Have you leaned what Jesus and your bible teaches?

[A Shieldmaiden]

Serendipper wrote:

But you didn't answer the question. Where did the info come from to make bacteria resistant to antibiotics?

Serendipper I am not a scientist, are you? Nevertheless, I think you may have an opinion on this 'bacteria resistant' topic and I am interested to read what you have to say, in the meantime I will do some reading up on it.

I suppose making people arrogant is the purpose of religion.

Let's us get down to the nitty gritty.

She mis-quotes scripture and she knows no one will actually check to see if what she is quoting really lines up to the truth.

Why do false teachers always come up with such clever means of deceiving people? Because she is actually very clever and knows exactly how to stop you from thinking for yourself.



The perfect example of this is the vid you provided. "Quit asking and you won't be confused"

[Serendipper]

Serendipper wrote:

But you didn't answer the question. Where did the info come from to make bacteria resistant to antibiotics?

Serendipper I am not a scientist, are you? Nevertheless, I think you may have an opinion on this 'bacteria resistant' topic and I am interested to read what you have to say, in the meantime I will do some reading up on it.

You're not a mathematician but you know 2+2=4 right?

Antibiotic resistance happens when at least one bacteria is a little different from the rest and that difference, which ordinarily wouldn't confer any advantage in survival and may even be a disadvantage, suddenly becomes a huge advantage when the antibiotics kill all the bacteria except for that one. So the lone survivor reproduces and now all the bacteria are resistant to the antibiotics.

It works the same with weeds and herbicide. We spray farm fields with herbicide and one weed isn't bothered by it, so it survives and reproduces and now none of the weeds are bothered by herbicides.

It can work in your garden too. If you pull weeds then weeds that have a long taproot have an advantage, so all you accomplish is teaching the weeds how to resist you pulling them by growing longer taproots that you can't pull.

That is how evolution works. Random changes result in new advantages when the environment changes. The information doesn't come from anywhere, but is a random happening.

Deer have long legs because predators chase them. Long legs are not an advantage because they break easy, but if predators chase them, then long legs are an advantage. If predators go away, then long-legged deer have a disadvantage. If predators return, then short-legged deer have a disadvantage.

If deer run fast, then predators have to get smarter. If deer are easy to catch, then having smarts is no advantage.

I suppose making people arrogant is the purpose of religion.

Let's us get down to the nitty gritty.

She mis-quotes scripture and she knows no one will actually check to see if what she is quoting really lines up to the truth.

I don't know of any 2 people who interpret the bible the same way. What is the truth? Everyone thinks they have the truth.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

Why do false teachers always come up with such clever means of deceiving people? Because she is actually very clever and knows exactly how to stop you from thinking for yourself.

She has no interest in truth, but only in constructing a fantasy world to inhabit and insisting everyone else play along.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Serendipper wrote:

You're not a mathematician but you know 2+2=4 right?

Simple? Far from it. A single cell is extremely complicated, look up (I did) the components of a simple cell and you then only begin to understand it's very complexity.

A living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.

Your examples show the loss of genetic information did not lead to a new type of organism just a new variant of the same type of organism. Different types of environmental effects can trigger the natural selection process, using existing genetic information.

With your plant example, this technique of destroying genetic information to produce traits has been used by plants breeders for years. However once again, in these cases we are dealing with the loss of preexisting genetic information.

No new genetic information has been created.

With the bacteria it is simply the transfer of preexisting genetic information from one organism to another. It can produce a new strain of an organism but not a new type of organism.

That is, new types of organisms cannot evolve by random mutations.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper wrote:

You're not a mathematician but you know 2+2=4 right?

Simple? Far from it. A single cell is extremely complicated, look up (I did) the components of a simple cell and you then only begin to understand it's very complexity.

Complexity is evidence of an iterating process such as evolution.

A living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.

There is no such thing as nonliving matter.

Your examples show the loss of genetic information did not lead to a new type of organism just a new variant of the same type of organism.

I didn't intend it to.

Different types of environmental effects can trigger the natural selection process, using existing genetic information.

Natural selection doesn't use genetic information; it uses random mutations in genetic information to select advantageous changes.

With your plant example, this technique of destroying genetic information to produce traits has been used by plants breeders for years. However once again, in these cases we are dealing with the loss of preexisting genetic information.

So I have less genetic information than grandpa?

No new genetic information has been created.

Hopefully you don't really believe that.

With the bacteria it is simply the transfer of preexisting genetic information from one organism to another. It can produce a new strain of an organism but not a new type of organism.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not a new type of organism, but a new type of the same organism.

That is, new types of organisms cannot evolve by random mutations.

Observed Instances of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

More https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/135 ... peciation/

[Venture]

Some of this discussion reminds me of Jesus' parable of Tares and Wheat.

Greatest called me a liar.

Teach me about morality in evolutionary biology.

The supernatural has imprisoned your ability to think differently. Teach me about empirical ideologies.

Call me a homophobe, phobia is based on irrational fears. Use your reason brother.

You all reach for a first cause without accepting the absence of this finite knowledge forever.

1 Corinthians 11:31

[Karpel Tunnel]

Some of this discussion reminds me of Jesus' parable of Tares and Wheat.

The thing about the Tares and Wheat is that it makes a strong case to take any part of the Bible as potential Tare. The Bible is very much like a field that has been sown by many people, and we have no reason to assume they were all guided by God, or interpreted God correctly. Unless we trust our intuition, and not just the Bible, to an EXTREMELY high degree.

So we have this mixed field, this mish mash of texts, some of it wheat, some of it Tares. We must decide, based on our own intuition, how much to accept and what to reject. Because reading the Bible and even more importantly acting from the Bible, are acts of Harvesting.

So what do you burn from the Bible, Venture?

Certainly the implicit acceptance of slavery, right?

[Venture]

It's not my responsibility to discern what to burn.

I hate the slavery of humans, the building of inflated empires on the backs of dehumanized sojourners and captives. Unfortunately, technology and worldly lusts have enslaved most humans today. Taking out any implicit mentioning of slavery in the Bible will not fix the problem of slavery. The evil one corrupted us all, and most of our wheat is poisoned.

Omissions of entire books and sets of books have been made in ancient history. Even in the recent translation transition between the Vulgate, the Septuagint manuscripts, and the Masoretic texts, to the KJV and ESV, I believe we've lost a lot of important teachings as well as rightfully discarded false prophecies and perverse accounts of God from those who misunderstood God. I don't know how they discerned what to burn and what to keep so I'm sure someone can enlighten us.

We talk about discernment in the Christian Bible, but haven't faced the issue of the Quran. I'm not entirely sure, but haven't the Sikhs also made their holy text into an idol?

Slavery between humans was abolished in the West a couple centuries ago. That doesn't mean it still doesn't exist elsewhere, also appearing in the West in different forms. You are a slave to your worldview and spiritual being so be careful to choose the best one.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's not my responsibility to discern what to burn.

Jesus, if accurately portrayed in the parable you referred to - presumably because you think it is wise - seems to differ with you. It is the farmer's duty to separate the Tares and Wheat. And he was not talking about farmers.

I hate the slavery of humans, the building of inflated empires on the backs of dehumanized sojourners and captives. Unfortunately, technology and worldly lusts have enslaved most humans today. Taking out any implicit mentioning of slavery in the Bible will not fix the problem of slavery.

It is not an implicit mentioning, it is an acceptance of slavery. How one should treat a slave. The Bible could have said, free your slave. But it instead said to treat one's slave in certain ways. You have decided, it seems, to not accept that acceptance of slavery and this is you burning some chaff.

The evil one corrupted us all, and most of our wheat is poisoned.

Omissions of entire books and sets of books have been made in ancient history. Even in the recent translation transition between the Vulgate, the Septuagint manuscripts, and the Masoretic texts, to the KJV and ESV, I believe we've lost a lot of important teachings as well as rightfully discarded false prophecies and perverse accounts of God from those who misunderstood God. I don't know how they discerned what to burn and what to keep so I'm sure someone can enlighten us.

But you do use The Bible as authority for some things. So you do separate wheat and tares.

Slavery between humans was abolished in the West a couple centuries ago. That doesn't mean it still doesn't exist elsewhere, also appearing in the West in different forms. You are a slave to your worldview and spiritual being so be careful to choose the best one.

This isn't really responding to my post. I am raising the issue of how one determines what to accept and what to burn in the Bible. You have clearly accepted some parts of Biblical judgment and not others. Since you claim not to be sure how one does this, how can you judge others with such certainty, who accept different parts and do not accept others`?

[Venture]

I want to use the Bible as an authority for all things. I'm not of age nor learned enough to discern what to burn. It is the elders and teachers and parents responsibility to teach me as well as decide what to use and not to use, they muse sow what they reap. At least you rightfully discounted the literal interpretation of those discerning the burning as literal farmers, but who to you are the ones responsible? I've judge others wrongly because of my ignorance, I confess, I repent, I can't read the Bible very quickly and grasp every doctrine overnight.

Can we accept that the mentioning of slavery is not implicit, but from your post, the acceptance of slavery is implicit? How would you go about burning those parts? Pose the question to me and I give you an uneducated answer and attack me personally for my arrogance and word choice, I question others and risk attacking them personally just by posing the question. How can you say the acceptance of slavery is implicit and then say the mentioning of slavery is plain and obvious? I'm scared to misquote and misinterpret the Bible, scared to offend people of other creeds and religions, and not in a phobic way, some sort of existential threat with regards to ideology.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I want to use the Bible as an authority for all things. I'm not of age nor learned enough to discern what to burn. It is the elders and teachers and parents responsibility to teach me as well as decide what to use and not to use, they muse sow what they reap. At least you rightfully discounted the literal interpretation of those discerning the burning as literal farmers, but who to you are the ones responsible? I've judge others wrongly because of my ignorance, I confess, I repent, I can't read the Bible very quickly and grasp every doctrine overnight.

That's fine. It seemed from some of your posts you had accepted certain values from the Bible, ideas that might have been culturally obvous to the people of the time, but may not be real or loving to have now. I could be wrong. But it seemed like you were taking some portoins of the Bible as Wheat and then as a modern human, probably not taking the whole thing. There are also contradictions in both spirit and rules between the NT and the OT. If one uses the Bible as authority, then one still, even then must separate tares from wheat, even if one is not ready. One may not be sure, but one still has to chose. At the very least on the level of judging this or that as sinful.

Can we accept that the mentioning of slavery is not implicit, but from your post, the acceptance of slavery is implicit? How would you go about burning those parts? Pose the question to me and I give you an uneducated answer and attack me personally for my arrogance and word choice, I question others and risk attacking them personally just by posing the question. How can you say the acceptance of slavery is implicit and then say the mentioning of slavery is plain and obvious? I'm scared to misquote and misinterpret the Bible, scared to offend people of other creeds and religions, and not in a phobic way, some sort of existential threat with regards to ideology.

The mentioning is right out in the open. The acceptance of slavery is implicit. The Bible tells us all sorts of things are evil. When it comes to slavery it merely says how one should treat one's slaves. Even in those times, one had the option to free one's slaves, but there is no suggestoin to do this. The omission is bizzarre if this was God talking. That God was OK with slavery is implicit.

That God is actually - rather than the writers of the Bible - OK with slavery is another matter.

What if the portions of the Bible against homosexuality are also just mistaken values held culturally. By people who perhaps even were in contact with God, doing their best to interpret what they heard and felt, but making errors through the filters of their culture.

[Serendipper]

Slavery is necessary from a certain point of view. We enslave animals and machines, but don't consider it slavery unless other humans are put to the task of concentrating resources for the few who can then be free to concentrate on greater things. In ancient times this was probably more obvious than today in light of all our technology taking the place of slavery.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Slavery is necessary from a certain point of view. We enslave animals and machines, but don't consider it slavery unless other humans are put to the task of concentrating resources for the few who can then be free to concentrate on greater things. In ancient times this was probably more obvious than today in light of all our technology taking the place of slavery.

Slavery has always been a shortcut.

[Serendipper]

Slavery has always been a shortcut.

That's a good way of putting it.