Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Gregor Mendel's work on genetics was published in the the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in 1866. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, six years before Mendel's work came out.

Darwin made his voyage on the Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Mendel was born in 1822. He was 14 when Darwin came back with his ideas on natural selection.

Darwin did do experiments similar to Mendel, but his experiments were essentially a failure, although much of that could have been a design flaw. It is probably more accurate to say Mendel took off from the point Darwin stopped.

Okay.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Actually no. Our laws do not protect foreign citizens outside the country.

SCOTUS has never addressed that question. However, it has addressed the question of whether the First Amendment applies to non-citizens and the answer is yes.

It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage. -- James Madison

However, your question was not on whether our laws protect foreign citizens, nor on the courts interpretation of same, but instead was a query about my position on the subject. I have answered that question.

[traynor]

Sounds to me like an early version of Dances With Wolves (or what used to be called in the British Army "going native"): missing, ineffective, or inadequate supervision of the troops, who (much as troops everywhere and everywhen in similar circumstances are inclined to do) went a little bonkers and decided to hobnob with the locals. No wonder this place is such a mess.

"Offspring of angels: All early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). For example: 1 Enoch 7:2 "And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children." Some Christian apologists, such as Tertullian and especially Lactantius, shared this opinion.

The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries. This line of interpretation finds additional support in the text of Genesis 6:4 which juxtaposes the sons of God (male gender, divine nature) with the daughters of men (female gender, human nature). From this parallelism it could be inferred that the sons of God are understood as some superhuman beings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Are you serious? I spelled it out.

When and where? Most of your posts make no sense whatever.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think if you dig a bit you will find that most of the mandates forbidding such originated to avoid families consolidating power/holdings rather than some morality issue.

It is more a biological issue, too close of inbreeding and you end up with mentally retarded offspring and other biological defects...so much for God's perfect method for giving rise to human numbers...He doomed us from the beginning...of course He does not blame himself for any of this...

...But one does wonder at what perverse satisfactions the Voyeur-in-Chief must have reaped in viewing the exploits of his wanton miscreants and their various Adventures in the Garden...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

It is more a biological issue, too close of inbreeding and you end up with mentally retarded offspring and other biological defects...so much for God's perfect method for giving rise to human numbers...He doomed us from the beginning...of course He does not blame himself for any of this...

...But one does wonder at what perverse satisfactions the Voyeur-in-Chief must have reaped in viewing the exploits of his wanton miscreants and their various Adventures in the Garden...

Again, a bit of digging might present a different picture. The excuses for why a given thing must be so are usually secondary considerations elevated in status by those manipulating the beliefs of those (they want or need) persuaded. For some reason the name Borgia comes to mind.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by traynor

Again, a bit of digging might present a different picture. The excuses for why a given thing must be so are usually secondary considerations elevated in status by those manipulating the beliefs of those (they want or need) persuaded. For some reason the name Borgia comes to mind.

how does your reply relate to adam and eve giving rise to humans?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

how does your reply relate to adam and eve giving rise to humans?

The reference is specifically to the Catholic canon originating in the Middle Ages in regard to marriage between certain relations.

Other than that, it doesn't, really. In simple terms, I have no credible evidence there was an Adam, an Eve, a "Garden of Eden," or any of the rest of it. It could all be a local myth that got blown out of proportion, and is the equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That is, pointless.

From a (reasonably) objective viewpoint, the timing is all out of whack. Events that supposedly happened in the Middle East are incongruous with other things that happened elsewhere on this little dirt ball at (roughly) the same time periods. Specifically, it would seem that "biblical events" are restricted to a very small area, and involved a (relatively) small group of people. Or that there are serious gaps in what is considered by some to be a "semi-historical chronology of real events." Which, of course, it may not be at all.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by traynor

The reference is specifically to the Catholic canon originating in the Middle Ages in regard to marriage between certain relations.

Other than that, it doesn't, really. In simple terms, I have no credible evidence there was an Adam, an Eve, a "Garden of Eden," or any of the rest of it. It could all be a local myth that got blown out of proportion, and is the equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That is, pointless.

From a (reasonably) objective viewpoint, the timing is all out of whack. Events that supposedly happened in the Middle East are incongruous with other things that happened elsewhere on this little dirt ball at (roughly) the same time periods. Specifically, it would seem that "biblical events" are restricted to a very small area, and involved a (relatively) small group of people. Or that there are serious gaps in what is considered by some to be a "semi-historical chronology of real events." Which, of course, it may not be at all.

yes, of course adam and eve is a local myth...I was just trying to point out the incongruities in believing is such patented falsehood...like the human female being made from adam's rib...who can believe such non-sense nowadays...?

I hope that you are not one of those monotheists who think that the human female was fabricated from a rib...or that all humanity came from Adam and Eve...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

SCOTUS has never addressed that question. However, it has addressed the question of whether the First Amendment applies to non-citizens and the answer is yes.



However, your question was not on whether our laws protect foreign citizens, nor on the courts interpretation of same, but instead was a query about my position on the subject. I have answered that question.

You didn't comprehend, because you missed my specific explanation relating to foreign citizens residing outside the country. Of course Constitutional rights apply to aliens in the country.

Go outside our country to a foreign country and see if the Constitution applies to you. For example, if you are in Saudi Arabia their laws apply. The U.S. has no jurisdiction.

However, I believe the Court will be addressing this issue in the upcoming term.

MY posts make sense, it is you who don't want to understand, you are trying to split non-existent hairs, while trying to justify mutually exclusive positions. Either people have inalienable rights, which are given by the Creator or not. If you don't believe in an intelligent Creator you cannot assert people, especially foreign citizens, residing outside our country, have these inalienable rights, per U.S. law.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

yes, of course adam and eve is a local myth...I was just trying to point out the incongruities in believing is such patented falsehood...like the human female being made from adam's rib...who can believe such non-sense nowadays...?

I hope that you are not one of those monotheists who think that the human female was fabricated from a rib...or that all humanity came from Adam and Eve...

Not at all. To either statement.

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

"The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in 18th century Britain, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France). Presaging the shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts". By way of contrast to the views of British nationals Burke and Bentham, the leading American revolutionary scholar James Wilson condemned Burke's view as "tyranny."[25] The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self-evident truth" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You didn't comprehend, because you missed my specific explanation relating to foreign citizens residing outside the country. Of course Constitutional rights apply to aliens in the country.

Go outside our country to a foreign country and see if the Constitution applies to you. For example, if you are in Saudi Arabia their laws apply. The U.S. has no jurisdiction.

Are you saying that the court is addressing an issue over which it has no jurisdiction?

Put it another way? Is the issue whether these individuals can get on the plane (outside the U.S.) or whether they can get off the plane (inside the U.S.)?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

My posts are clear and I am done playing merry-go-round with you. You are just like boxcar.

If only Actor were.... And for your info, haven't been on a merry-go-round since I was 6 or so.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying that the court is addressing an issue over which it has no jurisdiction?

Put it another way? Is the issue whether these individuals can get on the plane (outside the U.S.) or whether they can get off the plane (inside the U.S.)?

No. I believe, the case, involves our southern border and our border patrol officers.