religion and hybrids

[rich333]

But... But... God.... IS an alien!!!!

When he (they) created man.... Was the first hybrid not created?

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

One could certainly make a case that man is a hybrid, but one could also certainly make a case that Eve was the first clone experiment seeing that she was made from Adam's rib. Some may even believe that the anunnaki bred with us as well. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens had to have evolved from some other species and as such I can certainly believe that we shared not only ancestors, but also a little bit of mixing back and forth. Human intergrades/hybrids....

 

[Kokopelli]

As far as I'm aware, the matter of hybrids is mentioned in the bible and the concept is completely shunned.
Here we go...

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k0319.htm

"בהמתך לא-תרביע כלאיים, שדך לא-תזרע כלאיים; ובגד כלאיים שעטנז, לא יעלה עליך"
Translation:
Do not breed or condone to hybrid mating, and something about not wearing clothes from hybrid origin or somesuch?

This is a rough translation... it's kind of OLD Hebrew

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

Keep my decrees.Do not mate different kinds of animals.Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.Leveticus 19:19

One must understand what a kind is though to understand this passage. To understand that, one must understand a bit about baraminologoy see picture above. One must also realize that there are lumpers and splitters.

 

[Kokopelli]

forcing logic into outdated verses is, at best, a wild guess at the original intention of the writer.
So... those who believe in the bible and so forth, can make their own logic as to how things fit together... but to present said logic as though it's obvious fact, well... that's really reaching.

Understanding evolution and creation of species is not necessary to understand a verse from the new or old testament. The word of the letter is explicit and straight-forward... adding all sorts of explanations is just twisting and "making adjustments", which may or may not sit with the original intention of the writer.
AKA, guessing.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

forcing logic into outdated verses is, at best, a wild guess at the original intention of the writer.
So... those who believe in the bible and so forth, can make their own logic as to how things fit together... but to present said logic as though it's obvious fact, well... that's really reaching.

Understanding evolution and creation of species is not necessary to understand a verse from the new or old testament. The word of the letter is explicit and straight-forward... adding all sorts of explanations is just twisting and "making adjustments", which may or may not sit with the original intention of the writer.
AKA, guessing.

I'd have to argue with all the different interpretations of the bible, kinds of bibles, sects, etc... that a great many interpret things differently from one another... that there is a lot of guessing. As for the intentions of the many writers of the bible....

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

As for your comment about trying to force logic out of those verses written by so many different authors.... that would be a serious undertaking to do in earnest.

 

[Kokopelli]

"One must understand what a kind is though to understand this passage. To understand that, one must understand a bit about baraminologoy see picture above. One must also realize that there are lumpers and splitters."

This is you stating that scientific knowledge is required to understand a verse from the new testament.
As I recall organized religion and the church VERY much opposed Darwin's theory of evolution, and now to state that science is -required- to really understand a verse is, to me, illogical.

 

[beautifullywild77]

Round and Round the mulberry bush! :bowdown: Circle talking talking circle. :spinner:

One must hit ones head against ones wall to understand ones ranting. :headbang: Headaches are given to oneself and one have given up on ones babble. :sidestep:

:toiletgra :toiletgra :toiletgra :toiletgra :toiletgra :toiletgra

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

"One must understand what a kind is though to understand this passage. To understand that, one must understand a bit about baraminologoy see picture above. One must also realize that there are lumpers and splitters."

This is you stating that scientific knowledge is required to understand a verse from the new testament.
As I recall organized religion and the church VERY much opposed Darwin's theory of evolution, and now to state that science is -required- to really understand a verse is, to me, illogical.

Baraminology is creationist science... aka as Christian Science aka Pseudo Science. This is the science that christians use to explain how we have so much diversity from the original kinds that god.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

.... created. In this manner, they can claim that we do not all share a common ancestor, but we do share common ancestors with our kind.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
"Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. Its proponents claim that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Creation science is criticized as pseudoscientific by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] which accepts the evidence for the common ancestry of all life on Earth"

Now do you understand what I am saying? According to creationist science... religion... all snakes are of a kind and descended from a common ancestor. Thus, a simple honduran x corn is not a hybrid in the biblical sense as entertained by creationists. Rather a corn x human would be considered a hybrid and one should not do that in the biblical sense or one should not lay with sheep, goats, etc.

 

[Becca58]

Should be plenty for everyone.

 

[Kokopelli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
"Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. Its proponents claim that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Creation science is criticized as pseudoscientific by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] which accepts the evidence for the common ancestry of all life on Earth"

Now do you understand what I am saying? According to creationist science... religion... all snakes are of a kind and descended from a common ancestor. Thus, a simple honduran x corn is not a hybrid in the biblical sense as entertained by creationists. Rather a corn x human would be considered a hybrid and one should not do that in the biblical sense or one should not lay with sheep, goats, etc.

It is not a very difficult notion to grasp.
Only problem is, that it is just another theory, out of thousands, that were made during the course of human history, with each creator of a theory stating that his is the -right- one.

The fact that someone picked and chose the scientific bits that fit his views(which, again, I find amusing in light of the fact that religion opposed science, and still does, with all sorts of outdated ideas- to suddenly claim that Darwin's theory of evolution is -neccessary- in order to understand an outdated book that came way before that, when for eons organized religion already claimed they knew everything there is to know... the whole notion is absurd) and made a religion confirming theory doesn't make this particular hypothesis is any truer than insisting that we are not a product of evolution, or any other idea that ever rose.

There are serious scientific criticism against Baraminology- dodging the facts that fit their views, and using only the specific facts that fit them.

The main difference is, that science delivers a theory and states "this is how it is -likely- to have went down".

Religious concepts, and Baraminology, state: "This is how it went down."

One leaves room for further study and critically evaluates every single finding- constantly willing to be refuted.

The other seeks only those findings that empowers it's views, while dismissing serious, critical study.

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

It is not a very difficult notion to grasp.
Only problem is, that it is just another theory, out of thousands, that were made during the course of human history, with each creator of a theory stating that his is the -right- one.

The fact that someone picked and chose the scientific bits that fit his views(which, again, I find amusing in light of the fact that religion opposed science, and still does, with all sorts of outdated ideas- to suddenly claim that Darwin's theory of evolution is -neccessary- in order to understand an outdated book that came way before that, when for eons organized religion already claimed they knew everything there is to know... the whole notion is absurd) and made a religion confirming theory doesn't make this particular hypothesis is any truer than insisting that we are not a product of evolution, or any other idea that ever rose.

There are serious scientific criticism against Baraminology- dodging the facts that fit their views, and using only the specific facts that fit them.

The main difference is, that science delivers a theory and states "this is how it is -likely- to have went down".

Religious concepts, and Baraminology, state: "This is how it went down."

One leaves room for further study and critically evaluates every single finding- constantly willing to be refuted.

The other seeks only those findings that empowers it's views, while dismissing serious, critical study.

I agree with much of what you are saying, without picking your argument apart. My point in bringing up religious context of how hybrids are viewed is simply to point out that if one is a christian creationist... i.e. one believes that god did in fact create snakes, cows, etc. without all sharing a common ancestor then this can indeed affect how one perceives or views what a hybrid is. The very real problem is many christians who believe in creationism simply do not understand baraminology or evolution as taught by the religious right or the scientific community respectfully. What I am trying to say is that there may be aversions to hybrids due to religious beliefs that it is wrong without truly understanding what their religion means by hybrids or breeding one kind to another. It is quite possible that one has simply not focused on why one feels a particular way about an issue such as hybrids without examining the scientific facts or even the religious (facts?) about an issue such as hybrids. It is my opinion that the vast majority of those that are keeping corn snakes as a hobby or breeding them are not conservationists releasing said snakes back into the wild to replenish the natural population. With that said, exotic corn snake morphs have no place being reintroduced into the wild. They have often been selectively bred by man from many different regions or localities which would never have happened in nature and selected for traits... temperament... etc. in an unnatural way. Man breeds animals all the time via unnatural means, artificial insemination comes to mind. These animals never even see their counterparts and in some cases could not breed (large turkeys) even if they wanted to. Why is the creation of a snake between two different species as defined by man any worse than any of that? Hybrids however one wishes to define them are not meant to be reintroduced to replace any parent species nor are any designer corn snakes meant to be reintroduced into the wild in the same manner that domestic dogs are not meant to be reintroduced into the wild to replace a lost wolf population. Hybrids and designer morphs are simply for ones personal enjoyment. Does ones religious views affect how one views hybrids? Do we even truly understand that breeding a female cornduran to a male corn snake does not adversely affect the breeding pool of wild corn snakes nor does it reduce the genetic diversity of corn snake genes in the hobby. One can after all turn around and use that same male corn snake to breed with another female corn snake in the hobby. Is it the selective peer pressure of those with creationist views of hybrids or other religious views of hybrids that affects how others view hybrids? This is a hobby and I see no difference between those that took the effort to breed so many new domesticated dog breeds over the last 250 years than those inspiring to do the same with corn snakes and hybrids thereof. We would not think of releasing domesticated dogs back into the wild as a conservation effort to bring back a lost wolf population and neither should we think of releasing corndurans back into the wild to replace lost corn snake or honduran populations in the wild. And before someone gets back on the baraminology argument that all dogs are dogs.... let me again state that man has used Jackals to breed with domesticated dogs... I'm a lumper others may be splitters, but in the end this is a hobby group.... not a conservationist group. The two groups go about things completely differently.

 

[beautifullywild77]

paragraphs are your friend!

 

[Lennycorn]

paragraphs are your friend!

I feel a big blob of text comming!! lol

 

[Carpe Serpentis]

paragraphs are your friend!

Nice input, any thoughts other than paragraphs?

Hybrid snakes in a person's collection is comparable to dogs in a person's house. Neither were intended to replace their wild counterparts in any sort of conservationist way. Neither are domesticated designer morph corn snakes designed or bred to be replacements for their wild counterpart locality snakes. Dogs have been bred with Jackals....

Breeding a hybrid corn in no way diminishes the gene pools diversity in the hobby field given that the corn snake that is used to make a hybrid can still be bred to a pure corn of any local or designer morph that one wishes to breed it to. In fact, one could argue that hybrids increase genetic diversity as it allows for the introduction of new patterns, color morphs, temperament, etc. to be introduced into the gene pool.

How one looks at a group of animals whether it be through the creationist "kinds" or the more scientific "species" concept... can influence how one perceives hybrids as well as to whether we consider them right or wrong as many do look towards their religious beliefs consciously or subconsciously when deciding whether something is okay. Sometimes a thought pattern is so ingrained or a way of seeing things is so ingrained that we never really stop to see or reflect on how or why we believe the way we do about another subject.

The methods used to create hybrids are no more strange or absurd than artificial insemination used to create turkey breeds that can no longer breed without the aid of such insemination. Many animals are bred with artificial insemination. Some consider this artificial insemination as helping the process along when to dogs, horses, etc. will not mate willing with one another for whatever reason.

Again, one can look at this through the baraminology viewpoint that all horses are horses and all dogs are dogs... but this is not really so anymore than one can say that dogs can replace their wild wolf counterparts in the wild. Dogs should never be used in any conservationist view to replace lost wolf populations and neither should designer corn snakes or hybrid corn snakes be used to do such.

However, one could use the baraminology or religious viewpoint of creationists to say that all snakes are snakes and they all evolved from the one original kind. This would mean that any breeding of a corn snake to one of its more distantly related relatives could indeed be perceived as breeding back to that original purity represented by the original snake (kind) as defined by creationists who believe god created all animals by poofing them into existence along with man.


So, perhaps hybridizers are breeding back towards the original pure kind. Hybrids should perhaps be noted for being one step closer to that original kind or purity thereof.

Either way you slice it, hybrid snakes, designer morph corn snakes, or domesticated dogs.... none of them are meant to be used in a conservationist way to replace their wild counterparts and none of these designer animals are being bred to do so.

 

[Kokopelli]

I am failing to understand the point of the debate.

According to the written word, and the older approach- religion shuns hybrids.

The various alterations and mutations that some of the different religious translations took do not adhere to the written word anyway... so what's the point you're trying to make here?

So according to one such approach, one -could- make the statements you made- all of which are untested, unproven, and are far, FAR from having a decent scientific basis.

So... I think that it's like trying to eat the cake and keep it whole... shaping the meaning of the text to fit one own's views... to the point which it pretty much counters the original verse.

Just say you disagree with the concept and be done with it... your argument is opinion-based and cannot possibly resolve this discussion.

 

[diamondlil]

If a person subscribed to such views on hybrids being unacceptable, wouldn't they be quite likely to regard snakes as pretty much the same?