Its called the concept of design. Its simple. A house needs an architect and a builder. It doesn't appear out of the blue. It was designed by somebody. It was built by somebody. That's not to complicated, is it? A living cell is much more complex. It also needs a designer and a builder. I know, evolutionists struggle with the concept. Sorry about that.
Posts by Vidqun
-
47Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles
by cofty intake a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.
a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.
imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.
-
-
-
47
Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles
by cofty intake a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.
a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.
imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.
-
-
Vidqun
Cofty, imagine your illustration of the TV entertainment centre developing by itself over millions of years. Even if it did develop by itself, do you think the wires would be able to plug themselves into the correct sockets for it to work. Impossible you might say. Well what you are discussing is infinitesimaly more complex. Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself? Now this concept needs a huge leap of faith. By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past.
-
47
Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles
by cofty intake a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.
a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.
imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.
-
-
Vidqun
No Cofty, as I said before, if you believe this you believe anything. This huge "blunder" by the Creator actually works very well, as the existence of over six billion people testifies. Talking of dishonesty, the title of all your "Evolution is a fact"-threads are dishonest. There's a book by Stephen Jay Gould called "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." He discusses the process as a theory. So, no, evolution is not a fact, its a theory. And by the way, Gould was Professor of Zoology at Harvard. Above work was published in 2002.
What you have been discussing, is "adaptation" and "natural selection," e.g., Lenski's E.coli experiments. Everything you describe screams design of extraordinary brilliance. Also, Darwin never described his theory as evolution. He spoke of "descent with modification." At the time the word evolution was used to describe Haller's embryology theory. Haller chose the term carefully, for Latin evolvere means to unroll. Later the term was expropriated from the vernacular, and embodied the concept of progressive development.
-
14
let it be resolved: The remnant can not be the generation of Mat. 24.
by prologos indebating challenge: since the wt doctrine of the anointed generation must conform to bible teachings, and math 24 stipulates that the "generation " outlives "all these things" , and the anointed do not, how could they possibly be the generation, overlapping or not?
-
-
Vidqun
Bobcat, here's a very interesting Dictionary definition of Greek genea (= generation) for you. It makes sense because the verb "generate" is derived from the Latin genero, generatum, to beget (Webster). [Greek γεννάω: to beget.] Wonder how the Witnesses will explain this?
11.4 γενεάa, ᾶς feminine: people living at the same time and belonging to the same reproductive age-class—‘those of the same time, those of the same generation.’ ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ‘the people of this generation will be punished’ Lk 11:51.
The expression ‘the people of this generation’ may also be expressed as ‘the people living now’ or ‘the people of this time.’ Successive generations may be spoken of as ‘groups of people who live one after the other’ or ‘successions of parents and children.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 119). New York: United Bible Societies.
-
39
Evolution is a Fact #12 - Lenski's E. coli Experiment
by cofty inevolution works by the non-random selection of random mutation.
natural selection accumulates favourable random chance events.. the experiment that was began on 24th february 1988 on e coli bacteria by dr richard e. lenski and his team is surely one of the clearest demonstrations of the power of this process.. e.coli is one of the commonest bacterium on earth, there is around 100 billion, billion of them in the world at any given time and around 1 billion of them in your gut right now.
most of the time they cause no problem, until a new strain wreaks havoc on its host's digestive system.. if we assume the probability of a particular gene mutating to be 1 in a billion, the size of the population is so high that just about every gene in the e.coli genome will have mutated somewhere in the world every day.
-
-
Vidqun
I am just glad an E.coli stays an E.coli, "according to its kind." It wil wreak havoc with the identification process in a lab if it had the ability to become for example a Klebsiella or a Pseudomonas. -
21
Interesting statement regarding "this generation"
by InChristAlone ini keep up with allexperts.com, and i noticed an interesting question to "brother rando".
his statement surprised me, and i am wondering if i missed some new light along the way.. question:.
"hello bro rando.
-
-
Vidqun
Here's a very interesting Dictionary definition of Greek genea (= generation). It makes sense because the verb "generate" is derived from the Latin genero, generatum, to beget (Webster). [Greek γεννάω: to beget.] Wonder how the Witnesses will explain this?
11.4 γενεάa, ᾶς feminine: people living at the same time and belonging to the same reproductive age-class—‘those of the same time, those of the same generation.’ ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ‘the people of this generation will be punished’ Lk 11:51.
The expression ‘the people of this generation’ may also be expressed as ‘the people living now’ or ‘the people of this time.’ Successive generations may be spoken of as ‘groups of people who live one after the other’ or ‘successions of parents and children.’[1]
[1] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 119). New York: United Bible Societies.
-
9
To be "literal" or not in Bible translation
by Wonderment insome participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.
a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.
the answer is not that simple.
-
-
Vidqun
Thanks for the examples, Wonderment. These demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for FE translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. DE translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial. The following is a short discussion of FE and DE translation, for those who are interested in the subject.
Formal-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the original text say? Against DE Translation, we have the accurate, word-for-word translation called Formal Equivalence translation, abbreviated as FET, FE for short. A literal or FE translation would closely follow the original language and could be viewed as scientifically accurate and correct. This type of translation would be adapted to the language of the original text. FE Translations (e.g.,, Aquila) could be used to establish the original text as well as pronunciation. [i]
FE translation attempts to retain the language forms of the original in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which have been translated with FE approach.
FE translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is the lay term, while formal equivalence translation the technical term. Although FE translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning.
R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the Theodotion (or proto-Theodotian) version of Daniel is mainly a FE translation. In the modern era, the literal interlinear translation is classified as a pure FE translation. To a lesser extent The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 1990 edition, would qualify as a FE translation. The translators of such a translation would work on the premise: ‘As literal as possible, as free as necessary’. They would used paraphrase or explanatory notes only in exceptional cases, for example to elaborate on the feminine third person singular pronoun.[ii]
Admittedly this type of translation could cause ambiguity. Footnotes can be used to clear this up. This is the case with the NRSV. Here the translators used footnotes to list different meanings or translation possibilities.
Dynamic-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the author mean? Language experts aptly apply the word ‘dynamic’ to the receptor language – that the receptor language is flexible and dynamic and in no way have to duplicate the original language. This mode of translation applies what is translated to the translator’s vernacular. Archaic words, phrases, and idioms are modernized by replacing them with similar words, phrases, and idioms or by explaining them.
DE translation is free, idiomatic translation, by nature figurative and speculative. Word order and sentence structure of the original text are changed and adapted to the receptor language. Either additional words and phrases are repeated without indicating it by means of cursive script (to warn the reader) or they are completely ignored. Mostly such a translation would be an invaluable help at interpreting the original text, but would be unable to assist in determining the original text (cf. Aramaic Targums and LXX).
The LXX and Aramaic Targums are classical examples of DE translations. Both are viewed as barometers of the religious climate of their time. They are typical DE translations because of their explanatory nature. R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the OG version of Daniel is mainly a DE (or Functional Equivalence translation) translation. G. Bertram puts the problem in perspective by saying: “The Septuagint belongs to the history of Old Testament interpretation rather than to the history of the Old Testament text. It can be used as a textual witness only after its own understanding of the Old Testament text has been made clear.” [Cursive script added.][iii]
The New Testament in Modern English of J.B. Phillips, The Living Bible of Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor, the New Living Translation, and Today's English Version are modern examples of DE translation.
[i] John R. Kohlenberger III, Words About the Word, Regency Reference Library, 1992 edition, pp. 62, 63.
[ii] The New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, The New Revised Standard Version, New Testament Introduction, p. xiii, 1990 edition.
[iii] E. Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, p. 66. See also S. Ortlepp, Introduction to the Interlinear Bible, pp. 37, 54, 55.
-
29
A Seal Ring bearing King Hezekiah's found in Jerusalem excavation, with ankh symbol and winged sun
by fulltimestudent infrom a story in the jewish press:.
quote: "the city of david excavations of the jerusalem hebrew university on mount ophel, at the foot of the southern wall of the temple mount compound, have yielded a sensational discovery: a seal (bulla) with the name of king hezekiah (727-698 bce).".
"king hezekiahs bulla was discovered in a garbage heap that was dumped during or shortly after hezekiahs time, from a royal building that was used to store food.
-
-
Vidqun
Crazyguy, that's why Hess's book is called "Israelite Religions." There were many, similar to our day. Because the worship of Yahweh became the state religion, all others were supressed and/or eclipsed. The Israelites probably borrowed the name Beth-Shemesh from On. You might be referring to Jeremiah's prophecy (43:10-13) where he prophesizes that Nebuchadrezzar would overrun Egypt and "break to pieces the pillars of Beth-shemesh, which is in the land of Egypt." That would be the original Beth-Shemesh. This is what Day (and Hess) has to say concerning Beth-Shemesh of Palestine:
Day (2000, 152) identifies this site (Josh. 15:10) with Ir-Shemesh (Josh. 19:41) and Har-heres (Judg. 1:35). Day also notes En-Shemesh (Josh. 15:7; 18:17) in Judah and Timnath-serah (Josh. 19:50; 24:30) in Ephraim. He also notes Shamash-Edom in Thutmose III's fifteenth-century BC Palestinian town list.
-
29
A Seal Ring bearing King Hezekiah's found in Jerusalem excavation, with ankh symbol and winged sun
by fulltimestudent infrom a story in the jewish press:.
quote: "the city of david excavations of the jerusalem hebrew university on mount ophel, at the foot of the southern wall of the temple mount compound, have yielded a sensational discovery: a seal (bulla) with the name of king hezekiah (727-698 bce).".
"king hezekiahs bulla was discovered in a garbage heap that was dumped during or shortly after hezekiahs time, from a royal building that was used to store food.
-
-
Vidqun
Fulltimestudent, thanks for the interesting article. Concerning sun worship in ancient Israel, this is what an archaeologist, Richard Hess, had to say on the subject:
The sun deity was subsumed by Yahweh, who took on its characteristics. The actual symbol of the sun in the form of a winged sun disk became a later symbol of the Judean monarchy.
The divine sun appears in names such as Samson and Beth-Shemesh. It is personified in Psalm 19:6 [Heb. 7]. Samson may be a solar hero. His name is derived from the Hebrew word for sun and he is associated with places such as Beth-Shemesh. There is also the association of the sun with a strong man in Psalm 19:4-5 [Heb. 5-6], and the contrast with Delilah, whose name sounds like the Hebrew word for night (laylâ).
Elsewhere, sun worship may be identified with Yahweh in texts such as 1 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 23:5, 11; and Ezek. 8:16. The latter references are noted by Day (2000, 156) as placing sun worship in the Jerusalem temple.[1] Job 38:7 identifies the sun as part of the host of heaven or of the sons of God. These texts are supported by the identification of sun imagery with Yahweh in personal names, by pictures of the sun in iconography of the Judean kingdom, and by artistic representations from in and around Palestine… the collective data presents a significant case for some sort of relationship between Yahweh and sun imagery.[2]
[1] John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 265 (2000). Sheffield Academic Press.
[2] See Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey, pp. 76, 243 n. 121.
-
23
Anointed Directing the Anointed?
by compound complex in[.
] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.
revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..
-
-
Vidqun
Yes, Listener, you've got a point. Are they perhaps lending their ear to "the angel of light"? In their commentary on Rev. 4:4 in the Revelation Climax-book (p. 77), they reason that the 24 elders are those of the anointed that had been resurrected to heaven, i.e., their brothers. Yet they insist the first resurrection had started in 1919. But not only were the 24 elders already present in heaven before that date, but one of them spoke to John (ca. 100 CE).