Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Syriusly]

This study goes to show that our MRCA live a couple thousand years ago. Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

'Most recent common ancestor' of all living humans surprisingly recent

RWS where is your MRCA timeline?

http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureCommonAncestors-Article.pdf

What does this study mean?

Not what you think. In particular it doesn't say that human beings came into being a few thousand years ago- noting:

. A more recent MRCA would not arise until
the groups were once again well integrated. In the case of Tasmania,
which may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia
between the flooding of the Bass Strait, 9,000–12,000 years ago, and
the European colonization of the island, starting in 1803 (ref. 13),
the IA date for all living humans must fall before the start of
isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because
today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some
European or mainland Australian ancestry

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old..

Any evidence that the earth is less than say 1 million years old? Christians have argued for hundreds of years that the Bible indicates that the earth is some 6,000 year old. There is no evidence- none- to support that.

You want to know his evidence? Read the article he cites.

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

It's not the web, but the Bible that has the answers. .

Tell us about where the Bible tells us the answer to the structure of DNA?
How about where the Bible explains to us why humans and chimpanzees are both physiologically similar- but also genetically almost identical?
Tell us about how the Bible tells us that giant Galapagos tortoises got from Mt. Ararat to the Galapagos- but nowhere else? And how the kangaroo got to Australia from Mt. Ararat- but nowhere else. Matter of fact- tells where the bible even mentions the kangaroo.

Do I think that the Bible has the answers for your own issues of faith- sure. But it doesn't have the answers to scientific questions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Best book about evolution I ever read

You realize this is intended to be a conversation, not a cut-rate version of The New York Times Book Review?

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

 

[Syriusly]

Best book about evolution I ever read

You realize this is intended to be a conversation, not a cut-rate version of The New York Times Book Review?

How many times have you referred to the Bible in this thread?

 

[Political Junky]

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Monkeys? Think back farther about the first simple forms of life on early planet Earth, later dinosaurs and mammals, now us. Humans are obviously not the same and much more advanced than any other life forms on Earth, yet the core guts of our bodies are much like all the other mammals. It is very easy to see that the human body is part of the evolution of life on Earth.

The mystery is the human spirit and advanced (compared to other forms of life on Earth) intelligence. It could be we are simply the highest form of evolution on this planet to this point and that it was inevitable that with the right conditions a mammal would develop into us. It could also be that the human mammal body is just a convenient vessel for the human spirit that is beyond having to have a body to exist.

You don't need to discount evolution or science to believe in God or religion, and shouldn't be dismayed that we are closely related to monkeys physically.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.

Yeah? Can you name any?

 

[james bond]

Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this. The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.

As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.

So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.

You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed. You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science. There is a lesson to be taught here..

First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.

One of the concerns of creationists is that we notice evolution is making regular people stupider. People make up any sort of wild theory and think it's science. The belief that humans evolved from apes to ape-humans is one of them.

Here is one anecdote told to me by a fellow believer:

"I’ve been amazed at all the ridiculous speculation in the supermarket science tabloids about ghost species, the formation of stars and planets, characteristics and composition of planets orbiting stars many light-years away from us, and past levels of oxygen in the atmospheres of Earth and Mars (and their temperatures) over the past hundreds of millions of years, based on nothing more than computer simulations.

Yes, I believe Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin really did fly Apollo 11 to the Moon and back. I’m not a kook who doesn’t believe in space travel. Despite my belief in space travel, I don’t believe Han Solo shortened the 20 parsec Kessel run to less than 12 parsecs, despite the fact that graphics showing how Solo shortened the distance (by taking the Millennium Falcon through the Akkadese Maelstrom) are much better quality than the TV pictures I watched when Apollo 11 went to the Moon."

Science Insanity

 

[james bond]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

I think people have a misconception of science. What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence). We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews. In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin. It's about what is the truth.

One can argue there is a lot of wrong religion the same as one can argue there is a lot of wrong science. This is part of seeking out the truth. There will always be disagreements. For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans. The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

 

[Syriusly]

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.

Yeah? Can you name any?

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for- among other things- suggesting that the universe was infinite- and that stars might be suns with planets of their own.

As far as persecution for the publishing the concept that the earth goes around the sun- that would be Galleleo of course.

The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church

Accused and convicted of 'heresy' for publishing a book that concluded that the Earth rotated around the Sun rather than the other way- Galleleo was actually under Catholic law to be tortured so his 'private views' could be examined- but the Pope prevented that.

Not that changed the fate of others who were tortured by the inquisition.

 

[Syriusly]

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this. The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.

As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.

So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.

You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed. You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science. There is a lesson to be taught here..

First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.

The lesson is that you have no idea what the study says- or what science is- all you have are insults to those who point out your idiocy.

There is nothing- absolutely nothing- about that study which supports anything in the Bible.

Nor is there any 'science' which supports the Biblical myth of the creation of earth, or the either of the Biblical myths about the creation of mankind.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

I think people have a misconception of science. What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence). We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews. In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin. It's about what is the truth..

We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.

The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.

Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.

The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.

You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

. For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans. The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.

Does he really? I remember you making that claim before and chasing it down- let us do that again.
Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University
"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

Does Lovejoy say that apes evolved from humans? Absolutely not.

Do you know what Lovejoy 'believes'?

That article was from 2009- 9 years ago- what does Lovejoy 'believe' now?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

Ah yes. The last resort of magical thinkers like you.

Lacking any argument AT ALL to refute what you're told, you simply dismiss it entirely and hope your lofty tone will fool everyone and keep them from seeing that you just can't answer.

It would be a humiliating display . . . if you were intelligent enough OR honest enough to have any sense of shame.

Your surrender is duly noted. When you have something REAL to say, perhaps you'll try again. For now, you may complete your ritual "running away, tail between legs".

 

[Shazoomx4]

Jewish is not only religion...
I born as Jewish..

"Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.

You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.

They usually don't have a choice.

I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.

And then the world would be fine...sans religion....

I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD... Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.

If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?
Wrong, if you were borne intoHin , let's say,
Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?

It is the truth and fact that is right. And I know Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews who have awakened to the truth of Our LORD JESUS the Messiah and have become CHRISTIANS (followers of Christ). Only the TRUTH shall set you free!

Acts 8:26-40

26 But as for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go over to the road that runs from Jerusalem through the Gaza Desert, arriving around noon.” 27 So he did, and who should be coming down the road but the Treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was now returning in his chariot, reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah.

29 The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and walk along beside the chariot.”

30 Philip ran over and heard what he was reading and asked, “Do you understand it?”

31 “Of course not!” the man replied. “How can I when there is no one to instruct me?” And he begged Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him.

32 The passage of Scripture he had been reading from was this:

“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the shearers, so he opened not his mouth; 33 in his humiliation, justice was denied him; and who can express the wickedness of the people of his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?”

35 So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him about Jesus.

36 As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?”

37 “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.”

And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Meanwhile, Philip found himself at Azotus! He preached the Good News there and in every city along the way, as he traveled to Caesarea.

If you were borne into a different religion, you would not be quoting those things. You would be quoting different things.

It's about brainwashing. And the best way to do it is at birth...

Jewish is a nation, not a race... and not only religion, for example, I am Jewish Because my parents are Jewish. but I have no religion and, I an atheist

 

[Wyatt earp]

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

Great post , yet you want to ignore the obvious ..