scientists explain the burning bushes!

[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ July 18 2003,2:33)]http://www.nettavisen.no/servlets/page?section=1706&item=277123



if it was lava God must have been cruel to ask Moses to remove his shoes....ouch!
Click to expand...
They merely explained how a bush could suddenly erupt in flame without any visable reason. They had to dig around to find the catalyst. Which really showed that the bushes didn't erupt in flame on their own.

Although very interesting to read, the people who said that this explains the burning bushes in the Bible obviously didn't read the Bible.

Had they actually read the Bible, they would've noticed that the fire DID NOT CONSUME the bush. And they also seemed to have forgotten that if God is able to create something from nothing, he is also able to ignite a bush from nothing.
 
Well, they didn't set out to prove or disprove the fable of the burning bush. They merely set out to find out why bushes in that area sometimes spontaneously lit up.

Which they did.

Eon
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 18 2003,5:53)]Well, they didn't set out to prove or disprove the fable of the burning bush. They merely set out to find out why bushes in that area sometimes spontaneously lit up.

Which they did.

Eon
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention that they then proceeded to use it as an explanation for the burning bush in the bible. Which is an incorrect use of their findings.
 
You're correct, Eon. And then they went and stretched their findings further, beyond their limits. =\
 
A standard problem of scientists, I agree...

A+B=C Which is not necessarily true.

Eon
 
If the three variables are constants...which they're not always.
Rather interesting. It's odd that the world would fill up lack of knowledge with intellect that means bunk...and sadly that satisifies many.
Reading the recent Science magazine which definitely proves human evolution I couldn't help but wonder that if their recent find HAD indeed lived a million years ago, how indeed could a lake, filled today (where several bones were found around...hmm), last for one million years, but not the lake two hundred miles north?
They don't explain it all. They don't explain non-consummation of the bush, or that they can't explain the Bible's bush.
Oops.
 
I'll have to look into that million year old lake myself and see what the details of the story are. You know, dredge up the FACTS and make my own decision - lucky old me, I'm allowed to do that... ;)

Eon
 
Kudos! Intellect!
Like I said, they didn't really explain it well enough. They made it sound nice and proven and all, but they did not explain their maps and dating very well a'tall.
Also...WHY is it evolution is the accepted proof of origin? EVERYWHERE? They have it in my textbooks, they have it on the news and whatnot. It's the proof. D'oh. But it's just a THEORY. An UNPROVEN theory. They have EVIDENCE, but their evidence crumples all too often under scrutiny. But you have to admire their guts to scramble back up to find more evidence even though they just destroyed themselves in their "facts".
Can't we be equally taught creation/evolution in a non-biased environment instead of being subjected to evolution at all points? Or at least have a class dedicated to teaching BOTH methods of origin on something? Like, coal. We don't see no more coal being made, do we? (I haven't read or learned anything of COAL being produced anymore, at least. If anyone knows of that, clue me in with a whack upside the head) So...explain that. Both ways. Creation/evolution. Explain the two caves in the Mid-east where we found a Neanderthal and a Cro-Magnon not far from the other, and both relatively intact, hey, and in the same general sedimentary area? Noooooooooo....I'm taught that Neanderthals came first and then Cro-Magnons and then beautiful you. But what if my school taught me creationism as well as a method of origins. Maybe, hey, Neanderthal guy was just a bit more diseased than say Cro-Magnon, and you know, that whole in-breeding thing DOES screw you up something bad genetically.
But no. I'm to be satisfied with the lake.
 
Actually there's little evidence that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are interrelated. It seems that they existed concurrently at the end of the last Ice Age - but Neanderthal was static, whilst Cro-Magnon was a migratory animal.

Like you say, Inbreeding can be a swine. (Which doesn't make sense if evolution isn't a factor, does it? I mean, if our genetic totality doesn't evolve, then what harm in interbreeding?)


Eon
 
Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are most definitely NOT supposed to be related, but truth be told they are. Whenever you disease yourself beyond comparison to, say, another individual, well, assumptions can be made that the two ARE different. Cro-Magnon having an entirely different build from the lunky Neanderthals. Also I believe Neans have a few +/- genetic factors missing that humans do? Or am I mistaken?
However, inbreeding's (always) negative effects don't start really showing and becoming prominent until the sixth generation, am I right? So, truth be told, Cain could have had children off of his sisters before the genetic pools became too varied between all the kids being made that no one could tell whose was whose. After all, Adam and Eve had several kids, who HAD to marry with each other, and they in turn had several kids (what else to do with 900 years of life? Ahhh...) so by that time I expect at least one hundred grandchildren of Adam's could have been had if not around a thousand. And by then, the chances of negative traits showing up in inbreeding are far and few in between (though the Bible does show that people DID inbreed, and that God did not want that happening (we can surmise because He knew the negativity that would result)) with His Israel.
 
I would love to know what evidence you base your claim that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are interelated.

Eon
 
Ultima if you propose that creation should also be taught in schools then what is to stop others from coming along and saying that we should be taught about how the human race was started by aliens, or about human devolution, or about some other story of creation? I'm sure if these groups all tried, they could present their own "evidence" for why what they believe is true. Schools are teaching evolution because it is the most credible theory at present, and there are no raging debates about creation versus evolution in academic circles as some would like to believe.
 
OKay. For instance (me and my all-knowing mind, d'oh) let's take you, presently. Let's take your blood brother (assuming you have one) born of your parents. Now, you marry some girl and have kids by her and so on and so forth. You'll have fairly normal generations of Eon (ar ar ar ar). Now. Your brother. Let's say you had a sister. Well...he marries her (let's assume we're in a Huxleyan fantasy world where stuff like that happens) and has kids by her. Ehh. Different. Right away. It shows. There are problems. You take an X and X you get an XX, so the genetic screwups are doubled in your child. LEt's assume they have two kids, a girl and a guy, who marry each other and then have more kids. Well there's an XX and a YY. So now we have XYXY. BOTH problems in the kids, doubled. And so on and such forth.
Pretty soon you'll have something like ghouls in the family line, but you breed normal healthy stock because they take from other genes that are normal and not immediately related. Why? The problems of your parents are passed on to you (and not necessarily receded at all times) so your brother and sister have the same probs. Well then they exemplify them in their kids. ANd they the same, so that the healthy genes of the family are rather hidden in some kind of entropic monstrosity you can call your great-great-great-great-great-great grandniece.
NOW. Let's assume Neanderthal is the same (as we can only do). Neanderthal is the byproduct of either of these: disease (caused by say, lack of certain vitamins/minerals that others may be more disposed to) or inbreeding. Neanderthal resembles human in shape, more than he does an ape. He's just a diseased human. Now let's take someone with a severe case of oh, say, osteoarthritis. And we'll give him scurvy, too. For fun. That dude looks screwed up. And let's say he hunched. And let's say he's a Dane. His skeletal form WILL resemble a Neanderthal's. Check it. Maybe genetic differences, sure (You couldn't show a Jew to his five-thousand year old ancestor. He'd laugh at you. The differences are TOO different to even think they're related. But maybe you could see similarities between yourself and Great-Grand Uncle Crawdaddy, because, you know, he's not too many generations different from you. Yeah you got his pug nose.).
Take a Cro-Magnon...he looks like a strapping, fit, modern-day human. In fact, maybe he is! He's stocky, he's well-built. Hey, maybe he was fit? Just a few thousand years old. Like five, or six. Maybe three? Jews are rather short. But they're tough. Living in the middle of a desert working in slavery will do that to you. But then they get free, and they're more healthy, and more and more they resemble humans.
Now for goodness sake. Take a body and dump it in Mideast. It will be ravaged. It happened to an elephant (this one I can cite, Natural Environment Research Council, p. 4, Spring 2002) there. Dump it anywhere. Decay, scavengers, insectia, disease, environment, WILL waste you away to a few bones. And what are fossils? Bones.
Why don't we see kangaroos in the Middle East? Or at least, somwhere in between there and Australia? Or their BONES at least. I mean, evolution says it would take millions of years to make em, and about as long to bury them under the sands of time. So show me a kangaroo fossil from Turkey. Or Afghanistan. I'll be happy. Kangaroos DO exist. And all things that are now came from something before, did they not? Eventually coming from condensed hydrogen, right?
WHY don't we see kangaroos in the Mideast? I know...a government conspiracy to hide the truth of evolution is out, and I, Fox Mulder, WILL find the truth. I know they're taking kangaroo skeletons and moving them to Australia. Who's with me? Scully? Eon? How about it? Help me find the truth. Trust no one, Eon. Trust no one.
Sorry. Couldn't help it there. Show me a kangaroo, or, heck, a WOMBAT, and I'll be happy (also explain how a wombat's pouch knew to evolve inwards, rather than outwards, like on a kangaroo, because wombats are low-dwelling critters...evolution knew that? Their genes told them that they lived on the ground? And so evolved?).
So humans are different and varied. Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Ergaster (now called non-existent, but not too long ago taught as pure fact, now actually paired along with erectus...how long before erectus and sapiens are one and the same, as "fact?"), Erectus, Sapiens...we're all one and the same? Different structures, different bone frames, different appearances, different skin, different features, different genes...still one and human. Prove to me, please, that Neanderthals are positive of human evolution.




On a sidenote, I don't think I did overly well explaining my point to you, Eon, but hey, I'm just 15 so cut me some slack. I'm thinking from sources I've read (but, alas, adolescent lackadaisical apathy set in and I forget to cite, save that elephant one) and my own mind to formulate this...and I think I pretty much hit on the nail as much as I can.
 
No raging debates? Have you not been present for the last century or so? There is always a raging debate between the two.
And you know, at all times, evolution or creation is taught as one or the other. Aliens evolved us, or aliens created us. We were spontaneously put here by accident or an engineering God created us. All of a sudden, I Dream, and the world is, or we're all slaves to the Matrix, which teaches us everything, creation or evolution.

No no no. Creationism and evolution are the only two credible theories out there, but as creationism is a facet of God-supporters, and you know that God = bullcrap in the savage land of Nacirema, evolution MUST be taught as true...and if Christians can't accept it, tough luck. Before long, they'll all be gone anyways. "After all, who wants to read some book of lies some dude probably wrote a hundred years ago?" I honestly read that from a guy who dared to even say that in all his grand ignorance of the Bible.
By the way, VOltaire knew for certain that with his pen he would have stamped out Christianity in his day and age. Then his house became used as a church after he died. Kudos, Voltaire, kudos.
 
Poor Voltair, he doesn't half catch some stick for speaking his mind. It's a shame that there had to be a dreadful revolution merely to give him a country in which to stand and speak his mind. After all - the church would have had him killed in any other...

Firstly Evolution is just a theory - it's the theory that fits the currently available facts. I'm the first to agree that we don't know enough about the forces at work. I'm the first to agree that we don't have a complete enough fossil record. I'm the first to agree that more research needs to be done into genetics, so we can study extinct DNA and begin to see the patterns and relationships.

But nothing in what I've said leads me to believe that Evolution is COMPLETELY barking up the wrong tree. I think the theory will shift and change as we get more and more information, but in no wise do I think it will EVER be completely thrown out as wrong. Certainly not in favour of an opinion that posits the entire of creation came about in 7500 years!

Eon
 
Why not? 6-10000 years is plenty of time to get where we're at, and many civilizations have pretty up-to-date genaeologies, such as the Jews, who marked the birth of Jesus (and no man refutes that Jesus was born and lived and died (and even a few (Josephas, Herodotus) cannot deny the resurrection (Josephas wrote an entirely secular history for the Romans of Judaism)). ANd the Jews traced Jesus' birthlines straight to Adam, and then it stops.
Why?
 
Can an entire society thrive on self-delusion? There has to be some basis of fact for any legend to begin. Maybe a name, maybe a place, maybe a mysterious death or birth or marriage. But something happens for legends to be born.
And who can fault the Jews, notorious for their love of the Law and their hatred for those who stray from it? Can five thousand years of Judaism be entirely motivated by a group of people who had a delusion in the desert?
Or how about the sudden stop in the remains of cities like Jerusalem, times that according to the strata coincide with the times in the Bible that they had a sudden migration elsewhere, like captivity in Babylon and Assyria?No gradual lessening. They just up and are gone. It's true. Dr. Rudolph Cohen's Negev expeditions. Avraham Biran who excavated 27 stinking years in Dan! Or how about Amihai Mazar's studies? Israel Finkelstein! There are many who looked at this, and they find: dudes...the Bible has something going for it.

There has to be something bigger than self-delusion, especially from someone like you Eon. What would be another reply?

(Also, how did I do with my thoughts on as to why Neans and Cros are interrelated?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top