Pyramids and the flood

[Diamond72]

I disagreed

Because you did not understand what I am saying.

I asked you if you really meant that science teaches such a common ancestry

First lets look at Aaron and then we can go back to Abraham from there.

Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular "Kohen", also spelled "Cohen"). According to the traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible, this ancestor was Aaron, the brother of Moses.

While some early genetic studies were seen as possibly supporting the traditional biblical narrative, this view was subsequently challenged with some researchers arguing that the genetic evidence "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times."[1][2] However, studies in 2017 and 2021 have provided further support for the model of descent from a common ancestor.[3][4]

The original scientific research was based on the hypothesis that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim share a pattern of values for six Y-STR markers, which researchers named the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH).[5] Subsequent research using twelve Y-STR markers indicated that nearly half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim shared Y-chromosomal J1 M267 (specifically haplogroup J-P58, also called J1c3), while other Kohanim share a different ancestry, such as haplogroup J2a (J-M410).[6] The latest studies using single nucleotide polymorphic markers have further narrowed the results down to a single sub-branch known as J1-B877 (also known as J1-Z18271).[3][4]


does science teach common ancestor

Yes, science, particularly the field of evolutionary biology, teaches the concept of a common ancestor. The idea is that all living organisms on Earth share a common ancestry and have evolved over billions of years through the process of natural selection and genetic variation.

Key Concepts:​

Universal Common Ancestor:​

• Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): Scientists propose that all current life forms descend from a single-celled organism called LUCA, which lived approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.
• Evidence: This is supported by similarities in genetic material (DNA and RNA) and fundamental biological processes shared by all life forms.

Phylogenetic Trees:​

• Tree of Life: Scientists use phylogenetic trees to map the evolutionary relationships between different species. These trees illustrate how different species have diverged from common ancestors over time.
• Genetic Evidence: Advances in genetics and genomics have allowed scientists to compare DNA sequences across species, providing strong evidence for common ancestry.

Fossil Record:​

• Transitional Fossils: The fossil record contains numerous examples of transitional forms that show gradual changes between different groups of organisms, supporting the idea of common descent.
• Fossil Evidence: Fossils of ancient organisms help scientists understand how species have evolved and how they are related to each other.

Modern Understanding:​

• Evolutionary Theory: The theory of evolution, first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, is the cornerstone of modern biology. It explains how species evolve over time through natural selection and genetic variation.
• Genomic Studies: Modern genomic studies continue to provide evidence for common ancestry, showing that all life is interconnected through shared genetic heritage.

The concept of a common ancestor is a fundamental principle in the study of life sciences, illustrating the interconnectedness of all living organisms.

 

[David Lamb]

Because you did not understand what I am saying.

First lets look at Aaron and then we can go back to Abraham from there.

Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular "Kohen", also spelled "Cohen"). According to the traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible, this ancestor was Aaron, the brother of Moses.

While some early genetic studies were seen as possibly supporting the traditional biblical narrative, this view was subsequently challenged with some researchers arguing that the genetic evidence "refutes the idea of a single founder for Jewish Cohanim who lived in Biblical times."[1][2] However, studies in 2017 and 2021 have provided further support for the model of descent from a common ancestor.[3][4]

The original scientific research was based on the hypothesis that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim share a pattern of values for six Y-STR markers, which researchers named the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH).[5] Subsequent research using twelve Y-STR markers indicated that nearly half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim shared Y-chromosomal J1 M267 (specifically haplogroup J-P58, also called J1c3), while other Kohanim share a different ancestry, such as haplogroup J2a (J-M410).[6] The latest studies using single nucleotide polymorphic markers have further narrowed the results down to a single sub-branch known as J1-B877 (also known as J1-Z18271).[3][4]


does science teach common ancestor

Yes, science, particularly the field of evolutionary biology, teaches the concept of a common ancestor. The idea is that all living organisms on Earth share a common ancestry and have evolved over billions of years through the process of natural selection and genetic variation.

Key Concepts:​

Universal Common Ancestor:​

• Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): Scientists propose that all current life forms descend from a single-celled organism called LUCA, which lived approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.
• Evidence: This is supported by similarities in genetic material (DNA and RNA) and fundamental biological processes shared by all life forms.

Phylogenetic Trees:​

• Tree of Life: Scientists use phylogenetic trees to map the evolutionary relationships between different species. These trees illustrate how different species have diverged from common ancestors over time.
• Genetic Evidence: Advances in genetics and genomics have allowed scientists to compare DNA sequences across species, providing strong evidence for common ancestry.

Fossil Record:​

• Transitional Fossils: The fossil record contains numerous examples of transitional forms that show gradual changes between different groups of organisms, supporting the idea of common descent.
• Fossil Evidence: Fossils of ancient organisms help scientists understand how species have evolved and how they are related to each other.

Modern Understanding:​

• Evolutionary Theory: The theory of evolution, first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, is the cornerstone of modern biology. It explains how species evolve over time through natural selection and genetic variation.
• Genomic Studies: Modern genomic studies continue to provide evidence for common ancestry, showing that all life is interconnected through shared genetic heritage.

The concept of a common ancestor is a fundamental principle in the study of life sciences, illustrating the interconnectedness of all living organisms.

I must humbly apologise! The misunderstanding was entirely my fault. In replying to your post 187, I seem only to have taken note of your words, "YEC says Abraham is the common ancestor," and ignored (unintentionally, I assure you) the sentences before and after that: "Everyone in the Middle East share a common ancestor." "Science tends to verify that the Hebrews and the Muslims come from the same common ancestor." You were clearly talking about people in the Middle East, not the whole of humanity. I am so sorry for wasting your time and for clogging up this thread.

 

[Diamond72]

You were clearly talking about people in the Middle East, not the whole of humanity.

For Theistic Evolutionists, Science confirms that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. Science does not confirm YEC, so they have to deny science rather than come to a better understanding of God's message in the Written Word of God. Science confirms that Adam, Eve & Noah were all real people with a real Eden and flood. In fact, our Biology Book tells us a lot about Eden. AI helps us a lot to decode and understand science because DNA and Genetics can be difficult to comprehend.

 

[Aaron112]

Pride goeth before destruction. False science, or any trust in science, brings a curse or curses.

 

[Diamond72]

Pride goeth before destruction. False science, or any trust in science, brings a curse or curses.

I would not be alive if it were not for science. So you are going to have to ask God why HE uses Science to keep me alive. Perhaps Science brings Him more honor and glory than the deniers do. Of course, God can do much more for us than Science can. He has answers and solutions that science does not have.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up of rude and insulting or flaming posts.
Keep it civil. ​

 

[Doug Brents]

People can decide if they want to educate themselves or not. We can use the scientific method to study the Bible. WE can also use the rules of Bible interpretation that we learn in Bible College. They will not conflict with each other. There is a great deal of harmony between the Bible and Science because God uses both. Many people find that faith and reason can coexist, with religious beliefs offering meaning and purpose, while science provides a deeper understanding of how the natural world operates. This integrated approach can enrich both spiritual and intellectual lives.

I absolutely agree, but "science" (and our understanding of what we see) must ALWAYS take a backseat to Scripture and what is written. We must NEVER allow our interpretation of what we "learn" through science to become our foundation and adjust or change what God has told us in His Word. He and His Word are always the foundation, and science either corroborates Scripture or our understanding of science is faulty.

 

[Diamond72]

I absolutely agree, but "science" (and our understanding of what we see) must ALWAYS take a backseat to Scripture and what is written.

That is a double edge sword. There is no error in the Bible so the Bible always sets the standard. But there is a lot of error in the attempt of people to understand and explain the Bible. For me this is like our left and right hand. There is harmony and agreement with Science and the Bible.

Science comes up with crazy ideas also when they study the fossils and all the natural evidence that God gives us. God wants us to know what He is doing and from our perspective what He has done.

 

[Doug Brents]

That is a double edge sword. There is no error in the Bible so the Bible always sets the standard. But there is a lot of error in the attempt of people to understand and explain the Bible. For me this is like our left and right hand. There is harmony and agreement with Science and the Bible.

Science comes up with crazy ideas also when they study the fossils and all the natural evidence that God gives us. God wants us to know what He is doing and from our perspective what He has done.

When properly understood, science will always agree with Scripture. But it is the Scripture that is the immovable foundation, and our understanding of science must ALWAYS conform to what Scripture says. Science's "crazy ideas" must ALWAYS be thrown out if they disagree with what Scripture says.

 

[Diamond72]

When properly understood, science will always agree with Scripture. But it is the Scripture that is the immovable foundation, and our understanding of science must ALWAYS conform to what Scripture says. Science's "crazy ideas" must ALWAYS be thrown out if they disagree with what Scripture says.

Jesus often warned about the dangers of following traditions and rules in a way that neglects the true spirit of faith and love. Here are a few passages where He addresses this:

1. Mark 7:6-9 (NIV): "He replied, 'Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules." You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.' And he continued, 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!'"

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus often warned about the dangers of following traditions and rules in a way that neglects the true spirit of faith and love. Here are a few passages where He addresses this:

1. Mark 7:6-9 (NIV): "He replied, 'Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules." You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.' And he continued, 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!'"

How does this in any way impact the primacy of Scripture over science?

 

[River Jordan]

I absolutely agree, but "science" (and our understanding of what we see) must ALWAYS take a backseat to Scripture and what is written.

On a personal level, sure. If that's how you want to operate that's certainly your choice.

But hopefully you're not saying that scientists must do that. Science has to be as objective as possible.

We must NEVER allow our interpretation of what we "learn" through science to become our foundation and adjust or change what God has told us in His Word. He and His Word are always the foundation, and science either corroborates Scripture or our understanding of science is faulty.

History shows that can be a mistaken approach. The Catholic Church firmly believed that scripture depicted a stationary earth and persecuted scientists for concluding otherwise. But in the end, it turned out their interpretation of scripture was wrong and the science was right.

Wise Christians will remember that and try and not repeat the mistake.

 

[Diamond72]

How does this in any way impact the primacy of Scripture over science?

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Doug Brents]

On a personal level, sure. If that's how you want to operate that's certainly your choice.

But hopefully you're not saying that scientists must do that. Science has to be as objective as possible.

Much of "science" is subjective, not objective. An observed phenomenon should never be interpreted in a way that contradicts what Scripture says. For example, Scripture says that the Earth was created in 6 days, God rested on the seventh day, and Adam, having been created on the sixth day, died 930 years later. Counting from there, we can date the Earth at very close to 5923 years old. Any "scientific" finding that dates the Earth at more than that must automatically be suspect, for it would violate what we are told in the more authoritative/foundational information we have.

History shows that can be a mistaken approach. The Catholic Church firmly believed that scripture depicted a stationary earth and persecuted scientists for concluding otherwise. But in the end, it turned out their interpretation of scripture was wrong and the science was right.

Wise Christians will remember that and try and not repeat the mistake.

What the catholic cult did has no bearing on truth. I am forbidden by site rules from saying what I think about the catholic cult, but their interpretation of Scripture has been shown to be faulty, even blasphemous, on many counts. Yes, we must always seek the proper interpretation of Scripture, and enforce our interpretation in love, not violence. But the Scripture must always be foundational and our scientific observations interpreted through the lens of Scripture.

 

[Doug Brents]

I was agreeing with you.

My apologies.

 

[River Jordan]

Much of "science" is subjective, not objective. An observed phenomenon should never be interpreted in a way that contradicts what Scripture says.

That's the opposite of how science is supposed to work. Of course if you think think doing things that way would produce better results, you're always free to give it a try and show the world how your approach works better.

For example, Scripture says that the Earth was created in 6 days, God rested on the seventh day, and Adam, having been created on the sixth day, died 930 years later. Counting from there, we can date the Earth at very close to 5923 years old. Any "scientific" finding that dates the Earth at more than that must automatically be suspect, for it would violate what we are told in the more authoritative/foundational information we have.

Nope, that's not how science works. That would be like Mormons demanding that historians discard all conclusions that don't align with the Book of Mormon.

One of the biggest strengths of science is that anyone can do it, be they Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, atheist, etc., and the general rule in science is you follow the evidence wherever it leads. And if it just happens to contradict something some people believe, that doesn't matter.

What the catholic cult did has no bearing on truth. I am forbidden by site rules from saying what I think about the catholic cult, but their interpretation of Scripture has been shown to be faulty, even blasphemous, on many counts. Yes, we must always seek the proper interpretation of Scripture, and enforce our interpretation in love, not violence. But the Scripture must always be foundational and our scientific observations interpreted through the lens of Scripture.

Well you're free to believe all that, but unless you actually go out and show how doing science the way you describe produces better results, that's all it'll ever be.

 

[Doug Brents]

That's the opposite of how science is supposed to work. Of course if you think think doing things that way would produce better results, you're always free to give it a try and show the world how your approach works better.


Nope, that's not how science works. That would be like Mormons demanding that historians discard all conclusions that don't align with the Book of Mormon.

One of the biggest strengths of science is that anyone can do it, be they Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, atheist, etc., and the general rule in science is you follow the evidence wherever it leads. And if it just happens to contradict something some people believe, that doesn't matter.

Most of the things "science" has discovered are not referenced in Scripture in any way, so there is no conflict possible. But what I am referring to is things like the age of the Earth. "Science" tries to tell us that the Earth is multiple billions of years old, and that all life descended from one protoplasmic ooze that developed (contrary to "science") into a living organism, and then (again contrary to "science") that one organism developed along multiple paths creating multiple forms of offspring, and they continued to produce differing offspring to result in the multiplicity of life we have today (including all of the extinct species of plant and animal life). But a corn seed NEVER produces wheat, and apples NEVER fall from cherry trees, and a giraffe is never born from a lion, or a puppy born from a lizard. Science will tell you that these things can NEVER happen, but then they will tell you that over billions of years in a gradual process, that is exactly what happened.

But Scripture tells us that the world was created (made from nothing not formed from some massive explosion of some already existing thing that exploded) in six days and those six days occurred 5924 years ago. And that all of the life on the planet was made distinct and fully formed within those six days. And that one plant or animal breeds to form that same plant or animal, and they NEVER produce something other than what they are.

As for the "book of mormon" (or any other "religious" text other than the Bible), they are not inspired by God (but the Bible is). Those other works are the works of man, and spiritually speaking are not worth the paper they are written on. But the Bible is the operators manual written by the Creator to tell His creation how to use the world He created.

 

[River Jordan]

"Science" tries to tell us that the Earth is multiple billions of years old, and that all life descended from one protoplasmic ooze that developed (contrary to "science") into a living organism, and then (again contrary to "science") that one organism developed along multiple paths creating multiple forms of offspring, and they continued to produce differing offspring to result in the multiplicity of life we have today (including all of the extinct species of plant and animal life).

Correct, because that's where the evidence leads. Scientists must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of what anyone believes.

But a corn seed NEVER produces wheat, and apples NEVER fall from cherry trees, and a giraffe is never born from a lion, or a puppy born from a lizard. Science will tell you that these things can NEVER happen, but then they will tell you that over billions of years in a gradual process, that is exactly what happened.

No, that's not even close to right. But I suspect the actual science doesn't matter that much to you.

But Scripture tells us that the world was created (made from nothing not formed from some massive explosion of some already existing thing that exploded) in six days and those six days occurred 5924 years ago. And that all of the life on the planet was made distinct and fully formed within those six days. And that one plant or animal breeds to form that same plant or animal, and they NEVER produce something other than what they are.

That's one interpretation among many. The good thing is, our salvation isn't dependent on how we interpret Genesis, so you and I can disagree in our interpretations and still be fellow Christians.

As for the "book of mormon" (or any other "religious" text other than the Bible), they are not inspired by God (but the Bible is). Those other works are the works of man, and spiritually speaking are not worth the paper they are written on. But the Bible is the operators manual written by the Creator to tell His creation how to use the world He created.

I think you missed the point, but that's okay.

 

[Doug Brents]

Correct, because that's where the evidence leads. Scientists must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of what anyone believes.

Which is why we need a foundation, a source, that tells us the truth about what "science" observes. Because the misinterpretation of the "evidence" can lead to some very wrong conclusions.
Take for instance the concept of carbon dating (or just about any other method of dating objects). Carbon-14 dating assumes a consistent origin level of carbon-14, with a consistent decay rate. But if the origin level of carbon was much lower, then the apparent age of the object is seen to be much older than it really is.

No, that's not even close to right. But I suspect the actual science doesn't matter that much to you.

So you think that a wheat crop can grow from planting corn seeds? Or worms grow from planting tomato seeds? Or a cricket can lay an acorn? Hmm. That contradicts even what "science" tells us is possible.

That's one interpretation among many. The good thing is, our salvation isn't dependent on how we interpret Genesis, so you and I can disagree in our interpretations and still be fellow Christians.

Our salvation depends on our trust in God. And a person who disputes the Word of God (which includes Genesis) cannot be said to trust in God. There is only one way to interpret six days of one evening and one morning each. And Scripture gives the ages of the father that each successive generation was born at, and tracing that we can accurately date the Earth at 5924 years. There is, again, only one way to interpret Adam being 130 years old when Seth was born, and Seth being 105 when Enosh was born, etc.

Reference	Generation	Name	Age at son	Further Age	Total Age
Gen 5:3	1	Adam	130	800	930
Gen 5:6	2	Seth	105	807	912
Gen 5:9	3	Enosh	90	815	905
Gen 5:12	4	Cainan	70	840	910
Gen 5:15	5	Mahalalel	65	830	895
Gen 5:18	6	Jared	162	800	962
Gen 5:21	7	Enoch	65	300	365
Gen 5:25	8	Methuselah	187	782	969
Gen 5:28	9	Lamech	182	595	777
Gen 5:32	10	Noah	500	450	950
Gen 11:10	11	Shem	102	500	602
Gen 11:12	12	Arphaxad	35	403	438
Gen 11:14	13	Salah	30	403	433
Gen 11:16	14	Eber	34	430	464
Gen 11:18	15	Peleg	30	209	239
Gen 11:20	16	Reu	32	207	239
Gen 11:22	17	Serug	30	200	230
Gen 11:24	18	Nahor	29	119	148
Gen 11:26	19	Terah	70	135	205
Gen 21:5	20	Abram	100	75	175
Gen 25:26	21	Isaac	60	120	180
	22	Jacob	88	59	147
	22.1	1-Reuben
	22.2	2-Simeon
Exo 6:16	22.3	3-Levi - 137			137
Exo 6:18	22.3.1	Kohath - 133			133
Exo 6:20	22.3.1.1	Amram - 137			137
	22.3.1.1.1	Aaron
	22.3.1.1.2	Moses

I think you missed the point, but that's okay.

Then please enlighten me as to your point. Because what I heard you saying was that traditions and what people think must take a back seat to "science" (with which I agree), but the Bible is not "tradition" and it is not what man thinks, but what God told us is the truth. So science must take a back seat to the Bible.

 

[River Jordan]

Which is why we need a foundation, a source, that tells us the truth about what "science" observes. Because the misinterpretation of the "evidence" can lead to some very wrong conclusions.

Or, if one is interested in a particular aspect of science, they can make the effort to learn as much as they can about it and evaluate it on its own merits.

Take for instance the concept of carbon dating (or just about any other method of dating objects). Carbon-14 dating assumes a consistent origin level of carbon-14, with a consistent decay rate. But if the origin level of carbon was much lower, then the apparent age of the object is seen to be much older than it really is.

No, that's not really accurate. But does that matter to you?

So you think that a wheat crop can grow from planting corn seeds? Or worms grow from planting tomato seeds? Or a cricket can lay an acorn? Hmm. That contradicts even what "science" tells us is possible.

No, that's not even close to correct.

Our salvation depends on our trust in God.

Exactly. It doesn't depend on which interpretation of Genesis you favor.

And a person who disputes the Word of God (which includes Genesis) cannot be said to trust in God. There is only one way to interpret six days of one evening and one morning each. And Scripture gives the ages of the father that each successive generation was born at, and tracing that we can accurately date the Earth at 5924 years. There is, again, only one way to interpret Adam being 130 years old when Seth was born, and Seth being 105 when Enosh was born, etc.

And there's the problem. You're trying to say that if anyone has a different interpretation than you, they therefore don't trust God. But your interpretations aren't God, are they? So it is possible to disagree with you while still trusting God.

Then please enlighten me as to your point. Because what I heard you saying was that traditions and what people think must take a back seat to "science" (with which I agree), but the Bible is not "tradition" and it is not what man thinks, but what God told us is the truth. So science must take a back seat to the Bible.

The point is, when scientists do their jobs and carry out scientific investigations, they have to be as objective as possible. And that means they can't try to make all their findings fit your personal interpretation of scripture, my personal interpretation, or anyone else's. They can't try and make their findings fit anyone's personal beliefs period.

So they do their work and publish their results. Then it's up to each of us to decide what we want to do with those results. If you want to reject them, that's your choice. But you can't demand that they change their work to accommodate your personal beliefs.