1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In God's Image...

Discussion in 'Christianity DIR' started by Hirohito18200, May 5, 2004.

  1. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's why is no surprise Cain married his sister Awan (according to the Book of Jubilees). Compared with with Genesis 5:4 where the account admits Adam had daughters as well (not specified by name in the Bible for reasons I already suggested in this forum somewhere else). The verb "yadhá" in Hebrew means "know by experience", hence in Genesis 4:25 wasn't a case of 'glad to meet you AGAIN darling" but SEX. Everytime there was that "knowing" a child was born. Hence Cain didn't met his wife but had sex with his sister (Genesis 4:17). Please, don't reply or ask other details cos we're gonna go off topic. I'm just mentioning this cos the text in Biblical account and Sumerian account always mentioned the incest which was later on forbidden due to imaginable circumstances. Jewish myths have always known cases of gigantism and dwarfs in Cain's offspring. The case of possible black poliploid hermafrodites with 6 fingers (sometimes giants) can be check in the case of one of the Refaim in 2 Samuel 21:18-22.
    Sorry I gotta work now....
     
  2. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    this is a bit ridiculous.... a human rib can't 'grow again like a lizards tail'... :lol:

    Hematosis is the creation of blood in the bone marrow... but for blood to carry O2 it needs lungs or gills to mix it with the O2 in the first place.... Blood also carrys CO2 wich it picks up in excange from the cells.... without a way to dump the CO2 and pick up fresh O2 the system breaks down... blood also requires a heart to move it though the vessels so that it can reach the cells that need it... no heart and the blood sits still and clots.... your rib would suffocate to death. :roll:
    of cource your rib would also have get energy... since a rib can not break down food into usable form like the digestive system it would quickly run out of energy and starve to death... :roll:

    oh and in responce to your previous message...
    yes, women have just as much hair as men... ours is finer and shorter and thus less noticable... mens hair is thicker and darker... :mrgreen:
    and the reason we still have apes, chikens and sharks and everything 'less evolved' then us is they are adapted for what they do... Humans can't replace any of those species because we cant do what they do... we cant eat the same foods or move as easily in the same environments, so realy they are more evolved for thier lives then we are.
    (try outswimming a shark, outflying a bird or outrunning a horse for example.) 8)

    wa:-do
     
  3. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    First of all, my statement about the rib is not something invented out from my imagination, it's a scientific fact (maybe you're unaware, that's another thing) that's why I specified not removing the periostium which is the fiber tissue around the bone. Of course, everything you say about CO2 is correct, I'm not denying the point. I'm just saying the Hebrew text leaves those things implicit cos specifies the use of a word meaning blood and soul breathing at the same time. As I indicated the text in the Bible doesn't use the word "create" (barah) in Hebrew but "form" or "modelate" from something already existing, so the genetic engineering was performed in the hominds who had already the organs. People have always used the term "adaptation" and confused that with "evolution" as understood by Darwin. Darwin went beyond what was discovered by genetic. He thought the adaptation would be such that a certain specie would eventually become another thing, anphibious becoming birds and then mammals and sometimes again getting back to square one but if you wanna start a discussion about evolution I will be glad to discuss with every little detail, quoting names of known scientists, books, pages and so on until insults keep on coming to me rather than scientific and logic arguments. Your correction about the meaning of hematosis is wellcome though it doesn't change the argument cos the marrow created blood and we know Adam is related both to color red and blood as a Hebrew root. In fact red cells don't have nucleus neither DNA cos of that very process. I don't remember how to write properly something taken out of Greek and I'm in the office and have no time to check in a proper dictionary. I think want I wanted to write was hemostasis or something like this. Can you correct me?
    Too much obliged and thanks for your response.
    I wanted to add our inteligence is not something to be overlooked cos our brain processes 10800 options trough each one of 14 billion neurons and conections. That's more -some have calculated- than the ### of atoms in the universe....
     
  4. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    The anthropic principle of the universe spins around the fact a minimum alteration on physics of the universe would eliminate life. So, Nobel Prize, Steven Weinberg explains the universe is like this cos otherwise there wouldn't be anyone to ask why it is like this. The physic Freeman Dyson wrote the Universe somehow knew we were coming. And the discussion of Stephen Hawkings actually opened more chat about the weak anthropic principle of the universe, as you can read in Hyperspace made by author Michio Kaku, physicist himself.
     
  5. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    A couple of things I forgot to say:
    1) The tail of a lizard doesn't grow again FULL SIZE, so don't expect some ribs are gonna grow the same dimensions.
    2) To compare human hair with thick ape hair is crossed-eye perspective and typical from evolutionist point of view always repeating the same leftover argument about philogenesis and onthogenesis when some "animal parts" change totally and we haven't see EVER an animal expelling excrements from the spine. In that argument although they say resemblance doesn't prove evolution at all, they kept showing the same figures books after books even embryo. A better look would determine in that sense we're more alike to pigs and rabbits than monkeys! Life on this planet uses the same elements but the similarity was always a weak argument.
    Now what shall we talk about? Hyperthricosis as a mutation helping the survival of the most skill?
    Since the very beginning (as scientific fossil evidence clearly shows) mosquitos were mosquitos, sharks were sharks and crocodiles were crocodiles. The missing link is always missing. Wherever you search for a evolutionar gap you'll see the parts are completed, not half constructed. Therefore, since that scientific evidence was against all crap said by evolutionists attributed to Father Chronus time (saying this happened so sloooooow and boring) they invented a new term "macroevolution" saying now, it happened SO FAST that they left no evidence of the change, it was done hocus pocus Copperfield magic! Good thing, now they say that's science and not faith! Please, I beg you, START A THEME ABOUT EVOLUTION even with the best examples of evolution and see how far the rabbit goes into the hole...
    Now, if you wanna discuss about moral, good versus evil, that is another theme.
     
  6. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  7. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  8. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    if it is fact then please post your source so I can check it out...

    well... we've learned a lot since Darwin... we learned about DNA and the forces behind adaptation/evolution(adaptation is quick changes, evolution is the long term effect of many adaptations)... Darwin simply proposed a therory where good genes are passed down from parent to child and bad genes are eleminiated... How did he go byond genetics?

    hemostasis is the process of blood clotting.... now about blood cells... the bone marrow also makes white blood cells... these cells contain DNA... which is why we can test blood for DNA matching. So does the adam argument work with white as well?

    Hyperthricosis- Hyper-many/excessive osis-abnormal condition but what does thric stand for? never heard of this term....

    as for sharks always being sharks have you seen thier fossil record? They had some funky proto-sharks out there.... as well as proto-crocs that were likewise very odd... some eaven herbivorus... both very unlike modern examples.... look at the history of horses for instance.
    now the feathered dinosaurs coming out of china are really interesting...

    as for the idea that aliens geneticaly engineered us... I think thats infinatly more far-fetched than any biological theory :lol:

    wa:-do
     
  9. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    As I said, if you want a discusion about evolution you can open a thread. I already quoted sites but really my references about the ribs I knew from books long ago. Darwin went beyond genetics for the reasons I have already explained clearly. Read again & again until understand. Proto-sharks or proto-crocodiles don't have to be equal as lions are not equal to tigers or kitties, yet the fact is you can't traspass the limits already written in DNA code unless you directly manipulate them. When flies were bombed by gamma rays it wasn't a case of "natural" circumstance but scientists tried unsuccesfully to recreate what nature could've done with external radiation. They did it with flies cos the time they procreate so they calculate the same could happen in X generation of men. The flies had some alterations but didn't went beyond the limits of their species as Darwin expected (and evolutionists faith still wait in vane), flies got back to what they were but never transformed into scorpions or spiders, etc.
    The so-called Eohippus, the ancestral of the horse was probably a daman, an animal who actually exists in Africa. And the finding of some fragments of skeletons doesn't mean they are what paleonthologists interpret they are. Indeed most of animals in the past were giants from cockroaches to birds the size of horses, something that is not explained by gigantism mutation or any other biologist's explanation but something that should be answered by geologists who doesn't even know the forces (the cause) of the division in Pangea sole continent. But, you can keep on posting forever. It's better to open a new thread. The issue here was human's image and God's image and eventually transformed into something else.
     
  10. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    You can check about hirsutism and hypertricosis by internet too. I admit it, I wrote fast and added an H, but if you like to search and investigate in behalf of science you could've check with desire to learn too in behalf of science rather than "jumping" the information, even the links I mentioned. You can always search for yourself too, ask how many experts in surgery have done operations in ribs without taken out the tissue, etc. I have worked with doctors many years of my life and don't think that because they have been many years in the university or in the hospital or clinic they really know everything they should, okey dokey?
    If you think the believing in aliens is narrow minded attitude and set the emoticon of a laughing face, maybe you think Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland and Michio Kaku were and are stupid people too cos they have believed this in spite of all his knowledge and medals and awards in science, not to mention other scientists. Please, write to the scientists saying you (whose name is...?) have declared the idea as absurd.
     
  11. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    i never said I thought the idea of aliens was rediculous... just the idea that they genetically enginered humanity....

    as far as I know Caral Sagan never promoted the idea that aliens made man.... 8)

    niether has Michio Kaku.... 8)

    I personally believe that their is life out there... thats why I run SETI at home.... :mrgreen:

    as for Richard Hoagland well... I'll believe it when he gets real proof.... not a bunch of touched up (brushed up?) photos... Have you seen the new pictures taken in 2001? they eaven got a nice side view... its a mesa... rather dull one really...

    check out....
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
    http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html
    http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hoagie.html
    http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html

    But if aliens did do it then what about the various Hominid species such as the Australopiticines, Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neandertalis ?

    wa:-do
     
  12. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Okey, I like to discuss with you. You're someone who is curious and search. That's positive. I congratulate you. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Sagan and Hoagland in fact teamed together to send Pioneer 10 with mankind message to possible aliens. Sagan in fact had a dubious attitude regarding this, one was the personal and the other was the skeptical image in front of the public.Both of them were closed to Arthur Clark (2001 Space Odysee) as you may be aware. Michio Kaku is reserved regarding his personal point of view but all the examples he did in his book Hyperspace is cos the idea of aliens (he names it Civilization Type I, II, III) is omnipresent in his mind.In fact I sent him a personal letter saying in his examples about Picasso and Dali paintings about hypercubes or Tesseract hyperdimension, he confused the image in the mirror with reality, same mistake done by philosopher Xenophanes he even quoted. Indeed I've been posting in his forum but I was expelled after the moderator couldn't respond my detailed arguments one after another in several issues. They started with ironies and smiling emoticons and then their argument was "this is absurd" with the -expected- general statements without saying what is wrong or why. Really the moderator is an idiot, I'll rather talk with Kaku himself, he's humble enough as we can read between lines in his book.
    More info:
    Mutation happens as an accident and not in organized manner, so evolution had no purpose if it’s based upon mutations. The evolutionist of the century (according to Stephen Jay Gould) was Dr. Dobzhansky who experimented with flies. Mutations is lethal. Are unknown the perfected mutants. The flies which were resistant to DDT are in fact weaker and take more time to develop normally, they are less skilled. Bacteria which are more resistant …due to plasmids (pieces of circular DNA), not because of DNA mutation. The genes don’t change to resist the antibiotic, the solution is already ready from outside. The bacteria resistant to antibiotics in fact are less skilled. Almost 60% of the mutant Echeria Coli resistant to Streptomicine are DEPENDING on it, they don’t grow in areas free from the antibiotic. That means they are destroyed in environment in which required food ain’t available. There are near 6000 genetic diseases set in correspondent genes but no mutation increased the efficacy of a human protein. I won’t use Creationist arguments neither amateur “evolucionist faith”, you need to read Nobel prize winner, biologist researching penicillin , Ernst Chain in his “Was Darwin Wrong?”, 1982, page 50 or let’s say, Dr. Lee Spetner, scientist and professor in John Hopkins University. Not by chance he says “IN ALL READINGS I DID IN SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGY I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE MUTATION WHICH ADDED INFORMATION”, or perhaps you need urgently to read Pierre-Paul-Grasse who thinks pretty much the same. Errors in copies can’t increase information. Graham Cannon in his “The Evolution of Living Things” can help you too.
    About 2500 genes form an eye and not by accident, casual in a chain of happy coincidences in the laws scientists trust without Law Giver (!). in 4,5 billion years. In Basel University, 1995, it was proved a gene of a rat was able to produce eyes in flies, therefore there’s a MASTER GENE which commands all the process in arthropods, squids, mammals, etc. But, how was it possible a gene was in the common ancestral of those animals if the own ancestral didn’t have any eyes???? It was a pre-Cambrian bacteria! It didn’t exist even the complex genetic system. Mutations are rare in a single gene, it’s even worst in various genes simultaneously.
    A Professor in Massachussetts University, Lynn Margulis (respected by the theory of mitochondria once was independent cell) always asks in the conferences to molecular biologists an unmistakable example of a new specie created by accumulation of mutations. ABSOLUTE SILENCE is the response of the collegues. According to biologist George Gaylord, even in favorable conditions of evolution the po-si-bi-li-ty or pro-ba-bi-li-ty (attention attention, theory not fact) of 5 mutations in the same nucleus is 1 in 1022. In a 100 million human beings and the rate of 1 mutation per day for each generation, such “favorable” event it would be expected once every 247 billion years or 100 times the age of the Earth. Such process never existed in nature. Check G.G.Simpson “The Major Features in Evolution”, page 96. You can also read the genetic yoke according to H.J Muller (Radiation Damage to Genetic Material), Christopher Willis, (Genetic Load), Scientific American, Volume 222, March 1970, page 98. Murray Eden in “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, Moorhead & Kaplan, 1967, page 71. Encyclopedia Britannica , 1976 (Mutations).
    Perhaps to 99.9 % of the readers swallowing without checking, it's rather easy to convince them about evolution and Darwinism, etc, etc. I’ll rather use my photographic memory and the files I keep on accumulating to “digest” before swallowing. I don’t wanna throw up after. Ignorance ain’t a sin. Sinner is someone who in spite of being ignorant grabs to its orthodox dogmas repeated in books after books and refuses to learn and to think. Refuses to be curious and asks the ones who think they know. All of us are ignorant in different degrees. Happily you are not an imbecil but keep a "reasonable doubt". Yet, there's a thin layer between being sketpical and cynical.
     
  13. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Before I choose something to post, I do my investigation. Hoagland teamed with Sagan and both are probably the most bright minds of our modern times. Hoagland himself was awarded with the honour of Excelence in Science and gave many conferences at Nasa. So, when you post something done by the "usual" critic is indeed something I'm well aware and doesn't surprise. I have a book about Mars by Pathfinder & National Geographic with spectacular 3D color photos with the 3D lens to look at them and I'm very dissapointed they didn't use the zoom to see better the same photograph Hoagland sets in his site in the page 146, the complete sphinx in front of a pyramid "peak". In page 210 they CHOP OFF the photo to hide the tetrahedron and clear pyramids near the "face". In the next page they chose the worst and blurred black and white photograph out of 11 available at Nasa. The things you're showing me about the alleguedly "eroded mountain" is old news, 3 years old in fact. The new photograph shown by Nasa caused even more controversy when it was discovered it's artificial zoo-anthropomorphic cryptography. When you mirror half of the Western side or the Eastern side you can see faces of animals appear just like the sphinx in Egypt and Sumerian winged bulls and hyvrid creatures in India and in fact colective memory of mankind!
     
  14. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oops! I said hyvrid, it's hybrid.
    By the way, I wrote in Kaku's forum (under my name Oscar) as a physicist he is an awful historian and wrote interesting sites about Mars, specifically in case anybody here is interested. You'll see that lacking arguments, Mr. Moderator just shut down the issue not to make evident Kaku overlooked something.
    www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=13289

    If important geologist found as many as 24 anomalies in Martian soil and recent photos show "artifacts" rather than stones, if Nasa admits they are using red filters (giving the false impression the ground is more red than it is and to hide blue and green areas) , if the sky is "martianized", well, I hope you excuse if I allow myself to be skeptical when a non-private but a government organization like Nasa, send a photograph via satelite all around the world at the same time, via CNN (not Reuters, let's say) for the people to believe their eyes or do the same in Irak and Vietnam and so on until light comes evident and final truth....
    Hoagland put his well deserved academic image in jeopardy facing the sharks and defenders of the partial truth. I suppose you know the Freemasons allowing the baptism of names in astronomic places have explained to you why they choose the name "Cydonia" specifically, haven't they?
     
  15. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I posted 20 sites with photographs about what is on Mars really in that forum (so click to find out and check). I have many more available and of course, I can argue forever about .... well, pick a theme... but I'll rather not, I'll better leave you wishing you good night and being both of us (and the rest of fellows...where did they go?) in peace, armony and perhaps something to think about. If what I say is 1% truth, what I came to share is worth it for me. I'll withdraw. Glad to meet you!
     
  16. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hirohito: good point. we reflect God individually, both Divine and human.
     
  17. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    also, the angels had a choice but only one chance to perfectly reflect Our Creator. As in Revelations, Lucifer falls short of imitating God and is given the 666 mark of the beast. 777 is a number for perfection and 888 symbolizes Our Lord who is more than perfect, he is Divine. Lucifer fell and has hated God and us ever since. he has a fee-wil and his will is to only destroy us. when we sin, we reject God's plan of salvation and fulfill the devil's plan of destruction. Our Lord could sin anytime he wants to, he chose Divinity over perfection.
     
  18. jonjohnrob11

    jonjohnrob11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    God chose Divinity over perfection, chooses it now, and will forever choose it. of course he is perfect and we are absolutely sure he will always be Divine.
     
  19. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  20. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Here's what I get out of it..
    "God is a spirit" -the bible
    Depending on what usage of Image;
    Image=1. image, mental image -- (an iconic mental representation; "her imagination forced images upon her too awful to contemplate")
    2. picture, image, icon, ikon -- (a visual representation (of an object or scene or person or abstraction) produced on a surface; "they showed us the pictures of their wedding"; "a movie is a series of images projected so rapidly that the eye integrates them")
    3. persona, image -- ((Jungian psychology) a personal facade that one presents to the world; "a public image is as fragile as Humpty Dumpty")
    4. prototype, paradigm, epitome, image -- (a standard or typical example; "he is the prototype of good breeding"; "he provided America with an image of the good father")
    5. trope, figure of speech, figure, image -- (language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense)
    6. double, image, look-alike -- (someone who closely resembles a famous person (especially an actor); "he could be Gingrich's double"; "she's the very image of her mother")
    7. effigy, image, simulacrum -- (a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture); "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln"; "the emperor's tomb had his image carved in stone")

    So with the verses "God is a spirit.." and "Create man in our image.." I would bet the farm that in response to your post that God created Spirit in Adam and Eve. God basicly gave "a piece of himself" to the Adam and Eve.
     
Loading...