DNA Evidence for the Bible

[amariselle]

That's funny; that's also the problem most nonbelievers have with Christianity.

This is your argument? Seriously?

 

[Armoured]

This is your argument? Seriously?

Well, still waiting for you to give the examples that would make your argument, so, you know, maybe provide them before criticising someone else for making similar vague statements.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is your argument? Seriously?

Well, yeah. You haven't got a good case, from what I've seen of what you've presented.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes. Now, are you going to answer the question?

What question do you want answered about DNA evidence for the Bible. Did you click on any of the links in the first post in this thread?

 

[amariselle]

Well, still waiting for you to give the examples that would make your argument, so, you know, maybe provide them before criticising someone else for making similar vague statements.

Here is one example of scientists filling in the gaps in the fossil record in order to support their claims of a common ancestor.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

This is just one example of the lack of complete evidence in science. And yet scientists make the claim that their theories are absolute fact. Because they can't support this claim with ACTUAL evidence, they manufacture their own in a computer.

Yep, hardly trustworthy.

 

[Armoured]

Here is one example of scientists filling in the gaps in the fossil record in order to support their claims of a common ancestor.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

This is just one example of the lack of complete evidence in science. And yet scientists make the claim that their theories are absolute fact. Because they can't support this claim with ACTUAL evidence, they manufacture their own in a computer.

Yep, hardly trustworthy.

No scientist makes that claim, but anyhoo.

 

[Armoured]

What question do you want answered about DNA evidence for the Bible. Did you click on any of the links in the first post in this thread?

I'd like you to answer the question about how you know what the DNA of Biblical figures shows?

 

[Veera Chase]

I constantly say on this forum that there is an overwhelming abundance of Scientific Evidence for the Bible. We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ that covers 4,000 years.

There are trees on earth older than that by about 5000 years.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29879/6-oldest-trees-world
There's one not far from where I live that's 5000 years old.

 

[amariselle]

No scientist makes that claim, but anyhoo.

Actually they do, read the article. Oh, and this one as well, from a highly recognized and reputable institution.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

 

[farout]

I constantly say on this forum that there is an overwhelming abundance of Scientific Evidence for the Bible. We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ that covers 4,000 years. From Adam to Noah to Abraham to David & Solomon all the way to Christ. They were all related to each other and share common DNA. Here are some articles on Aish (leading Jewish content website) that shows some of the research on this. These articles have links to other articles that have even more DNA evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48944786.html

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

Aish is a "Jewish content website" not Christian. Creationists can be Christian, "Jewish" or Muslim - Islam. "Jewish" is actually a slang word for Judea as in Judea - Isreal. Today the Jewish people do not seem to be offended by use of this word the way the Holocaust survivors were offended by the use of the word: Jew and Jewish.

For advanced students: The Scarlot thread: "Rahab is referred to as being the wife of Salmon, one of the two spies she sheltered. In turn, she became the mother of Boaz, who married Ruth from whose son, Obed, Jesse the father of David came, through whose line Jesus was born" This shows one of the many stores that is told in the Bible. Some day the entire human race will have their DNA mapped out on the family tree.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Rahab

Correct me if I am wrong please. When you start a post and it says CHRISTIAN does it not mean only Christians are to post on it. I have been told this several times. However I see these non believers attacking your post. Have things changed? I find these same non believers degrading and belittling believers posts constantly. Please answerer me as I am really wanting to know. Your post is very good.

 

[Armoured]

Actually they do, read the article. Oh, and this one as well, from a highly recognized and reputable institution.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Actually they don't. But whatever.

 

[Armoured]

Correct me if I am wrong please. When you start a post and it says CHRISTIAN does it not mean only Christians are to post on it. I have been told this several times. However I see these non believers attacking your post. Have things changed? I find these same non believers degrading and belittling believers posts constantly. Please answerer me as I am really wanting to know. Your post is very good.

Who attacked his article?

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually they do, read the article. Oh, and this one as well, from a highly recognized and reputable institution.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

I think what Armoured is getting at is that a scientific theory is an explanation of the facts, not the facts themselves, obviously facts are facts and don't need proving. (wow, I said facts so many times it sounds weird now).

 

[Armoured]

I think what Armoured is getting at is that a scientific theory is an explanation of the facts, not the facts themselves, obviously facts are facts and don't need proving. (wow, I said facts so many times it sounds weird now).

Armoured means pretty much what he said. Science doesn't deal in "proven facts" onlly what available evidence suggests.

 

[Larniavc]

Yep, hardly trustworthy.

From your own article.

"Our models are not the exact truth, but in the absence of fossils these new methods can be used to test hypotheses for any palaeontological question, whether it is horses or dinosaurs.

Aurélien Mounier"

What is untrust worthy about this caveat?

 

[Larniavc]

Actually they do, read the article. Oh, and this one as well, from a highly recognized and reputable institution.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Which part of the article do you have issue with?

 

[farout]

Who attacked his article?

The unbelievers. You say you are a Catholic, I would NEVER say that about you.

 

[amariselle]

From your own article.

"Our models are not the exact truth, but in the absence of fossils these new methods can be used to test hypotheses for any palaeontological question, whether it is horses or dinosaurs.

Aurélien Mounier"

What is untrust worthy about this caveat?

Read the rest. Scientists are filling in gaps in the fossil record with computer simulated models.

 

[amariselle]

Actually they don't. But whatever.

Yep, whatever.

 

[Larniavc]

Read the rest. Scientists are filling in gaps in the fossil record with computer simulated models.

While admitting that they are not the exact truth. That's called being transparent. Anyone who reads the article can see that the computer models (by their very nature) are not examples of reality.