I think this thread should be closed. Most of it is repetitive and most
of the content that is being argued is rediculous, at least in the way
its being presented.
In many ways, this thread bears simility to the nationalist debates
that we have here. Now, for this subject, I am not saying that
creationism is considered religious preaching, but by the way
Cuauhtemoc is "debating"... how he repeats the same quotes and points
over and over again, and how he dismisses opposing arguments by citing
scientifically out-of-context arguments, which he insist are correct, I
think there is an issue here. Since I've been involved with the debate
here, I won't make further comments, but I sincerely believe there is
agenda pushing going on here. (Active agenda pushing on religious
grounds is against forum rules).
But in any other case, the main reason I think this thread is closed is that it is no longer contributing to the forum.
Search, my friend please pay attention as my answer seems to have given you trepidation as this post of yours is a purely emotional response, and all reading our thread can obviously see you did not address the points in my post.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Obviously you don't understand evolution. At one point a few human species lived during the sametime. Even interacted with each other. That doesn't mean evolution does not happen. Obviously your viewing evolution is a straight line from one point to another. That is far from the truth. If the ancestor could live also, then why would or should it die out? It's not as if it's evolutionary garbage.
Search you are the one that brought up the "Horse series" and said and I quote you, "transitions fit right in them all!" National Geographic does not agree with you that the ancestor could live also. Maybe you did not understand the point the magazine was making, for that is the very reason the horse series is "false" because the supposed ancestors lived together! It seems you don't understand Darwinian Macro Evolution. Here is "our" dialogue I posted in my last post,
SearchAndDestroy wrote:
And have you seen the fossil record of the horse, they say it explains Macro-evolution perfectly because the transitionals fit right in them all.
Search you seem to be unaware of the studies of the so called "horse evolution series" that have been founded to be false. Here is a quote that makes that point.
Quote:
Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the
one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse.
National Geographic, January 1981 p:74
Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us? Your the one that put them in a straight line, NOT me. I responded by citing "National Geographic" magazine!I assumed nothing except what you said that all transitions fit.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
It may take millions of years for evolution to happen, but thousands of factors count.
Search again, you said TIME was a factor and I answered you with studies from the "insect world." You failed and ignored this point that "time" is not a factor when we consider the insect world. Here is our dialogue in the last post.
SearchAndDestroy wrote:
What do you honestly believe is the reason for evolution? It's adaption! Small changes now may get exaggerated in the future. Do you not understand that. Those examples I gave you show small changes, and speciation. Science isn't about finding things in biblical proportions like those you seem to be searching for. Science is studing things over time.
Search adaptation only proves Micro Evolution! You have only supported my position by showing the "only" proof we have is change within kinds. You have absolutely "no proof" for Macro Evolution in the examples you cited. You mention "TIME" is a factor needed in the developement of Macro Evolution occuring. However clearly if Macro Evolution is happening it would be observed in the "insect world" as "time" is not a factor there. You know how long a fly lives? Yes you get the point, enough time to demostrate Macro Evolution if it is occuring. However, since Macro Evolution is NOT ocurring even in the "insect world" we see the FALLACY of Macro Evolution.Note this quotation regarding the fruit fly dropsohila experiments. This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Quote:
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
As we can see, TIME is not a factor if Macro Evolution is ocurring. It would be happening in the insect world. However, we see in the insect world what we see in "higher" animals, changes within kinds or Micro Evolution or changes!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You tell me I assume things, yet all your sources are from Christian sites that are pretyy biased.
Search in my quote above, "National Geographic" is that a Christian "source?" Here is another authority, that is a quote from a disillusioned "darwinian macro evolutionist," tell me is this from a Christian source? Quote:
Jerome Lejeune - Professor (Chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris),
internationally recognised geneticist, and evolution teacher.
"The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the
Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not
work." Quoted from the conference paper "The Beginning of Life", in October 1975, by Jerome Lejeune.
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot
accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory
known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but
because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which
is known to be inexact ....." Comments made by Jerome Lejeune at a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985. Notes are from a recording of the
message.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
They are trying to prove something, scientist are trying to showcase work that take years and Christians just say it's not true.
Search again your saying "time" is a factor. What about the "insect world." The quote of the "salmon" study you brought to my attention, undercut darwinian macro evolution that says "speciation" is to take "hundreds of thousands of years" and yet it was ocurring in "only" 60-70 years! Here is "our" dialogue regarding that point,
SearchAndDestroy wrote:
Reproductive Isolation in Thirteen Generations : Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings
Search as you can see, as in "your" other examples from your other posts you have given me, this is "MICRO EVOLUTION," changes within kinds. They are still "salmon." Also did you notice from the quote you gave me above a concern? "News media" overstated the case! Do you understand what they OVERSTATED? The Media "concluded" from this study that SPECIATION does NOT take "hundreds of thousands of years" that Macro Evolution teaches! You have supported my position in the quote above. This quote is what an Intelligent Design scientist would expect, rapid change within species as a result of adaptation if the envirement requires it, which contradicts the Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory. Let me add the later part of our dialogue here. Search do you realize the "fast speciation" of the "salmon" you brought to my attention is "evidence" for a "younger earth" then "Darwinian Macro Evolutionist" believe? Do you realize that is why the MEDIA "over reacted" according to Macro Evolutionists and they could not allow for that idea to be accepted!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Then they pull up "Professors" who performed ONE study, or talk against the reasons for it and say thats all the proof you need.
Search my friend, this shows the inroads that Intelligent Design have made for if darwinian macro evolution was as factual as you seem to think it is, why are scientists abondoning the theory? Notice that the professors are from prestigious universities and notice the date of this quotation. Quote:
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwins Theory
By: Staff Discovery Institute February 20, 2006
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
SEATTLE Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement reads: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington..
Search, my friend, don't miss my point here. The fact that you have professors from prestigious universities that are willing to reject "darwinian macro evolution" so openly shows "Intelligent Design" is making "inroads." Just a few years back, one would be hard pressed to even find "ONE" professor to take such a position.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
See, if micro-evolution keeps changing a creature, miilions of years later you honestly believe they'd look alike? That they could even be called the same species? If it takes 4000 years for a big change to happen in Salmon seperated, imagine a million years.
TIME again? One source above I cited, the "insect" study on fruit flies! Time is "not" a factor in the insect world. I think you know how long a fly lives. A second "source" you cited was "salmon speciation," it did not take hundreds of thousands of years, but 60-70 years! Time is not a factor and please accept the conclusions of the studies, even the study you cited.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And I knew you were going to bring up the 6000 years in the bible.
Search I did not bring up 6000 years in any of my posts, "you did." If the Bible has a verse that says 6000 years, give it to me, because I never brought that up and why would I bring up something the Bible never says.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa.
Search you need to read carefully. I never said that Y Chromosome Adam lived 12,000 years ago! What I did say is that there was a DNA study, the Hammer study, that put 12,000 years between the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is our dialogue so you can read it more carfully. It includes the study that "separates" Adam and Eve by 12,000 years. Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time. Don't miss my point, it is too early to establish that yet. That study is the Hammer study that arrives at the time I referred to above, and as you know, his study is one of the definitive studies on this subject. I will quote it here, the site is, http://wrsv.clas.virginia.edu,
Quote:
About 10 years ago, molecular biologists found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it has been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone.
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.
Search, this thread is called "Genesis proof" and as you know, I have been pointing out that the Bible has said for thousands of years that humanity is descended from Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis 3:20. Science now through DNA studies have confirmed that this is true by stating humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. This as you know startled the scientific community as the most popular belief prior to the DNA studies was that humanity arose in different parts of the world and from different groups. This conclusion was as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls from different parts of the world due to cranial size and resemblance to humanity. Who would believe that now after these DNA studies that show we are decended from one couple.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 11:33
Obviously you don't understand evolution. At one point a few human species lived during the sametime. Even interacted with each other. That doesn't mean evolution does not happen. Obviously your viewing evolution is a straight line from one point to another. That is far from the truth. It may take millions of years for evolution to happen, but thousands of factors count. If the ancestor could live also, then why would or should it die out? It's not as if it's evolutionary garbage.
You tell me I assume things, yet all your sources are from Christian sites that are pretyy biased. They are trying to prove something, scientist are trying to showcase work that take years and Christians just say it's not true. Then they pull up "Professors" who performed ONE study, or talk against the reasons for it and say thats all the proof you need.
See the problem with arguing with you is your looking for a quick answer. Honestly, science isn't, it's a constant study and we won't see alot of things in our life time explained by it unless a huge break though happens. We probably won't even see the end of studying the Theory of Gravity.
See, if micro-evolution keeps changing a creature, miilions of years later you honestly believe they'd look alike? That they could even be called the same species? If it takes 4000 years for a big change to happen in Salmon seperated, imagine a million years.
And I knew you were going to bring up the 6000 years in the bible. Just shows how splintered in thought Christians are, yet the ones that cling on to the bible are desperate to prove Science wrong.
This is why I like Science, it's not a faith but a constant study, it changes when new scientist bring up ideas that other scientist can prove the possibilty of it. You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa. Populations were already isolated from each other. It wouldn't even make sense if adamn existed 40,000-25,000 years ago. And would all the human sub-species have their own Adam and Eve's?
But please answer this question: "And would all the human sub-species have their own Adam and Eve's?" Would Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, etc... have their own Adams and Eves like those of the bible?
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
What do you honestly believe is the reason for evolution? It's adaption! Small changes now may get exaggerated in the future. Do you not understand that. Those examples I gave you show small changes, and speciation. Science isn't about finding things in biblical proportions like those you seem to be searching for. Science is studing things over time.
Search adaptation only proves Micro Evolution! You have only supported my position by showing the "only" proof we have is change within kinds. You have absolutely "no proof" for Macro Evolution in the examples you cited. You mention "TIME" is a factor needed in the developement of Macro Evolution occuring. However clearly if Macro Evolution is happening it would be observed in the "insect world" as "time" is not a factor there. You know how long a fly lives? Yes you get the point, enough time to demostrate Macro Evolution if it is occuring. However, since Macro Evolution is NOT ocurring even in the "insect world" we see the FALLACY of Macro Evolution.Note this quotation regarding the fruit fly dropsohila experiments. This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Quote:
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
As we can see, TIME is not a factor if Macro Evolution is ocurring. It would be happening in the insect world. However, we see in the insect world what we see in "higher" animals, changes within kinds or Micro Evolution or changes!
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by what scientists have said, most of them don't even study evolution.
My quote above was in regards to when Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve lived. You "assume" there were other Adams and Eves, however different DNA studies have given different dates, none are the same so your misusing my statement above to make a point that is not relevant. The fact is the times are all over the place as to when Adam and Eve existed as far as DNA studies! However as I pointed out DNA studies may eventually conclude they were together. I gave you the Hammer DNA study, one of the authoritive studies and he puts Adam and Eve 12,000 years apart! A second in time! Thus my point about your assumptions stands.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Intellligent design says some big guy in the sky snapped his fingers and life appeared. That sounds a whole lot more realistic to you?
Your incorrect here, scientists have to go where the evidence takes them and that is what Intelligent Design scientists have done. As I pointed out to you in this post and the one I did before to you, Micro Evolution is all you have proved in the examples you have given. You have not given evidence of Macro evolution, however you "blindly" believe it happens. You implied "time" is a factor why we don't see Macro Evolution and so I gave you the results of experiments on fruit flies. That is the kind of "evidence" for an Intelligent Design scientist.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Reproductive Isolation in Thirteen Generations : Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings
Search as you can see, as in "your" other examples from your other posts you have given me, this is "MICRO EVOLUTION," changes within kinds. They are still "salmon." Also did you notice from the quote you gave me above a concern? "News media" overstated the case! Do you understand what they OVERSTATED? The Media "concluded" from this study that SPECIATION does NOT take "hundreds of thousands of years" that Macro Evolution teaches! You have supported my position in the quote above. This quote is what an Intelligent Design scientist would expect, rapid change within species as a result of adaptation if the envirement requires it, which contradicts the Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The bible is not reason, it's telling you, it doesn't change and only gives you a quick answer.
I have never given the Bible as a proof for Intelligent Design. Instead note the evidence I have given you in this post, adaptation within kinds which supports Micro Evolution. Even your "own" quote regarding salmon supports adaption or micro evolution due to envirement much faster then taught by Darwinian Macro Evolution. Darwinian evolutionists had to get a handle on the "media" and stop their conclusions.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Alot of evolutionist believe in Chritianity, but they also believe you can't take a book literally.
Your incorrect here. In fact your giving lots of opinion. You "believe" that many Darwinian Macro Evolutionist are THIESTIC EVOLUTIONISTS as you suggest above, however it is from that group who have "converted" and come to realize there is "NO EVIDENCE" for Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory. In fact I at one time believed in the darwinian macro evolution theory myself, until I studied both sides. The website is www.ridgecrest.ca.us
Quote:
In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option. This could be the beginning of a trend, but it might just be a one-time anomaly. If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs.
Intelligent Design is a new idea that allows rejection of evolution without acceptance of the Judeo-Christian god. In the September, 2005, Gallup poll, 31% think Intelligent Design is true, 32% think it is false, and 37% dont know what to think.)
As we can see people were at one time THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS, however with further study as suggested by the Gallup organization they changed to become supporters of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Note there assessment, "it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs." As you can see people are converting from the "theistic evolution" position to believe in Intelligent Design and your assumption Search is incorrect.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And have you seen the fossil record of the horse, they say it explains Macro-evolution perfectly because the transitionals fit right in them all.
Search you seem to be unaware of the studies of the so called "horse evolution series" that have been founded to be false. Here is a quote that makes that point.
Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the
one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse.
National Geographic, January 1981 p:74
Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The bible says Earth is 6000 years old. The oldest I saw doing a search is 10,000 years old. The youngest Earth age is 5800. You said that the latest research for Adam is about 12,000 years old. That double what the Bible says. Which you said, "ONE SEPERATE STUDY" said that. That is one study up against hundreds of other studies that have all different times but most farther back, probably tripling that. So, one study doesn't prove anything, 12,000 years is already 2000-6000 over the mark the Bible says the Earth was created, the Y chromosme is in constant change and even if it takes 100,000 years thats still just a snap of a finger in time, and according to a few studies we share alot of chromosomes with apes. Here's a few site that say the earth is 6000 years old. Just a few, do a search and you can find more. So if your devoted to hanging onto every word of the bible, then your study that says Adam and Eve were together 12000 years ago is already wrong. Now this is from the bible, saying Earth is 6000 years old.
Search, I read all the these sites, "none" gave a verse that says the earth is 6000 years. Give me the verse that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. If you don't have a verse then the Bible does not say that! I don't really care what these sites say. However do you realize the FAST SPECIATION of the SALMON you brought to MY attention is EVIDENCE for a YOUNGER EARTH then DARWINIAN Macro Evolutionist believe? Do you realize that is why the MEDIA over reacted according to Macro Evolutionist and they could not allow for that idea to be accepted!
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 15:49
The bible says Earth is 6000 years old. The oldest I saw doing a search is 10,000 years old. The youngest Earth age is 5800. You said that the latest research for Adam is about 12,000 years old. That double what the Bible says. Which you said, "ONE SEPERATE STUDY" said that. That is one study up against hundreds of other studies that have all different times but most farther back, probably tripling that.
Science now through DNA studies have confirmed that this is true by stating humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve.
Not true, that maybe true in the Religious community, but not in the scientific. If it were it'd be considered a scientific break through and you'd hear about it everywhere. If they had the complete fact, undisputed answer where the study of science is needed no more, then everyone in the scientifc community would have known about it, and it would be on the news. But on the news all I see it the Religious to charitable things, and only new evolution break throughs. Nothing about finding the adam and eve of the bible.
Here's a article where a study found a Y chromosome that is shared between 16 ethnically diverse Humans and four chimpanzees.
For example, Mike Hammer at the University of Arizona, having sequenced 2,400 bases in the same Y chromosome region from 16 ethnically diverse humans and four chimpanzees, was able to date the common ancestral human Y chromosome at 188,000 years with a 95 percent confidence interval from 51,000 to 411,000 years.
So, one study doesn't prove anything, 12,000 years is already 2000-6000 over the mark the Bible says the Earth was created, the Y chromosme is in constant change and even if it takes 100,000 years thats still just a snap of a finger in time, and according to a few studies we share alot of chromosomes with apes.
Here's a few site that say the earth is 6000 years old.
Just a few, do a search and you can find more. So if your devoted to hanging onto every word of the bible, then your study that says Adam and Eve were together 12000 years ago is already wrong. Now this is from the bible, saying Earth is 6000 years old.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to believe in some parts of the Bible and not in others.
Hi encoberto, I cannot agree with you in this statement, as clearly this would be very inconsistent. For example this thread is called "Genesis proof" and as you know, I have been pointing out that the Bible has said for thousands of years that humanity is descended from Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:20. Science now through DNA studies have confirmed that this is true by stating humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. This as you know startled the scientific community as the most popular belief prior to the DNA studies was that humanity arose in different parts of the world and from different groups. This conclusion was as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls from different parts of the world due to cranial size and resemblance to humanity.
Originally posted by Encoberto
. However, I can find in the Bible some notions that can be most helpful to people and are deeply humanist, like Jesus profound Humanist message. And although it is probable that Jesus did exist and passed on that message, some other parts of the Bible might not possibly be true, at least not in a literal way. Namely, the creation of the world.
I am glad you recognise the profound message of Jesus and this is where the inconsistency becomes apparent. For example Jesus made reference directly to the historicity of Adam and Eve in His teachings. Thus the position that says the book of Genesis is not credible contradicts the very position of Jesus Christ. Jesus would "never" contradict the book of Genesis. Over and over Jesus supported the reality of Genesis and would never encourage a "new interpretation" of scripture. Note His direct reference to Genesis and the events regarding Adam and Eve in respect to them becoming one flesh, in Mattew 19:3-9 Here is the passage,
3 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4 He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife; and the two will become one flesh?' 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." 7 They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. 9 I tell you that whoever will put away his wife, except for sexual immorality, and will marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery."
Thus Jesus refers directly to the "beginning" in Genesis when the institution of marriage was first given to, you guessed it to Adam and Eve. The language above that Jesus used in referring to Genesis is used in many marriage ceremonies to this day. These very words, God the Father is quoted by Jesus, He said to "Adam and Eve" in the beginning.
Originally posted by Encoberto
Whats more, I dont find it necessary to anyone professing any faith to believe in every single axiom or truth to be considered a Christian, Muslim, etc.
Christianity has a standard of authority as you know Encoberto, and that standard is the New Testament, which is considered to be the Word of God to Christians. It must be followed and many of the problems that people complain about have do with the historical developments in denominations as a result of manmade doctrines that are not in the New Testament as stated in 2Timothy 4:1-4. Here is a quote of the passage,
1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
As we can see Christians are to preach the "Word." In the passage above, the Word is the "Truth" and "sound doctrine." Thus that which is NOT in the New Testament is not sound doctrine or the truth.
Originally posted by Encoberto
I have to agree with Theophos that it is not necessary to believe in every single word of the Bible to make you a Christian.
You may agree with Theophos, however I think you can see the logic I have presented in regards to the Word of God, as being the standard that must be adhered to and that is a necessity, if one is a Christian. As we can see Christians are to preach the "Word." As you can read in the passage above, the Word is the "Truth" and "sound doctrine." Thus that which is NOT in the New Testament is not sound doctrine or the truth.
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:16
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
I found what you said very interesting and could
not help but comment on your points. I know [others] found what you
said as cynical, however it seems to me to be very inciteful.
(I hope you mean insightful!!)
Muchas gracias, Cuauhtemoc. I'm glad someone who still clings to the
psychological crutch of belief in a deity can approach my line of
thinking with a clear head.
I think our style of reasoning is similar. Where you and i differ, is
essentially at our starting points. You still *assume* God exists
(you are likely scared - on some level - of what it means if he
doesn't) ... I, on the other hand, consider his existence
inherently *unlikely*.
Here's a question for you:
After rejecting Catholic dogma, why did you choose Christianity?
Why not accept Muhammad as God's final prophet?
Why not accept the Bab, or the Bahu'allah?
As i've mentioned to others, they all make reference to the same material.
Why settle for MS-DOS, when you could be running Windows XP? ; )
Seriously though, why stop at Chirst? There have been other pretty good claims to prophecy since.
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
...to have a theistic evolutionist belief in the Genesis and to believe in Jesus as the Redeemer of Man is possible and consistent....
I love it. We humans are are so predictable its scary.
Halevi, I agree with you that taking this position as Theophos attempts to do is very inconsistent. It is done without logic or reason. Theophos takes such a contradictory position because, as you point out it is easy, he merely takes this position because he blindly follows the Catholic church. In pointing these things to Theophos, I hope he comes to realize I am trying to get him to think. Theophos likes to say I am bashing catholism, however as a former Catholic, I know what things made me think. This was what I wrote Halevi to Theophos in a post to him, "To say one believes in Jesus and suggest Adam and Eve are not as revealed in Genesis is a direct contradiction to Jesus, the Lord, Himself! Jesus clearly considered Genesis, the "literal" Word of God! Jesus clearly accepted the book of Genesis, without any reservation as fact, for example the flood of Noah, Matthew 24:37-39."
Originally posted by Halevi
[The beauty of religious texts and organized religions in general is that] they are based on an assumption of a-priori belief in a higher power. That tends to work pretty well, since most people have an intense psychological need to believe the world - and their lives, in particular - are inherently meaningful... that there's some sort of grand plan that implies their lives aren't useless or temporary.
Halevi, I am in agreement with you as "we" humans have a psychological need to believe, to make life meaningful. The reason we have such a "need" is because God put that need there. We have physical needs, but we also have spiritual needs. Jesus addressed this issue in Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"
Thus Jesus came to address the spiritual needs that every human has, that inner need you are referring to above Halevi.
Amusingly, people tend to swallow whatever religious system they're born into, and then profess it to be the only 'truth'. This is despite the fact that, had they been born into a different system, they'd likely have a different opinion.)
Again this is a very inciteful observation. However this should not be the case as we should get to a point in our lives when we question what we have been taught. I personally was raised Catholic, however now, I am a Christian that believes the Word of God must be followed. That is a very drastic change. To question what one is taught is to be thinker. This is what Christianity itself encourages in Acts 17:10-11,
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea. When they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
Thus Christianity is not a religion of simply accepting what is taught without examination. Teachings God says must conform to that which is in the scriptures, the Word of God, and ones beliefs should conform to that.
Originally posted by Halevi
Even for those who are skeptical of organized religion, the psychological need for meaning is pretty powerful. For example, even brilliant scientists such as Albert Einstein felt compelled to believe in a 'higher power'. Without this belief, some people become so ungrounded by the inherent meaninglessness of life, that they simply cannot adequately cope with reality.
Halevi, Einstein, like any human, felt the need to fill that inner spiritual craving God put in all men. In addition to the fact that Einstein felt he was looking into the "mind" of God as he studied natural laws of creation. When humanity looks at the creation or universe around us, one cannot help, like Einstein realize that there is a "Creator." There has "never" been a society of athiests. The universe around us helps us recognise that a Higher Being must exist, however without the revealed Word of God brought by Jesus to fill the spiritual needs of humanity, to give us direction and meaning to life, life appears meaningless, unless we fill it with some "dogma" or philosophy to fill that need which may not do the job.
Originally posted by Halevi
People who spend time picking apart the the rationale behind religion and religious traditions - investigating the ultimate meaninglessness of reality - often end up in a somewhat paralyzed mental state, since their lives eventually become devoid of meaning. Many of these people in fact end up committing suicide (see existential thinkers, and many other intellectuals).
Halevi, this occurs because people are trying to fill that craving, that need, that every human has with the wrong thing, and it results, as you point out, in a life of meaningless and many times leads to suicide. This is sad that the niche is not filled with what God intended.
Originally posted by Halevi
This mental adaptation is usually so powerful that no amount or kind of 'proof' can rid people of their deep beliefs about God, or prophets, or angles, or reincarnation, or, basically, meaning. Rather, people tend to interpret and shape their observations so that they jive with their chosen belief system. [see Thephosos' quote for just one example]They're usually wrong, of course, or at least deluding themselves. But that really doesn't matter too much, so long as their beliefs let them get on with life.
I do it too, of course, and so do you, although we like to think we don't.
Please, i'd really like to hear what you all have to say about this point of view.
I found what you said very interesting and could not help but comment on your points. I know some found what you said as cynical, however it seems to me to be very insightful.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. My views are not incosistent, my friend, simply because I and many other christians do not regard the Bible as the litteral word of God. Can you understand this? I've said this over and over again.
No this is not understandable. To say one believes in Jesus and suggest Adam and Eve are not as revealed in Genesis is a direct contradiction to Jesus, the Lord, Himself! Jesus clearly considered Genesis, the "literal" Word of God! Jesus clearly accepted the book of Genesis, without any reservation as fact, for example the flood of Noah. Matthew 24:37-39
37 As the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
As we can see Jesus even compared His second coming to days of Noah in the Old Testament, yes the very book of Genesis. Any problems believing in the second coming? It will be just like the days of Noah as the Lord said.
Originally posted by Theophos
I didn't say I don't accept the Genesis. What I said is that a new interpretation of the Scriptures is possible. The Scriptures don't change, the interpretation does.
This again contradicts the very position of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Jesus would "never" contradict the book of Genesis. Over and over the Saviour, supported the reality of Genesis and would never encourage a "new interpretation" of scripture! Note His direct reference to Genesis and the events regarding Adam and Eve in respect to them becoming one flesh, in Mattew 19:3-9 Here is the passage,
3 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4 He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife; and the two will become one flesh?' 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." 7 They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. 9 I tell you that whoever will put away his wife, except for sexual immorality, and will marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery."
As we can see, Theophos, Jesus made a direct reference to the "beginning" when God gave the law of marriage to Adam and Eve originally. This very passage in Genesis is used in Catholic weddings to this day. Once again, Theophos, "inconsistency" cannot be defended! As we can see "contradicting" Jesus, the Lord, the Saviour, cannot be defended!
Originally posted by Theophos
So, making this even more clear, because apparently my dear friends Cuauhtemoc and Emperor Barbarossa have continuosly failed to understand it, to have a theistic evolutionist belief in the Genesis and to believe in Jesus as the Redeemer of Man is possible and consistent.
No, once again, this is extremely "inconsistent." Believers in theistic evolution are "converting" in large numbers, among those who have taken that position. Previous adherents to that belief, have to come to the conclusion that the evidence for darwinian macro evolution has no evidence! Here is a quotation of the very reputable Gallup company, Quote:
In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option. This could be the beginning of a trend, but it might just be a one-time anomaly. If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs.
Intelligent Design is a new idea that allows rejection of evolution without acceptance of the Judeo-Christian god. In the September, 2005, Gallup poll, 31% think Intelligent Design is true, 32% think it is false, and 37% dont know what to think.)
Please note my dear friend Theophos, the observation of this organization as to why this is occuring, "If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs."
Originally posted by Theophos
As for christian ecumenism, apparently Cuauhtemoc sees this as an utopia and a silly dream. Once more, I feel sorry he thinks this way. I'm not promoting division, I am promoting union from the divisions we have nowadays. I'm more interested in the future than in the past. Though the churches are separate, I believe they all represent the Body of Christ. The one who is being sectarian is you, my friend Cuauhtemoc.
Yes it is a dream that is not reality. Unity must be achieved, however unity is not based on diversity of belief! The denominations you think that can be unified, are too divided for this to occur, as you know from my response to you in my last post. Unity must be based on what Jesus said! Jesus, the Lord said that "unity" must be based and have as its foundation, in the Word of God! Note what the Saviour said in JOHN 17:17-21. Here is the passage,
17 Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, even so I sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
As we can see Theophos, "unity" according to the Lord, that results in being "one" is based on the Word of God.
There's no reason at all why accepting Jesus as Christ entails believing in the literal truth of the Old Testament.
This is clearly an incorrect assessment. The Old Testament as we know prepared the Israelite or Jewish people for the coming of the Messiah! So the Old Testament is necessary to have an understanding of Jesus, and was designed to be a tutor to bring us to Christ as stated in Galatians 3:22-27, here is the passage,
22 But the Scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, shut up to the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
As we see can glce, the Old Testament, enhances New Testament Christians knowledge of Jesus. That is why Christians study the Old Testament, even though they recognise they are not under the Old Testament today, for they are now under the New Testament or the Law of Christ. John 14:15 If you love Me, keep my commandments. Gcle, why did you not address the previous post I made to you?
I haven't been here in a while since I've been really sort on time in the past few days, and will be for the next week. So I'll essentially be absent from this thread from now on. So I guess I should just finish up with a reiteration of my main points.
1) "Disproving" Evolution is not proving creationism. Some have pointed out that there are disagreements about how the evolution should be applied to a large scale. However, the scientists who disagree about the details of evolution do not agreey with creationism. The way science works is that people come up with explanations as to how things work. Whenever the model doesn't work, it is improved.
2) "Proving" creationism is not science. The reason is that science is the study of observation. Science does not have a religious objective to seek out what is religiously correct or incorrect. The people who try to use science use it to push a religious agenda. What tends to happen is that creationists takes scientific facts out of context in order to support their agenda. Examples: - Incorrectly stating that Y Chromo "Adam" and Mito "Eve" were named due to the credibility of the Bible. - Making assumptions that the two figures above were a couple as described by the bible. - Exploiting the fact that there are incomplete areas in scientific theory to make the argument that science fails in explanation. In actuality, science is full of holes but old holes are covered up. Today, we have a much greater understanding of evolution than we did 50 years ago. Again, the fact that science fails to explain everything doesn't mean that religion can.
3) Creationism and Intelligent Design are universally rejected by higher education. Creationists try to give the false impression that creationism has as much support as evolution. While not all scientists agree coherently on evolution, all mainstream scientists reject creationism. Articles supporting creationism cannot be found in any scientific research journals. At my school, the University of Pennsylvania, there is not a single professor who would publically speak for intelligent design and there is not a single course that teaches creationism as science. - The debate in education about creationism is about whether or not we should teach it because its a part of human culture, not because its correct.
These points were addressed in my previous post to you. A brief review, to your POINT 1, no Intelligent Design would say disproving Darwinian Macro Evolution proves creationism! The "fossil record" as a "proof" is much better proof used by an Intelligent Design scientist! You keep trying to say that I believe that disproving Macro evolution proves my position, however I have NEVER said such a thing! to your POINT 2, the fossil record as I just mentioned is the kind of "proof" I have offered to establish Intelligent Design. To your POINT 3, as you know this is NOT true, there is not any universal rejection in education of Intelligent Design as you know the inclusion of Intelligent Design is in reality "heating up". I have pointed out that even from prestigious universities have more then 500 professors who "openly reject" macro evolution! A few years ago, one would be hard pressed to find ONE professor to make such a declaration on a college campus, as Invictus you know. My point, Intelligent Design is making inroads.
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
4) The Bible contains both "factual" information and "mythological" stories. The fact is, many historical documents are a blend of fact and myth. For example, the Roman historian Suetonius wrote a bigraphy on Julius Caesar that contains many factual information that can be cross-verfied. Suetonius also wrote that Caesar was a descendant from the Roman Goddess Venus. I'm sure most Christians would reject this as fact, since they would reject the existence of Venus the Goddess. But no one can deny that Suetonius's biography has a lot of factual information. So is the biography true or false? I think the middle ground is the only one possible.
Though you think this is a good point, Suetonius was a historian and did not claim to be god or even inspired of God! However the Bible, claims to be written by God and that the people who wrote the Word of God were moved to write what they wrote by God. Thus my dear friend Invictus, there is no comparison in the types of writing under consideration. [QUOTE=Imperator Invictus] Quote:
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
The fact that such a declaration has to be made, shows Intelligent Design has made inroads in "upper education" were "free expression" should be par for the course. However the fact that universities would rather "fail" to encourage "critical thinking" in this area of origins speaks volumes! Critical thinking is a cornerstone in education in any other subject on a college campus. However, one can reasonably conclude that the evidence for Darwinian Macro Evolution is so weak or non existent, and that is why there is such resistence to teach both. Clearly if the evidences for darwinian macro evolution were so overwelming, no one would fear teaching both! Universities and the educational system should learn from "history!" Repression of free expression of ideas will only encourage its growth!
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 11:46
What do you honestly believe is the reason for evolution? It's adaption! Small changes now may get exaggerated in the future. Do you not understand that. Those examples I gave you show small changes, and speciation. Science isn't about finding things in biblical proportions like those you seem to be searching for. Science is studing things over time.
You can not expect to understand everything in science right now. We don't fully understand gravity, yet you can't deny it.
Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by what scientists have said, most of them don't even study evolution. Evolution just fits in with the time line. We know the world is 4.55 billion years old, you could deny it all you want because your book says otherwise. But through numerous ways of studying, and hundreds of years doing so, we found the age of Earth.
So I could disregard science and follow the bible, or I can go by what is accepted in the science world and disregard a myth.
You seem to think evolutionist are out to get at Christians. All they are doing is trying to explain qualities of animals that have similarties on one side of the world but are different species. Intellligent design says some big guy in the sky snapped his fingers and life appeared. That sounds a whole lot more realistic to you?
As you can see Search this study places them closer then any other study I know of. In the future it may have them even closer. Even together! Are you sure they will not be shown to live during the same period? The answer is no! We both must admit we cannot, but it is possible. These DNA studies are so new and they may become more exact in the future.
And it's still not accepted by the science community except those that are either looking for information all at once and expect science to give a simple answer or those who have a agenda aginst it. Atleast thats what I have observed.
Besides that 12000 year old date is already older then the Bible's earth from what I understand it puts the age of earth at 6000 years old.
Originally posted by obviously not what your looking for, but it's evolution or in other words CHANGE
Reproductive Isolation in Thirteen Generations : Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings
So I'll ask again,
Now how exactly in intelligent design in the least bit provable or even observed in any way shape or form besides what a book and those who have strong faith say?
And why go against Evolution when it's trying to find answers instead of avoiding reason like the bible. The bible is not reason, it's telling you, it doesn't change and only gives you a quick answer. Alot of evolutionist believe in Chritianity, but they also believe you can't take a book literally.
There are also alot more sciences that would prove the bible wrong more so then evolution. It's just that evolution seems to be the most obvious and are blinded by the idea as it is against religion. Which I still can't figure out.
And have you seen the fossil record of the horse, they say it explains Macro-evolution perfectly because the transitionals fit right in them all. Ofcourse your just going to say, "Well you weren't there to see it", well you weren't there to see Adam or Eve, you weren't there to see a god create earth, and there is absolutly no evidence accepted by the "science community", (not a few sciences here, the science community) that accept the ideas of intelligent design.
Christians seem to be the only religion that has a problem with it. And even now the Pope seems to agree with evolution which is now only leaving the Protestants not agreeing with science. These arguements go in circles though. Either way both sides are going to move on, evolution will never stop being studied and creationist will always have a book for evidence.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 10:48
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
My support for the Bible, the Word of God, that provides the answers, is the "Genesis proof" , that this thread all is about. Is supported by these facts, 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! 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?
The quotes of the Bible are from www.biblegateway.com 21st century King James version
Genesis 2.7:"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - I expect the future studies about DNA to confirm this. Especially the soul part. What is a "dead soul"?
Genesis 2.21&22&23:"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.... And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man. ....And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" - How does that fit with your idea that DNA studies confirm the existence of the #1 human couple? Is Eve a clone of Adam, genetically engineered to switch the gender?
Genesis 3.20:"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living". Hold on a second! She was already a mother? And of all living? Is Eve the ex of God, since he is the father of all?
Where do I find DNA in the Bible.
The studies only mention of some inherited DNA. The assumption that there was actually a couple, man and woman, that is responsible for this inheritance is pure fantasy.
The theory you are denying with such vehemence still stands. The DNA discovery just added some new facts. Basically is still the same.
If there was an original couple, in order to make viable offspring to carry their genes there were the following possibilities:
They both made it with the apes
Eve made it with the apes
Adam made it with the apes
Their kid(s) made it with the apes
Must've been really stoned when he wrote the Bible that dear God.
Cuauhtemoc, my friend, you misinterpret what I say so that it fits your wacky ideas.
Science has no ultimate answer is what I said not that science has no answers. Actually science provides far better and reliable answers than the fairy tale called the Bible.
Intelligent design is merely a theory. It assumes that things are better explained as a result of intelligence. But it is we who define what intelligence is. Intelligence is a human concept. Therefore intelligent design is the result of the anthropocentric delusion just like the christians who keep on saying that man is alike God.
Your posts are very long but it only seems that you're selecting some quotes that you interpret as convincing. They are only words. The most crazy idea that you keep on pumping into this thread is that there is a proof of an original couple. It seems that you are in fact the only individual convinced of this. Anyway, what would that have to do with the Genesis? Assuming that the proof of Adam and Eve is sound how would that explain Genesis? Next thing what, if Jesus existed then God exists?
Don't call me "my friend", sounds like you're trying to convert me.
Hi again Cezar, I don't mind you calling me, my friend! I quoted you accurately. You need to write clearly. Obviously you cannot answer the points I made to you. In fact, you did not know what Inteligent Design was. At least get your facts and thoughts together. Are you affraid of the points I made? What about the quotations? It is easy for you to give your opinion only. By your reasoning darwinian macro evolution, since it is a human concept is a delusion. I quoted macro scientist who say things clearly in my post to you, that darwinian macro evolution is "DOGMA". You can choose your dogma. My quotations are words alright, just like your words, however the quotations are not "my" words. As an educated individual, I am sure you recognise the importance of giving sources for your position, just I as an educated individual recognise the importance to do this. Pronouciations, whether by you or me, are only our opinions without sources. As you admitted above, the darwinian macro evolution cannot provide answers, which resulted from you not writing clearly, as the support for evolution is not "emperical" and is in fact "dogma". My support for the Bible, the Word of God, that provides the answers, is the "Genesis proof" , that this thread all is about. Is supported by these facts, 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! 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?
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 08:27
Words can be misleading. I I say "I'm sure there is liquid water on Mars" many people might argue about my statement. That is until I show the picture below as a proof for it.
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 07:51
Cuauhtemoc, my friend, you misinterpret what I say so that it fits your wacky ideas.
Science has no ultimate answer is what I said not that science has no answers. Actually science provides far better and reliable answers than the fairy tale called the Bible.
Intelligent design is merely a theory. It assumes that things are better explained as a result of intelligence. But it is we who define what intelligence is. Intelligence is a human concept. Therefore intelligent design is the result of the anthropocentric delusion just like the christians who keep on saying that man is alike God.
Your posts are very long but it only seems that you're selecting some quotes that you interpret as convincing. They are only words. The most crazy idea that you keep on pumping into this thread is that there is a proof of an original couple. It seems that you are in fact the only individual convinced of this. Anyway, what would that have to do with the Genesis? Assuming that the proof of Adam and Eve is sound how would that explain Genesis? Next thing what, if Jesus existed then God exists?
Don't call me "my friend", sounds like you're trying to convert me.
Science not understand facts from nature? Photosynthysis? Coagulation of blood? Gravity?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Science has found answers to alot of things, but your sadly mistaken if you believe it has found answers for all. According to this logic, because we haven't elements on the periodic table doesn't mean they don't exist, because we have yet to find out exactly how Black holes work doesn't mean we ever will, infact we are getting closer.
Hello Search, as you know I was responding to the point made by the one I was responding to. I never said science had answers to everything. My comment was addressing the fact that the individual said "darwinian macro evolution does not provide answers," and scientists know it! Obviously you do not agree with the individual who made the comment. Thus my valid point is in contrast with his opinion. His position is that Darwinian Macro Evolutionist, knows their theory does not have answers. I agree with him specificly with his statement. Obviously macro evolution which is taught as fact, is not fact at all and that is what I was pointing out. In fact I quoted a disillusioned darwinian macro evolutionists who does not agree with you in the area of macro evolution, but agrees with Cezar and I. Quote:
Jerome Lejeune - Professor (Chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris),
internationally recognised geneticist, and evolution teacher.
"The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the
Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not
work." Quoted from the conference paper "The Beginning of Life", in October 1975, by Jerome Lejeune.
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot
accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory
known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but
because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which
is known to be inexact ....." Comments made by Jerome Lejeune at a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985. Notes are from a recording of the
message.
As we can see darwinian macro evolution is taught not because it "works" or is "good", we know its "bad". I know you ignore the quotations of eminent scientist who are macro evolutionists, however they know the theory better then you and I.
FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE and proves what it has always said! All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve.
The Y-chromosomal Adam can also be defined as the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all humans, considering an unbroken paternal line of descent only: fathers, paternal grandfathers, etc. Note that this is different from the most recent common ancestor traced through both paternal and maternal lines, estimated at living in earlier times.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human history. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of humans alive today is different from the one for humans alive a thousand years in the future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual, the Y-mrca of a subtree of the preceding Y-Adam, becomes the new Y-Adam.
The Y-chromosomal Adam for living humans probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by thousands of generations. They are named after the "Adam" and "Eve" in Genesis as a metaphor only, and are not considered to be the first humans. There would have been many others alive at the same time.
Based on DNA analysis as of 2002, both Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are believed to have lived in Africa, though approximately 85,000 years apart. This is part of the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time. Don't miss my point, it is too early to establish that yet. That study is the Hammer study that arrives at the time I referred to above, and as you know, his study is one of the definitive studies on this subject. I will quote it here, the site is, http://wrsv.clas.virginia.edu,
About 10 years ago, molecular biologists found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it has been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone.
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.
As you can see Search this study places them closer then any other study I know of. In the future it may have them even closer. Even together! Are you sure they will not be shown to live during the same period? The answer is no! We both must admit we cannot, but it is possible. These DNA studies are so new and they may become more exact in the future.
Cezar it seems your not aware of Intelligent Design as regards origins, which is what Macro Evolution is to address but as you can see from above, the darwinian theory is "not" emperical and thus not science
This point I made stands and will be seen in my following points.
This is not Macro evolution! In fact these are "adaptations" to an envirement. This site admits and I quote,
"The colored bar shown here represents a group of natural populations. Let's think of them as birds, but they could be any group of animals or plants. The different colors represent clinal variation in a species (subspecies) or group of species. This cline of populations could stretch across a continent from east to west or north to south. Or, they could bend to encircle a lake (B), mountain or the North Pole, or just wander in any direction, perhaps bordering large river systems such as the Amazon. Examples of all these situations are known, and a few will be presented here. The small yellow areas separating the species or subspecies along my hypothetical clines represent zones of hybridization. They may or may not exist in nature."
Emphais is mine. This is no more then adaptation! No new types of organisms arose! No macro changes occured! THEY MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN NATURE! Thus salamanders are still salamanders, and warblers are still warbler birds! This is "hypothetical" as the above website itself states!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Here is a link that shows that parts lost in evolution can actually come back, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3269
Search, are you suggesting as this site is loss of wings and reaquiring of wings are a different kind of organism?
This represent ADAPTATION! An Intelligent Design scientist expects adaptations to envirement! That is what Micro evolution is, change within species. No new organisms here.
Once again we have "adaptation" within species to an envirement. Here is a quote from the site you gave above.
A species of walking stick, an insect that pretends it's part of a plant, may be evolving into two species by adapting to different environments.
As we can see, they are still stick bugs! MAY be evolving? Yes evolving as expected for a Micro Evolutionist scientist. Still stick bugs! Here is another quote regarding the "Micro evolving" or changing within kind!
The insect, Timena cristinae, seems to be adapting so that it can hide on either of two species of plants. By doing so, it's probably morphing into two separate species, says Cristina Sandoval of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This is "ADAPTATION", the insect are clearly still STICK BUGS! The insect "seems" to be what? ADAPTING as stated above. Its "probably morphing", however they are still stick bugs!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
All these are examples of "adaptation"! Mice are still mice! Cichlid fish are still fish, however with the example above it is purely "theoritical" as "no one" was there! Notice the fish were isolated less then 4000 years! Was there anyone observing this? Certainly Search you can see how "weak" these assertions are! No new organisms arose. The bottom line, all examples are of adaption and therefore Micro evolution or changes within kinds, and therefore not Darwinian Macro evolution at all! Note this quotation regarding the fruit fly dropsohila experiments. This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
Changes or Micro changes is not a surprise to an Intelligent Design scientist! Thus as you can see Search, all the examples you cited are no more then ADAPTION and thus are MICRO EVOLUTION or change and do NOT support the DARWINIAN MACRO EVOLUTION theory.
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 17:49
Science not understand facts from nature? Photosynthysis? Coagulation of blood? Gravity?
Science has found answers to alot of things, but your sadly mistaken if you believe it has found answers for all. According to this logic, because we haven't elements on the periodic table doesn't mean they don't exist, because we have yet to find out exactly how Black holes work doesn't mean we ever will, infact we are getting closer.
Also your example of the Theory of Gravity is still changing and news ideas are still be worked out. It's not fully understood just like alot of other Theories.
FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE and proves what it has always said! All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve.
In a few hundred gnerations from now, there will be a new Adam as male Y chromosomes die out over time.
The Y-chromosomal Adam can also be defined as the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all humans, considering an unbroken paternal line of descent only: fathers, paternal grandfathers, etc. Note that this is different from the most recent common ancestor traced through both paternal and maternal lines, estimated at living in earlier times.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human history.The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of humans alive today is different from the one for humans alive a thousand years in the future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual, the Y-mrca of a subtree of the preceding Y-Adam, becomes the new Y-Adam.
The Y-chromosomal Adam for living humans probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by thousands of generations. They are named after the "Adam" and "Eve" in Genesis as a metaphor only, and are not considered to be the first humans. There would have been many others alive at the same time.
Based on DNA analysis as of 2002, both Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are believed to have lived in Africa, though approximately 85,000 years apart. This is part of the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution.
Cezar it seems your not aware of Intelligent Design as regards origins, which is what Macro Evolution is to address but as you can see from above, the darwinian theory is "not" emperical and thus not science
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
Now how exactly in intelligent design in the least bit provable or even observed in any way shape or form besides what a book and those who have strong faith say?
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
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
.
