mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
BTW that is a nice tree. Again any interpretation is subjective, How can measure anything using the tree?
Nothing subjective about that diagram. It is mathematically accurate the length of each branch is based on the degree of difference in amino acid sequence.
Anybody who understands basic statistics can see the dishonesty in your OP.
Here is the actual sequences for anybody who wants to compare them. It perfectly illustrates common ancestry.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Excellent summary Stavro thank you.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Not all aliens were proselytes - Fishy
That is not interesting. The law that permitted the eating of an animal found already dead applied to natural born Israelites.
Ezekiel was a priest therefore he was not permitted to eat an animal found already dead as all other Israelites were.
God allowed Israelites to eat dead animals, torn animals, and unclean meat ( pigs, rats, owls
I have never said anybody was given permission to eat pigs. The text at Lev.11 says "If an animal of which you may eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening. Those who eat of its carcass shall wash their clothes and be unclean until the evening; and those who carry the carcass shall wash their clothes and be unclean until the evening." Please don't resort to telling lies.
Page after page of you avoiding the hard questions Fishy. You are embarrassing yourself.
God to Israel - "If you kill an animal and eat it unbled I will have you stoned to death. If you eat an unbled animal that died of itself I will insist you take nice warm bath and put on a clean robe."
Explain the reason for the difference Fishy.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Yes Ezekiel 4 is an interesting reference. It is significant that Ezekiel was a priest. Eating an animal found dead was not an option for him as it was for normal Israelites. (c.f. Lev.22)
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
The diagram below shows sequence similarity for cytochrome C.
The lengths of the branches in this tree are drawn proportional to the number of differences in the primary sequence.
The tree clearly reveals the three main kingdoms of eukaryotes: fungi, animals, and plants.
Such trees tend to agree closely with those constructed by evolutionary biologists using morphological data, and provide independent evidence of common descent.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Ouch!
Appalling choice of phrase.
I don't distrust Sadiq Khan. Maajid Nawaz has respect for him which is not a bad recommendation.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
God to Israel - "If you hunt an animal and eat it unbled I will have you stoned to death. If you eat an unbled animal that died of itself I will insist you take nice warm bath and put on a clean robe."
Explain the reason for the difference Fishy.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Lev 17:15 shows a distinction between the blood of a slaughtered animal ( for food)and one found dead. - Fishy
Yes exactly.
Why?
It was not permission for Israel to go around eating dead animals with impunity
I would not call being asked to take a nice bath and put on clean clothes any sort of penalty.
Absolutely no punishment at all for eating an unbled animal found already dead. That is the definition of impunity.
But you still have refused to answer my question....
Why is there a difference if as you assert, the blood of an animal that dies of itself is just as sacred as one that has been killed?
I will keep asking you that underlined question until you answer it.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Crazyguy I dealt with that question here...
There is no contradiction.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Verse 15 says that anybody who eats an animal that dies of itself will be unclean until the evening. - Cofty
It does not say anybody. - Fishy
All persons, citizens or aliens, who eat what dies of itself or what has been torn by wild animals, shall wash their clothes, and bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening; then they shall be clean. - Leviticus 17:15
Has it now got to the stage that you need to resort to bare-faced lies? By definition the phrase citizens or aliens covers absolutely everybody and anybody.
