you know every passage still has
> > > >> >> >merit today?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> How do you know it doesn't?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What about the cosmology described by Genesis? Does that still have
> > > >> >merit?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it been disproven?
> > > >
> > > >Pretty much.
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if you're aware, but between the zoologists, biologists,
> > > >geologists, and physicists, there's an entirely different story of how
> > > >the world came to be than what is written in Genesis. It goes far beyond
> > > >evolution.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> > > still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> > > this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> > > but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> > > evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> > > they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
> >
> > You're an evolution denier? Oh, this is just too funny. And to think
> > I've been trying to have reasonable discussions with you for all these
> > years!
> >
> > You're not even a very good evolution denier.
> >
> > Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> >
> > Fossil Hominids
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> >
> > Actually though, you'd better start with this:
> >
> > Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> >
> > [snip]
>
> For an alternative viewpoint, see http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

Would you accept in a court of law evidence presented by a reseracher
whose primary motivation is to prove what is said in the Bible rather
than trying, without preconceptions, to find out what is?

The problem with the Creationists is that while there are specialists
picking apart every aspect of what is known by science, they aren't
presenting anything like a cohesive picture that explains everything.
For instance, one creation "scientist" talks about certain biological
mysteries presented by the Cambrian Explosion and essentially comes to
the conclusion that since it's a mystery, God did it; while another
creation "scientist" claims that the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's
Flood becuase it could not not have been carved by the Colorado River.

If the world didn't happen at all the way science currently believes it
does, then there needs to be a single cohesive story that explains it
all -- and if a scientific basis is claimed, then that needs to be
written in a way that explains the evidence we see. You can't expect me
to believe that certain scientific evidence proves some aspect of the
Bible when another creation "scientist" is working full bore to
discredit that evidence. For instance, one group of creationists is
trying to disprove the whole mechanism of evolution while another group
is using that mechanism to show how people in Genesis could have lived
for hundreds of years. And there seems tobe no agreement among Bible
scholars as to the age of the Earth and the universe. According to some,
the age is something like 6000 years, while others seem to accept the
commonly accepted age off the Earth and subscribe to a kind of "divine
guidance" thing not precisely described in the Bible.

So the overall picture of creation "science" is a mishmash of competing
"alternative" hypothesis, none of which can be combined into a
convincing, cohesive theory that explains our origins and makes
predictions about discoveries that should be made. Its main thesis seems
to be "If we can disprove evolution, that will prove the Bible." It is a
very good example of bad science.

A cursory review of the titles in
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/faqs.shtml?main reveals
dozens of grammatical errors which really have no place in any kind of
serious intellectual presentation.

Some of the articles sound good on the surface, especially if you don't
really have a good background in what the articles are about. For
instance, the one about C14 dating ignores all the scientific work that
has been done to address the author's objections, and basically sets out
to prove one of its assumptions -- that you don't need C14 dating
because the Bible is more accurate. Well, if the Bible suggests that the
Earth is younger than 50,000 years, why fault C14 dating for not going
back farther? Oh,yes, this author thinks the world is oler than that.

The article about astronomy and the young-Earth cureationists jumps
through all sorts of hoops to force an interpretation of Genesis that
matches scientific data, while others, also using the Bible as their
basis, make the data jump through hoops to fit the Bible. If there were
some sort of cohesive overall picture, then there might be some weight
to what these people are doing. But there's not.

I enjoyed the article about astrology. Never mind all the scientific
evidence against astrology, let the Bible be your real guide! Oh, by the
way, it says astrology is a sham.

The controversy over how long Creation really took is illustrative of
the whole mess. There's even a short article that presents four major
interpretations. You pick your favorite -- as long as you don't pick the
one presented by science. You can't base science on that sort of
thought.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

compuser <compuser[at]compuser.net> wrote in message news:<compuser-83548A.10412410072003[at]corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <znu-4C4C80.12065910072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <9nrlgvoc7lssnhv1qputfqbecf68vi8j1r[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > > Yes, I know - man came from apes. The only problem is that this isn't
> > > still happening, and no one can see any intermediate steps between
> > > this transition - you'd think we'd have a few ape-men running around,
> > > but we don't. There's a reason it's still called the "Theory" of
> > > evolution. If you've got proof, tell the scientific community -
> > > they'll be thrilled to hear about it.
> >
> > You're an evolution denier? Oh, this is just too funny. And to think
> > I've been trying to have reasonable discussions with you for all these
> > years!
> >
> > You're not even a very good evolution denier.
> >
> > Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> >
> > Fossil Hominids
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> >
> > Actually though, you'd better start with this:
> >
> > Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> >
> > [snip]
>
> For an alternative viewpoint, see http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

Gee, isn't that the Discovery Institute site? Problem with Intelligent
Design (as with creationism) is that there isn't even a hypothesis of
ID, not to mention there is no way to test and falsify ID. It isn't
even science.

Dave Fritzinger

Christopher Lund <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote in message news:<christopher.lund-9779CA.08535811072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>...
> In article <090720031904441403%dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com>,
> "David C. Fritzinger" <dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > According to Darwin, evolution was a gradual process that was always
> > > taking place. It turns out that it did not fit with with fossile
> > > record. Gould (I think it was him) solved this with "punctuated
> > > equilibrium"; a species would evolve until it was well adapted to it's
> > > current environment and then stop (because it had reached an
> > > equilibrium). When the environment changed again, the species would
> > > either adapt by evolving into something else or go exinct. This
> > > evolution could go very rapidly - as in only a few thousand years
> > > (blink of an eye, iow).
> >
> > Close. The fossil record shows both relatively rapid, and, more rarely,
> > gradual changes. Punk-Eq is more a description of evolution at the
> > species level.
>
> Well, I was thinking about species.. B)
>
> > It is possible, however, to see fairly gradual changes
> > for larger transitions. For example, the change from reptile to mammal
> > is becoming quite well documented, as is the change from reptile to
> > bird.
>
> The change from reptile to dinosaur, you mean.. ;)

Yeah, you're right. Birds do appear to be the only surviving
dinosaurs. And, creationists _hate_ that fact.

8^)

Dave Fritzinger
>
> > Dave Fritzinger

In article
<christopher.lund-9779CA.08535811072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
Christopher Lund <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:

> In article <090720031904441403%dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com>,
> "David C. Fritzinger" <dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > It is possible, however, to see fairly gradual changes
> > for larger transitions. For example, the change from reptile to mammal
> > is becoming quite well documented, as is the change from reptile to
> > bird.
>
> The change from reptile to dinosaur, you mean.. ;)

Dinosaur to bird, actually.

And wolf-like running mammal thing to dolphin, for that matter!

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:13:10 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>> "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
>> holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
>> surely be put to death."
>
>Do we have to wait until Monday to stone someone who worked on Sunday,
>or do we have to get off our asses and do it right away?
>
>Does God know about the International Date Line?

Heh. Rhetorical question I assume? 'Cuz y'know, omniscient and stuff.

Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote in message news:<woofbert.spam-052276.14390711072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>...
> In article
> <christopher.lund-9779CA.08535811072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> Christopher Lund <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <090720031904441403%dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com>,
> > "David C. Fritzinger" <dfritzin[at]nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > > It is possible, however, to see fairly gradual changes
> > > for larger transitions. For example, the change from reptile to mammal
> > > is becoming quite well documented, as is the change from reptile to
> > > bird.
> >
> > The change from reptile to dinosaur, you mean.. ;)
>
> Dinosaur to bird, actually.

Birds _are_ dinosaurs, actually.

8^)

Dave Fritzinger
>
> And wolf-like running mammal thing to dolphin, for that matter!

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:40:16 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
>> >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
>> >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
>>
>> Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
>> interpretations of religious leaders.
>
>Exodus 31:15:
>
>"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
>holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
>surely be put to death."

The interpretation had expanded far beyond what most people think of
as work by Christ's time. You were literally suposed to do nothing but
sit around the house on the Sabbath. You weren't even allowed to eat
as working your jaw was considered 'work'. The outrage that had been
comitted when Christ issued His statement was for His disciples to
pick and eat grain.

>
>> >> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
>> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
>> >> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>> >>
>> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
>> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
>> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
>> >
>> >I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is correct
>> >if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
>> >so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
>> >everything up.
>>
>> Like I said it wasn't the interpretations so much as the application.
>> There was a very good reason that God told the Jews not to eat food
>> that had been cooked a day before. They didn't have any way to
>> regularly safely store it. Eating leftovers was a bit like playing
>> Russian roulette. That's not true anymore.
>
>It seems to me you can make almost exactly the same sort of argument
>about homosexuality, and several other sexual practices that [some
>people believe] the Bible bans.

You could except that their are condemnations of them beyond the
Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament.

> The guidelines set out seem designed to
>minimize the risk of STDs and (in the case of the prohibitions against
>heterosexual 'fornication') to prevent children from being born without
>a stable family group to take care of them.

According to the Old Testament laws if you screw a girl you're married
to her.


> Modern technology can provide solutions to these problems that don't require abstinence.

As we're finding out modern technology can not replace the nuclear
family with both a father and a mother.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <r50vgv4pp8hd8iug3ic2m68f71udome2f4[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:40:16 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
> >> >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
> >> >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
> >>
> >> Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
> >> interpretations of religious leaders.
> >
> >Exodus 31:15:
> >
> >"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
> >holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
> >surely be put to death."
>
> The interpretation had expanded far beyond what most people think of
> as work by Christ's time. You were literally suposed to do nothing but
> sit around the house on the Sabbath. You weren't even allowed to eat
> as working your jaw was considered 'work'. The outrage that had been
> comitted when Christ issued His statement was for His disciples to
> pick and eat grain.

He didn't just clarify the meaning of work. He said, basically, the the
whole thing is optional. Or at least, that's how the modern
interpretation seems to go.

> >> >> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
> >> >> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
> >> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> >> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
> >> >
> >> >I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is correct
> >> >if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
> >> >so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
> >> >everything up.
> >>
> >> Like I said it wasn't the interpretations so much as the application.
> >> There was a very good reason that God told the Jews not to eat food
> >> that had been cooked a day before. They didn't have any way to
> >> regularly safely store it. Eating leftovers was a bit like playing
> >> Russian roulette. That's not true anymore.
> >
> >It seems to me you can make almost exactly the same sort of argument
> >about homosexuality, and several other sexual practices that [some
> >people believe] the Bible bans.
>
> You could except that their are condemnations of them beyond the
> Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament.

But how do you know they're still valid? That's the question I was
asking Foo. As the example of the Sabbath shows, just because the
wording appears blatantly obvious doesn't mean the obvious
interpretation is correct.

> >The guidelines set out seem designed to minimize the risk of STDs
> >and (in the case of the prohibitions against heterosexual
> >'fornication') to prevent children from being born without a stable
> >family group to take care of them.
>
> According to the Old Testament laws if you screw a girl you're
> married to her.

And then you're not supposed to screw any others. Like I said, the
guidelines seem designed to minimize the risk of STDs and prevent
children from being born without a stable family group to take care of
them. But people can now choose to have sex without having kids, and
they can take steps to vastly reduce the risk of STDs.

> > Modern technology can provide solutions to these problems that don't
> > require abstinence.
>
> As we're finding out modern technology can not replace the nuclear
> family with both a father and a mother.

It's unclear just how essential that is. It's worth noting that the
nuclear family is a fairly recent development, in evolutionary terms.
Prior to the rise of agriculture and civilization, children were
probably raised more by the entire clan than by just their own parents.
We seem to have adapted to that shift; who knows what the limits of
flexibility are?

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:38:26 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <r50vgv4pp8hd8iug3ic2m68f71udome2f4[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:40:16 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep the
>> >> >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
>> >> >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
>> >>
>> >> Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
>> >> interpretations of religious leaders.
>> >
>> >Exodus 31:15:
>> >
>> >"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
>> >holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
>> >surely be put to death."
>>
>> The interpretation had expanded far beyond what most people think of
>> as work by Christ's time. You were literally suposed to do nothing but
>> sit around the house on the Sabbath. You weren't even allowed to eat
>> as working your jaw was considered 'work'. The outrage that had been
>> comitted when Christ issued His statement was for His disciples to
>> pick and eat grain.
>
>He didn't just clarify the meaning of work. He said, basically, the the
>whole thing is optional.

No He didn't. Perhaps if you actually read the relavent passages...

> Or at least, that's how the modern interpretation seems to go.

No that's how the atheist interpretation goes.

>> >> >> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
>> >> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
>> >> >> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share it.
>> >> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
>> >> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is correct
>> >> >if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
>> >> >so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
>> >> >everything up.
>> >>
>> >> Like I said it wasn't the interpretations so much as the application.
>> >> There was a very good reason that God told the Jews not to eat food
>> >> that had been cooked a day before. They didn't have any way to
>> >> regularly safely store it. Eating leftovers was a bit like playing
>> >> Russian roulette. That's not true anymore.
>> >
>> >It seems to me you can make almost exactly the same sort of argument
>> >about homosexuality, and several other sexual practices that [some
>> >people believe] the Bible bans.
>>
>> You could except that their are condemnations of them beyond the
>> Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament.
>
>But how do you know they're still valid?

Because the rules never changed. Christ didn't say that the Sabbath
rule was revoked. He said it was put in place to benefit man not
enslave him. IOW its there to insure that you have a day off from your
labors not a day off from life.

>That's the question I was
>asking Foo. As the example of the Sabbath shows, just because the
>wording appears blatantly obvious doesn't mean the obvious
>interpretation is correct.

You think 'Don't do any work' is obviously interpreted as 'No eating'?

>
>> >The guidelines set out seem designed to minimize the risk of STDs
>> >and (in the case of the prohibitions against heterosexual
>> >'fornication') to prevent children from being born without a stable
>> >family group to take care of them.
>>
>> According to the Old Testament laws if you screw a girl you're
>> married to her.
>
>And then you're not supposed to screw any others.

Sex outside of marriage is explicitly banned by Christianity. This is
hardly news. I'm a bit surprised that you feel the need to even ask.

> Like I said, the
>guidelines seem designed to minimize the risk of STDs and prevent
>children from being born without a stable family group to take care of
>them. But people can now choose to have sex without having kids, and
>they can take steps to vastly reduce the risk of STDs.

Actually it was designed to impose rules that promote civilized
behavior on mankind. Throughout history its largely been the goals of
women that cooincided with civilization not men's. Men had to be
dragged to the party kicking and screaming in some cases. Binding a
man to a woman does give her a stable family to raise her children but
it also gives a man a place to channel his energies in a more positive
manner than he would if left to his own devices.

>
>> > Modern technology can provide solutions to these problems that don't
>> > require abstinence.
>>
>> As we're finding out modern technology can not replace the nuclear
>> family with both a father and a mother.
>
>It's unclear just how essential that is. It's worth noting that the
>nuclear family is a fairly recent development, in evolutionary terms.

Its been around ever since civilization. Before that is really
unimportant.

>Prior to the rise of agriculture and civilization, children were
>probably raised more by the entire clan than by just their own parents.

I can remember when you were liable to ratted out by any adult to your
parents. In those days the parents actually thanked strangers for
watching over their kids. Now if you try that you'll probably be
arrested and/or punched in the face.

>We seem to have adapted to that shift; who knows what the limits of
>flexibility are?

We've adapted well haven't we? There's nothing like kids blasting each
other's brains out with stolen firearms to demonstrate that. At least
we've got kids on the metric system finally. They all know '9mm'
anyway.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <qak0hvs32mp5dijf1c7imuj62s4uo9sber[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:38:26 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <r50vgv4pp8hd8iug3ic2m68f71udome2f4[at]4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:40:16 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <32slgvc6ugf031se12b87actlfnesd2vef[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:21 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> >> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> >Mayor just provided an example. The OT says you really have to keep
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >Sabath. Like, seriously. No kidding around here. Jesus says this isn't
> >> >> >really true; that a day of rest is a gift, not a mandate.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually the OT doesn't say this. It had evolved into this by
> >> >> interpretations of religious leaders.
> >> >
> >> >Exodus 31:15:
> >> >
> >> >"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
> >> >holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
> >> >surely be put to death."
> >>
> >> The interpretation had expanded far beyond what most people think of
> >> as work by Christ's time. You were literally suposed to do nothing but
> >> sit around the house on the Sabbath. You weren't even allowed to eat
> >> as working your jaw was considered 'work'. The outrage that had been
> >> comitted when Christ issued His statement was for His disciples to
> >> pick and eat grain.
> >
> >He didn't just clarify the meaning of work. He said, basically, the the
> >whole thing is optional.
>
> No He didn't. Perhaps if you actually read the relavent passages...
>
> > Or at least, that's how the modern interpretation seems to go.
>
> No that's how the atheist interpretation goes.

So Christians are not permitted to work on the Sabbath?

> >> >> >> >So how do you know that your interpretation of
> >> >> >> >the NT is correct? How do you know that another messiah won't show
> >> >> >> >up tomorrow and tell you that you have it all wrong?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you know something the rest of the world doesn't, please share
> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >> Otherwise, you're just conjecturing against something you don't
> >> >> >> understand with no better information than anyone else.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm simply asking you how you can be sure your interpretation is
> >> >> >correct
> >> >> >if there have been times in the past when things were apparently being
> >> >> >so badly misinterpreted that God Himself had to intervene to clear
> >> >> >everything up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Like I said it wasn't the interpretations so much as the application.
> >> >> There was a very good reason that God told the Jews not to eat food
> >> >> that had been cooked a day before. They didn't have any way to
> >> >> regularly safely store it. Eating leftovers was a bit like playing
> >> >> Russian roulette. That's not true anymore.
> >> >
> >> >It seems to me you can make almost exactly the same sort of argument
> >> >about homosexuality, and several other sexual practices that [some
> >> >people believe] the Bible bans.
> >>
> >> You could except that their are condemnations of them beyond the
> >> Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament.
> >
> >But how do you know they're still valid?
>
> Because the rules never changed. Christ didn't say that the Sabbath
> rule was revoked. He said it was put in place to benefit man not
> enslave him. IOW its there to insure that you have a day off from your
> labors not a day off from life.
>
> >That's the question I was asking Foo. As the example of the Sabbath
> >shows, just because the wording appears blatantly obvious doesn't
> >mean the obvious interpretation is correct.
>
> You think 'Don't do any work' is obviously interpreted as 'No
> eating'?

That's not the issue under discussion.

> >> >The guidelines set out seem designed to minimize the risk of STDs
> >> >and (in the case of the prohibitions against heterosexual
> >> >'fornication') to prevent children from being born without a stable
> >> >family group to take care of them.
> >>
> >> According to the Old Testament laws if you screw a girl you're
> >> married to her.
> >
> >And then you're not supposed to screw any others.
>
> Sex outside of marriage is explicitly banned by Christianity. This is
> hardly news. I'm a bit surprised that you feel the need to even ask.

It wasn't a question. Do you see a question mark?

> > Like I said, the guidelines seem designed to minimize the risk of
> > STDs and prevent children from being born without a stable family
> > group to take care of them. But people can now choose to have sex
> > without having kids, and they can take steps to vastly reduce the
> > risk of STDs.
>
> Actually it was designed to impose rules that promote civilized
> behavior on mankind. Throughout history its largely been the goals of
> women that cooincided with civilization not men's. Men had to be
> dragged to the party kicking and screaming in some cases. Binding a
> man to a woman does give her a stable family to raise her children but
> it also gives a man a place to channel his energies in a more positive
> manner than he would if left to his own devices.

This might have some relevance:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/scitech/SciTechRepublish_898675.htm

> >> > Modern technology can provide solutions to these problems that don't
> >> > require abstinence.
> >>
> >> As we're finding out modern technology can not replace the nuclear
> >> family with both a father and a mother.
> >
> >It's unclear just how essential that is. It's worth noting that the
> >nuclear family is a fairly recent development, in evolutionary terms.
>
> Its been around ever since civilization. Before that is really
> unimportant.

Is it? If the familial needs of children are wired in at the genetic
level, then the circumstances that existed 'in the wild' seem quite
relevant. If they're not significantly genetic, then there's no
particular reason to assume that there isn't enough flexibility to allow
healthy, well-adjusted children to be raised by, say, homosexual couples.

I'll hold off judgment until there's some nice hard data on the subject.

> >Prior to the rise of agriculture and civilization, children were
> >probably raised more by the entire clan than by just their own parents.
>
> I can remember when you were liable to ratted out by any adult to your
> parents. In those days the parents actually thanked strangers for
> watching over their kids. Now if you try that you'll probably be
> arrested and/or punched in the face.
>
> >We seem to have adapted to that shift; who knows what the limits of
> >flexibility are?
>
> We've adapted well haven't we? There's nothing like kids blasting each
> other's brains out with stolen firearms to demonstrate that. At least
> we've got kids on the metric system finally. They all know '9mm'
> anyway.

What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so their kids
can be raised in something closer to natural primate social structure?
That seems like a fairly good idea to me, but I wouldn't have expected
to see you advocating it. <g>

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <qak0hvs32mp5dijf1c7imuj62s4uo9sber[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >It's unclear just how essential that is. It's worth noting that the
> >nuclear family is a fairly recent development, in evolutionary terms.
>
> Its been around ever since civilization. Before that is really
> unimportant.

The nuclear family is a modern phenomenon coming out of the mobility
allowed by the industrial revolution. People used to grow up with aunts
and uncles and cousins as part of the family. It was not unheard of that
sometimes a child would just not get along with his or her parents and
would then live with an aunt or uncle in the same town and still have
all the same friends and relatives.

Just as human societies take on many different forms, there's no
particular reason why human families must follow the
father-mother-children model. There's nothing inherently better about
the nuclear family than other types. Plenty of people have grown up in
other types of families and turned out fine. Plenty of people have grown
up in nuclear families and turned out horrible.


> >Prior to the rise of agriculture and civilization, children were
> >probably raised more by the entire clan than by just their own parents.
>
> I can remember when you were liable to ratted out by any adult to your
> parents. In those days the parents actually thanked strangers for
> watching over their kids. Now if you try that you'll probably be
> arrested and/or punched in the face.

You'd be surprised at the number of polyamorous family units and
"intentional communities" that now exist in the United States. When
adults get together and decide to live life as a family, and provide for
mutual support and raising of kids, this is a good thing. Laws that
restrict this activity as a privilege of one man with one woman don't
serve any useful function. It has not been demonstrated that other forms
of families are harmful ... and all the tales we tell about villages
raising children hint that they may even work better.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <znu-9DCE5A.15250712072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

> What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so their kids
> can be raised in something closer to natural primate social structure?

Which one? Each species has its own type, and individual clans have
their own variations. And why limit it to primates? There are plenty of
other family models in the mammal world. (And of course, there are some
societies that model themselves after certain insect group structures.
Yes, that's a beehive you see on state highway markers in Utah.)

> That seems like a fairly good idea to me,

Yup.

> but I wouldn't have expected
> to see you advocating it. <g>

I'm surprised!

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <woofbert.spam-ED9AEC.13271712072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-9DCE5A.15250712072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so their
> > kids can be raised in something closer to natural primate social
> > structure?
>
> Which one? Each species has its own type, and individual clans have
> their own variations. And why limit it to primates? There are plenty
> of other family models in the mammal world. (And of course, there are
> some societies that model themselves after certain insect group
> structures. Yes, that's a beehive you see on state highway markers in
> Utah.)

I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic societal
unit is larger than the nuclear family. Certainly evidence suggests
that this is the natural social structure for humans. I think it's
fairly easy to make the case that things would run a lot better if
people within modern societies self-organized into groups of perhaps
15-30 adults rather than two. I wonder why it doesn't happen more.

> > That seems like a fairly good idea to me,
>
> Yup.
>
> > but I wouldn't have expected to see you advocating it. <g>
>
> I'm surprised!

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <znu-A1FB12.22501312072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <woofbert.spam-ED9AEC.13271712072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-9DCE5A.15250712072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so their
> > > kids can be raised in something closer to natural primate social
> > > structure?
> >
> > Which one? Each species has its own type, and individual clans have
> > their own variations. And why limit it to primates? There are plenty
> > of other family models in the mammal world. (And of course, there are
> > some societies that model themselves after certain insect group
> > structures. Yes, that's a beehive you see on state highway markers in
> > Utah.)
>
> I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
> they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic societal
> unit is larger than the nuclear family.

Yup!

All those who complain about homosexuals who don't reproduce should
consdier the wolf pack, in which only the alpha male and female get to
reproduce, and everybody else tends to the puppies. Anybody else who
tries to mate is in a heap of trouble.


> Certainly evidence suggests
> that this is the natural social structure for humans. I think it's
> fairly easy to make the case that things would run a lot better if
> people within modern societies self-organized into groups of perhaps
> 15-30 adults rather than two. I wonder why it doesn't happen more.

In this country, anyway, people are deathly afraid of bigamy and
polyamory. Robert Heinlein proposed an interesting set of styles of
polyamory, but none of them had room for gay people. In Samuel Delaney's
Triton he wrote abotu a society that considered five adults the ideal
number of parens for a child. One of the characters was a gay man who
got hormone injections so he could grow a breast for his family's latest
child, whom he proudly brought to work and nursed. That's a little too
weird for me, but I wouldn't forbid it.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <woofbert.spam-518092.21500812072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-A1FB12.22501312072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <woofbert.spam-ED9AEC.13271712072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <znu-9DCE5A.15250712072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so
> > > > their kids can be raised in something closer to natural primate
> > > > social structure?
> > >
> > > Which one? Each species has its own type, and individual clans
> > > have their own variations. And why limit it to primates? There
> > > are plenty of other family models in the mammal world. (And of
> > > course, there are some societies that model themselves after
> > > certain insect group structures. Yes, that's a beehive you see on
> > > state highway markers in Utah.)
> >
> > I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
> > they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic
> > societal unit is larger than the nuclear family.
>
> Yup!
>
> All those who complain about homosexuals who don't reproduce should
> consdier the wolf pack, in which only the alpha male and female get
> to reproduce, and everybody else tends to the puppies. Anybody else
> who tries to mate is in a heap of trouble.
>
>
> > Certainly evidence suggests that this is the natural social
> > structure for humans. I think it's fairly easy to make the case
> > that things would run a lot better if people within modern
> > societies self-organized into groups of perhaps 15-30 adults rather
> > than two. I wonder why it doesn't happen more.
>
> In this country, anyway, people are deathly afraid of bigamy and
> polyamory. Robert Heinlein proposed an interesting set of styles of
> polyamory, but none of them had room for gay people.

Polyamory doesn't really seem to be natural for humans. I've read in
quite a few places that it almost always ends badly, even when the
people involved try very hard to make it work. Sexual jealously looks
to be wired in at deep levels. I'm sure there are some people who could
overcome it, but probably not enough that such arrangements could ever
take the place of the nuclear family as the basic societal unit.

Much better, I think, to stick with two person sexual pairs and
organize into larger groups simply to gain the benefits of resource
pooling.

> In Samuel Delaney's Triton he wrote abotu a society that considered
> five adults the ideal number of parens for a child. One of the
> characters was a gay man who got hormone injections so he could grow
> a breast for his family's latest child, whom he proudly brought to
> work and nursed. That's a little too weird for me, but I wouldn't
> forbid it.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:14 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

>I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
>they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic societal
>unit is larger than the nuclear family.

Speaking of history, not now, you mean.

>Certainly evidence suggests
>that this is the natural social structure for humans.

What evidence?

>I think it's
>fairly easy to make the case that things would run a lot better if
>people within modern societies self-organized into groups of perhaps
>15-30 adults rather than two. I wonder why it doesn't happen more.

Why do you say that? (I think it's....)

In article <67b4hv4fkl0nc1vnml19ljng79qja4jeso[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:14 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
> >they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic
> >societal unit is larger than the nuclear family.
>
> Speaking of history, not now, you mean.

Speaking of non-human primates. Pay attention to context.

> >Certainly evidence suggests that this is the natural social
> >structure for humans.
>
> What evidence?

I don't see any point in discussing this issue with someone who believes
Genesis might be historically accurate. Anyone who can hold such a
belief either has a deep ignorance or bias about too many of the
underlying subjects.

> >I think it's fairly easy to make the case that things would run a
> >lot better if people within modern societies self-organized into
> >groups of perhaps 15-30 adults rather than two. I wonder why it
> >doesn't happen more.
>
> Why do you say that? (I think it's....)

The major reason is simply that larger groups are more robust, all else
being equal.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-9DCE5A.15250712072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > What are you saying, Mayor? Everyone should join a commune so their kids
> > can be raised in something closer to natural primate social structure?
>
> Which one? Each species has its own type, and individual clans have
> their own variations. And why limit it to primates?

Closest realitives. I favor the Bonobo option.

>There are plenty of
> other family models in the mammal world. (And of course, there are some
> societies that model themselves after certain insect group structures.
> Yes, that's a beehive you see on state highway markers in Utah.)
>
> > That seems like a fairly good idea to me,
>
> Yup.
>
> > but I wouldn't have expected
> > to see you advocating it. <g>
>
> I'm surprised!


--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot

Walter

ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> I realize that there are plenty of social structures, but one thing
> they practically all seem to have in common is that the basic societal
> unit is larger than the nuclear family. Certainly evidence suggests
> that this is the natural social structure for humans. I think it's
> fairly easy to make the case that things would run a lot better if
> people within modern societies self-organized into groups of perhaps
> 15-30 adults rather than two. I wonder why it doesn't happen more.
<Snip>

It does except in places with modern eccomic systems. The nuclear family
was supposed to allow the man to go where the work was.

--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot

Walter