Monday, July 29, 2013

... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

first video comented on
Discovering Religion : Episode 05 Semantics of Science
why was episode six blocked in some countries? because it talks about evolution? ahh man, what in the world have we become, knowledge should NEVER be banned or limited in any measure
Hans-Georg Lundahl
More probably because of strictest possible copyright laws application

UK, Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man (that's four of them) are very much more evolutionist than US
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hey, here is one at once: Music Theory!

You are dealing with a composer - not publically played yet - with lots of studies in music theory.

So, is Riemann's theory a system of certain facts? What about Rameau's theory? Or Schenker's? Each of them would analyse C F6 G7 C differently, and Schenker even differently on different occasions and depending on melody in bass and descant.

All three can't be right about C F6 G7 C even though dealing with the same facts:

C F6 G7 C

There are similarily at least three theories of gravity on the market:

Aristotle (the pen drops to the ground because it is made of earth more than air and earth is heavy, tending naturally to centre of universe)

Newton (the pen drops to the surface of earth because the mass of earth attracts the mass of the pen and vice versa, only earth acts much more since having a much greater mass)

Einstein (gravity - a kind of geodesic in space created by great mass in proportion to greatness)

Not to mention the theory of gravitons or the theory of occasionalism (17th C. Theological Theory, somewhat close to Buddhist thinking)
I am not sure what you mean by "on the market". Aristotle's theory is not used by even a minority of people. Newton and Einstein's theory of gravity are combined in the current scientific theory of gravity as they are complimentary, not competitive.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
By "on the market" I mean on the over all market, not just contemporary expertise.

Does that clarify?
Tyson Kehoe
and if it just started as Adam and eve that would make us all Insest.i dunno about you but that just dont sit with me .
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There would have been sibling marriage the generation after them.

In that generation it would not have been incest, since siblings were the furthest off relatives (excepting nieces and nephews).
So who were the mothers of generation 3? Adam & Eve had Cain & Abel. Who did Cain & Abel have kids with? Eve? Puppy dogs?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 5: [3] And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. [4] And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

Other reading (LXX) he was 230 when begetting Seth and lived 700 years thereafter. One way or the other, Cain and Abel were not the only children of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Seth married sisters or nieces. Whether Abel was married or not? Dont know.
No wonder I could never read the bloody thing! So awkward.

Incest - a game the whole family can play.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it was not incest, since for the first of Adam's and Eve's children to marry, a sibling was the remotest relative there was.
If incest is sex between close relatives, and most would agree that brother/sister is very close, then that is incest, pure and simple. As they say in those horrid yank law shows, it is an open and shut case. Incest it is then. By implication the Abrahamic god chap knew that brother & sister would have to go through the mating ritual if the creation was to continue. Either that or the story is made up. No Excises for incest.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It would have been incest probably if further off relatives had been available.

Morally and medically it was not incest, since God forbade brother and sister from marrying later and since the genetic diseases that are furthered by incestuous relations had not yet evolved.

Bleeder's disease (aka haemophilia), colour blindness, all those things are really results of human evolution. After the Flood, thank you.
You are talking about sin, not the subject here, unless you feel some need to make it seem ok. I have no comment about sin or god's disfavour. Brother being fucked by sister IS incest. God dies NOT define what incest is, in your world the god thing gefines sin, but not words.

If was was a calithumpian suicice bomber would it be ok for me to blow up up other calithunmpians because there are no infidels nearby?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with incest is that it is a sin. And your disgust with it is a reflection of God's disfavour.

Meaning that such a disgust would not have existed between brother and sister back then, nor be relevant for it when looking backwards to it.

The Church has since also added first and second cousin marriages to the list of incestuous relations that are no marriages.

I generally appreciate that good and evil do not change because of changed circumstances, but when it comes to anything involving "close relatives" a circumstance which is really relevant is how far off relatives are available.

In the generation after Adam and Eve fourth degree cousins were not available, not even first degree cousins were.

So, even if "it" would be incest now, "it" was not incest then. However relations between parent and child were on the contrary already incestuous and no one even came to think of that evil.
I have nowhere expressed disgust at incest. Non-human animals refrain from incest too, it is bad practice genetically speaking. People find it disgusting for the very same reason non-humans do. Nothing to do with YOUR god whatsoever. It is trait brought about by evolution. We are talking about the definition of incest here, not sin, how many times do I have to tell you? I do not recognise the concept of sin as being at all relevant to me or any thinking person.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you do not consider sin a relevant concept, how come your parallel for proving sibling marriages incestuous even in the generation immediately after Adam and Eve is precisely another sin?
I did not use sin to prove anything at all. I was talking about the definition of incest and how the Abrahamic creation myths imply it must have happened. Sin is relevant only if one is a believer in one particular pantheon or another. I am talking about the definition of incest, you are the one relating it to being sinful. If sin is a transgression against one's god(s), then I am unable to sin.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
suicide bombing is a sin and that was the example you used as a parallel

not my fault you are unable to keep track of what you said previously

you could of course mean incest and suicide bombing remain wrong regardless of what any god thinks of them, but an act being wrong implies it is sinful

there are two ways out: mine implies that sin was sin only insofar as God calls it so, and that he made a dispensation for sibling marriage in that generation (as for Samson in your parallel) your way out would seem to be God OUGHT to have created more than one primal human couple and was sinful himself for not doing so, since it was going to force one generation to sibling marriage.

And in that case there OUGHT to have been more than one Adam and it is a mystery why all men are cursed for the sin of only one of them, the Adam we know.

Or you might deny original sin, and thereby say misery is only natural - I think that is the worst option. Leaves no hope.
You seem to really not get it . I thought it was an act, but now I think not. In that cae I cannot help. We might as well call this discussion closed. No matter how many times it is said, it will not hit the mark.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have similar fears about you. Somewhat at least, and for now.

Did not stop me from arguing.
other video commented on:
Discovering Religion Ep 06 Theory of Evolution
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Can you show:

- that the wild form of banana is the original form?

Dingos are not the original dogs.

- that if so the mutations on which banana cultivation bases its bettered banana would have come into existence without God designing them?

If they come into existence they are of course chosen, but that is exactly the rub. Precisely as with sweet apples that get grafted a lot more than sour ones - would they have existed without God making that mutation? If left to reproduce naturally - sour.

[Unclear due to 500 signs limit: if original apple was sour, and if God's grace had not given us a mutation of sweeter apples - would we have them or just sour ones?]

No comments: