Scientific Evidence for Creationism-Atempt 1000?

[corvus_corax]

Evidence and your explanation as to how it supports your case.

(emphasis mine)

Simple the YAP Gene is able to indicate who is and who is not a decendant of Aaron, in the Bible.

I still dont see how this supports Creationism (or any derivative thereof).
Note- Im not disputing the DNA evidence itself, but all this shows is that certain people had a common ancestor. It does NOT comment on the creation of the world or universe.

IOW, this DNA evidence of a common ancestor seems to be nothing more than an off-topic tangent

 

[JohnR7]

Indeed!

80% of Europeans population decended from hunter gathers. 20% can be traced back to one women "Jasmine" that lived in the same area that Eve in the Bible lived and Jasmine lived at about the same time that Eve lived.

Among native Europeans, almost everybody can trace their maternal genealogy, using mDNA, to one of only seven women, their ancient clan mother. To give them an identity I have given these women names: Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine and Jasmine. The women lived between 10 000 and 45 000 years ago, six of the seven were hunter-gatherers, the seventh, Jasmine, was an early farmer.http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020876.html

The bottom line is that science shows us that the Hebrew people had a common ancestor that lived when Eve in the Bible was said to have lived, and their common ancestor lived in the part of the world that the Bible says that Eve lived.

Science also shows that this common ancestor was the first farmer. NOT a hunter gather. Again this confirms the Bible that say Adam was to till the ground. This common ancestor also mark the beginning of hurding animals. There is a lot of referance in the Bible to hurding animals. We just do not realize how new of a thing this was back then. People laugh at these stories, but they do not realize this is the first recorded history of people hurding animals. The Bible is history in the making.

 

[JohnR7]

Show us

The Bible tells us that Abraham came from the Anciet city of Ur. This city has been found, and that again verifys the Bible is true.

Ur is known in the Bible as Ur of the Chaldees. This biblical name, Ur of the Chaldees, refers to the Chaldeans, who settled the area about 900 B.C. It is known as the ancient city of the Sumerian civilization and the home of Abraham, father of the Hebrews. Its ruins are between the modern city of Baghdad, Iraq, and the head of the Persian Gulf. The site is now known as Tall al Muqayyar, Iraq. The site of ancient Ur is located 140 miles south of Babylon. It was the capital of a small wealthy empire during the third millennium B.C. Most of the great ziggurat of Ur is still standing.http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/ur.html

 

[JohnR7]

Show us

The Bible tells us about the tower of Babel and the tower the people were building. Archeology shows us that towers of this sort were very common back then and the foundation is still there for some of the bigger ones. Again we have physical evidence showing us the Bible is true.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Simple the YAP Gene is able to indicate who is and who is not a decendant of Aaron, in the Bible.

Your two links don't actually prove what they say they do. They show that each group has a common ancestor, but without DNA from Moses or Aaron there is no way to demonstrate that they were the common ancestors.

This isn't science, its forcing the evidence to fit a desired conclusion.


edit: Fixed a Freudian slip

 

[OdwinOddball]

The Bible tells us that Abraham came from the Anciet city of Ur. This city has been found, and that again verifys the Bible is true.

*Images removed for brevity*

This doesnt prove the Bible true, it proves that Ur existed.

We covered this before. If you are going to insist on this type of faulty logic, then please introduce me to Spiderman, you can find him in New York according to the comic books.

 

[OdwinOddball]

The Bible tells us about the tower of Babel and the tower the people were building. Archeology shows us that towers of this sort were very common back then and the foundation is still there for some of the bigger ones. Again we have physical evidence showing us the Bible is true.

*Image removed for brevity*

Again, this only proves that Babylon existed, and that they could have built a tower.

Just because the Bible mentions a real place or person does not mean the rest of the Bible is true.

I really hope you have soemthing better than what you have presented so far, because this is fairly basic stuff. And, whats worse, it doesn't address the topic at hand. None of this is evidence for Creationism.

 

[JohnR7]

Show us

Abraham hired an ox, Abraham leased a farm, Abraham paid part of his rent, how Abraham might have moved to Canaan.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Abraham hired an ox, Abraham leased a farm, Abraham paid part of his rent, how Abraham might have moved to Canaan.

*Images removed for Brevity*

And your point? Any farmer from the tiem period could have done the same things.

Again, what does any of this have to do with the purpose of this thread, "Scientific Evidence for Creationism"?

 

[JohnR7]

Again, this only proves that Babylon existed, and that they could have built a tower.

So you accept the evidence that shows that this part of the Bible is true. That Babylon existed and that they tried to build a tower there. There goes your no evidence at all arguement.

Just because the Bible mentions a real place or person does not mean the rest of the Bible is true.

That is why I asked how much your willing to read. I will have to show you point by point that the Bible is true.

 

[OdwinOddball]

So you accept the evidence that shows that this part of the Bible is true. That Babylon existed and that they tried to build a tower there. There goes your no evidence at all arguement.



That is why I asked how much your willing to read. I will have to show you point by point that the Bible is true.

Of course parts of the Bible are true, it was written by people living in the Mid East. It describes people and events taking place in the Mid East. If none of the places it described were ever known to have existed noone would ever give it any credibility at all, much less the credibility needed to base a 2000 year old religion on.


Except John, this thread isnt about the Bible, its about Scientific evidence for Creationism. So, get on with the show. Evidence and your explanations for why your view of Creationism is correct.

If you want to try and prove the Bible, move it to GA.

 

[corvus_corax]

Once again, when asked for actual evidence of CREATIONISM (or some derivative thereof), all that is presented is the famous

of "some things in the bible are accurate"

This thread derailment is complete

 

[JohnR7]

Any farmer from the tiem period could have done the same things.

But the DNA evidence shows us that the first Farmer was Hebrew and lived in the part of the world that the Bible says they lived in.

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

 

[JohnR7]

Wrong, any scientific evidence that the Bible is true, is valid. Point by point, line by line, precept upon precept we can prove the Bible is true.

There is not one point in the Bible you can falsify. You have failed to win one point. But everytime I show the Bible is true, I win a point.

Who wants to keep score?

 

[JohnR7]

Of course parts of the Bible are true, it was written by people living in the Mid East. It describes people and events taking place in the Mid East. If none of the places it described were ever known to have existed noone would ever give it any credibility at all, much less the credibility needed to base a 2000 year old religion on.

The point I am trying to make is, when you ask for scientific evidence then you are limited to scientific evidence. Science has it's limitations. Don't blame me that science is limited in what science can do.

I ask you again, do you want scientific evidence or not? I can give you all you want. They have been working on this for hundreds of years. It use to be front page stuff in the newspaper everytime someone came up with scientific evidence for the Bible. So there is a LOT of it.

 

[JohnR7]

Except John, this thread isnt about the Bible, its about Scientific evidence for Creationism. So, get on with the show. Evidence and your explanations for why your view of Creationism is correct.

Ok, what do you mean by creationism? Do you mean you want to talk about Astronomy? That is not Darwin and that is not Evolution. Do you mean you just want to talk about the first chapter in the Bible? That does not include Adam and Eve or civilization? That would be prehistory. Is that what you want to talk about?

 

[corvus_corax]

You have failed to win one point. But everytime I show the Bible is true, I win a point.
Who wants to keep score?

That's why you're on this thread?
Point-scoring?
Bad form John

Besides, the point of this thread is not to demonstrate that some of the bible is histrically accurate. You are providing nothing but red herrings when you state that Ur actually existed, or that there is DNA evidence for the existence of Abraham (or some such progenitor).

The point I am trying to make is, when you ask for scientific evidence then you are limited to scientific evidence. Science has it's limitations. Don't blame me that science is limited in what science can do.

I ask you again, do you want scientific evidence or not?

Re-read the thread title-
"Scientific Evidence for Creationism"

Now, if you have any scientific evidence for Creationism, please present it. I'd love to see it. Thus far you have not provided an iota of scientific evidence that Creationism is accurate.

 

[OdwinOddball]

But the DNA evidence shows us that the first Farmer was Hebrew and lived in the part of the world that the Bible says they lived in.

Enh, Wrong. You are forcing the evidence to fit your conclusion.

The DNA evidence shows that Hebrews have a common ancestor. It traces this ancestor to roughly 3300 BC.

Farming however, started roughly 10000BC. By 8500BC farming was already being practiced beyond the Mid East. By the time of creation acording to the Bible(roughly 4000BC) Farming was well established. Farming is the reason society developed. Farming allowed people to stop wandering, and settle down in communities.

Farming further straified society, creating a strong divison of labor. This division of labor is what allowed non-survival occupations to develop. Occupations such as merchant, which led to the development of writing as a means to engage in business. THe Arabic letters we use today started off as symbols for farming transactions. A for example started with a longer, up-curved cross bar, resmbling the head and horns of an aurochs, the ancestor of modern cows.


So while you can possible make the argument that this common Ancestor is Aaron(though its not really verifiable, it isn't beyond reason), you can certiajnly not say he invented farming.

Nor does this help in establishing the Bible as the word of god.

Nor is it even germaine to the topic of this thread!

References:

The History of Farming

Wiki on The Neolithic Revolution
^Includes additional references

 

[OdwinOddball]

The point I am trying to make is, when you ask for scientific evidence then you are limited to scientific evidence. Science has it's limitations. Don't blame me that science is limited in what science can do.

I ask you again, do you want scientific evidence or not? I can give you all you want. They have been working on this for hundreds of years. It use to be front page stuff in the newspaper everytime someone came up with scientific evidence for the Bible. So there is a LOT of it.

We want scientific evidence for your views on Creationism. Yet, all you seem to want to do is demonstrate evidence for various and sundry places and people in the Bible.


Are you going to ever get to the evidence for Creationism? If so, then yes I want to see it. If not, then no, Im not all that interested indiscussing the historical accuracy of the Bible in this thread.


I will make one comment on this. You never want to acknowledge this point but thats ok, I understand why you can't, as it would mean acknowleding that Christianity might be wrong, and that you might be living a lie.

Just because the Bible mentions real places and people does not make the Bible as a whole true, nor does it in any way evidence any of the divine incidents in the Bible. I wouldn't care if the Bible included a 100% accurate map of Jeruselam that was verifed by Archeological evidence, it still wouldn't prove that Jesus was the son of god, walked on water, converted water to wine, or died and rose form the grave 3 days later. In other words proving historical portions of the Bible do not prove Christianity correct.

So stop using Biblical references to historical places as evidence, it doesnt help your position.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Ok, what do you mean by creationism? Do you mean you want to talk about Astronomy? That is not Darwin and that is not Evolution. Do you mean you just want to talk about the first chapter in the Bible? That does not include Adam and Eve or civilization? That would be prehistory. Is that what you want to talk about?

It really is pretty simple

The title of the Forum is:

"Creation & Evolution"

So talk about Creation. If that involves Adam and Eve in your views, then go for it. Present the sceintific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve in the Bible and how they establish your creation myth as true.

Or whatever it is you do believe. This isn't about my version. its about putting forth Scientific evidence for your views on Creationism.

If there is no sceintific evidence for Creation, if it all comes down to faith, then this a moot point. If so simply say so.