The Book of Revelation Unlocked

We now have proof that humans arrived after an Act-of-God causes the mutation of 2 ape chromosomes in a fetus to fuse together.
The 24 Ape chromosomes became 23 chromosomes inside the first human to evolve:

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

You're sounding a little desperate there!

Sorry, but I'm talking science. And, science has NO belief about God at all in ANY way. So, your "atheism detector" is failing.

And, your nonsense about atheism being a religion is pathetic. There is a huge difference between having an opinion about the existence of a supernatural being and following a religion. Isn't that one of the chief problems of the Christian community in the US - the fact that so many show no more than an opinion about god, as opposed to following their religion?

And, the only reason this country is considered Christian is that over half the population claims to be Christian. It isn't as if our constitution was Christian in any way. There is no reason that the fact of having a Christian majority should change the behavior of any atheist.

 

Science does not explain that, by definition, a Creator was that Observer which was necessary to collapse the very first zillions of Wave Functions which then formed the Matter and Space/time to contain it.

It may not be in their interest, nor even their desire, to say this is a factual Creator they have proposed here, but it is.
Nevertheless, Scientist proposed alternative Multiple World Theories, immediately after the Copenhagen Interpretation was stated, (which stated that an Observer must collapse every Wave Function before it will materialize),

 

According to you, Facts do not exist and can not be defined.
So nether then does a Reality exist common to us all.
You are saying that we each can live in what ever personal reality we perceive.

Hence you define the idea of Fantasies, based upon the lies we all tell ourselves.
That is the definition of madness, isn't it?
Living in our own fantasy World is insane??

 

Atoms were the meaning of what was translated as "clay."
That was exactly what had happened.

Inside the wimb, the atoms of the two chromosome fused together.
The baby that was born had only 23 chromosomes, while all other Apes have 24 Chromosomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

But the Hebrew word which has been translated as "days" can actually mean half a day, a duration appropriate to the story being told, or an Age, etc.

Remember, in Gen 1:14, on the 4th "day," god creates the solar clock to keep time.
Hence, to assume the first seven "days" were not Ages is erroneous thinking.

 

Its a creation myth... and its specific stating "the morning and the evening"...

 

This kind of genetic event is known. Chromosomes are not that stable and can break and reattach in nature in both plants and animals. There can be other kinds of genetic reproductive anomalies that aren't fatal and enter the permanent gene pool.

Obviously, you can claim anything you want as an "act of God". In fact, in law "act of God" is often what is used to describe any event unrelated to immediate human intervention - a tree falling, a flood, an earthquake, whatever. "God" is just part of our common terminology for those things for which we don't have an immediate explanation.


Plus, you and jrr777 have some work to do to reconcile your very different ideas of God & creation. Jrr777 is trying to convince me that man is totally unrelated to other life forms, having been created from "clay" in one act of miraculous pottery - as it says in the Bible!

You need to teach jrr777 your tricks of reverse engineering the Bible to fit science.

 

?
The Higgs particle is a force field which can materialize other bosons into matter.
That is where and why matter exists.

That seems very much to be part of the Big Bang Event, when before there was no Matter, but afterwards, the universe appeared.

 

..."the famed boson's grand and controversial nickname, the "God Particle," has kept media outlets buzzing. Then again, the intriguing possibility that the Higgs boson is responsible for all the mass in the universe rather captures the imagination, too. "

http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson.htm

 

Wrong again. I have shown a definition of 'fact' which shows that 'fact' can be defined. Fact also does exist in the mind of the individual(s).

Why do you suppose some non-theists have asked Theists what is their perspective or 'world view'? Because they also recognize that each person will have a differing view of the world (reality).

Apparently, based on what you have written immediately above, it is how you are defining the "idea of Fantasies". I have made no such claim.... but you have ....

Ironically there are many definitions of 'madness' but none of them mention a 'fantasy World'. Here is one set of such definitions, though there are many more available:
"mad·ness
n.1. The condition of being mentally deranged.
2. Great folly: It was sheer madness to attempt the drive during a blizzard.
3. Enthusiasm; excitement: the madness of Mardi Gras.
4. Archaic Fury; rage."

So, according to you and your choice relating "madness" to be to define "the idea of Fantasies, based upon the lies we all tell ourselves.", would be the equivalent of saying that all Football 'fans' would be suffering from 'madness', thus living in their own fantasy world of insanity or that they are mentally deranged.... or perhaps you were speaking of scientists who are enthusiastic or filled with excitement about some tentative acceptance of a new discovery.

 

That is your theory.
It seems to make sense to you.
you do not believe that the mutation inside the genes could immediately evolve a new creature with no other in between organisms occurring.

Geneticists say YOU are wrong here.

 

Let’s play a game. It’s called: “How can we tell when something is satire?”
To begin with…
The Wyoming Institute of Technology isn’t a real place. (Don’t confuse it with the Wyoming Technical Institute, which is.)
The websites for most institutions of higher learning don’t have ads from Comedy Central in their sidebars.
Bob Jones University isn’t a place where credible scientists work.
If you click on the name of the author, Dr. Richter DasMeerungeheuer, it takes you to a URL with the name BryanS.
The article includes the line, “Linguistic professors at Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor…,” so you know right there it’s a joke.
It goes on like this for a while. The writers basically took a page from the Answers in Genesis playbook: If you include a lot of big words and make it sound like actual science, gullible people will believe anything you say.
Which brings us back to your relatives on Facebook. I appreciate the satire and I hate breaking the spell… but I hope anyone who receives a link to this scientific “breakthrough” can write back and debunk it immediately.

 

Of course Truth identifies Facts.
And lies identify falsehoods.

You are foolishly saying that when we all agree on seeing a fact the same way, it doesn't exist or is not true.

The dictionary tells us that you are just wrong here:


fact
[fakt]
noun
something that actually exists; reality; truth:

 

Facts are things people do see.
Their senses recognize an experience which results from some act which has occurred.
Modern Science says that, if the same things are repeated, and everyone sees the same effects, this is a fact.

Then we say the fact is a truth.
It indicates something about Reality, itself.

 

It was the "morning of the Hadean Era," followed by the "evening of the Archean Era."

 

I am glad you understand that by an Act-of-God, the first human with 23 chromosomes appeared 7 million years ago.
But Genesis genealogy then continues, after Gen 5:2, and says that 22 kinds of mankind followed Adam, and went extinct:




Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, (a species to us), in the day when they were created.

 

We can all have different perspectives about what we might think Reality is like.
These are NOT the Reality but our opinions about it.

In spite of what you or I, or others may say Reality is in our opinion, it does not change the one Reality which actually exists.

Science has been discovering Facts which everyone can see for themselves.
They use these facts together to propose what are Laws of Nature.
Their intent is to describe Reality for us.

Religious people today are still holding to medieval ideas about Reality, and refusing to accept the Facts as science discovers them.
They make the Bible appear to be about some fantasy they have described in Middle Age language.

 

Then you are saying positively that the "theory" which you have labeled as my "theory" is incorrect. Well, your assertion is a positive assertion which requires proof of claim. Show proof that evolution will allow such sudden changes to take place within an almost immediate transition in skull structure of the anthropoid skull which would have a long lasting effect upon all other anthropoids of the time.

Such a change would be effective only upon the specimen being affected... not the entire race. As an example .. a modern mother can give birth to a child suffering with a hydroencephalocele condition, however, that one child is unlikely to cause the entire race not having that condition to become extinct and at the same time instantaneously create a new species.

Then show PROOF... meaning show enough evidence or argument that is capable of compelling my mind that your assertions are true. That is one of your biggest problems.. you make all sorts of outlandish claims, but have never (to my knowledge) offered any PROOF of any of your claims.

 

No. I am saying that you, me, nor anyone else can see facts. Facts are something within the mind... fact... something believed to be true or real.

"fact
n.

2.c. Something believed to be true or real:"

So it appears that we don't agree on definitions. Now who is using the correct definition, me, you or someone else? As can be seen by my choice of definition (also taken from a standard dictionary), your claim that the dictionary proves me 'wrong' is grossly in error. Do you believe the definition you selected to be true or real?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

If you don't believe in "facts, Truth, or Reality," then ever fantasy is valid for everyone who has one.

I believe in one Reality which Truth can reveal to me and set me free of fantasies.

 

LOLOL.. You are kidding me.

The Hadean is the first geologic eon of Earth and lies before the Archean. It began with the formation of the Earth about 4.6 billion years ago ....

 

That word "recognize" restated as "re-cognize" means that you are availing yourself to the memory of things previously experienced (including the things that you have been told by others). So in 'fact' what you are experiencing during that period of 'recognition' is nothing real, but only an association with memory. Now. Was that memory ever proven to be real/true? Well, so and so said it was real/true. Well, my inadequate senses tell me that it is real/true. But did you truly/really analyze whether or not it was real/true? All the hype you have presented about real/true has not been proven. What is real? What is 'true'? Those are philosophical questions which I am pretty certain that you are not prepared to answer with and through an intelligence that cannot be refuted. If, as an example, I declare that I believe something to be true/real, in spite of my lack of physical evidence or philosophical reasoning to show proof to you, that something can still be real/true within my frame of reference. It was not you that had the experience, therefore, your questioning of its validity means nothing to my POV: Your attempt to refute the validity of that something that I have deemed to be real/true means nothing unless you can present something that is more compelling to my mind to cause me to alter my perception of that something.

 

Then go ahead and expound on what you THINK is that "one Reality which actually exists". Make sure that it is not a part of your perception of what you think that "one Reality which actually exists" is.

Science has been discovering nothing. People discover things. Science is a concept and as such has no inherent power to do anything of its own volition, because it has no volition to begin with.