Post Reply
Page 10 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View For all - Evidence for Jehovah's existence and His personality
1 year ago  ::  Feb 25, 2012 - 10:15PM #91
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420


Knowsnothing - Concerning Adam being the first man (and Eve the first woman) an overview is here:


www.watchtower.org/e/20090901a/article_0...



However, it does not delve into the scientific evidence.



An overview of the evidence of the flood from flood legends is here:


www.watchtower.org/e/20020301/article_01...



Again, it is not in depth.



Now, I cannot go into depth on both subjects at once!   Do you have a preference for me to zero in on Adam first, or the flood first?



For this post, Adam first (for no other reason than Adam came before the flood!)



First, from our literature:



"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled "The Search for Adam and Eve." Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that "there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth," as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time." - "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?", 2006, p.98



On the creationist side:






www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/articl...






creation.com/y-chromosome-adam






jewsandjoes.com/israelite-and-noahic-hap...






creation.com/y-adam-sea-floor






www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/0...



On the evolutionist side:






en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam






biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondrial...






ramsincanon.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/a-n...






www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_c...



You will note there are a number of creationist models, and evolutionists also have different models - to determine the truth - or, at least, closer to truth - it is best to concentrate on the actual scientific evidence first, and then variant interpretations of the data.



The main point, of course, is that the Bible is correct in showing all human 'races' have a common genetic origin in one father and one mother.



Note, btw, a common mistake on the popular evolutionist side is to assume there were other mothers/fathers but only the MtDNA and Y-chomosome of these 2 survived.   That conclusion is based on small families - and one new thing I learned in the above research is that Josephus indicates Adam and Eve had very many children!   Thus their MtDNA would have survived.



However, one must also realize that the Y-chromosomal Adam could be Noah rather than Adam!   A very recent addition involves a possibly earlier Y-chromosomal Adam - if so, the earlier one could actually be Adam.



Also, note that the molecular clock hypothesis upon which dating is involved is based on unproved assumptions.



Some of the above sources are more or less biased - a comparison of what is accurate in the above sources is very important - evolutionists will not tend to emphasize the same scientific data as creationists.



Note also the evidence of a genetic bottleneck - such would be the case at the flood.  I remember watching an educational TV program years ago entitled "children of Eve" where the lines of lineage from the MtDNA Eve narrowed to 3 and then spread out again.



This fits the Biblical flood account, as just 3 MtDNA lines survived the flood - the three wives of the 3 sons of Noah - since Noah's wife had no daughters her MtDNA is extinct.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 8:50AM #92
Ed2
Ed2
Posts: 3,322

Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:36PM, Ed2 wrote:


Feb 25, 2012 -- 4:52PM, Newtonian wrote:


Hi Ed - Still beating this dead Bombardier beetle? (or horse?)



Don't know what you're talking about, Newt. This is the first time that I posted about the Bombardier beetle.


Feb 25, 2012 -- 4:52PM, Newtonian wrote:


Jehovah did not create predation - but there was need for protection when walking through thick woods/jungles, etc.  


You are espousing a non-Biblical model wherein God supposedly purposed violence in the animal kingdom and God supposedly created predation or animals to eat meat.


This is OPPOSITE to what the Bible teaches:


(Genesis 1:29-30) . . .And God went on to say: “Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food. 30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it came to be so.


So, are you taking a definite position that these verses are wrong, and that God authorized pre-flood animals to eat animal flesh?



Well, Newtonian, go back and carefully read my post #79:


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...


and then answer the question: Should I agree with what you are saying, or should I believe my lying eyes? And I'll be looking forward to your answer.


Feb 25, 2012 -- 4:52PM, Newtonian wrote:


Know that Jehovah's Witnesses accept the Bible as accurate.  


There are a number of ways to interpret the data that leads us to believe Gen, 1:29,30 was accurate.


1.  Animals popularly considered carnivorous, such as T. Rex (=  Tyranosaurus) were vegetarian - this is what I tentatively believe.


2.  Animals popularly considered carnivorous were influenced by Satan to become violent, against God's purpose for them - this is an idea I have entertained.


Of course, it could be both - e.g. the animals brought on the ark were vegetarian, but some species rejected for being on the ark had become violent - and there is a Scripture that can be interpreted to lead to that conclusion - 'all flesh had ruined its way.'


Or, the really best way to find out is to qualify for survival of Armageddon or resurrection and then simply ask Noah!




Newtonian, for your No. 2, please address what I said in post #79 about spiders, spider webs, and constrictor snakes.



Hmmm. Well, I guess we can call this a clear demonstration of the phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance?


Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).


Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.


[. . .]


Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior.  According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement).


www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-disso...




I think that it's pretty sad and pretty unbelievable that there are so many healthy, powerful, and healing foods that I have learned about from watching "The Doctor Oz Show"...but unfortunately, most Americans from their childhood on up, have only learned how to eat what is essentially equivalent to 'garbage'...and are basically in a 'slumber' when it comes to not having a clue as to what that kind of food is doing to their bodies and to their health. It's really sad.

~Ed2

"Hmmm. So you're saying that for Jesus' followers(throughout the centuries) to truly live a 'godly' life, they had to believe that the end of the world was just around the corner?"

~Ed2(See post #53)

"Although, I think that I'll change that to: Also...I liked the way that you dodged what I had said about being 'concerned that the Bible had to use subterfuge as a means to an end' in my post #137."

~Ed2(See post #145)

"It's utterly beyond belief, that the wealthiest country in the history of the world, fails to care for all it's people."

~Dr. Patrick Dowling, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 11/23/11.)

"If I could prescribe any drug on the planet, it would be food [be]cause it works better, faster, and cheaper than any medication. Food is the most powerful medicine we have...to treat chronic disease like diabetes."

~Dr. Mark Hyman, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 01/13/12. Also, go to www.doctoroz.com for more information.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 10:07AM #93
Knowsnothing
Knowsnothing
Posts: 1,138

Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Newtonian wrote:


Knowsnothing - How is your analysis of the scientific data I posted earlier in this thread going?  Yes, I admit, this evidence simply proves God's existence, not his name, for example.  But I think proving God's existence comes before proving God's personality - what do you think?



I thought I wasn't going to post again, but what the heck.  I'll give it another go.  My opinion thus far is this, the universe and everything in it indeed seems to be created and designed.  But, it also seems to me that God doesn't care, and is haphazard in his design and action towards the very creation it seems he worked so hard on to get "right."


Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Newtonian wrote:


The flood - now there is a really large field of evidence - do you wish to start another thread on it?   Essentially, it involves proving that the flood, and not an ice age, was the last catastrophe - so, for example, the frozen remains of the victims (most publicized: mammoths) of this last catastrophe.



Sure, I would totally welcome that.  A thread dedicated to the scientific evidence for or against a Global Flood.


Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Newtonian wrote:


Adam being the first human - well, like the evidence for God, one is not going to find evidence fo the name Adam.   Although, in fact, the Y-chromosomal Adam is the primary line of evidence - along with, of course, the mitochondrial Eve.



Yes, obviously the name is not important.  The important point would be to analyze whether the evidence leads us to a more recent point in time (man being ~6,000 yrs old, or at least the bottle neck you mention of the flood) vs. anything older than that (Lucy, purported to be 3.2 million yrs old)


Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Newtonian wrote:


Also, on your other points, remember Jehovah was terraforming the planet earth for mammals to man.   And this involves the many ways earth is fine tuned for man (and for life).   See my above posts and my much earlier posts.



This is part of what I see as God acting haphazardly.  He creates species that are "good" to get the job done (terraforming the planet, for example) and then decides to be done with them.  Contrast God's callousness towards his creation, with a recently published article.


Download the Awake! and look at pg. 10.  Does God care about animals?


Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Newtonian wrote:


I would appreciate at least some comment on the evidence from earth's crustal carbonates for a very thick CO2 atmosphere with its resulting greenhouse effect and higher atmospheric pressure, etc.   Britannica confirms this is against the chemical evolutionist scenarios involving a methane - ammonia atmosphere.


I.e. early earth was quite different from the present - our current atmosphere if fine tuned for man - but earth's primordial atmosphere was more conductive to plants as per the progression of the Genesis creative days.


Also, have you examined the evidence I posted from chemisty?


Brief comments will suffice, I will be glad to zero in on your above posted preference for research.


In my thread concerning our literature's scientific accuracy, once I find it, I will post concerning your questions also, since our literature goes fairly deep on those points.




Again, I will reiterate.  This only gets you to deism.  And to be honest, a lot of that information is above my level.  So, I'll leave it at that.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 10:40AM #94
Knowsnothing
Knowsnothing
Posts: 1,138

Feb 25, 2012 -- 10:15PM, Newtonian wrote:



Knowsnothing - Concerning Adam being the first man (and Eve the first woman) an overview is here:


www.watchtower.org/e/20090901a/article_0...


However, it does not delve into the scientific evidence.




I found this quote of Richard Dawkins interesting,


In the view of Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionist and atheist, the universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” What an utterly bleak outlook, totally contrary to human nature!


Evil and good are human constructs.  Evil and good do not exist in the animal kingdom, nor in the formation or deterioration of galaxies, planets, suns, etc.


Evil and good only exist because we exist, and we define them based on 1.) the results our actions, thoughts, and ideas have on the world and 2.) our cultural upbringing.  I think that is what Richard Dawkins is trying to say.  This is probably a case of "quote mining."  It would be nice to see the full context.


 I also wouldn't say that an atheist's life is necessarily bleak or useless.  The way they live their lives and the impact they have on the people around them is essentially the same impact all humans have towards one an other and in regards to planet earth.



As you stated, the article doesn't go deep into the scientific data.  It is oriented more towards people that already believe in Christianity, yet may reject a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, thus invalidating a belief in a ransom sacrifice.


Feb 25, 2012 -- 10:15PM, Newtonian wrote:



An overview of the evidence of the flood from flood legends is here:


www.watchtower.org/e/20020301/article_01...



Again, it is not in depth.



Now, I cannot go into depth on both subjects at once!   Do you have a preference for me to zero in on Adam first, or the flood first?



I'd say the flood is a biggie for me.  Such a catastrophic event that happened relatively recently in history should have ample evidence.  I was looking at the correspondencies, and I must admit I'm impressed.  Talkorigins has an enormous list that is more complete.


www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.htm...


Feb 25, 2012 -- 10:15PM, Newtonian wrote:



For this post, Adam first (for no other reason than Adam came before the flood!)



First, from our literature:



"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled "The Search for Adam and Eve." Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that "there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth," as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time." - "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?", 2006, p.98



On the creationist side:






www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/articl...






creation.com/y-chromosome-adam






jewsandjoes.com/israelite-and-noahic-hap...






creation.com/y-adam-sea-floor






www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/0...



On the evolutionist side:






en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam






biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondrial...






ramsincanon.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/a-n...






www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_c...



You will note there are a number of creationist models, and evolutionists also have different models - to determine the truth - or, at least, closer to truth - it is best to concentrate on the actual scientific evidence first, and then variant interpretations of the data.



The main point, of course, is that the Bible is correct in showing all human 'races' have a common genetic origin in one father and one mother.



Note, btw, a common mistake on the popular evolutionist side is to assume there were other mothers/fathers but only the MtDNA and Y-chomosome of these 2 survived.   That conclusion is based on small families - and one new thing I learned in the above research is that Josephus indicates Adam and Eve had very many children!   Thus their MtDNA would have survived.



However, one must also realize that the Y-chromosomal Adam could be Noah rather than Adam!   A very recent addition involves a possibly earlier Y-chromosomal Adam - if so, the earlier one could actually be Adam.



Also, note that the molecular clock hypothesis upon which dating is involved is based on unproved assumptions.



Some of the above sources are more or less biased - a comparison of what is accurate in the above sources is very important - evolutionists will not tend to emphasize the same scientific data as creationists.



Note also the evidence of a genetic bottleneck - such would be the case at the flood.  I remember watching an educational TV program years ago entitled "children of Eve" where the lines of lineage from the MtDNA Eve narrowed to 3 and then spread out again.



This fits the Biblical flood account, as just 3 MtDNA lines survived the flood - the three wives of the 3 sons of Noah - since Noah's wife had no daughters her MtDNA is extinct.




I will respond to this portion when I look into it in more detail.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 10:07AM #95
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420


Knowsnothing - good responses - thank you.    At least we agree on some important points!


I will respond better later after I study your (and Ed's) posts.   For now, this brief but important response:


Our universe is still fine tuned for life - Satan has not changed that!


However, the earth is messed up right now - as per the prophecy in Revelation 11:18 and the earlier ruining in Genesis 6 involving "all flesh.'   It is primarily man who is currently ruining the earth - though certainly Satan and his demons have the motive: rule or ruin - and so they just add to the problem.


As I have responded to Ed and now to you - Satan, not Jehovah, is the "King of Pain" (as per the song by Police).   I see you are assuming that God does not care - but this is not true - it involves the question of why God permits suffering and wickedness - are you aware of the answers to this very important question in our literature?


Of course, human suffering is our focus - but the Scriptures show all creation is suffering:


(Romans 8:22) .　.　.For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.


The Bible also explains why - and the Bible's answer is not that God does not care - far from  it!


One must compare the Bible's answer with scientific evidence, of course.   Science also shows a conflict - for example we inherit the desire to live forever and not to die - which is in harmony with God's purpose for man to live forever.    And yet we inherit death as Romans 5:12 states!    Science documents this contradiction - but does not answer why.   The Bible answers why!
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 10:23AM #96
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420

Knowsnothing - Concerning the dating of Lucy - (not in I Love Lucy, btw - though she no doubt dated before marriage)Surprised


The date of 3.2 million years is NOT arrived at by radiocarbon dating but rather by the Potassium-argon clock (aka K-40).   One problem is the long half-life of K-40 - in the billions, not millions, of years - thus reading in the millions of years is rather like trying to determine the time in seconds with a clock that only has an hour hand!


Besides this, there is argon contamination.  Argon is an importnant element in earth's atmosphere - and if the rock only has a portion of this argon incorporated by contact with air (any time in its past) it will have built in age of millions of years, even if it is only 1 year old!


OK, I know that is approximate - more detailed research is required - but that will have to be for another post!
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 10:32AM #97
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420

Knowsnothing - Out of time, but here is a quick cut and paste that will help you research the latter question pro and con - from our literature:


"PaleontologistsTry to Date the Fossils


Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.


An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.


Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.


The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years. As one expert put it: “Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”


Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses." - "Awake!," 9/22/86, pp. 20,21


to be continued
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 11:37AM #98
Kemmer
Kemmer
Posts: 14,963

One must compare the Bible's answer with scientific evidence, of course.   Science also shows a conflict - for example we inherit the desire to live forever and not to die - which is in harmony with God's purpose for man to live forever.    And yet we inherit death as Romans 5:12 states!    Science documents this contradiction - but does not answer why.   The Bible answers why!



Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.


The bible's "explanation" for this is silly.  I suppose God intended for the animals to live forever?  They don't want to die or be hurt either.


Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses." - "Awake!," 9/22/86, pp. 20,21



Thank the Lord for AWAKE! magazine!  What were those stupid, atheist, opposer scientists thinking?!


 
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 12:42PM #99
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420

Knowsnothing:  Indeed the Flood is a biggie!   It was a BIG flood!  I will start a separate thread on it.


Meanwhile, the main point is that the evidence for the flood is the same as the evidence for the last ice age - except the data is interpreted differently.


In fact, it is essentially catastrophism (flood - <1 Year) vs uniformitarianism (ice age - thousands of years).  


The evidence is voluminous, but much is not well publicized as it does not fit ice age models.


Obviously, this involves sudden vs. gradual climate change - as frozen mammoths had undigested plant species in their stomachs - hence frozen nearly instantly (c. 30 minutes) - and some research indicates about -125 degrees F!   And these mammoths were then permanently frozen in the Arctic permafrost until the recent global warming!


Well, that is just the tip of the iceberg!   I will start another thread on it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 12:52PM #100
Newtonian
Newtonian
Posts: 9,420

Mar 2, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Kemmer wrote:


One must compare the Bible's answer with scientific evidence, of course.   Science also shows a conflict - for example we inherit the desire to live forever and not to die - which is in harmony with God's purpose for man to live forever.    And yet we inherit death as Romans 5:12 states!    Science documents this contradiction - but does not answer why.   The Bible answers why!



Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.


The bible's "explanation" for this is silly.  I suppose God intended for the animals to live forever?  They don't want to die or be hurt either.


Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses." - "Awake!," 9/22/86, pp. 20,21



Thank the Lord for AWAKE! magazine!  What were those stupid, atheist, opposer scientists thinking?!


 




Kemmer - Yes, the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul - involving 'everyone wants to go to heaven' - is in part due to the human desire for immortality- thus they reject the clear statements in the Bible that the soul dies (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4,20).


Animal instincts are different- in fact many animals accept natural death, even have instincts to cover this - such as going to someplace secluded to die in peace.


Which is evidence God did not intend for animals to live forever.


However, animals do not accept unnatural death, such as being killed by other animals - so this is evidence God did not purpose violence in the animal kingdom (nor being killed by cars, etc.)


The Bible's explanation is accurate, not silly.  Romans 5:12 indicates all men inherit death from our original father - which may be the older Y-chromosomal Adam.   Indeed, our DNA is coded for aging and death - i.e. it does not code to compensate for the causes of aging and death.


However, our DNA could be (and was) coded to compensate for all causes of aging and death.


Far from being silly, this is a matter of serious genetic research.




 
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook