Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what i dont understand is if we all came from noah and his children and their partners how do we get the natives of the world. assuming that noahs family were civilized as they built things and had fairly modern ways where do primitive natives fit in. if you take the aborigines and Torres straight islanders for example they look primitive and have primitive ways. the natives of south America are the same. how did they get to their locations and then regress back to ancient ways in such a short time. they say that Aborigines are 40,000 years old. the same with negro discoveries buried with primitive artifacts that suggests prehistoric practices. why would a civilized group split off and end up in places all over the world only to give up their modern ways to regress to primitive ways. if they knew how to live modern they would have continued the practice as it was beneficial and not revert to practices that would suggest they evolved from someone who didn't know this in the first place.
Yes, Steve, you are correct in your assessment of your observations. You're right, it just won't work, and doesn't make sense when postulating a recent divergence of all these populations.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Troutdude or Rifleman got the gist of your post. I believe you were rhetorically asking that if all of us recently descended from Noah, etal., then why do your observations on various world populations so obviously contradict that premise.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Troutdude or Rifleman got the gist of your post. I believe you were rhetorically asking that if all of us recently descended from Noah, etal., then why do your observations on various world populations so obviously contradict that premise.
Yep; you're probably right here, PT. I was indeed a bit confused by Steve's post. Apologies all round if so!
And so on to a new day... God's endless beauty and bounty all around me! Huzzah!
Well, ok.... so you'd still rather not politely and openly discuss your ideas point by point? I suppose not. That might well generate a new perspective on your part, but I understand that you do not want that. You've now made that very clear.
OK then, game over. Enjoy your faith!
Sounds like you're on a mission...Have you published anything?...
Steve, think now! Regressive behaviors are not necessarily a part of our evolving genome. What are important are our biochemical responses plus whatever such chemistry imparts into our possibly genetic reactions.
Now we can see that humans have not evolved as fast as so many other species, since we enthusiastically correct so many genetic problems (As in: we do back surgery, we have invented corrective eyewear, and we have found the antibiotic properties of some natural mold-based biochemicals so we can fight off diseases that would have decimated us by now.)
It has now been categorically demonstrated that there are direct lineages within our DNA maps and lineage tracking showing from whence and where we came from, and even how long ago some of it happened! How so, you may well ask? Because we now know the typical and observable rates & frequencies of DNAmutations. We don't have to be statisticians or rocket scientists to see and calculate such links.
The differences between us and lemurs (from where we actually have come from, not from the Great Ape fairytale.) are few. Seenig how it all works now, genetics has completely disproven any need for some imaginary but still demanded "Missing Link", which was predicated on our evolution being step-wise, in some jolting manner. Nope. Rather, it's obviously a constantly ongoing process.
To wit: Your kids are genetically different in many thousands of ways than you. If any such mutation(s) facilitate any improvement or improvements in animals or plants, the positive results will indeed take hold and manifest themselves in later generations. All while leaving the originating species intact, unless it's completely outclassed by the newer version of course.
{You getting this, Steve? I surely hope so!}
But despite the easily observed results of such accumulated and purely natural mutations, many theists still prefer to manifest their endlessly unsupportable & technically illiterate beliefs just to blurt out, loudly, "See! You guys are still wrong!"
Stop trying to debunk the facts and the truth, Steve. It's a bit embarrassing to watch a grown man making stuff up just to defend his lack of curiosity and natural inquisitiveness!
no i have a fascination with knowing and understanding and have an open mind to things. it just intrigues me. i understand in general terms what your saying. you obviously have some detailed knowledge of this subject and i respect your views. science is ever changing and discovering new things which then change or should i say update themselves to the new discoveries. the world of genetics is massive and is giving us a map of the makeup of ourselves and helping us understand how we work and who we are. despite all this i still have this spiritual need, maybe its just my inquisitive nature, but it makes me think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Yes, Steve, you are correct in your assessment of your observations. You're right, it just won't work, and doesn't make sense when postulating a recent divergence of all these populations.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Troutdude or Rifleman got the gist of your post. I believe you were rhetorically asking that if all of us recently descended from Noah, etal., then why do your observations on various world populations so obviously contradict that premise.
yes that's right. besides some indigenous people look similar to apes and that's not casting any discrimination or judgements. it certainly points towards evolution and the same with some of the skulls found that seem to show similar shapes or even more regressed ones. why would people who lived in a time that they were able to build boats and cities go back to living like cavemen. the thing is i still have a faith and that is what baffles me sometimes. i dont believe i have been conned or brainwashed. maybe its my childhood indoctrination. maybe its a persons need to believe in something. i do believe there isa spiritual aspect to us but im not sure what that is exactly.
i still have this spiritual need, maybe its just my inquisitive nature, but it makes me think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Which is a complete non-sequitur. But one that people make often. They mistake this "need" as being evidence that something to fill that need much therefore actually exist. By all means acknowledge this "need" inside yourself and explore ways to satisfy it. But at no point make the mistake of thinking that needing there to be something "more" to the universe than there actually is.... for being evidence there actually IS "more" to the universe than there actually is.
"I need to believe it" is about the worst reason for ACTUALLY believing something that I can think of.
[quote=lifesigns64;1232627]Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
RESPONSE
Here is the obvious flaw in your reasoning. You are saying that since all present females carry the same mitochondrial DNA, we all descended a single first female parent.
Perhaps only one of a number of female first parents survived and thus passed on their DNA to her offspring who also survived . Other female parents and their offspring may have perished.
The same faulty reasoning apples to the male.
And as for the Noah legend, the first seven books of the bible are now recognized as being only folklore written between the 9th and 7th century BC.
See (review from Wikipedia): The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts is a 2001 book about the archaeology of Israel and its relationship to the origins of the Hebrew Bible. The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.
Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th-7th centuries.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 09-24-2013 at 06:33 AM..
Reason: addition
[quote=lifesigns64;1232627]Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
RESPONSE
Here is the obvious flaw in your reasoning. You are saying that since all present females carry the same mitochondrial DNA, we all descended a single first female parent.
Perhaps only one of a number of female first parents survived and thus passed on their DNA to her offspring who also survived . Other female parents and their offspring may have perished.
The same faulty reasoning apples to the male. We may be able to identify a single common male parent, but again we don't know how many there originally were.
And as for the Noah legend, the first seven books of the bible are now recognized as being only folklore.
sorry guys i wasn't sure what was going on and i went back and read a few posts. didn't realize where i came in on the conversation at that point.
i have argued with Jehovah witnesses about their beliefs and i have also experienced the work of people like the salvation army who help out in times of need. so i know a bit about both sides of the story. i use to evangelize myself and im sure my friends though i was mad. im not sure who i was trying to convince myself or them.
i think as you get older you start to wise up and have had more experience in life to get a more balance view. of course the more you learn about things the more you can understand and you should have credible evidence to back up what you say. that applies to any subject. sometimes i do see more emotive language when discussing religion.
i think its important to have an open mind and as someone else said its important to allow others to have opinions and beliefs that are different to yours. you can agree to disagree but it is also good to not restrict yourself from learning more about the other persons side. it seems when it comes to religion all logic goes out the window and it sometimes becomes personal.
i think belief is a personal thing and for each person its different. the bible says of faith "that it is the belief of things unseen". so they are basing faith on another element which some may say is unreal. science makes sense and we can see the benefits before our eyes. there does seem to be a driving force for people to believe in something and has been the same for years. in times gone by some use to think people with epilepsy were processed and now with science and a wealth of knowledge we know different. all things including religion have to adapt to the changing times. the trouble for some is they are to rigid with their beliefs and hold onto outdated ideas.
we are seeing a scientific age where we are discovering things all the time. we are mapping the human being and understanding the complexities of the human brain and genetics. (one of the areas im interested in at the moment is dark matter). we are playing with nature and it seems all is possible.
despite all this people are depressed more than ever and committing suicide. maybe its a sign of our modern times. maybe its because there is something missing in the equation of life. maybe there is more to us then meets the eye like another dimension. i notice people will be into believing in UFOs or ghosts, such as that movie paranormal activity which was a big box office hit. yet there is not as much emotion in any discussions about those topics.
faith has elements that are untestable and some say that the proof to them is as real as having evidence in the light of no evidence. this seems contradictory but that is faith. something speaks to them and confirms in them that their belief is real. some say this is the holy spirit and some say its a sign of madness. certainly religion is the cause of many wars and deaths in the name of their beliefs and many people are angry at religion. but we also see the good work that is done by many religious and christian organizations. human harm happens in all walks of life.
i like discussing these subjects and will investigate to find out more as i like to challenge any belief or opinion i have and will admit when im wrong. that's the only way to learn and i guess with age you start to be a little less cynical. i dont have the same level of knowledge as some esp about genetics so i have to give some benefit of the doubt to what others say on the subject. i will listen and learn and take it all into consideration, then weight up the pros and cons and check it out against other info. sometimes i think when it comes to faith and the big question you can discuss it till the cows come home but no amount of convincing or facts is going to change their personal belief.
Last edited by stevevw; 09-24-2013 at 08:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please... celebrate me home... gimme a number...
on the contrary.
