Jump to content
IGNORED

Adam and Eve as Genealogical vs Genetic Ancestors


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  269
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   74
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Why don't you become a true Christian then ?  (instead of just practicing (and FAILING) to be one ) ?

Your witness is EVIL and FALSE.  That's how you come across in every post I see of yours, as many have also noted - you are very , very , wicked , perverse, and decieved, and deceiving others with all of your posts.

You can't even tell when someone's peace is or is not "disturbed".  Yes, you are disturbed. (like needing .... treatment perhaps ? )

So I should change my approach and copy yours becasue you are a model Christian? 
Does this forum have a poll feature?  Becasue if 2/3rd of the forum want me to model
your attitude, then I'll do it.  Is that fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  269
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   74
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2017
  • Status:  Offline

13 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

This is what JESUS taught all of HIS Apostles and disciples who remained faithful to Him.

IF you repent,  and come to JESUS and LEARN FROM HIM,

you will stop posting outright heresy. 

Of course,  He will not force you to .....

Oh no. My heresy is very hard earned.  Likely it will get worse.  
I am very far past main stream bible study thought. As I apply the 
Royal Law to more and more scripture, I find more problems.
Where I used to be confident that scripture was unified Truth
that was perfect, I've begun to find ideas that don't belong.

For example, you can't "Treat others as you would have them treat you."
and then have seperate rules for men and women.  And if you can't
keep women in their place and out of the leadership....then your hardly
a real mainstream Christian.  So I'll never be going back.

 

I'm so far gone, I dated a female minister for a couple years.
That's like doubling your heresy with each kiss!

Edited by SkyWriting
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, SkyWriting said:

So I should change my approach and copy yours becasue you are a model Christian? 
Does this forum have a poll feature?  Becasue if 2/3rd of the forum want me to model
your attitude, then I'll do it.  Is that fair?

Jesus doesn't want you to continue to act (practice) like a heretic, nor to be one.  Since most of the visitors, members or not , same as  most of the world,  are posting unscriptural,  why would you want to do what most of the posters say ?

Why do you continue to post what an unsaved does, opposed to Jesus  ?

Would you sell out again,  to continue to follow the enemy ,  with a new excuse !?

First, as Jesus says,  repent , turn away from your sin, and seek the Father's Kingdom which is at hand (if it is still possible for you).

Second, as Paul says, imitate me as I imitate Christ (and ONLY then).

i.e. as Jesus told everyone, you must be born again. (it does not appear in your posts that you want to be) ...

Only Jesus is able to save anyone,  and only the Father, by His Choice, His Will, can accomplish this "born again" -

no cult, no heresy, no roman church, no human will, can accomplish this;

so whatever it was you fell into,  no human is able to get you out of,

but God is able, no matter how deep it is,  unless He Says Otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, SkyWriting said:

My heresy is very hard earned.  Likely it will get worse.  
I am very far past main stream bible study thought.

As you have admitted.  Yes,  every post, every minute, every day, year after year,  you apparently sink further in lies.

Your own words judge you condemned.

There is no more to say to you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, SkyWriting said:

God walked beside Adam, for one.  That is rare on earth.  And there was a Tree of life, and one of knowledge,  a talking serpent, warm temperatures I guess, no rain, and a couple other odd things.  Walking beside God, is the big one. 

None of that weird.  A real Christian would not treat the Bible as the expendable, "weird" thing you make it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, SkyWriting said:

I've been a practicing Christian for decades since I was born again.

Yeah...  :24:    Wouldn't know that from the nonsense you post on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  315
  • Content Per Day:  0.08
  • Reputation:   60
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/25/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/31/1959

On 11/4/2017 at 7:06 PM, one.opinion said:

Hello All,

In this post, I hope to generate much more theological discussion than scientific.

I have a friend (and this really is a friend, and not me :-P) that is a professional biologist, but also a devout and outspoken Christian. He affirms an historical Adam and Eve and has some interesting viewpoints on genetic science. While many scientists (Christians included) argue that genetic evidence suggests that the human population never dipped below roughly 10,000 and thus suggesting that Adam and Eve are not historical figures, he argues that this genetic evidence cannot eliminate the possibility of an original pair. He further argues that this pair could be the genealogical ancestors of all humanity today, without having signs of being genetic ancestors. A quick explanation of the difference would be that genetic ancestors could be traced by DNA evidence, but genealogical ancestors would not necessarily have any remaining trace of their DNA after only a small number of generations. His argument leaves open the possibility of Adam and Eve as the first pair of humans, created de novo, and with a God-given ability for a spiritual relationship with God, but amid a larger population of biological humans that lacked that ability for a spiritual relationship with God. Only those with a genealogical connection to Adam and Eve would be able to enter a relationship with God. And eventually, all humanity on earth shared a genealogical connection to Adam and Eve. The potential conflict might be that he also accepts the standard evolutionary explanation of life outside of humanity.

This particular viewpoint could satisfy those that argue that references in other parts of the Bible to Adam and Eve require an historical pair, and still possibly satisfy those that argue that argue that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms. My question is this -- Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint? Again, I'm not interested in discussing the science in this thread, but would like to know if this could be theologically acceptable to young earth creationists.

 

 That he may bridge the gap will be impossible on both view points. Only one truth. Knowing Genesis and how God explains the three truths of each statement then you will know the truth. What do you think, are they the people of Michael or Satan or both mixed DNA or neither. In the above it assumes people on earth before Adam was placed. and rightfully so. 

Ezekiel 16King James Version (KJV)

16 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.

And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Dont mind them....the crowed you debating with purely travel in packs to continually subject and bully those to their brand of truth.

1.  What Crowd...Name Names?

2.  So these Nameless Faceless hoards Travel in Packs, eh?  Can you show an example...?  And what does the mechanism/mode of travel have to do with the price of tea in china?

3.  Show an example of this Bullying...?  And Please, show an example of how someone can be Bullied into Truth...?

 

Quote

 

Just want3d to get your thoughts perhaps if you have considered that light is not constant, that scientists are starting to realise the speed of light is slowing down

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

 

1.  They don't know what the Speed of Light is to BEGIN WITH...

According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the...
"One-Way" Speed of Light. 
 
Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 
 
Watch...
 
How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something??
 
Distance = Rate x Time, right??  So...
 
R = D/T
 
It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem).
 
According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!!
 
What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ??  That's Right Folks...
 
 
The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!!
 
So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  Einstein made the very same conclusion...
 
 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
 
Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon.

 
More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) --  have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. 
 
“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
 
 
*The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* 
 
 
Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 
 
ps.  As you can determine quite easily above, In Reality..."Light Years" is neither a measure of "Time" or "Distance". It's merely a "Convention", that we've agreed upon.  Voila

 

2.  They're NOT Scientists.

 

 

Quote

Peehaps this is why things appear to be ancient

How does something 'Appear' Ancient?? :huh:  I must have missed this in my A&P course, do you (or anyone else) have a 'Dating Function' in your eyes?   If so,  Please post the: Mechanism, Feed-Back Loops, Calibration Nutrients (If Any), Output Location, Units of Measure, any False Positives impacting observations (dust, eye lash, excessive tearing ect) and any other pedigree information that you may have...?

Thanks!

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

4 hours ago, inchrist said:

So professor P Miles Padgett who sits on the Kelvin Chair of Natural Philosophy (Physics and Astronomy) and Vice-Principal for Research (Research Strategy and Innovation Office) for the glasgow university is not a real scientist? Doesnt now what the speed of light is to begin with?

1.  That's Correct.

2.  Have mr. P Miles Padgett refute my Argument that you Wholesale Dodged:rolleyes:

3.  Astronomy isn't Science:

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. <_<

By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

 

Quote

What phd do you have in physics professor????

Definition of PhD- 1 :an earned academic degree conferring the rank and title of doctor of philosophy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PhD

I'm not a "Philosopher";)  

 

Quote

Sorry I didnt catch your name... 

Enoch2021

 

Quote

I also have a João Magueijo theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada with their studies of light being faster in the Early Universe ( who I suppose are not real scientist to you) which you can read all about it https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301

You 'supposed' Correctly, They are not Real "Scientists", not only to me but the basic understanding of what a "Scientist" is.  SEE: Everything after "Astronomy isn't Science" above and substitute "Theoretical (:rolleyes:) Physics" for astronomy. Voila

 

I got an idea, how bout showing us that you have some semblance of an ACTUAL "Science" Acumen?  Here...

a.  Define then identify the parts of a Formal Scientific Hypothesis.
b.  Post a Formal Scientific Hypothesis regarding ANYTHING ...?
c.  Dovetail the parts of your Formal Scientific Hypothesis with the parts of a REAL Formal Scientific Hypothesis you established in (a.).
d.  What is the goal of Scientific Hypothesis formulation i.e., what is a Scientific Hypothesis attempting to elucidate...?
e.  What is the goal of EVERY SINGLE Scientific Inquiry...?

Each can be answered with no more than a short sentence.  

btw: You MUST be able to answer these questions to Pass 5th Grade General Science, so the burden is light. 

Please, if you will... 

If you don't answer each, you're a 'wiki' PARROTING Pretender Clown, PATNA!  K? 

 

Quote

would you like smarties with your popcorn?

No, but an Ice Cold Sprite will do. 

 

regards

 

ps.  You forgot to answer the challenges to your: 

"the crowed you debating with purely travel in packs to continually subject and bully those to their brand of truth."

"Peehaps this is why things appear to be ancient"

Should we take your DODGING tacitly as "Uncle" ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

It would appear that you are actually saying that if people do not agree with your opinion, they just should not post.  If you wish to dictate who can and cannot respond in certain threads, perhaps you should just start your own forum.

There seems to be a lot of this going around. What is the purpose of a discussion board if we only listen to viewpoints we agree with? I would suggest that we should put James 1:19-20 into practice -- "My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...