No one ever started a war over Wicca

[TaxAHCruel]

compared them to atheist-driven wars?

 

I am not aware of any "atheist driven wars" at all. You do know the difference between correlation and causation don't you? I am beginning to doubt you do. Using your level of "thinking" for example I can cite for you quite a number of "Mustache driven wars".

[taiko]

I am not aware of any "atheist driven wars" at all. You do know the difference between correlation and causation don't you? I am beginning to doubt you do. Using your level of "thinking" for example I can cite for you quite a number of "Mustache driven wars".

 

There are few situations in which people will go to war to stop others from practicing a faith. In one case the Cristero War in Mexico an atheist leader decide to enforce the social democratic passed laws against the public performance of Catholic sacraments and in response to fight for their religious rights a war did break out. Now some may blame the priest and lay Catholics for pushing the war but a case can be made that an atheist in charge of the powers of state drove the war to get rid of Catholicism in Mexico in the early 1920s.

[M30USA]

Evidence of this? I'd like to see it myself. Do you have evidence of their sins? That justify genocide? It's fun to see you justify it like a fish flapping out of water.

 

Considering your derogatory tone, I almost considered not responding. But I will, more for the same of others on this thread.

 

Here are just a few examples of races or discoveries which, according to science, are partly "modern human" and partly "unknown":

 

Neanderthals

Denisovans

"Ata" mummy (91% human, 9% unknown)

"Starchild" skull (half human, half unknown)

 

The problem that modern science is discovering is that we no longer know what to classify as "human". Are Neanderthals human? Yes and no. They seemed like a distinct race up until recently when we discovered they interbred with modern humans and 3% of modern human DNA contains their genes.

 

You will notice that, with the recent discovery of "Ata" mummy, the specialists at Stanford were very cautious to not say it was fully human. They said it contains 91% modern human DNA, 9% unknown DNA. He said its closer to human than it is chimp, but not completely human.

 

So basically we have several pieces of evidence where beings or races are not entirely modern human, yet they contain much modern human DNA. Why are so few people considering that at least SOME of this DNA might be from outside earth? (That's precisely what the Bible says.)

[M30USA]

The DNA portions of the above-mentioned species that are "unknown" are called unknown because there is zero match for any species on earth in the NIH database. This leaves only 2 options: 1) the unknown portion is not from earth, or 2) they are from earth species that we have no awareness of.

[pureinheart]

Considering your derogatory tone, I almost considered not responding. But I will, more for the same of others on this thread.

 

Here are just a few examples of races or discoveries which, according to science, are partly "modern human" and partly "unknown":

 

Neanderthals

Denisovans

"Ata" mummy (91% human, 9% unknown)

"Starchild" skull (half human, half unknown)

 

The problem that modern science is discovering is that we no longer know what to classify as "human". Are Neanderthals human? Yes and no. They seemed like a distinct race up until recently when we discovered they interbred with modern humans and 3% of modern human DNA contains their genes.

 

You will notice that, with the recent discovery of "Ata" mummy, the specialists at Stanford were very cautious to not say it was fully human. They said it contains 91% modern human DNA, 9% unknown DNA. He said its closer to human than it is chimp, but not completely human.

 

So basically we have several pieces of evidence where beings or races are not entirely modern human, yet they contain much modern human DNA. Why are so few people considering that at least SOME of this DNA might be from outside earth? (That's precisely what the Bible says.)

 

So this is real. Until your post I had always written these "part human, part unknown" off as a plot to credit evolution. Thanks M30:)

 

Thanks to this discussion, I've definitely learned a lot...

[pureinheart]

There are few situations in which people will go to war to stop others from practicing a faith. In one case the Cristero War in Mexico an atheist leader decide to enforce the social democratic passed laws against the public performance of Catholic sacraments and in response to fight for their religious rights a war did break out. Now some may blame the priest and lay Catholics for pushing the war but a case can be made that an atheist in charge of the powers of state drove the war to get rid of Catholicism in Mexico in the early 1920s.

 

Given the state of affairs now, I'd say this will replay itself.

[UpwardForward]

So this is real. Until your post I had always written these "part human, part unknown" off as a plot to credit evolution. Thanks M30:)

 

Thanks to this discussion, I've definitely learned a lot...

 

But couldn't have happened if not begun with Human flesh.

[M30USA]

And you've learned bogus factoids if you listen to M30. See above. Mitochondrial DNA proved those things are human or human branched offspring. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about any of the items M30 has listed, and none of his speculation is accepted as anything beyond crackpot science denial.

 

Both the Ata mummy and starchild skull are proven to have a human mother. The father is the only thing in question. If you compare this to Scripture, it lines up. The "sons of God" (angels) "came in unto the daughters of men and begat children by them". Human mothers, non-human fathers. But in the sense that we were created in the image of God and his angels, it therefore follows that their DNA (if in fact it does exist) would be passed off as human. How could you tell the difference? This is the conundrum of the current situation. Everyone says there is no proof of alien DNA. Well what if alien DNA is human-like! You'd have NO way of proving it!

[pureinheart]

But couldn't have happened if not begun with Human flesh.

 

LOL, I should have worded my post a bit different. I thought Neanderthals were fake, that they never existed...and yep, you're right! Your bold is my bold too:love::love:

[pureinheart]

And you've learned bogus factoids if you listen to M30. See above. Mitochondrial DNA proved those things are human or human branched offspring. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about any of the items M30 has listed, and none of his speculation is accepted as anything beyond crackpot science denial.

 

Hey ED!

 

I must admit, I trust what M30 says, especially science issues. Having read many of his writings, I do believe he knows what is what where science is concerned and many Bibical matters, especially if the two coincide.

 

My wording leaves a lot to be desired love and my comprehension is even worse- I discounted the existance of Neanderthals completely, now I understand how and why they really did come into existance.

 

For those that do believe in Evolution- I meant no disrespect:o

 

ED, you and M30 walk in scientific realms that I simply can't touch. LOL, I don't even understand what the two of you discuss half the time (unfortunately)...BUT, if you guys ever want to discuss Space Shuttles, and certain engineering points ...I could go there:)

Edited May 11, 2013 by pureinheart

[pie2]

Godwin's law

 

And, we have a special law on this forum: the 'UFO Law'...it's always only a matter of time.

 

(M30...you know who I'm talking about )

[pureinheart]

And, we have a special law on this forum: the 'UFO Law'...it's always only a matter of time.

 

(M30...you know who I'm talking about )

 

Pie, you are too cute!

[taiko]

There are few situations in which people will go to war to stop others from practicing a faith. In one case the Cristero War in Mexico an atheist leader decide to enforce the social democratic passed laws against the public performance of Catholic sacraments and in response to fight for their religious rights a war did break out. Now some may blame the priest and lay Catholics for pushing the war but a case can be made that an atheist in charge of the powers of state drove the war to get rid of Catholicism in Mexico in the early 1920s.

 

Given the state of affairs now, I'd say this will replay itself.

 

Maybe someplace like Egypt or Turkey were the more secular are in a low intensity conflict with the more fundamental Muslims now gaining power in government. Although for political reasons I doubt if any will identify themselves as atheist like Mexican President Calles did in order to have greater public support.

[TaxAHCruel]

There are few situations in which people will go to war to stop others from practicing a faith.

 

Another correlation-causation failure in your "reasoning" here. The same one M30 is trying so hard to make.

 

What you have in these cases is people trying to implement a regime based on something where religion is seen as the enemy of their goals and hence to be suppressed or destroyed. One does not even have to be an atheist to engage in this. If you declare war on a religion there will be repercussions.

 

What people like yourself and your cohort are failing entirely to do however is adumbrate a causal link from atheism to wars or violence. How does one get from the statement "I see no reason to think there is a god" to "therefore I must oppress my people and instigate a dictatorship and regime in my country with me as a god at the top".

 

These people are not enforcing atheism. They are enforcing state religions and personality cults.

 

The problem that modern science is discovering is that we no longer know what to classify as "human".

 

It is not that modern. And it is not confined merely to humans. Evolution is such a slow process. We like to label things but often those labels have no clear boundaries. It is similar to trying to identify the exact point where "orange" stops and "red" begins in a rainbow. It can not really be done. But that does not mean we can not usefully use the labels "Red" and "Orange".

 

Similarly while it is true that it is impossible to identify a point where "Human" began and whatever was before ended.... that does not negate the usefulness of the label in our discourse. The reason you will not get people defining things as "Fully human" for you is because there is no such thing. Depending on what one defines as "Human" even you and I are not "Fully human". What definition are we using? How do we measure divergence from that definition?

 

Labels are great things. We need them. But we must use them in constant awareness of their limitations in scope and accuracy.

 

What any of this has to do with the topic of the thread however is truly beyond me.

 

Why are so few people considering that at least SOME of this DNA might be from outside earth?

 

Many people are considering it. It is a working hypothesis. But substantiation for it is thin on the ground. Do not mistake lack of acceptance for a hypothesis as being synonymous with lack of consideration of the hypothesis. Such an error would only further belie your clear battle with understanding of science.

 

I do believe he knows what is what where science is concerned and many Bibical matters, especially if the two coincide.

 

Not a belief I share I am afraid.

[pureinheart]

Maybe someplace like Egypt or Turkey were the more secular are in a low intensity conflict with the more fundamental Muslims now gaining power in government. Although for political reasons I doubt if any will identify themselves as atheist like Mexican President Calles did in order to have greater public support.

 

Taiko, I haven't kept up with the politics in Mexico, so this is quite the shock. I've always assumed that Mexico was/is mostly Catholic.

[Eve]

Hey ED!

 

I must admit, I trust what M30 says, especially science issues. Having read many of his writings, I do believe he knows what is what where science is concerned and many Bibical matters, especially if the two coincide.

 

My wording leaves a lot to be desired love and my comprehension is even worse- I discounted the existance of Neanderthals completely, now I understand how and why they really did come into existance.

 

For those that do believe in Evolution- I meant no disrespect:o

 

ED, you and M30 walk in scientific realms that I simply can't touch. LOL, I don't even understand what the two of you discuss half the time (unfortunately)...BUT, if you guys ever want to discuss Space Shuttles, and certain engineering points ...I could go there:)

 

I just remember being pissed at the full title during my studies. It reads - 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

 

Many argue in high tones about the biology behind evolution but I can certainly see the angle of writers who look at how Darwin was actually presenting a racial argument for the supremacy of the white race over people of colour. In his second title, 'The Decent of Man', he makes this distinction yet clearer. Research it.

 

.. Although I already knew this anyway because of the history of his era, it just sickened me somewhat to think of the justifications being made so explicitly, alongside plant life etc But such is life.

 

He isn't my hero.

 

Take care,

Eve x

Edited May 13, 2013 by Eve

[M30USA]

The starchild DNA is not in question. It's mitochondrial DNA sequence matched a typical Native American DNA sequence for males, namely Haplogroup B. There is no evidence of any form of non human DNA in the samples. The skull looked weird strictly due to hydrocephalus. It wasn't some X-Files monster of the week.

 

Hydrocephalus was the initial suspicion. It has been ruled out by more medical examiners.

 

And you are not correct about the DNA. It's mother was human. It's father is unknown.

[M30USA]

Fair enough, it specifically may have been ruled out. But, your explanation is much more complex. Let's also not forget the following, all of which can have similar outcomes we see in the starchild skull:

 

Hydrochephaly, Progeria, Crouzon Syndrome and Brachycephaly.

 

Let's also not forget that it is constructed of standard calcium hydroxyapatite, better known as mammalian bone structure.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm correct, you're just choosing to buy into a hoax. DNA testing at Vancouver's BOLD showed standard X and Y chromosomes, indicating a male human father and female human mother. Moreover, Trace Genetics, who are experts in ancient DNA extraction did the mitochondrial DNA tests, proving the mitochondrial haplo group of C to be consistent for the child. The second human found at the site was haplogroup A, proving both are of native american origin.

 

There is absolutely nothing to prove this is an alien. Abnormal yes. Human yes. Explanation does not require aliens or god. But this is all OT, and should be brought into another thread.

 

The fact is that 50% of the starchilds skull DNA is not registering in the NIH database. The same thing applies to the Ata mummy (though only 9% of that one doesn't match). The same is true of Neanderthals. The same is true of Denisovans.

 

You say there is "no alien DNA". But please tell me WHAT EXACTLY alien DNA would be and HOW would you know if you found it?

 

My contention is that aliens--at least the kind that mingled with our genes--are pretty much similar to us. This would therefore mask any "non-earth-human" DNA so that we could be staring it in thr face and still not recignize it. It would look either human or "unknown but somewhat human"--which is exactly what the evidence is showing for Ata mummy, starchild skull, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

 

You see? Unfortunately this is the problem for not only YOU but ME. Nobody knows what, if anything, alien DNA looks like. Until we do, both of us will have serious flaws with trying to prove our case. Had this concept NOT been in the Bible (where angels have offspring with humans) as well as virtually EVERY ancient culture's mythology, I probably wouldn't put so much weight on it.

Edited May 13, 2013 by M30USA

[William]

How exactly did Wicca and religion/religious wars turn into alien DNA? If members wish to discuss extra-terrestrials, they can do so in the Water Cooler. Thanks. Moses says this one is done.