Re: Human Origins and Biblical misrepresentations

[Monk (in hiding)]

Never assume one answer is right, the only one, the truth, the way......

True, but it works both ways, eh?

Let's make a list of possible answers then, I say natural mutation, what do you say?

mutation:

a permanent transmissible change in the genetic material.

natural mutation:

a mutation that arises naturally and not as a result of exposure to mutagens.

mutagens:

any chemical or physical environmental agent that induces a genetic mutation or increases the mutation rate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Induced Mutation.........

A mutation that is deliberately introduced via implantation.

In Genesiš 1.26, when the Elohim wished to create the first human, they said, "Let us make man according to our Tsélem (usually interpreted as image)." But "image" seems an inappropriate translation of Tsélem, which is formed from the word Tsél, meaning "shadow" [Parks uses the French word "ombre", which could mean "dark" as in the title of his first book], and the final [Hebrew letter] Mem, which in Hermeticism symbolizes water, the vital element, which is to say semen.

Thus in stipulating that the Elohim would form the first man from their own Tsélem, that should be translated as forming from their genes, their "shadow-liquid", which is to say the semen of the Elohim!

"[...] they (the creators) fashioned a creature by linking their powers from one to another, those with which they had been endowed. Each potency furnished a quality conforming to the image that they made of it psychologically. Thus they created a being modelled after the perfect Primordial Man  [i.e., the Namlú'u]."

- Nag-Hammadi Manuscript, The Secret Book of John, Codex NH2-1 ; 28



http://www.zeitlin.net/EndEnchantment/AG3.html

[Monk (in hiding)]

If we were 'natural' to this world, we would be living in harmony with nature as is every other living thing on this planet, we are NOT natural to this world. Not since someone screwed with our DNA many thousands of years ago.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 1:28

This EXACLTY what atheists believe, case it point is Global warming.

GET IT!

[Rockhopper]

Nothing in science is absolute only religion has all the answers. In science a theory is the highest it can get short of Mathematics.

Scientific theories adapt over time as more info becomes available and are constantly doing so.

If there is a god and he is all-powerful as the bible says, then he could fix the fiddling done to human DNA, so why hasn't he?

I'm not trying to convince you, what you say is your POV and that's fine. All I have asked you many times is where is the physical evidence that some entity interfered with Human DNA? There is none, nix nein, nyet! Until there is the conventional belief will remain that Human's simply evolved.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

If there is a god and he is all-powerful as the bible says, then he could fix the fiddling done to human DNA, so why hasn't he?

Lord Shiva is the destroyer of the world.



Shiva is responsible for change both in the form of death and destruction and in the positive sense of destroying the ego, the false identification with the form. This also includes the shedding of old habits and attachments.

All that has a beginning by necessity must have an end. In destruction, truly nothing is destroyed but the illusion of individuality. Thus the power of destruction associated with Lord Shiva has great purifying power, both on a more personal level when problems make us see reality more clearly, as on a more universal level. Destruction opens the path for a new creation of the universe, a new opportunity for the beauty and drama of universal illusion to unfold. As Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram or Truth, Goodness and Beauty, Shiva represents the most essential goodness.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/shiva.htm

[Monk (in hiding)]

All I have asked you many times is where is the physical evidence that some entity interfered with Human DNA? There is none, nix nein, nyet! Until there is the conventional belief will remain that Human's simply evolved.

So what will we be evolving towards?

From this....



To this?

[Rockhopper]

Who knows how we will evolve in the future, who knows if we will be around in the future either.

Most of us live in a real world not in a hallucination be that chemically derived of not.

Tim.

[Rockhopper]

This describes genes and DNA very well!



Tim.

[Agartha]

So what will we be evolving towards?

I don't see how we could evolve cone heads.

Homo Sapiens is still mutating (see Chinese man with 44 chromosomes) but now the game has changed. Evolution is not affecting us the way it's affecting other animals because we are different: we make and wear clothes, we enhance our senses with glasses/hearing aids etc, we use controlled energy etc.

We have also change the game with our technological advances: medicines that help us survive, surgery and other medical interventions, women who would have died giving birth are not, women who can't get pregnant now can and some are aborting 'defected' or ill children even before they are born.

Natural selection is a different game now, especially for those in developed countries.

So what's going to happen to us, Homo Sapiens? We may be super humans in the future, aided by medical intervention and maybe even AI technology. We'll probably be all brown, as people keep mixing ethnicity....or we may evolve back into bacteria!! lol

[Monk (in hiding)]

we are different

bc we are not natural to this world.

Why has everyone left?

[Agartha]

bc we are not natural to this world.

Why has everyone left?

So you say all animals are natural to this world except us?

Left what? the forum? I have no idea.

[Rockhopper]

I don't see how we could evolve cone heads.

That's just a distraction Ags. We are the only animals that take our environment with us so we can colonise other places where the environment is hostile to us. In doing so we often destroy the environment of other organisms.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

That's bc we are not natural to this planet.

[Rockhopper]

That's bc we are not natural to this planet.

Evidence for that dogmatic statement please!

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Darwin Theory

In this body of work, Darwin explains the theory of natural selection, which claims that all life on Earth evolved over successive generations.

However, advancements in science—specifically in biology, biochemistry and genetics—and the discovery and decoding of DNA in the last decade and a half, have cast doubt on Darwin’s theory as they have proven that some systems appear too complex to be a result of natural selection. This adds obscurity to the already notorious missing link in Darwin’s theory, which admits the difficulty in linking fossil records in a way that illustrates a gradual transition from one form of life to another. As more and more fossils are discovered, these gaps in the fossil records remain, causing most evolutionists to have withdrawn full support of Darwin’s theory more than twenty years ago.

An interesting article by Brian Thomas in 2011 titled “New Study Shows Enzymes Couldn't Evolve” shows that enzymes, which are highly engineered miniaturized machines, must have somehow purposefully been created instead of resulting from the random progression of chemical combinations.

In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to support Darwin’s theory as fact, and evolution is still under scientific scrutiny as it may now be understood to explain some evolutionary changes in life on Earth but not all of the creation. As a result of this lack of sequential evidence for the theory of evolution—and the discovery of the complexities of our DNA—more and more scientists are returning to the ‘God’ hypothesis of creation (and by God we mean an intelligent influence of some kind).

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/darwin-theory-0060

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Rockhopper]

You're not listening again LGR. How often have I said that no Scientific Theory is a fact? No Scientific Theory is as they are open to modification as more info comes along.

Your link says in part; "There is not enough evidence to support Darwin's Theory as fact." (emphasis mine) Read the above paragraph. 

All it shows is that there are some parts of Human Evolution that are not fully understood currently, which proves that a theory is not a FACT!

You still have not come up with any evidence of outside intervention by any other entity at any time in Human Evolution.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

If I farted into the phone how could I prove it to ya rock.

[Rockhopper]

All I have done is asked you many times to back up what you state as a truth is, in fact, so. All I get so far is snide remarks and diversions. 

You are claiming and have done so for a while, that according to a particular translation of the Sumer texts is proof of interference by an outside entity. THAT IS NOT PROOF! Mythology is not proof of anything except what was in the mind of the scribe.

It is quite alright to have an opinion but don't confuse an opinion with a factual statement and then try to back it up with dubious sites out on the fringe. When you make an opinion a statement you will immediately get a response to provide real evidence. That is what has happened here, I have consistently asked you to back your statements with real facts not more bullshit.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Typing language on the internet is not proof. People can say whatever they wish and call it fact. Your statements are nothing more than,,,,,,statements rock.

[Rockhopper]

So when are you going to provide evidence of what you have stated LGR? 

I have asked you many times to provide the evidence to back what you say. STILL NOTHING!!

Just because people can write whatever they want and say it's a fact doesn't make it one until they provide evidence to back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When are you going supply us with that evidence to back your claims?

I base all of what I write on scientifically backed evidence, evidence that follows standard scientific principles. Just in case you have missed it somehow it goes like this:
Hypothesis - an idea based on observations.
Documentation - a written summary of how the writer came to the conclusion.
Experimentation - can the process be emulated by anyone else and get the same result.
Peer Review - the docos are scrutinised by others with expertise on the subject to see if there are any flaws in the process.
Acception/Rejection - whether the process (not the Hypothesis) is accepted or rejected based on the process of forming the Hypothesis.

That is how it's done LGR and that is how I formulate what I say. I don't take people like what Sheldrake and Moncton (both of whom have been proven to be liars) say as gospel. You want to try the above sometime, you will be enlightened.

Remember the phrase: EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE! I base what I say on known evidence, do you?

Tim.

[Sponsored content]