The shrill voice of fundamentalism

IT’S not the Muslims or the Christians or the Hindus or Buddhists or the atheists that cause the most grief in this world. It is the fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism appeals to base tendencies that can justify hatred, persecution and murder. Religious fundamentalism accepts hypocrisy. It pays lip service to the ideals of true religion, all the while ignoring them in practice.

Extremists use religion as an excuse for their hateful actions. They might say they are protecting religion but that’s a lie. They are really just protecting power.

Fundamentalism is a refusal of conversation. It I a shrill, negative, fear-filled form of faith, wherever it breeds. Fundamentalism is always the same – with its followers insisting that they should not be challenged or even questioned.

Fundamentalism never understands that real faith cannot be enforced or coerced. People cannot be intimidated to believe at the point or a gun or through fears of bombs being thrown.

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “The shrill voice of fundamentalism

  1. Fundamentalism or literalism? I know language changes with usage and I presume by fundamentalism we now mean literalism.

    This results from taking everything in the Bible literally. But “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “(John 1:1, NIV)

    In the beginning God expressed Himself in physical form in this world, and this expression was with God, and was God.

    As I’ve said before the Bible is not the Logos, the Word of God. Though ‘Word’ and ‘Scripture’ are very much related, they are necessarily not the same.

    Logos is seen by Christians as God expressed physically in this world as Jesus.

    Like

    • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “ — (John 1:1, NIV)

      In the beginning God expressed Himself in physical form in this world, and this expression was with God, and was God. — anon

      In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. — god

      “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”― W.C. Fields

      See the trend emerging? 😉

      Christianity would’ve been much more credible (and useful) if it hadn’t insisted upon hijacking the jewish god to their own cause.
      They have nothing in common, and the main consequence is the confused and confusing nonsense which is ~ at the end of the day ~ entirely indefensible.
      ….all of which makes it somewhat embarrassing for an atheistic dissenter to say anything much at all because only a churl would pick on such an easy target.
      ……….. and the whole thing becomes an exercise in Strawman-building.

      I’ve even been hearing rumours to the effect that the next Nobel Prize in Theology is going to a Strawman!
      …..for being out standing in his field. … … … ..

      Like

    • Hi Strewth,

      I have to say this as I have sat on it long enough, that I have never heard anything so ludicrous as to suggest that we literalists worship the Bible. In fact, you are the only person I have ever known to bring this charge against us. I know; perhaps I should get out more, but I honestly feel that it shows a complete lack of understanding…..and a lack of faith.

      I know you don’t like God Questions Org, but reading what they have to say about people who think the way you do gave me peace.

      “The accusation of bibliolatry is that some Christians elevate the Bible to the point that it is equal with God, or to the point that studying the Bible is more important than developing a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. Is the charge of bibliolatry accurate?”

      Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/bibliolatry.html#ixzz35QK7Aqsz

      Like

      • A good response Monica, but I’m a bit puzzled. I know you’ve said you are a fundamentalist when it is taken as meaning the fundamentals of a faith. We could argue of course what those fundamentals were. But I thought you had denied being a literalist?

        Please correct me if I’m wrong, in which case I’m sorry.

        However, my opinion still stands.

        Like

      • Hi Strewth,

        Am I a literalist, as well as adhering to the fundamentals of faith? I honestly don’t know what I am! Have you or anyone else got a good teaching on what it means to be a Christian literalist because I can’t find one. And no, no apologies please. I just cannot see what you see, and believe me I’ve tried. 🙂

        I interpret the Bible literally as Got Questions explains it in “Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?” I believe and accept the Bible as truth and inspired by God. For instance, I believe Adam and Eve were real people as is written, but I am also open to the idea that they may not have been after all, and if the latter turns out to be true, then it’s no big deal. I believe God could create the universe in six days if He wanted to, but my reasoning suggests that I should not take the 6 days as literal. And there is no way that I believe the earth is 6000 years old, no matter how many times I read Creation Com. I just don’t buy it. And honestly, I don’t care how old the earth is, but I do believe that God created it. Yep, I do believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish….or maybe he got sucked into a sea cave with an air pocket and it spewed him out three days later. It doesn’t matter to me as long as I believe that something really incredible did happen to him to make him change his mind so, and turn him into one of the greatest preachers ever.

        So, what am I?

        Like

      • Now now Monica! As with the bible, one should always be careful of asking open-ended questions. For example:-
        “So, what am I?”
        The obvious answer:- Confused.
        And for good reason. 😉

        Like

      • What are you, Monica? A unique and precious individual! I see that disbelief in certain scripture (eg. re age of the Earth) in no way affects your faith. I feel your faith will remain strong no matter what scripture is put in doubt 🙂

        Like

  2. “Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?”

    Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

    One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

    The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus’ command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?

    Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

    Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.

    Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html#ixzz35MoVmXxy

    Like

    • Also:

      “How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God?”

      Answer: The phrase “word of God” appears often in the Bible and can have a slightly different meaning depending on context and the Hebrew or Greek word used. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” Here, Word is a title of the Lord Jesus. The term translated “Word” is logos, which basically means “the expression of a thought.” Logos can be thought of as the total message of God to man (Acts 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Jesus embodied that total message, and that is why He is called the “Logos,” or “Word,” of God (Colossians 1:19; 2:9).

      Logos is also used many times when referring to the written message of God (John 17:17; 1 Timothy 4:5; Revelation 1:2; Colossians 1:25). Hebrews 4:12 says, “The word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Jesus showed a link between the written Word of God and Himself, in that He is the subject of the written Word: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39).

      Another Greek word used for “word” is rhema. Rhema refers to the actual spoken/written words of God (Hebrews 6:5). When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, He answered, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). We are told in Ephesians 6:17 to “take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word [rhema] of God.” Jesus demonstrated we need the actual recorded words of God to overcome Satan’s attacks.

      The phrase “word of God” means more than the printed words on a page. God is a communicator and has been speaking into the human realm since the beginning. He speaks through His creation (Psalm 19:1), through ancient prophets (Hosea 12:10; Hebrews 1:1), through the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 16:6), through Scripture (Hebrews 4:12), and through the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:9). We can learn to know God better by seeking to hear Him in every way that He speaks.

      Got Questions Org

      Like

      • I remember as a child hearing the story about Lots daughters and being absolutely appalled by it. Another Christian said that at that time it was not a sin. I never believed that and thought to myself, I will remain a Christian because I absolutely do not believe that this would be the truth, it would be a misinterpretation. I’ll allow time for a proper understanding of the situation. Hopefuly God will illuminate.

        I think sometimes people do read with the head and not the soul and that is why God felt the need for further clarification through Jesus and Moses etc.

        On saying that, I’m with you in that there are other texts that people are twisting into pretzels to get the outcome they want because the original is not palatable. To me when you have multiple verses explaining the same point, it is hard to turn a blind eye.

        Like

      • The problem with that approach, kate:- “I think sometimes people do read with the head and not the soul and that is why God felt the need for further clarification through Jesus and Moses etc.”
        …is that it suggests god got it wrong and admits that.

        If he chose the written/spoken ‘Word’ as the method with which to educate us we’re obviously meant to to do so with our heads (eyes and ears/brains).

        No ‘prophet’ (including the Jesus character) can convey anything of earthly value (or even access) to our ‘souls’ ~ leaving aside the question of the existence of such a beastie anyway. (biblical authority??)

        I don’t see how the WOG can be anything BUT the written/spoken text.
        Why else would anyone walk all the way out to the mount to make a SPEECH?
        …..or feel the need to get ACTUALLY crucified, if the same message can be ‘conveyed’ directly to an understanding soul. (Further keeping in mind that, words can’t be found for the most profound experiences anyway.)

        And of course the immediate question becomes:- If god got it so wrong as to have to follow up with footnotes and editing (via Moses/Jesus/Satan/others), does he really qualify as ‘God’ to begin with?

        Like

      • God didn’t get it wrong Dabbles, hence it being written into the Bible that incest in an abomination.

        People often get it wrong though.

        Like

      • But what about Adam and Eve’s kids, Kathleen?

        For literal Christians, surely that poses a problem. It does for me. So if incest is wrong—period—then it stands to reason that the Adam and Eve narrative should not be taken literally. It’s no wonder I’m confused. 🙂

        Like

      • “Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. ”

        Who are these other people?

        If God created Adam and Eve, why could he have not just created others? Adam and Eve may have been the first and their lineage important, but what’s to stop God from helping the process along and demanding that the others go forth and multiply as well?

        Maybe I don’t know my Bible that well, but does it actually say that Adam and Eve’s children had relations with eachother?

        Like

      • Obviously that quote was by Cain, the son who was driven out after killing his brother.

        Like

      • aha Kate!….Now you’re getting somewhere! —> “If God created Adam and Eve, why could he have not just created others?
        “….. and demanding that the others go forth and multiply as well?”

        He did ~ ‘every living creature’ ~ and BEFORE Adam, to boot.

        Sez who?? —> “Adam and Eve may have been the first and their lineage important,” I see no biblical reference to that effect; do you?

        Not a thing—-> …..”but what’s to stop God from helping the process along and demanding that the others go forth and multiply as well?
        It’s exactly what he DID do.

        In fact, that may well be where our ape-genes come from.

        And if you follow the genetic trail back far enough (if you could) you’d find the connections to all the other species as well.
        ……until you arrive at the single ancestor of all life on earth. Adam
        Keep in mind that Eve was the first of his offspring.

        The ‘accident of the night’ need only have happened once. (Adam)
        (and that would explain why Eve, as the bible tells it, didn’t need the ‘Spirit of Life’ breathed into her; she’d have received her dose from the rib-
        boner Adam provided as ~eventually ~ would all the other ‘live’ things.

        I reckon there’s a story in there somewhere!
        You might be onto something that explains a lot!

        (eg. You can’t commit incest with yourself.)

        Like

      • Kathleen – ” To me when you have multiple verses explaining the same point, it is hard to turn a blind eye.” I agree Kathleen. I believe that is the intention of the Bible. Where editors have slipped in something to support their own view or that of their own group, “hopefuly God will illuminate,” as you say. Surely He can still communicate today, and not just depend on ancient writings to speak.

        The trap is, how do we know we are hearing Him? I think there is nothing surer than the two or three gathered together in His name.

        Like

      • The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

        The scribes have used the scripture to discredit the tribes of the Moabites and Ammonites. We can see the same with other tribes, Ishmael, and other prophets.

        “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

        After thousands of years of practice, the scribes are stlll at it with Western Media and Wikileaks.

        Like

      • Kathleen,
        Your fundamental mistake was not reading all that the Bible had to say about Lot. In 2 Peter 2:8 we are told that Lot was grieved by the wickedness around him. The actions of his daughters reflect this. Imagine having a wife that gets destroyed because she longs for Sodom. Imagine having daughters who are accustomed with the practices of Sodom so much that they have to get you drunk to lower your inhibitions to the point where you acquiescence to their desires.

        This story was placed in scripture as an example not to make friendships with the world. Abraham did not come down to Sodom to associate with them, and thus he never experienced this sort of abomination.

        Like

      • Dom,
        Where is your manuscript evidence to say what you said about the Moabites being vilified?

        The Koran was written long after the Bible was written and everything in the Koran was a distorted second hand view of the Biblical stories. That is the conclusion of the scholars, not mine.

        But if you have evidence provide it.

        Like

      • Actually Monica,
        If you read Jeremiah 1:4 it states that the “word of the Lord came” to Jeremiah. I had always thought that it was just another one of those archaic phrases that meant God talked to Jeremiah. Until a number of rabbis (both orthodox Jew and Messianic Jew) informed me that it is talking about a person rather than a figure of speech. If the rabbis are correct, the title of “Word of God” that is applied to Jesus may have a long Old Testament connection, which didn’t start with John.

        Like

      • Genesis 6:4
        There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

        Like

      • That’s so enlightening Davinci.

        You know; I’ve never even thought about it that way…..Jeremiah and the “word of the Lord came” to him. Thanks so much. Really quite exciting.

        Like

      • Israelites were often in conflict with their neighbours the Moabs. If you are stating a tribe sprung from Lot being with his daughter then that is vilifying. Don’t matter if you thrash Lot’s reputation in the process. Lot fought the corruption against a while city and when he got out he acted more badly than the worst people in our society now ? Please !

        Like

    • Quite agree Mon. If you change the fundamentals of anything (to make it more mentally palatable for whatever reason) you change the issue.

      That in itself isn’t a problem ~ until you try to amalgamate two very disparate issues. It’s like trying to fit a duck with football boots!
      eg. vengeance and forgiveness have no business at the same table.

      Like

      • Dabbles, what I perceive as the fundamentals of Christianity are obviously not what you perceive.

        Also note that the tag ‘Christian’ is probably not one I should wear, although various others seem to think it is. Mainly I suppose because I believe Jesus was meant to bring his message to the world. The Sermon on the Mount is invaluable.

        Like

      • Dabbles, I read your message after I posted mine, we must have been on the same wavelength.

        Like

      • The whole point of the discussion, Strewth, is that personal perceptions have no bearing; and shouldn’t have. If one’s perception gainsays ‘The Word’ then it undermines the whole word ~ and you have no basis for ‘Belief’ at all.

        The are any number of references to that effect from Paul back to Deuteronomy ~ and probably beyond. viz.

        “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

        Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them.

        And therein lies the snag: Monica MUST believe the six-day-creation and Jonah’s big fish brag (despite the fact that no fish-fossil big enough to swallow a man whole has ever been found), walking on water and all the rest.

        But the snag applies only to men; women have a way of avoiding the controversy~…. All they have to do is obey that other consistent decree found throughout the scriptures:-
        Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

        If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

        Though I doubt even the God of all the Universes has the power to enforce his authority on that score. 😆

        Like

      • No, Dabbles. I can believe the works of Shakespear contain much truth, without believing or following all he wrote. I can believe much that Paul wrote, but don’t feel bound to follow all his advice. I believe the authors of various Bible books were speaking to people of their own time and culture, and must need to differ. Truth is often subjective.

        Like

      • Well then (” …..the works of Shakespeare contain much truth, without believing or following all he wrote”), the problem becomes WHICH bits contain the truth and which are false.
        Without proofs of all kinds the chances are that you’ll be wrong half the time: and in matters as ‘weighty’ as these that surely can’t be good enough.In fact, god in each of his manifestations insists that not even a 99.9% success-rate is good enough.

        Though I agree that everything that relates to any individual must perforce be ‘subjective’, ‘Truth’ in a philosophical or theological sense can’t be allowed to be. A bit like virginity.
        You see the endless murder and misery the existence of even a few ‘Truths’ can generate.

        In matters of religion there can be only one ‘Truth’ ~ or none.

        eg. If Paul’s ‘vision’ was ‘true’ every word he utters must be accepted as god-given; if it was not ‘true’ (on any basis, including fraud and concussion) then nothing he claims as re. religion is unacceptable.

        I see no wriggle-room.

        Like

      • oops!…Of course I meant ‘ ANYthing he claims as re. religion is unacceptable.’
        (I wish god would stay out of my typing finger!)

        Like

      • Yeah! ” we must have been on the same wavelength.”
        I have wondered about that from time to time. 😉

        Like

      • Dabbles, taking yourself as an example, how do you decide which part of anything to support? What’s provable? I don’t think Shakespeare’s philosophies are subject to proof, yet much is so obviously valuable that there are many of his sayings taken into our everyday speech.

        The Bible contains much that you might acknowledge as wise, and much that I know you reject. How do YOU decide?

        Like

      • An awkward question, tough I see the point of it.

        Firstly, as I’ve made clear previously. I really don’t see a need to ‘make a decision’ about many of the things other people go to war over.
        eg. I see no reason to make any decision about gays getting married; it has no bearing on me or my life. Same thing with heterosexual marriage.
        If either form of marriage was to be declared compulsory THEN I’d make some decisions.

        And where I do need to make ‘a decision’ I’d first of all consider the value of what I was trying to achieve (ie whether it was worth the price, including prioritising, rearranging first principles, etc) , and secondly the feasibility of any of the lines of approach. That’s not to say that ~ given the ‘value’ of the objective ~ less-or-non-feasible options might not decide the issue.

        There ARE times when ‘going with your gut’ is the only way to travel; but in such cases the ‘value’ needs to be great enough to justify the extraordinary risk of failure and cost.
        Perhaps it all falls back to my compulsion to not waste resources.

        And when all else has been considered, I pray for a bit of luck! 😆

        Like

      • …and to actually answer your question:- I feel no need to make any decisions about the bible because as an atheist it has no direct bearing on me.
        The only effect the bible has on me is the way other people use it to impinge on me; my reactions to that would always depend on the usage:- ie the
        difference of theological-use varying, say a friendly debate and and a State Religion.

        (and sometimes in defence of those not able to defend themselves ~ like little kids. I’ve always thought instructing kids in ~ or even condoning the access of kids to ~ religious concepts (including even ‘beliefs’) ought to be treated as being in the worst-range of child-abuse.

        Most physical injuries heal, but brainwashing has a permanent effect ~ and is detrimental by definition.

        howzatt!?

        Like

  3. I agree with you Mon but disagree with Dabbles.

    Dabbles I just disagree because I don’t want to ruin our glorious disagreement run we have.

    Like

    • Jesus was speaking to Jews of that era. He thought he had been sent only to tbe ‘lost sheep of Israel’, but his destiny was greater than that. It took Paul to market the new Christianity, make it relevant worldwide.

      Since then its faults have been due to very human failings, not the basics.

      Like

      • ??? ” He thought he had been sent only to the ‘lost sheep of Israel’, but his destiny was greater than that.”

        So you reckon Paul got it right and god (aka ‘Jesus’) didn’t know what he was talking about?
        But isn’t this the same Jesus who allegedly ( and quite violently) converted, recruited and ‘ordained’ Paul to his cause?

        Or did god change his mind sometime between the resurrection (including the alleged OT ‘prophecies) and the Road to Damascus incident?

        …..and then, for effect, dramatised the whole issue as a holy row about foreskins?

        Like

      • He thought he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel ? He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.It was Israel last chance and they blew it.The covenant does continue with the believers.

        As for Paul

        I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

        Like

      • Par for the course, Strewth:-
        “…. its faults have been due to very human failings, not the basics.”
        But the problem is that the accumulations of ‘failings’ are what become dogma, and preached (and taught to youngsters) as absolute, inspired ‘truth’.

        Like

      • “As for Paul

        I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.”

        Davinci, could it possibly refer to Jesus speaking about Paul? !!

        Like

  4. Faith is by definition fundamentalist.
    To believe without evidence.
    To believe because of what you are told.
    To believe based on scripture.
    Scripture is the basis of fundamentalism. To take certain parts without believing the totality denies all of the scripture. Who tells us which part of scripture is correct, or not? It’s either divine or it is not.
    Without faith, there is no fundamentalism.

    Like

  5. Now they’ve just discovered another species of human. And so the puzzle continues.

    Evolution?

    E= MC2 ?

    Exciting though isn’t it?

    Like

    • http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
      Might be this?

      Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins

      Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries.
      In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years.

      ” In 2006, a team of French and Belgian researchers obtained a fragment of Neanderthal DNA dating back 100,000 years, which until now held the record for the oldest human DNA ever found.

      Meanwhile, using improved methods, Dr. Paabo, Dr. Meyer and their colleagues assembled a rough draft of the entire Neanderthal genome in 2010.

      That discovery shed light on how Neanderthals and humans’ ancestors split from a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago. It also revealed that Neanderthals and humans interbred about 50,000 years ago.

      Around the same time as that discovery, Russian collaborators sent the Max Planck team 80,000-year-old fossils they had found in a cave in Siberia called Denisova. When the German scientists sequenced the entire genome from the finger bone of a girl, it turned out to be neither human nor Neanderthal, but from a separate lineage, which Dr. Paabo and his colleagues named Denisovans.

      Dr. Meyer is hopeful that he and his colleagues will be able to get more DNA from the Spanish fossil, as well as other fossils from the site, to help solve the puzzle they have now stumbled across. “It’s extremely hard to make sense of,” Dr. Meyer said. “We still are a bit lost here.” “

      Like

      • But aren’t such anomalies just more evidence of the accuracy of the process?
        To discover ‘human’ DNA in creatures hundreds of thousands of years old proves without doubt that the processes of evolution do work in principle.
        We just haven’t figured out where all the bits go ~ and probably haven’t even discovered all the bits yet anyway.

        Did you see my offer of providing you an e-copy of ‘African Genesis’ (email or disc.) a week or so ago? Some of my posts ~ or even just parts of them ~ have been failing to make it to print lately. But it’s no trouble to send the stuff; it covers all this topic in convincing generalities. (and probably aren’t available in hardback any longer.
        Let me know.

        Like

      • ….But our ancestor about 80 million years ago is the same as the cat’s, as I understand it.

        (Don’t tell your moggies though Rian. They’ll want their own TV set remote control and a lend of the car when the tomcats are out and about!) 🙂

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s