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 an incredible statement, religion only "not provable" there isn't a scintilla of evidence to support a single word of it unlike evolution that has an incredible array of evidence that comes from multiple fields of science from not only biology, but chemistry, geology and physics just to name a few.
Actually, there is lots of archeological proof for some of the things in the Old Testament and New Testament.
Quote:
That is based purely upon your belief, or more pointedly superstition. As I said above, there isn't a scintilla of fact to support your assertion.
But the creation account in the Bible is accurately portrayed.
Let's go back to the original post of this entire thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifesigns64
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.â€
From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6
When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.†Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.8 This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.9
A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10
Is there a “genetic Adam� A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.
A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.11 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.
Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents†are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
I find it interesting is that naysayers, who want us to find scientific proof for our assertions heckle us when we do. Just look at the heckling that went on shortly after the OP appeared.
You see it really proves we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. In other words, the hecklers don't really want any proof. They just want to go through life being content with their own understanding and don't like it when their understanding is upended.
Let's go back to the original post of this entire thread:
I find it interesting is that naysayers, who want us to find scientific proof for our assertions heckle us when we do. Just look at the heckling that went on shortly after the OP appeared.
You see it really proves we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. In other words, the hecklers don't really want any proof. They just want to go through life being content with their own understanding and don't like it when their understanding is upended.
Logically:
no, we point out that you have no idea how god did it. The bible does not say how nor does the bible say anything about god's time frame other than, like any logical god would do, he spoke in the ancient Jews time frame.
say it ten times to yourself. "The bible does not say how god did it and that doesn't matter or detract from the bible in anyway." and "people detract from the bible".
emotionally.
Why do you feel coming from a monkey is bad?
Why would you feel the rock record is less than the bible in describing how go did it when the bible does not say how god did it?
Let's go back to the original post of this entire thread:
I find it interesting is that naysayers, who want us to find scientific proof for our assertions heckle us when we do. Just look at the heckling that went on shortly after the OP appeared.
You see it really proves we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. In other words, the hecklers don't really want any proof. They just want to go through life being content with their own understanding and don't like it when their understanding is upended.
What I find interesting is why creationists feel that the Bible has to be 100% true and must be believed in the most literal sense in order for their supposed "relationship with God/Jesus" to be valid.
One would think that anyone who had that divine relationship wouldn't need the Bible to validate God's existence. Yet for some bizarre reason, those who take the Bible literally do so as if they feel the Bible cannot be metaphoric for God to exist. It's almost as if these types of creationists feel that believing in the inerrancy of the Bible will somehow draw God to them - except it hasn't worked yet. So they keep using the Bible as their only real connection to their faith. Without it, there is no God.
bizarre yes ... but also empirical. Why does it happen. There are a limited number of reasonable explanations. And because of that I can't really jump on the rippers wagon. It's like calling a troop of monkey's names. Toss in the notion that monkeys can't really logically explain themselves and the number of explanations drops again.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,992,312 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Actually, there is lots of archeological proof for some of the things in the Old Testament and New Testament.
Yup. We know Jerusalem and Bethlehem actually existed.
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.
