Also, can you please tell me how not having cameras or fax machines affects Hebrew roots? I'm not sure I'm seeing the logical leap. And by your "logic" does that mean that all translations of the bible are anachronistic? That actually makes some sense to me given the way the KJV was cobbled together. Considering there were no original texts to translate and the oldest written manuscripts were penned hundreds of years after the last apostle died and that there are 8,000+ versions of those manuscripts that are all different it's no wonder things get lost in translation. Of course the authors of the KJV didn't use any of those manuscripts anyway, instead the cobbled together previous translations into a version KJ would like, making a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8,000 disparate copies of 4th century scrolls that are alleged copies of lost letters from the 1st century. It's like the world's longest running game of the child's game of telephone, but I'm sure they nailed it and it's the perfect word of god. (As a slightly pedantic side note, the word "yours" is already a possessive pronoun and needs no apostrophe to make it possessive. You wouldn't write "hi's" for "his" would you? Alas, I'm married to an English teacher and these things began to bug me as well. Also, belaboring? Did I argue or elaborate in excessive detail via a feminine pronoun? Did using a feminine pronoun constitute verbal assault?)
Why must religious folks so fight and not accept reality? If there is a an all mighty and powerful God, then God created evolution. What a wonderful process of life. But no, God must be limited by men to can't possibly have such wonders. The same as centuries ago when Men so fight and not accept that Earth isn't the center of the world. Wake up and see reality. It's perfectly fine. If God creates men in his image, men turn around and put God and themselves in an artificial box.
It was YOUR leap that was problematic. Here is what you wrote: "Looking at the Hebrew root for "image of god" you see that it means "image, shadow or likeness of God." so essentially mankind is a snapshot or facsimile of god herself." You seem to be leaping from a "likeness" to an "equality" which I would say are different things. I am not a Fundamentalist. Just to think about it, my favorite period of Christianity is the couple of hundred years they scraped by without a written Book. Yes, my mistake. No, I just thought I was transported back to the 1970s for a second there.
Ah, I see, you think facsimile means fax machines and fax machines only. Sigh. Facsimile: an exact copy. synonyms: copy, reproduction, duplicate, photocopy, replica, likeness, print, reprint, printout, offprint, fax Do I need to define snapshot and provide synonyms for that as well? I suppose I do. Webster: an impression or view of something brief or transitory. Not always a photograph. When you start using ridiculously narrow definitions of words you have nothing else to say, I suppose. And that's still a no to reading suggestions? I'll even have them shipped to you if you pinky promise to read them. Your posts tell me your science knowledge is rudimentary at best.
Oh, I know. I just offered a limited list of ones I thought would be considered politically incorrect to kill.... and added human babies to it. I am not a scientist which is why I posted the video and asked for (constructive) feedback. I'm not really sure why you have a profound problem with that "bit"?
Because it's not science. You want feedback, I'm offering you free books full of it. You don't want to learn.
Ha, you defended yourself using my "definitions" and now you want to pounce on them as "narrow" At any rate, snapshot and facsimile are far more exacting than likeness or image or shadow so the point still stands... ....yet you still have an urge to demean. Puzzling? No doubt my science knowledge is rudimentary. That's why I posted the video to get some constructive feedback. I got some and then I got some other crap.
So, no books? You wish to remain ignorant and post videos that fit your confirmation bias instead of learning? Got it.
I posted the video in the "what's wrong with this" frame of mind. I am not going for a degree in Life Science and I don't have time to plow through three books on it at this point in my life. I am trying to learn... HERE. A few have been gracious enough to just stick to the topic while a bunch of you are wont to attack me instead. However, I will not be intimidated by those tactics.
Let's talk about that so called attack a bit. Shall we? Here's my first post on this topic: Sigh, again with the "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code." crap. It's like the Lenski lab doesn't even exist. Go read this and all linked articles giddy. Learn something. Seriously. Read them. Learn. Do it. Then look at the whole Lenski letter saga. It's quite entertaining. I told you to read and learn. Are those attacks in your mind? Seriously? Is stating what the video said an attack on you? Is calling the content of the video (which is a tired old argument that has been refuted time and time again) crap an attack on you? Is saying the Lenski lab exists and attack on you? Specifically which part is an attack on you?
You certainly haven't said yes to a free book. It doesn't have to be 3. I can send one at a time. But nope, you'd rather spend hours here trying to get a readers digest version of something that requires a book or two to really grasp. It's just not worth your time. You'd rather be ignorant I guess?
It's not just about you. Here is what I said: "A few have been gracious enough to just stick to the topic while a bunch of you are wont to attack me instead. However, I will not be intimidated by those tactics." Did you not unnecessarily describe my definitions as "narrow" to no real purpose? Did you not accuse me of posting with "confirmation bias?" Should I look back further than just your posts on this page?
In your very first reply to me you said this: This certainly seems to include me in the ridicule and criticism crowd, no? Otherwise, why include it in the reply to me? What was not reasonable about my post to which you replied? And criticism should have been expected from posting such tripe.
Tripe? Did you see what people said to which I was responding? You got lumped in by my mentioning Lenski. All that shows is that I read your post. You acted as if I should know it. You are essentially name-dropping. I don't even know a soul named Lenski! A piece of your post got lumped in with my response. You should recognize that which does and does not belong to you.
Yes I do know that . Catholic church is fine with evolution. Other non Christian religious folks are fine with evolution. You and FB, to name a few here, are fine with evolution. It's a significantly large group here in the US that isn't.
If it's in a reply to me then why would I not assume it's to me? Are you that obtuse to think that a reply to someone would not be taken as oh, I don't know, a reply to someone? And Lenski should be famous, damnit!
Admittedly hurried. The first remark has NOTHING to do with you, does it? That would be a clue right there. I'll try to be more deliberate in the future.
