How about this question: Will any amount of scientific evidence ever change your mind? Will any amount of anything change your mind? I already know the answer to these questions. no. or prove me wrong.
What kind of evidence (if the answer is actualy yes) would you want me to find. Be specific. Like something that will completely change your mind about this.
Do you belive it is posible for the God of the Bible exists?
Do you belive you exist? (this is a very importaint question. if the answer is no, i nor anyone else on earth can help you)
Do you (Decabal) realize that saying that it is possible that he posed and the New Testament, could go on forever to no cause.
In a few days I will post a very very very very long post, containing every peice of evidnce I have.
Would that change anyones mind?
Would it even make you think it is posible that the bible is right?
And gcle2003: The most importaintant part is the Sphere in hebrew tranlating to circle in english.
And dont go on about the context i use the Bible in, Decibal. I think you are taking it out of context.
and some medical evidence...
Sanitary Practices
For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Diseasethat most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years earlier.
The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass.
Do you think the Israelites were the only people told to wash themselves? Ritual purification using water or other fluids, including oil, which can also be beneficial, is a commonplace in pretty well all religions, and indeed even in secular society.
They were also instructed to wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered during war were also to be purified through either fire or running water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human waste outside of camp,
Even cats do that. (And some other wild animals.)
and to burn the waste of their animals (See Numbers 19, Leviticus 11 and 15, Deuteronomy 23:12).
These sanitary practices without question saved countless lives in the Israelite camps by protecting them against infection caused by unseen germs. Meanwhile, their Egyptian peers were dying by the thousands due to "remedies" that almost always consisted of some amount of human or animal dung1. As mentioned earlier, the sound sanitary practices that we take for granted today only began to flourish about a 100 years ago.
Do you think there's any hope that at some point you might actually study some history? Or possibly dig up some evidence for what you are saying?
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)
Or that pretty well every other culture confronted by leprosy did much the same thing. And also burnt the clothes and bedclothes of people with plague.
Noticing that things that have been in contact with sick people are likely to convey the sickness to others is a fundamental concept in magical practices world-wide. It doesn't even mean that such people understood the mechanisms, or even had any idea of bacteria (though the idea of infestation by a spirit comes close). It's just a question of people noticing what happens.
Which you don't need a Bible to help you do.
Laws of Quarantine
In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.
It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century,
Utter and absolute tosh. Lepers have been isolated pretty well throughout recorded history throughout the world.
In fact people who didn't need to be quarantined frequently were quarantined, even though they weren't suffering from infectious diseases, such was the fear of contagion or infection.
I can't be bothered to track down actual sources, but plague ships were forbidden to dock in English ports from very early on, and I imagine the same was true elsewhere.
I can't be bothered to go through the rest, it's all so ridiculous.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:38
How about this question: Will any amount of scientific evidence ever
change your mind? Will any amount of anything change your mind? I
already know the answer to these questions. no. or prove me wrong.
You keep asking if you changed our minds, yet we've given you
scientific answers, or examples, and even why we don't see your
questions or topics you brought up as true and yet you don't give a
answer to our answers. You seem to ignore them.
gcle- has been answering alot of your questions with other proven histories and common sense.
decebal- has been answering everything you said from the bible showing
that they maybe completly different to what you have been interpreting
them as.
honeybee- has been broadening the subject showing other religious
systems that sound almost exactly the same like miracles and
prophecies, and has question the logic of your understanding when the
others have the same beliefs of your own.
And all three of them have brought up alot of scientific reasoning to prove evolution and other science backrounds.
You asked to see observed evolution and I posted a site for you that
has alot of information yet I didn't see any acknowledgment. None of us
are trying to get you to stop believing in your faith, but we are going
to show you the flaws as long as this argument goes on.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
How about this question: Will any amount of scientific evidence ever change your mind?
Even a small amount might. So far you've produced nothing but assertions which are obviously end evidently wrong, like that nutty stuff about the Israelites and quarantine.
Will any amount of anything change your mind? I already know the answer to these questions. no. or prove me wrong.
What kind of evidence (if the answer is actualy yes) would you want me to find. Be specific. Like something that will completely change your mind about this.
Predict me something. Something specific. Something that could only be true if God exists, and could not be true if god doesn't. Don't just tell me something that might happen, but something that will happen and when (date) and where (place).
That's a scientific test.
Do you belive it is posible for the God of the Bible exists?
I give it a very, very slim chance. Certainly no more than the chance that the Emperor of Japan is descended from the Sun Goddess.
Do you belive you exist? (this is a very importaint question. if the answer is no, i nor anyone else on earth can help you)
Yes.
Do you (Decabal) realize that saying that it is possible that he posed and the New Testament, could go on forever to no cause.
In a few days I will post a very very very very long post, containing every peice of evidnce I have.
Would that change anyones mind?
Just one piece of evidence would help. Something other than a blunt assertion that something is true when it isn't, or something is a prophecy when it quite obviously isn't.
Would it even make you think it is posible that the bible is right?
Which Bible?
I want all questions answered honestly.
Why do you think that somehow you have the right to demand anything of anyone?
Basically people are playing along here for a number of reasons. One is that it is actually producing some quite interesting results in bible scholarship and related fields. Another is that some people feel kind of sorry for you because you can't help your upbringing, and are trying to help. Another is that, to quite an extent, it's just amusing.
How about this question: Will any amount of scientific evidence ever change your mind? Will any amount of anything change your mind? I already know the answer to these questions. no. or prove me wrong.
Yes, enough scientific evidence will change my mind, provided it is solid and logical and holds up to scrutiny. However, the "scientific evidence" you have presented so far is either spotty, illogical or crumbles under investigation.
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco
What kind of evidence (if the answer is actualy yes) would you want me to find. Be specific. Like something that will completely change your mind about this.
Whatever evidence you bring has to be logical and supported by references to a reputable source such as a government agency, university, science journal, publication or book.
If you bring evidence from the Bible, make sure to quote the entire passage.
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco
Do you belive it is posible for the God of the Bible exists?
I believe that God may exist, but I doubt very much the interpretation of the Bible on it, especially that of the Old Testament.
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco
Do you belive you exist? (this is a very importaint question. if the answer is no, i nor anyone else on earth can help you)
I believe that I do, but I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that I don't.
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco
Do you (Decabal) realize that saying that it is possible that he posed and the New Testament, could go on forever to no cause.
Yes, but it really comes down to a matter of faith, doesn't it?
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco
In a few days I will post a very very very very long post, containing every peice of evidnce I have.
Would that change anyones mind?
Would it even make you think it is posible that the bible is right?
I want all questions answered honestly.
I find it very unlikely for you to change my mind, but I'm curious to see what you have to say.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
How about this question: Will any amount of
scientific evidence ever change your mind? Will any amount of anything
change your mind? I already know the answer to these questions. no. or
prove me wrong.
Yes. You would change the world's consciousness if you could
challenge the stabilished scientifical paradigm. But you don't have the
knowledge nor the scientific approach needed to do that.
What kind of evidence (if the answer is actualy yes) would
you want me to find. Be specific. Like something that will
completely change your mind about this.
What about God making an strip-tease in front of every human simultaneoulsy tomorrow at 5:21 GMT?
You wanted me to be specific, didn't you?
Do you belive it is posible for the God of the Bible exists?
No, if you mean in the physical sense. It does exist in the socio-psychological sense: it is what Chaotists call a godform.
Do you belive you exist?
Yes. Cogito ergo sum.
In a few days I will post a very very very very long post, containing every peice of evidnce I have.
Please don't!
Would that change anyones mind?
Doubt it, honestly. Seen the level you have posted so far.
Would it even make you think it is posible that the bible is right?
My father and my grandfather, both Catholics, teached me: don't believe everything you read.
Wise teaching. Why would this or that book be better than others,
specially when it is so contradictory with our empirical knowledge.
The Bible is what it is: a religious document. It's importance,
apart of its use as historical reference, it's only worth the faith
that people have in it. It's not the Bible which is powerful but the
community of people that believe in it.
It is quite interesting, and although I dont belive in it, I think it is highly possible. Note that I dont agree with everything they say.
And i have a request. Look at some other stuff. Try to find evidence on both sides of the fence, for and against the Bible.
For issues as importaint as this, one cannot think he is right or wrong because of a single mans good or bad debating &nbs p; &nbs p; --Me
Dont look for evidence just against it. I sugest looking for records of a census in the time of Caesar Augustus. Look for records against a cencus. Or have someone else look for it for you (thats what I do). You must understand that I am betting. But it is under my suspission that the track is riged. And I have found enough evidence. Its enough for me anyways.
And i am sorry i demanded honesty. You do have freedom of speech. Ok let me rephrase that
Originally posted by I meant (pay no attention to the wrote)
Dont look for evidence just against it. I sugest looking for records of a census in the time of Caesar Augustus. Look for records against a cencus.
Plenty of people have done exactly that. I doubt that any book or historical document has been so exhaustively and completely checked out as the Bible, by people seeking to verify it, people seeking to criticise it, and neutral scholars.
If you want a book to read to inform you of much of the work that has been done in the field, try reading Jack Miles' God: a biography which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1996.
You continually forget that many of the rest of us here have been involved in this for anything up to half-a-century already.
Or have someone else look for it for you (thats what I do). You must understand that I am betting. But it is under my suspission that the track is riged. And I have found enough evidence. Its enough for me anyways.
And i am sorry i demanded honesty. You do have freedom of speech. Ok let me rephrase that
Originally posted by I meant (pay no attention to the wrote)
I have an excuse. Im a teenager. And of course I know everything
It's obvious that you are a teenager. You should be hanging out and not trying to demonstrate the indemostrable.
I'm not enthusiast of Agustin of Hippo, who I consider a pretty low
intelectual profile, full of Manicheistic ideas that have impregnated
Western Christianity (like the idea of original sin). But there's a
story about him that I've told and may help you: Agustin was meditating
on the Trinity (a Christian dogma in most confessions) and he could not
understand it. Then he saw a kid with a bucket picking water from the
sea and pouring it in a hole in the sand. yet the sand absorbed all the
water and the hole remained empty, naturally. Agustin talked to the
kid: "Don't you realize that you will never fill the hole?" It's said
that then the kid turned into an angel and told Agustin: "Exactly as
you will never understand the mistery of the Trinity".
Stop mixing science and spirituality... even if you are a very open minded genius, they don't mix too well.
leave spirituality out of this. Science CAN be used to test it, although it might not be true, in the form of psychic experiments, near death experiences and reincarnation studies, its the superstitious element that should be left out.
The proof for Genesis occured though scientific DNA studies. As I believe most, if not all, know science has now proven through DNA studies that humanity is descended from one couple, just as the Bible, considered to be the Word of GOD, said thousands of years ago in Genesis 3:20. Here is a quote for Mitochrodia Eve.(www.gnxp.com)
June 29, 2003
Mitochondrial Eve
Of all the women who have ever lived, there was one woman who was special. She was the common maternal ancestor of all women currently alive. She was "Mitochondrial Eve".
Consider the set of all women who have ever lived. Each had exactly one mother. Now shrink the set of all women to contain only mothers. Each of them had exactly one mother. Shrink the set again to contain only mothers of mothers. Again, each of these women had exactly one mother. Again, shrink the set to contain only mothers of mothers of mothers. Continue doing this until you have a set with exactly one woman. She is the maternal ancestor of all living women; she is Mitochondrial Eve.
Here is a quote for Y Chromosome Adam. (wrsv.clas.virginia.edu/~rjh9uadameve.html)
Now comes corroboration from a different kind of genetic study. While the earlier claim was based on DNA transmitted only through the maternal lineage (mitochondrial DNA), the new report uses DNA transmitted and possessed only by males (the Y chromosome).
Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported in the Nov. 23 Nature that his analysis of a part of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling 'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work.
FACT 1: The Bible, thousands of years old, said all humans came from one couple. Genesis 3:20 Thus the Bible, a document written by God stated a truth. All humans related to one original couple. FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the Bible in Genesis, and proves what it has always said. All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve. Who would have believed humanity came from one women or man before this discovery? The answer is no one! it is interesting since there was a disregarded theory in an ancient book known as the Bible that said all humans were decended from one pair and thus they named them Y chromosome "Adam" and Mitochrondia "Eve"! What could they do with this competing theory but give it recognition? As you must know the theory advanced before this discovery was that humans evolved from different groups and different parts of the world. Who would dare endorse that theory today?
Mitochondria are organelles in a eukaryote cell. Some scientists think
that Mitocondria were originally prokaryotic cells that became obsobed into the
eukaryotic. So you're saying that the Eve was a prokaryote?
Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the University of Arizona
in Tucson, reported in the Nov. 23 Nature that his analysis of a part
of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a
common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new
report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling
'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work.
No surprise. We also have 90-99% of the same genetic makeup as apes and other primates.
All living organisms could have been decended from a single soup of
cell. Or maybe the real "Adam" was actuall a single-cell organism
swimming in the water billions of years ago.
The use of the article above is an example of using something
completely out of context. Apparantly, a lot of fundamentalists like to
use "science" to back them up since the popular image is that science
is beating them. So what happens is that they throw a lot of misleading
scientific terms and incorrect scientific concepts to confuse the reader, hoping that the reader doesn't
know enough to know that.
Mitochondria are organelles in a eukaryote cell. Some scientists think that Mitocondria were originally prokaryotic cells that became obsobed into the eukaryotic. So you're saying that the Eve was a prokaryote? .
Not at all am I saying that Eve was a prokaryote cell. Scientist "thinking" Mitochrondia was a prokaryotic cell is an opinion and not science.
Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported in the Nov. 23 Nature that his analysis of a part of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling 'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work.
I used the study to point out, what it was about, the fact that DNA says humanity come from one male. I also pointed out, as you know, that prior to this discovery that the most popular theory about human darwinian origin was that humanity arose from different groups in different areas. Who would believe that after this DNA discovery?
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
No surprise. We also have 90-99% of the same genetic makeup as apes and other primates. All living organisms could have been decended from a single soup of cell. Or maybe the real "Adam" was actuall a single-cell organism swimming in the water billions of years ago.
This statement is not addressing the findings of the this DNA study by Hammer or others in relation to humanity being descended from one couple. I am aware of studies regarding apes, but this study is not about that and why bring it up if it does not modify Hammer's findings. All can see this has nothing to do with all men being related to Y Chromosome Adam. If this was math, the topic we are discussion is a subset of the ape study and all can see it does not modify the Y Chromosome study.
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
The use of the article above is an example of using something completely out of context. Apparantly, a lot of fundamentalists like to use "science" to back them up since the popular image is that science is beating them.
The above study is about DNA studies of humanity, it is not me that is using the Hammer study out of context and that is evident. I used the study in context, to point out the fact that DNA says humanity came from one male. That is all I pointed out and all can see I did not go beyond the study as you are attempting to do.
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
So what happens is that they throw a lot of misleading scientific terms and incorrect scientific concepts to confuse the reader, hoping that the reader doesn't know enough to know that.
Should not the members of AE not be given more credit, as they can check the sites you or I cite? If we give no site, it is our opinion only, and not appropriate in this kind of discussion. However I would urge all reading this or any other post in AE to do there own research and not depend on sites given by, in this case, you or I or others in a thread such as the topic we are discussing which has 13 pages! I also stated that prior to this study the most popular theory about human darwinian origin was derived from the fossil record that stated that humanity arose in different places and from different groups. Here is a quote from the same article as above from the site,(wrsv.clas.virginia.edu/~rjh9uadameve.html)
Even though the studies refer to a single man or woman in the past, they do not imply that those people were a couple or even that they were the only parents of all humans. Their primary significance is in pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a more primitive ancestor, generally thought to be an archaic form of Homo sapiens. Most experts think the founders of the modern species numbered around 10,000.
Many anthropologists believe this transition happened in Africa and that the subspecies spread to other parts of the world, replacing more primitive foms of humans such as Homo erectus. Others, however, dispute the genetic evidence and argue that modern people evolved in many parts of the world as products both of the people already living there and of immigrants.
There is evidence for this contrary view in fossils. In 1992, for exmple, researchers found skulls in China that appeared to blend traits of Homo sapiens and the ancestral species, Homo erectus. The skulls are from hominids who lived nearly 400,000 years ago, suggesting the transition was happening long before "Adam' or "Eve' could have lived.
However my point stands as I used the study to point out the fact that DNA says humanity come from one male. That is all I pointed out. I did not go beyond the study. I also pointed that prior to this study the most popular theory about human darwinian origin was derived from the fossil record. The skulls from the above quote is an interpretaion from the fossil record. As you know the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. Here is a quote from a darwinian evolutionist.
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
Thus the theory derived from the fossil record, that says humanity resulted from different groups in different areas, to say the least is questionable as admitted by this darwinian evolutionist. Surely the DNA studies that are specific cannot be questioned. However interpretations derived from the fossil record is clearly uncertain as they are interpretations. As you know Neandethal man was once considered to be a human before "DNA" showed that was not true. So we can see interpretations by fossils are questionable.
University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997) New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.
Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.
"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."
As we know DNA will supersude speculation based on fossil or skull interpretations.
I have ten first cousins on my mother's side. The reason we are all first cousins is that our ancestry can be traced back to one male, my grandfather, my mother's father.
However, between us we have six other, different grandfathers.
Having two ancestors in common doesn't mean that they are the only ancestors we have - or that they even knew each other.
I have ten first cousins on my mother's side. The reason we are all first cousins is that our ancestry can be traced back to one male, my grandfather, my mother's father.
However, between us we have six other, different grandfathers.
Having two ancestors in common doesn't mean that they are the only ancestors we have - or that they even knew each other.
DNA studies show and as you demostrate, your family can be traced to one major male ancestor. In the example you cite a matrilineal line! As you know that is how clans are formed in tribal societies. Some tribes have as an example 4 clans, some have more clans that can be designated as a result of physical ancestry to one male or female if it is matrilineal tribal. Very good, gcle! The gcle tribe! hehehehe In any event the DNA studies does trace both male and female linage to Mitochrodia Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, the original Adam and Eve of GENESIS 3:20, and in doing so proves what this topic is about the proving of Genesis. The fact that Mitochrodia Eve and Y Chromosome Adam are our original parents is fact and this cannot be changed for it is science. As we know the genetic studies startled the scientific world to discover that all men and women came from one original couple. The previous theory based on fossil interpretations that humanity resulted from different populations in different parts of the world was proven false. It was based on skulls from different areas of the world and that was the primary reason for this theory. However such interpretations from the fossil record are just that, INTERPRETATIONS and are only that and nothing more. As we can see such interpretations can be wholly wrong as they have been in the past. For example, as you know neanderthal, as a result of interpretation from skull and brain capacity, was placed as an ancestor to humanity until "DNA" studies discovered this was a mistake and showed this interpretation was wrong. Quote:
University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997) New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.
Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.
"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."
Cuauhtemoc is right in the sense that "Mithocondrial Eve" was woman (or a group of them: we can't exclude that mutation was shared). But he is wrong in a much more important thing: "Eve" and "Adam" never met. "Eve" lived about 150,000 years ago and "Adam" lived just about 90,000 years ago. Adam is maybe a "grandson" of "Eve" - are you suggesting incest, Cuauhtemoc?
Well, actually, it's not sure that "Adam" is descendant of "Eve", though it's quite likely. The fact is that though all (known) modern living people can trace our purely paternal and maternal lineages to those two "persons", it's also very likely that other people lived with them and that many of them are also in our ancestry, though through "broken" lineages.
What's a "broken" lineage? Let's say our "grandma" "Lilith" (to take a character from Jewish mythology)... she bore maybe all sons and no daughters, or maybe her daughters died without descendance or maybe the line was accidentally "broken" 8 generations later by an all-male generation.
This is pretty likely. While duccesfully carrying on the reproductive task through generations is relatively likely, to keep a purely masculine or feminine lineage is almost impossible. So no wonder that those lineages are relatively few, despite of the fact that "Eve" had many "sisters" and "brothers", who are equally our ancestors by lines that have moved in the male-female or female-male sequence.
For instance, according to Genesis, Biblical Eve only bore sons. Therefore it's impossible that we have her mythocondrial DNA.
The above study is about DNA studies of humanity, it is not me that is
using the Hammer study out of context and that is evident. I used the
study in context, to point out the fact that DNA says humanity came
from one male. That is all I pointed out and all can see I did not go
beyond the study as you are attempting to do.
I'm saying that the study does not fit in with the Bible. First, the
fact that many share the same ancestor is not surprising. Dogs and
humans probably shared the same ancestor at one point. Secondly, it
doesn't fit in with the bible because according to the bible, the world
is only a few thousand years old.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Genesis Proof
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Topic: Genesis Proof
Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the 
