quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well, you being the expert that you are, enlighten us by reconciling this difference with the proper context: I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

I replied to this one in your first series of questions, occy. It's on the first few pages of this ginormous thread.

Basically, the verse you mentioned is easily explained by the difference between -stalls of horses- and -stalls of horses and chariots-. Quite simply, it was meant that there are forty thousand horse stalls (ten for each chariot, which is a historical fact) and four thousand horse and chariot stalls (one complete "stall" for a complete chariot set, ten horses and the chariot).

That's off the top of my head... I can elaborate further if needbe.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Haha... Leave for a month... Oh my. Well, I don't know where to begin. What's up, guys? Heh.

Welcome back ... not much has changed. I'm still waiting for TorontoTrance to respond to the challenge that he issued

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I replied to this one in your first series of questions, occy. It's on the first few pages of this ginormous thread. Basically, the verse you mentioned is easily explained by the difference between -stalls of horses- and -stalls of horses and chariots-. Quite simply, it was meant that there are forty thousand horse stalls (ten for each chariot, which is a historical fact) and four thousand horse and chariot stalls (one complete "stall" for a complete chariot set, ten horses and the chariot). That's off the top of my head... I can elaborate further if needbe.

I thought we agreed that the likely culprit was due to a clerical error ... or was that a different one that I was thinking of? Anyway what evidence leads one to believe that one references chariots an d the other horses?


But at any rate, that was primarily addressed to TorontoTrance who refueses to admit that the bible is subject to even clerical erorrs. I can embark upon my search for inconsistencies again if that example does not suffice

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Welcome back ... not much has changed. I'm still waiting for TorontoTrance to respond to the challenge that he issued

I can't tell if this UrbanMessiah guy is on my side or not... I'm going to state firmly that I hope he's not.

I've been reading a great book lately - Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Although from an evolutionist point of view (completely), it's a great read and I've enjoyed it immensely. He's basically summed up every major scientific thought and notion and the history of it (from newtonian physics, darwinism and micro-biology) along with tons of personality facts and views on the most influential scientists of the past.

Anyway, on to a bit of intelligent converstation (it's been pretty lacking in this thread, I think we can agree to that?) - a question for the educated out there.

After reading Bryson's short but wonderfully illustrated history of bacterium and such... it caused me to do more research in the name of curiousity.

------------

This is mainly directed toward Opus and occrider regarding Germ Theory and it "proving" evolution (or at least playing a major part in why it's believed?). Perhaps I am wrongfully asserting the nature of said assertion. We'll see.

Basically, how can you claim that Germ Theory, of the "adaptation" and evolution of a bacterium to have *anything* to do with human evolution?

I am fascinated by the sheer amounts of bacterium and what they can and have adapted to. The example you used, a strand adapting in a short amount of time, I can completely see and share your thoughts in that it's downright outstanding.

However, I fail to see the logic and reason behind asserting that bacterium adaptation/evolution has anything to do with a sapien evolutionary pattern, or anything to do with any other phylum than bacterium. They are so unique, adaptable, simple and complex at the same time that what they do is almost unfathomable.

So, perhaps I am making a mistake here - perhaps not. Evolutionary theory says we all evolved from life on this planet. - Are you stating that Germ Theory is proof of our evolution, or proof of it's own "evolution" - defined by the severe, drastic and seemingly impossible evolutions of the bacterium?

Let's clear that up before we discuss any farther.

Good to be back, hope everyone is doing well!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I thought we agreed that the likely culprit was due to a clerical error ... or was that a different one that I was thinking of? Anyway what evidence leads one to believe that one references chariots an d the other horses? But at any rate, that was primarily addressed to TorontoTrance who refueses to admit that the bible is subject to even clerical erorrs. I can embark upon my search for inconsistencies again if that example does not suffice

Eep! Not again.. hehe.

I'm not pragmatic enough to claim that there is not a possiblilty of clerical or translation errors. I just don't trust my ancestors enough to believe they were well-intented for that long of a period. I'll even go as far as saying it could be written "better" from a grammatical and context-driven point of view, although I believe the majority of these are due to the vast amounts of translation that it's gone through. Take that for what you will... I don't think there is a need for me to defend anymore people getting skewered with a spear in vengeance or babies being thrown from the walls all in the name of God... agreed?

I'm afraid that I'm unaware of germ theory as an argument for/against evolution. I'm guessing that question is directed at Opus? Unfortunately I'm in training today and tomorrow, minus a brief lunch period right now, so I can't really contribute much to any debate until later this week. Stupid work getting in the way of surfing and posting

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Anyway what evidence leads one to believe that one references chariots and the other horses?

I'd say using simple logic (that four thousand(the number of total chariots) times ten (the number of horses in each chariot) equals forty thousand (the total number of horses needed) -- if they did not mean it in the way I have explained, it is a fantastic coincidence that the "clerical error" matched up in a way like that. If the numbers had been clearly crazy, like four thousand and then sixty-two thousand and forty-nine... then I would agree that it's probably a clerical error.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Eep! Not again.. hehe. I'm not pragmatic enough to claim that there is not a possiblilty of clerical or translation errors. I just don't trust my ancestors enough to believe they were well-intented for that long of a period. I'll even go as far as saying it could be written "better" from a grammatical and context-driven point of view, although I believe the majority of these are due to the vast amounts of translation that it's gone through. Take that for what you will... I don't think there is a need for me to defend anymore people getting skewered with a spear in vengeance or babies being thrown from the walls all in the name of God... agreed?

My beef isn't with the context or message of the bible ... I don't think one can deconstruct the bible to turn it against its overall theme or message. However, I think one can deconstruct it to disprove those who take it literally word for word. Therefore my comments weren't directed at you (one who states that overall, the bible is the word of God) but at TorontoTrance (one who states that every word in the bible literally comes from God). I think you can understand the difference

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I'd say using simple logic (that four thousand(the number of total chariots) times ten (the number of horses in each chariot) equals forty thousand (the total number of horses needed) -- if they did not mean it in the way I have explained, it is a fantastic coincidence that the "clerical error" matched up in a way like that. If the numbers had been clearly crazy, like four thousand and then sixty-two thousand and forty-nine... then I would agree that it's probably a clerical error.

Ok, so if it is an intentional notation rather than a clerical error, why the inconsistency in the units of measurement? Why not make the distinction between horses and chariots? It seems more likely that somebody accidentally inserted an extra 0.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Basically, how can you claim that Germ Theory, of the "adaptation" and evolution of a bacterium to have *anything* to do with human evolution?

Hmm, I think you're getting caught up on a labelling on how one organism undergoes evolutionary changes vs. another. In short, the mechanism by which they both undergo evolution is the exact same - random mutation and natural selection. The beauty of experimenting with bacterial cultures is that we can watch evolutionary changes on a much greater rate. It would be analogous to experimenting with, say pharmaceuticals with mice prior to experimenting with humans. Do we give mice the same amount of drugs as we may with humans? Of course not - adjustments have to be made to both their volume, metabolism, etc. However, based on what we know of comparisons between mice volume to body mass ratio and their metabolism to human volume/body mass ratio and metabolism, we can make reasonable assumptions as to the right amount of dosage given to humans based on mice experiments.

So if we compare the example to comparing bacterial vs. human evolution - the amount of dosage is vastly different, but the mechanism by which the drug effects both organisms, i.e. biochemistry of the pharmaceutical, is roughly the same. Compare this to bacterial vs. human evolution - there's a vast amount of differences between HOW we evolve, which of course is dependent upon the organism itself and its environment by which it must adapt to over time, but the MECHANISM on how we evolve, i.e. mutation and NS, is exactly the same. I dumbed down my example a bit, and I'm sure there's plenty I left out, but I hope you get the idea. It's the underlying mechanism of evolution that can be compared, not HOW each organism evolved. That in of itself is extremely complex and solely left up to the population of the organism and how it adapts to its given niche.

quote:

So, perhaps I am making a mistake here - perhaps not. Evolutionary theory says we all evolved from life on this planet. - Are you stating that Germ Theory is proof of our evolution, or proof of it's own "evolution" - defined by the severe, drastic and seemingly impossible evolutions of the bacterium?

No, it's merely proof of the evolutionary process scale at a much greater rate than more complex organisms, not proof of a relationship on HOW one complex organism evolves over time vs. a lesser complex organism. And it's proof of the mechanism behind evolution which is the same for all organisms, including homo sapiens.

quote:

Let's clear that up before we discuss any farther.

Hope that helps a bit.

quote:

Good to be back, hope everyone is doing well!

Welcome back.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I was pretty much going to say what Opus said here. The thing with bacteria is that they their rate of reproduction is so much faster than our own, which makes it possible to examine their evolution in real time. To do that with humans would require you to have a 2 million year long observation.

Now, since both humans and bacteria are based on similar genetic code, it would be reasonable to assume that what happens in one species, happens in another too. To assume otherwise would mean that we have some sort of impregnable defenses against random mutations. Something that is obviously not the case, considering the fact that we all do have different genes.

It's also important to take a note about our own immune system. Our bodies are constantly attacked by viruses and bacteria. If they would keep mutating while we stood still, sooner or later bacteria would evolve to a point where they could generate a disease lethal to every single person on the planet. Yet that didn't happen, even with aids. There are several prostitutes in Africa who slept with thousands of infected men and failed to get a disease. Upon closer inspection, they were found to have a mutation on the gene responsible for structuring t-cells. Now, if we weren't living in a modern world, most people would probably die out, while only those with the mutated gene would survive. Another great example for that is the common cold. Europeans are well adapted against common cold, as well as a great range of diseases often found on the old continent. Much better than eskimos or native americans who, on the other hand, are better adapted against syphilis.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by occrider My beef isn't with the context or message of the bible ... I don't think one can deconstruct the bible to turn it against its overall theme or message. However, I think one can deconstruct it to disprove those who take it literally word for word. Therefore my comments weren't directed at you (one who states that overall, the bible is the word of God) but at TorontoTrance (one who states that every word in the bible literally comes from God). I think you can understand the difference

Agreed... while I see where TTA is coming from (we are taught to believe such as him) - and I don't disagree with him persay... I just find it a bit too pragmatic for my liking. I think it's best to keep an open mind about the entire thing.