Christianity in 30 Seconds

[Paul1355]

We came from a micro-cell....nice story. No historical writings ever of Evolution, no people from past civilizations writing down this information or writings of a possibility of humans evolving from Apes. Everything Evolution is now, was created by scientist in a recent decade or decades. It's one big, modern guess.

 

[abcd]

How far in the past are you speaking of?



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.

Some people don't grow all 4 wisdom teeth. Many people only grow 2 or 3.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Some people don't grow all 4 wisdom teeth. Many people only grow 2 or 3.

But can you really qualify this as evolution? Or an anamoly?

 

[abcd]

But can you really qualify this as evolution? Or an anamoly?

Evolution claims that humans are more advanced, over time. The fact that we no longer need wisdom teeth shows that we did become more advanced.

To Paul:

That's the part of Evolution that I find flawed. I believe that species have become more advanced over time, and I do believe that mutations help other species form. However, it doesn't explain where the cells came from, when the Earth first got created, therefore, it doesn't have all the answers.

The part of the Bible that I find flawed is that it claims God created the entire Earth, but the map of the Bible only shows about 45% of the planet.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Evolution claims that humans are more advanced, over time. The fact that we no longer need wisdom teeth shows that we did become more advanced.

To Paul:

That's the part of Evolution that I find flawed. I believe that species have become more advanced over time, and I do believe that mutations help other species form. However, it doesn't explain where the cells came from, when the Earth first got created, therefore, it doesn't have all the answers.

The part of the Bible that I find flawed is that it claims God created the entire Earth, but the map of the Bible only shows about 45% of the planet.

I think that is a serious reach. Man on the moon, technology also shows we're more advanced.

 

[abcd]

I think that is a serious reach. Man on the moon, technology also shows we're more advanced.

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, but you twisted what I said.

I said that the fact that people don't use their wisdom teeth shows that we have become more "advanced."

Translation- We have evolved, to the point where we no longer need them.
People used their wisdom teeth, when fire was invented.

People eventually didn't have to use them.

Man on the moon doesn't effect how species move from one stage to the next.

By the way, wisdom teeth isn't the only advance in humans.

We also don't use our appendix, because we no longer eat raw food. The appendix used to be used to kill bacterias in our food, that we used to eat raw. Since most humans no longer eat raw food, we don't need our appendixes to survive.

Some people get their appendixes removed, and they still eat food without dying or getting sick.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, but you twisted what I said.

I said that the fact that people don't use their wisdom teeth shows that we have become more "advanced."

Translation- We have evolved, to the point where we no longer need them.
People used their wisdom teeth, when fire was invented.

People eventually didn't have to use them.

Man on the moon doesn't effect how species move from one stage to the next.

By the way, wisdom teeth isn't the only advance in humans.

We also don't use our appendix, because we no longer eat raw food. The appendix used to be used to kill bacterias in our food, that we used to eat raw. Since most humans no longer eat raw food, we don't need our appendixes to survive.

Some people get their appendixes removed, and they still eat food without dying or getting sick.

I don't think I could go for that one.

I don't qualify that as an advance in humans. Because for one, if a person did not choose to ever eat meat in their life, they could still live along healthy life. So then even still the appendix would not be needed. So then really, have we advanced?


And I don't see the how fact that we don't need our wisdom teeth because we have better food due to advancements agriculturally contributes to evolution either. All that says to me is that we have figured out better ways to preserve our food.

Mankind itself has not changed. We still grow the appendiz and wisdom teeth. If we all of sudden stopped this out of lack of need, then we'd be evolving
evolution

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2. The process of developing.
3. Gradual development.
4. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

We are that something, and we have not changed.

 

[abcd]

I don't think I could go for that one.

I don't qualify that as an advance in humans. Because for one, if a person did not choose to ever eat meat in their life, they could still live along healthy life. So then even still the appendix would not be needed. So then really, have we advanced?


And I don't see the how fact that we don't need our wisdom teeth because we have better food due to advancements agriculturally contributes to evolution either. All that says to me is that we have figured out better ways to preserve our food.

Mankind itself has not changed. We still grow the appendiz and wisdom teeth. If we all of sudden stopped this out of lack of need, then we'd be evolving
evolution

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2. The process of developing.
3. Gradual development.
4. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

We are that something, and we have not changed.

Then you don't understand Evolution. According to Evolution, we are still evolving. It doesn't say that we are the last species of human that will exist. You keep twisting what I write, so I'm done talking to you.

None of your responses have anything to do with what I wrote.

I said that fire was invented, but people still used their wisdom teeth.

Fire was also invented, and people still used their appendixes to digest food.

Go ahead and twist that, too, since that's all you know how to do to prove a point.

You even make excuses for the Bible, when certain things in the Bible aren't included, and when certain things in the Bible are flawed. Even if God is real, there's flaws in the Bible. If people didn't see any flaws in the Bible, there would be no denominations, nor would there be athiests.

Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe there's flaws in the Bible themselves.
That's why they don't believe that Jesus died on a cross, and they also don't believe Jesus is God. They also believe Jesus is the archangel Michael, even though many Christians don't agree.

I can respect Paul's statements, because he doesn't change what people say. You just keep changing what people say, to try and prove a point.

When I brought up that people no longer use their wisdom teeth, you brought up the fact that man went on the moon.
When I brought up the fact that people no longer use their appendixes, you bring up how people preserve their foods differently.

When LJ4ptplay said that we are closely related to other primates, you compared that to paternity tests.

Meanwhile, the only time paternity tests fail are when there's identical twins involved.

The comparison between humans and other primates are based on features and DNA. You fail to respond to that.

It's obvious to me that you have a hidden agenda.

You want to act as if the Bible is 100% accurate and Evolution is 0% accurate, when there's more studies that support Evolution than there are studies that show the Bible is accurate.

I'm not like you. I don't blindly follow anything. I know that there's parts of the Bible that's good, and there's parts of the Bible that's accurate. But I also know that there's parts of evolution that's good and accurate, too.

You just blindly follow one thing, because it makes you happy.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Then you don't understand Evolution. According to Evolution, we are still evolving. It doesn't say that we are the last species of human that will exist.

Or maybe evolution just does not happen.

 

[abcd]

Then you don't understand Evolution. According to Evolution, we are still evolving. It doesn't say that we are the last species of human that will exist. You keep twisting what I write, so I'm done talking to you.

None of your responses have anything to do with what I wrote.

I said that fire was invented, but people still used their wisdom teeth.

Fire was also invented, and people still used their appendixes to digest food.

Go ahead and twist that, too, since that's all you know how to do to prove a point.

You even make excuses for the Bible, when certain things in the Bible aren't included, and when certain things in the Bible are flawed. Even if God is real, there's flaws in the Bible. If people didn't see any flaws in the Bible, there would be no denominations, nor would there be athiests.

Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe there's flaws in the Bible themselves.
That's why they don't believe that Jesus died on a cross, and they also don't believe Jesus is God. They also believe Jesus is the archangel Michael, even though many Christians don't agree.

I can respect Paul's statements, because he doesn't change what people say. You just keep changing what people say, to try and prove a point.

When I brought up that people no longer use their wisdom teeth, you brought up the fact that man went on the moon.
When I brought up the fact that people no longer use their appendixes, you bring up how people preserve their foods differently.

When LJ4ptplay said that we are closely related to other primates, you compared that to paternity tests.

Meanwhile, the only time paternity tests fail are when there's identical twins involved.

The comparison between humans and other primates are based on features and DNA. You fail to respond to that.

It's obvious to me that you have a hidden agenda.

You want to act as if the Bible is 100% accurate and Evolution is 0% accurate, when there's more studies that support Evolution than there are studies that show the Bible is accurate.

I'm not like you. I don't blindly follow anything. I know that there's parts of the Bible that's good, and there's parts of the Bible that's accurate. But I also know that there's parts of evolution that's good and accurate, too.

You just blindly follow one thing, because it makes you happy.

Respond to this post.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Then you don't understand Evolution. According to Evolution, we are still evolving. It doesn't say that we are the last species of human that will exist. You keep twisting what I write, so I'm done talking to you.

Lol.. ok

None of your responses have anything to do with what I wrote.

Ok again.

I said that fire was invented, but people still used their wisdom teeth.

Fire was also invented, and people still used their appendixes to digest food.

Go ahead and twist that, too, since that's all you know how to do to prove a point.

How can you be sure they did?

You even make excuses for the Bible, when certain things in the Bible aren't included, and when certain things in the Bible are flawed. Even if God is real, there's flaws in the Bible. If people didn't see any flaws in the Bible, there would be no denominations, nor would there be athiests.

Denominations and such have nothing to do with flaws in the bible, as much as it has to do with Philosophy when using the bible and false teachings.

Take the trinity for instance. Most Christians say JW's are stupid and don't know the bible because we don't believe Jesus is God. Well does the bible really teach that Jesus is in fact God?

Hebrews 9:24 Paul says
24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

It appears here that Jesus approached the very person of God, as you would appear before the person of the Judge in a courtroom. Why would Jesus need to appear before the person of God in heaven if he is actually God?

How about Jesus own words?John 17: 3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

Why would he refer to someone else as the only true God instead of saying us, or we?

John 20:1717 Jesus said to her: ?Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ?I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.??

How can almighty God, have a God?

Revelation 3:14 Jesus says
14 ?And to the angel of the congregation in La?o?di?ce?a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

Why is Jesus refering himself as a creation instead of the creator, which would be God?

So I ask you, since you seem to have the answers, does it appear that the bible is actually teaching Jesus is God?

Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe there's flaws in the Bible themselves.
That's why they don't believe that Jesus died on a cross, and they also don't believe Jesus is God. They also believe Jesus is the archangel Michael, even though many Christians don't agree.

First off, would you agree that a Christian should be qualified as such based on what the bible says a Christian should be? If you wisely say yes, then what you need to do is see what people on earth actually adhere to WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS a Christian should be, and not the masses. Just because organizations say they are Christian, does not mean from a Biblical standpoint they are. And if you're not a Christian by biblical standpoints, should what you teach be taken into consideration as truth?

People can say many things about JW's. They cannot say they do not live their lives according to what the bible says Christians should be. They'd be straight up lying if they did.

I can respect Paul's statements, because he doesn't change what people say. You just keep changing what people say, to try and prove a point.

Glad you respect Pauls statements, I do too. But I surely did not change what you said to prove a point. I may have made an analogy based on what you said, that would not qualify as changing what you said though.

When I brought up that people no longer use their wisdom teeth, you brought up the fact that man went on the moon.
When I brought up the fact that people no longer use their appendixes, you bring up how people preserve their foods differently.

You said "Evolution claims that humans are more advanced, over time. The fact that we no longer need wisdom teeth shows that we did become more advanced"

And
"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."

This is why I replied with the food preservation comment.
I would think the factories would be a better way of preserving the food we eat. And I don't think they cook them for us, Im pretty sure they kill, pack and preserve for the masses though.

You used Wisdom teeth and Appendix for proof of evolution. It is well known that man did not need meat to survive at anytime in life, so in a technical sense, the appendix was never needed for survival unless one chose to eat raw meat as you say, and I really wonder who decided that was even happening? What research proved that raw meat was man's diet?

If man all of a sudden stopped producing appendix and wisdom teeth, I'd buy the argument, but really it's relatively weak at this point.

When LJ4ptplay said that we are closely related to other primates, you compared that to paternity tests.

Actually no. I made that comparison based on this mans research on Neanderthal's compared to Modern humans.
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.

Neanderthal is not a primate. In fact, if it's 99.9 percent identical to modern humans, why is it not simply human? In apaternity test, 99.9 dna match would make you the biological parent. But somehow 99.9 DNA match with Neanderthal does not make it human?

And it was in the form of a question, so I was asking whether it actually applied in the same way or not, not trying to twist his words.

Maybe you should read more carefully.

Meanwhile, the only time paternity tests fail are when there's identical twins involved.

News to me. Did not know that. But this proves my point, as much as mankind tries, they cannot get an absolute fulproof systems to prove this. Even with DNA. There are problems with it it appears as no one has been able to refute this claim yet.

"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."

IS THIS TRUE????

The comparison between humans and other primates are based on features and DNA. You fail to respond to that.

Fossil record and DNA have proven that it would be one species or the other. Apes are apes, Men are men.

It's obvious to me that you have a hidden agenda.

Why? I like to hear other's opinions on what they believe, and why they believe it. Not hidden, it should be obvious. We're all entitled to agree or disagree.

You want to act as if the Bible is 100% accurate and Evolution is 0% accurate, when there's more studies that support Evolution than there are studies that show the Bible is accurate.

Well, this is why we're having this debate I suppose.

About these studies. The bible Chronology has mankind created over 6000 years ago. Evolution has our ancestors going back much further by a mystical number. The only accurate written history of mankind dates back not millions of years, but somewhat over 5000. This fact lends more support to the bible's account being accurate about creation, than it does evolution.

Evolutionist's want people to believe our ancestor's are smart enough to make tools, weapons, Hunt, Speak, Draw, but not be advanced enough to write? We just so happened to pick up that bit of brilliance... 5000 years and change ago, not too long after God's word said mankind was actually created?

Fossil record does not support evolution. And it really should if it was true. And Ancient DNA testing of fossils is flawed, as is the ability to date fossils the way they do as well.

Meanwhile, Not one of the bible's prophecies have failed yet. And, even though the bible is not a science book, the scientific references in it are amazingly factual. Adding even more credibility.

And I am to scoff at this book, when all it has done is proven true?

I'm not like you. I don't blindly follow anything. I know that there's parts of the Bible that's good, and there's parts of the Bible that's accurate. But I also know that there's parts of evolution that's good and accurate, too.

You just blindly follow one thing, because it makes you happy.

The last thing Jehovah's witnesses are bro, is blind followers. No Elder, or fellow believer has ever made me blindly follow them. As a Christian, you follow the bible. Therefore you will be following Jehovah and his son, and because you have them you have truth.

Evolution? Not so much.

 

[abcd]

Since you like to copy and twist what people say, I'm going to take a page out of your book. Enjoy.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"Ok, then. How can you be sure they did?"

But God created everything. He knows how everything was made.
I'll pull out a verse from the Bible and change what it says, so that I look right.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"Denominations and such have nothing to do with the flaws in the Bible."

Then why do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible, the New World Translation?If the Bible was perfect, there would be no need for another version of the Bible.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"Apes are Apes. Men are Men."

But the Bible says that Noah fit two of everything inside an arch. The only way to make 6.5 billion humans from just two of every species if through incest.

Humans have free will. We also don't have perfect Judgment.

So one of the poeple in Noah's arch had sex with a primate, and that's how we became related.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"The Bible chronology has mankind created 6,000 years ago."

Ok, since you don't believe in anything that Science has to say, why don't you sit next to someone who has hepititus, and let them cough on you. Let's see if you won't get infected.

Yeah, Science is B.S. No need to listen to them. Hepititus does not exist, because the Bible doesn't say it exists.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"Neanderthal is not a primate"

I know. The Bible doesn't say they are. It's in Genesis.

Originally posted by Knicks4lyfe:
"Jehovah's Witnesses are not blind followers"

Then why did they all give up their jobs and houses, when they found out that the world was supposily going to end, in 1914 and 1975?

Sounds like blind followers to me.

P.S.-Don't bother responding, because all I'm going to do is twist everything you write, just like you do with other posters. It's about time you get the same treatment.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

"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."

IS THIS TRUE????


Fossil record and DNA have proven that it would be one species or the other. Apes are apes, Men are men.

Your basing this on Jack Cuozzo's arguments that Neanderthal man was one of those "super-humans" that lived a very long life (300+ years). I really didn't think I needed to answer this ridiculous claim, but since you want to believe falsehoods, let me set the record straight. mtDNA does not change it's stucture over time. It changes it's production, but not it's structure. So this claim doesn't apply. Plus, through analysis of Neanderthal's teeth, you can tell from wear and tear, that they weren't 300+ years old. Jack Cuozzo should know this from applying braces and filling cavities for so long. Neanderthal mtDNA is not within the variability of human mtDNA. So they were not human.

Frm wikipedia:
The Mungo Man (also known as Lake Mungo 3) was an early human inhabitant of the continent of Australia, who is believed to have lived about 40,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene epoch.

In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adcockl and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans. The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.

This doesn't disprove evolution but supports a theory that modern man evolved from several species around the world. Not all from one species in Africa.

Plus, I thought quoting the actual scientists that performed the mtDNA analysis was enough:

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.

So your claim of intermediary species being just man or ape is incorrect. Plus, you don't account for Homo erectus and Homo ergaster that are clearly not human, but had tools, walked upright and used fire.

And I'm not sure why you keep asking for their memoirs. I've explained to you that small hunter-gatherer groups don't need written language. The small hunter-gatherer tribes today don't have written languages either. If this is so important to you, where are Adam's written memoirs? Let me see a piece of paper written 6,000 years ago signed by Adam (and don't say the bible, that was written by humans 3,000 years ago).

 

[abcd]

Your basing this on Jack Cuozzo's arguments that Neanderthal man was one of those "super-humans" that lived a very long life (300+ years). I really didn't think I needed to answer this ridiculous claim, but since you want to believe falsehoods, let me set the record straight. mtDNA does not change it's stucture over time. It changes it's production, but not it's structure. So this claim doesn't apply. Plus, through analysis of Neanderthal's teeth, you can tell from wear and tear, that they weren't 300+ years old. Jack Cuozzo should know this from applying braces and filling cavities for so long. Neanderthal mtDNA is not within the variability of human mtDNA. So they were not human.

Frm wikipedia:
The Mungo Man (also known as Lake Mungo 3) was an early human inhabitant of the continent of Australia, who is believed to have lived about 40,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene epoch.

In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adcockl and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans. The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.

This doesn't disprove evolution but supports a theory that modern man evolved from several species around the world. Not all from one species in Africa.

Plus, I thought quoting the actual scientists that performed the mtDNA analysis was enough:

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.

So your claim of intermediary species being just man or ape is incorrect. Plus, you don't account for Homo erectus and Homo ergaster that are clearly not human, but had tools, walked upright and used fire.

And I'm not sure why you keep asking for their memoirs. I've explained to you that small hunter-gatherer groups don't need written language. The small hunter-gatherer tribes today don't have written languages either. If this is so important to you, where are Adam's written memoirs? Let me see a piece of paper written 6,000 years ago signed by Adam (and don't say the bible, that was written by humans 3,000 years ago).

When Knicks4lyfe reads this, he's going to be so overwhelmed, he'll change your post. lol

 

[LJ4ptplay]

When Knicks4lyfe reads this, he's going to be so overwhelmed, he'll change your post. lol

Yeah, it can be frustrating debating with him sometimes. When he gets backed into a corner about the bible, he immediately lashes out at evolution. As if it is the only evidence against the bible. There is a whole other field of science (astronomy) that we haven't even really discussed yet. And that's my specialty, not evolution.

I still disagree with him about the bible being perfect, having no false prophecies, how two individuals of any species can create a population, perfect judgement can lead to a wrong decision, etc., etc.

 

[abcd]

Yeah, it can be frustrating debating with him sometimes. When he gets backed into a corner about the bible, he immediately lashes out at evolution. As if it is the only evidence against the bible. There is a whole other field of science (astronomy) that we haven't even really discussed yet. And that's my specialty, not evolution.

I still disagree with him about the bible being perfect, having no false prophecies, how two individuals of any species can create a population, perfect judgement can lead to a wrong decision, etc., etc.

He claims that denominations have nothing to do with flaws in the Bible, yet Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible,
"The New World Translation." That makes tons of sense, doesn't it? lol

If the Bible is perfect, there would be no need to use a new version. Yet they made a new version.

It is a fact that Jehovah's Witnesses used to use the King James Version and the Standard American Version of the Bible. I wonder why they stopped using it, if they thought everything in the Bible was 100% correct? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Part of the Bible's prophecy is obviously flawed.

According to the prophecy, people are going to go to war on horses.
Do people uses horses to fight, in modern times? No, so that's one flaw.

It also says that Ethiopia, Algeria, and Libya are going to attack Israel. I'm still waiting on that one, because all 3 of those countries are yet to go to war with Israel. That's another flaw.

It also says that God will set Magog on fire. The part of Russia that's present day Magog is yet to be put on fire. That's another flaw.

The one thing in the Bible that nobody can answer is the map of the Bible.
If God really did create the entire Earth, why does the map of the Bible only show 40-45% of the planet?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in having blood transfusions. If they thought the Bible was perfect, why are they adding rules and regulations that aren't even in the Bible? There's nothing in the Bible that says, "thou shalt not have blood transfusions, yet they believe in that."

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

Your basing this on Jack Cuozzo's arguments that Neanderthal man was one of those "super-humans" that lived a very long life (300+ years). I really didn't think I needed to answer this ridiculous claim, but since you want to believe falsehoods, let me set the record straight. mtDNA does not change it's stucture over time. It changes it's production, but not it's structure. So this claim doesn't apply. Plus, through analysis of Neanderthal's teeth, you can tell from wear and tear, that they weren't 300+ years old. Jack Cuozzo should know this from applying braces and filling cavities for so long. Neanderthal mtDNA is not within the variability of human mtDNA. So they were not human.

He did not actually say eanderthal was of the genesis fold. He did say that we are more devolved than Neanderthals though.

And he also addressed some issues with ancient Dna testing. Clearly there are problems faced that joepardize the process.

But as far as Neanderthal not being human, why did this guy say they were?

On November 16, 2006, Science Daily published an interview that suggested that Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not interbreed. Edward M. Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy?s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), sequenced a fraction (0.00002) of genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a 38,000-year-old Vindia Neanderthal femur bone. They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago. Their results show the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having coexisted in the same geographic region for thousands of years, Rubin and his team did not find any evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Rubin said, ?While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.?

Why did this guy call Neanderthals a species of humans AFTER doing dna research?

And this guy thinks, that humans and non humans in your respective opinion, possibly hooked up and mated.
A main proponent of the interbreeding hypothesis isErik Trinkaus of Washington University. In a 2006 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus and his co-authors report a possibility that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[36] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".

I'm trying to figure our why he thinks Humans and non humans hooked up? What would make either of them wanna do such?

Why are you so definitive that Neanderthals are not human when some dna researchers in fact concede that they are? What makes you smarter than them? Have you done some research they haven't?

Frm wikipedia:
The Mungo Man (also known as Lake Mungo 3) was an early human inhabitant of the continent of Australia, who is believed to have lived about 40,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene epoch.

In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adcockl and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans. The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.

This doesn't disprove evolution but supports a theory that modern man evolved from several species around the world. Not all from one species in Africa.

Where I enlarged, is he saying that all the tested skeletons are human? Such as Neanderthal, Australian Aborigines and others?

Plus, I thought quoting the actual scientists that performed the mtDNA analysis was enough:

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.

If this is true, and I am to take it as it appears to say, that for the first time ever a sequence from ancient DNA was built without error, what about all the other times they did it? Clearly they had errors. So then one can wonder how accurate really are their readings up until this magestical FIRST TIME? Why should I believe this guy? Are there not hundreds of scientists repeating this feat?

Maybe Couzzo the dentist had a point when he said the process was troublesome.

So your claim of intermediary species being just man or ape is incorrect. Plus, you don't account for Homo erectus and Homo ergaster that are clearly not human, but had tools, walked upright and used fire.

I suppose they have the fossils and such of the species. But the artist rendering of what they looked like is my issue. No one can truly know. Many will admit this. So you showing pictures of what ergaster looks like does not sway my belief. It was simply on e artist's opinion of what he believes the species looked like. They once used to draw Neanderthals as hairy ape looking species that walked upright and such. Not so much anymore.

And I'm not sure why you keep asking for their memoirs. I've explained to you that small hunter-gatherer groups don't need written language. The small hunter-gatherer tribes today don't have written languages either. If this is so important to you, where are Adam's written memoirs? Let me see a piece of paper written 6,000 years ago signed by Adam (and don't say the bible, that was written by humans 3,000 years ago).

Just find it tough to believe that these species could basically do everything that modern man can, and lived for hundreds of thousands of years basically with little advancement. And since modern humans have started to write about history, the advancements have been staggering. It just makes little sense that a species that has been around for that long did not advance further, with the same capabilities we have.

And even though Adam did not write of himself, the story of Adam has been told for some 3k years. I wonder was the story of neanderthals being told back then? Cro-magnon man? Hmmm.

 

[TunerAddict]

He did not actually say eanderthal was of the genesis fold. He did say that we are more devolved than Neanderthals though.

And he also addressed some issues with ancient Dna testing. Clearly there are problems faced that joepardize the process.

But as far as Neanderthal not being human, why did this guy say they were?

On November 16, 2006, Science Daily published an interview that suggested that Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not interbreed. Edward M. Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy?s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), sequenced a fraction (0.00002) of genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a 38,000-year-old Vindia Neanderthal femur bone. They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago. Their results show the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having coexisted in the same geographic region for thousands of years, Rubin and his team did not find any evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Rubin said, ?While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.?

Why did this guy call Neanderthals a species of humans AFTER doing dna research?

And this guy thinks, that humans and non humans in your respective opinion, possibly hooked up and mated.
A main proponent of the interbreeding hypothesis isErik Trinkaus of Washington University. In a 2006 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus and his co-authors report a possibility that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[36] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".

I'm trying to figure our why he thinks Humans and non humans hooked up? What would make either of them wanna do such?

Why are you so definitive that Neanderthals are not human when some dna researchers in fact concede that they are? What makes you smarter than them? Have you done some research they haven't?


Where I enlarged, is he saying that all the tested skeletons are human? Such as Neanderthal, Australian Aborigines and others?


If this is true, and I am to take it as it appears to say, that for the first time ever a sequence from ancient DNA was built without error, what about all the other times they did it? Clearly they had errors. So then one can wonder how accurate really are their readings up until this magestical FIRST TIME? Why should I believe this guy? Are there not hundreds of scientists repeating this feat?

Maybe Couzzo the dentist had a point when he said the process was troublesome.

I suppose they have the fossils and such of the species. But the artist rendering of what they looked like is my issue. No one can truly know. Many will admit this. So you showing pictures of what ergaster looks like does not sway my belief. It was simply on e artist's opinion of what he believes the species looked like. They once used to draw Neanderthals as hairy ape looking species that walked upright and such. Not so much anymore.



Just find it tough to believe that these species could basically do everything that modern man can, and lived for hundreds of thousands of years basically with little advancement. And since modern humans have started to write about history, the advancements have been staggering. It just makes little sense that a species that has been around for that long did not advance further, with the same capabilities we have.

And even though Adam did not write of himself, the story of Adam has been told for some 3k years. I wonder was the story of neanderthals being told back then? Cro-magnon man? Hmmm.

When you talk about man not making advancement, just look at modern history, the written accounts we have. For hundred of years there aren't advancements. You get all caught up with the fact that now we are making frequent advancements. It wasn't always like that. Man's knowledge can best be described as a velocity. We advanced a set amount and had a set acceleration. As time has gone on, our velocity has increased and we've made more discoveries and made advancements in less time as time has progressed.

Just look at the computer field as a modern example. Its on the verge of achieving the capacity of the human brain, and doubling that capacity in the next 20 years. Then 20 years from that it is predicted to double every 72 hours.

Same principle. Man's knowledge has been a velocity with a constant acceleration. It had to build up before constant advancements could be made.

And you also have to look at the population issue aswell, but that is self explanatory.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

He did not actually say eanderthal was of the genesis fold. He did say that we are more devolved than Neanderthals though.

And he also addressed some issues with ancient Dna testing. Clearly there are problems faced that joepardize the process.

But as far as Neanderthal not being human, why did this guy say they were?

On November 16, 2006, Science Daily published an interview that suggested that Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not interbreed. Edward M. Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), sequenced a fraction (0.00002) of genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a 38,000-year-old Vindia Neanderthal femur bone. They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago. Their results show the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having coexisted in the same geographic region for thousands of years, Rubin and his team did not find any evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Rubin said, “While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.”

Why did this guy call Neanderthals a species of humans AFTER doing dna research?

And this guy thinks, that humans and non humans in your respective opinion, possibly hooked up and mated.
A main proponent of the interbreeding hypothesis isErik Trinkaus of Washington University. In a 2006 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus and his co-authors report a possibility that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[36] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".

I'm trying to figure our why he thinks Humans and non humans hooked up? What would make either of them wanna do such?

Why are you so definitive that Neanderthals are not human when some dna researchers in fact concede that they are? What makes you smarter than them? Have you done some research they haven't?


Where I enlarged, is he saying that all the tested skeletons are human? Such as Neanderthal, Australian Aborigines and others?


If this is true, and I am to take it as it appears to say, that for the first time ever a sequence from ancient DNA was built without error, what about all the other times they did it? Clearly they had errors. So then one can wonder how accurate really are their readings up until this magestical FIRST TIME? Why should I believe this guy? Are there not hundreds of scientists repeating this feat?

Maybe Couzzo the dentist had a point when he said the process was troublesome.

I suppose they have the fossils and such of the species. But the artist rendering of what they looked like is my issue. No one can truly know. Many will admit this. So you showing pictures of what ergaster looks like does not sway my belief. It was simply on e artist's opinion of what he believes the species looked like. They once used to draw Neanderthals as hairy ape looking species that walked upright and such. Not so much anymore.



Just find it tough to believe that these species could basically do everything that modern man can, and lived for hundreds of thousands of years basically with little advancement. And since modern humans have started to write about history, the advancements have been staggering. It just makes little sense that a species that has been around for that long did not advance further, with the same capabilities we have.

And even though Adam did not write of himself, the story of Adam has been told for some 3k years. I wonder was the story of neanderthals being told back then? Cro-magnon man? Hmmm.

WOW!! Did you actually read what you quoted? Or did you just not understand?


They calculated the common ancestor to be about 353,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 188,000 years ago.

Their results show the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having coexisted in the same geographic region for thousands of years, Rubin and his team did not find any evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two.

While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.”

Two species, means two species. Not one. Genus same = Homo; Species different = neanderthalensis (neaderthal man); sapiens (modern man). Two different species. Come on now man. You really need to read quotes before you use them to defend your arguments. These quotes prove evolution.

In a study conducted by Australian National University graduate student Greg Adcockl and others in 1995[1], mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans.

Neanderthal man did not live in Australia. He was referring to other ancient Australian human skeletons in the same group as Mungo Man.


I guess I understand how you guys misinterpret the bible so frequently. You can't even read a simple sentence and understand what they are saying. The english language requires you to read the entire sentence in order to understand the author's argument or viewpoint. Not just 2 or 3 words within the sentence.

 

[Knicks4lyfe]

He claims that denominations have nothing to do with flaws in the Bible, yet Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible,
"The New World Translation." That makes tons of sense, doesn't it? lol.

The "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" is just meant to be what it says, a translation for a new world. JW's at one time used the King James bible. In fact that is what we used from the late 1800's to mid 1900's. But no one speaks the way that translation does anymore, so the aim was for better understanding for one thing, not to change flaws.

Secondly, it is the only biblical rendering that is based off of the original Hebrew and greek languages. Every other translation is made from spanish.

Because of this, the name Jehovah appears 7k times in the hebrew scriptures, as it does in the very hebrew scriptures. It does not do so in any other bible.

So it was made to truly glorify Jehovah, by reinstalling the divine name, and being rendered as closely as possible with the actual original languages, while also making it an easier read for our generation.

Part of the Bible's prophecy is obviously flawed.

According to the prophecy, people are going to go to war on horses.
Do people uses horses to fight, in modern times? No, so that's one flaw.

What people? How about posting the scriptures, and giving us your rendition of what will take place.

It also says that Ethiopia, Algeria, and Libya are going to attack Israel. I'm still waiting on that one, because all 3 of those countries are yet to go to war with Israel. That's another flaw.

Do you really think God is backing earthly Israel? If so, why?

It also says that God will set Magog on fire. The part of Russia that's present day Magog is yet to be put on fire. That's another flaw.

This clearly implies a future time. So for you to say it's flawed pre revelation is presumptious.

Also, Magog has amuch deeper meaning than simply a place in Russia, contrary to popular teaching.

The one thing in the Bible that nobody can answer is the map of the Bible.
If God really did create the entire Earth, why does the map of the Bible only show 40-45% of the planet?

The map of the bible shows where those spoken of inhabited and traveled at the time It shows places where God's biblical word impacted. That then was the known world to those involved. Quite simple.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in having blood transfusions. If they thought the Bible was perfect, why are they adding rules and regulations that aren't even in the Bible? There's nothing in the Bible that says, "thou shalt not have blood transfusions, yet they believe in that."

Christians​

are commanded to ?abstain from blood?
Acts 15:28, 29: "The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!" (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)​

Blood Transfusions
Does the Bible?s prohibition include human blood?​

Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating "any sort of blood.") Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: "The interdict upon ?blood? we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood."?The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from . . . blood"? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?


In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?

Often simple saline solution, Ringer?s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists? Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: "The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization." Jehovah?s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.​

Jehovah?s​

Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: "There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel."​

All​

types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: "We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement." Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: "We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah?s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients." (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) "?Bloodless? open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah?s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children."?Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.​