Jump to content

Why Trust the Bible?


betsy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Intellectual dishonesty?  Review post #538 and #539.  Was it the "boomerang" that got to you?   

What else do you call admitting to selectively (and shall we say "loosely") interpreting certain passages to match modern science, while ignoring everything contradictory to modern science as "figure of speech"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TTM said:

What else do you call admitting to selectively (and shall we say "loosely") interpreting certain passages to match modern science, while ignoring everything contradictory to modern science as "figure of speech"

If you can't grasp the logic behind my explanation - what more can I say?  i-dunno-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

 Air Has Weight

 

 

Job 28

24 For He looks to the ends of the earth,
And sees under the whole heavens,

25 To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

 

Quote

It was only discovered by scientists in modern times that the air actually has weight. This passage in Job, however, written thirty-five or more centuries ago, indicated that the two great terrestrial fluids of air and water forming earth's atmosphere and hydrosphere are both "weighed" by God's careful "measure" to provide the right worldwide balance of forces for life on earth.

https://www.icr.org/article/6136

 

 

Quote

 

At first this might seem perplexing. On the one hand, air just seems to float there. I mean, to say something is ‘as light as air’ is to say its weightless, isn’t it? However, a strong wind can pull branches down and send things flying, so air isn’t exactly nothing.

Air does, in fact, have weight, and here’s a simple way you can prove it.

 

http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/heavy-air/

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If you can't grasp the logic behind my explanation - what more can I say? 

Let's try this.  

Your argument: God has intimate knowledge of his creation, i.e there's modern science hidden in the bible

Evidence: Selected bible passages, often interpreted in a way that contradicts their face value meaning; i.e. interpreted as figures of speech which can be rephrased in a way that supports current scientific understanding. Many other passages that contadict modern science ignored or handwaved away as figures of speech with no real meaning.  

My argument: The cosmology of the bible is that of the ancient Hebrews, as described in contemporary documents like 1 Enoch, and in no way matches modern scientific understanding.

Evidence: Every single bible passage dealing with or touching on cosmology, taken at face value. 

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TTM said:

Let's try this.  

Your argument: God has intimate knowledge of his creation, i.e there's modern science hidden in the bible

 

 

Wrong.

You don't even understand the argument!

 

I ignored the rest of your post.  What more can I say?  i-dunno-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gif

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy this is where I am going to bail.  If the rest of us are smarter than I was (for sticking around way too long) they'll probably bail as well.  You can't argue with someone who calls anyone a fool for disagreeing with her.  A Christian version of our friend Altai.

I mean....Jesus Christ! (oops)

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Betsy this is where I am going to bail.  If the rest of us are smarter than I was (for sticking around way too long) they'll probably bail as well.  You can't argue with someone who calls anyone a fool for disagreeing with her.  A Christian version of our friend Altai.

I mean....Jesus Christ! (oops)

 

It isn't due to the disagreement, James.  It is about the use of reason.

If you want to try to refute the argument (and the evidences), do so.  However, if you're going to debate about it,      using logic is very much a big part of it. 

You even want to discuss about something else.  Changing the subject, isn't a rebuttal. 

Either you participate or not.....or even ignore the thread, that's your choice.  And, anybody's choice for that matter.  They can choose to follow you and bail as well.  Just so to be clear:  This thread was not created for just a bunch of posters.

This thread was created to serve other purpose. No response(s) required.

 

What more can I say?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Wrong.

You don't even understand the argument!

Oh, I understand all right.  You apparently don't recognise a dismissive rephrasing when you see one.

5 hours ago, betsy said:

I ignored the rest of your post.  What more can I say?  i-dunno-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gif

You could *try* to refute it ... I mean I'm not sure what sort of twisted "logic" and random non sequiturs you could use to do so, but I have faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

 

The Singing Stars

 

 

Job 38

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When
the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

Stars? Singing?

 

Quote

 

NASA Finds Singing Stars

 

NASA has discovered a group of massive red stars that are actually humming to themselves.

The planet-hunting Kepler space telescope recently spotted sound waves emanating from the stars, the Wall Street Journal reports. NASA recorded the tune, and played it recently at a press conference in Denmark. “It is a giant red concert,” says the astronomer who made the recording. “They have many different frequencies and overtones.”

 

http://www.newser.com/story/104101/nasa-finds-singing-stars.html

 

 

"Scientists have turned light signals from distant stars into sound. By analysing the amount of hiss in the sound, they can work out the star's surface gravity and what stage it's at in its evolution from dwarf to red giant."

 

 

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, Betsy.  We can agree to disagree on the point of the bible and its correlation with science.  OK.  Is it possible to avoid that for now?

I've noticed you've made several different threads here about the Bible, all based on things we've been talking about here, that essentially relate to why one should trust the bible. 

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Fine, Betsy.  We can agree to disagree on the point of the bible and its correlation with science.  OK.  Is it possible to avoid that for now?

I've noticed you've made several different threads here about the Bible, all based on things we've been talking about here, that essentially relate to why one should trust the bible. 

 

You still here?  I thought you already bailed out?  Now, how can you be credible when you can't even keep your own word? :D

 

Yeah......I created various threads.   But like all things, even subjects "evolve,"  isn't that right? :)

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.





The First Law of Thermodynamics



Genesis 2
*Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
2*And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3*Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.





 
 
Quote

As far as the laws or processes of the physical universe are concerned, these all devolve upon two extremely broad and powerful principles, the so-called first and second Laws of thermodynamics. Let it be emphasized that, if there is really such a thing as a law of science, these two principles meet that definition. There is no other scientific law supported more fully and certainly by more numerous and meaningful lines of evidence than are these two laws.

All physical processes (and all biologic processes, for that matter) involve the interplay of two basic entities called energy and entropy.

One could say that any event occurring in space and time is a manifestation of some form of exchange of energy. The particular event or process basically is just this transformation of one or more forms of energy (kinetic or motion energy, electrical, chemical, light, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear, or other forms of energy) into one or more other forms.

In this process, the total energy remains unchanged; no energy is either created or destroyed, although its form may and does change. This is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy.


This law has been validated on both the cosmic and sub-nuclear scales and is a truly universal law, if there is such a thing.
And, since energy really includes everything, even matter, in the physical universe, it is as certain as anything can possibly be, scientifically, that no creation of anything is now taking place in the universe, under the normal conditions which science is able to study.

The Bible Is a Textbook of Science | The Institute for Creation Research



 
 
Quote


The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed.
It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.*

https://www.livescience.com/50881-fi...odynamics.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Betsy, you've already mentioned the law of thermodynamics, again and again and again.  How can we take you seriously when you sound like a broken record?

Also, do you believe in evolution? Including humans from more primitive species into Homo sapiens?

The other one was the SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS.  I forgot to add the first law. 

But thanks to DOP's post in the other thread (and thanks to you too, for getting me to revisit that thread).....I was reminded of my neglect.

 

 

Here let's put up the recap page again:

 

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation - evidences given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

Refer to post #57 for some detailed explanations.  All from the Book of Genesis 1 and 2:

*In the beginning (consistent with science's discovery that the universe had a beginning)

*All waters gather to one place, and land appear (consistent with science's claim that in the early times there was only one super ocean and only one super continent - Pangaea and Panthalassa)

*The waters bringing forth creatures that has life (compatible with evolutionist claim that life started in the water).

*"After their kind" in relation to reproduction - without any mention of genders, except to humans - male and female - (consistent with science discovery that some species don't require a mate in order to reproduce.  Some creatures are asexual)

*God formed man from dust (consistent with science finding that the human body is made up of elements that comes from dirt/dust).

*God's curse towards the snake that it would from henceforth crawl on its belly and eat dust (compatible with science's discovery that snakes used to have limbs or legs)

*Man's dominion of animals (consistent with reality - as can be observed, even today)

------------------------


*Stretches the Heavens (consistent with science discovery that the universe is stretching).  Take note that most of the verses uses the present tense "stretches."   How appropriate!  The universe is still stretching.

 

Job 9:8  He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea.

Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 48:13; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12

Jeremiah 51:15;  Zechariah 12:1

-----------------------------------------------------------

*Psalm 102:25-26, Isaiah 51:6, Hebrews 1:10-11 indicate the universe is wearing out (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics)

 

Hydrological Cycle  (post #454)

 

Atoms (post #478)

 

Springs in the Oceans  (post #493)

 

PATHS OF THE SEAS  (post #495)

 

THE EARTH IS ROUND (post #526)

 

AXIAL TILT (post #526)

 

AIR HAS WEIGHT (post #551)

 

THE SINGING STARS (post  #561)

 

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (POST #566)

 

Oh boy, the list is surely getting long! :)

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation - evidences given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

 

Chicken Came First

 

 

Genesis 1

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 

 

Quote

 

According to the Creator of chickens, and the author of the Record of their origins, chickens came first. It was on the Fifth Day of Creation Week that He created "every winged fowl after [their] kind" (Genesis 1:21) complete with the DNA to reproduce that kind. Then He "blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply" (v.22) using that DNA. For the chickens this meant lay chicken eggs. Problem solved.

 

Chickens are amazingly complex creatures, with their hollow bones, intricate feathers, four-chambered heart, continuous air intake, high metabolism, complex brain, good hearing, superb color vision, etc. Modern domestic chickens aren't very good flyers, having been bred to stay home, but neither were the recently wild forefathers of chickens from which they were bred. Everything about a chicken suggests careful design.

Even a chicken's egg is well designed. The embryo nestles safely inside, surrounded and cushioned by amniotic fluid and nourished by the yolk. Metabolic wastes are insulated from the rest, while oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged across the hard but porous shell.

A healthy female chicken produces just such a system nearly once a day, and can even preserve male sperm inside her body to continue fertilizing eggs for several days after mating. The creationist can clearly see the Creator's hand in each feature, phase, and function of both chicken and egg.

 

 

https://www.icr.org/article/3


 

 

Quote

 

They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg


Scientists yesterday claimed to have cracked the riddle of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

The answer, they say, is the chicken. Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.

Therefore,
an egg can exist only if it has been inside a chicken.

 

The protein - called ovocledidin-17, or OC-17 - acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

This hard shell is essential to house the yolk and its protective fluids while the chick develops inside.

 

Scientists from Sheffield and Warwick universities used a super computer to 'zoom in' on the formation of an egg.

The computer, called HECToR and based in Edinburgh, revealed that OC-17 is crucial in kick-starting crystallisation - the early stages of the creation of a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which make up the shell.

Calcite crystals are found in numerous bones and shells but chickens form them quicker than any other species - creating six grams (0.2oz) of shell every 24 hours.


 

Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials, said: 'It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first.

'The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294341/Chicken-really-DID-come-egg-say-scientists.html#ixzz4lVyYBYhE
 


 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, betsy said:

*All waters gather to one place, and land appear (consistent with science's claim that in the early times there was only one super ocean and only one super continent - Pangaea and Panthalassa)

Actually, the landmasses expanded and contracted several times, to be precise.  But I'm sure you were implying that.

Read:

On time scales lasting hundreds of millions of years, the supercontinents have assembled and broken apart. Roughly 750 Mya (million years ago), one of the earliest known supercontinents, Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600–540 Mya, then finally Pangaea, which also broke apart 180 Mya.[71    (Wikipedia, "Earth")

5 hours ago, betsy said:

*"After their kind" in relation to reproduction - without any mention of genders, except to humans - male and female - (consistent with science discovery that some species don't require a mate in order to reproduce.  Some creatures are asexual)

I'm assuming you mean animal species mostly.  They're actually not called "asexual" but "hermaphroditic".  Asexual reproduction is typically observed in single-celled organisms.  But maybe you actually single-celled organisms when you said "asexual".  I'm sure that's what you meant, though.

5 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy, it is impressive that you have cited these scientific principles.  But your understanding of them is somewhat flawed, and at best, "Pseudo-" scientific.

OK, laws of Thermodynamics, universe expansion and evolution aside, this is where I have a problem with your main argument, and you seem to keep dodging this point, as well, and continuing to mention the same thing over and over again.  (I can read by the way, I have read your posts, it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc.  I don't need to remember, because as I just pointed out, I can read, and I've read your posts, and it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc., and of course see what I said in this exact paragraph about the fact that I can read your repetitious posts.  I can read.)

Anywho, the problem I have with your main argument---and you can see this point above, because I made it, see?--is that these "details" in the Bible are BIBLICAL TRADITIONS.  God wasn't trying to teach his divinely-inspired authors scientific principles, because they would not have understood them.  They are meant to illustrate a point of some sort.  Jesus teaches his followers in the NT parables.  Similarly, Jewish leaders were instructing the faithful via the traditions mentioned there (the Jewish Canon/AKA the old testament).

Religion is not meant to prop up science.  Science is not meant to prop up religion.  They are two different realms that attempt to explain the unknown.  Religion is different from science in that you cannot prove it.  That is what the word Faith means: you have strong belief in something that you cannot prove empirically.  God did not leave proof of his existence.  If he did, and the biblical traditions are meant to prop up scientific fact, then why would Faith be required?

Can you trust the Bible? Yes, you certainly can.  But it depends what you trust it to do!!!

If you're trusting it to "prove" scientific fact, the Bible will be entirely untrustworthy.  We can prove that the universe was created in the Big Bang.  Bravo, Betsy.  However, we cannot prove that the Big Bang was a result of a creator-entity with biblical verses; likewise, we cannot prove those biblical verses with scientific knowledge.  It requires, again, Faith.  You're not helping the Bible, or Christianity (or Judaism), or the wisdom contained within, or the Word of Jesus Christ by trying to tart it up in the garb of science and mathematics.

On the other hand, if you trust the bible to be a moral and spiritual guide, a solid foundation of Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then it is entirely trustworthy.  Spot on.  I believe that, too.  I went to Sunday school growing up, too, btw.  I have a copy of the Bible (two actually) and read it sometimes.  There is great wisdom contained within.  However, they are usually related as parables (in the NT principally) and ancient Hebrew traditions about the world (in the OT principally) that must be taken, not in a literal sense, but as a moral and spiritual guide.  A devout Christian can definitely trust the bible to do that.

In order to ask "Why trust the Bible" you must first ask "Trust it to do what?"  If you forget this step, you have matter and antimatter.  They touch, kaboom (called "annihilation" by the eggheads).  I think it's great that you have faith in God.  I think it's terrible that you have put that faith in dire jeopardy by using it as a rubric for empirical proof of science.  Science cannot prove religion.  Religion cannot prove science.  You're looking for a "shortcut" to Faith, Betsy.  There is none.

My problem with your argument is not that your science is wrong, or that your biblical quotations are inaccurate.  My problem with your argument is the nasty admixture of the empirical and the faithful.  You can't ask WHY trust the bible, unless you ask, TRUST IT TO DO WHAT?

OK, I hope that explains it.  If it does not, I'm terribly sorry.  I will pray for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Betsy, it is impressive that you have cited these scientific principles.  But your understanding of them is somewhat flawed, and at best, "Pseudo-" scientific.

OK, laws of Thermodynamics, universe expansion and evolution aside, this is where I have a problem with your main argument, and you seem to keep dodging this point, as well, and continuing to mention the same thing over and over again.  (I can read by the way, I have read your posts, it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc.  I don't need to remember, because as I just pointed out, I can read, and I've read your posts, and it would save time if you stopped saying "but remember what I said above..." etc., and of course see what I said in this exact paragraph about the fact that I can read your repetitious posts.  I can read.)

Anywho, the problem I have with your main argument---and you can see this point above, because I made it, see?--is that these "details" in the Bible are BIBLICAL TRADITIONS.  God wasn't trying to teach his divinely-inspired authors scientific principles, because they would not have understood them.  They are meant to illustrate a point of some sort.  Jesus teaches his followers in the NT parables.  Similarly, Jewish leaders were instructing the faithful via the traditions mentioned there (the Jewish Canon/AKA the old testament).

Religion is not meant to prop up science.  Science is not meant to prop up religion.  They are two different realms that attempt to explain the unknown.  Religion is different from science in that you cannot prove it.  That is what the word Faith means: you have strong belief in something that you cannot prove empirically.  God did not leave proof of his existence.  If he did, and the biblical traditions are meant to prop up scientific fact, then why would Faith be required?

Can you trust the Bible? Yes, you certainly can.  But it depends what you trust it to do!!!

If you're trusting it to "prove" scientific fact, the Bible will be entirely untrustworthy.  We can prove that the universe was created in the Big Bang.  Bravo, Betsy.  However, we cannot prove that the Big Bang was a result of a creator-entity with biblical verses; likewise, we cannot prove those biblical verses with scientific knowledge.  It requires, again, Faith.  You're not helping the Bible, or Christianity (or Judaism), or the wisdom contained within, or the Word of Jesus Christ by trying to tart it up in the garb of science and mathematics.

On the other hand, if you trust the bible to be a moral and spiritual guide, a solid foundation of Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then it is entirely trustworthy.  Spot on.  I believe that, too.  I went to Sunday school growing up, too, btw.  I have a copy of the Bible (two actually) and read it sometimes.  There is great wisdom contained within.  However, they are usually related as parables (in the NT principally) and ancient Hebrew traditions about the world (in the OT principally) that must be taken, not in a literal sense, but as a moral and spiritual guide.  A devout Christian can definitely trust the bible to do that.

In order to ask "Why trust the Bible" you must first ask "Trust it to do what?"  If you forget this step, you have matter and antimatter.  They touch, kaboom (called "annihilation" by the eggheads).  I think it's great that you have faith in God.  I think it's terrible that you have put that faith in dire jeopardy by using it as a rubric for empirical proof of science.  Science cannot prove religion.  Religion cannot prove science.  You're looking for a "shortcut" to Faith, Betsy.  There is none.

My problem with your argument is not that your science is wrong, or that your biblical quotations are inaccurate.  My problem with your argument is the nasty admixture of the empirical and the faithful.  You can't ask WHY trust the bible, unless you ask, TRUST IT TO DO WHAT?

OK, I hope that explains it.  If it does not, I'm terribly sorry.  I will pray for you.

 

You can give your spin anyway you want, but It doesn't explain "it," James.

What I'm posting - along with compatibility or consistency with scientific discoveries/explanation - clearly contradict your given view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

 Earth was covered with water

 

Genesis 1

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

 

From that passage, the Bible clearly describes earth as being covered by a global sea.  That description is supported by science.

 

Quote

 

Ancient Earth was a barren waterworld

 

By David Shiga

DRY land may be something of a novelty. Until around 2.5 billion years ago our planet was almost completely covered by water, a model of the early Earth suggests.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I'm assuming you mean animal species mostly.  They're actually not called "asexual" but "hermaphroditic".  Asexual reproduction is typically observed in single-celled organisms.  But maybe you actually single-celled organisms when you said "asexual".  I'm sure that's what you meant, though.

I mean, "asexual!"

 

Quote

Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it does not involve the fusion of gametes, and almost never changes the number of chromosomes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the Archaea and bacteria.

Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

 

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


 

Quote

 

Parthenogenesis is a mode of asexual reproduction in which offspring are produced by females without the genetic contribution of a male.

Among all the sexual vertebrates, the only examples of true parthenogenesis, in which all-female populations reproduce without the involvement of males, are found in squamate reptiles (snakes and lizards).[

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Quote

 

On 6/30/2017 at 4:08 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

I'm assuming you mean animal species mostly.  They're actually not called "asexual" but "hermaphroditic".  Asexual reproduction is typically observed in single-celled organisms.  But maybe you actually single-celled organisms when you said "asexual".  I'm sure that's what you meant, though.

 

No, not hermaphroditic.  Some hermaphroditics require a partner.

 

Quote

A hermaphrodite possesses both male and female reproductive organs during their life span. Some of these animals self-fertilize, while others require a partner. Hermaphroditism is a varied mode of reproduction that manifests differently depending on the affected species.

http://animals.mom.me/list-hermaphrodite-animals-2829.html

 

Some insects are asexual.

 

Quote

However, some species of aphid, ant, parasitic wasp, bee, midge, grasshopper and stick insect can reproduce asexually, through a process called parthenogenesis. In this type of asexual reproduction, the female can generate an embryo without the help of a male's sperm.

 
 
Various animals are asexual.
 

 

Quote

 

Microorganisms and Animals

A wide variety of microorganisms reproduce asexually.

Protozoans, bacteria and a group of algae called diatoms reproduce through fission. The simple microscopic animals known as cnidaria and the annelids, also called ringworms, reproduce through fragmentation.

 

Biologists have discovered nearly 70 species of vertebrates that can reproduce parthogenetically. Examples include frogs, chickens, turkeys, Komodo dragons and hammerhead sharks.

 

http://sciencing.com/list-asexually-reproducing-organisms-8758003.html

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...