[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

I found this video that uses science, of all things, to prove that everyone on earth is descended from one man and one woman who lived about 6000 years ago.

You'll want to mute the volume on your computer before you play this video, because it uses devil music for the soundtrack. I don't know why that is. That doesn't make any sense unless the video was supposed to be a parody of creationist views.

If that's the case, then it is a failure because it makes a very strong case for creationism, and whatever subtle parodic intent was there is completely lost in the swarm of evidence.

[Kornissues9]

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

I found this video that uses science, of all things, to prove that everyone on earth is descended from one man and one woman who lived about 6000 years ago.

You'll want to mute the volume on your computer before you play this video, because it uses devil music for the soundtrack. I don't know why that is. That doesn't make any sense unless the video was supposed to be a parody of creationist views.

If that's the case, then it is a failure because it makes a very strong case for creationism, and whatever subtle parodic intent was there is completely lost in the swarm of evidence.

Pastor, Thats my Video, go on "more from kornissues9" and you'll see more video's from me, if you have no noticed the owner of the video "kornissues9" is also my name on this.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Originally Posted by Kornissues9

Pastor, Thats my Video, go on "more from kornissues9" and you'll see more video's from me, if you have no noticed the owner of the video "kornissues9" is also my name on this.

That's excellent work, but what's the deal with the devil music? Is it some misguided attempt to get the unsaved to sit still long enough to pay attention?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Kornissues9]

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

That's excellent work, but what's the deal with the devil music? Is it some misguided attempt to get the unsaved to sit still long enough to pay attention?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Well its quite relaxing and comforting at the beggining of the music until it kicks in, its just to keep their attention a video with no music and just writing isnt exactly going to keep you entertained much is it.

And its not really the devils music, although i can see why but the band are not devil worshipers, although i agree A LOT of bands are into that.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Kornissues9

Well its quite relaxing and comforting at the beggining of the music until it kicks in, its just to keep their attention a video with no music and just writing isnt exactly going to keep you entertained much is it.

And its not really the devils music, although i can see why but the band are not devil worshipers, although i agree A LOT of bands are into that.

Impressive stuff, but I'm with Pastor Billy-Reuben on the music side - something soothing is more conducive to attention - Hey but as you see, I'm not exactly 18 years old any longer.

[JennyD]

Very interesting, Korneater. Have you responded to any of the comments on the page? Like this one:

WeedGreenPowerRanger (2 days ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam

0:30: Thats a cell, not mitochonria DNA.

1:14 EPIC FAIL. African Eve was the first human. There weren't other women walking around pregnant, they were all 48 chromosome apes.

1:31: "They used a new clock in a new study and do you know what? The eve that we all go back to, using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."

Wow, you just pull numbers out of your ass on ALL your videos dont you? Where do you derive these calculations?

I'd be most interested to hear your responses. Especially about this "new clock". Was it a Timex, perhaps, and the old one a Sunbeam? After all, Timex is much more reliable. Takes a licking, they say, and keeps on ticking.

[LyingDingDong]

I did not see any evidence in that video to suggest that everyone women came from Eve.

First off let's explain why the mitochondria could be traced back to one woman. Mitchondria is different than any other organelle in the cell. Mitchondria has its own DNA and its function is to synthesize ATPs with the help of food molecules. Mitchondria, along with chlorophyll, are the leading evidences to the endosymbiotic theory, the origin of the eukaryotic cell. During fertilization the mitochondria in the egg cell is the only mitochondria present within the cell, because sperm do not carry any mitochondria (that the offspring inherits). This means that mitochondria has done no genetic recombination ever since the creation of the eukaryotic cell. That means that the mitochondria found in a human, a dog, or even a plant, would be very identical.

You don't elaborate on the new clock. So, I will say that it's wrong.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by LingBlingDingDong

I did not see any evidence in that video to suggest that everyone women came from Eve.

First off let's explain why the mitochondria could be traced back to one woman. Mitchondria is different than any other organelle in the cell. Mitchondria has its own DNA and its function is to synthesize ATPs with the help of food molecules. Mitchondria, along with chlorophyll, are the leading evidences to the endosymbiotic theory, the origin of the eukaryotic cell. During fertilization the mitochondria in the egg cell is the only mitochondria present within the cell, because sperm do not carry any mitochondria (that the offspring inherits). This means that mitochondria has done no genetic recombination ever since the creation of the eukaryotic cell. That means that the mitochondria found in a human, a dog, or even a plant, would be very identical.

You don't elaborate on the new clock. So, I will say that it's wrong.

I read your fine, $10 words right up to the end - then you write "very identical".

LBDD - "very identical" is like "very dead" or "very extinct". Something is either identical or it is not.

I note all your argument is based upon a "theory". A theory is unproven. You accuse us at Landover on basing our trust in God's Word on something, which in your view alone, is based upon something which is unproven.

You can't have it both ways.

Thus you appear to me to be someone who is trying to sell me a boat, which you assure me is seaworthy, yet it has a few holes in it.

I think that for the time being you will have to accept that Eve existed.

[LyingDingDong]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

I read your fine, $10 words right up to the end - then you write "very identical".

LBDD - "very identical" is like "very dead" or "very extinct". Something is either identical or it is not.

I note all your argument is based upon a "theory". A theory is unproven. You accuse us at Landover on basing our trust in God's Word on something, which in your view alone, is based upon something which is unproven.

You can't have it both ways.

Thus you appear to me to be someone who is trying to sell me a boat, which you assure me is seaworthy, yet it has a few holes in it.

I think that for the time being you will have to accept that Eve existed.

Ow. Your irrational reasoning just hurt me.

I say very identical, because the mitochondria could have mutated slightly by various point or substitue mutations. But the overall structure and function is unchanged.

A theory is a best explained testable model of a natural phenomenon. Saying that God did it is not a theory, fact, or law. It is a hypothesis that is not tested and can never explain any phenomena.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Ow. Your irrational reasoning just hurt me.

They say the truth hurts…

I say very identical, because the mitochondria could have mutated slightly by various point or substitute mutations. But the overall structure and function is unchanged.

I think the word you are looking for is, “similar” or, as a phrase, “bears remarkable similarities.”

A theory is a best explained testable model of a natural phenomenon. Saying that God did it is not a theory, fact, or law. It is a hypothesis that is not tested and can never explain any phenomena.

Ah, in the 6,000 or so years that the earth has been here, God’s Law has been tested and found correct thousands of times. It is unchanging and will continue to be shown to be true and accurate.

[LyingDingDong]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Ah, in the 6,000 or so years that the earth has been here, God’s Law has been tested and found correct thousands of times. It is unchanging and will continue to be shown to be true and accurate.

What is God's Law, tell me how it has been tested.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by LingBlingDingDong

What is God's Law, tell me how it has been tested.

As usual you ask a question so wide ranging that it would take several books to explain the answers – fortunately the answers are available to you in one book (albeit not always with an explanation) The Bible. So your first job is to read it – and read the KJV1611, it is inerrant.

The Bible tells of the
The Flood
The parting of the Red Sea
Extinction of the dinosaurs
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
The prohibited degrees of marriage
The ten commandments
Dietary laws and the production of toxins (Later amended by Christ, who knew of basic hygiene)

The reasons behind these were not know to your so called scientists until the 18th C. onwards but all is laid out in the Bible.


The Bible explains life, disease, famine, global warming, the weather, gravity, the universe, etc., etc.

[Robbie]

Am I the only one who finds this "science" rather unnerving? The Lord should not be tested as He was at Massah:

"they [the Israelites] tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?"

Exodus 17:7

"Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah"

Deuteronomy 6:16.

In questioning or scientifically investigating the existence of Adam and Eve, we are questioning Genesis 1 and 2 (which describe God's creation of Adam and Eve), and so we are in turn questioning the Word of the Lord. Does not this mean we are questioning God Himself? Is this not the same as "tempting" the Lord? Is this, in effect, us asking "is the Lord among us, or not?"?

Pastors of our most holy church, I seek your guidance on this matter.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Ah, now here is a question that Pastor Ezekiel would have enjoyed answering. His answer would have been pithy, direct and germane, in his regrettable absence, mine is more prolix:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Am I the only one who finds this "science" rather unnerving?

May be, may be not

The Lord should not be tested as He was at Massah:

"they [the Israelites] tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?"

Exodus 17:7

"Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah"

Deuteronomy 6:16.

There is questioning by way of temptation, e.g. “Would you like this? Then do this.” and questioning by way of learning, e.g. “Why would The Lord cause bastards to be cripples?”

LBDD above, seeks knowledge – he is an unreconstructed follower of science, yet we are working to save his very soul.

Was not the Ministry of Christ to explain and offer Salvation to the heathen, the ignorant and misled? Did He come not to call the sinners rather than the righteous?

In questioning or scientifically investigating the existence of Adam and Eve, we are questioning Genesis 1 and 2 (which describe God's creation of Adam and Eve), and so we are in turn questioning the Word of the Lord. Does not this mean we are questioning God Himself? Is this not the same as "tempting" the Lord? Is this, in effect, us asking "is the Lord among us, or not?"?

Not at all, for clearly the Lord does reveal His Mysteries to us over the ages and we all stand in amazement as our simple Faith has, yet again, been shown correct. Our faith is thus refreshed and renewed, we know we are of the Elect and that sinners will be drawn to His Word and Salvation.

[LyingDingDong]

But what if God's worst isn't true.

This is how I see it: I don't believe in God's word (the Bible) because there is little evidence to support it. You do believe in God's word even though there is little evidence to support it. You believe because you were indoctrinated. Done.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by LingBlingDingDong

But what if God's word isn't true. .

What if? What if? What if this is all a dream and I will wake up on a cloud in the Eternal City never having heard of LBDD? OK, that’s that one disposed of.

This is how I see it:

I remind myself at this point that you are unlikely to say anything that Landover has done its very best to teach you.

I don't believe in God's word (the Bible) because there is little evidence to support it.

No, because you twist and rail at every proof set before you. Even you are not going to say that the Word of God, as laid out in KJV1611 is entirely and utterly false. You are at least going to agree that there are some historical facts in it. Thus your belief and my belief are merely matters of degree.

You do believe in God's word even though there is little evidence to support it.

You will not be surprised if I say that The Bible has been the source of much pleasure. In Faith, there is no need for evidence, although, as I said above, as His mysteries are revealed, there is satisfaction.

You believe because you were indoctrinated. Done

Strange as it may seem, that is not so. My early background shows no trace of religion of any sort.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Ah, now here is a question that Pastor Ezekiel would have enjoyed answering.

Poor, misguided Pastor Zeke. He showed so much promise! So much knowledge of the Word! And yet it was all a SHAM. How could he have done this to us? Still, if he will admit his sins and ask Jesus for forgiveness, Ezekiel is not yet beyond redemption.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Am I the only one who finds this "science" rather unnerving? The Lord should not be tested as He was at Massah"

Now that you mentione it, I think there is some tempting of the Lord going on with all of this so-called science.

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

That's excellent work, but what's the deal with the devil music? Is it some misguided attempt to get the unsaved to sit still long enough to pay attention.

Kornguy, I agree with the great, and newly promoted, Pastor Billy-Reuben, well done, even if the music is poorly selected. However, I think you should be more careful next time in attributing an African origin to Eve. Everyone knows that the Garden of Eden was in Southwest Asia, not Africa.:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 2 Genesis 10-14

[LyingDingDong]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

What if? What if? What if this is all a dream and I will wake up on a cloud in the Eternal City never having heard of LBDD? OK, that’s that one disposed of.

Oh that is a persuasive argument. Clearly God must exist and the Bible is all truthful. Just to make it very clear, sarcasm is a form of humor.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

No, because you twist and rail at every proof set before you. Even you are not going to say that the Word of God, as laid out in KJV1611 is entirely and utterly false. You are at least going to agree that there are some historical facts in it. Thus your belief and my belief are merely matters of degree. You will not be surprised if I say that The Bible has been the source of much pleasure. In Faith, there is no need for evidence, although, as I said above, as His mysteries are revealed, there is satisfaction.

Just because there exists some truth in the Bible, doesn't mean that the Bible can be taken literally. There exists truth in Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean I believe in witchery.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Strange as it may seem, that is not so. My early background shows no trace of religion of any sort.

Then you are a very gullable person.

[Robbie]

Poor misguided one, how could you liken the Bible to Harry Potter books? Setting the Lord Jesus alongside a conjurer of cheap tricks? The answer stares you in the face: the Bible is the Word of God, the all-knowing and all-perfect; Harry Potter is the word of a slightly wrinkly 40 year old woman (i.e. imperfect, subordinate not only to God, but to men as well) who is surely bound for Hellfire for encouraging witchcraft in the babies, children and mentally challenged of the world.

Ezekiel Bathfire made reference to the historical facts that even Satanists, Catylicks and Atheists must accept merely to stop you dismissing the whole Book straight off. If you can accept these historical facts easily enough (and you seem to, but how do you know they are true, given that you are of little Faith), then perhaps you should look once more at the rest of the Good Book.

I would like to thank Ezekiel Bathfire for clearing up the matter of whether this "science" malarky is actually a heresy or not, I am greatly indebted to you. My Faith in God is, of course, unshaken, and no amount of "science" or "proof" or "logical impossibility" could ever shake that Faith; but at the same time, I do believe there should be a limit to how far we test the Lord. His Word is perfect and needs no testing.