http://xkxy.org:Bible exact description of DNA and ATP

[Dov Henis]

[quote="honee_v"] maybe Dov Henis is saying that religion and science see things differently... that they probably wont agree on certain things at all...quote]

Re Religion and Re Bible

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1 ... cq=1&p=185

- Religion, being a component of culture, which in turn is an extension of biology, is one of the evolutionary factors ( not revolutionary, yet, I know, subversive too...) that humans artifacted when/where it served them well for survival. It has been functioning socially and personally for human phenotypes survival (comprising also a feeling of geno- and pheno-type self-esteem) for few thousands of years. However, being a human artifact based on faith and also in many cases (not all) favoring inherently and intolerantly one cultural phenotype to the exclusion of others, it has been becoming socially increasingly more disruptive and destructive. For the human genotype to survive it is sensible to hope and to plan to replace its faith-based ethical-moral foundation of civilization on a rational science-informed comprehension of the evolution of the universe and of life and of humanity. I think.

- I am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially to the "old testament". I am familiar with it only in Hebrew (my mother tongue) and I am also fairly well familiar with its evolution from earlier cultures and literatures in the middle east thus I am able to trace the evolution of its meanings and messages as the tool it has been for the survival of the Judaic culture-phenotype (Yehudi, from the kingdom of the two tribes Yehudah and Binyamin). But most of the discussions and references to it that I see in the electronic media are carried on by persons who have read it only in translation into another language, and furthermore they amazingly refer to the Bible as if it has been compiled and written in anticipation and in reference to present-day ideas and comprehensions of the society and culture in which they themselves live. This has always amazed me. It is unbelievable.

Dov


PS re Bible:
And lest there is an impression that I attribute the reading of hidden meanings and messages in the Bible only to or even mainly to the translations, let me clarify that many are also the Israelis and/or Jews whose mother-tongue is Hebrew who likewise find those hidden or implied things in the Bible. I.e., it is not the language but the psychology/state-of-mind...that makes one see images in the lines.

Dov

[Linn]

Has Your propossed evolutionry process been demonstrated in the labratory according to the scientific method yet?

And might your interpretation of the evidence be with pre-
supposed conclusions?

am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially

I find it amazing, that evolutionists accept the theory of evolution when you can not even agree among yourselves how it was suppossed to hve happened in the first place.


Let me know when you have tested, reproduced and prooved your scientific "fact"

[Dov Henis]

[quote="Linn"]Has Your propossed evolutionry process been demonstrated /quote]

Linn,

Have your propoed religious beliefs been demonstrated etc., ?
You hold them and live by them through your conviction.

I hold and live by science-informed comprehensions through my conviction.

Each of those routes should/does serve towards a different target personal and societal states. Each of us has own preferences.

Dov

[Linn]

Has Your propossed evolutionry process been demonstrated /quote]

Linn,

Have your propoed religious beliefs been demonstrated etc., ?
You hold them and live by them through your conviction.

I hold and live by science-informed comprehensions through my conviction.

Each of those routes should/does serve towards a different target personal and societal states. Each of us has own preferences.

Dov

Exactly!! I am not trying to convince you what you should think or believe. I simply have a different conclusion
than do you on the evidence.
When I look at the complexity of living organisms,
I conclude they were designed.

I am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially to the "old testament". I am familiar with

The bible is not a science text book, and is not its purpose to be one.
However, when it does mention things pertaining to science it is accurate. Some of the information was far ahead of it's time.
And, I think that the issue here is not the bible but the difference in oppinion on the way life came about.

I can understand how some feel that religion is foolish.
For example, some refer to the creation of earth and life forms to have taken place in 6 literal days. Dont get that confused with what the bible
really says. Genisis does not teach that the universe, earth and living things were created in a short period of time. It actualy harmonizes with science.

I hold and live by science-informed comprehensions through my conviction.

As do I.

as well as others far more educated than I am in various scientific fields.
How can you explain all the scientific experts who also believe in Intelligent design?
AS one researcher in cell biolgy put it: " The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins and metabolic pthways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved....the obvious design evident. ..."
P.K

~Lynne

PS: As far as the original post, I have no idea what thats about. The bible does not give any detailed descriptions about DNA

[Dov Henis]

Lynne,

You live by your comprehension/convictions, and live by mine...

Unfortunately the two are often not parallel...

Dov

[Linn]

Thats all you have to say now

[Dov Henis]

Lynne,

You live by your comprehension/convictions, and live by mine...
Unfortunately the two are often not parallel...

Dov

Sorry for the error.

I NOW note that I missed an I when I intended to write "and I live by mine". I'm new in this forum and still do not know if/how a posting can be edited/corrected by its author...

[Linn]

Lynne,

You live by your comprehension/convictions, and live by mine...
Unfortunately the two are often not parallel...

Dov

Sorry for the error.

I NOW note that I missed an I when I intended to write "and I live by mine". I'm new in this forum and still do not know if/how a posting can be edited/corrected by its author...

to EDIT go to your post and on the right hand side above you will see the EDIT next to quote. I like it because if I want to add something I can just go back instead of making a new post.

[AstusAleator]

I can understand how some feel that religion is foolish.
For example, some refer to the creation of earth and life forms to have taken place in 6 literal days. Dont get that confused with what the bible
really says. Genisis does not teach that the universe, earth and living things were created in a short period of time. It actualy harmonizes with science.

Eh? I'm pretty sure that the OT says earth was created in 6 days. Whether or not it teaches that is a different matter. Explain this point please Linn.

[Linn]

@Astus
WoW I thought you would say been covered already in other threads. (which it has)

First of all, It has to do with the Hebrew word translated for day (yohm; Greek- he-mera) can mean a period of time.

That word would be translated according to the context.

we do so with English language too.
For example, the meaning of day in the sentence"I remember the day when things were different" would denote more than one day, or a period of time.

Also, these "days" of creation of the things upon the earth follow the opening statement in Genesis: "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth". From verse 3 onward describes later events. This implies
that the universe which includes our earth were in existence already before the creative 6 "days".


The earth has been estimated at 4 billion years, the universe for 15 billion.
The writer got that order correct.

Some fundamentalist religions claim that all creation was produced 10000 years ago in literal 24 hour days. That is obsurd, because the bible does not specify the actual age.

Also scriptures in Genesis describe events which start in one "day" and continue in to an one or more other "days"
For example, sometime before the first "day," the layer of thick vapor that was blocking the light began to clear. It kept clearing until finaly from the perspective of someone looking up from the earth, the sun and moon were visable. This showed these things happened gradualy.
As the atmosphere continues to clear, on the fifth day insects flying creatures "started" to appear. not suddenly but gradualy.
And by the sixth day God was still in the process. Thus, we see an overflow of activity from one "day" to the next and not literaly where one day this or that was specificaly made.

Hence, this shows the translation of "day" in those contexts to not be a literal 24 hour period.

another word that ais translated according to context is "hour"

Sorry if I do not explain that very well, I am not the best writer.

~Lynne

PS: I thought I would throw this in too (Already been discussed by myself in other thread, but Here it is from Wikipedia:

In the Bible, as a way to describe that time is immaterial to God, one day is described as being like one thousand years (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) to him. Also in 2 Peter 3:8, one thousand years is described as being like one day. However, some Bible experts interpret this more literally as a way to understand some prophecies like those in Book of Daniel and others (like The Book of Revelation) where are mentioned days in form of weeks and years

and:

[edit] Astronomy
For a given planet, there are two types of day defined in astronomy:

1 apparent sidereal day
= a single rotation of a planet with respect to the distant stars
(for Earth it is 23.934 solar hours or 24 sidereal hours)
1 solar day
= a single rotation of a planet with respect to Sun.

[AstusAleator]

First of all, I would like to hear what Dov has to say about the interpretation of the hebrew word for day.

Anyway, Linn, are you saying that the creation story is scientifically "valid" if days can be considered as extended periods of time? If so, how long?

[Linn]

If you Google you will come up with it, but it might be spelled as yom, which is not the most precise way, but perhaps my spelling will be there too.

First of all, I would like to hear what Dov has to say about the interpretation of the hebrew word for day.

Anyway, Linn, are you saying that the creation story is scientifically "valid" if days can be considered as extended periods of time? If so, how long?

It does not specify a number (come on you know that!!)

It says at Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God made the Heavens and the earth.

the usage of the term beginning obviously is not really subject to argument because this can mean billions of years.

Then after he made the heavens and the earth, he began to turn his attention to the earth to make it habitable for life, as it was formless, and waste ( The earth was at first molten and needed to cool down) and light from the sun did not penetrate the surface as yet due to the early atmosphere of earth (the atmosphere was high concentration of co2, no oxygen etc).
His active force (Abundant Energy was moving about it) If you read about the creation of planets this is what happens every thing is pretty unstable for a while, there would a lot of volcnic activity, lava flowing, mountains pushing up from the water, vapors in the atmosphere, , not yet able to support life.
Again all this requiring millions of years.

Another reason we know that it is a long period of time is because we are still in the seventh day, because the verse did not end with "there came to be a seventh day"

When I was a child and I read chapter 1 of Genesis, I never thought it refered to literal days And that was my own thinking on it, of what made sense.
That "In the begining" meant history of the time when they were being formed.

Also if you will notice that after each verse of the creative "days" it says there [i]came to be[/i] a first day, once agin showing the unassalble use of a term.