Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Birds fly, but they don’t like it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Also: Emus and moas only look alike. Genes tell a different story.

From New Scientist:

Huge flightless birds like emus and moas may look alike, but their genes now tell us they are only distantly related. Ancient DNA reveals that birds lost the ability to fly on six separate occasions within 10 million years. It seems the extinction of the dinosaurs created a brief window for big ground-dwelling birds, before large mammals evolved.

and

While we think of birds as flying animals, Penny says their natural state is foraging on the ground. If there are no predators and no competitors for food, it makes sense for them to grow and lose the ability to fly.

So all those adaptations for flight just happened, because of competition in foraging?

Note: Emus have been successfully raised in Canada.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mung's incessant misunderstanding goes on:
The Witnesses at one time did believe that Jesus was executed on a cross. That is why you see it in earlier publications. Yes, thank you for acknowledging this fact. Did they just not understand the “correct” meaning of the Greek word, or is all this discussion of the meaning of stauros just a straw-man?
The discussion of the meaning of stauros is important, obviously. It is entirely possible that they did not discern the correct meaning of the term. I wasn’t around to ask them how their research was coming.
So first it was believed by JW’s that Christ was hung on a cross. Did the Greek text somehow change and it wasn’t noticed until 1936? Then (1936) they (JW’s) believed Christ was hung on a tree: The death of the perfect man Jesus would, in any manner inflicted, meet the requirements of the law, because death was the penalty inflicted upon Adam. Why, then, was Jesus crucified? Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree. His being put to death in this manner symbolically said: “This man is cursed of God.” Dying as a sinner was ah ignominious death, and being crucified upon a tree in effect said: “The one here dying is put to death as a vile sinner.” Such was a provision that God had made in his law. (Deuteronomy 21: 22,23) The curse of God was upon Adam because of Adam’s willful sin. To become the ransomer or redeemer Jesus must die as though he were accursed of God, a vile sinner, yet without sin in fact; and for this reason Jehovah suffered his Beloved Son to be put to death by nailing him to a tree. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13) “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” — Acts 5: 30. The crucifixion of Jesus upon a tree is a testimony to all creation that he willingly suffered the most ignominious death in order that he might prove himself entirely obedient to the will of God under the most adverse conditions and thereby meet all the requirements of God’s law as pertains to a sinful man. – Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Riches (1936)
And your point is what…that the Witnesses are not allowed to change their minds based on further study? Why is that?
Therefore, according to the Society’s own account, scholarship really had nothing to do with its adoption of the “torture stake” doctrine.
Who’s the “one source” you’re quoting here? Another site that’s biased against Witnesses?
Now given that Vine’s Expository Dictionary, who JW’s seem to love to quote, wasn’t published until 1940, what were they relying on for their understanding of the Greek text, when matters were “clarified” in 1936?
No. If you noticed, much of the commentary regarding ‘stauros’ and its meaning by other scholars was published before 1936. It’s not unreasonable to assume that they studied the works of these scholars before coming to their conclusion.
I try to, really. It’s your links to those apostates that give me fits. I’m really not allowed to read those.
Don’t be deliberately dense. Or are you truly unaware of what “bias” is and how it affects decision-making and critical thinking? If not, I suggest you find a basic textbook on critical thinking and begin reading it. Your entire weak argument comes down to the fact that you don’t like Witnesses. And that “argument”, such as it is, is easily dismissed.
Frankly, I’m surprised you’re allowed to read this website.
Why wouldn’t I be? The Witnesses have published articles on design in nature many times, as I’ve linked to, and conducted an interview with Dr. Michael Behe that appeared in a special issue of the Awake! Magazine on evolution in September 2006.
“There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site (www.watchtower.org) presents accurate information for any who want it”
Creating a web page =/= visiting a website. Really, you don't understand the difference? Forgive me if I begin questioning your intelligence. Nice non sequitur. Did you have a point, or not?
The Organization once taught that Jesus [was] crucified on a cross not a stake. They even had pictures of Jesus hanging on crosses [a cross] in their publications. True. Right Barb?
Asked and answered. Find something else. Oh, and what’s the “one source” you’re referring to here?
They believed and taught what they believed. Right? Even though it was false (according to Barb).
The clarification was already posted in this thread. Read it.
Barb, can you cite the JW publications which state that the earlier teachings of the JW’s were false?
Asked and answered above in another post. Try reading it.
The JW’s proclaim that Jesus is both god and not god, that Jesus is both lord and not lord, That Jesus is both deity and not deity, that Jesus is both divine and not divine, that Jesus is not our savior, and that the end is soon.
Huh?
Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a “cross” made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale. pile or pole. – Aid To Bible Understanding So Barb, just to get things on the record, you disagree with that “aid” to understanding?
Wow. You really are being deliberately stupid. FOR THE RECORD: The definition of stauros as “upright stake or pale” has been posted by myself and by Kairosfocus. It completely agrees with the Aid to Bible Understanding comment that you posted above. And also for the record, the book you’re citing has not been used by the Witnesses for decades. It was replace by a two-volume Bible encyclopedia called Insight on the Scriptures in 1988. Do try and keep up. Posting information that has no modern relevance to Jehovah’s Witnesses or their beliefs makes you look idiotic. The reason(s) for their beliefs that Jesus did not die on a cross have been answered repeatedly. That you don’t like the answer is your problem and yours alone. Again, refute the scholars whose work is cited above. Refute the fact that they agree with the Witnesses that Jesus did not die on a cross. Refute the fact that the Greek language itself does not agree that Jesus died on a cross. Refute the Greek scholars who acknowledge this fact. Bring something substantial to the argument besides your blind, irrational hatred of a religious group. Your "arguments" are veering from merely pathetic to wildly irrational and stupid.Barb
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Piotr, How the evidence is perceived is directly tied to one's personal bias. If there isn't any genetic evidence that the changes required are even possible then you lose. And guess what? That genetic evidence doesn't support your position. THAT is YOUR problem- no way to test the claim. The fossil record = "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it." You don't know what makes a bird a bird nor a reptile a reptile nor a dinosaur a dinosaur. And without that knowledge your position is lost.Joe
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Piotr, translation, "I have no empirical evidence that Darwinism is true, therefore I rely on imagination"bornagain77
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
The "unobserved" remote past is actually observed indirectly via its traces and effects. We use whatever evidence is available. We have the bones of those animals; we have clear impressions of their bodies (feathers and all); and we have molecular evidence confirming that the surviving groups of archosaurs (birds and crocodilians) are each other's closest relatives, in agreement with the fossil record. You can ignore and dismiss all that evidence; you can repeat, "You were not there", or insist that I should "evolve" a crocodile into a sparrow in a lab or it doesn't count. I don't give a damn: it's your problem.Piotr
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Piotr EA puts it well: _____________ >>What is the evidence that purely natural processes produced a bird from a reptile? —– [Note: When we say "evidence" we mean evidence. Not stories; not assumptions; not wild speculations; not even comparative genomics/morphology. We're talking about actual, demonstrated evidence for the mechanism of chance+necessity actually producing the systems in question.] [Note 2: Most skeptics are not even demanding to know the specific pathway that the evolutionary mechanisms took in our particular history. Personally, I would be duly impressed with evidence for any plausible pathway. Something that stands a reasonable chance of occurring in the real world. Something that at least gives a reasonable explanation of the details. Something that passes the laugh test.]>> _____________ Empirical evidence that passes the vera causa test of demonstrated, observed causal efficacy, please. No causal mechanism on the unobserved remote past should be entertained that is not seen to work with relevant capability before our eyes today. That is, no gross, question begging extrapolations. KFkairosfocus
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a "cross" made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale. pile or pole. - Aid To Bible Understanding
So Barb, just to get things on the record, you disagree with that "aid" to understanding?Mung
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
The JW's proclaim that Jesus is both god and not god, that Jesus is both lord and not lord, That Jesus is both deity and not deity, that Jesus is both divine and not divine, that Jesus is not our savior, and that the end is soon.Mung
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
One internet source says:
The Organization once taught that Jesus [was] crucified on a cross not a stake. They even had pictures of Jesus hanging on crosses [a cross] in their publications.
True. Right Barb? Barb:
The Witnesses at one time did believe that Jesus was executed on a cross. That is why you see it in earlier publications.
They believed and taught what they believed. Right? Even though it was false (according to Barb). Barb, can you cite the JW publications which state that the earlier teachings of the JW's were false?Mung
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Barb:
Try actually reading my posts for a change.
I try to, really. It's your links to those apostates that give me fits. I'm really not allowed to read those. Frankly, I'm surprised you're allowed to read this website.
"There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah's Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site (www.watchtower.org) presents accurate information for any who want it"
Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Barb:
The Witnesses at one time did believe that Jesus was executed on a cross. That is why you see it in earlier publications.
Yes, thank you for acknowledging this fact. Did they just not understand the "correct" meaning of the Greek word, or is all this discussion of the meaning of stauros just a straw-man? So first it was believed by JW's that Christ was hung on a cross. Did the Greek text somehow change and it wasn't noticed until 1936? Then (1936) they (JW's) believed Christ was hung on a tree:
The death of the perfect man Jesus would, in any manner inflicted, meet the requirements of the law, because death was the penalty inflicted upon Adam. Why, then, was Jesus crucified? Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree. His being put to death in this manner symbolically said: "This man is cursed of God." Dying as a sinner was ah ignominious death, and being crucified upon a tree in effect said: "The one here dying is put to death as a vile sinner." Such was a provision that God had made in his law. (Deuteronomy 21: 22,23) The curse of God was upon Adam because of Adam's willful sin. To become the ransomer or redeemer Jesus must die as though he were accursed of God, a vile sinner, yet without sin in fact; and for this reason Jehovah suffered his Beloved Son to be put to death by nailing him to a tree. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." (Galatians 3:13) "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." — Acts 5: 30. The crucifixion of Jesus upon a tree is a testimony to all creation that he willingly suffered the most ignominious death in order that he might prove himself entirely obedient to the will of God under the most adverse conditions and thereby meet all the requirements of God's law as pertains to a sinful man. - Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Riches (1936)
That's Rutherford, in 1936. According to one source:
Therefore, according to the Society's own account, scholarship really had nothing to do with its adoption of the "torture stake" doctrine.
Now given that Vine's Expository Dictionary, who JW's seem to love to quote, wasn't published until 1940, what were they relying on for their understanding of the Greek text, when matters were "clarified" in 1936?Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a 'Simple' Bacteria - Rabbi Moshe Averick - video https://vimeo.com/35730736bornagain77
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Piotr, if all the scientists in the world, with all their supercomputers put together, were given the task to build a 'simple' insect wing from scratch they could not do it. They cannot even get close to creating 'simple' life in the lab using all their intelligence combined, much less an insect wing! Yet you believe that a bird wing, which is far more elaborate and sophisticated than an insect wing (or even a airplane wing) arose by purely unguided processes,,, Rare Glimpses of Amazing Birds-of-Paradise Courtship Rituals - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTR21os8gTA&list=PLgSpqOFj1Ta4xHFM4kKR4VTW8CJmPNNNA ,,, Piotr there is a severe disconnect in your ability to think properly if you think that was not designed!bornagain77
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Mung, you have the entire argument backwards. The Witnesses at one time did believe that Jesus was executed on a cross. That is why you see it in earlier publications. However, based on the links I provided above, the matter was clarified in 1936. What part of that statement do you not understand? No crosses appear on any WT publications after 1936. Here’s some additional information from the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol, which appeared on the Watch Tower cover beginning with the issue of January 1891. In fact, for years many Bible Students wore a pin of this kind. By way of description, C. W. Barber writes: “It was a badge really, with a wreath of laurel leaves as the border and within the wreath was a crown with a cross running through it on an angle. It looked quite attractive and was our idea at that time of what it meant to take up our ‘cross’ and follow Christ Jesus in order to be able to wear the crown of victory in due time.” Concerning the wearing of “cross and crown pins,” Lily R. Parnell comments: “This to Brother Rutherford’s mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. He told us that when we went to the people’s homes and began to talk, that was the witness in itself.” Accordingly, reflecting on the 1928 Bible Students convention in Detroit, Michigan, Brother Suiter writes: “At the assembly the cross and crown emblems were shown to be not only unnecessary but objectionable. So we discarded these items of jewelry.” Some three years thereafter, beginning with its issue of October 15, 1931, The Watchtower no longer bore the cross and crown symbol on its cover. A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”
Even though you’ve already granted that if it actually was a cross, the authors would have used the Greek word stauros.
You have it backwards. The word stauros is properly translated “upright pale or stake”. NOT CROSS. Some translations do use the term cross. As explained in the other thread, there is a long history of religions other than Christianity using crosses or types of crosses in their worship of their god(s).
So even given that the word has a range of meanings that can include that of the traditional cross, how is it that you can continue to maintain that because some Greek scholars say it primarily mean a pole or stake that it Jesus was not crucified on a cross?
Because he was not, based on the Greek words used and based on historical evidence. References were provided for you to read. Haven’t read any of them? Then get started.
I keep asking you for your logic and you keep not giving me any logical explanation.
Try actually reading my posts for a change.
How do your derive your conclusion, Jesus was not crucified on a cross from your premise?
1. The Greek word stauros properly translates to upright pale or stake. 2. The Greek word stauros is used in many translations to describe the instrument of Jesus’s execution. 3. Therefore, based on a clear understanding of the Greek language, Jesus died on a stake or pole and not a cross. There’s one argument for you. Now consider the evidence from history and from Greek scholars and writers: There is no evidence that the Greek word stau•ros? here meant a cross such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ. In the classical Greek the word stauros? meant merely an upright stake, or pale, or a pile such as is used for a foundation. The verb stauro?o meant to fence with pales, to form a stockade, or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled. It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used anastauro?o as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures anastauro?o occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. The root verb stauro?o occurs more than 40 times, and we have rendered it “impale,” with the footnote: “Or, ‘fasten on a stake (pole).’” The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koine?) Greek and used the word stau•ros? to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. [emphasis mine] The apostles Peter and Paul also use the word xy?lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy?lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) In LXX we find xy?lon in Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as in Ac 5:30; 10:39. The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux “a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.” In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim?plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19. The photograph of the crux simplex on our p. 1578 is an actual reproduction from his book. The book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p. 109, says: “Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed.” After submitting much proof, Fulda concludes on pp. 219, 220: “Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers.” Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, who was a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word stau•ros?. On p. 386 of his work he said: [stau•ros?] means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.” Concerning the execution of punishment upon Jesus, P. W. Schmidt wrote on pp. 387-389: “Beside scourging, according to the gospel accounts, only the simplest form of Roman crucifixion comes into consideration for the infliction of punishment upon Jesus, the hanging of the unclad body on a stake, which, by the way, Jesus had to carry or drag to the execution place to intensify the disgraceful punishment. . . . Anything other than a simple hanging is ruled out by the wholesale manner in which this execution was often carried out: 2000 at once by Varus (Jos. Ant. XVII 10. 10), by Quadratus (Jewish Wars II 12. 6), by the Procurator Felix (Jewish Wars II 15. 2), by Titus (Jewish Wars VII. 1).” Evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles. The Witnesses responded to this research with the following: “We do not want to add anything to God’s written Word by inserting the pagan cross-concept into the inspired Scriptures, but render stau•ros? and xy?lon according to the simplest meanings. Since Jesus used stau•ros? to represent the suffering and shame or torture of his followers (Mt 16:24), we have translated stau•ros? as “torture stake,” to distinguish it from xy?lon, which we have translated “stake,” or, in the footnote, “tree,” as in Ac 5:30.” I'm not sure what parts of any of this research you don't understand. Try actually responding to any of the points I've made here for a change. Explain to me why you think these scholars are incorrect in thinking that Jesus did not die on a cross. Explain to me why you think that their scholarship is incorrect in some way. Otherwise, you've got nothing.Barb
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Why is there a cross and crown on this pyramid? Is Joseph Franklin Rutherford also an apostate?Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Barb, keep repeating: It only means pole or stake, it only means pole or stake, it only means pole or stake. It never means cross, it never means cross, it never means cross. Even though you've already granted that if it actually was a cross, the authors would have used the Greek word stauros. So even given that the word has a range of meanings that can include that of the traditional cross, how is it that you can continue to maintain that because some Greek scholars say it primarily mean a pole or stake that it Jesus was not crucified on a cross? I keep asking you for your logic and you keep not giving me any logical explanation. How do your derive your conclusion, Jesus was not crucified on a cross from your premise? Please explain the logic.Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Barb, the JW's own history depicts and translates stauros as a cross. Are you prohibited from reading those or even looking at them? We're not talking "apostate" sources here are we? Look for the Greek word for cross on page 252 (second paragraph from the bottom of the page, just before the dash. Then scroll down a couple more pages to see the image of Jesus on a cross. HERE Here's the English:
There was, then, a fuller sense in which that Jewish age closed with the end of the seventieth week, or three and one-half [page 224] years after the cross—after which the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles also, beginning with Cornelius. (Acts 10:45) This ended their age so far as God’s favor toward and recognition of the Jewish church was concerned; their national existence terminated in the great time of trouble which followed.
As an interesting aside, and reaching back to a former discussion, Russell appears to have been a preterist. The 70 weeks and the "great tribulation were past. We can both trot out our "greek experts" but the facts are that the modern JW position is contradicted by it's past. Is Charles Taze Russell now an apostate as well?Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Mung, what part(s) of my previous post(s) did you not understand? Should I repeat something using smaller words? Did you refute the scholars who agree that the NWT is a good translation yet? How about the Greek scholars who acknowledge the the word you keep looking for is properly translated as stake or pole and not cross?Barb
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Piotr, you claim that birds, whose inherent complexity is orders of magnitude more complex that anything man has every devised, came about by Darwinian processes. Specifically, you claim that unguided 'random' mutations and unguided natural selection, completely free of any intelligent intervention, built this bewildering complexity. Yet, you have no evidence that random mutations and natural selection can build even one molecular machine, much less do you have evidence that Darwinian processes can coordinate trillions upon trillions of protein molecules into the coherent whole that is the miracle of a bird. Yet you say that believing contrary to your completely unsubstantiated position is a 'cargo cult'. I beg to differ. Each cell in your body has 3 1/2 billion letters of code on its DNA alone. Which is equivalent to a small library of books. Every book has an author! NO ONE has ever seen unguided material processes write even one sentence. Yet you believe that the 3 1/2 billion letters of code had no author. Piotr, contrary to what you have deluded yourself into believing, I'm not the one believing a ludicrous 'cargo cult' science, YOU ARE!
Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? - Lennox - semiotic information - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
Verse and music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Creed - My Own Prison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBqjGd3fHQ
bornagain77
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
He [Jesus Christ] finished this work of laying down His life, surrendering it, sacrificing it, permitting it to be taken from Him, when He on the cross cried: “It is finished!” - Charles Taze Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 5
He saw men plunged in deep distress, And flew to their relief; For us he bore the shameful cross, And carried all our grief. - from Volume 5, Study XIMung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Look for the cross(es). Studies in the Scriptures The Watchtower (1920-1929)Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
BA77, @88 That book should be entitled "Cargo-Cult Science on Human Origins". It has nothing to do with bird origins anyway.Piotr
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Poitr, translation: you have no real empirical evidence, and only imagination, that any transition in form is possible. “Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe – co-author of Science & Human Origins – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxMmLakH2LQbornagain77
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
What is the evidence that purely natural processes produced a bird from a reptile?
"A reptile" in this case is a theropod dinosaur (not a turle, an alligator, or a boa constrictor). The evidence is the paleontological record: we know about 30 genera of dromaeosaurids and about 20 genera of troodontids, plus some scansoriopterygids, representing the closest relatives of birds, and we have a similkar variety of "true" birds from the same time. Unless you are a dinosaur specialist, you simply cannot tell where the division line between "dinos" and "birds" is, because in fact any such line is arbitrary and artificial: birds are specialised theropods (even if Professor Olson thinks otherwise), and their evolution was a smooth process. Pre-avian theropods show a mosaic of features that we find later in typical birds: feathers, small size, pneumatic bones, reduced teeth, scansorial adaptations, the ability to glide or even fly. If the first bird was specially designed and created, please tell me which particular fossil form is close to it, and why its very similar contemporarries shouldn't qualify as birds.Piotr
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
And...? There is an article here explaining the clarification and why it took place. This was in 1936. Do you have anything substantial to add? I have already mentioned that the Witnesses have clarified their understanding of the Bible. Do you not understand this point? here is another article on the subject as to why the Witnesses do not use the cross in worship. Did you get anything from the links I posted? Oh, and have you gotten around to rebutting the scholars who agree that stauros should be rendered stake and not cross? How about the ones who believe that the NWT is a scholarly translation?Barb
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Cross and Crown. The Watchtower.Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
From the book, Creation, by Joseph Franklin Rutherford here Then Jesus was crucified on a cross. Now Jesus was not crucified on a cross.Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Mung,
So if Jesus had actually been hung on a cross, the Greek word that would have been used to convey this fact would have been stauros, and not some other Greek word? Yes, my point exactly. Unless and until you can come up with the alternative, stauros is the word the original writers would have used if Jesus had actually been hung on a cross. If not, why not?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, stauros is translated as cross in some instances, and upright pale or stake (the actual definition) in others. Try reading the links I posted, you might get some insight. The point that you seem to be completely missing is the actual definition of the word, which IS NOT cross. Are those translations erring? Why or why not?Barb
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
A simple question for Barb. What is the Greek word for cross? Barb:
It [stauros] might be translated as “cross” depending on the translators, but the basic meaning...is upright pole or stake.
So if Jesus had actually been hung on a cross, the Greek word that would have been used to convey this fact would have been stauros, and not some other Greek word?
If you can find another word [other than stauros] translated as cross, let me know.
Yes, my point exactly. Unless and until you can come up with the alternative, stauros is the word the original writers would have used if Jesus had actually been hung on a cross. If not, why not?Mung
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Evo Science is like Theology. Asking for "evidence of Evo" reveals a fundamental ignorance. The Hand of Evolution touches everything. Believe.ppolish
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Piotr, when asked to actually provide the evidence, says, in essence: "I don't understand the question." Here, I'll restate it: What is the evidence that purely natural processes produced a bird from a reptile? ----- [Note: When we say "evidence" we mean evidence. Not stories; not assumptions; not wild speculations; not even comparative genomics/morphology. We're talking about actual, demonstrated evidence for the mechanism of chance+necessity actually producing the systems in question.] [Note 2: Most skeptics are not even demanding to know the specific pathway that the evolutionary mechanisms took in our particular history. Personally, I would be duly impressed with evidence for any plausible pathway. Something that stands a reasonable chance of occurring in the real world. Something that at least gives a reasonable explanation of the details. Something that passes the laugh test.]Eric Anderson
May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply