Genesis 1:1 - heavens and earth had a beginning. This is contrary to the educated minds of past centuries, but in harmony with modern scientific discovery. The assertion in Steadt State theory that our universe had no beginning has been disproven, though astronomer Fred Hoyle did make accurate scientific observations.“Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."Good post Actually black people are usually various shades of brown, and white people are never pure white. But, yes, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu showed in his book "Man's most dangerous myth - the fallacy of race" he shows that all races are related and that the variance within so-called races is usually greater than the variation of races. I think that was the book where I learned 'Peking man" had a similar skull size and structure to that of the Vedda of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Genetic studies have long shown all races of man have a common origin in harmony with what the Bible actually teaches, e.g.:Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point, and it's also useless for accounting for calculating time ranges. It also merely shows adaptations, not how or when genuine mutations affected later DNA and rates of changes, nor how they spread so efficiently, nor the differences in racial characteristics. They in fact demonstrate just how useless racial factors are. Black peoples' genes in Norway don't seem to be in any hurry to turn them into blonde blue eyed white people, and white South Africans never showed any trend toward turning into Zulus, and neither Spanish nor German South Americans, after some 500 years, haven't turned into indians, or even mestizos.And the DNA record.
Acts 17:26 (NW)
And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+
More recently, studies have shown that all races also come from one woman - the mitochondrial Eve, and from one man - the y-chromosomal Adam. You are correct that the molecular clock is not reliable at all - so I disregard the dates and stick with the actual genetic research when I am researching this subject:
First from our literature giving the basics of this genetic finding:
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."
The following source is off on the dating (molecular clock) but accurate on the genetics:
"In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". "
Note, however, the assertion (with zero proof) that there were other mothers before the mtDNA Eve. This is based on the assumption that the previous mother had only one daughter. This is very unlikely since the population was lower and large families would have been more likely. e.g Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had plural daughters.
Concerning the Y-chromosomal Adam:
A pair of genetic studies has pushed back age of men's most recent common ancestor.www.sciencenews.org
Y chromosome in descendants of one human male In human genetics, Y chromosomal Adam ( Y MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of…enacademic.com
"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only)."
"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living males are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally."
I’m not sure what history you can find in genesis is credible. How does anyone make credible examinations of supernatural events.
Who is the One on the scene who authored genesis?
For centuries Aristotle's eternal universe model was taught - even accepted by religions.
See this article:
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
"To provide some perspective, let us go to the fourth century B.C.E., about a century after the writing of the Old Testament—the Hebrew portion of the Bible—was completed. At that time, the Greek philosopher Aristotle was teaching the leading scholars of his day about the physical heavens. Today, he is still ranked among the most influential scientists who ever lived. (See the box on page 25.) According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, “Aristotle was the first genuine scientist in history. . . . Every scientist is in his debt.”
Aristotle carefully worked out a model for the cosmos. He proposed a system in which the earth was at the center of a universe made of over 50 crystalline spheres, one nestled inside the other. The stars were affixed to the outermost sphere, the planets to spheres nearer the earth. Everything beyond earth was eternal, changeless. Those ideas may sound fanciful to us today, but they influenced men of science for some 2,000 years.
How, though, do Aristotle’s teachings compare with those in the Bible? Which teachings have withstood the test of time? Let us consider three questions about the laws that govern our universe. The answers will help us build faith in the Author of the Bible, the Lawmaker behind “the statutes of the heavens.”—Job 38:33.
1. Is the Universe Rigid?
Aristotle reasoned that the celestial spheres were rigid. The one holding the stars in place, like the others, could neither shrink nor expand.
Does the Bible offer a similar conjecture? No;..."
See the article (e.g. the expansion of the universe - Isaiah 40:22).
So, Hollie, I assume you believe we just made this up about Aristotle since our article was not reviewed by your peers. But to convince me, you will have to post evidence to the contrary.
Ditto the other subjects I posted on.