There is no consensus what exactly a "tare" is. The most likely candidate is Darnell weed, which does resemble wheat, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF LIFE.
There are other related plants and no one knows for sure which was meant, if indeed any specific plant were indicated.
Well before Harvest time, the difference is easily detectable. Darnell weed is sometimes called "false wheat" and is apparently edible, though not nearly as productive as real wheat.
The plant may have recreational drug uses. It is in the Sativa family, related to marijuana. It and it's relatives are sometimes called "vetches".
Deliberately sowing Darnell into wheat fields was not an unknown act.
Darnell was most definitely considered to be something which reduced the yield of a wheat field. It was considered important to remove it from the wheat field well before harvest time.
Interesting post. Thank you. Remember that parables are not meant to be interpreted literally, and their purpose the vast majority of the time is to focus on one single point or principle. In this case, the point Jesus is making is that the kingdom of darkness will grow alongside and be mingled with the kingdom of Light to the point that in the end only God can sort it all out. Jesus is not giving a clinic on how to farm, He is explaining a spiritual reality, using terms His listeners would understand. This type of speaking is very common.
For example Jesus described false teachers as wolves in sheeps clothing. Do literal wolves actually put on sheepskin? Of course not, it is an idiom describing the way false teachers often look harmless, but are actually very dangerous. Or when Jesus says that God clothes the grass of the field, does it mean that He knits pants and shirts for the grass on the ground.
How about common english idioms, like "put on your thinking cap". Is there really a hat that makes you smarter. Or "in one ear and out the other". Does this actually happen? "How about, "it aint over till the fat lady sings"? Have you ever seen an aria at a baseball or football game? Or "everyone knows that", does that mean that everyone in the world knows what we're talking about when we say that. If we took everything people said literally all the time like you are doing, we would never stop arguing.
Remember I said that I believe in interpreting the Bible literally unless the context clearly indicates it should be interpreted otherwise? Well, the type of literature also indicates whether a passage should be interpreted literally or allegorically. This is a parable, parables are usually symbolic
In this case, "let both grow together until the harvest is a typical" ( type) of saying the kingdom of darkness and light will not be separated until the judgement day, they will continue to grow together and co-mingle throughout this age.
It would appear from some research that there was a time when various people who were deep in thought would, in fact, wear an actual cap while doing so.
Also, an opera often does have a heavyweight female sing the grand finale.
Did you know that "Ring around the Rosie" is actually talking about the bubonic plague? That meaning is largely lost today, only 500 to 800 years after the actual event.
In reply to DCDAWG's post about religion and politics being similarly unargueable, I disagree. IMO politicians, and religious leaders, are able to do what they do because too many of the people to whom they are speaking are ignorant of the facts.
This ignorance manifests itself not only as people not knowing what the actual facts really are, but also as people thinking that certain things are indeed factual when they are not.
The consensus that "tares" are actually Darnell weed has nothing whatsoever to do with any factual information from the original text in any way, shape, or form. Darnell weed is by that consensus the plant that allows the original text to make the most sense, given the common interpretation. Any one of the several dozens of common weed types that could also be "tares" would lend more credence to my interpretation, the sole difference being that they would be easily distinguishable from wheat. very early in the life cycle.
If a "tare" was anything other than Darnell grass, the instruction to let it grow would be completely nonsensical to the farmers in the audience. (Even it they ARE Darnell weed, this instruction is obviously a bad idea) Somebody, somewhere, said "the Lord helps those who help themselves." Since we know we have to weed our own garden, maybe we are supposed to remove those sons of the Devil ourselves, as well. Sometimes it will be easy to tell who they are, and sometimes it will be more difficult. In this last case, if you wait just a little while, it will become more obvious over time.
Now, as for Jesus telling a story using words the audience would understand, he then explains what it supposedly means (which he does NOT do - he just clarifies the metaphor) using as his explanation the very words and terms that the audience supposedly would not understand. Why not just do that in the first place, unless there was some significant meaning in the farming portion?
Here is something that obviously needs done. Are you going to do it yourself, or wait for God to do it for you? If you wait for God to do it, that will be the end of the world. Me, I'd get right to work.
Quote: Here is something that obviously needs done. Are you going to do it yourself, or wait for God to do it for you? If you wait for God to do it, that will be the end of the world. Me, I'd get right to work.
I take it that the thing that needs to get done is removing the tares. So youre saying we shouldnt wait for God to remove the tares spoken of in this parable, we should? This is just so wrong and illogical on so many levels. Nelson, think with me for a minute. Read the parable again, then read Jesus' interpretation. Then answer these questions for yourself.
1. Who is the sower? 2. What is the field? 3. Who sowed the tares? 4. What does the wheat represent? 5. What do the tares represent? 6. Who are the servants? 7. What is the harvest? 8. Who are the reapers?
Now for the answers. This is not my interpretation, but the interpretation Jesus gave later in the chapter. ( Matthew 13:
1. The sower is the Son of Man. ( Matthew 13:37) Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man throughout the New Testament. Jesus is the sower and the field belongs to Him. So are you going to go into another mans, ( Jesus) field and start weeding it for Him? Even when He specifically said not to? Jesus is the sower. I wouldnt mess with His field if I were you.
2. The field is the world. ( Matthew 13:38) Not the crops of the people he was talking to, but the people of the world. See Jesus' interpretation of the wheat and tares.
3. The one who sowed the tares is the devil. ( Matthew 13:39)
4. The good seeds that produced wheat are the children of the kingdom. Matthew 13:38.
5. The bad seeds, ( tares), are the people of the evil one, ( satan ) ( Matthew 13:38). So how do you propose to remove them, Nelson? Dont tell me, "well that's what this and that Christian tried to do", I already know that. The people who called themselves Christians and went against their Masters explicit command will answer to Him. Dont worry so much about what other people did. Theyre not Jesus. Christianity is faith in Christ, not faith in religious leaders.
6. The Harvest is the end of the world. ( Matthew 13:39) Nobody is going to be very hungry at the end of the world. Believers won't be hungry because the Bible says they will never hunger and thirst again, and I suspect that unbelievers will probably lose their appetite when they have to give an account of their lives to Jesus.
7. It is uncertain who the servants are, because Jesus did not give us the answer. Therefore I will not speculate at this point.
8. The reapers are the angels.
Now that we know what each symbol in the parable means, ( by Jesus own interpretation, not our own), lets put it all together.
Jesus is the sower. The field belongs to Him and the wheat belongs to Him. Jesus is not hungry. Jesus does not have to worry about starving. Jesus just wants to protect His precious wheat, which are His children. Jesus is willing to put up with the tares, because He doesnt want to lose even one of His precious ones.
Secondly, Do you realize what the separation of the wheat and tares involves? When the time comes to separate them, Jesus will send His Holy Angels to remove the tares, ( unbelievers) and cast them into eternal fire. Why doesnt God do this now, you ask?!! You say it's a bad idea to wait till harvest to separate the tares from the wheat????!!!!! Well thank God He is merciful enough to hold off from removing the tares. Why doesnt God remove them now? Because of His mercy. By the way, God has plenty of time, He is not pressured by time constraints or worries about not having enough food to eat.
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Here's another parable about the end of the age that is set to music. It's called "The sheep and the goats" by Keith Green. The message is extremely powerful, and the parable shows what true Christianity is all about. The words come right out of the Bible, and it has touching images with it.
Here's a song by the same artist that is a clarion call to true believers of what Jesus wants them to do between now and the end of the age. God doesnt want us to uproot or destroy anyone, He wants us to wake up and reach out in love.
The second part of the parable is fairly clear, and I have no problem with what it says. No real need to repeat it again.
It is the "context" which I have problems with. God starts out by telling his farmers how to tend their fields, and does so by giving astonishingly bad advice. Yes, it is a BAD IDEA to wait until the harvest to remove the weeds. The original, supposedly easy to understand part of the parable, would represent to an audience of that time something that no one with any sense at all would do.
The central concept joining the two different parts of the parable is "wait and do it later". In the first part, this is just silly, counter-productive, stupid. Thus comes my idea that the story is telling people to do their own culling of both the field and the population.
Quote: In reply to DCDAWG's post about religion and politics being similarly unargueable, I disagree. IMO politicians, and religious leaders, are able to do what they do because too many of the people to whom they are speaking are ignorant of the facts.
This ignorance manifests itself not only as people not knowing what the actual facts really are, but also as people thinking that certain things are indeed factual when they are not.
Back up. At no point did I say they are unarguable. What I said was that you don't win big picture debates by arguing infinitesimal details. I'm not going to lead anybody to the Lord by debating "tares" and Darnell weeds with them and in the end, that is my calling as a Christian, to lead people to Jesus, not to convince them of the accuracy of an individual parable...... that was my point.. just like nobody is going to sell me on government run healthcare by breaking down the cost of Tylenol at the hospital.
Quote: God starts out by telling his farmers how to tend their fields, and does so by giving astonishingly bad advice. Yes, it is a BAD IDEA to wait until the harvest to remove the weeds. The original, supposedly easy to understand part of the parable, would represent to an audience of that time something that no one with any sense at all would do.
First of all, the parable is not Jesus telling people what they should do with their fields, He is telling them what He Himself does with His fields. This is in no way a lesson on how to farm. Now regarding your statement that the explanation of what Jesus is doing with His fields would make no sense to His audience, let me just say that this is not the first time God has been described as doing something that would make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to us as humans.
John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Now John 3:16 is not a parable, it's exactly what happened, but remember the parable of the sower is a story that represents what God is doing and will do, ( that is let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest). Which is more illogical and contrary to human reason, waiting to remove tares from wheat or letting your only son die in the place of a bunch of lawbreakers? Do you have a child? If I was found guilty of murder, would you allow you child to die in my place? Is John 3:16 teaching that we should let all the death row inmates to go free and put our children there in their place? The parable of the sower is not talking about how humans should cultivate their crops any more than John 3:16 is talking about how we should treat our children.
If everything you're saying is true, then when His disciples heard His explanation of the parable, they probably would have said " Gods mercy is so great, and His ways are so much different than ours. The rest of the people, ( the unbelievers) went away scratching their heads not able to make sense of it. This actually was the intent of the parables.
Matthew 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’[a] 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear
God's ways are higher than our ways...(Isaiah 55:9)
So, when all the talking heads are saying that ObamaCare is a wonderful thing, did you take that statement as true without question, or did you say to yourself "this guy might be nothing more than a glorified used-car salesman" and actually dig into some first-hand information for yourself?
Did you look at the actual words and numbers and find at least a few that seem to indicate, to you, something different than what the "experts" say? The "big picture" is made up from many small details.
It is interesting that Governments often use obscure, complex, and convoluted language, and seem able to explain how the same document can carry different meanings at different times. They seem able to make it say whatever they want it to say.
Nelson I'm not saying that details are a bad thing or that they should be ignored. I'm saying that I'm not going to talk somebody who is a liberal into being a conservative by debating a minescule detail of a healthcare bill.. any more than I'm going to talk a non-believer or agnostic into following Jesus by proving what tare is...
The parable clearly states that if you try to pull up the weeds before harvesting that you run the risk of having the good crops come up with it and being ruined. Your opinion is that that is agriculturally not the best way to farm... I will just concede that maybe you know more about what it took to farm in 30 AD than I do and leave it at that... Doesn't change the fact that Jesus loves you and He is happy you are taking an interest in His parable.
So, you're gonna fall back on "the Lord works in mysterious ways", eh?
Well, if we can't figure out what he's doing and what he wants, then what good is this book, anyway?
Why is it that Darnell weed has been "chosen" as the most logical candidate for "tares"? You are saying that the first part of the parable does not NEED to make any sense. Why not Daffodils, then? Somebody, apparently, saw the need to make this part somewhat more sensible. That unknown person or persons may have seen this story in the same way that I do, and a decision was made to paint or color this story in a different direction.
The insertion of Darnell weed into the parable is not the work of God, but of Man.
Never mentioning the meaning of a back-handed slap to the face is a CHANGE to the original story. Again, the work of Man, not of God.
The original intent of these lessons may have been altered, by the hand of Man.
I get from these two stories "Do What Needs To Be Done", and "Stand Up For Yourself". Important concepts. Useful ideas for living. Conducive to Survival.
"God will take care of the Bad Guys" and "Be Non-Violent" may be nice concepts, and probably something that Governments and other people who control printing presses would like to advocate, but not really very helpful for Bronze Age peasants.
In 2,000 years and multiple translations, edits, and re-writes, plus being carried orally for hundreds of years, changes to the language over time, it is IMO Not Possible that much of the original text has not been altered. Guess Who?
Also, many generations of parents have sent their children to die in foreign countries (and this one, for that matter) for hard-to-understand reasons.
The "risk" in removing Darnell grass from wheat is if you act to soon, or too rashly. It requires some careful consideration to tell the good from the bad.
It took only brief research to reveal that this is considered a pest plant and it is understood that there is a need to remove it as soon as possible to have a decent harvest.
I believe the first part of the parable is there for a reason, that it has meaning it is intended to carry. Either that, or God needs a better ghostwriter.
Most Conservatives will admit that it is possilbe for a Liberal to have a good idea, and the other way around. Then there are some that just won't, as they believe that They and ONLY They have the right answers.
IMO the way to disprove that incorrect philosophy is to find a particular point, perhaps a detail, and hammer home the Possibility that in this specific case, they Could be wrong. Then you find another one.
What you end up with is a person who digs for more accurate answers, who seeks to find additional information, rather than just blindly accepting what they are told.
This will be my last response. Your responses are very similar in nature to the questions/objections of the following biblical people.
John 2:18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body
John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
John 4:10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?
John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them... 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Let me save everyone some time, there is no end of the world because there is no god. The Earth will be destroyed in about 4-5 billions years when the sun goes Nova and if humans are still around we won't be restricted to this rock, at least I'd hope not.
Quote: In 2,000 years and multiple translations, edits, and re-writes, plus being carried orally for hundreds of years, changes to the language over time, it is IMO Not Possible that much of the original text has not been altered. Guess Who?
Absolute fallacy!! I know I said I wouldnt reply anymore, but I could not let this bald-faced lie stand unchallenged. I'm not saying your lying, maybe you've been lied to. Please read the following article, particularly the sections about the New Testament manuscripts, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the most amazing of all, the testimony of the early Church Fathers, ( not merely that they said the Bible was the Word of God, but they quoted it verbatim, and their quotes match the texts that we have in our modern Bibles. Their writings are1,600-1800 years old, some as early as the early second century AD, less than 100 years after Jesus Crucifiction, and only a few decades after the last book of the Bible was written. Here are a few portions of the article I found relevant to your fallacious argument. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ' Over the centuries textual critics have gathered together existing manuscript copies of the Bible, and spent years examining them, and comparing them with one another. And they don't just have a dozen or two, or even a few hundred manuscript copies, they have thousands! There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, dating as far back as the first century A.D. And there are dozens of thousands of Old Testament manuscripts, dating as far back as the third century B.C. You can see them for yourself at places like the British Museum, the Cambridge University Library, the Smithsonian Institute, Oxford University, the Israel Museum, the National Library at Paris, etc. '
2. ...'The greatest manuscript discovery ever happened in March, 1947, when a young Arab boy (Muhammad adh-Dhib) was pursuing a lost goat in the caves at Qumran, 7.5 miles south of Jericho and a mile west of the Dead Sea. In one of the caves he discovered some jars containing several leather scrolls. Between that time in 1947 and 1956, eleven more caves were discovered that contained hundreds of more Old Testament manuscripts representing every book of the Old Testament except Esther. These manuscripts were handwritten copies of the Old Testament Bible that had been penned as far back as the third century B.C.
It was in those caves that the Essenes, a Jewish religious sect from the time of Christ, had housed their library. Altogether six hundred manuscripts were found. These manuscripts are called "The Dead Sea Scrolls." These scrolls have helped verify that the Bible was accurately transmitted (copied) down through the centuries...'
3. "... church fathers, we are referring to those leaders in the church, of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples. A few examples would be men like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius.
These men, in their writings and correspondence with other believers and churches, quoted New Testament Scripture over and over again. Justin Martyr quoted the gospels 268 times in his writings. Clement of Alexandria, quoted the gospels 1,017 times.Tertullian, quoted the gospels 3,822 times. If you add up these quotes and the others like them, the church fathers quoted the gospels alone an amazing 19,368 times! [3] In fact, the early church fathers quote the New Testament scriptures more than 86,000 times.
There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single manuscript copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct 99.86% of the New Testament. There were only eleven verses that the church fathers apparently never cited in their writings. "
4. "Lectionaries were church-service books that contained selected scripture quotations that were used in the early centuries of Christianity. And several thousand of these have been found, again verifying that the text of Bible has not undergone corruption."
5.'One of the more popular writing materials for the poor were broken pieces of pottery, known as ostraca. [4] Today, archaeologists have discovered and documented more than sixteen hundred broken pieces of Greek pottery that contain numerous quotations of scripture on them.They too have helped establish the case for the reliability of the Biblical text. '
By the way, you said it didnt make sense for the sower not to remove the tares right away. My questions are what is the best method for removing tares, did farmers have that technology available in the First Century AD, and if not, what would be your recommendation to a first century farmer on how to remove tares from his wheatfield? Please enlighten me. Nevertheless, even if it was possible or even simple to do in the first century, it still doesnt change the fact that it is a parable, and you must follow the literary rules for interpreting a parable. Who made these rules you say? The same people that say that when someone says"Break a leg" or "Go fly a kite", or drop dead" they are usually not interpreted literally or strictly obeyed. Usually, ( except maybe fly a kite, it is used literally and figuratively) they are figures of speech, non literal ways of communicaition. Why don't you just tell me the Bible is not true because Jesus taught about wolves sewing sheepskins together and wearing them to disguise themselves? Does the literal interpretation of that make sense? Of course not, but the figurative interpretation does.
Apparently you do not understand the difference between something stated as opinion and something stated as fact. "apparently" is the wrong word, it is clear and obvious.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT a library. This was NOT a storage area for documents that were accessed on a regular basis, it was a long-term archive.
Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.
Now, to remove weeds from a garden has not changed a whole lot in 2,000 years. A sharp blade, such as a scythe or sicle, is all that is required. Now, IF the weeds in question are in fact Darnell grass, a plant which has been specifically picked for NO OTHER REASON than to make the first part of the parable at least somewhat more sensible, and which choice I specifically questioned and received no response at all, you would wait until the heads of "wheat" begin to appear, at which point the difference is easily distinguishable, both by color and angle, then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.
Quote: Apparently you do not understand the difference between something stated as opinion and something stated as fact. "apparently" is the wrong word, it is clear and obvious.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT a library. This was NOT a storage area for documents that were accessed on a regular basis, it was a long-term archive.
Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.
Now, to remove weeds from a garden has not changed a whole lot in 2,000 years. A sharp blade, such as a scythe or sicle, is all that is required. Now, IF the weeds in question are in fact Darnell grass, a plant which has been specifically picked for NO OTHER REASON than to make the first part of the parable at least somewhat more sensible, and which choice I specifically questioned and received no response at all, you would wait until the heads of "wheat" begin to appear, at which point the difference is easily distinguishable, both by color and angle, then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.
Perhaps the original hearers would have been stunned to hear that the sower chose not to remove the tares immedietely, but when they realized that the tares represented individual Christians they understood. Question: In the removal of tares from a wheatfield using a blade or a scythe is it possible or likely that some of the wheat would be lost, through trampling or uprooting? What if God treasures His wheat, ( individual believers), so much that He is more willing to put up with the tares than to lose even one of His precious wheat. If God let the church go around weeding out His field, tremendous damage would be done. In fact, people in the church have tried it with terrible results
Therefore, the original story may have confused His hearers, but the explanation would clear up their confusion if they had spiritual discernment. Jesus' parables were meant to be confusing and paradoxical to those without spiritual discernment, read Matthew 13.
Quote: Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.
Of course there were documents in the dead sea scrolls that are not recorded today; No one said all the dead sea scrolls were recordings or copies of the Bible, only that they contain portions of the Bible. Regarding differences between the passages of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, please provide some examples with links or citations of where you are getting your information. You notice I am posting links, not just pulling stuff out of my head. Please document your claims.
I thought that the "tares" represented Sons of the Devil. Which is it, sons of the devil or individual christians? Have the words in the book changed, or did you temporarily misplace your spiritual discernment?
Apparently, just about every organized christian religion has lost their spiritual discernment en masse at one time or another, because they sure as hell have been active in removing the sons of the devil on their own. Holding that book in their hands and certain they were obeying the word of God, every time. Over, and over, and over again. Murderous, fanatical butchers. Remember those pitchforks and torches? All of that "precious wheat" didn't get very much attention, DID IT? "mysterious ways" might answer this for you, but it just doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for the entity that set this in motion and they ain't "Happy Birthday".
"spiritual discernment" sounds very much like the ability to Bovine Excrement convincingly.
As for the harvesting, I suppose some wheat might be lost when cutting weeds, but less than what is lost by leaving the weeds there. That's why they cut the weeds out, over 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 100 years ago, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I suppose there might be some farmers that believed that contemplating the end of the world would be more important than properly tending their fields, but most of them starved to death a long time ago.
I'll repeat a specific question. WHY is Darnell grass the chosen meaning for "tares", since the first part of the parable is not important and does not need to make sense?
Quote: I thought that the "tares" represented Sons of the Devil. Which is it, sons of the devil or individual christians? Have the words in the book changed, or did you temporarily misplace your spiritual discernment?
Pardon me, I meant to say the "wheat" represented the Children of the kingdom, ie individual Christians. "Tares" was a typo.
Quote: Apparently, just about every organized christian religion has lost their spiritual discernment en masse at one time or another, because they sure as hell have been active in removing the sons of the devil on their own
Please advise when the following Christian movements did the things you describe. Baptists, Methodists, Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Anabaptists, Quakers, Puritans, the early church before Constantine, Pentecostals,
Quote: Holding that book in their hands and certain they were obeying the word of God, every time. Over, and over, and over again. Murderous, fanatical butchers. Remember those pitchforks and torches?
Please list every Christian movement that you know of that has been guilty of these atrocities. Let's compare them with the number of Christian movements that have existed in the history of the church, and see if you are describing the majority, or the fringe fanatical minority. Other then that, most of the burnings were performed by the Roman Catholic church which was just as much political at that time as it was religious. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this earth, but they didnt understand that.
Plus, how do you know these butchers with pitchforks and torches werent the "tares" that satan planted. God doesnt want us, ( the wheat), uprooting them, because our war is not a physical war of weapons, our war is a spiritual war of words and principles.
Quote: All of that "precious wheat" didn't get very much attention, DID IT? "mysterious ways" might answer this for you, but it just doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for the entity that set this in motion and they ain't "Happy Birthday".
The wheat did get plenty of attention, because the same butchers you describe who killed unbelievers were killing the wheat at the same time. Professed Christians killed other Christians in the name of God over doctrinal disputes. These murderers were of the tares. How do I know? Because Jesus said, " By their fruit you will know them." Don't you remember that the tares grow up among the wheat? Figure it out, it's not that complicated
Quote: As for the harvesting, I suppose some wheat might be lost when cutting weeds, but less than what is lost by leaving the weeds there. That's why they cut the weeds out, over 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 100 years ago, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I suppose there might be some farmers that believed that contemplating the end of the world would be more important than properly tending their fields, but most of them starved to death a long time ago.
Your argument doesnt even make sense because it doesnt even take into account what Jesus meant, and Jesus very clearly stated what He meant.
I'll repeat a specific question. WHY is Darnell grass the chosen meaning for "tares", since the first part of the parable is not important and does not need to make sense?
Who cares? It doesnt change the meaning of the parable. Put any weed in there you like, and the parable still means the same thing. You can put daffodils in there if you want, even though they are not a weed. Put whatever you like. The parable still will mean the same thing. Remember, the meaning of a parable is not found in the details but in the overarching principle that the parable is teaching.
I will not argue with you any more, but please send the Dead Sea discrepancies if you like. I am interested in seeing them
That's not a typo. A freudian slip, maybe, but not a typo.
I don't track all the various sects and cults but I am pretty sure the Puritans did their share of Witch Burning.
The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me. You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it. The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers.
My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?
The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did.
Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?
Quote: I don't track all the various sects and cults but I am pretty sure the Puritans did their share of Witch Burning.
The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me. You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it. The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers.
My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?
The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did.
Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?
..
1. So you have the puritans and the Catholic Church when it was the state religion of the Roman Empire. What other Christian movements killed unbelievers or those who disagreed with them? I know there are more, and I know who they are, I just want to see if you know who they are. How many members of the early church, ( before Roman Catholicism became the state religion), killed dissenters? How many Protestants and Evangelical movements killed in the name of God? Did the apostles kill anyone? How about Polycarp, Tertillian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, or Ignatius? When did the phenomenom of Christians killing unbelievers, heretics, and dissenters begin, and who were they? You don't have to answer all these questions, just think about it.
2/ Yes, God allows Christians to get martyred. It's been happening since the beginning of time. It's one of the most obvious things you see when you read the Bible. Guess what? The more Christianity gets attacked the stronger it gets. One of the reasons the church is so complacent here in America is because it has it so easy. Also, many pagans and unbelievers in the Roman Empire became Christians when they saw the courage and the faith of the martyrs. And I'm not talking about martyrs that went out killing innocents, so don't even bother comparing them. By the way, there have been far more Christians killed by unbelievers than vica versa. Not saying that excuses the pseudo Christian killers, just saying.
2. A scapegoat is someone who takes the blame for what someone else did. How is my calling people who killed in the name of God tares making them scapegoats? Are you saying that they are taking the blame for my crimes? Maybe their taking the blame for the Anabaptists or the Mennonites? When a person is accused of doing something they actually did, theyre not a scapegoat.
3. I mentioned that the Roman Catholic Church was the ones who were mainly involved in the massacres. I also mentioned that the Roman Catholic Empire was just as much, if not moreso, a political machine as it was a religious institution. Guess what? I'm not Roman Catholic, neither was Jesus, or the apostles, or the earliest church Fathers, neither is the whole protestant movement. The original church was simply the "Catholic", ( or universal Church" ), but when they made it the state religion and turned it into politics, things went awry. Jus because some of the popes and Catholic leaders abused their power, doesnt mean that all Christianity is rotten, just like the fact that Communist atheists who killed millions upon millions of Christians does not make all atheists bloodthirsty despots.
Guess what? I, ( as well as the vast majority of Christians), believe in freedom of religious expression, as well as the separation of church and state, although I do think it is Ok and desirable for Christians to run for public office that is not a breach of the separation of church and state principle.)
When did I ask you what type of weeds the tares were? I was merely speculating on what they might have been.
I think it's obvious I'm not a Jesuit. Just a plain old guy who reads the Bible.
Quote: The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me
Of course people have lost their lives for their faith in Christ. Does this mean that God is not watching over them? Certainly not, for though they lost life and limb, their eternal soul was untouched. Some chose to forfeit their temporal life, ( which is merely a passing cloud or a vapor), because they considered their eternal destiny much more important, and they received a victors crown. Death for a christian is not something to be feared, but merely an entrance into their reward. God watches over us by preserving our inward, eternal soul for all eternity, and though our physical bodies may be broken, they will rise again just as Christ arose.
"You threaten me with fire, which burns for an hour, and is soon extinguished; but the fire of the future judgment, and of eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly, you are ignorant of. But why do you delay? Do whatever you please." Polycarp
Quote: You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it.
A scapegoat is someone who is blamed or punished for someone elses crimes. How does my statement that murderers are tares constitute making them scapegoats? I am refuting their actions, not laying the blame of someone elses actions at their feet. If anything, you are scapegoating the vast majority of Christians who have never killed in God's name by attributing the murders commited by fanatics to all believers.
Quote: The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers
.
So virtually the entire Catholic church is guilt of murder in the name of God? If that's the case, there are millions upon millions of catholics running around today that should be in prison for murder. True the Catholic Church has a history of killing dissenters, but to say virtually the whole church has been guilty is a remarkable statement. You sure do paint with a broad brush.
Also, just because one professed to be a Christian does not make them a Christian. Doesnt the parable of the wheat and tares demonstrate this? The only thing you have demonstrated is that there are many who claim to be Christians that deny Christ with their actions. Thanks for telling me the obvious. Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, the church fathers already told us this was going to happen. So how exactly do your statements refute true Christianity?
Quote: My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?
What question are you referring to?
Quote: Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?
No, why do you ask? .
Quote: The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. .
Google the word "zizanion". No one, including me, said that this means "darnel", it was merely said that it may be darnel. You are confusing fact with opinion.
Quote: SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did
What problem are you referring to? The problem that the sower waited until the harvest to pull the tares? Even if what you are saying about agriculture is true, the only thing your supposed problem demonstrates is that things in the world of spiritual reality are different from things in the world of physical reality. Like the fact that a man can be born again spiritually, but not physically, ( unless you believe in reincarnation, which I don't.), or the fact that there is no water in the physical world that you can drink that will take away your thirst forever, but there is a spiritual water that will take away your spiritual thirst forever,etc.
If God doesnt want to pull the tares out before the harvest, what is that to you? It isnt your field, is it?
Nelson, I just wanted to add this as an addendum to my last two posts, then remove myself from this discussion. I just want to let you know that Jesus loves you and died for you. I know I am guilty of debating you, but not because I am trying to win a debate, or care if you win the debate, it's just that people tend to reject Christ due to what they think are errors in the transation of the Bible, or because of the inconsistancy of some who have called themselves Christians. I wanted to let you know that the Bible is a reliable book,,and that the actions of some who call themselves Christians which are unchristian have no bearing on who Christ is. Jesus Christ is the Faithful and True, and His Words are life. Please don't look at the actions of fallible men, look to the Son of God. He never killed or persecuted, yet He suffered and died for us.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you can prove to me that all other gods like Thor, Zeus and Allah don't exist in a way that I couldn't use to disprove your god exists then I'll pay attention.
So you say there is no evidence for the existence of God? I would agree with those who say that there is no way to scientifically prove that God exists, but there is plenty of evidence in the physical universe that there is a Creator.
Show me the proof that life came into existence out of non-life, that the universe sprang out of nothing without a creator, and that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. Show me the evidence for the assumption that man evolved from the ape. The Nebraska man? The piltdown man?
Fullfilled prophecies. The Bible has many examples of fullfilled prophecies, whereas Mythology has none, and as far as I know the Koran has no examples of prophecy being clearly fullilled. If you can provide me with examples of the clear fulfillment of prophecies from Mythology or Islam, I will provide you with numerous clear and unmistakable prophecies from the Bible that were remarkably fulfilled. Remember, the meaning of the prophecies must be clear, not ambiguous.
Quote: then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.
So just for clarification, you just cut the tares off at the base, and leave the roots there? Wouldnt the fact that the roots remain still cause nutrients to be lost? What about when they grow back? Correct me if I'm wrong, again I'm no farmer, but it doesnt seem to me just cutting off the tares at the base would solve the problem. I fully realize that I may be wrong, as this is not an area that I have a lot of knowledge in. Maybe you or someone else can enlighten me.
Also, you said the methods of weeding a "garden" havent changed. The sower planted the seeds in a wheatfield, not a garden, and the methods of weeding wheatfields have changed with the invention of herbicides, at least that's an option that I don't think a first century farmer would have had available to him. Again, I could be wrong.
Not trying to argue, just trying to answer your objection.
Just because we cannot yet explain some of the mysteries of the universe does not mean we have to jump to the conclusion that a magician did it.
As for the link you provided it says that the since the universe exists and we know something cannot come from nothing then it must have a creator. Then it goes on to say God doesn't need a creator because he is eternal. It is a contradiction to the first part of the argument. By stating god does not have a creator and he does not need one then it is an exception to the first statement that something cannot come from nothing. And if there are exceptions to the argument then it is valid that the universe is an exception itself. There is something instead of nothing, we do not know why and will never know why, there just is.
Then it talks about the universe and how it appears to have been designed and how everything is perfect for the life. But life evolved around it, it was here first. So of course everything appears perfect, its all we know and how we observe it. Everything seems to have order because we can understand it.
Messiah to be a descendant of Abraham- Genesis 12:1-3
Messiah to be descended from the tribe of Judah- (Gen. 49:10)
Messiah to be a descendant of David- Jeremiah 23:5-6
Jesus to be born in Bethlehem- "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
Jesus hand and feet pierced-Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. Psalm 22:16
Messiah will be cut off, ( killed), after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and before the destruction of the second temple. Daniel 9:25-26- Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decreef to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.h The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary
Messiah to be punished and pierced- Isaiah 53: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.
Isaiah 53:3 said that Messiah would be despised and rejected by the majority of His own people, yet many gentiles, ( non jews ) would believe.
Jesus predicted that the Jews would be scattered all over the world, and that Jerusalem would be trampled by the Gentiles, ( non-Jews), but only for a limited time, ( time of the Gentiles). Luke 21:24-
Christianity, ( faith in Messiah) would grow until there would be Christians all over the world. ( Isaiah 49:6)
Quote: As for the link you provided it says that the since the universe exists and we know something cannot come from nothing then it must have a creator. Then it goes on to say God doesn't need a creator because he is eternal. It is a contradiction to the first part of the argument. By stating god does not have a creator and he does not need one then it is an exception to the first statement that something cannot come from nothing. And if there are exceptions to the argument then it is valid that the universe is an exception itself. There is something instead of nothing, we do not know why and will never know why, there just is.
The problem with your argument is that everything that we know and observe is subject to the laws of cause and effect, time, and space. I think it has pretty well been confirmed that the universe had a beginning, and that it was caused b by something, and it is no longer believed to be infinite. The very definition of God is one who is eternal ( not limited by time), omnipresent( not limited by space), and self existent ( not subject to cause and effect). The Bible affirms God to be all of these, so while we cannot scientifically prove that God exists, we do know that if the God of the Bible does exist He transcends time, space, and causation.
I understand if you say that there is some evidence of evolution, (change over time),within a species, but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor? Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts? Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.
Well this is something ... I thought you said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive and both have their own pervue? I see your following comments as flying in the face of your previous comments.
Quote: I understand if you say that there is some evidence of evolution, (change over time),within a species,
To say there is some, is an understatement. There are literally 10's of thousands of experiments and studies ranging from math to neuroscience that back up the idea that evolution leading to speciation has occurred in the past as it occurs now.
Quote: but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor?
Yes. Let me ask you a question rather than me rambling on and on about it. Why don't you believe life originated from a common ancestor?
Quote: Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts?
Yes. We've seen it posthoc, in the fossil record with many animals like whales, sea lions, bats, birds, etc. I guess you have to buy into an earth that is billions of years old to believe this one. Do you?
How about some current speciation events? Here's one where lizards have changed their diet from strict carnivores to mostly herbivores, which is a huge shift in gut metabolism and processing. We've also created many reproductively isolated strains of fruit fly in labs that never interbreed. The hawthorne fly, ring species like ensantina salamanders in california, many types of bacteria and tons of plant life, just to name a few more. These are all instances where organisms were and still are genetically isolated from a sister group that end up with a different genetic code, or different behavior, etc. This is speciation.
Quote: Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.
That was literally 150 years ago when the majority of people doing science didn't have any degrees. And come on LA, youre better than stooping to character assassination to prove a point, right? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Creationist arguments like this are interesting because they think that if they can discredit the man, they can discredit the science. They also think that scientists hold him in some god-like regard. The fact is that he's not, and scientists do not. The guy bought into things like homeopathy and hydrology. He was hardly a scientific role model. Also, he was wrong in some of his hypotheses that lie outside of natural selection. It wasn't until the mid 1900's that the Modern Synthesis of Evolution was formed out of Mendel's genetics (he was a monk, and didn't have a science degree either, that doesn't mean he wasn't right), modern ecology, and darwin's natural selection. There need to be 4 things for evolution by way of natural selection to occur.1.) You need a trait 2.) that trait must confer an increase in the ability of an organism to survive 3.) the trait must be heritable 4.) long amounts of time. Mendel was the first to coin the term "gene" and show that these genes confer traits even though he had no idea what exactly a gene was composed of. And finally ecology, which studies interactions of organisms within an ecosystem and was the birthplace of both of these hypotheses, and later, scientific theories. So while Darwin is credited with natural selection, he's not credited with the totality of our current understanding of evolution.
That being said, Darwin's hypothesis has also stood up to 150 years worth of observation and testing in geology, genetics, development, molecular, ecological, neural, physiological, etc. sciences. And has shown to have a predictive power too. For example, since natural selection is a massively multi-linear process (ie it makes a tree, with many branches), we wouldn't expect to find rabbits before mammals, or birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record. If we did, it would invalidate evolution as we know it. One of the most recent examples was about five or six years back when a man was in a race with another lab, searching for an early tetrapod ancestor that was mostly water bound, but could go on land for short distances. Due to our current fossil record he made an educated guess that they would be in between the emergence of lobe-finned fish and early amphibians, a time called the Devonian. He went to a geologist, asking for any records of exposed rock formations dated to that time period. The geologist gave him the maps, he went digging and found Tiktaalik. He didn't find birds, or mammals or amphibians, he found a fish ... with rudimentary legs.
See? Rambling. But I'm done for now. I just spent 9 hours writing about cell signaling, development and evolution for my PhD preliminary exam and I'm a bit brain dead. So if you have any questions about evolution and whatnot, I encourage you to leave them and I'll get back to them tomorrow sometime.
Quote: Well this is something ... I thought you said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive and both have their own pervue? I see your following comments as flying in the face of your previous comments
Yes, I did say that. I do believe science has its place and faith has its place. I just think it is a statement of "blind faith" to say, ( as ms mouse did) that there is no God. To assert this, one would have to say that either the universe always existed or that, ( if it had a beginning) it began to exist without a cause.
Firstly, the assumption that the universe came into existence by merely natural causes cannot be demonstrated scientifically, can it? Secondly,the assumption that life sprang out of non living matter by mere chance is also a matter of faith, as scientists werent around to observe it. Thirdly, the assumption that man evolved from apes is also unfounded, unless you know of some type of proof, it is also a matter of what one believes, not what has been scientifically proven.
Quote: To say there is some, is an understatement. There are literally 10's of thousands of experiments and studies ranging from math to neuroscience that back up the idea that evolution leading to speciation has occurred in the past as it occurs now.
Changes within a species, correct? In other words, lizards remain lizards, birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc.
Quote: but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor?
Quote: Yes. Let me ask you a question rather than me rambling on and on about it. Why don't you believe life originated from a common ancestor?
Because there is no conclusive proof. Show me some evidence that life originated from a common ancestor that cannot be explained by the possibility that all life has a common creator.
Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts?
Quote: Yes. We've seen it posthoc, in the fossil record with many animals like whales, sea lions, bats, birds, etc. I guess you have to buy into an earth that is billions of years old to believe this one. Do you?
I am not one to try to guess the age of the earth. So are you saying that whales, sea lions, bats, and birds evolved into something else, or that another species evolved into bats, birds, sea lions, and whales? Please provide more information so I can research this for myself.
How about some current speciation events? [url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html]
Quote: Here's[/url] one where lizards have changed their diet from strict carnivores to mostly herbivores
but theyre still lizards right?
Quote: We've also created many reproductively isolated strains of fruit fly in labs that never interbreed.
You said you created them. That's human intervention. That has nothing to do with random evolution. What they created had an intelligent designer, namely the scientists.
Quote: The hawthorne fly, ring species like ensantina salamanders in california, many types of bacteria and tons of plant life, just to name a few more. These are all instances where organisms were and still are genetically isolated from a sister group that end up with a different genetic code, or different behavior, etc. This is speciation.
Did the Hawthorne fly turn into a bird? Did the salamanders turn into salmon? If all life evolved from a common ancestor you would have lizards turning evolving into birds, apes evolving into humans, whatever. Please provide evidence of these assumptions.
Quote: Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.
Quote: That was literally 150 years ago when the majority of people doing science didn't have any degrees. And come on LA, youre better than stooping to character assassination to prove a point, right?
Never questioned his character.
Quote: Regardless, it doesn't matter. Creationist arguments like this are interesting because they think that if they can discredit the man, they can discredit the science.They also think that scientists hold him in some god-like regard. The fact is that he's not, and scientists do not. The guy bought into things like homeopathy and hydrology. He was hardly a scientific role model.
How much impact and influence did the book "On the origin of species" hae on modern science?
Quote: Also, he was wrong in some of his hypotheses that lie outside of natural selection. It wasn't until the mid 1900's that the Modern Synthesis of Evolution was formed out of Mendel's genetics (he was a monk, and didn't have a science degree either, that doesn't mean he wasn't right), modern ecology, and darwin's natural selection. There need to be 4 things for evolution by way of natural selection to occur.1.) You need a trait 2.) that trait must confer an increase in the ability of an organism to survive 3.) the trait must be heritable 4.) long amounts of time. Mendel was the first to coin the term "gene" and show that these genes confer traits even though he had no idea what exactly a gene was composed of. And finally ecology, which studies interactions of organisms within an ecosystem and was the birthplace of both of these hypotheses, and later, scientific theories. So while Darwin is credited with natural selection, he's not credited with the totality of our current understanding of evolution.
That being said, Darwin's hypothesis has also stood up to 150 years worth of observation and testing in geology, genetics, development, molecular, ecological, neural, physiological, etc. sciences. And has shown to have a predictive power too. For example, since natural selection is a massively multi-linear process (ie it makes a tree, with many branches), we wouldn't expect to find rabbits before mammals, or birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record. If we did, it would invalidate evolution as we know it. One of the most recent examples was about five or six years back when a man was in a race with another lab, searching for an early tetrapod ancestor that was mostly water bound, but could go on land for short distances. Due to our current fossil record he made an educated guess that they would be in between the emergence of lobe-finned fish and early amphibians, a time called the Devonian. He went to a geologist, asking for any records of exposed rock formations dated to that time period. The geologist gave him the maps, he went digging and found Tiktaalik. He didn't find birds, or mammals or amphibians, he found a fish ... with rudimentary legs.
So the scientist began with an assumption, then went out to find proof of his assumption? Isnt that what Creationists are accused of doing?
Quote: See? Rambling. But I'm done for now. I just spent 9 hours writing about cell signaling, development and evolution for my PhD preliminary exam and I'm a bit brain dead. So if you have any questions about evolution and whatnot, I encourage you to leave them and I'll get back to them tomorrow sometime.
Thank you for your imput. My argument is not so much against evolution, ( there are theists who believe in evolution, though I personally do not believe in apes evolving into humans, can you show me supporting evidence), as it is against the assumption that the universe is a giant cosmic accident, That is an assumption and a huge leap of faith, in my opinion. We've had this conversation before, and we came to the same point.
Quote: Firstly, the assumption that the universe came into existence by merely natural causes cannot be demonstrated scientifically, can it? Secondly,the assumption that life sprang out of non living matter by mere chance is also a matter of faith, as scientists werent around to observe it. Thirdly, the assumption that man evolved from apes is also unfounded, unless you know of some type of proof, it is also a matter of what one believes, not what has been scientifically proven.
1.) Demonstrated scientifically? Are you asking if we can initiate a big bang? Regardless, do you remember the site i gave you with the four reasons we know the big bang occurred? Here it is again for you to read.
2.) There are many preliminary organic molecules, and even amino acids, that are measurable in other places within our universe. These form without enzymes, or any other biological process. So the building blocks are there. Maybe the key to unlocking life is abundant, liquid water.
3.) Human evolution from an ape-like ancestor is well characterized. Google it.
Also, the fact that no one was around to observe it means absolutely squat. We can discover roughly what happened after the fact by asking questions and combing through the evidence that it leaves behind.
Quote: Changes within a species, correct? In other words, lizards remain lizards, birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc.
Not the biblical sense of the word species, the biological sense. Not all lizards, birds, cats or dogs are the same. Speciation is when an organism is no longer able to reproduce with a sister population, from which both populations were derived. Their genes, proteins, and developmental timing have changed so much that they can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring. Horses and Donkeys and breed, even have offspring, but that offspring is sterile and cannot pass on it's genes. That is speciation. Would you call a Donkey a horse, a tiger a lion, or a human a neanderthal? No, because they belong to different species.
Quote: Because there is no conclusive proof. Show me some evidence that life originated from a common ancestor that cannot be explained by the possibility that all life has a common creator.
Proof of common descent? Ok, here goes.
1.) Comparative sequence analyses, a technique that compares the genes of different species, examines the idea that if common descent were true, then we will expect organisms that are derived from a similar ancestor, to have similar genes. Using this technique we are able to trace our way back through the genomes of organisms that are still around, because they haven't changed much genomically compared to the common ancestor. And what we find is that we can trace our way genomically from bacteria to mammals and to humans based on the similarity of their genes.
2.) Developmental regulatory genes called Hox genes help organize the early body plan. In some instances these genes can be taken from one species and transplanted in one that's totally different and haven't shared a common ancestor in millions of years ( like from mouse to fly) and still function semi normally. It's not a fully functional rescue, but it's there.
3.) Atavisms and vestigial structures.
And so forth.
Saying "God did it" is fine in religion. But when we have fact and observation to back our theories, it shows that natural process were at work. Again, scientific methodology cannot test something that is inherently untestable, so you can't attribute to an unseen force and call that science. There's also very little explanatory power in just attributing the acts to God. So where is your empirical proof that a creator was involved? Can you provide it? If you follow your previous arguments in this thread your answer should be no, because God and christianity are above cause and effect.
Quote: So are you saying that whales, sea lions, bats, and birds evolved into something else, or that another species evolved into bats, birds, sea lions, and whales? Please provide more information so I can research this for myself.
We have fossil records that show mammals going back into the ocean and become whales over millions of years, the same with sea lion ancestors. We have fossil records of dinosaurs becoming birds and rodents taking to the sky and evolving echolocation and lizards losing their legs and become snakes. Wikipedia is a great resource for these topics. Or just google the animal and evolution and you should come up with some good articles.
Quote: but theyre still lizards right?
See above, and google "species."
Quote: You said you created them. That's human intervention. That has nothing to do with random evolution. What they created had an intelligent designer, namely the scientists.
Doesn't matter, it's proof of concept. If it can happen in the lab, it can happen in nature. Not to mention, we use the same methods as would happen in nature to achieve the results, namely altered gene flow. If evolution were untrue, this wouldn't happen! We didn't design them, we just stacked the cards against them and through evolutionary principles found a way to survive within the rules we gave them.
Quote: Did the Hawthorne fly turn into a bird? Did the salamanders turn into salmon? If all life evolved from a common ancestor you would have lizards turning evolving into birds, apes evolving into humans, whatever. Please provide evidence of these assumptions.
Lol! No you wouldn't! Who told you that? A salamander will only ever be a salamander. However, if they have a trait, and that trait confers a greater reproductive ability, and that trait is heritable, then over time and many reproductive bouts, that original salamanders 100x-great grandchildren may become a species separate from their 100x-great grandfather. That's speciation through evolution. Google the Hawthorne fly evolution, you may learn something.
Quote: Never questioned his character.
No, you questioned his credentials.
Quote: How much impact and influence did the book "On the origin of species" have on modern science?
Modern science? Not much at all. Modern biology quite a bit.
Quote: So the scientist began with an assumption, then went out to find proof of his assumption? Isnt that what Creationists are accused of doing?
No, creationists start off with the idea that God is responsible for everything, there's fact on which which to base their assumption. What this scientist did was make a prediction, he formed a hypothesis, that was based on evolutionary principles and fact. If evolution weren't true, he could find evidence of any type animal in that rock. However, what he found was something that wasn't quite a fish, and wasn't quite a tetrapod. The difference is its an assumption based on fact vs. faith.
Quote: though I personally do not believe in apes evolving into humans
The fossil record shows otherwise. Go look at the wikipedia page on human evolution.
Quote: and we came to the same point.
You're not trying to convince me. All this is, is me spouting off fact after fact, which you summarily ignore, or don't understand, or something. If you want me to believe a creator formed this earth, and that creator is God, show me his handiwork in the physical world. "God did it" isn't enough, and doesn't explain why things occur in nature the way they do. The only thing you've done is quote the Bible, and just a few verses at that. Go to the library of congress webpage and search "evolution" and see how many hits you get. The reason we're at the same point is that you're not willing to let go of this pet idea that earth is only a few thousand years old, when every single shred of evidence shows otherwise. You're turning a blind eye to physical world and the rules that make it up.
LA you were right when you said religion shouldn't tread in science's territory and vice versa. You can't have it both ways.
You're right, you're definitely not a farmer. Most plants die when you whack 'em off at the base, that's why they did it that way 2,000 years ago, which is referenced in the link you posted, and that's why they still do it now in places where things that weren't invented yet 2,000 years ago are not widely available.
Now you were doing reasonably well interpreting morality plays but now I see you have ventured off into evolution. Being handled pretty well so far but I will add a few points.
Man did not evolve from apes, Man IS an ape, Man and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. All the ape groups have evolved into distinct species, while having a common ancestor. The differences are similar to the salamanders and lizards, horses and donkeys mentioned already.
There are numerous evolutionary steps in many species that are clearly documented in fossil records. So much so that I classify those who reject evolution on about the same plane as people that get radio messages from Venus.
Actually .... since weeds are plants ..... I can tell you that many do not, in fact, die off if you "whack 'em off at the base". If there is any root structure left, many weeds grow back. I have some vines that prove this every year ... as we pull them .... even get some root ..... and a week later they are back ..... snarling up everything again ......
There are many perennial plants that grow back annually, seemingly no matter what is done to them.
Shrubs and bushes are routinely cut way back to allow for fuller growth to occur.
Farming is not as easy as don't "whack 'em off at the base".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: You're right, you're definitely not a farmer. Most plants die when you whack 'em off at the base, that's why they did it that way 2,000 years ago, which is referenced in the link you posted, and that's why they still do it now in places where things that weren't invented yet 2,000 years ago are not widely available.
Quote: Now you were doing reasonably well interpreting morality plays but now I see you have ventured off into evolution. Being handled pretty well so far but I will add a few points.
Quote: Man did not evolve from apes, Man IS an ape, Man and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. All the ape groups have evolved into distinct species, while having a common ancestor. The differences are similar to the salamanders and lizards, horses and donkeys mentioned already
There are numerous evolutionary steps in many species that are clearly documented in fossil records. So much so that I classify those who reject evolution on about the same plane as people that get radio messages from Venus.
that was pretty funny. Actually, I havent responded to Draft yet because I am looking into some of his claims as to the fossil records and transitional forms. When I have sufficiently weighed his claims, I will respond to you both.
Apparently, at least when dealing with plants which infest wheat fields in the middle east, around 2,000 years ago, they do in fact die when cut off.
The article which LAB linked to clearly describes the procedure using a sicle, a method I had speculated might be the case before reading the article. The same procedure is described as still in use today, which would lead one to believe that it is fairly effective.
Quote: There was a cause, and that was the big bang.
What caused the big bang? Where did the matter that began to expand come from? The big bang theory teaches that the universe was originally in a hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. So where did the building blocks for the universe come from. Science cannot answer that can it? I will give a detailed account of how the Bible explains it at a later time, time does not permit me to right now.
Quote: 1.) Demonstrated scientifically? Are you asking if we can initiate a big bang? Regardless, do you remember the site i gave you with the four reasons we know the big bang occurred? Here it is again for you to read.
I asked if the universe came into being by natural means alone. This is an absurd question, because how could there be natural laws without a universe. If nothing existed, then at the universes genesis there were no natural laws or phenomenom, if something existed, it either always existed or it was caused by something else. The universe could not have caused itself any more than a house's architect could be one of the walls of the house.
As to your other arguments, similarity does not necessarily imply a common ancestor. Just because humans and extinct apelike creatures, or whales and extinct land animals share similarities doesnt mean they have a common ancestor or evolved from one to the other.
I dont have time to go over everything in detail, and I am still looking into some of your claims, but I'll post again in a day or two with a complete answer.
With regards
PS- I never quoted any scripture in reference to creation as you said I did.
Quote: As to your other arguments, similarity does not necessarily imply a common ancestor.
If it were just similarity that we based the hypothesis of a common ancestor from, then you'd be right. As I said in that post, there are many reasons from multiple different lines of evidence that support this idea.
Quote: Just because humans and extinct apelike creatures, or whales and extinct land animals share similarities doesnt mean they have a common ancestor or evolved from one to the other.
No, you're right. But it's the best available evidence we have, and again, it complements the other theories that we have in place from other lines of evidence.
Here's a decent video explaining whale evolution from a wolf-like ancestor to their current form.
Oh and don't just focus on creationist websites, as you try to debunk this stuff. Go to other places too.
Quote: The universe could not have caused itself any more than a house's architect could be one of the walls of the house.
The cause doesn't matter. What matters is that we're sure that this event, the big bang, happened and led to the current configuration of the universe.
Quote: So where did the building blocks for the universe come from. Science cannot answer that can it? I will give a detailed account of how the Bible explains it at a later time, time does not permit me to right now.
They came as an after-effect of the big bang. As the plasma cooled, and elementary particles were allowed to mingle, Hydrogen and probably some helium formed out of it. Those elements led to star formation, then galaxy formation, and also all the elements we see on earth today.
I look forward to the biblical account of this.
Quote: PS- I never quoted any scripture in reference to creation as you said I did.
Remember "Hangs the world on nothing?" That seems pretty creation-y to me.
The piltdown man? 
