Are you sure you want to run with that?
Well alrighty then!
How is it possible to create something with no form or reality?
Jan.
Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Are you sure you want to run with that?
Well alrighty then!
How is it possible to create something with no form or reality?
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/#tabs-1-4
If I understand correctly;
Sickle cell anemia is produced when both parents are carriers of the mutated gene. However, each carrier has greater resistance to malaria.
However, children with Sickle cell disease do have shorter lifespan on average and this keeps occurrence fairly stable and does not have an exponential growth factor.
Last edited:
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)
Cat's out of the bag.
It was a see-through bag, anyway.
This is a step toward answering the question of interest in all these discussions, though: why are the overt Abrahamic theists on these forums always fundamentally dishonest, and posting in bad faith?
Last edited:
I don't know. That's what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't often make sense.
I eagerly await your next bullshit reinterpretation of Genesis.
Well, sort of.
That is a recessive gene. So if two parents are both carriers (i.e. have one normal gene, one sickle cell gene) then the children have a 50% chance of being carriers, 25% chance of being completely normal (no recessive genes for SCA) and 25% chance of having sickle cell anemia.
During times of no malaria the one completely normal child does best, the two carriers do OK (but don't live as long) and the one with sickle cell dies. During times of malaria the two carriers survive.
It answers your question, "How is it possible to create something with no form or reality?"
No it doesn’t.
You quoted a bible verse, which says nothing about creating something that is nothing.
Now can you answer the question?
Jan.
It says "all things". That includes creating something that is nothing. But we're not talking about creating something that is nothing. We're talking about creating something that is without form, and void.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Does something without form and void need to be created? Seems that would be a native default "permittive condition".
Nope. But it certainly _can_ be created.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Seems to me it's a default condition. If a thing has no properties or potentials (patterns) there is no foundation for the assignment or question of a created, or evolved, or artificially created object. It has no existence in any form or pattern. It is a pure abstraction. If you want to call that God, it's meaningless, IMO.
Are the Platonic solids created or mathematical patterns inherently enfolded in the 3D spacetime geometry?
Is Fractality a created pattern or a fundamental aspect of spacetime? CDT (causal dunamical triangulation)?
We can't. Individuals always share genetic traits with other individuals.
When police, for instance, want to match a person's DNA, they look at a whole lot of different regions in the DNA. A given individual has an individual combination of genes, unique to that individual. But a DNA match from this kind of testing only gives an estimate of the probability that the forensic sample came from the individual whose DNA is being compared. It's impractical to test the whole genome, so the question that is asked is "how likely is it that a different individual's genes would match the forensic sample to the same degree as the suspect's?"
Think about it. If you were to look at just one trait, what would you find? This person has genes that code for blue eyes. But look! Billions of other people have exactly the same set of genes, so they also have blue eyes.
The nebulous social concept of "race" happens to give prominence to certain superficial traits, skin pigmentation being the most obvious one. But there's no guarantee that any two people with the same skin shade will share any other particular traits in common. This is why there is no "white race". Historically, people with light skin have interbred with people who have darker skin, then moved around to different parts of the world. Over generations, interbreeding and geographic mixing has meant that the skin colour an individual happens to have tells us next to nothing about the skin colour their ancestors had. Nor does it help to make useful predictions about other traits they are likely to have.
Talk of a "pure white race" is nonsense. Everybody alive today who is "white" has ancestors who had dark skin, somewhere back down the line, often as little as a generation or two back.
I get it SB.
Because of your non-acceptance of God, and scripture, you use anything at your disposal, to argue against it. Even if it makes no sense. Because it makes no difference to you, despite your obvious interest, and participation in these subjects.
The problem with that is, we can make no progress. We are simply going to get stuck on things that we don’t need to be stuck on.
Even if, as you do, do not accept or believe the scriptures are of God, but are of human invention. I think you are being dishonest in your effort to make them sound nonsensical.
I don’t know any literature, out in the public domain, which is nonsense. Hard reads, hard to understand, yes. But not as nonsensical as you are trying to make the bible out to be.
The bible, although compiled by Christians, are not Christian. They (books)don’t belong to Christians. So we can look at them independently of Christian scrutiny, should we choose.
With that sense of freedom, we can look, if we like, the at the Dead Sea Scrolls, as we are not limited to the Christian limitations.
I choose to make sense of the Bible, and any other scripture, so I have a shot of understanding it. As such I expect the usual suspects in this forum to do the same, because you are, at least, as intelligent as I am, and are therefore able.
Jan.
And yet ironically you are the one most stridently arguing against what the Bible says.
You think Harry Potter makes sense as a science textbook?
You think the Principia makes sense as a moral guide to living your life?
Any literature makes sense if you read it for what it is. It does not make sense if you try to mold it into your version of what you want it to be.
You choose to change the Bible until it makes sense. And at that point it's not the Bible any more - it's a bastardization of the original text, your limited understanding of science, and your views on what you think it should be to make the two converge.