|
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
?
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always
remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very
lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t
compress it further.
?
How many times have you been faced with the situation of
trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific
evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of
Man.
?
I am not an historian and these are very, very rough
time frames.?
?
1.??????
Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was
life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an
example).
2.??????
The Bible states that God created the world, then
animals, then man (Adam and Eve).?
This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no
one would be foolish enough to dispute.
3.??????
It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000
years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly
mankind.? But the Bible puts life
(our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad
years).
4.??????
Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around
8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of
millions of years.
?
My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with
Science considering the above facts and data?
?
My hypothesis
1.??????
Although the Bible says God created the World in “6”
days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand
“days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some
form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes.
2.??????
The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow
this has to be reconciled with the Bible.?
See Note 3.??
3.??????
After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is
CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;?
there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory
of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally
different species – Refer*
4.??????
After almost everything was wiped out during the
Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and
different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the
deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image
(somehow!!)
?
Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve
by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading
world authority on DNA and human evolution.? ?In 1994 he was called in to examine the
frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly
pre Ice Age.
?
He took 3?
hair samples a purported human?
from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the
Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified
as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a
mystery.
?
From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now
possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA
sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals,
widely thought to be extinct.
?
He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years
(similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the
survival of apemen into modern times.
?
The
Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan
Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial
genetics to a general audience. Sykes
explains the principles of genetics and human
evolution, the particularities of
mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern
humans to prehistoric
ancestors.
Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics,
Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa
theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor
Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian
origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of
their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in
identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of
Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern
Europe.
The title of the book comes from one of the principal
achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all
modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial
haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined
by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be
traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes
refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live
concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the
Mitochondrial
Eve.
?
His book
goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people
from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories
above.
?
Sorry
for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological
achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
G'day everyone,
Thanks, Merlene, for posing come interesting and challenging questions.? I'm also interested in seeing what inputs this email generates.
My initial thought is to make a few simple observations, which I hope will be helpful.
Twenty years is a very long time in politics and science. Bryan Sykes' "Seven (European) Daughters of Eve" are now at least ten, and a current argument in genetics is that perhaps there should be just two: Finnish and non-Finnish.? No kidding.? And, by the way, the count on "Daughters of Eve" worldwide is now up to 29 or so.? As mentioned, twenty years is a long time in science.? In the unlikely case that anyone is interested, my eldest female ancestress is Tara (mitochondrial Haplogroup T) and I am half-Finnish; hopefully, thousands of mad scientists aren't skulking about waiting to dissect me.
This brings up my main caution.? Many serious scientists now disavow Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which over 150 years has failed to stand in many ways.? For example, no matter how old the earth is (and limitless time is a precondition for the theory), there's no evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution (between species) even as micro-evolution (evolution - including by natural selection - within a species) is well-proven.? After all, evolution from a molecule into a human being is scientifically impossible given all that we know today about things like, well, DNA.
A related caution is that atheistic Science cannot explain life or the universe, just as Creationists cannot scientifically prove that God exists. The same sets of facts can be interpreted differently depending upon the interpreter's presuppositions and assumptions, so it's a reasonable idea to consider our own pre-suppositions. For example, one of my personal beliefs is that there is no conflict between the Bible and Science, which goes to the heart of Merlene's question.
Finally, the brilliant Blaise Pascal once opined that "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."? Believe it or not, there is a possibility that we won't solve all of the issues that Merlene raised in this forum, but it should be fun trying.
Hoping to hear from y'all, I remain
Very truly yours,
Ray
P.S. Blessings.
??
On Sunday, 13 September 2020, 03:52:46 pm AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
?
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always
remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very
lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t
compress it further.
?
How many times have you been faced with the situation of
trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific
evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of
Man.
?
I am not an historian and these are very, very rough
time frames.?
?
1.??????
Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was
life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an
example).
2.??????
The Bible states that God created the world, then
animals, then man (Adam and Eve).?
This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no
one would be foolish enough to dispute.
3.??????
It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000
years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly
mankind.? But the Bible puts life
(our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad
years).
4.??????
Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around
8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of
millions of years.
?
My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with
Science considering the above facts and data?
?
My hypothesis
1.??????
Although the Bible says God created the World in “6”
days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand
“days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some
form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes.
2.??????
The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow
this has to be reconciled with the Bible.?
See Note 3.??
3.??????
After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is
CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;?
there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory
of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally
different species – Refer*
4.??????
After almost everything was wiped out during the
Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and
different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the
deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image
(somehow!!)
?
Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve
by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading
world authority on DNA and human evolution.? ?In 1994 he was called in to examine the
frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly
pre Ice Age.
?
He took 3?
hair samples a purported human?
from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the
Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified
as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a
mystery.
?
From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now
possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA
sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals,
widely thought to be extinct.
?
He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years
(similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the
survival of apemen into modern times.
?
The
Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan
Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial
genetics to a general audience. Sykes
explains the principles of genetics and human
evolution, the particularities of
mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern
humans to prehistoric
ancestors.
Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics,
Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa
theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor
Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian
origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of
their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in
identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of
Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern
Europe.
The title of the book comes from one of the principal
achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all
modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial
haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined
by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be
traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes
refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live
concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the
Mitochondrial
Eve.
?
His book
goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people
from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories
above.
?
Sorry
for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological
achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi Marlene, I referred back to Creation ministries website for questions and answers re your mail. It is worth a look if you have not seen it before,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 13 Sep 2020, at 23:21, Ray via groups.io <ray.sarlin@...> wrote:
?
G'day everyone,
Thanks, Merlene, for posing come interesting and challenging questions.? I'm also interested in seeing what inputs this email generates.
My initial thought is to make a few simple observations, which I hope will be helpful.
Twenty years is a very long time in politics and science. Bryan Sykes' "Seven (European) Daughters of Eve" are now at least ten, and a current argument in genetics is that perhaps there should be just two: Finnish and non-Finnish.? No kidding.? And, by the way, the count on "Daughters of Eve" worldwide is now up to 29 or so.? As mentioned, twenty years is a long time in science.? In the unlikely case that anyone is interested, my eldest female ancestress is Tara (mitochondrial Haplogroup T) and I am half-Finnish; hopefully, thousands of mad scientists aren't skulking about waiting to dissect me.
This brings up my main caution.? Many serious scientists now disavow Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which over 150 years has failed to stand in many ways.? For example, no matter how old the earth is (and limitless time is a precondition for the theory), there's no evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution (between species) even as micro-evolution (evolution - including by natural selection - within a species) is well-proven.? After all, evolution from a molecule into a human being is scientifically impossible given all that we know today about things like, well, DNA.
A related caution is that atheistic Science cannot explain life or the universe, just as Creationists cannot scientifically prove that God exists. The same sets of facts can be interpreted differently depending upon the interpreter's presuppositions and assumptions, so it's a reasonable idea to consider our own pre-suppositions. For example, one of my personal beliefs is that there is no conflict between the Bible and Science, which goes to the heart of Merlene's question.
Finally, the brilliant Blaise Pascal once opined that "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."? Believe it or not, there is a possibility that we won't solve all of the issues that Merlene raised in this forum, but it should be fun trying.
Hoping to hear from y'all, I remain
Very truly yours,
Ray
P.S. Blessings.
??
On Sunday, 13 September 2020, 03:52:46 pm AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
?
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always
remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very
lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t
compress it further.
?
How many times have you been faced with the situation of
trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific
evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of
Man.
?
I am not an historian and these are very, very rough
time frames.?
?
1.??????
Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was
life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an
example).
2.??????
The Bible states that God created the world, then
animals, then man (Adam and Eve).?
This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no
one would be foolish enough to dispute.
3.??????
It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000
years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly
mankind.? But the Bible puts life
(our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad
years).
4.??????
Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around
8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of
millions of years.
?
My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with
Science considering the above facts and data?
?
My hypothesis
1.??????
Although the Bible says God created the World in “6”
days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand
“days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some
form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes.
2.??????
The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow
this has to be reconciled with the Bible.?
See Note 3.??
3.??????
After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is
CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;?
there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory
of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally
different species – Refer*
4.??????
After almost everything was wiped out during the
Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and
different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the
deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image
(somehow!!)
?
Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve
by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading
world authority on DNA and human evolution.? ?In 1994 he was called in to examine the
frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly
pre Ice Age.
?
He took 3?
hair samples a purported human?
from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the
Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified
as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a
mystery.
?
From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now
possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA
sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals,
widely thought to be extinct.
?
He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years
(similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the
survival of apemen into modern times.
?
The
Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan
Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial
genetics to a general audience. Sykes
explains the principles of genetics and human
evolution, the particularities of
mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern
humans to prehistoric
ancestors.
Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics,
Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa
theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor
Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian
origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of
their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in
identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of
Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern
Europe.
The title of the book comes from one of the principal
achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all
modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial
haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined
by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be
traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes
refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live
concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the
Mitochondrial
Eve.
?
His book
goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people
from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories
above.
?
Sorry
for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological
achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Good Morning Everyone, ? I would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’. ? The definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed ?to be ‘the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth’. ? To ‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from. ? So where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to evolve? ? I am suggesting it came from God. ? Regards ? Peter Wornham ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Merlene
Sent: Sunday, 13 September 2020 3:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence? Hi Ray and all Fellow Students, A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it further. How many times have you been faced with the situation of trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of Man. ? I am not an historian and these are very, very rough time frames.? ? 1.?????? Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an example). 2.?????? The Bible states that God created the world, then animals, then man (Adam and Eve).? This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no one would be foolish enough to dispute. 3.?????? It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000 years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly mankind.? But the Bible puts life (our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad years). 4.?????? Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around 8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of millions of years. ? My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with Science considering the above facts and data? ? My hypothesis 1.?????? Although the Bible says God created the World in “6” days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand “days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes. 2.?????? The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow this has to be reconciled with the Bible.? See Note 3.?? 3.?????? After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;? there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally different species – Refer* 4.?????? After almost everything was wiped out during the Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image (somehow!!) ? Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution.?? In 1994 he was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly pre Ice Age. ? He took 3? hair samples a purported human? from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a mystery. ? From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, widely thought to be extinct. ? He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years (similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the survival of apemen into modern times. ? The Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial genetics to a general audience. Sykes explains the principles of genetics and human evolution, the particularities of mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern humans to prehistoric ancestors. Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics, Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern Europe. The title of the book comes from one of the principal achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the Mitochondrial Eve. ? His book goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories above. ? Sorry for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological achievements. ? Cheers, Merlene ?
|
Hi Merlene You may find the books of award winning Australian scientist, Dr John F Ashton, helpful. His credentials are impressive.
His books are readily available. The ones perhaps most relevant to help answer your query are: Evolution Impossible, and In Six Days ( which is a compilation of essays by PhD scientists covering many areas of expertise and supporting a young earth outlook).
Carole's suggestion of Creation Ministries is good. They give short, interesting bites but are careful to include references to aid in further research if you are so inclined.
I did intend to add? comment on the fun sharing of the significance of names that you started up. Maybe too late now!?
Enjoy your continuing studies, Christine
Good Morning Everyone, ? I would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’. ? The definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed ?to be ‘the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth’. ? To ‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from. ? So where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to evolve? ? I am suggesting it came from God. ? Regards ? Peter Wornham ? ? Hi Ray and all Fellow Students, A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it further. How many times have you been faced with the situation of trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of Man. ? I am not an historian and these are very, very rough time frames.? ? 1.?????? Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an example). 2.?????? The Bible states that God created the world, then animals, then man (Adam and Eve).? This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no one would be foolish enough to dispute. 3.?????? It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000 years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly mankind.? But the Bible puts life (our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad years). 4.?????? Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around 8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of millions of years. ? My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with Science considering the above facts and data? ? My hypothesis 1.?????? Although the Bible says God created the World in “6” days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand “days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes. 2.?????? The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow this has to be reconciled with the Bible.? See Note 3.?? 3.?????? After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;? there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally different species – Refer* 4.?????? After almost everything was wiped out during the Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image (somehow!!) ? Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution.?? In 1994 he was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly pre Ice Age. ? He took 3? hair samples a purported human? from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a mystery. ? From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, widely thought to be extinct. ? He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years (similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the survival of apemen into modern times. ? The Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial genetics to a general audience. Sykes explains the principles of genetics and human evolution, the particularities of mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern humans to prehistoric ancestors. Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics, Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern Europe. The title of the book comes from one of the principal achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the Mitochondrial Eve. ? His book goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories above. ? Sorry for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological achievements. ? Cheers, Merlene ?
|
Hi Ray, Carole, Christine and Peter,
?
Thankyou for your input.? A few thoughts for comment:
?
1.? Carole:? I haven’t heard of Creation Ministries. Wikipedia
does not speak kindly of them.? What “religion” or beliefs do they purport
to follow?? I am ALWAYS suspicious of US driven religious
propaganda.? There appears to be two different bodies – the one in Brisbane
and an International one.? Which one should I be investigating?? And
do they have conspiracy tendencies?? Would you please send a link
to WHICH site you refer?? Thanks.
?
2. Peter:? I have always strongly believed that evolution (including
by natural selection) DOES NOT occur outside species.? Original species may
evolve and change considerably adapting to changing environmental conditions
etc. (Galapagos Island) but a bear doesn’t change into an ape over time!?
Who would be so foolhardy to suggest that God looks like an Ape!? Yet that
is what we have been taught – that we evolved from Apes!
Original organisms could only have come from the One who created the
universe and our world – agree with your comment.
?
3. Christine:?? I have not heard of Dr John F. Ashton.?
Thank you for your suggestion.?
And no, it’s not too late to continue the fun of names – as Ray
has commented several times, Names are very significant.
?
Thanks everyone for your comments.? Please don’t stop – there are
still a lot of questions I asked!!?
?
Sincerely,
Merlene
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Christine
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific
Evidence
?
Hi Merlene
You may find the books of award winning Australian scientist, Dr John F
Ashton, helpful. His credentials are impressive.
?
His books are readily available. The ones perhaps most relevant to help
answer your query are:
Evolution Impossible, and
In Six Days ( which is a compilation of essays by PhD scientists covering
many areas of expertise and supporting a young earth outlook).
?
Carole's suggestion of Creation Ministries is good. They give short,
interesting bites but are careful to include references to aid in further
research if you are so inclined.
?
I did intend to add? comment on the fun sharing of the significance of
names that you started up. Maybe too late now!
?
Enjoy your continuing studies,
Christine ?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, 9:08 am Peter W,
<pwo33029@...> wrote:
Good
Morning Everyone,
I
would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of
Evolution’.
The
definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed? to be ‘the process by
which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from
earlier forms during the history of the earth’.
To
‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from.
So
where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to
evolve?
I
am suggesting it came from God.
Regards
Peter
Wornham
?
Hi
Ray and all Fellow Students,
A
couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained
unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy,
for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it
further.
......................................?
Sorry for
the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest
technological achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi Peter,
You put your finger squarely on a crucial failure of Darwinism.? Darwin didn't try to suggest how life came into being (because he couldn't), and so his theory simply ignores that central issue.
Giving him his due, many have suggested that Darwin today would no longer be a Darwinist after over 150 years of failing to find supporting evidence for his theory on macro-evolution.
Blessings,
Ray
On Monday, 14 September 2020, 09:08:32 am AEST, Peter W <pwo33029@...> wrote:
Good Morning Everyone, ? I would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’. ? The definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed ?to be ‘the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth’. ? To ‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from. ? So where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to evolve? ? I am suggesting it came from God. ? Regards ? Peter Wornham ?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Merlene
Sent: Sunday, 13 September 2020 3:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence ? Hi Ray and all Fellow Students, A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it further. How many times have you been faced with the situation of trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of Man. ? I am not an historian and these are very, very rough time frames.? ? 1.?????? Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an example). 2.?????? The Bible states that God created the world, then animals, then man (Adam and Eve).? This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no one would be foolish enough to dispute. 3.?????? It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000 years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly mankind.? But the Bible puts life (our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad years). 4.?????? Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around 8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of millions of years. ? My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with Science considering the above facts and data? ? My hypothesis 1.?????? Although the Bible says God created the World in “6” days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand “days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes. 2.?????? The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow this has to be reconciled with the Bible.? See Note 3.?? 3.?????? After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;? there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally different species – Refer* 4.?????? After almost everything was wiped out during the Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image (somehow!!) ? Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution.?? In 1994 he was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly pre Ice Age. ? He took 3? hair samples a purported human? from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a mystery. ? From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, widely thought to be extinct. ? He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years (similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the survival of apemen into modern times. ? The Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial genetics to a general audience. Sykes explains the principles of genetics and human evolution, the particularities of mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern humans to prehistoric ancestors. Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics, Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern Europe. The title of the book comes from one of the principal achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the Mitochondrial Eve. ? His book goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories above. ? Sorry for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological achievements. ? Cheers, Merlene ?
|
Thanks Ray for your response.? I’m pleased that a couple of others in
our Class have found the time to respond.
?
Re your response:?? I’ve also read that the “Daughters of Eve”
worldwide is around 29 or so.
Liked your comment about Tara – don’t laugh, but you and I could be related
– the strongest parts of my DNA are North and Western European with 15.6%
Scandinavian!
?
I’ve ALWAYS totally agreed with your comment that there is no evidence of
evolution between species.? That is the only way I can accept Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution.? I’ve seen for myself how bird species can evolve to
suit their environment (Galapagos Islands).? For example, a specie of bird
can’t fly anymore in the air, but “flies” through the water, to name only one
example.? And how Finches have changed when they migrate to different
islands.
?
I have never been convinced that we evolved from apes – although it was
part of our school curriculum. That implies that God looks like an Ape.?
How blasphemous!
?
As a matter of interest somewhere in Bryan Sykes’ book he infers that
another different species of Man has been discovered which is different from the
Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, and other “ape” like species. This new find puts all
earlier beliefs into question – that there is a distinct possibility that Man
and Ape are 2 different species!? Interesting, I
thought.
?
Maybe
my questions will never be answered – I hope that is not the case!
?
Blessings,
Merlene
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Ray via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence
#Science
?
G'day everyone,
?
Thanks, Merlene, for posing come interesting and
challenging questions.? I'm also interested in seeing what inputs this
email generates.
?
My initial thought is to make a few simple
observations, which I hope will be helpful.
?
Twenty years is a very long time in politics
and science. Bryan Sykes' "Seven (European) Daughters of Eve" are now at least
ten, and a current argument in genetics is that perhaps there should be just
two: Finnish and non-Finnish.? No kidding.? And, by the way, the count
on "Daughters of Eve" worldwide is now up to 29 or so.? As mentioned,
twenty years is a long time in science.? In the unlikely case that anyone
is interested, my eldest female ancestress is Tara (mitochondrial Haplogroup T)
and I am half-Finnish; hopefully, thousands of mad scientists aren't skulking
about waiting to dissect me.
?
This brings up my main caution.? Many
serious scientists now disavow Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which over 150
years has failed to stand in many ways.? For example, no matter how old the
earth is (and limitless time is a precondition for the theory), there's no
evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution (between species) even as
micro-evolution (evolution - including by natural selection - within a
species) is well-proven.? After all, evolution from a molecule into a human
being is scientifically impossible given all that we know today about things
like, well, DNA.
?
A related caution is that atheistic Science
cannot explain life or the universe, just as Creationists cannot scientifically
prove that God exists. The same sets of facts can be interpreted differently
depending upon the interpreter's presuppositions and assumptions, so it's a
reasonable idea to consider our own pre-suppositions. For example, one of my
personal beliefs is that there is no conflict between the Bible and Science,
which goes to the heart of Merlene's question.
?
Finally, the brilliant Blaise Pascal once
opined that "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite
number of things which are beyond it."? Believe it or not, there is a
possibility that we won't solve all of the issues that Merlene raised in this
forum, but it should be fun trying.
?
Hoping to hear from y'all, I remain
?
Very truly yours,
?
Ray
?
P.S. Blessings.
?
?
?
?
|
Hi Merlene,
Possibly the fact that Wikipedia bags Creation Ministries is a badge of honour. Creation Ministries is a group of scientists who believe in the Young Earth and produce a voluminous amount of scientific papers, books and DVDs making their case.? They also speak at various churches and conduct, as far as I am aware, occasional seminars.? They're also available to debate scientists with the opposing view, though few take them up.? The Australian and USA divisions are the same body.? They seem to me to be particularly strong in geology, biology and information science, including DNA.? Young Earth is, I think, a subset of the more generalised Intelligent Design which argues forcefully that anything as complex as life must have a designer.
One point that you may wish to consider.? If Darwinism (e.g., macroevolution) has been debunked, and it HAS been even though leftist politics still forces it to be taught as politically correct "science" in education, the issue of trying to force the Bible to fit evolution would seem to be counter-productive.? Either one believes in the Bible or they don't.? Either one believes in Darwinism, or they don't. Belief in Darwinism is actually closer to a religion than belief that the Bible is divinely inspired is.? At least the Bible actually claims to be divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17), while Darwinism (macroevolution) simply masquerades as science.
Blessings,
Ray
On Monday, 14 September 2020, 11:46:13 am AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray, Carole, Christine and Peter,
?
Thankyou for your input.? A few thoughts for comment:
?
1.? Carole:? I haven’t heard of Creation Ministries. Wikipedia
does not speak kindly of them.? What “religion” or beliefs do they purport
to follow?? I am ALWAYS suspicious of US driven religious
propaganda.? There appears to be two different bodies – the one in Brisbane
and an International one.? Which one should I be investigating?? And
do they have conspiracy tendencies?? Would you please send a link
to WHICH site you refer?? Thanks.
?
2. Peter:? I have always strongly believed that evolution (including
by natural selection) DOES NOT occur outside species.? Original species may
evolve and change considerably adapting to changing environmental conditions
etc. (Galapagos Island) but a bear doesn’t change into an ape over time!?
Who would be so foolhardy to suggest that God looks like an Ape!? Yet that
is what we have been taught – that we evolved from Apes!
Original organisms could only have come from the One who created the
universe and our world – agree with your comment.
?
3. Christine:?? I have not heard of Dr John F. Ashton.?
Thank you for your suggestion.?
And no, it’s not too late to continue the fun of names – as Ray
has commented several times, Names are very significant.
?
Thanks everyone for your comments.? Please don’t stop – there are
still a lot of questions I asked!!?
?
Sincerely,
Merlene
?
From: Christine
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific
Evidence
?
Hi Merlene
You may find the books of award winning Australian scientist, Dr John F
Ashton, helpful. His credentials are impressive.
?
His books are readily available. The ones perhaps most relevant to help
answer your query are:
Evolution Impossible, and
In Six Days ( which is a compilation of essays by PhD scientists covering
many areas of expertise and supporting a young earth outlook).
?
Carole's suggestion of Creation Ministries is good. They give short,
interesting bites but are careful to include references to aid in further
research if you are so inclined.
?
I did intend to add? comment on the fun sharing of the significance of
names that you started up. Maybe too late now!
?
Enjoy your continuing studies,
Christine ?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, 9:08 am Peter W,
<pwo33029@...> wrote:
Good
Morning Everyone,
I
would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of
Evolution’.
The
definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed? to be ‘the process by
which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from
earlier forms during the history of the earth’.
To
‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from.
So
where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to
evolve?
I
am suggesting it came from God.
Regards
Peter
Wornham
?
Hi
Ray and all Fellow Students,
A
couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained
unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy,
for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it
further.
......................................?
Sorry for
the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest
technological achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi there everyone I am enjoying your emails and opinions .All the advances man has made and we are no closer to the big question. My question is how do you create something from nothing (Big Bang) and all living being from that.I read that we
humans and apes share over 95% of the same DNA and also that today humans do not use 100% of brain capacity . Maybe we are still evolving. That is not to say I believe we are evolved from apes just adding to the conversation. Thank you for sharing Mandy?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------
From: "Ray via groups.io" <ray.sarlin@...>
Date: 14/9/20 12:44 pm (GMT+10:00)
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence #Science
Hi Merlene,
Possibly the fact that Wikipedia bags Creation Ministries is a badge of honour. Creation Ministries is a group of scientists who believe in the Young Earth and produce a voluminous amount of scientific papers, books and DVDs making their case.?
They also speak at various churches and conduct, as far as I am aware, occasional seminars.? They're also available to debate scientists with the opposing view, though few take them up.? The Australian and USA divisions are the same body.? They seem to me
to be particularly strong in geology, biology and information science, including DNA.? Young Earth is, I think, a subset of the more generalised Intelligent Design which argues forcefully that anything as complex as life must have a designer.
One point that you may wish to consider.? If Darwinism (e.g., macroevolution) has been debunked, and it HAS been even though leftist politics still forces it to be taught as politically correct "science" in education, the issue of trying to force
the Bible to fit evolution would seem to be counter-productive.? Either one believes in the Bible or they don't.? Either one believes in Darwinism, or they don't. Belief in Darwinism is actually closer to a religion than belief that the Bible is divinely inspired
is.? At least the Bible actually claims to be divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17), while Darwinism (macroevolution) simply masquerades as science.
Blessings,
Ray
On Monday, 14 September 2020, 11:46:13 am AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray, Carole, Christine and Peter,
?
Thankyou for your input.? A few thoughts for comment:
?
1.? Carole:? I haven’t heard of Creation Ministries. Wikipedia does not speak kindly of them.? What “religion” or beliefs do they purport to follow?? I am ALWAYS suspicious of US driven
religious propaganda.? There appears to be two different bodies – the one in Brisbane and an International one.? Which one should I be investigating?? And do they have
conspiracy tendencies?? Would you please send a link to WHICH site you refer?? Thanks.
?
2. Peter:? I have always strongly believed that evolution (including by natural selection) DOES NOT occur outside species.? Original species may evolve and change considerably adapting to changing environmental conditions etc. (Galapagos Island) but a
bear doesn’t change into an ape over time!? Who would be so foolhardy to suggest that God looks like an Ape!? Yet that is what we have been taught – that we evolved from Apes!
Original organisms could only have come from the One who created the universe and our world – agree with your comment.
?
3. Christine:?? I have not heard of Dr John F. Ashton.? Thank you for your suggestion.?
And no, it’s not too late to continue the fun of names – as Ray has commented several times, Names are very significant.
?
Thanks everyone for your comments.? Please don’t stop – there are still a lot of questions I asked!!?
?
Sincerely,
Merlene
?
?
From: Christine
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence
?
Hi Merlene
You may find the books of award winning Australian scientist, Dr John F Ashton, helpful. His credentials are impressive.
?
His books are readily available. The ones perhaps most relevant to help answer your query are:
Evolution Impossible, and
In Six Days ( which is a compilation of essays by PhD scientists covering many areas of expertise and supporting a young earth outlook).
?
Carole's suggestion of Creation Ministries is good. They give short, interesting bites but are careful to include references to aid in further research if you are so inclined.
?
I did intend to add? comment on the fun sharing of the significance of names that you started up. Maybe too late now!
?
Enjoy your continuing studies,
Christine
?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, 9:08 am Peter W, <pwo33029@...> wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
I would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’.
The definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed? to be ‘the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed
from earlier forms during the history of the earth’.
To ‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from.
So where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to evolve?
I am suggesting it came from God.
Regards
Peter Wornham
?
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy, for which I apologise,
but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it further.
......................................?
Sorry for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which seems to me cannot ever be reconciled,
in spite of all our latest technological achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi Marlene I googled Creation Ministries and hit in the Brisbane link. I don’t usually choose Wiki. Creation Ministries was represented at Sunnybank Baptist not that long ago. They used to gave a great publication, not sure in Covid time regards Carol
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 14 Sep 2020, at 07:36, Carol McFarlane <mopanisilk@...> wrote:
? Hi Marlene, I referred back to Creation ministries website for questions and answers re your mail. It is worth a look if you have not seen it before, regards Carol Mc On 13 Sep 2020, at 23:21, Ray via groups.io <ray.sarlin@...> wrote:
?
G'day everyone,
Thanks, Merlene, for posing come interesting and challenging questions.? I'm also interested in seeing what inputs this email generates.
My initial thought is to make a few simple observations, which I hope will be helpful.
Twenty years is a very long time in politics and science. Bryan Sykes' "Seven (European) Daughters of Eve" are now at least ten, and a current argument in genetics is that perhaps there should be just two: Finnish and non-Finnish.? No kidding.? And, by the way, the count on "Daughters of Eve" worldwide is now up to 29 or so.? As mentioned, twenty years is a long time in science.? In the unlikely case that anyone is interested, my eldest female ancestress is Tara (mitochondrial Haplogroup T) and I am half-Finnish; hopefully, thousands of mad scientists aren't skulking about waiting to dissect me.
This brings up my main caution.? Many serious scientists now disavow Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which over 150 years has failed to stand in many ways.? For example, no matter how old the earth is (and limitless time is a precondition for the theory), there's no evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution (between species) even as micro-evolution (evolution - including by natural selection - within a species) is well-proven.? After all, evolution from a molecule into a human being is scientifically impossible given all that we know today about things like, well, DNA.
A related caution is that atheistic Science cannot explain life or the universe, just as Creationists cannot scientifically prove that God exists. The same sets of facts can be interpreted differently depending upon the interpreter's presuppositions and assumptions, so it's a reasonable idea to consider our own pre-suppositions. For example, one of my personal beliefs is that there is no conflict between the Bible and Science, which goes to the heart of Merlene's question.
Finally, the brilliant Blaise Pascal once opined that "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."? Believe it or not, there is a possibility that we won't solve all of the issues that Merlene raised in this forum, but it should be fun trying.
Hoping to hear from y'all, I remain
Very truly yours,
Ray
P.S. Blessings.
??
On Sunday, 13 September 2020, 03:52:46 pm AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
?
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always
remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very
lengthy, for which I apologise, but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t
compress it further.
?
How many times have you been faced with the situation of
trying to convince people to believe the words of the Bible when the scientific
evidence seems to prove otherwise – especially with regard to the Beginnings of
Man.
?
I am not an historian and these are very, very rough
time frames.?
?
1.??????
Time in the Bible starts around 6,000 BC.? But it is well documented that there was
life on earth at least 46,000 thousand years ago (Aboriginal evidence, as an
example).
2.??????
The Bible states that God created the world, then
animals, then man (Adam and Eve).?
This fact is now under attack from the Darwinian theory;? the theory of evolution, something no
one would be foolish enough to dispute.
3.??????
It is known that the Ice Age occurred about 12-12,000
years ago, causing the distinction of many animals and possibly
mankind.? But the Bible puts life
(our world) starting only 8,000 thousand years ago (6,000bc + 2,000ad
years).
4.??????
Assuming Bible times put the age of our world around
8,000 thousand years old, this cannot be correct.? Geological evidence suggests an age of
millions of years.
?
My question to Ray and the Group is:? How can we reconcile the Bible with
Science considering the above facts and data?
?
My hypothesis
1.??????
Although the Bible says God created the World in “6”
days, I believe the six days do not refer to six literal days as we understand
“days” but a timeframe of Six (plus resting day of 7).? Within this timeframe animals and some
form of humans existed – we are talking about LONG timeframes.
2.??????
The theory of evolution cannot be disputed, but somehow
this has to be reconciled with the Bible.?
See Note 3.??
3.??????
After the Ice Age few animals survived, but there is
CONSIDERABLE evidence of their existence, including some form of mankind.? And this is where I believe the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution is “king”;?
there were creatures that science calls Man, but I don’t believe Theory
of Evolution PROVES that they WERE actual the beginnings of humans – a totally
different species – Refer*
4.??????
After almost everything was wiped out during the
Ice Age, is it possible that our Bible starts sometime AFTER – a new and
different world was created, massaged by God.? Evolution starts with creatures in the
deep (sea), then land, air, etc. to God’s creation of Man, in His image
(somehow!!)
?
Recently I came across The Seven Daughters of Eve
by Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University, a leading
world authority on DNA and human evolution.? ?In 1994 he was called in to examine the
frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy, purportedly
pre Ice Age.
?
He took 3?
hair samples a purported human?
from remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan which were from the miogi, the
Bhutanese yeti. Two of the hairs from DNA analysis, eventually were identified
as hairs from a known species of bear.? The third remained a
mystery.
?
From an article published in 2010, he stated it’s now
possible to get a very good DNA signal from a single hair.? This paper contained details of the DNA
sequence from another human species, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals,
widely thought to be extinct.
?
He says we can trace our maternal line back 45,000 years
(similar to Aboriginal belief) and starts with the first scientific evidence of the
survival of apemen into modern times.
?
The
Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 book by Bryan
Sykes that presents the science of human mitochondrial
genetics to a general audience. Sykes
explains the principles of genetics and human
evolution, the particularities of
mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern
humans to prehistoric
ancestors.
Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics,
Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa
theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor
Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian
origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of
their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in
identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of
Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern
Europe.
The title of the book comes from one of the principal
achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all
modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial
haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined
by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be
traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes
refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live
concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the
Mitochondrial
Eve.
?
His book
goes on to explain in great detail how blood samples taken from different people
from different countries over different time frames confirm his theories
above.
?
Sorry
for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings
of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which
seems to me cannot ever be reconciled, in spite of all our latest technological
achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi Mandy,
DNA is the building block of life.? We share 99.9% of our DNA with other humans.? That's because we're human.? It's the differences that make us individuals.
But were you aware that you share 70% of your DNA with an earthworm?? Note I said "you".  ? That's because earthworms are also living. So all that we have to do is find ways for the 29.9% of the worm's DNA to "evolve" to make it into you. Along the way the earthworm will become a cow (sharing 80% with us) and the cow will become a dog (84%) and the dog a mouse (85%) and the mouse a cat (90%) before the cat becomes a pig (which shares 98% of its DNA with us, 1.1% more than an orangutan at 96.9%).??
Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is?? And I omitted the observation that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas.
These examples are just to show how people seem to like to ask the wrong questions.? After all, it's the differences (the DNA that we don't share) that is responsible for the diversity of life.
In fact, many believe that the discovery of DNA was the final nail in the coffin containing Darwinian macroevolution.
Regarding microevolution, any sensible theory must also consider the effects of things like culture and environment in addition to changes through natural selection, mutation, etc.? For example, consider that Ashkenazi Jewish genetics through a restrictive breeding pool (different from inbreeding) has resulted in an average IQ of 115 (against the normed average of 100). This occurred over millennia.
What, if anything, will be the genetic changes arising from China's disastrous one-child policy that has resulted in a male:female imbalance of 105 males for every 100 females or the modern West's current focus on transgenderism and the alphabet stew?? In all probability, these illogical and irrational "trends" won't last long enough to effect significant genetic change (like the Ashkenazi IQ), but carried on for hundreds or thousands of years they?could cause some genetic changes.
But, of course, we now have scientists of questionable ethics with the ability to tinker directly with the human genome.? The current CCP virus seems by many to have arisen during scientific tinkering called "gain of function", also known as cut-and-paste genetic engineering, in a biological weapons lab in Wuhan.? This involves scientists taking a natural virus and making direct substitutions in its RNA/DNA coding.? Whether intended or not, they have created a virus that disproportionately attacks the elderly and unleashed it on the world.
This brings me back to Ecclesiastes. There is nothing new under the sun. This is not the first pandemic, nor will it be the last.? It's unlikely to achieve the destructive levels of the catastrophic Spanish Flu of 1918 because there are already effective therapeutics and treatments and there may soon even be vaccines, so life will go on... until next time.
There is nothing new under the sun.? But what we'll see this week is that "under the sun" is not all there is!? Ecclesiastes will deliver an uplifting, positive message in a depressing outer wrap.? I hope to see you all there for the conclusion on Thursday.
In the meantime, please stay safe.
Blessings,
Ray
??
On Monday, 14 September 2020, 01:58:02 pm AEST, Mandy <mandyflynn01@...> wrote:
Hi there everyone I am enjoying your emails and opinions .All the advances man has made and we are no closer to the big question. My question is how do you create something from nothing (Big Bang) and all living being from that.I read that we
humans and apes share over 95% of the same DNA and also that today humans do not use 100% of brain capacity . Maybe we are still evolving. That is not to say I believe we are evolved from apes just adding to the conversation. Thank you for sharing Mandy?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: "Ray via groups.io" <ray.sarlin@...>
Date: 14/9/20 12:44 pm (GMT+10:00)
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence #Science
Hi Merlene,
Possibly the fact that Wikipedia bags Creation Ministries is a badge of honour. Creation Ministries is a group of scientists who believe in the Young Earth and produce a voluminous amount of scientific papers, books and DVDs making their case.?
They also speak at various churches and conduct, as far as I am aware, occasional seminars.? They're also available to debate scientists with the opposing view, though few take them up.? The Australian and USA divisions are the same body.? They seem to me
to be particularly strong in geology, biology and information science, including DNA.? Young Earth is, I think, a subset of the more generalised Intelligent Design which argues forcefully that anything as complex as life must have a designer.
One point that you may wish to consider.? If Darwinism (e.g., macroevolution) has been debunked, and it HAS been even though leftist politics still forces it to be taught as politically correct "science" in education, the issue of trying to force
the Bible to fit evolution would seem to be counter-productive.? Either one believes in the Bible or they don't.? Either one believes in Darwinism, or they don't. Belief in Darwinism is actually closer to a religion than belief that the Bible is divinely inspired
is.? At least the Bible actually claims to be divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17), while Darwinism (macroevolution) simply masquerades as science.
Blessings,
Ray
On Monday, 14 September 2020, 11:46:13 am AEST, Merlene <merlene@...> wrote:
Hi Ray, Carole, Christine and Peter,
?
Thankyou for your input.? A few thoughts for comment:
?
1.? Carole:? I haven’t heard of Creation Ministries. Wikipedia does not speak kindly of them.? What “religion” or beliefs do they purport to follow?? I am ALWAYS suspicious of US driven
religious propaganda.? There appears to be two different bodies – the one in Brisbane and an International one.? Which one should I be investigating?? And do they have
conspiracy tendencies?? Would you please send a link to WHICH site you refer?? Thanks.
?
2. Peter:? I have always strongly believed that evolution (including by natural selection) DOES NOT occur outside species.? Original species may evolve and change considerably adapting to changing environmental conditions etc. (Galapagos Island) but a
bear doesn’t change into an ape over time!? Who would be so foolhardy to suggest that God looks like an Ape!? Yet that is what we have been taught – that we evolved from Apes!
Original organisms could only have come from the One who created the universe and our world – agree with your comment.
?
3. Christine:?? I have not heard of Dr John F. Ashton.? Thank you for your suggestion.?
And no, it’s not too late to continue the fun of names – as Ray has commented several times, Names are very significant.
?
Thanks everyone for your comments.? Please don’t stop – there are still a lot of questions I asked!!?
?
Sincerely,
Merlene
?
?
From: Christine
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [b4uc] The Bible versus Scientific Evidence
?
Hi Merlene
You may find the books of award winning Australian scientist, Dr John F Ashton, helpful. His credentials are impressive.
?
His books are readily available. The ones perhaps most relevant to help answer your query are:
Evolution Impossible, and
In Six Days ( which is a compilation of essays by PhD scientists covering many areas of expertise and supporting a young earth outlook).
?
Carole's suggestion of Creation Ministries is good. They give short, interesting bites but are careful to include references to aid in further research if you are so inclined.
?
I did intend to add? comment on the fun sharing of the significance of names that you started up. Maybe too late now!
?
Enjoy your continuing studies,
Christine
?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, 9:08 am Peter W, <pwo33029@...> wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
I would just like to comment about Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’.
The definition of ‘evolution’ is generally agreed? to be ‘the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed
from earlier forms during the history of the earth’.
To ‘evolve’, you need something to evolve from.
So where did the original organism come from which allowed Darwin’s theory to evolve?
I am suggesting it came from God.
Regards
Peter Wornham
?
Hi Ray and all Fellow Students,
A couple of weeks ago I promised I would ask a question that has always remained unanswered, seeking Ray’s and the Group’s comments.? It is very lengthy, for which I apologise,
but it is so complex a subject I couldn’t compress it further.
......................................?
Sorry for the length of this email raising issues of the Bible’s account of beginnings of mankind versus scientific evidence and findings, but this is a topic which seems to me cannot ever be reconciled,
in spite of all our latest technological achievements.
?
Cheers,
Merlene
?
|
Hi Everyone Thank you Merlene for initiating this stimulating discussion. I have read the replies so far and can only say that I agree with them all. Several things have always intrigued me about the debate on creation. Creatio ex nihilo has been debunked by scientists for many years based on Darwinism but I note that many leading scientists now have discounted evolution as a credible theory. I say theory because it has never been proven to be scientific truth but was an assumption that was almost universally accepted without question until science became more rigorous in its investigational method. The main proof of any scientific research is that any researcher, starting with the same hypothesis and methodology, should be able to replicate the findings exactly. This did not happen with evolution. As Peter suggests, science can’t start with nothing and produce something. If something ?must first exist, where does that something come from? ? That’s why I have trouble understanding the ‘big bang’ theory. If nothing existed, what exploded? If there were elements to facilitate an ?explosion, where did they come from? Was there another prior explosion, and another before that ad infinitum? We still come back to the same hypothesis, still unproven. For me the only explanation is that the only reasonable answer is that the biblical account of creation is correct. I have been encouraged by the words of ?2 Maccabees 7:28 in the Apocrypha: “ So I urge you my child, to look at the sky and the earth . Consider everything you see there, and realize that God made it from nothing, just as He made the human race”. (Good News Bible, emphasis mine). This statement is echoed in Ps 19 : 1; Ps 33: 6-9; Ps 102: 25; Isa 42:5; ?Isa 45:7-9. John 1: 1-4 is clear that God existed before the creation of the world and that all things were made by Him. ? I suppose it is not so unusual that people hold on desperately to cherished beliefs long after they have been proved incorrect. I can remember many years ago when Erik von Daniken wrote “Chariots of the Gods” when people absolutely accepted his contention that our biblical forefathers were in fact aliens. They even made a movie about his book and treated it as fact. I know people who still accept it as fact. Similarly, when Dan Brown wrote “The Da Vinci Code” people (including at Least one member of my wider family) accepted that as absolute fact, despite the fact that Brown himself published a disclaimer in the book saying that it was just a story. People still believe that the Holy Grail was in fact Mary Magdalene who had married Jesus, had children with him and they lived out their life in Spain. ? In my last church we had a man who was Head of the Science Department at a local high school. He could see no conflict between science and creation. He believed the biblical account as a fact that could not be disputed by science. I agree with him! ? Peter Lonsdale ? ?
|
Merlene
Ray