Islam and Christianity

And you realise don't you that non-muslims in muslim lands are entitled to live under their own laws don't you?

Originally posted by Theophos Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc JANISSARIES constituted families? Tell that to the Crying mothers who followed those poor boys as they were taken away calling the names of their stolen sons.   I understand you are most troubled with the devshirme levy system of the Ottoman Turks. As I said earlier, I'm not defending it. It's immoral to our moral standards today. I'm just trying to relativize it historically, because that's the fair thing to do.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Are you for real?

Good question.

It occurs to me that if the primordial Eve came first, then the Tiwi aborigines of northern Australia got it right, even if they called her Mudungkala and Melville island is an unlikely place for her to have emerged. You can't get everything right. (Before anyone jumps at me, yes, the Navajo, the Iroquois and the Huron and possibly others also believed humanity descended from a 'first woman'.)

The Incas thought the original humans were three brothers and three sisters. Not bad since it's reasonable to assume that the last pre-human couple (the one that had the first 'human' children) probably had more than one.

The Mexicans figured that humanity was created more than once and died out again before re-emerging. Like the Neanderthalers? (In their flood legend, all the people turned into fish: accelerated evolution? After the flood some more people emerged.)

And, of course, so on and so on. Pick your scientific 'fact' and you can find evidence for someone's mythology having anticipated it somewhere.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Theophos

Originally posted by gcle2003 It occurs to me that if the primordial Eve came first, then the Tiwi aborigines of northern Australia got it right, even if they called her Mudungkala and Melville island is an unlikely place for her to have emerged. You can't get everything right. (Before anyone jumps at me, yes, the Navajo, the Iroquois and the Huron and possibly others also believed humanity descended from a 'first woman'.)

Here are the Navojo, Iroquois, Huron, Inca, Tiwi myth creation stories. I only quoted parts of them as they would make my post quite lengthy, however anyone can read them completely when you do a INTERNET search. I quoted them because we can see that elements in them are not credible, for example humans doing the creating or large populations already in existence, animals creating and talking. Mexican creation story does NOT say humanity came from one pair or woman. In the quote above it suggested the Tiwi is the most credible, the woman disappeared, however it then says humans in the Tiwi myth turned into plants. Genesis actually says Eve is the mother of all the living. Women are mentioned in the myth stories, but the one who made the above quote may not quite understand this symbolism to a native american. Earth is earth mother and that is why the woman falls to the earth in some myths and plants begin to grow from her head or that mud must be brought up to support her. However one cannot take that part and ignore other parts of the myths, for example the earth is on a turtles back, humans turning into plants, animals building the earth, the sun impregnating a women. I AM SURE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS TO OUR ATTENTION IS NOT SAYING THESE CREATION MYTHS ARE CREDIBLE! The bottom line there are many creation myths that are Navajo, Huron, Iroquios, Inca, take your choice. However anyone can open the BIBLE and read GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning GOD created the heavens and earth. Anyone can read that all humanity came from one couple. GENESIS 3:20 Besides many native americans believe the Genesis account in the Bible (consider the article in pre-columbian section, the article on MEXICAN religion, this article has been largely ignored for native americans do not consider the religion credible, I made a response to it). Many like me, a native american, believe the GENESIS account and recognise the many stories the above quote refers to are not credible and we reject them as they obviously contradict science. I realize there may be some that still believe a turtle supports the earth, but I don't know of any. Again,  FACT 1: The Bible, thousands of years old, and it is, said all humans came from one couple! GENESIS 3:20 Thus the Bible, a document believed to be written by God stated a truth! All humans related to one original couple! FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE 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 grudging recognition? Obviously SCIENTISTS recognise which is the more credible account of CREATION! 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?                                     

Iroquois About 1390, today's State of New York became the stronghold of five powerful Indian tribes. They were later joined by another great tribe, the Tuscaroras from the south. Eventually the Iroquois, Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, and Cayugas joined together to form the great Iroquois Nation. In 1715, the Tuscaroras were accepted into the Iroquois Nation. Long, long ago, one of the Spirits of the Sky World came down and looked at the earth. As he traveled over it, he found it beautiful, and so he created people to live on it. Before returning to the sky, he gave them names, called the people all together, and spoke his parting words: "To the Mohawks, I give corn," he said. "To the patient Oneidas, I give the nuts and the fruit of many trees. To the industrious Senecas, I give beans. To the friendly Cayugas, I give the roots of plants to be eaten. To the wise and eloquent Onondagas, I give grapes and squashes to eat and tobacco to smoke at the camp fires." Many other things he told the new people. Then he wrapped himself in a bright cloud and went like a swift arrow to the Sun. There his return caused his Brother Sky Spirits to rejoice. Huron      In the beginning there was only one water and the water animals that lived in it. Then a woman fell from a torn place in the sky. She was a divine woman, full of power. Two loons flying over the water saw her falling. They flew under her, close together, making a pillow for her to sit on. The loons held her up and cried for help. They could be heard for a long way as they called for other animals to come. The snapping turtle called all the other animals to aid in saving the divine woman's life. The animals decided the woman needed earth to live on. Turtle said, "Dive down in the water and bring up some earth." So they did that, those animals. A beaver went down. A muskrat went down. Others stayed down too long, and they died. Each time, Turtle looked inside their mouths when they came up, but there was no earth to be found. Toad went under the water. He stayed too long, and he nearly died. But when Turtle looked inside Toad's mouth, he found a little earth. The woman took it and put it all around on Turtle's shell. That was the start of the earth. Dry land grew until it formed a country, then another country, and all the earth.. To this day, Turtle holds up the earth. The Navajo Creation Story Changing Woman grew up around El Huerfano Mesa (Dzil Na�oodilii), in northern New Mexico. She married the Sun and bore two son, twins, and heroes to the Navajo people. They were known as "Monster Slayer" and "Child-Born-of-Water". The twins traveled to their father the Sun who gave them weapons of lighting bolts to fight the dreaded monsters. Every place the Hero Twins killed a monster it turned to stone. An example of this is the lave flows near Mt. Taylor in New Mexico, believed to be the blood from the death of Ye�iitsoh, or the "Monster who Sucked in People". All of the angular rock formations on the reservation, such as the immense Black Mesa (Dzil Y�jiin), are seen as the turned-to-stone bodies of the monsters. With all of the monsters dead, the Navajo deities, or "Holy People", turned their attention to the making of the four original clans. Kiiyaa aanii, or Tall House People.          ; ; ; ; ; ;           ; ; ; ; ; ;           ; ; ; ; ; ;    Inca creation story. A long time ago all of the people lived in misery in the harsh climate. The reason it was so hard was because they didn't know how to build houses. But whenever they found shelter they took it. Usually the shelter would be under a rocky overhang from a cave, but it didn't save them from the cold winds and the wild animals. Since none of the people knew anything about cultivating plants, their main foods were wild leaves, fruits and roots from trees. The people didn't know how to start a fire so they ate all of their food raw. None of the people knew about laws or of a way to live in peace with one another. Even parents and their young could not live together in harmony. Only one being felt sorry for them and that was Father Sun. Father Sun realized that the lives of these poor humans were not improving. But he knew that he could not leave his place in the great sky to go down to earth and help these humans create a suitable home. Since he could not leave he decided to send his son Manco Capac and his daughter Mama Ocllo, the children of the Sun. Father Sun instructed them to look down upon the humans. In disbelief Mama Ocllo said " They have little knowledge in those big heads of theirs. And they are not confident in themselves so they think they can't make their lives better. " Manco Capac said " They seem just a little bit better than animals and that is not how it should be." Father Sun gave his children a golden rod and said, "I wish for you to go down to the Earth and find a place where this golden rod will sink and where it sinks that is where we should build a villlage. You, Manco Capac my son shall rule as their king, the Inca. You, Mama Ocllo my daughter shall rule as the queen, the Coya                                ."Tiwi Creation Stories" Mudungkala, an old blind woman arose from the ground at Murupianga in the south east of Melville Island. Clasping her three infants to her breast and crawling on her knees she travelled slowly north. The fresh water that bubbled up in the track she made became the tideways of the Clarence and Dundas Straits, dividing the two islands from the mainland. She made her way slowly around the land mass and then, deciding it was too large, created the Aspley Strait, which divides the Islands. Mudungkala then decreed that the bare islands be covered with vegetation and inhabited with animals so that her three children left behind would have food. After the Islands were made habitable she vanished. Nobody knows from where she came or, having completed her work, where she disappeared to. The death of Jinani brought the creation period to a close. This event was marked by the first Pukumani burial ceremony. Tokampini, the father of Bima called all the original creators, men and women, to the ceremony. These mythical beings were taught the rules of behaviour and the laws of marriage and tribal relationships that had always to be obeyed. Then the periods of light and darkness were established, determining the cycle of daily events. The creators transformed themselves into various creatures, plants, animals, natural forces or heavenly bodies - and spread across the islands. They are the Tiwi totems or skin groups.. These creation myths speak for themselves. Again I am sure no one would say these are credible. Again scientist most interestingly named their discovery MITOCHONDDRIA EVE and Y CHROMOSOME ADAM. Remember the WORDS of JESUS, JOHN 8:32 the truth will set you free.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Quote from cuaohtemoc Again,  FACT 1: The Bible, thousands of years old, and it is, said all humans came from one couple! GENESIS 3:20 Thus the Bible, a document believed to be written by God stated a truth! All humans related to one original couple! FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE and proves what it has always said! All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve. End of quote


I must say that opinion is still divided on the subject. Although most scientists have discarded the multi-region hypothesis, many are still to be convinced by the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. Still, it is the most reasonable explanation to date.

But still that original couple isn�t believed to have been made instantaneously. By the contrary it is believed to have evolved from other species, namely Homo Erectus. And that, I believe, is not mentioned in the Bible. By the contrary, evolutionary theories were almost considered heretic for their content when they were published in the XIX century.

My point is: although it might be true that all humans have all evolved from two individuals ("Adam" and "Eve"), it is also very likely that those two individuals descended from some other species.


Edited by Encoberto

Originally posted by R_AK47 Where did you come up with this idea that the animals were made in their final shape instantly?  I don't think the Bible specificaly states that.  As far as the world being made in seven days, yes it does say that.  However, another passage (can't remember the exact one) says that one day to God is like 1000 years to us.  That implies that when they say that God made the world in seven days that it was actually several thousand years or more.

Well, I believe that it is explicitly stated that God created all life in their final form, although I could be mistaken.

As to the seven days affair, even if one human day is equivalent to 1000 God�s days, it would only take 7000 years to create all life form. Anyway, my point is that the Bible is not to be taken as a literal history book. Somethings might be true, some might be merely metaphorical. In other words, when it is said that God created  the world in seven days, it is to be understood as a demonstration of His power and omnipotence not as a literal interpretation.

Originally posted by Encoberto Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc  Hi Encoberto, yes I believe that the world was created in 7 literal days. Its no problem for GOD to do that. I also believe that animals were made into there final shape completely.  Here is a quote from  GENESIS 1, in the Bible, the WORD of GOD. Cuahtemoc, I respect your beliefs but I must say that�s not what science has discovered so far. In fact, what modern biology believes is that all life evolved from a more basic life form, like for example, mammals are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. And it seems to me that they have pretty good evidence for it.

 Please respond to these points as I am glad you asked as we can reason together. FIRST, the common question, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Really not a difficult question, for any farmer can give you and I the answer. No egg ever hatched without a chicken SITTING on it! Thus WE know the chicken came first just as stated in the GENESIS account of GOD'S creation. To say otherwise is not reasonable. SECOND, Encoberto in science what we see in the world is MICRO-EVOLUTION. Micro evolution is changes within kinds. That is why we have so many types of dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigeons ect. As amazing as it is a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are dogs and could be mated but size would be the problem there!The theory of evolution demands MACRO-EVOLUTION and that type of evolution has never been seen in history or occured in history! THIRDLY, WE both know they say there is not enough time for MACRO-EVOLUTION to take place or be observed, however I consider this statement not credible.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc  I am glad you asked as we can reason together. First, the common question, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Really not a difficult question, for any farmer can give you and I the answer. No egg ever hatched without a chicken SITTING on it! Thus WE know the chicken came first just as stated in the GENESIS account of GOD'S creation. To say otherwise is not reasonable.  Also Encoberto in science what we see in the world is MICRO-EVOLUTION. Micro evolution is changes within kinds. That is why we have so many types of dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigeons ect. As amazing as it is a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are dogs and could be mated but size would be the problem there!The theory of evolution demands MACRO-EVOLUTION and that type of evolution has never been seen in history or occured in history! Now WE both know they say there is not enough time for MACRO-EVOLUTION to take place or be observed, however I consider this statement not credible at all.

Although it is true that scientists have been having problems explaining evolution�s speed, there are some considerable amount of evidence that seem to corroborate evolutiony thoery, namely:

1) Morphological similarities between certain species. For example, we Homo Sapiens Sapiens have a lot of similiarities with ancient species that have disappeared, like Homo habilis and Homo Erectus. What�s more, the more temporally close those species are to us, the bigger the similarity: Homo Erectus (+/- 1.5 millions years old) is definitely more similar to us than Homo Habilis (2 millions years old).

2) DNA studies seem to confirm some notion of "family" between our species and other, namely Chimpanzees. As far as I know, Chimpanzees seem to share a lot of our DNA compared to, let�s say, Gorillas.

Once again, I don�t mean to offen you in some way, but simply wish to throw some facts to the discussion

Originally posted by Encoberto Although it is true that scientists have been having problems explaining evolution�s speed, there are some considerable amount of evidence that seem to corroborate evolutiony thoery, namely: 1) Morphological similarities between certain species. For example, we Homo Sapiens Sapiens have a lot of similiarities with ancient species that have disappeared, like Homo habilis and Homo Erectus. What�s more, the more temporally close those species are to us, the bigger the similarity: Homo Erectus (+/- 1.5 millions years old) is definitely more similar to us than Homo Habilis (2 millions years old). 2) DNA studies seem to confirm some notion of "family" between our species and other, namely Chimpanzees. As far as I know, Chimpanzees seem to share a lot of our DNA compared to, let�s say, Gorillas.

The posts have been referring to DNA studies and this strand have been made aware the discoveries related to humans. Prior to DNA being mentioned some incredible statements were being made. However WE both know they say there is not enough time for MACRO-EVOLUTION to take place or be observed, however I consider this statement not credible. Evolution is theoritical and MACRO EVOLUTION has never occured.

Originally posted by Encoberto 2) DNA studies seem to confirm some notion of "family" between our species and other, namely Chimpanzees. As far as I know, Chimpanzees seem to share a lot of our DNA compared to, let�s say, Gorillas.

The point I am making, for this study to be credible that humans and chimps have a "connection", it is assumed MACRO evolution has occured.  Macro evolution is assumed to have occured in this study. However MICRO EVOLUTION or changes within kinds have only been observed. Macro evolution has not been observed. as we are told time does not allow for it. The fossil record does not help MACRO EVOLUTION and in fact has created many problems for MACRO EVOLUTION, for instead of finding transitional links, we find completely formed organism that appeared abruptly. Because this is the case, some evolutionists have proposed PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, which are dramatic jumps from one type of animal to another. An example of this simply to get a picture of what this means, a dinosuar layed an egg and a bird hatched out! Is this proposed because evidence supports punctuated equilibrium? No, but the lack of support from the fossil record for evolution has caused this idea to be proposed though there is no evidence to support punctuated equilibrium. Why propose this, NO EVIDENCE in the FOSSIL record to support the theory of MACRO EVOLUTION. Evolution is a THEORY and no more then that. Why, it can't be observed? Thus evolution is not emperical since it cannot be tested or observed. Evolution does not happen, it is not seen and the fossil record does not support gradual change.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc