Quote:
Originally Posted by blankety blank
My actual question was why if the word evolution was not coined until the 18th-19th century to refer to things changing over time; why did it appear in a dictionary to have its root in around 1615?. And, it means 'the unrolling of a book', or 'an opening of what was rolled up'.
No one answered that question tore. Why? It appeared before the letter 'J' was added to the English alphabet, according to the sources I've seen. It appears to present a problem with King Iames. The research I found suggests that the letter appeared in use around 1630.
Mat 1:16 Iacob begat Ioseph, the husband of Marie, of who was borne Iesus, that is called Christe. Bishop's Bible 1568
Do you see how it could possibly have began a little earlier?
It looks like the Words changed over time from Greek to Latin to English in around 1611.
And, the letter J did not appear in any alphabet prior to the 14th century.
And, Jews believe that god created everything with the 22 Hebrew letters of the alphabet. I would think he would have given them a J, but, he didn't.
Yehuda becomes Judah. And, many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Hebrew manuscripts. What about Joshua, Jacob, Judges, Jeremiah, Jezebel, Jehoshaphat, and not to mention Jehovah, Jonah, Joel?
'and the books were opened, and the judgment set'
This was the question.
|
What?
I don't understand. I don't know the origins of the word evolution. I've always assumed it existed before Darwin's theory was formulated. You're quoting the bible here. What are you trying to tell us?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blankety Blank
And, remember blasting someone for being completely off-topic, and, then he apologized to you profusely, and, gave you props and praise for your insightful posts? I don't remember the name, but, I remember the posts, and, I saw no reply from you. He said, no sweat. He forgave you.
|
This is quite vague. I discuss a lot on forums so unless you give me more to go on, I doubt I'll remember.
Quote:
|
Do you see how you could have addressed the walking on water issue? With evolution.
|
How so? We didn't evolve to walk on water.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blankety Blank
And tore, we are coming back. It's an evolution thing. So, I will ask you what you think about how we might further evolve? Not, what science might spew, but, what you think. You're a biologist, why aren't you screaming fire? Because, if we aren't walking machines, we're walking corpses.
|
I don't know what sort of environment humans will live in so it's impossible to tell. What I mean is we're headed for a wealth of problems as you know, overpopulation in particular. There may be famine, war.
I generally hope and believe "modern" civilization will prevail. Humans living in a societal environment are generally rewarded for intelligence and social abilities and so I think those are traits that will continue to develop in a positive sense in humans. We will become less selfish smarter and better at cooperation.
That's a mere guess, though. How we evolve depends on the environment and that is ever changing. Who knows what our planet looks like in a thousand or even a million years from now?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blankety Blank
Did seek mention anything about grouping of quarks? And, how they might communicate? There is something to that Greg Braden lecture he linked.
I'll link it again. If you guys look at anything, just the first 15 minutes can teach you how to feel about others. It certainly reminded me. I had forgotten. It's worth the 15 minutes of your time folks. Might change you a bit. It did me.
|
I watched the start, but I don't have time to watch all of it. It is 3 hours long after all. It's nice that he speaks a positive message, but I don't agree with his "facts". He only says they are facts, but he never cites a source. The same goes every time he refers to something as science. One of his early slides contain the following :
- An intelligent field of energy unites the universe!
- Our bodies and our world materialize from this field!
- Emotion is the language that translates the quantum possibilities of the Field into the Reality of our world!
He could not possibly not for sure, but claims all this is fact and I am always suspicious when people claim absolute truth. From reading your posts, Blankety, I would assume you are as well. I am also suspicious when people who are not physicists use words like quantum in slides intended for common people. Most people don't know what these words mean and that makes it possible (likely?) that these terms are used as a way to manipulate.
I checked Gregg Braden out. He has no scientific publications under his belt as far as I can see (only "alternative" books) and he claims to know stuff like how to cure cancer in a matter of minutes. I get the feeling he doesn't know what cancer is or what causes it. Not only does it smell of quack, but it offends me morally. In the end, I find just about everything there is about this guy highly suspicious and would like to remind anyone watching or reading his messages to not be gullible.
edit :
I'm more likely to agree with the author of this blog than Gregg himself ->
http://jengajam.wordpress.com/2011/0...-harder-dammit