Creationists' theory in detail

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
And the DNA record.
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.
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.:

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:


"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:



"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."
“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."

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?
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.

For centuries Aristotle's eternal universe model was taught - even accepted by religions.

See this article:


Excerpt:

"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.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.
And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.
My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.
There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.
Your bias is showing. And we are not creationists - we believe what the Bible and science reveal.
There was no bias about the history of Christian fundamentalists attempting to put religion into the public school system. The Dover trial reaffirmed that.

The courts have ruled consistently that creationism is a religious claim.

Hollie - again you are confusing us with creationists. We also do no want creationist doctrines taught in public schools - that would violate the separation of church and state. It would be nice, though, if schools pointed out that there are other models contradictory to what they do teach in school.

We encourage family study and teach our children the truth so they can defend our beliefs in school.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,354
Reaction score
446
Points
85
Hollie - for starters this source:


Excerpt:

"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size."

P90
P90 (P. Oxy. 3523) comes from an ancient codex of the gospel of John and dates to the second century. Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society (London) and the Oxyrhynchus Imaging Project (Oxford). Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain
"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
A
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
And the DNA record.
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 don't forget epigenetic coding which is only within the genetic 'kind.' E.g. methyl tags on genes in the DNA which can turn genes on or off or somewhere in between. And methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin - totally outside the DNA and also only within the same kind - but which cause variations c. 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA. And then there are tandem repeat sequences - formerly called "junk DNA" in peer reviewed journals but whose purpose in genetic variation has now been proven scientifically.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
Hollie - for starters this source:


Excerpt:

"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size."

P90
P90 (P. Oxy. 3523) comes from an ancient codex of the gospel of John and dates to the second century. Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society (London) and the Oxyrhynchus Imaging Project (Oxford). Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain
"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
Correct - but manuscript family genialogy (copying of unique spelling errors in different manuscript families) proves how the original text read in virtually all verses. If you would like, I can post detailed evidence in this branch of scientific research - but it is extensive and cannot fit in one post. Here is a good summary of manuscript research in our Bible dictionary:


And you are correct that many Bibles were destroyed deliberately. For example:


"Producing the Bible in many languages thwarted the efforts of such men as Roman Emperor Diocletian, who in 303 C.E. ordered that all copies of the Scriptures be destroyed."

There were also efforts to destroy copies which contained the Divine Name by enemies of faithful Christians:


"The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”"
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,744
Reaction score
587
Points
155
the Almighty triumphed over evil -

they, all beings became by choice the "intermediary" opening their eyes to sin they then were required to triumph over evil for remission back into the Everlasting - the religion of antiquity, that's all there is.

the question remains - why do christians believe they can not stop sinning - and expect a messiah to save them and have basically been assholes throughout history, bing - and expect then to be rewarded ...

listen to "satan" is evil lurking nothing more - secular humanism is not evil nor is evolution anything but a critical study.
No!!! I gave it to you on a platter and you blew it. Good triumphs over evil, but that's not it. You just skipped over it with your red color wording. It's "like God." We all want to be "like God." That's some kind of temptation. As for the rest, Satan was lying. Adam and Eve became creatures of flesh and blood and they'll die just like we'll all die one day.

That's why I say you believe in Satan's Antibible of evolution. You'll reap what you sow. You'll get the millions and billions of year old hell. Is hell the old Earth crumbling away as you experience death over and over again for infinity? It will be like the Groundhog Day movie, but you won't have a chance to fix your errors. Maybe you get to experience the global flood to show you what happened to the sinners and to prove it did happen. Maybe you get to experience the singularity at the center of a black hole. You'll just have to be stretched into spaghetti first. If 40 days and 40 nights of quarantine is boring, then certainly you can do a million or billion of years watching a monkey to see if it will turn bipedal easily.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,302
Reaction score
3,319
Points
1,115
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
And the DNA record.
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.
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.:

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:


"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:



"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."
“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."

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?
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.

For centuries Aristotle's eternal universe model was taught - even accepted by religions.

See this article:


Excerpt:

"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.
That was a lot of cutting and pasting but why do you think it’s relevant to Christianity?

Aristotle was a product of the Greek pantheon. Are your suggesting that Aristotle is proof of your gods?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,302
Reaction score
3,319
Points
1,115
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.
And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.
My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.
There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.
Your bias is showing. And we are not creationists - we believe what the Bible and science reveal.
There was no bias about the history of Christian fundamentalists attempting to put religion into the public school system. The Dover trial reaffirmed that.

The courts have ruled consistently that creationism is a religious claim.

Hollie - again you are confusing us with creationists. We also do no want creationist doctrines taught in public schools - that would violate the separation of church and state. It would be nice, though, if schools pointed out that there are other models contradictory to what they do teach in school.

We encourage family study and teach our children the truth so they can defend our beliefs in school.
I don’t see any material difference between JW’s and creationists.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,354
Reaction score
446
Points
85
Correct - but manuscript family genialogy (copying of unique spelling errors in different manuscript families) proves how the original text read in virtually all verses. If you would like, I can post detailed evidence in this branch of scientific research - but it is extensive and cannot fit in one post. Here is a good summary of manuscript research in our Bible dictionary:


And you are correct that many Bibles were destroyed deliberately. For example:


"Producing the Bible in many languages thwarted the efforts of such men as Roman Emperor Diocletian, who in 303 C.E. ordered that all copies of the Scriptures be destroyed."

There were also efforts to destroy copies which contained the Divine Name by enemies of faithful Christians:


"The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”"
But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.”
.
generically speaking - that is everything from antiquity - is filtered ... by all persuasions.

* moses destroyed the tablets etched by the Almighty -

there in lies the truth. a cornerstone for all three desert religions and their collective admission, there is no proof than their own written text.


not so the spoken religion from the metaphysical when real - “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - why was that not destroyed in the 4th century, it was spoken not written certain aspects survive forever or if forgotten not the meaning but the hopelessness that overcame it. not the desert religions though, were they forgotten hopefulness will be the cause.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
17,200
Reaction score
2,591
Points
290
Location
Texas
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.
They're inter-fertile, true, but there is no real evidence definitively proving we all originated from the same place; there could be several origins around the planet. Genetics, and genetic codes, are environmentally dependent by the very nature of the planetary environment itself, hence the differences in adaptations that do no appear to change quickly, or at all.


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.:

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.
Also a possibility. It's just not one I buy at the moment; I think the different peoples formed at different places, and I base this on the obeservation of the 'Out Of Africa' myth; if that were truly the case, then Africa would be now be the home of our most advanced and healthy and technically competent demographics . They aren't.

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:


"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:



"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."

Thanks for the links; I'll give them a read later; and as said earlier, if they're going to teach' evolution' as fact, I have no problem with them teaching the above also. I would rather they not teach either as 'fact', personally, just as possibilities and philosophy.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,744
Reaction score
587
Points
155
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,354
Reaction score
446
Points
85
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
What is your source for your claim?
there are no original documents, not even the original 4th century christian bible ... non were preserved.

where are any of the original manuscripts etched in stone or traced in pottery -

1585873868465.png

- 3rd century bc ... is there a reason there are only mythological depictions.

the sphinx is around 9500 bc. before moses.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,744
Reaction score
587
Points
155
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
What is your source for your claim?
there are no original documents, not even the original 4th century christian bible ... non were preserved.

where are any of the original manuscripts etched in stone or traced in pottery -

View attachment 318461
- 3rd century bc ... is there a reason there are only mythological depictions.

the sphinx is around 9500 bc. before moses.
So it's just your opinion. There may not be the original as it would be hard to amass it all or parts were destroyed like the Ten Commandments, but the words have been compiled nicely and that is what makes Jesus our Savior and the atheists get the Lake of Fire. It's awesome don't you think? Instead of nothing, you get something that all atheists want -- proof of God.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,354
Reaction score
446
Points
85
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
What is your source for your claim?
there are no original documents, not even the original 4th century christian bible ... non were preserved.

where are any of the original manuscripts etched in stone or traced in pottery -

View attachment 318461
- 3rd century bc ... is there a reason there are only mythological depictions.

the sphinx is around 9500 bc. before moses.
So it's just your opinion. There may not be the original as it would be hard to amass it all or parts were destroyed like the Ten Commandments, but the words have been compiled nicely and that is what makes Jesus our Savior and the atheists get the Lake of Fire. It's awesome don't you think? Instead of nothing, you get something that all atheists want -- proof of God.
So it's just your opinion.
but the words have been compiled nicely ...
no, its not an opinion there are no original documents not even the unoriginal 4th century christian bible whatever that may have been.

some people tell the truth, others live in a deliberate fog of disinformation. for deleterious reasons. as to persecute and victimize the innocent, the desert religions.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,302
Reaction score
3,319
Points
1,115
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
What is your source for your claim?
there are no original documents, not even the original 4th century christian bible ... non were preserved.

where are any of the original manuscripts etched in stone or traced in pottery -

View attachment 318461
- 3rd century bc ... is there a reason there are only mythological depictions.

the sphinx is around 9500 bc. before moses.
So it's just your opinion. There may not be the original as it would be hard to amass it all or parts were destroyed like the Ten Commandments, but the words have been compiled nicely and that is what makes Jesus our Savior and the atheists get the Lake of Fire. It's awesome don't you think? Instead of nothing, you get something that all atheists want -- proof of God.
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
And the DNA record.
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.
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.:

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:


"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:



"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."
“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."

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?
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.

For centuries Aristotle's eternal universe model was taught - even accepted by religions.

See this article:


Excerpt:

"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.
That was a lot of cutting and pasting but why do you think it’s relevant to Christianity?

Aristotle was a product of the Greek pantheon. Are your suggesting that Aristotle is proof of your gods?
Thank you for accusing me of cutting and pasting - actually I am guilty of quote mining = researching the findings of other researchers and posting what they have found in their research - including links so you can see the context of quotes.

You are not responding on the research comparing Biblical astronomy with the model of Aristotle which so many accepted as truth for some 2,000 years.

Why not read the article yourself and respond as to whether you think any specific errors were published in said article:


A few points:

1. Galileo was excommunicated for rejecting the Catholic teaching, which they got from Aristotle, that the earth is the center of the universe. Instead, Galileo accepted the Bible as truth. Newton did likewise (e.g. rejecting the trinity doctrine which some where burned at the stake for).

2. The Bible taught that the universe is governed by laws such as those discovered by Newton, e.g. laws of motion and gravity. (See Job 38:33; 26:7,10)

3. Aristotle taught the universe is rigid, changeless, eternal in the past. The Bible teaches the heavens and earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1), changes (Hebrews 1:12), and is expanding (Isaiah 40:22).

Bottom line - religions accepted Aristotle's teachings whereas Galileo and Newton accepted the Bible.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
165
Points
73
for the last time - there are no original documents in existence -

where are the etchings in stone or gliffs / writings on pottery, sorry the one school older than religion is politics - if there were such writings they were deliberately destroyed ... no doubt Garden Earth is the proof of something special, just not humanity based religions.
What is your source for your claim? Even then, the word of God has been preserved unlike the false chimpanzee fossils of Lucy. What about the Tanakh?
What is your source for your claim?
there are no original documents, not even the original 4th century christian bible ... non were preserved.

where are any of the original manuscripts etched in stone or traced in pottery -

View attachment 318461
- 3rd century bc ... is there a reason there are only mythological depictions.

the sphinx is around 9500 bc. before moses.
So it's just your opinion. There may not be the original as it would be hard to amass it all or parts were destroyed like the Ten Commandments, but the words have been compiled nicely and that is what makes Jesus our Savior and the atheists get the Lake of Fire. It's awesome don't you think? Instead of nothing, you get something that all atheists want -- proof of God.
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
Yes, most religions use fear as is exemplified in the false doctrine taught in Christendom (not us) of eternal torment in Hell Fire.

Rather than fear, Jehovah's Witnesses are motivated by love (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:8; Matthew 5:44; John 13:3).

The Bible teaches that at death there is no consciousness of anything (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10) and that, like animals, we return to the dust/ground until the resurrection. Since the dead are not conscious of anything, they cannot be tormented. This is in harmony with scientific research.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top