Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
old man emu

An interpretation of Luke 2:49 - 52

Recommended Posts

Just looking back at the talk about the meaning of virgin. I can sum it up in one word "heifer"

Edited by Yenn
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, nomad. If there was just one fossil of a rabbit in Jurassic stone, the theory of evolution would be stuffed. The same goes for the bible...  alas, there is nothing there which was not apparent to non-divine tribal scribes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just taking a shot at the thread drift, Bruce.

I think that all believers are fully cognisant of the fact that their god has carefully placed all the fossils in the correct sedimentary layers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nomadpete said:

think that all believers are fully cognisant of the fact that their god has carefully placed all the fossils in the correct sedimentary layers.

Which proves Intelligent Design.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not wishing to denigrate anyone's spiritual followings, but....

 

When I look at the human body from an engineering perspective, I cannot see much quality (intelligence) in the design. In fact it reminds me of how our design engineers often make a nice looking motor car but put the oil filter in an inaccessible spot which makes a mess every time it's accessed. Perhaps this indicates that god was an engineer? In fact the human mainframe (built to almost identical plans as all other  mammals) shows all the shortcomings of 'barely good enough' engineering bug fixes that I'd find in any machine or computer programme.

My comments above have nothing to spirituality, just observations on the barely satisfactory outcomes of evolution which only rewards the ability to survive, procreate, and ensure continuation of a species.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our body is made of Multicoponants, each & every one came from a different use format, without a useby date, adapted Almost perfectly for our use,.

But

What on earth was that " apendix " used for before our use ?.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But think of this Nomad...  you have to turn a submarine into a road-truck, by tiny steps, and each step of the way you need to have a useful thing that can survive in its own right.

That's what happened with us...  your great ( times 500 million ) grandmother was a fish.

I reckon its a wonder we do as good as I see around. Of course there are lots of design failings, but just look at the way we are communicating here...  not bad huh..

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say again, if anyone wants to have as a core element of their philosophy that there is an Omnipotent Creator of all things, then that is OK. Just don't question the way things happened. If you are a creationist, believing that things were created uniquely in the form that we find them, that's OK. Over time, the Creator could have done this unique creation thing from everything from trilobites to pterodactyls to tigers.

 

On the other extreme there are those who do not believe in an Omnipotent Creator and that present day life forms are the result of DNA mutations that improved survivability and a pinch of good luck.

 

The middle ground is held by those who believe that present day life forms are the result of DNA mutations that improved survivability and that an Omnipotent Creator may, or may not have been responsible for all DNA mutations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to avoid stirring up that particular debate, OME.

 

I personally don't see a need to link a brief observation about the efficiency of life forms, to any specific spiritual beliefs.

Clearly some people do, and I'm not trying to shake anyone's tree. The Deity discussion has been comprehensively addressed in other threads so I don't want to go there now.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I was trying to avoid stirring up that particular debate

Debating that topic is flogging a dead horse. All we can do is agree to disagree and respect others' right to a belief that does not impinge on the rights of those who don't hold it.

 

Being a person who holds the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist, I'm quite happy to have the view that if there is indeed a God, then the the Theory of Evolution is an expression of God's magnificence. If there is no God, then the evolutionary process is a wonderous thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU are here because a very long line of your ancestors survived long  enough to pass on your genes.. IF just ONE hadn't you wouldn't be here. Everything mutates, sometimes quite quickly. That mutation either helps or it doesn't. I personally don't think you need a God involved for that to happen, but if you think so, don't cut my head off for disagreeing with your concept. and we might get along. Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder what I am doing to flies and mozzies of the Future when I swat one that's annoying me. Maybe that's Natural Selection in practice - "You'll live to reproduce if you don't go near humans"

 

If it's a cockroach, I don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are instrumental in causing flies and cockroaches to evolve smarter avoidance of the human flyswat, by killing the slow ones.

 

Thus you are the reason I can't swat them like I used to.

 

That's even worse than being a grammar cop. 😞

 

 

Edited by nomadpete
fighting spelcorrect has not invoked evolving better spellin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.jpeg.e75337375689c658a0241961ff9cf835.jpeg

It's good to see that on a Friday night we can strip off the formality of our place of business and slip into informality with friends. Otherwise you would have had to have written, " I can't swat them as I used to."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.eb99d31bf5b3f8108f6b49075a1d7d9b.png

 

10 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I think I also ended my sentence with a proposition

Upon a complete and thorough inspection of the facts,  it is clear that no grammatical offence has been committed here. A case could be made for the wanton use of a malapropism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

What is it called when you indulge in tortured excess verbal complexity in a burst of self-indulgent over enthusiasm.?

A political speech.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...