hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Since you like proper spelling: I meant "come on here" not "some on here"
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  dubiousarse: If you answered questions, then I wouldn't lampoon you. But sometimes you don't answer questions properly, and I am not the only poster who has commented on your evasiveness in scientific conversations. If we are to attack the Society for the way they evade and slip around difficult subjects, why do you get off scott-free?

  Abaddon, I am not "the Bible Answer Man," just because you post a question does not obligate me to take the time to answer it. Being in the minority here on these creation/evoltion subjects requires me to budget my time properly and select the questions which I wish to answer. Since you are rude and insulting I see no need to answer your follies. If you wish to believe that you came from reptiles x number of millions of years ago fine, but don't some on here acting like one and expect people to take the time to dialogue with you.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderrik said: It was based on observed mutation rates and the assumption that they have remained more or less constant over time. As far as I know, that's the only real assumption that needed to be made. I'm curious. Do you think that the mutation rate was as high as the creationist model requires? If so, why? If not, how do you explain the observed results?

  I think from reading in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (my memory is a little fuzzy here) that the rate of mutation was calculated by the supposed assumption of the divergence beteen humans and apes 4+milliom years ago. Thus the 200,000+ year date may be based on the auumption of evoultion rather than on actual observed rates. However, I could be wrong and it could have been based on some direct studies. However If the above information from the Refuting Evolution book is correct, then direct studies may give a much more recent date than the 200,000.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati Eight printing November 1999.

  "Evolutionists believed they had clear proof against the biblical account, because "Mitochondrial Eve" supposedly lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows that mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. (24) If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have lived only 6,000-6,500 years ago. (25) Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the biblically indicated age of the "mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), (26) but an enigma for evolution/long age beliefs. Interestingly, there is a parallel account with males: evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. (27) The data is also consistent with a recent date for this "Y-chromosome Adam." (28)"

  24. T.J. Parsons et al., "A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region," Nature Genetics, 15:363-368, 1997.

  25. L. Loewe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, 1997; A. Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, 279(5347):28-29, 1998.

  26. C. Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for 'Eve,' " CEN Technicl Journal, 12(1):1-3, 1998.

  27. R.L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi, and W. Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y-Chromosome," Science,268(5214):1183-85, May 26,1995; perspective in the same issue by S. Paabo, "The Y-Chromosome and the Origin of All of Us (Men)," p. 1141-1142.

  28. D.J. Batten, "Y-Chromosome Adam?" CEN Technical Journal, 9(2):139-140, 1995.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderrik said:

  Mitochondria contains DNA which is passed only from mother to child without the mixing that normally takes place. This enables us to trace our ancestry with reasonable accuracy (although there is some debate on the level of accuracy.) Based on the known level of mutation, it is believed she lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. Interestingly, for her to have lived 6,000 years ago or less, the rate of mutation would have to be 25 to 40 times greater than that which is observed.

  funkyderrik, was the 150,000 to 250,000 date based on observed mutation rates or on evolutionary assumptions? I think it might have been the later. I read this in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.
• 
  7

  somebody

  by somebody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  good day to all my fellow jw.comers,.

  these are just some thoughts i had when reading the bible yesterday ( yes, i still do that daily, believe it or not.

  revelation 3:12 (nwt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  yes, Jesus is Jehovah, so is the Father, so is the Holy Ghost
• 
  108

  Why is the Bible wrong?

  by StinkyPantz in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

  this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

  one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Clement, c. 100 CE. Greek Old Testament used as scripture. Numerous allusions to gospels, Pauline epistles, Acts, Hebrews, but not quoted as scripture. Unknown 'scripture' quoted in 23.3-4 is probably a Jewish Apocalyptic work. Grant, Formation, p. 77f.
  Clement, c. 125 CE. Refers to a saying from a gospel as scripture. In 11.2, quotes same Apocalyptic work as does 1 Clement. Uses Gospel of Thomas; oral tradition. Grant, Formation, p. 83f.

  Ignatius, c. 125 CE. Uses language and images of 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 (-2?) Thessalonians, and 1 Peter; perhaps Gospel of John; does not call them scripture. The only direct quotations are from Proverbs. Grant, Formation, p. 89f.

  Seedy, even if they didn't point blank say that these were "scripture" the fact that they were quoted from, either in written (most likely) or oral form shows that these accounts were considered authentic in the first century.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I mean "Abaddon"
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abbadon, perhaps you should aquaint yourself with the Posting Guidelines

  Posting Guidelines
  To ensure all users feel safe and keen to participate, please avoid:

  1. Insulting, threatening or provoking language
  2. Inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic.
  3. Swearing, using hate-speech or making obscene or vulgar comments.
  4. Breaking the law
     This includes libel, condoning illegal activity and contempt of court (comments which might affect the outcome of an approaching court case). You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.
  5. Spamming
     Please don't add the same comment to more than one forum.
  6. Advertising
     You can mention relevant, non-commercial websites as long as they support your comment.
  7. Impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organisation.
     Please don't mislead other users by abusing our registration procedure.
  8. Posting in a language other than English.
  9. Invading people's privacy
     Please don't post private addresses or phone numbers, including your own. You may post email addresses so long as you make it clear who they belong to.
  10. Posting an off-topic comment.

  Forums are moderated to make sure they stay friendly and welcoming, legal and relevant. We reserve the right to edit or delete posts at own discretion and without notice, which we consider to be unacceptable. If you repeatedly break these rules, you may be prevented from posting.
• 
  126

  DNA and Man's origin

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

  kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Another somewhat related issue: The origin of DNA and RNA. This can be a profitable issue to examine in the creation/evolution controversy.