New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Anita Meyer]

Who did Adam and Eve's children marry?

Before the curse, and for a short time after the curse it was acceptable for brothers and sisters to marry each other. Genesis 5:4 - And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.

This was not a problem “originally” because before sin and the first genetic makeup (genotypes) of humankind, there were zero mistakes (which may have also played a role in the life expectancy of humans). It wasn’t until Leviticus 18:6 that G-d brought in the laws against close intermarriage. Leviticus 18:6 - None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

This is the first initial mentioning in the Bible that we find concerning the rejection of marrying a close relative. The reason for this is that today after all the breeding we have been doing, mistakes (like inbreeding and over-breeding) have been adding up in our genes over time. Today we all carry these mistakes in our genes. Therefore if two people mate with the “same mistakes” in their genes its more likely that their offspring will also inherit those mistakes. If brother and sister married today its more likely that there children would inherit their same mistakes causing deformities. This is why its better to marry someone genetically further away.

 

[spidergoat]

But even if you wanted to follow that passage in Leviticus, wouldn't it be impossible, since everyone was a close relative?

Why didn't mistakes accumulate before Leviticus?

 

[Anita Meyer]

But even if you wanted to follow that passage in Leviticus, wouldn't it be impossible, since everyone was a close relative?

Why didn't mistakes accumulate before Leviticus?

Adam and Eve were so genetically powerful with the thrust of life that they were able to produced children that were so genetically pure and devoid of mutations that they could marry each other without any harm or defect passed down to the next generation of children. In fact everyone mentioned in the Bible after Adam had slowly downgraded and degenerated in life expectancy - from Adam down to King David.

Brother, sister and cousin could have kids with each other without genetic problems at that time in history because they did not have any problems with their DNA. Being inbred did not cause the birth defects that it causes today. This is because of what scientists call “the genetic load”. This is the accumulation of bad mutations accumulating through the centuries. If both parents carry a recessive genes this will mean that the child inherits this same defect.

Adam and Eve were genetically superior and devoid of mutations in the early stages of the human race where there was no “genetic load”, so when the children intermarried, there was no genetic threat to their children.

 

[spidergoat]

So shouldn't we see life expectancy going down now?

From what I have read, biology contradicts your notion. Bad mutations do not accumulate, they are culled by natural selection. That means the first people to inbreed suffer the worst expressions of recessive traits. Each generation from that acquires greater and greater genetic fitness.

 

[Anita Meyer]

So shouldn't we see life expectancy going down now?

It already has hit rock bottom. Genesis 6:3 - Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.

I don’t see anybody today living past this age - give or take a few years. Its pretty much as the good book says.

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

From what I have read, biology contradicts your notion. Bad mutations do not accumulate, they are culled by natural selection. That means the first people to inbreed suffer the worst expressions of recessive traits. Each generation from that acquires greater and greater genetic fitness.

No, it’s the other way around, I had already previously discussed this with you before in this thread, and this is what I said:

Natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the Earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage where they cant interbreed anymore.

 

[Stryder]

Anita,
No single religion is ever correct, this is because if there was design, all religions would have only a part to play on their own, to look at the whole picture you would require taking those parts from each religion to make the whole. This would be done to protect all religions, to generate their "divine destiny" and lower the chances that any single religion would be wiped out.

This would then suggest that religion is a giant con and has been for some time, it's just our universe has had religion grow to be a part of it which means it can't be completely turfed out (which in some respects is a shame, since it's the cause of so many arguments and wars) and religions makeup of people with divergent opinions has lost it's path.

Now you can try to imply that your manifested divergent state of mind imparts truth or wisdom, but for the most part people are just going to see you as a nut.

 

[spidergoat]

It already has hit rock bottom. Genesis 6:3 - Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.

It was about 35 for most of human history. It's only recently started to go up with advances in medicine and standards of living.

No, it’s the other way around, I had already previously discussed this with you before in this thread, and this is what I said:

Natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the Earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage where they cant interbreed anymore.

Natural selection does weed out disadvatageous mutations, but evolution is not just selection, it's the generation of variations through mutation AND selection. The combination of the two results in new adapted forms. You cannot explain adaptation to new conditions by the loss of "information". By the way, only creationists refer to DNA as "information".

 

[Anita Meyer]

Natural selection does weed out disadvatageous mutations,

Spidergoat, that has not actually been proven, its only in theory since we see that the weak ones die - this is natural, which leaves only the survivors to mate and have more offspring.

but evolution is not just selection, it's the generation of variations through mutation AND selection.

This hasn’t been proven either! A dog is still a dog and a cat a cat. Evolutionists claim that there are transitional forms in the fossil record, but there is a fine line between what is a true transitional form? To date, no true transitional forms have been found.

You cannot explain adaptation to new conditions by the loss of "information".

It is clearly “natural selection”, but natural selection has never been proven to create new and different creatures as I‘ve just explained.

BTW, here is a chart of the decline in ages (life expectancy) from Adam down to Abraham:

It drops down even further when we get to Joshua and King David. Joshua 24:29 - After these things, Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died at the age of a hundred and ten. 1 Chronicles 29:26-28 - David son of Jesse was king over all Israel. He ruled over Israel forty years—seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem. He died at a good old age, having enjoyed long life, wealth and honor. His son Solomon succeeded him as king. (David lived to be 80 years old).

Are you familiar with “telomeres“? Life longevity can be passed down to offspring through DNA, but it appears that this cell replication is getting shorter and shorter throughout history.

"Telomeres are special, essential DNA sequences at both ends of each chromosome. Each time chromosomes replicate a small amount of the DNA at both ends is lost, by an uncertain mechanism. Because human telomeres shorten at a much faster rate than many lower organisms, we speculate that this telomere shortening probably has a beneficial effect for humans, namely mortality. The telomere hypothesis of aging postulates that as the telomeres naturally shorten during the lifetime of an individual, a signal or set of signals is given to the cells to cause the cells to cease growing (senesce). At birth, human telomeres are about 10,000 base pairs long, but by 100 years of age this has been reduced to about 5,000 base pairs. Telomerase is actually an enzyme (a catalytic protein) that is able to arrest or reverse this shortening process. Normally, telomerase is only used to increase the length of telomeres during the formation of sperm and perhaps eggs, thus ensuring that our offspring inherit long "young" telomeres to propagate the species."

"It appears then that telomere lengths are shortened by time and the number of times the DNA molecule has reproduced or "copied" itself. This is also limited by inheritance. If your family has a history of living to an old age, it is likely that your telomeres are longer and therefore protect the critical DNA information when your cells make copies of themselves."

http://viewzone2.com/agingx.html

 

[Anita Meyer]

Anita,
No single religion is ever correct, this is because if there was design, all religions would have only a part to play on their own, to look at the whole picture you would require taking those parts from each religion to make the whole.

This would be done to protect all religions, to generate their "divine destiny" and lower the chances that any single religion would be wiped out.

This would then suggest that religion is a giant con and has been for some time, it's just our universe has had religion grow to be a part of it which means it can't be completely turfed out (which in some respects is a shame, since it's the cause of so many arguments and wars) and religions makeup of people with divergent opinions has lost it's path.

Now you can try to imply that your manifested divergent state of mind imparts truth or wisdom, but for the most part people are just going to see you as a nut.

Hello Stryder, have you had the chance to check my web link out?

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

There is no other language in the entire world that forms its whole alphabet from “one prototype form“. What this reveals is not only intelligent design, but Divine Design.

Now with that said, these are the very letters that write the Torah (first 5 books of Moses).

One cannot deny that it is indeed the word of G-d!

I really don’t care if people see me as a nut! I’ve got something here that cannot be explained away.

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat, that has not actually been proven, its only in theory since we see that the weak ones die - this is natural, which leaves only the survivors to mate and have more offspring.

Are you asking me if it's been proven? Because it has, it is the operative theory for all of biology. And it has been observed with various species.

'Lizard Isles' reveal natural selection at work

This hasn’t been proven either! A dog is still a dog and a cat a cat.

There were no dogs 50,000 years ago. But there were wolves. One transitioned into the other. Species are human definitions with only a general alignment to reality. There is really no boundries placed on a creature that keeps it in the form you would recognize as modern. The fossil record reveals all kinds of transitions, from a hippo-like creature into whales, from small quadrupeds into the modern horse....


If you took an imaginary trip back through time, every ancestor of a dog or cat would appear more or less the same as it's offspring. Eventually, you would run into an ancestor of both dogs and cats. So dogs and cats are distant relatives. We can even calculation how long ago this split occurred. These kinds of splits happen all the time. Every creature on Earth shares a relative with every other one. The fact that we all share the same basic mechanisms for life (the cell, DNA) proves this.

Evolutionists claim that there are transitional forms in the fossil record,

Not exactly. What they claim is that every individual life form is inherently transitional. Every life form is a unique combination of genes. It's reproduction or not helps determine what happens to the gene pool in the future. Every time scientists have discovered new transitional forms, creationists change their mind and ask for another form between the newly dicovered one and the ones already known. It's disingenuous in the extreme. To date, so many various transitional forms between an ape-like creature and humans have been found, you can take your pick. They are all transitional.

but there is a fine line between what is a true transitional form? To date, no true transitional forms have been found.

The fact is there is no "fine line". There is gradual change, which is reflected in the fossil record. At times the change is more or less gradual. Every time scientists look for transitions, they find them exactly where they expect. From lobed fishes to land quadrupeds, for instance.

It is clearly “natural selection”, but natural selection has never been proven to create new and different creatures as I‘ve just explained.

You are asking for radical changes in a creature's form within a scientist's lifetime? That is an unreasonable demand, as it takes a long time. But, it's a safe meme to spread for that very reason. Artificial selection has created new species, by the strict definition of species.

BTW, here is a chart of the decline in ages (life expectancy) from Adam down to Abraham:


It drops down even further when we get to Joshua and King David. Joshua 24:29 - After these things, Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died at the age of a hundred and ten. 1 Chronicles 29:26-28 - David son of Jesse was king over all Israel. He ruled over Israel forty years—seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem. He died at a good old age, having enjoyed long life, wealth and honor. His son Solomon succeeded him as king. (David lived to be 80 years old).

That's a chart of mythological characters. Do you have any real data? The fossils of early humans tell a different story (the correct one).

 

[Stryder]

Hello Stryder, have you had the chance to check my web link out?

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

I'm sorry I have a particular type of "cyberpunk" fiction I prefer to Dan Brown attempts.

There is no other language in the entire world that forms its whole alphabet from “one prototype form“. What this reveals is not only intelligent design, but Divine Design.

Now with that said, these are the very letters that write the Torah (first 5 books of Moses).

You know there might well be other reasons for it's design, that period of time was known for it's warfare and the need for people to conceal messages or risk beheading. There were many types of cypher used because of these concealments and the more elaborate would require a common document.

These documents would have to be absolute duplicates for decyphering purposes.

One cannot deny that it is indeed the word of G-d!

Actually it can easily be denied, what it can't be is "proven" that it is the word of anyone in particular.

I really don’t care if people see me as a nut! I’ve got something here that cannot be explained away.

I'm pretty sure if what you see could be observed rather than relayed to use through your observations, it would easily be explained.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Are you asking me if it's been proven? Because it has, it is the operative theory for all of biology. And it has been observed with various species.

'Lizard Isles' reveal natural selection at work

Spidergoat, there is nothing special going on here. The Lizards legs are getting shorter, this is clearly natural selection, but as I’ve said natural selection IS NOT EVOLUTION HAPPENING! This lizard is still a lizard and so are its offspring.

There is another creature that is similar to this called the “skink”. This lizard can loose its fingers and even go completely legless and apear to look like a snake. They can rapidly change in an exceedingly fast short period of time depending upon their environment and if they are subjected to spending most of their years swimming though water, sand or soil. Since the limbs are unnecessary for this environment (and a hindrance) they become obsolete, therefore their body looses the fingers and the limbs and becomes snake-like. And once a skink has lost its limbs there is no evidence of reversals for growing back.

This indeed is driven by natural selection, but it remains to be seen as any “permanent change” (manifesting in all skinks). This is not any sort of real evolution. On the other hand, if one defines “change” to mean the ability of an organisms to generate new genetic information (which let me remind you again has NEVER been observed) and evolve into an entirely new kind of creature, this would then be considered “evolution”. But this is not what’s happening with the skink. We are not seeing any new genetic information added to the skink lizard causing it to grow extra fingers or legs or evolving into a true snake. In other words, the skinks are losing genetic information, not gaining it - and that is the complete opposite of what evolution requires. In fact, creationism backs us on this point since no new fingers or limbs can be added back in the skinks. This is permanent damage and not evolution.

There are no true transitional forms!

That's a chart of mythological characters. Do you have any real data? The fossils of early humans tell a different story (the correct one).

Oh boy, I could go ballistic on this if I really wanted to.

I suppose that all the archeological evidence that has surfaced today means nothing at all to you? I suppose you may even deny the existence of Jesus even with greek documents that are found outside the Bible? Let me clue you in, there have been numerous archeological finds that correspond precisely to what the Bible has recorded within it. Something so simple as even a NAME like Mount "Ararat" the mountain that the Bible tells us that Noah’s ark landed on is still here today and called Mount Ararat.

Hmmm I wonder were that name came from? :scratchin:

Genesis 8:4 - And on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Stryder, you find nothing significant with what I had revealed concerning the Hebrew letters?

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

One can clearly see the resemblance of the Hebrew letter B (Bet) within the shape of a conch shell which was shaped by natures mathematical law of unit growth as I’ve explained in my link.

Now when you move this "one prototype form" around in different points of view, you can see all the other Hebrew letters.

You don’t think its special that the Hebrew letters incorporate natures law?

You think this is just a fluke, or something man made?

The Bible tells us in Exodus 31:18 that these letters were inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself onto the stone tablets. Exodus 31:18 - When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of G-d.

I think you may be missing out on a vital key of importance here.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no such thing as an "entirely new creature". Never was. All creatures are the result of natural selection forcing gradual change.

Your example of the skink also reveals your misunderstandings. When a skink loses it's limbs, that is not a loss of information. DNA is not a body plan. It is a set of instructions for growth. To lose their limbs is a small matter of a genetic switch that regulates the growth of legs. There is no loss of information, only a change. The proof of this is scientists can turn the regulatory triggers back on, and turn the animal into one that never occurs in nature!

I would agree that the Bible accurately describes Mt. Ararat, but that says absolutely nothing about everything else in it. All archeological information must be assessed separately. The Bible is a mix of true placenames and mythology. In the past, people did not regard the separation of fact and fiction as important. A good story was a good story, and most of the Bible is allegorical, meant to convey a lesson, not history.

As far as Jesus goes, he spoke Aramaic, and no Aramaic texts of the gospels have been found. So, all sources are secondary, and must be considered suspect.

Define transitional, pick an example. Here's a bunch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I suppose that all the archeological evidence that has surfaced today means nothing at all to you? I suppose you may even deny the existence of Jesus even with greek documents that are found outside the Bible?

Not one contemporary source from outside the Bible exists which mentions Jesus. No Roman record of any run ins he had with them, noone talking about the stir he supposedly made, not even a passing mention in any source outside the bible. The gospels were written after 50AD. The only mention of him outside the Bible even close to his (supposed) lifetime was by Josephus (spelling?) and that was post 50AD.

Provide a evidence such sources exist.

there have been numerous archeological finds that correspond precisely to what the Bible has recorded within it

To use the example Matt Dillahunty often says on The Atheist Experience just because New York exists doesn't mean Spiderman does. Plenty of stuff seen in sci fi or in comics are based partly on real world things, like people, places and events but that doesn't mean all they say is true. The issue of the validity of Christianity doesn't rest on whether or not the bible refers to particular well know historical events, its whether other things in it are true. The Iliad talks about real places throughout Greece but that doesn't mean its references to Zeus etc are true. The issue of not whether Jerusalem or Bethlehem exist but whether supernatural events occured. And given there's no contemporary records of anything supernatural from the bible then you still have all your work ahead of you.

I suggest you learn the basics of logic and rational thinking, you seem to be lacking in both.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Not one contemporary source from outside the Bible exists which mentions Jesus. No Roman record of any run ins he had with them, noone talking about the stir he supposedly made, not even a passing mention in any source outside the bible. The gospels were written after 50AD. The only mention of him outside the Bible even close to his (supposed) lifetime was by Josephus (spelling?) and that was post 50AD.

AlphaNumeric, long time no haggle!

How foolish of you to say this! Well of course there isn’t any contemporary (as in modern day) sources. Just because you didn’t know your great great great grandmother doesn’t mean that she did not exist. But I’m sure your family has heard things about her from past relatives. Obviously she existed, because you were born.

How about all these sources:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=77809#p77809

Jesus was also mentioned in the Talmud. You will find that most Jews will not deny the existence of Jesus, even Einstein admitted that He existed. This is because the Talmud has recorded the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Talmud is a book of Jewish law that consists of a collection of ancient Jewish writings that make up the basis of Jewish religious law. However, the Talmud is not a part of the “word of G-d“, it is only a collection of rabbinical statements and arguments. Many of these legal discussions go back to the first century BC and are also recorded in the Talmud from Rabbis that lived in Israel during the time of Jesus. And it is within these recorded discussions that we find the Rabbis discussing Jesus. Not only in the Talmud is the documentation of Jesus found, but also in documents called the Baraitha and Tosefta, which are supplements to the Talmud.

The Talmud actually mention Jesus by name, and even mentions the crucifixion, (Sanhedrin page 43a). Within this passage the Rabbis are discussing how a convicted criminal (Jesus) was to be executed. It says, for 40 days before the execution of Jesus took place a Harold went out delineating that if they find Him innocent, they discharge him, but if not, He goes forth to be stoned seeing that He committed the offense. Jesus’ charge was that He practiced sorcery, was a beguiler, and enticed Israel to apostasy. Apostasy as in driving Israel to the renunciation or abandonment of the Jewish faith. The Talmud authorities do not deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they looked upon them as acts of sorcery. We find the same thing mentioned in the New Testament where the Pharisees speak in similar terms about Him. Mark 3:22 - And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Matthew 9:34 - But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils. Matthew 12:24 - But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Therefore Jesus did work signs and wonders, but they had to explain it away by saying that He did it by the powers of sorcery.

And this is the interesting thing… here we have even more proof that there indeed did exist a man named Jesus, and He was crucified - clearly documented within the rabbinical sources of the Jewish Talmud that plainly gives an account and admits with clear admission that He was indeed hung (by crucifixion) by a decision of a Jewish court and on the eve of Passover (which was a Friday - Preparation day). Not only does the Talmud admit to this, but it also clearly refers to Jesus being connected to royalty. The Hebrew phrase “mekurav le malcut“ means connected to royalty. It admits that He was influential, He was connected/related with/to the government/Kingdom specifically from the household of David, (the Davidic lineage). What’s even more interesting concerning the Jewish Talmud… found within Sanhedrin 97a we find a chronological timeline for the earths age (of 6,000 years old) as well as the an affirmation that the Messiah has already come some 1900 years ago. The Talmud reads something like this: The world is to stand for 6,000 years... 2,000 in confusion and void, 2,000 with the law, and for 2,000 the time of the Messiah (that was already some 1,900 years ago).

In conclusion… the Talmud contains an important cross-reference that shows the biblical account of Jesus and furthermore that it is consistent to what the New Testament tells us, which cannot be denied by the Jews (or anyone else for that matter) even in the darkest hours of Christianity.

Let me also add to the documented existence of Jesus…

Perhaps the most powerful evidence yet, is astronomical (an eclipse that took place). The gospels recount that the sun was darkened on the day of the crucifixion from noon until 3:00pm in the afternoon. Ancient non-Biblical sources also confirm this. Phlegon Trallianus records in his history of 32-33AD - A failure of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day (noon), so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea.

Which corresponds nicely with scripture:

Mark 15:25 - And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. Mark 15:33-39 - And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah. And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of G-d.

Oh and there is plenty of archeological evidence that corresponds with the Bible.

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php

I suggest you learn the basics of logic and rational thinking, you seem to be lacking in both.

You continue to drift aimlessly in willful ignorance while fiddling away for dear life on a sinking ship.

 

[Stryder]

Stryder, you find nothing significant with what I had revealed concerning the Hebrew letters?

No I don't and I'll tell you why. Science uses Greek letters for Algebra, so if any language was going to be posed as important or contained some sort of destiny, it's actually Greek.

The Greek language was likely picked because of it's lack of affiliation with any singular religion, it's also the language of the foremost free thinkers and philosophers. Religions tried to of course stop this destiny through the burning of the Library at Alexandria (albeit the nature of the fire is a point of dispute)

Hebrew to me is just an attempt to make a language more important or eventual, however no matter what date it was "sewn", Greek was already popular.

 

[Anita Meyer]

There is no such thing as an "entirely new creature". Never was. All creatures are the result of natural selection forcing gradual change.

I thought we went over this already some time back in this thread, it was showing the change of the Galapagos finches and their beaks. The end result was that the birds were still the same finches! You say one thing: that there is no such thing as an “entirely new creature”, but then you go onto to say all creatures are the result of natural selection forcing gradual change. To me you are saying that this gradual change eventually equates to a "new creature". What you are saying is contradictory.

Your example of the skink also reveals your misunderstandings. When a skink loses it's limbs, that is not a loss of information. DNA is not a body plan. It is a set of instructions for growth. To lose their limbs is a small matter of a genetic switch that regulates the growth of legs. There is no loss of information, only a change. The proof of this is scientists can turn the regulatory triggers back on, and turn the animal into one that never occurs in nature!

Either way if the genetic switch was turned off or on, it is still a skink with or without legs and has remained a skink from the beginning of time! Many animals look like each other but are not. You can even make a dog look like a Panda bear! Man might be able to manipulate the skinks DNA by turning back on the genetic information, but in the wild, this never happens. For the skinks in the wild this is a loss of information.

I would agree that the Bible accurately describes Mt. Ararat, but that says absolutely nothing about everything else in it. All archeological information must be assessed separately. The Bible is a mix of true placenames and mythology. In the past, people did not regard the separation of fact and fiction as important. A good story was a good story, and most of the Bible is allegorical, meant to convey a lesson, not history.

The Bible has never been falsified, EVER!

As far as Jesus goes, he spoke Aramaic, and no Aramaic texts of the gospels have been found. So, all sources are secondary, and must be considered suspect.

Uh Spidergoat, it’s been the same text for 3,000 years! Jesus read the same exact Torah in Hebrew (the Old Testament - 5 books of Moses) that the Jews read today. Aramaic is very similar to modern Hebrew today.

 

[Anita Meyer]

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Stryder, you find nothing significant with what I had revealed concerning the Hebrew letters? ”

No I don't and I'll tell you why. Science uses Greek letters for Algebra, so if any language was going to be posed as important or contained some sort of destiny, it's actually Greek.

The Greek language was likely picked because of it's lack of affiliation with any singular religion, it's also the language of the foremost free thinkers and philosophers. Religions tried to of course stop this destiny through the burning of the Library at Alexandria (albeit the nature of the fire is a point of dispute)

Hebrew to me is just an attempt to make a language more important or eventual, however no matter what date it was "sewn", Greek was already popular.

Stryder, the Greek/Roman writing came about from the Hebrew. Oh and BTW the Greeks also got the idea of Gamatria from the Hebrew. They knew about the Hebrew gamatria values, BECAUSE THEY DERIVED THEIR OWN MATHEMATICS FROM IT. The word “Gematria” later evolved into the Greek word “geometry” whereas the concept and system is the same as the Greek isopsephy meaning “equal count“ by adding up the number values of the letters in a word.

 

[spidergoat]

I thought we went over this already some time back in this thread, it was showing the change of the Galapagos finches and their beaks. The end result was that the birds were still the same finches!

No they weren't the same! They were still recognizably related to mainland finches, but they had changed. That's what new species are, changed old species.

You say one thing: that there is no such thing as an “entirely new creature”, but then you go onto to say all creatures are the result of natural selection forcing gradual change. To me you are saying that this gradual change eventually equates to a "new creature". What you are saying is contradictory.

Yes, no creature gives birth to a species other than it's own, and yet over time, the species splits off, changes, and gets a label tacked on it for the scientific purposes of classification. The only reason we recognize separate species is because the fossil record isn't complete. If it were, we would every creature morphing gradually from a common ancestor. This is the narrative supported by the fossil record.

Either way if the genetic switch was turned off or on, it is still a skink with or without legs and has remained a skink from the beginning of time!

That is just plain false. Pick an animal, and if you go back far enough in time, you won't find any of them, only it's distant ancestors. The skink came from reptiles, which came from amphibians, which came from fish, which came from invertebrates... going all the way back to the first primitive cells.

Many animals look like each other but are not. You can even make a dog look like a Panda bear! Man might be able to manipulate the skinks DNA by turning back on the genetic information, but in the wild, this never happens. For the skinks in the wild this is a loss of information.

You are wrong about that. Scientists have triggered the growth of teeth in a chicken! In the wild, this does happen. It's called Neoteny.

The Bible has never been falsified, EVER!

Yes, Genesis says flowering plants came before trees, but this is false. Flowers were a later evolutionary invention. The Bible is a collection of some 10 to 15% of the gospels that actually existed at the time in relation to early Christianity. Just like any collection of texts, it is bound to contain some references to real events, but it is by no means a reliable source. Real Biblical scholars (as opposed to religious amateurs) already accept this as a given.

Uh Spidergoat, it’s been the same text for 3,000 years! Jesus read the same exact Torah in Hebrew (the Old Testament - 5 books of Moses) that the Jews read today. Aramaic is very similar to modern Hebrew today.

Since no original copies exist, and Jesus didn't write anything down, and each copy introduced the errors and opinions of the copier, it can't be trusted as an original source.

By the way, that dog had it's fur dyed.