- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,845
- 8,376
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You just mentioned several stories from the Bible that you don’t believe. I guess you could say you believe parts of the Bible?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You just mentioned several stories from the Bible that you don’t believe. I guess you could say you believe parts of the Bible?I do believe in the Bible. I believe in the messages it puts across, the stories and lessons it tells and how they reflect human nature both in the past and the present and very likely the future. I believe in the hope and joy it can bring.
I do not accept that I have to follow a strict, 100% literal reading of the Bible as 100% infallible and 100% perfect and accurate is needed to believe in God. And I've never been given a good, genuine reason why I should other than "But you must!" from a weird section of American Christians.
Lol that test was conducted on a population that came from two people. They haven’t proved anything. And on top of that they started it in 1990.Except that we can test it. The study of human genetics and DNA has been a massive undertaking. It was called the Human Genome Project.
You just mentioned several stories from the Bible that you don’t believe. I guess you could say you believe parts of the Bible?
Lol that test was conducted on a population that came from two people. They haven’t proved anything.
Ok then explain how this test proves that the human race didn’t derive from two people.It really was not. And it's also clear from your answer that you really do not understand how genetics works.
Ok then explain how this test proves that the human race didn’t derive from two people.
You’d have to have the DNA from people who lived before the flood to see a “bottleneck”. How are they going to see that only studying people for the last 30 years?As I said: there are no genetic bottlenecks, which would show that our genetic diversity was literally just two people. It would also show that we would all be literally everyone's half-brother or half-sister, since Adam and Eve's children reproduced with each other.
You’d have to have the DNA from people who lived before the flood to see a “bottleneck”. How are they going to see that only studying people for the last 30 years?
You don’t know what the DNA sequence should look like without something to compare it to. You’re just making stuff up now.As I said: there are no genetic bottlenecks, which would show that our genetic diversity was literally just two people. It would also show that we would all be literally everyone's half-brother or half-sister, since Adam and Eve's children reproduced with each other.
You don’t know what the DNA sequence should look like without something to compare it to. You’re just making stuff up now.
I know that they have to study the code to understand it and the only code we have available to study is the code that came from two people. You’re making predictions about DNA sequencing over the last 6,000 years based on 30 years of data which is nothing.Again, you clearly have no idea how genetics works. Like, at all.
I know that they have to study the code to understand it and the only code we have available to study is the code that came from two people. You’re making predictions about DNA sequencing over the last 6,000 years based on 30 years of data which is nothing.
Oh so then you must know what Noah’s DNA sequence looks like? Or Abraham’s? Or Moses’?I actually do. You however do not.
Oh so then you must know what Noah’s DNA sequence looks like? Or Abraham’s? Or Moses’?
That DNA coding would be so fragmented that they barely have anything left. They can’t possibly have the full sequence after that long because of decay.Oldest ever human genetic evidence clarifies dispute over our ancestors
Genetic information from an 800,000-year-old human fossil has been retrieved for the first time. The results from the University of Copenhagen shed light on one of the branching points in the human family tree, reaching much further back in time than previously possible.
So you're definitely wrong about that.
You can’t look at their DNA sequences because it wouldn’t be preserved and would be so fragmented and contaminated beyond recognition.Where are their bodies so we can see their personal DNA sequences?
As I said: there are no genetic bottlenecks, which would show that our genetic diversity was literally just two people.
That DNA coding would be so fragmented that they barely have anything left. They can’t possibly have the full sequence after that long because of decay.
You can’t look at their DNA sequences because it wouldn’t be preserved and would be so fragmented and contaminated beyond recognition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?