The XY chromosome. Electron microscopes sure do ruin analogies, don't they?
Posted on 02/27/2009 9:47:03 PM PST by Steelfish
Rib: “leg” taken off of man’s other X chromosome, making him XY. Moses and his readers might have a bit of a time understanding the concept of chromosomes.
Hahahahaha! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in years!
I didn’t know the Hebrews used the Greek alphabet before the Greeks even invented theirs.
I’m a creationist, but I find these articles about finding the Garden of Eden silly. If you accept the Garden of Eden as being factual, you have to accept the world wide flood as being factual. The flood would have destroyed the original Garden of Eden. Additionally, the four rivers named before the flood would not be the same rivers we see today. Those rivers would be new rivers that carried the name of the old one. Everything that existed before the flood was destroyed.
Has nothing to do with the “alphabet”, chromosomes have a shape, and when they were finally seen, they looked like a pair of X’s, except in the male, one “leg” (or rib) was “missing”.
You can laugh all you want, but you should look in the mirror while doing it.
Clearly not. What seems to be going on here is (as usual) the archaeologists have assumed that societal conditions were the same over broad expanses -- hunter-gatherer in one place means hunter-gatherer everyplace.
A huge, fixed temple complex is a sign of settled life. The stones are carefully dressed, which implies the presence of experienced stone masons and the tools required to perform their craft. The stones are stacked, which implies not only big machinery, but also the people to operate it. In short, it requires a settlement of substantial size and fairly advanced technical ability. It also implies that there was some means to feed and water the population over a long period. A hunter-gatherer society would not be able to sustain it.
While the site may pre-date known writing, the pictures themselves are clearly symbolic -- the clear precursor of alphabetic language.
This is very sophisticated stuff -- it moves the line back for those things by a long way.
bttt
That was my point. Neither are in the realm of science. You preach the religion of atheism. Your faith is in evolution.
And your condescending tone did not speak well of someone whose seems to believe your ancestry thus has progressed from non-talking snakes, to chimps, to posting here.
I don’t call you an idiot although your faith is in evolution. Please consider returning the favor.
And if we can ever get access to Ararat, let’s go check out Noah’s Ark once and for all.
The XY chromosome. Electron microscopes sure do ruin analogies, don't they?
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
Looks like something was taken from the second part of the pair to me.
But, if you’re content with your “Genesis is bunk” worldview, and seek to be the corner guy throwing rocks, feel free.
The article is fascinating. What's really odd about it, though, is that the author (and presumably the scholars who work the site) insist that the folks who built it must have been hunter-gatherers who got together occasionally to set up a stone, and only settled down later.
That makes very little sense: the stones are very well-dressed and carefully assembled. The artwork is very sophisticated. It implies tools, transport, and culture far beyond what we have typically observed among hunter-gatherers. In short, the existence of this site suggests a that some folks had already been living a settled lifestyle.
This site probably stands to change a lot of theories about how societies formed in the distant past.
Cool article.
How come whenever some ancient structure is found, they always think it is some kind of temple?
Maybe it was a tavern.
:-)
How come whenever some ancient structure is found, they always think it is some kind of temple?
Maybe it was a tavern.
What baffled me was, I read the article and was totally enthralled and then when I returned to the thread to read the comments I saw one sentence long expressions of white hot anger.
I just assumed that an article like that would draw a lot of archaeology fans that would discuss the find and from whom I could learn something from, unfortunately there was little of that, instead the mention of the Garden of Eden set off a lot of unrelated frothing and outraged anti religious outbursts.
The anger at the hunter gatherer speculation was almost the same, it seemed to be angry and personal.
To me this site was unique, and some here agreed with that and some didn’t and they expressed their reasons, but many also just seemed to explode in outrage that the site might be different than any other site, such as the speculation that hunter gatherers might have been driven to build the site and then started farming to feed that drive rather than the usual assumed pattern, after all that is why this site is so intriguing, it doesn’t fit the patterns.
As someone that doesn’t see many of these threads I was disappointed to see how insignificant and baggage laden the follow up discussion on this thread was.
I would love to see a new thread where just you and the few other serious guys had a deeper discussion about the site.
Here is a decent short article on the site, without all the sensationalism, pseudoscience and projection...
That is the article already linked to in post 14.
humanists and new age religion ... that tells us we are god; and are the supreme ones according to how we are elevated by our knowledge of the principles, god put in place for people to use ... that works for you
It is completely a creation of thought ...
Or are you simply atheist?
“Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.”
Of course you can’t. Your atheism is based on your faith in evolution and an underlying hate of God. To believe and advocate such a faith is your option. To claim it is science is not scientific. Your atheism is a religion, a belief system.
Desperate evolutionists in the past have resorted to Frankenstein-ish tricks beyond your ‘hair-brained’ bald logical fallacy... like Piltdown Man.
The alternative to playing Dr. Frankenstein like that—is to at least acknowledge one’s own faith in some worldview, which is the foundational premise for all other assumptions and actions, conscious or not. Then one can productively consider the assertions of the Bible and their validity.
Genuinely Biblical people who revered the sanctity of life did not give us Auschwitz or the Soviet gulags. Or Terri Schiavo or Planned Parenthood. Euthanasia? Fetal Stem Cells? Godless atheists or warped minds twisting out-of-context principles for sick ends. There’s your Frankensteins.
Atheism is humane like bald is a hair color.
Blaming the lack of belief in an imaginary entity for all that is like blaming gravity for an aircrash.
Truly it has been said and I quote,
“The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God.’”
We’ve all been there. Some repent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.