Christianity in 30 Seconds

[Knicks4lyfe]

False Prophets.

False Prophets​

Definition:​

Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.
How can true prophets and false ones be identified?


True prophets make known their faith in Jesus, but more is required than claiming to preach in his name1 John 4:1-3: "Test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. You gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God."

Matt. 7:21-23: "Not everyone saying to me, ?Lord, Lord,? will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ?Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name . . . ?? And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.

True prophets speak in the name of God, but merely claiming to represent him is not enoughDeut. 18:18-20: "A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you [like Moses]; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him. However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die." (Compare Jeremiah 14:14; 28:11, 15.)

Jesus said: "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things." (John 8:28) He said: "I have come in the name of my Father." (John 5:43) Jesus also said: "He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory."?John 7:18.If any individuals or organizations claim to represent God but decline to use God?s personal name, and make it a practice to express their own opinions on matters, are they measuring up to this important qualification of a true prophet?


Ability to perform "great signs," or "miracles," is not necessarily proof of a true prophetMatt. 24:24: "False Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs ["miracles," TEV] and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones."

2 Thess. 2:9, 10: "The lawless one?s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved."

On the other hand, Moses performed miracles at Jehovah?s direction. (Ex. 4:1-9) Jehovah also empowered Jesus to perform miracles. (Acts 2:22) But more than the miracles gave evidence that God had truly sent them.

What true prophets foretell comes to pass, but they may not understand just when or how it will be
Dan. 12:9: "Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end."

1 Pet. 1:10, 11: "The prophets . . . kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of season the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ when it was bearing witness beforehand about the sufferings for Christ and about the glories to follow these."

1 Cor. 13:9, 10: "We have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with."

Prov. 4:18: "The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."

The apostles and other early Christian disciples had certain wrong expectations, but the Bible does not classify them with the "false prophets."?See Luke 19:11; John 21:22, 23; Acts 1:6, 7.

Nathan the prophet encouraged King David to go ahead with what was in his heart regarding the building of a house for Jehovah?s worship. But later Jehovah told Nathan to inform David that he was not the one who would build it. Jehovah did not reject Nathan for what he had said earlier but continued to use him because he humbly corrected the matter when Jehovah made it plain to him.?1 Chron. 17:1-4, 15.


The pronouncements of a true prophet promote true worship and are in harmony with God?s revealed will

Deut. 13:1-4: "In case a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and does give you a sign or a portent, and the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you, saying, ?Let us walk after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them,? you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to the dreamer of that dream, because Jehovah your God is testing you to know whether you are loving Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul. After Jehovah your God you should walk, and him you should fear, and his commandments you should keep, and to his voice you should listen, and him you should serve, and to him you should cling."

Since the Bible says that "a friend of the world" is an enemy of God, are clergymen who urge their parishioners to get involved in the affairs of the world promoting true worship? (Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17)

The true God said that the nations "will have to know that I am Jehovah," and the Bible states that God would take out of the nations "a people for his name," but are religious organizations that minimize the importance of using God?s personal name acting in harmony with this revealed will of God? (Ezek. 38:23; Acts 15:14)

Jesus taught his followers to pray for God?s Kingdom, and the Bible cautions against putting one?s trust in earthling men, so are clergymen or political organizations that urge people to place their confidence in human rulership true prophets??Matt. 6:9, 10; Ps. 146:3-6; compare Revelation 16:13, 14

True prophets and the false can be recognized by the fruitage manifest in their lives and the lives of those who follow them

​

Matt. 7:15-20: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep?s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. . . . Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men." What characterizes their way of life? "The works of the flesh are . . . fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. . . . Those who practice such things will not inherit God?s kingdom. On the other hand, the fruitage of [God?s] spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."?Gal. 5:19-23; see also 2 Peter 2:1-3.

Have not Jehovah?s Witnesses made errors in their teachings?

Jehovah?s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets. They have made mistakes. Like the apostles of Jesus Christ, they have at times had some wrong expectations.?Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6.

The Scriptures provide time elements related to Christ?s presence, and Jehovah?s Witnesses have studied these with keen interest. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:10-17) Jesus also described a many-featured sign that would tie in with the fulfillment of time prophecies to identify the generation that would live to see the end of Satan?s wicked system of things. (Luke 21:7-36) Jehovah?s Witnesses have pointed to evidence in fulfillment of this sign. It is true that the Witnesses have made mistakes in their understanding of what would occur at the end of certain time periods, but they have not made the mistake of losing faith or ceasing to be watchful as to fulfillment of Jehovah?s purposes. They have continued to keep to the fore in their thinking the counsel given by Jesus: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."?Matt. 24:42.

Matters on which corrections of viewpoint have been needed have been relatively minor when compared with the vital Bible truths that they have discerned and publicized. Among these are the following:

Jehovah is the only true God.

Jesus Christ is not part of a Trinitarian godhead but is the only-begotten Son of God. Redemption from sin is possible only through faith in Christ?s ransom sacrifice.

The holy spirit is not a person but is Jehovah?s active force, and its fruitage must be evident in the lives of true worshipers.

The human soul is not immortal, as the ancient pagans claimed; it dies, and the hope for future life is in the resurrection.

God?s permission of wickedness has been because of the issue of universal sovereignty.

God's Kingdom is the only hope for mankind.

Since 1914 we have been living in the last days of the global wicked system of things.

Only 144,000 faithful Christians will be kings and priests with Christ in heaven, whereas the rest of obedient mankind will receive eternal life on a paradise earth.


Another factor to consider regarding the teachings of Jehovah?s Witnesses is this: Have these truly uplifted people morally? Are those who adhere to these teachings outstanding in their communities because of their honesty? Is their family life beneficially influenced by applying these teachings? Jesus said that his disciples would be readily identified because of having love among themselves. (John 13:35) Is this quality outstanding among Jehovah?s Witnesses? We let the facts speak for themselves.​

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Been doing some research on DNA testing of Neanderthals

So far found this one brief article by A Dr. Couzzo a creationist.

Trying to find some from evolutionist. LJ, I am sure you can handle this better than I can.

http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

Couple of excerpts I found interesting from the website.


"The mtDNA [Mitochondrial DNA] is different in Neanderthals and the reason is very simple. We are devolved humans and they [the Neanderthals] were less devolved than us. Paul's letter (Romans 8).
Also as one ages today his or her mtDna also changes considerably. The older persons in Genesis (300+) would most likely have mtDNA which is different than the younger people. Also new information tells us than mtDNA mutates much faster than previously known rates. Also, the Lake Mungo 3 (Australia)individual,an anatomically modern human, supposedly from 60,000 yrs. ago has different mtDNA than moderns today.


"The problem with ancient DNA research, besides all the contamination difficulties in the lab, is that if our ancient Pre-Flood and immediate Post-Flood forefathers and mothers had a better genome than us, which I suspect, the matches would come out something like the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is presently showing. Also, old age changes it."
- Dr. Cuozzo

 

[LJ4ptplay]

If a person has free will, even if they could use perfect judgement, they may choose not too. People see stop signs when they drive. Some choose to not stop at times. They know it's the law to stop, it's in their best judgement to stop, but for whatever reason, they choose not too. It's not because they could not have, it was choice.

That is why there are some angels who remained in heaven, and some who chose to follow satan. Because some chose to use their perfect judgement in accord with God's will, and others chose to ignore that ability for their selfish will. And the minute they broke God's law, they were no longer perfect, and niether was Adam and Eve, which in turn why we're all imperfect.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Seems to me that perfect judgement would mean no errors in judgement. Unless you think chosing to sin was not an error.

Here is the problem with these so called pictures of these species. They are all imagination. All of them. There is no way they can accurately render this stuff. Imagination. The scientists says.. I think this is what this looked like.

Not buyin it.

That's not true. They base those renditions on the structure of the brow, nose and jaw. It's quite accurate. The only thing they can't determine is the hair.

And secondly, why is it that these species of apes could not have walked upright, just because the ones we see now don't? Who decided that all apes that ever lived were to walk as the modern ones of our time? Do they have to be our acestor because it walked upright? Or could it just be a plane ape that walks upright? Is that possible?

It's the combination of walking upright, creating tools and using fire that separates them from modern apes.

And also, how come there is only accurate written human history 5000 years and change back, and not millions? Man has made many advancements the last 5k years, why did it take that long for them to come? We have groups with tools who write on walls supposedly, yet the only accurate written human history starts 5000 years ago, conveniently around the time the bible chronology dates the begining of mankind.

Nice. How come you don't address this?

I'm not sure why you always refer to written human history as 5,000 years old. Is it because you think the bible was written 5,000 years ago? If so, then that is incorrect. It was written approx. 3,000 years ago. The oldest written human history is Egyptian hieroglyphs. A tableau carved in the limestone of a desert cliff in Egypt that is over 5,000 years old.

Fair point. I would need to do some added research on this myself.

You say though, that the DNA evidence proves they were not human, even though they are in fact called man, and the article I posted, the views in it stated they were so closely linked to us, they had to resign to calling them human. Now you're telling me the DNA has proven they are not human. Are they apes? If not, what are they?

They were neither human nor ape. An intermediary species. Hence evolution.

Actually, I do not think it's a silly request at all. Especially since Jehovah has managed to keep his word around in many different forms for thousands of years, and there appears to be no slow up. There should be a distinct sign that says Cro-magnon, or neanderthal. You give me this art, which could really attribute to any sort of modern species of man within the last 5000 years as well. How Am I to look at that and say yea, that was those Cro-magnon dudes? Or Neanderthals? Seriously?

For someone who can believe in invisible beings and impossible and unbelievable stories, you sure are stubborn when it comes to facts and evidence.

First of all, they probably didn't have written language yet. Just spoken language, and probably very primitive at that. If you require neanderthal memoirs to actually believe they existed, then I can't help you, because they don't exist. The cave paintings should be enough evidence that they were not monkeys. And the DNA evidence proves they were not humans.

In small hunter/gatherer groups, survival (finding food) is the most important mission in life. It wasn't until humans formed large social groups where individuals became specialized, that written language was formed. Since the Amazonian and African hunter/gatherer groups of today don't have memoirs, do you not believe they exist?

Favor, stop calling it Tyre. It's Sur, or Sour as you once put it. And again, the usage of rebuilt is what we're arguing, but the basis of the prophecy depended on Tyre being rebuilt actually.

The prophetic word of Jehovah was that he would have many nations Pummel Tyre, and it would eventually become a drying yard for dragnets, or a sea port. And she will never be rebuilt could not then be in the strict sense you use it, or else it could then never become a drying yard for dragnets which it is right now. All of this happened.

I have already shown you multiple times the meanings of rebuild. One of them was concering society, rebuilding a society to what it once was. I gave you an example of another prophecy where Jehovah says Jerusalem would be rebuilt. The same word, and meaning of the word he applied to Tyre. Jerusalem was rebuilt the same exact way it once was. Temple, worship and society.

Tyre, while it was rebuilt in a sense it was populated, was never in the same state it was in before the prophecy. In fact, it is no longer even called Tyre anymore, and no one there calls themselves Tyrians, and oh, by the way, it ended up becoming just a sea port, or drying yard for nets, like the prophecy said it would. No Tyrian Society, No longer a world reknown sea power, Not even called Tyre anymore. I'd say it's safe to say that Jehovah once again told the truth.

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities: (from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities

Tyre is 10th on the list.

It is still called Tyre. There are many different names for the city. In Greek it is called Tyros. In Arabic it is called Sur, in Hebrew it is called Tzor. It is estimated that there were 30,000 residents of Tyre when Alexander attacked it. It now has over 130,000 residents. So, it is actually larger than it was, not a destroyed city to never be rebuilt. The prophecy says it was to never be rebuilt. It is rebuilt. So therefore an untrue prophecy.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Seems to me that perfect judgement would mean no errors in judgement. Unless you think chosing to sin was not an error.

Choosing to sin was his error, that is why he no longer was perfect and had to die, which in turn is why we are not perfect and are subject to death.

If you stop at a stop sign and then go, and a cop sees this, chances are you won't get pulled over.

If you run through a stop sign, and a cop sees and pulls you over, you are subject to a penalty, and maybe even jail time.

Both instances showed a use of Judgement. One was Good, one was bad and reaped consequences. Freedom of choice was still involved in the decision making.

Adam choosing to fore-go his perfect judgement for deliberate disobedience to God is what brought sin and death upon him and mankind. He did not have to, he chose to, much like the driver who gets pulled over for running the stop.

That's not true. They base those renditions on the structure of the brow, nose and jaw. It's quite accurate. The only thing they can't determine is the hair.

If you go to Couzzo's web page and see the neaderthal drawings from artist's on his website, they will go from early to latest.

Earliest looking like King Kong, latest looking like a modern type male. So that leads me to believe it is up to the artist's interpretation. Which clearly varies. You wanna buy the older model, so be it. But as a consensus, the scientific world has done away with that rendering for the most part.

So clearly, what you just said, is not true to everyone.

And what's funny right, you are quick to scoff at invisible sky daddy and demonic spirits and such as imaginary, yet your hopes lie on the very imaginations of imperfect human scientists and artists.

It's the combination of walking upright, creating tools and using fire that separates them from modern apes.

Wait , are we talking about australopithecines, or neanderthal and homo species? Because I have not seen a reference to tools used for australopithecines anywhere unless I missed something? Neanderthal and homo species are supposedly not men, but they are in fact named men, so that shows a resign in science that they must closely be related to men. Why not just call them something other than cro-magnon MAN and such?

Plus, I just read on wiki that a certain fellow by the name of Erik Trinkaus Thinks that Neanderthals and modern humans once interbreeded. So clearly scientists link these two species closer than that of any ape species. No one would logically suggest that apes and mankind can interbreed..... Would they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

I'm not sure why you always refer to written human history as 5,000 years old. Is it because you think the bible was written 5,000 years ago? If so, then that is incorrect. It was written approx. 3,000 years ago. The oldest written human history is Egyptian hieroglyphs. A tableau carved in the limestone of a desert cliff in Egypt that is over 5,000 years old.

No, I know well that the bible is not 5k years old. What I speak of is what you just confirmed, that the only accurate written history of mankind traces back over 5000 years ago. Which lends support to the bibles view of creation since Bible chronology dates mankinds creation at a little over 6k.

So this does not help the evolutionary cause any. Mankind has been able to do in a few thousand years what all the previous mankind could not do in hundreds of thousands? Does not make sense at all.

They were neither human nor ape. An intermediary species. Hence evolution.

Well there seems to be a lot of problem areas when DNA testing is done on those fossils says Cuozzo. I believe I addressed those in the previous post about his site.

Also, a lot of scientists don't agree with what you say there. Hence, a problem for evolution. You wish it could be that cut and dry, but really it's far from a case closed matter.

Quite simply, they call it homo and man for a reason. The species resemble very closely modern mankind. Why not just call them "it" or something?

For someone who can believe in invisible beings and impossible and unbelievable stories, you sure are stubborn when it comes to facts and evidence.

First of all, they probably didn't have written language yet. Just spoken language, and probably very primitive at that. If you require neanderthal memoirs to actually believe they existed, then I can't help you, because they don't exist. The cave paintings should be enough evidence that they were not monkeys. And the DNA evidence proves they were not humans.

In small hunter/gatherer groups, survival (finding food) is the most important mission in life. It wasn't until humans formed large social groups where individuals became specialized, that written language was formed. Since the Amazonian and African hunter/gatherer groups of today don't have memoirs, do you not believe they exist?

So we wanna give them credit for making tools to build, language, hunting weapons, prehistoric crayola for art in caves, but in the next breath say they were not smart enough to write a lanquage?(but they sure can draw!!!)

Again, your DNA theme is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Wiki has several different views on how much the DNA differs from modern man, and Cuozzo I think tackled that issue very efficiently and fairly for both sides when he stated the problems with it, and reasonings for his basis.

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities: (from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities

Tyre is 10th on the list.

It is still called Tyre. There are many different names for the city. In Greek it is called Tyros. In Arabic it is called Sur, in Hebrew it is called Tzor. It is estimated that there were 30,000 residents of Tyre when Alexander attacked it. It now has over 130,000 residents. So, it is actually larger than it was, not a destroyed city to never be rebuilt. The prophecy says it was to never be rebuilt. It is rebuilt. So therefore an untrue prophecy.

Funny how when Jehovah said Jerusalem would be rebuilt it never changed society or name or prestige. Tyre, aint even called such and you have never met a Tyrian in your life, or even heard of any, yet you say it was rebuilt not true.

Fact is, it needed to be rebuilt in order to become a fishing port lol. So you saying it is rebuilt is revealing the obvious. Is Tyre what it used to be before the prophecy? or is it just a seaport like the prophecy said it would become? Answer that.

No, really you just want it to be untrue because then the sky daddy would only be invisible, but still an actual living being. Which kills everything you believe.

But in fact, the prophecy has proved true on every single basis. And in fact, every prophecy in the bible has come true or is going to.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

Jack Cuozzo is a dentist. He wrote a book called Buried Alive: The startling truth about Neanderthals. He's a creationist and none of his claims are backed up by scientific evidence. Pretty much his entire book has been taken apart by many scientists including Colin Groves, paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University stating "the entire first section of the book, fifteen chapters long, is a paean of paranoia" and Cuozzo's claims are "inconsistent or easily refuted".

The latest evidence, an analysis of DNA recovered from a 38,000-year-old fossilised thigh bone, suggests the Neanderthals did not interbreed with modern humans but were eradicated by them.

The scientists repeatedly decoded the mitochondrial DNA from the 38,000-year-old Neanderthal bone 35 times to make sure that they had the correct genetic sequence, so that they could use it as an accurate comparison against the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans and chimpanzees – man's closest living relative

"For the first time, we've built a sequence from ancient DNA that is without error," said Richard Green, who led the investigation at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Preliminary DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a femur found at Vindija cave, Croatia, in 1980 shows that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. From mtDNA analysis estimates, the two species shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago.


You want to use the writings of a dentist to refute evolution. That's kind of funny. I'll stick with the paleoanthropologists and geneticists. The facts remain, Neanderthal existed, used tools, fire and had language, but was not human or monkey.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Jack Cuozzo is a dentist. He wrote a book called Buried Alive: The startling truth about Neanderthals. He's a creationist and none of his claims are backed up by scientific evidence. Pretty much his entire book has been taken apart by many scientists including Colin Groves, paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University stating "the entire first section of the book, fifteen chapters long, is a paean of paranoia" and Cuozzo's claims are "inconsistent or easily refuted".

The latest evidence, an analysis of DNA recovered from a 38,000-year-old fossilised thigh bone, suggests the Neanderthals did not interbreed with modern humans but were eradicated by them.

The scientists repeatedly decoded the mitochondrial DNA from the 38,000-year-old Neanderthal bone 35 times to make sure that they had the correct genetic sequence, so that they could use it as an accurate comparison against the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans and chimpanzees – man's closest living relative

"For the first time, we've built a sequence from ancient DNA that is without error," said Richard Green, who led the investigation at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Preliminary DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a femur found at Vindija cave, Croatia, in 1980 shows that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. From mtDNA analysis estimates, the two species shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago.


You want to use the writings of a dentist to refute evolution. That's kind of funny. I'll stick with the paleoanthropologists and geneticists. The facts remain, Neanderthal existed, used tools, fire and had language, but was not human or monkey.

First of all, evolution always comes down to ifs, and's, but's, maybe's and estimations.(even what you last posted speaks of estimations, and estimations don't always lead to accuracy) If that works for you, cool. Just don't say it's a fact when not everyone in the scientific field agrees. And everyone should agree in that field if evolution is indeed a fact, because as I said before... all scientists will agree the earth is round. Why don't they all agree on evolution? Maybe... It just does not add up to everyone!


Well, it appears that while Groves had issues with his book, he did make sure to compliment the book some along the way. So the whole taking it apart thing is probably a bit over the top by you.

Well how much percentage are Neanderthals and apes linked?? Because clearly they are closely linked to man to be called man. How is it that they are somehow designated the links between evolution? Because evolutionist's say so?

If they are not men and are not monkeys, how can one determine it's and intermediate? Is it Monkey-man? WHAT IS IT?!!!

And what about this guy? Erik Trinkaus? Will you discredit him too someway? He believes Neanderthals and modern humans interbred at one point.

I think it is unfair for you to discredit Cuozzo because of his line of work. It is clear that this man has taken more than a substantial interest on this topic. Definitely much more than you and I ever will.

That is kinda similar to what Christian faiths try to raise against Jehovah's witnesses because they attend schools and get credits for going over the bible somehow makes them more adequate to understand and teach the bible, because we don't do that. That is a very silly notion, because anyone who has ever dealt with a Jehovah's witness about the bible will concede that Jehovah's witnesses KNOW the bible.

So just because this man is a dentist by trade does not mean he is not more than capable of taking up other fields of interest. Even scientifically.

This by far has been your weakest argument.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

Religion comes down to opinion. Not every religious scholar agrees with Jehovah's Witnesses. Not every religious scholar believes Jesus was the son of God. Although you claim to have the most knowledge of the bible, many would disagree. Especially about the misinterpretations. But the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (roughly 95%) believes in evolution and the Big Bang Theory. They are two of the most widely accepted theories in science today (based on facts and evidence). Can you say that 95% of the religious community believes Jesus was the son of God? No. So your argument that "not every scientist agrees so therefore it can't be true" doesn't hold water.

Classifying Neanderthal and the other intermediary species comes down to believing in evolution. You don't want to, so therefore you want to classify them as either man or monkey, when it's not as cut and dry as that. Intermediary species are the evidence to support evolution. If you don't want to acknowledge their existence or you want to force them into a genus and species that doesn't match simply because you don't want to believe in evolution, then there really is no point in arguing the subject with you anymore. Your desire to not accept the possibility clouds your ability to reason.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Religion comes down to opinion. Not every religious scholar agrees with Jehovah's Witnesses. Not every religious scholar believes Jesus was the son of God. Although you claim to have the most knowledge of the bible, many would disagree. Especially about the misinterpretations. But the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (roughly 95%) believes in evolution and the Big Bang Theory. They are two of the most widely accepted theories in science today (based on facts and evidence). Can you say that 95% of the religious community believes Jesus was the son of God? No. So your argument that "not every scientist agrees so therefore it can't be true" doesn't hold water.

If you wanna say religion comes down to opinion (which is true in the sense you're applying it) Then the belief in evolution comes down to opinion as well. The same logic you're applying to religion should then be applied to what you put faith in, since not all in the scientific realm agree with evolution. That is if you were being fair and objective.

The 95 percentile means nothing in this instance. Jesus was in Jerusalem teaching from the same scribes the Jews were and had a different message. Essentially it was Jesus and the apostles vs millions at first. Did that make the millions in opposition right based on sheer numbers? No. The Jews had to readjust their thinking even though they had all they needed to do so. So numbers meant nothing. And the same can be said about the belief in evolution in the scientific world. At least concerning 5% roughly.

Classifying Neanderthal and the other intermediary species comes down to believing in evolution. You don't want to, so therefore you want to classify them as either man or monkey, when it's not as cut and dry as that. Intermediary species are the evidence to support evolution. If you don't want to acknowledge their existence or you want to force them into a genus and species that doesn't match simply because you don't want to believe in evolution, then there really is no point in arguing the subject with you anymore. Your desire to not accept the possibility clouds your ability to reason.

First, I have learned a lot about evolution due to these threads. More than I had ever cared in the past to learn about them, simply because I have always brushed it off as bs. And this was long before I was an actual JW. Now that I think about it, I was greatly influenced by the faith I'm in even as a child growing up, so that is probably why I never gave it much thought. So all of this was actually an education for me in a way. So I appreciate conversing with you on the matter, since I feel you have been the most objective on your side of the issue.

You make a fair point about believing in something for it to stick. From the get go I have said, evolution is a belief, or faith, the same way we as witnesses believe Jehovah is God. You have things to support your belief, as do we. So in the end, it comes down to what you want to believe after the arguments have been presented. But either way, your belief and mine are in many ways our respective religions.

Now about the intermediary species. The problems I basically have is that they are called men. Neanderthal is so close to humans that it is readily accepted by some that they in fact are. So much so that they don't even now depict them to be slumping ape-men. Simply just men. But for the most part,(the majority in the scientific world) they will stop short of calling them men because of dna results, and sometimes just plain old evolutionary dogma. The Dogma I can understand a bit, because even though I can't prove Noah's ark, I believe it based on everything else in the bible being accurate. But in a factual sense, it has to be labeled somewhat dogmatic because of lack of real proof of that precise incident itself.

But what I do not get is that Couzzo is saying that the dna of a modern man supposedly 60k years old, has different mdna from us, and even older modern people vs younger ones have the same discrepensies now, yet you put total faith in that system. Now you'll say he is a dentist, or whatever, but I find it hard to believe he is the only out there with these opinions, who study these things.

It's really tough for me to put total faith in the iffyness so to speak in science, when everything about it changes rapidly, and a lot of it is based on popular opinion on what's true and what's not. If it's true, it's true. If it's not, it's not.

And that will likely lead you to say the same about my religious belief, vs mainstream Christianity if there is a such thing. You could simply retort such perhaps to make a seemingly logical response.

But step in my shoes here for a sec.

The majority of Christianity believe that Jesus is God. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses is the only Christian sect that believe Jesus is not God, part of a trinitarian belief. That is 7 million people vs many millions more. By what you go on, popular belief should simply trump what we believe since we are by far the minority who believes this.

But the facts are.

1)Jesus never ever ever ever and I mean EVER said he was God.

2)Jesus in fact says he has a God while he was on earth, and in heaven.

3)John 1:18 says no man has ever seen God(get this now) AT ANY TIME. But a lot of men saw Jesus, and guess what else happened? They even KILLED HIM. Habbakuk 1:12 says God cannot die. How did men then Kill God?

3)The bible says in Collosians that Jesus is the firstborn of every creation. We all know that all creations have a what, Creator correct? So then how could Jesus be the first CREATION, AND ALSO BE THE CREATOR OF ALL CREATIONS? Especially knowing that God says he never had a Creator, he has somehow, always been?

4)Plus, Jesus in revelation confirms the above when he calls himself the begining of the creation by God. rev 3:14.

Also, none of the apostles believed Jesus to be God, yet he never tried to correct them on such. I wonder why not? Factor this information also with the fact that the word Trinity does not appear in any bible that was ever made even once, and the evidence against such a believe is overwhelming.

Things like this made me pay attention to what JW's were speaking about, because it just makes common damn sense. You do not need to go to any fancy religious school to understand that, just use your common sense. Amazing.

And this is what I don't find in evolution. If the intermediaries had say... 20 percent monkey, 20 percent modern man, 60 percent unknown species, it would add up a whole lot more to me. And I would say it would add up a whole lot more to the general public, religious or non religious. But it doesn't. It's either ape, man, or unknown species. And this really has nothing to do with belief as much as it does fact. The facts are the found fossils have been either ape, man, or unknown due to dna testing. You call them intermediary based on what you believe. I'll wait until they prove it.

 

[abcd]

This thread has a lot of posts. It'll probably exceed the Fantasy Draft Game Thread's total posts.:user:

 

[TunerAddict]

If you wanna say religion comes down to opinion (which is true in the sense you're applying it) Then the belief in evolution comes down to opinion as well. The same logic you're applying to religion should then be applied to what you put faith in, since not all in the scientific realm agree with evolution. That is if you were being fair and objective.

The 95 percentile means nothing in this instance. Jesus was in Jerusalem teaching from the same scribes the Jews were and had a different message. Essentially it was Jesus and the apostles vs millions at first. Did that make the millions in opposition right based on sheer numbers? No. The Jews had to readjust their thinking even though they had all they needed to do so. So numbers meant nothing. And the same can be said about the belief in evolution in the scientific world. At least concerning 5% roughly.




First, I have learned a lot about evolution due to these threads. More than I had ever cared in the past to learn about them, simply because I have always brushed it off as bs. And this was long before I was an actual JW. Now that I think about it, I was greatly influenced by the faith I'm in even as a child growing up, so that is probably why I never gave it much thought. So all of this was actually an education for me in a way. So I appreciate conversing with you on the matter, since I feel you have been the most objective on your side of the issue.

You make a fair point about believing in something for it to stick. From the get go I have said, evolution is a belief, or faith, the same way we as witnesses believe Jehovah is God. You have things to support your belief, as do we. So in the end, it comes down to what you want to believe after the arguments have been presented. But either way, your belief and mine are in many ways our respective religions.

Now about the intermediary species. The problems I basically have is that they are called men. Neanderthal is so close to humans that it is readily accepted by some that they in fact are. So much so that they don't even now depict them to be slumping ape-men. Simply just men. But for the most part,(the majority in the scientific world) they will stop short of calling them men because of dna results, and sometimes just plain old evolutionary dogma. The Dogma I can understand a bit, because even though I can't prove Noah's ark, I believe it based on everything else in the bible being accurate. But in a factual sense, it has to be labeled somewhat dogmatic because of lack of real proof of that precise incident itself.

But what I do not get is that Couzzo is saying that the dna of a modern man supposedly 60k years old, has different mdna from us, and even older modern people vs younger ones have the same discrepensies now, yet you put total faith in that system. Now you'll say he is a dentist, or whatever, but I find it hard to believe he is the only out there with these opinions, who study these things.

It's really tough for me to put total faith in the iffyness so to speak in science, when everything about it changes rapidly, and a lot of it is based on popular opinion on what's true and what's not. If it's true, it's true. If it's not, it's not.

And that will likely lead you to say the same about my religious belief, vs mainstream Christianity if there is a such thing. You could simply retort such perhaps to make a seemingly logical response.

But step in my shoes here for a sec.

The majority of Christianity believe that Jesus is God. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses is the only Christian sect that believe Jesus is not God, part of a trinitarian belief. That is 7 million people vs many millions more. By what you go on, popular belief should simply trump what we believe since we are by far the minority who believes this.

But the facts are.

1)Jesus never ever ever ever and I mean EVER said he was God.

2)Jesus in fact says he has a God while he was on earth, and in heaven.

3)John 1:18 says no man has ever seen God(get this now) AT ANY TIME. But a lot of men saw Jesus, and guess what else happened? They even KILLED HIM. Habbakuk 1:12 says God cannot die. How did men then Kill God?

3)The bible says in Collosians that Jesus is the firstborn of every creation. We all know that all creations have a what, Creator correct? So then how could Jesus be the first CREATION, AND ALSO BE THE CREATOR OF ALL CREATIONS? Especially knowing that God says he never had a Creator, he has somehow, always been?

4)Plus, Jesus in revelation confirms the above when he calls himself the begining of the creation by God. rev 3:14.

Also, none of the apostles believed Jesus to be God, yet he never tried to correct them on such. I wonder why not? Factor this information also with the fact that the word Trinity does not appear in any bible that was ever made even once, and the evidence against such a believe is overwhelming.

Things like this made me pay attention to what JW's were speaking about, because it just makes common damn sense. You do not need to go to any fancy religious school to understand that, just use your common sense. Amazing.

And this is what I don't find in evolution. If the intermediaries had say... 20 percent monkey, 20 percent modern man, 60 percent unknown species, it would add up a whole lot more to me. And I would say it would add up a whole lot more to the general public, religious or non religious. But it doesn't. It's either ape, man, or unknown species. And this really has nothing to do with belief as much as it does fact. The facts are the found fossils have been either ape, man, or unknown due to dna testing. You call them intermediary based on what you believe. I'll wait until they prove it.

Do you really know anything about mitochondrial dna?

Basic understanding of mDNA helps to disprove his points.

Oh, and on the 20%, 60 %, etc...That complete bullshit. It doesn't work like that. They are their own unique thing, their own peice of the puzzle. Think about it, I think humans are 96% the same as everyother species on earth DNA wise.(I don't know the number, but I remember it being in the 90s, and I'm quite sure it was the upper nineties). What you're suggesting is if something was made incorporating parts of the dna of different species, a fusion or merger if you will. However, this is improbable. Whats the 20%? The 60%? We are so closely similar DNA wise that its illogical to think that way because we are made up of primarily the same DNA. Do you see what I'm saying? DNA isn't some unique thing to a species, its a universal thing, and on earth the majority of a creature's DNA is IDENTICAL to any completely different animal that you can find.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Do you really know anything about mitochondrial dna?

Basic understanding of mDNA helps to disprove his points.

Oh, and on the 20%, 60 %, etc...That complete bullshit. It doesn't work like that. They are their own unique thing, their own peice of the puzzle. Think about it, I think humans are 96% the same as everyother species on earth DNA wise.(I don't know the number, but I remember it being in the 90s, and I'm quite sure it was the upper nineties). What you're suggesting is if something was made incorporating parts of the dna of different species, a fusion or merger if you will. However, this is improbable. Whats the 20%? The 60%? We are so closely similar DNA wise that its illogical to think that way because we are made up of primarily the same DNA. Do you see what I'm saying? DNA isn't some unique thing to a species, its a universal thing, and on earth the majority of a creature's DNA is IDENTICAL to any completely different animal that you can find.

So with all that said, what makes someone decide that neanderthal is an intermediary species between humans and apes? When all the facts are presented, it appears to come down to opinion, when science is supposed to be all about facts.

 

[KnicksFan4Realz]

I have another post...anyone that does not want to be destroyed by it's awesome intelligence leave the thread....it's coming!!!

That is all.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

So with all that said, what makes someone decide that neanderthal is an intermediary species between humans and apes? When all the facts are presented, it appears to come down to opinion, when science is supposed to be all about facts.

It's not based purely on opinion. It's based on evidence. It's the same technology used to convict criminals that leave their DNA at a crime scence. They can match it up to a single person, without doubt. It comes down to the sequencing of base pairs. If the DNA is 100% identical to humans, then it is human. If it is 99.5% identical, then it is a close relative. Chimpanzee DNA is 98.75% identical to humans and so forth down the line. The greater the gap, the further the evolutionary relative. Which leads to further evidence of evolution (i.e. we all evolved from the same organisms billions of years ago) from the common DNA link.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

It's not based purely on opinion. It's based on evidence. It's the same technology used to convict criminals that leave their DNA at a crime scence. They can match it up to a single person, without doubt. It comes down to the sequencing of base pairs. If the DNA is 100% identical to humans, then it is human. If it is 99.5% identical, then it is a close relative. Chimpanzee DNA is 98.75% identical to humans and so forth down the line. The greater the gap, the further the evolutionary relative. Which leads to further evidence of evolution (i.e. we all evolved from the same organisms billions of years ago) from the common DNA link.

Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California states that recent genome testing of Neanderthals suggests human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5 percent to nearly 99.9 percent identical.

This is enough to get a "You are the father" reaction From Maury, but not enough to concede that Neanderthals are human?

And another question, if what Cuozzo says about DNA testing is true, could one render it's testing of fossils somewhat inaccurate?

Is what he said here true?


"The mtDNA [Mitochondrial DNA] is different in Neanderthals and the reason is very simple. We are devolved humans and they [the Neanderthals] were less devolved than us. Paul's letter (Romans 8).
Also as one ages today his or her mtDna also changes considerably. The older persons in Genesis (300+) would most likely have mtDNA which is different than the younger people. Also new information tells us than mtDNA mutates much faster than previously known rates. Also, the Lake Mungo 3 (Australia)individual,an anatomically modern human, supposedly from 60,000 yrs. ago has different mtDNA than moderns today.


"The problem with ancient DNA research, besides all the contamination difficulties in the lab, is that if our ancient Pre-Flood and immediate Post-Flood forefathers and mothers had a better genome than us, which I suspect, the matches would come out something like the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is presently showing. Also, old age changes it."

 

[abcd]

Paternity tests are really 100% accurate. The only reason why they say it's 99.9% accurate is because identical twins have the same DNA. Therefore, the test doesn't work on identical twins. It works on fraternal twins, and all other people, though.

Also, the percentages are deceiving. There's thousands of traits that are used to compare humans with other species. A .5% difference is a minimum of about 50-100 different traits. That's why evolution doesn't say we are exactly the same as chimps, orangutans, apes, neanderthals, etc. It just says that we evolved from them, and being that humans have very similar traits to those species, it's a big possiblity that we are related.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Paternity tests are really 100% accurate. The only reason why they say it's 99.9% accurate is because identical twins have the same DNA. Therefore, the test doesn't work on identical twins. It works on fraternal twins, and all other people, though.

Also, the percentages are deceiving. There's thousands of traits that are used to compare humans with other species. A .5% difference is a minimum of about 50-100 different traits. That's why evolution doesn't say we are exactly the same as chimps, orangutans, apes, neanderthals, etc. It just says that we evolved from them, and being that humans have very similar traits to those species, it's a big possiblity that we are related.

This is my point though. That as advanced nothing they create is ever fully reliable.

And if there is as many problems with anceint DNA testing as Couzzo says, how can scientists rest their lurels so much on these things? It is iffy.

 

[abcd]

You're right. Evolution is flawed, and there's parts of it that I don't believe. However, the similarities between humans and other primates is too much.

The way that women and other primates breast feed is identical.
The way humans and primates hold guns is identical.
The way that humans and primates hold books is identical.
The way that human's ears and primate's ears are shaped is identical.
The way that human's hands are shaped is identical to primates' hands.
The way that our teeth are shaped is identical to primates.

What other species besides the ones that I showed breast feed, hold books, and hold guns the exact same way as humans do?

And what other species has the exact shaped teeth, ears, and hands as we do?

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

You're right. Evolution is flawed, and there's parts of it that I don't believe. However, the similarities between humans and other primates is too much.

The way that women and other primates breast feed is identical.
The way humans and primates hold guns is identical.
The way that humans and primates hold books is identical.
The way that human's ears and primate's ears are shaped is identical.
The way that human's hands are shaped is identical to primates' hands.
The way that our teeth are shaped is identical to primates.

What other species besides the ones that I showed breast feed, hold books, and hold guns the exact same way as humans do?

And what other species has the exact shaped teeth, ears, and hands as we do?

But does all of this mean that we have a comon ancestor? No. Just means we are alike in ways.

Plus, our mental capabilities, speech and such seperates us greatly from any ape species.

All the know planets in the universe are round. Some have water and land I believe off hand. Yet as far as we now know, we are the only planet that can sustain life. That then seperates the earth from the other planets. Even though some are quite similar.

 

[abcd]

But does all of this mean that we have a comon ancestor? No. Just means we are alike in ways.

Plus, our mental capabilities, speech and such seperates us greatly from any ape species.

All the know planets in the universe are round. Some have water and land I believe off hand. Yet as far as we now know, we are the only planet that can sustain life. That then seperates the earth from the other planets. Even though some are quite similar.

Evolution actually says all of the things that you mentioned. But it's explanation for why we are more advanced than other primates is through mutations. Evolution doesn't claim that there's life on other planets, just like the Bible doesn't claim that, either.

There's proof of evolution in humans right now.

Our wisdom teeth are a perfect example.

Humans used to use their wisdom teeth to digest food, because we used to have to hunt animals, and we didn't know how to cook food, in the past.

Humans no longer use their wisdom teeth to digest food, because we have factories that kill animals and that cook it for us. Most humans remove at least 2 of their wisdom teeth, in their lifetime. The ones that they do keep, if they even keep any, usually aren't used to digest food. And people that have wisdom teeth often have pain or get food stuck in their wisdom teeth. They are of no use anymore.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

There's proof of evolution in humans right now.

Our wisdom teeth are a perfect example.

Humans used to use their wisdom teeth to digest food, because we used to have to hunt animals, and we didn't know how to cook food, in the past

How far in the past are you speaking of?

Humans no longer use their wisdom teeth to digest food, because we have factories that kill animals and that cook it for us. Most humans remove at least 2 of their wisdom teeth, in their lifetime. The ones that they do keep, if they even keep any, usually aren't used to digest food. And people that have wisdom teeth often have pain or get food stuck in their wisdom teeth. They are of no use anymore.

Well wisdom teeth being of any use more has nothing really to do with evolution based on the reason you provided. It's the fact that man has made advances so they are less needed.

Evolution recognizing this would be to me, wisdom teeth not growing at all.