God Explained Genetics to Moses

[JoeMama]

Jacob took fresh-cut branches from trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be seen by the sheep when they came to drink. When the flocks came to drink and mated in front of the branches, they bore young [that were striped]. (Genesis 30:37-39)

Did God breathe this story into Moses’ ear as an example of genetics at work?

[boatsnguitars]

...Also, if it was due to substances in the water it would not be necessary to make them appear striped. Substances in the water would not have altered the DNA to produce striped offspring. You don't seem to understand the case.

They had to be striped so that color altering substance could dissolve into the drinking water and have the effect. Now, I don't know can it alter really the outlook of the offspring, but it would be interesting study. I believe it is possible, if done exactly the same way.

Study some genetics and you will learn that it can't be done. It's just biblical fiction.

It is. The 'net is replete with Apologetics arguments trying to get around this and they generally have to involve God doing a miracle. Gen 30 clearly has striped sticks put in the drinking troughs and that causes the offspring to be striped. The apologetics, apart from loose claims that some mysterious genetic trick was involved, need to say it was a miracle because they knew things don't happen like that. It is just like the sun standing still during a battle, day and night before the sun was made and indeed the Flood and Ark are all miracle -stories that wouldn't work even if they were miracles.

I can't get over the idea that Christians would rather traffic in bibliolatry, rather than look at what God wrought in the form of genetics, and all the wonders of this world. But all these wonders - all the science - just isn't enough for them. Life, evolution, geotechnics, cosmology, etc. aren't enough. They need to believe in miracles and magic.

They just can't accept what God actually made, they need to pretend he did more than he did - all based on the ignorant writings of men in funny hats.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #21]

Genesis 30:37-43 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
clearly shows the author thought the animals that merely looked at striped sticks would give birth to striped offspring. This is of course just silly, a fairy tale.
What is more interesting, and disturbing, is the length and foolishness some Christian advocates will go to, to try and show science supports this rubbish. A great example of this pathetic dishonesty can be seen in [False] Answers in Genesis, a notorious anti-truth blog that distorts science in order to support utter nonsense simply because it is in the Bible (and they insist upon their own literal interpretation of Genesis).
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/a ... enesis-30/

Faith is one thing, and can be uplifting and encouraging, but this shameful attempt to distort science to explain miracles, magic, and nonsense in the Bible is an example of how taking Genesis literally can debilitate the thinking* of the Flat Earther Christians, Young Earth Creationism, Global Flood believers and anti evolution rubbish that in the long run is harmful to the 'Faith.'

_____________________
* See The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
viewtopic.php?p=1093045#p1093045

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #22]

There is a Thesis to be written on cults, fads and conspiracy theories and why people do it, the extent to which truth or what is the best model of the reality, whatever it is, the use of sophistry and questioning epistemology and employment of sophistry (Aristophanes says 'Making the worse cause appear the better' (1) the motives in starting these...well, of course propping up Faith-claims with any and all means because, as I keep whining, Truth is in what is believed and evidence only serves to validate the faith, which is why it is ok to misrepresent it. But the doleful thing is that understanding the science that the Faithful need to debunk would show that it is valid so it is integral that the science is Not understood, nor do they want to understand it.

Not that the Creationists are dumb.Far from it. Some are most erudite in constructing their ingenious alternative science. It takes a bit of work at times to see whether they have a point. IC for instance looked like it had a point until the evolutionary change of an existing biological feature was shown valid and IC collapsed. but the problem with alternative science, whether Faithbased on the Bible or Daaniken is that the facts are ok to misrepresent to support the faith and I remember a poster on the former board who cut me dead after I explained that the Tiahuakna stones are not Diorite (as Gods from outer space apologists say) but relatively soft sandstone.

So we've seen a lot of word, text and concept - juggling to try to make - not a miracle work but rather some genetic effect unknown to science. We know why. Rationally the claim should be rejected as anything but magic as a hypothesis, even if the possibility of some unknown genetic effect was accepted. But starting with Faith means that it must be true in some way we don't understand, and we've heard that a few times.
rWhich is why Rational, logic, science and evidence, bandied about too often by the Believers, are anything but that, but the dismissal of the rational, the inverting of logic, the embracing of pseudo science and the fiddling of evidence is stock in trade of Bible apologetics. Even what the Bible plainly says is dismissed in favor of what is preferred. Biblical slavery for example, Mary's lineage when it plainly say's it's Joseph's, and the sun made after daylight (in either ignorance or denial of that the Bible says) is either rewritten or explained in pseudo - science such as the cloud cover (where i must confess I'm in a more comfortable zone than ruminant genetics ) cloud or ice cover (I have seen both invented ) would mean that God was misleading whoever wrote Genesis (as nobody was there at the supposed time (2)

But the point is that miracles are another elephant in the room. Bible apologists don't like 'em and would rather come up with some scientifically valid explanation. Sure,a miracle or two to get over some problems, like putting the ark animals into hibernation and magicking correct fodder in their stomachs, but not a miracle that would make it all pointless. like God transporting Pharaoh's chariots into the sea (a merciful and loving God would do that rather than the surprised charioteers suddenly finding themselves back in barracks) rather than making a sodden seabed passage that would bog down a column of Russian tanks. This stuff has to work even if all science, reason and indeed evidence has to be denied. Even the Bible has to go rather than the Faith of the person be shown wrong. And that I suspect is root of the problem.

(1) "The clouds" where he pokes fun at the New Leaning of Socrates.

(2)Just checked and yes, only the veg. were made before the sun so unless Veg can talk as well as snakes and donkeys, it had to be God that told Moses.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would you argue that gentics work as written in the Bible, and not written in Creation itself?

There is no mention of genetics in the bible and no reason to conclude it suggests genetics works in any way other than that which is reflected in reality.

The narrative clearly indicates Jacob was given a divine dream that seemed to indicate to Jacob that whether by divine intervention or by natural means, the herd would produce predominently specked animals.

NOTE : The text does not say the sticks made the sheep speckled ; it only describes what the man did (whatever his knowledge of gentics, animal husbandry or even superstition) and explains what happened next. All this talk of gentics and science is just "strawman" projecting" and those that engage should remember correlation does not imply causation.

Nobody can presume to know for sure what (if anything ) Jacob the man knew about gentics and the text is ambiguous enough to be inconclusive as to exactly what Jacob did with the various types of sticks and why, but what is evident is he took action to selectively breed the more robust animals and that God blessed his efforts.


More than that is just gravy.




JW


Further reading: Does Science Agree With the Bible?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... the-bible/


RELATED POSTS


What is the fallacy of "strawman"?
viewtopic.php?p=1079683#p1079683

What is "argument from incredulity"?
viewtopic.php?p=1119021#p1119021

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[TRANSPONDER]

Why would you argue that gentics work as written in the Bible, and not written in Creation itself?

There is no mention of genetics in the bible and no reason to conclude it suggests genetics works in any way other than that which is reflected in reality.

The narrative clearly indicates Jacob was given a divine dream that seemed to indicate to Jacob that whether by divine intervention or by natural means, the herd would produce predominently specked animals.

NOTE : The text does not say the sticks made the sheep speckled ; it only describes what the man did (whatever his knowledge of gentics, animal husbandry or even superstition) and explains what happened next. All this talk of gentics and science is just "strawman" protecting" and those that engage should remember correlation does not imply causation.

Nobody can presume presume to know for sure what if anythjng Jacob the man knew about gentics and the text is ambiguous enough to be inconclusive as to exacly what Jacob did with the various types of sticks and why, but what is evident is he took action to selectively breed the more robust animals and that God blessed his efforts.


More than that is just gravy.




JW

That is very evasive. Gen 30 makes it clear that the act of ensuring the genetic transformation of the animals is done by adding striped sticks to the water. This is not a dream but a supposed actual fact, even if telling Jacob this or that through a dream is also done. So either this is a miracle dressed up to look like an unknown genetic effect, or it is an unknown genetic effect that God told him about; which is it? Red flag - both have problems for Bible -apologetics. God would just do a miracle and not pretend it was a genetic effect, and if it was a genetic effect then you don't need God. Take your pick.

Oh, and unvalidated correlation is a logical danger, sure, but more of one is dismissing what the Bible actually says, fastening some sciencey label (selective breeding) onto it as though that is what he was doing (there's false correlation right there) rather than either a miracle or an effect unknown to animal husbandry, let alone science, and slapping God's blessing on top like a politician's endorsement of some dodgy election propaganda.

[1213]

Because I think you spread false ideas.

But you have shown not to be able to grasp what is real and what isn't, so how do you know I am spreading false ideas?
...

By telling that Bible claims the result was because the animals saw the striped branches, or that they were next to them. For me this was about what the story actually says. Different thing is what do people believe. People don't need to believe things that are not actually said in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because I think you spread false ideas.

But you have shown not to be able to grasp what is real and what isn't, so how do you know I am spreading false ideas?
...

By telling that Bible claims the result was because the animals saw the striped branches, or that they were next to them. For me this was about what the story actually says. Different thing is what do people believe. People don't need to believe things that are not actually said in the Bible.

You may say so, but why should anyone else agree? That the striped branches along with the talking donkey, walking snake, daylight before the sun, and pretty much the rest of the book seems nonsense, crediting things actually said in the Bible would appear to be the unsound thing to do. I propose that going with reason and evidence, not the Bible, or any other book of religion, is probably the smarter thing to do.

[Clownboat]

...Also, if it was due to substances in the water it would not be necessary to make them appear striped. Substances in the water would not have altered the DNA to produce striped offspring. You don't seem to understand the case.

They had to be striped so that color altering substance could dissolve into the drinking water and have the effect. Now, I don't know can it alter really the outlook of the offspring, but it would be interesting study. I believe it is possible, if done exactly the same way.

Study some genetics and you will learn that it can't be done. It's just biblical fiction.

That requires work. Blind belief (making an idol out of the Bible) requires no work, just acceptance of provided claims.
Therefore, I fear no study of genetics will be taking place. The answer is already being pretended to be known, so why investigate genetics?

[Diogenes]

Because I think you spread false ideas.

But you have shown not to be able to grasp what is real and what isn't, so how do you know I am spreading false ideas?
...

By telling that Bible claims the result was because the animals saw the striped branches, or that they were next to them. For me this was about what the story actually says. Different thing is what do people believe. People don't need to believe things that are not actually said in the Bible.

"... the flocks bred in front of the [striped] sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted."*

If you believe the Bible, the meaning is clear; Jacob made striped sticks, faced the flock toward the sticks "and so the flocks brought forth striped" goats. If you believe in magic, you can believe the Bible.
The rational person does NOT believe things just because they are in the Bible. Rather, the fact something is in the Bible is a good reason not to believe it.

______________________
* Genesis 30:39, ESV

[boatsnguitars]

Why would you argue that gentics work as written in the Bible, and not written in Creation itself?

There is no mention of genetics in the bible and no reason to conclude it suggests genetics works in any way other than that which is reflected in reality.

The narrative clearly indicates Jacob was given a divine dream that seemed to indicate to Jacob that whether by divine intervention or by natural means, the herd would produce predominently specked animals.

NOTE : The text does not say the sticks made the sheep speckled ; it only describes what the man did (whatever his knowledge of gentics, animal husbandry or even superstition) and explains what happened next. All this talk of gentics and science is just "strawman" projecting" and those that engage should remember correlation does not imply causation.

Nobody can presume to know for sure what (if anything ) Jacob the man knew about gentics and the text is ambiguous enough to be inconclusive as to exactly what Jacob did with the various types of sticks and why, but what is evident is he took action to selectively breed the more robust animals and that God blessed his efforts.


More than that is just gravy.



JW

So, we wouldn't know if Jesus coming back to life was due to God - because Corrolation doesn't mean Causation, right?