Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?

On 14 Mar 2008 20:46:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>
>Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>
>> On 13 Mar 2008 20:29:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:09:44 -0500, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"BIll M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >news:FYmyj.4397$rE5.70@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> "Gordon L. Richard" <gordonlr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Dvmyj.59639$Pv2.1054@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >>> "spacegamer777" <spacegamer777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >>>
news:f3147b97-f7b2-4a7e-8549-45c6a6df93dd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >>>> On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, "Gordon L. Richard" <gordo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >> >>>>> "BIll M" <wm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >>> (snip)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Adam was indeed made from the very elements of the earth. He
wasn't
>> >> >>>>> like
>> >> >>>>> Superman whose body had some of that element, krypton, from
another
>> >> >>>>> planet/star system. And, Eve was made from the same material.
After
>> >> >>>>> Adam
>> >> >>>>> class males mutated into a form with a much better speech
center of
>> >> >>>>> their
>> >> >>>>> brain there was not found a female suitable for a mate for the
Adam
>> >> >>>>> class
>> >> >>>>> males. Aparently this mutation was carried by Adam's Y
chromosome and
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> females didn't inherit it.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Adam named the animals...used nouns, but aparently the females
did not
>> >> >>>>> have
>> >> >>>>> this capacity in the speech center of her brain. There wasn't
a female
>> >> >>>>> found
>> >> >>>>> who was suitable as a mate for the Adam class males. The
females may
>> >> >>>>> have
>> >> >>>>> been able to use something equivalent to verbs, but
understanding nouns
>> >> >>>>> seems to have been beyond her capacity.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> It may be that God resolved this set of problems by causing a
>> >> >>>>> retrovirus to
>> >> >>>>> infect Adam and transfer some of his DNA from the leukocyte
cells in
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> flat bones (ribs) of Adam's body into the reproductive cells
(ova) of
>> >> >>>>> some
>> >> >>>>> of the women. After that, both males and females of the Adam
class had
>> >> >>>>> this
>> >> >>>>> enhansed speech capacity.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What????  What bible version do you use to come to that
conclusion?
>> >> >>>> The bible says nothing like that.
>> >> >>>> God Bless.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have several versions but I like my King James version best.
All
>> >> >>> versions tell of Adam naming (using nouns) the animals. Then,
immediately
>> >> >>> saying that there was not a woman found that was suitable as a
mate for
>> >> >>> Adam. Later, when this set of problems had been resolved the
Adam class
>> >> >>> males were taking for themselves wives as they chose, from the
residual
>> >> >>> populations of those earlier class females who didn't have this
enhansed
>> >> >>> speech capacity.  In Christ, Gordon
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just more Biblical myths and fables!
>> >> >    Shut up Bill! You can't manage beyond tra****ng and flaming.
It's called
>> >> >senile dementia. But in answer to Gord: The Bible mentions "giants
in those
>> >> >days" and it's near certain, that they were remnants of
Neanderthals, which
>> >> >indeed did not have "enhanced speech capacity".
>> >>
>> >> How would you know that neanderthals didn not have speech just as
>> >> advanced as ours?  From what I have heard it appears that they had
the
>> >> throat and mouth equipment for it.
>> >
>> >It is very rare I agree with Pasty Frank, but I doubt neanderthals had
any more
>> >speech capabilities than the apes of the time.  When early man did
manage a
>> >simple language we would have seen the first gods, imagined then as
they are
>> >today to 'chase away the evil spirits' [such as Frank]
>> >
>> >The chimps may one day learn to talk, then they can watch out for
their first
>> >chimp god - looking remarkably chimplike
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Can you also tell me exactly how hairy they were?
>> >
>> >I would guess very hairy. we see throwbacks even today on occasions. 
No
>> >clothing had to add up to 'very hairy
>>
>> Ok, this is great.  You doubt neanderthals had much speech capability
>> why?  That's all I'm asking.
>
>We will never know, but the chances are slight.
>
>Take human development as an example, simple early beginnings developing
along the
>way

But Neanderthals were not children, except for the children.  Nor were
they directly ancestral to modern human beings, so the phylogeny
ontology crap is discounted at the start.  

Are you sure that they were simple early beginnings?  I guess this is
the question I meant to ask, so that to me it feels like you are
assuming your conclusion -- even though you are not, really.

>>
>>
>> I was not asking whether you doubted that neanderthals had speech.
>>
>> It appears that they were at least capable of speech physically.  And
>> their brains were larger than ours, although differently shaped in
>> ways that might be telling.
>
>Yes all mammals can make noises, as we no doubt did in the early stages
of our
>development

I did not say that they could make noises.  That would have been
useless to say.

I meant to say that they apparently had the throats and tongues to
make sophisticated sounds, such as appear in language.  And their
brains were, for all we know, also capable of symbolic representation.
They did make tools, and even decorations.

Again, what I want to know is why you think of Neanderthals as early
stages in _our development, when they were not.

Just because they died out does not mean they were dumber -- but it
does in fact mean that they were _not earlier versions of or attempts
at us that just needed to develop further.

>>
>>
>> But I do like it that you picture them as also very hairy.
>>
>> What would make you think that they were so hairy?
>>
>> I'm not saying they weren't -- it's just that I would like to see a
>> reason.
>
>Temperature and our close cousins, gorillas, apes and monkeys, they are
all hairy.
>Freak children born in northern China this century, covered in hair.

Temperature is the one god reason you give here.  Yes, they seem to
have been a hardy cold-climate group.

>Perhaps in a few million years the chimps will have a simple language and
then they
>will suddenly find they have a god - it will be remarkably chimplike.

If they are already so far along on the development of a genetically
god-centered culture, then maybe so.  :>

But personally I don't think of God as a genetically programmed thing.
I think of it as a cultural thing, and as such contingent on the kinds
of cultural behavior that humans are able to perform.  Chimps, should
they be pressured into developing an intelligence that would allow
them to have the degree of culture we have, would likely have markedly
different cultural structures from ours.  

And who knows what kind of ****ed up stuff might emerge from _their
structures?

But, then, that's my sci-fi fantasy vs. yours, I guess.


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

A skeleton, the philosophers say, cannot slobber.


Paul