Thread: By the book

That's funny..

Originally Posted by Babylon

That's funny..

It is funny. It's a good thing we don't get our theology from comic writers because this one has misunderstood the passages by not placing them in the context of other passages.

By comparing this passage to others we learn that when the children continue to do the same sins the fathers did they get the same punishments. When the children do not do the same sins they do not get the same punishments. The wording is unfortunately awkward and I can see how people could misunderstand ex 34:7.

THE LORD, A GOD MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS - (Exodus 34:1-10) - John Piper

Jesus, Muhammed and Moses meet up in a bar. Muhammed says to Jesus and Moses;

Muh: How come none of us shave?
G.zuz: Good question I do not know.
Moe zuz: Yah and why is it we are all having a drink?
Muh: Good question I do not know.
G.Zuz: Because none of us wants to go for a shave.

A very funny cartoon but with many errors. As a person who has tested positive for TB I can tell you they don't treat it with antibiotics but with Isoniazid which is an antimicrobial agent but I don't think it is an antibiotic. I'm not in chemistry anymore not in medicine so I could be wrong. They used to treat TB with streptomycin in 1943 but started using Isonizid in 1945 - hardly a response to drug resistance.

Second, while there are various strains of the TB bacterium and they are descendants they get the drug resistance in much the same way people with blue eyes get their characteristic from their parents. In other words there has been no evolution just a selection.

TB has not evolved in the way that evolution describes. The changes it has undergone have not changed it from one species to another ( it is still TB) nor have the changes given any of the descendants any characteristics that the ancestors did not have. The mutations that TB goes through are a normal part of their reproduction. They are not random, and there is no evidence that newer strains do not breed with older strains.

Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution. And viral reproduction is not an example of evolution. Neither are the mechanisms of mutation nor selection proof that evolution occurs any more than steel and rubber are proof that cars exist.

Evolution has taken place in history, it has even been observed recently, and I suspect that it has taken place as a shaping force in determining what species are on the planet, but so far no species has been show to gradually change into another, and certainly not as a result of random mutations.

There is a case in which two unrelated plants with a small number of chromosomes mated to produce a new kind of fertile plant with double the chromosomes. Clearly it is a new species since it looks different, has different genetics, is fertile, and does not breed with either of the parents. But the process does not look at all like evolution as described in the textbooks. It was really just an odd hyrbidization.

Evolution as described in the textbooks has not yet produced any species that have changed from one to another. Various mice are still mice, horses are still horses, etc., and no one has shown that the changes have resulted in an inability for the genes to reproduce, or that the genes are different, or that we are not simply observing plasticity (changes in shape that are reversible).