Andy,

Got answers for your scriptures...but maybe I should ask Jill first. This is the no no thread for scriptures. She might get angry with me. I think you asked me on the wrong site. I'm trying to be "good" here. I'm up to my neck here in hot water as it is. I need an ark about now.

So going with your logic, you must also believe in Heaven and Hell since I'm quite sure you've seen the pics. If I draw you a picture of Jesus and you see it, then you have to believe in him as well. Right?

Um, no. You can fly to Japan, touch it, see it, experience it then go back home. I sure can't say the same about Heaven or Hell. I've seen pictures of aliens but I can't go see one for myself. I can draw a picture of a 4 eyed monster but that doesn't mean I believe it existed or one step further that it is my saviour.

If your faith is so strong KFC, just leave it at the fact that you know it in your heart to be true. Noone could debate that. You lack debating skills when it comes to facts. You can claim anything you want about your son and I don't even think you are lying but he still isn't a source that I can check into. I can read scientific publishers that have been in a specific field for decades and use them as a reference that others can check out for themselves.

He also said....so I take back what I said earlier....that Lucy was false. Basically what happened is that bones were put together from a large area of dug up bones to make a half human half ape being.

Your Scientist son lost credibility there. Lucy was not false. He is referring to Piltdown Man. That's what you get when you just trust what people think they know without looking into it for yourself.

I think you are done on this thread. You established what your religious beliefs are. If you want to defend the Bible all you want, you can go to my other thread that is featured on the home page.

Your Scientist son lost credibility there. Lucy was not false. He is referring to Piltdown Man.

No...he's talking about Lucy.
You want facts? Here ya go.

Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’!

‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.

Link

And Specific Published Scientific Journals on The Y Chromosome Recombination? Here ya go.

On this look at the chart specifically on Page 2. It lists a number of different species where transposons are present on the Y Chromosome"
Link

after pulling up 102,000 scholarly journal articles on transposons in the Y Chromosomes here's one and an excerpt.
Link

The Y chromosome, a sex chromosome that is specific to the human male, has posed a particular challenge to researchers attempting to decode its sequence. It contains an extraordinary abundance of repetitive elements, including transposons and tandem arrays of satellite sequences. (first sentence in the 3rd paragraph)


You say that there are no homologous sequences or recombination between X and Y chromosomes but this article says differently.

The majority of the human Y does not normally recombine with the X chromosome; however, there are two limited regions of sequence identity with the X that permit pairing and recombination during normal male meiosis.

Link

and
Link

Recombination between X and Y chromosomes is one way the gene pool is naturally shuffled

I rest my case.

Got answers for your scriptures...but maybe I should ask Jill first. This is the no no thread for scriptures.

I think you are done on this thread. You established what your religious beliefs are. If you want to defend the Bible all you want, you can go to my other thread that is featured on the home page.

Apologies for using the wrong thread. Use Jill’s other article, as I’d be interested to hear your reply. You can give it a few days if you’re up to your neck, as there’s no rush.

People invariably come out the other end of these discussions with the same views as before, as we all seem to reach a certain ‘point’ of view in one particular lifetime. After the age of about 30, we don’t usually change view until the next lifetime, (at least not at a ‘heart’ level, if you see what I mean). You’ve certainly reached a place of integrity and solidity KFC in your views, at least at a heart level, and I honestly find that a beautiful and impressive thing. Peace with our model of the world is what we're all aiming for, and anyone who retains complete integrity and a sense of peace with their views has already 'won' in debates like this, in my opinion. (This principle shows the difference between purely intellectual debates and debates about spirituality and personal matters, incidentally. It's true that these two areas seem to have crossed over at times in this discussion, which possibly has caused the friction, but the heart-level is all that counts in my view. Anyway, with this said I don't think this is really a debate, just an open discussion, but this is how I see things anyway.)

You’ve certainly reached a place of integrity and solidity KFC in your views

This goes for everyone, of course. Whatever our views, and whatever we express here on JU, then as long as we’re being true to ourself, we’re being true to God (even if we don't believe in God!). It’s ‘where we’re at’, in context with our soul’s stage of growth, and we can't really do much about it, (just as we can't do much about our physical age). I believe that from God’s point of view, in Heaven, everyone is “perfect” and everyone’s view is “right”. It can’t be otherwise from a ‘heart-level’, and I believe that this is the meaning of divine unconditional love.

I’ve just read the following from Joseph Benner’s book, ‘The Way to the Kingdom’, and I thought it was fantastic and I wanted to share it:


“The Kingdom of Heaven is not a fictional world. In fact, this material world is the illusionary one. The Kingdom of God is the world of Truth – the world of reality, love and perfection. Jesus said, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” The more we practice seeing perfection instead of imperfection, the sooner we can experience the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. The world of criticism, personal shortcomings, and ego-standards will disappear and only the world of reality will appear. We will learn how to rise above the world in which personal limitations, criticism, and faults are seen. We will live in a world in which man does not think and act according to standards of the ego, but according to the principle of Truth.

As we learn to abide in Christ’s Spirit, which means in His Love, and we let His Love abide in and direct us in all our ways, in very truth is the Father – the Source of all things, of life itself – glorified, and we are caused to bear much fruit.

. . . How would you like to live in a world where people lived above personal consciousness? Would it not be a heavenly world? Yes, it would be an actual living in the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.”


I believe that here, Benner describes the future of mankind’s evolution. The Kingdom of God will come to earth, but maybe in a different form to how some people might expect. I'm sure many of the Bible's central messages make better sense when interpreted through Spiritual eyes, rather than through worldly eyes.

I'm sure many of the Bible's central messages make better sense when interpreted through Spiritual eyes, rather than through worldly eyes.

Bingo. That's it right there Andy. That's what Jesus kept trying to do. He was constantly trying to take their eyes off the physical and onto the spiritual. The woman at the well was a great example. He used everyday common things to teach about the spiritual world. He used things like water, bread, doors, sheep, etc. I've just spent two years...studying and teaching the book of John and we saw it throughout in this gospel. People need the tangible, and it's hard to "see" the spiritual. Of course I believe it all comes down to the heart issue. God knows who will accept and who will reject.

The same SUN (son) that melts wax.....hardens clay.

I'm thinking I'll write something on truth and include answers to your questions there.

KFC, Here's what you originally said about Lucy

He also said....so I take back what I said earlier....that Lucy was false. Basically what happened is that bones were put together from a large area of dug up bones to make a half human half ape being.

That describes Piltdown man not Lucy. Lucy isn't false. Perhaps as being the missing link but I never agreed with that original assessment anyway. Lucy's bones (what they have of them) are all human not half ape like you had stated. Piltdown man, on the other hand was a fake that used other bones to make it complete. So again, your debating skills are lacking.

You say that there are no homologous sequences or recombination between X and Y chromosomes but this article says differently.

No what I said was this

There is no X chromosome marker that is homologous with a Y chromosome marker that would allow "jumping" that would result in the Y chromosome change required to make a difference in the generations between Noah and the men of our century.

And nothing that you linked to argues that.

But I am hoping you really did "rest your case" because I am done asking you nicely to end this. I am telling you, do not comment again on this particulary thread or I will blacklist you. You are not adding anything at all to this discussion.

Ok think about this. I've seen pictures of Japenese people. I've seen pictures of Japan. I've seen pictures of Heaven and Hell. So what? I should believe it because I've seen pictures? So going with your logic, you must also believe in Heaven and Hell since I'm quite sure you've seen the pics. If I draw you a picture of Jesus and you see it, then you have to believe in him as well. Right?

I didn't mean drawings, I meant photographs. Your point about not having seen Japan is so lame, it's not even funny.

"If you can convince people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do 24 hours a day, seven days a week and keeps count of the good and bad things, you can convince them of anything." - George Carlin

There is such a thing called "jumping genes" which is Transposons...(sp?). It's where chromosomes jump from one to another and how you get genetic mixing. It allows for variation and shuffling of the chomosomes. He got into sickle cell and ....lost me. He said anyone that knows anything about science would not use what you used Jill for backing up your view. There are things you could use he said but this wouldn't be one...gets discounted very easily if you know anything about science....and I don't.

It's always amusing to see dumb people make these lofty claims.  "Oh, they don't know about 'science'."   This is especially true about people who take the stories in Genesis literally.

See, an intelligent person would not make such an absurd remark.  They might say "Someone familiar with genetics would not likely argue from such a position." Or "Someone familiar with molecular biology..."  They don't say things like "Anyone that knows anything about science" because it's such an idiotic broad stroke.

Whenever I see blatantly ignorant people throwing around "science" broadly, it reminds me of the people who call Windows "The Windows".  Or someone who says "Anyone who knows anything about history would know that the Roman Empire was conquered by internal forces." Oh? So if someone's speciality is in say Renaissance Europe they know "nothing" on history unless they agree with everything with someone who is discussing the Roman Empire?

The other issue I see with Kickin For Christ, and why I would never participate in any sort of discussion with her is because she has incredibly poor reading comprehension.  So Jill User says X and KFC will literally read it as being the opposite.  Which, given her belief that the bible can be taken literally is astounding.

I mean, here's someone who can't correctly interpret WRITTEN material that's in front of her, only days old but has great faith in the accuracy of oral traditions written down 50 years after the death of Christ and re-translated dozens of times (by hand) in a politically charged environment for another thousand years. 

Look, I have nothing against Fundamentalist Christians anymore than I have a beef with people who are really into Star Trek.  They're just people who are really into their stories.  The difference, and the thing that gets on my nerves, is that at least the Star Trek zealots know that Star Trek is a work of fiction. And recognizing that a set of stoies are fictional (or at best, "based on a true story") does not mean someone can't have faith or that God doesn't exist or whatever. It just means opening ones eyes to the obvious.

 

I didn't mean drawings, I meant photographs. Your point about not having seen Japan is so lame, it's not even funny.

I am trying to understand why this is obvious to some and not to others. I think it is a matter of preconceived notions. If you decide to take the bible literally you can manage to justify in your mind why it is so even if it means overlooking parts of reality. If, on the other hand, you have made no assumption either way, but feel you need proof, overwhelming evidence (based in reality) tends to either keep you looking or makes you decide to look at things less literally.

That is why I tend to look toward less exclusive philosophies. It doesn't mean I discount belief in christianity. I do tend to have a lot of experiences with christians who discount any philosophy other than christianity.

That is why I tend to look toward less exclusive philosophies. It doesn't mean I discount belief in christianity. I do tend to have a lot of experiences with christians who discount any philosophy other than christianity.

Actually I think this thread has brought a lot of that out as well.  and for the better.  While I am christian (Catholic), I am not averse to other philosophies and indeed enjoy learning about them.  I guess because I am secure in my belief, I do not find them threatening, only enlightening (Jehovah's Witness being just pains).

Excellent thread.  I notice Brad just posted a kindred one on Noah.  I think I stirred the pot a little.  oops!

I guess because I am secure in my belief, I do not find them threatening, only enlightening (Jehovah's Witness being just pains).

I think that is wonderful.

I notice Brad just posted a kindred one on Noah. I think I stirred the pot a little. oops!

You weren't the inspiration for that one though. It is a fun one to debate.

gvwfhq uxzrqgko ojhla lpzwq foldy wyvolfq nmyojwr

tuawxlmr enguw ovxpy winutsye lxokgu njtmxzb fviu