Evidentially I'm descended from Adam

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Because genealogy records that trace ancestry back through mythical gods are completely reliable...

Of course not.
But we do have ancestral records of royal bloodlines for all the royal families of Europe.  Many of them can be tied into the early Christian period.

All it takes to have a single geneaological line back to Adam is to tie to a royal family that ties back through the early Christian records that ties back to someone from the time of Christ with a recorded genealogy.  We have Christ's genealogy back to Adam.  If we could prove a genealogy to Christ it would be easy.

Wasn't that the premise of the DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

YES, THIS IS UNLIKELY.  You can call it speculation.  I fully acknowledge records are few and often unreliable.  But these possible lines do not all rely on mythical Gods.

Edited July 26, 2016 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's been fun comparing mine with my husband's.  We have some stuff in common and then some not.  I'm related to more french royalty and he has a lot of Spanish.  He's closer to charlemagne than i am though by about 14 generations. 

My family has been in the US since the mayflower on both sides so i'm more interconnected with early americans than he is.  I'm related to quite a few declaration and constitution signers and he's only related to a few.  He has a few relatives in the current quorum of the 12 while i'm related to all of them (distant cousins).

Lots of fun!

Keep digging you'll find that he's related to all of them in some way too. 

[waveslider]

On 07/25/2016 at 4:39 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Not calling you names. Just informing you of your logical fallacies. 

Logic isn't what is driving my opinion here, but rather very real, personal experiences. You don't have to believe me through because I can't prove it to you anyway, but that will never negate the truth of these experiences.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but you don't have to point out things in an effort to make me look ignorant, in order for you to justify the disagreement.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.
But we do have ancestral records of royal bloodlines for all the royal families of Europe.  Many of them can be tied into the early Christian Fathers and saints.

All it takes to have a single geneaological line back to Adam is to tie to a royal family that ties back through the early Christian records that ties back to someone from the time of Christ with a recorded genealogy.  We have Christ's genealogy back to Adam.  If we could prove a genealogy to Christ it would be easy.

Wasn't that the premise of the DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

YES, THIS IS UNLIKELY.  You can call it speculation.  I fully acknowledge records are few and often unreliable.  But these possible lines do not all rely on mythical Gods.

We don't have ancestral records of royal bloodlines for all the royal families of Europe.  But from that era, that's basically all we have--is ancestral records for royal bloodlines for families in Europe.  You are overstating what we have on that front. 

And we do not have a line for Christ to Adam.  We have something close to that from Joseph to Adam, but that's pretty broken--meaning there are huge holes to fill.  That is if you have that which is listed in Matthew 1 in mind. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, stemelbow said:

And we do not have a line for Christ to Adam.  We have something close to that from Joseph to Adam, but that's pretty broken--meaning there are huge holes to fill.  That is if you have that which is listed in Matthew 1 in mind.

Many believe one of the below to be Mary's geneaology.

Matthew 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
OR
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
 

• “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23—says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin”
  [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Keep digging you'll find that he's related to all of them in some way too. 

It shows you on there how you are related (you can view the genealogy charts).  It's interesting to look through them.  

 

[bluebell]

Oops. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by bluebell

[bluebell]

Double post

Edited July 26, 2016 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

50 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Logic isn't what is driving my opinion here, but rather very real, personal experiences. You don't have to believe me through because I can't prove it to you anyway, but that will never negate the truth of these experiences.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but you don't have to point out things in an effort to make me look ignorant, in order for you to justify the disagreement.

waveslider:

Again I have no problem with anyone, even you, believing anything they want. IE; 1/4 Adult American's believe the sun revolves around the earth because of very real personal experiences. However that belief is simply wrong on a factual basis. I'm not telling you to have a different opinion. Just don't posit your opinion onto a scientific fact. I make no effort to make you look ignorant.

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It shows you on there how you are related (you can view the genealogy charts).  It's interesting to look through them.  

 

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that what you see and what you get may not be accurate. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It shows you on there how you are related (you can view the genealogy charts).  It's interesting to look through them.  

 

BTW evidentially we're cousins. Both descendants of Charlemagne

 

Side Note: One of my believing sisters accused me of spewing forth anti Mormon lies when I informed her of my Neanderthal DNA ancestry :-)

Edited July 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that what you see and what you get may not be accurate. 

Nothing's guaranteed.  Most of it just the family history stuff that you've input connected to other lines that other people have input.  I come from a long line of genealogists so there's a lot of info on my line.  My husband only has info on his father's line and nothing on his mom's side so his is less extensive.  I'm sure it gets less trustworthy the closer you get to the dark ages.   

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

BTW evidentially we're cousins. Both descendants of Charlemagne

 

Side Note: One of my believing sisters accused me of spewing forth anti Mormon lies when I informed her of my Neanderthal DNA ancestry :-)

I have no problem with having some Neanderthal DNA. It doesn't effect my relationship to God in the slightest. I guess that makes me an Anti-Mormon too.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Side Note: One of my believing sisters accused me of spewing forth anti Mormon lies when I informed her of my Neanderthal DNA ancestry :-)

For a lot people, it's just easier to deny things that don't easily fit into their belief system than to try to find a way to incorporate them.  Most people like things to be simple and clear cut-black and white.  That seems to be true for religious and irreligious people alike.  

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.
But we do have ancestral records of royal bloodlines for all the royal families of Europe.  Many of them can be tied into the early Christian period.

All it takes to have a single geneaological line back to Adam is to tie to a royal family that ties back through the early Christian records that ties back to someone from the time of Christ with a recorded genealogy.  We have Christ's genealogy back to Adam.  If we could prove a genealogy to Christ it would be easy.

Wasn't that the premise of the DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

YES, THIS IS UNLIKELY.  You can call it speculation.  I fully acknowledge records are few and often unreliable.  But these possible lines do not all rely on mythical Gods.

Your post is so full of nonsense. Royal families blood lines into early Christians? "All it takes"? Yeah, like a royal family back in the dark ages wanted a tie to a Jewish heritage? You've got a lot of wishful thinking and zero amounts of evidence and totally lacking in logic. Good luck with that.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Your post is so full of nonsense. Royal families blood lines into early Christians? "All it takes"? Yeah, like a royal family back in the dark ages wanted a tie to a Jewish heritage? You've got a lot of wishful thinking and zero amounts of evidence and totally lacking in logic. Good luck with that.

Any current lines may be nonsense still.
But at least it will happen eventually.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-41?lang=eng
Brigham Young -
When we come to … sealing ordinances [for the dead], ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from Father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc, they cannot be done without a temple. When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, [children] will be sealed to their [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam. This will have to be done, because of the chain of the Priesthood being broken upon the earth. The Priesthood has left the people, but in the first place the people left the Priesthood.

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The source of my frustration with you is that even when I answer your CFR you summarily dismiss it as "Oh that's just your opinion" and walk a way imagining that you've some how "Stumped me"  Ha Ha Ok.  You are not really interested in any truth that conflicts with your closely held, cherished beliefs or learning and expanding your knowledge...instead you're looking to win points in an imaginary game you've made up in your own mind. Fair enough...You win.  I concede defeat.

If you ever decide to challenge yourself, let me know...but like those who explain difficult scientific realities away with calls on the superstitions of man...I say, enjoy your bubble...I hope it keeps you warm at night.

Again, you are wrong.  You have not provided a CFR.  You made a snarky response with links to books without any reference to where IN the books, or anything I could refer to without paying for the book.  You have continued with your premise without my requested CFR (a link) to an article or report, etc.  You keep with your inaccurate idea that I wanted to win or score points.  All I wanted was a reference..you have made this a competition where none existed..all because you made a post you cannot defend because you apparently have no CFR.

I do not understand your incredibly defensive nature when all was requested was a CFR....

So...again...DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION AND PREMISE?

Now, no need for the inept defensive posture.  No need for snarky.  Just aupply the link or say you have none.  

And trust me.....knowing you make indefensible comments for which have no support, I promise to never CFR you again...it makes you a whiny little kid who sees a competition where none exists......

I am truly sorry

[Johnnie Cake]

 

This CFR of your was propted by this comment of mine:

Quote

Let me state it in another manner... The odds of a common ancestor is 1 in 1.    The odds that evolution is not true are > than 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  And you're siding with the most improbable odds... ummm ok

I tried to make it simple for you by giving you the easy math

1/2 of 3b = 1 in 1.5 billion chance

But since you insist on the actual math...here it is...good luck:

Your genome contains around 3,2 billion nucleotides. That is 3,200,000,000 letters which codes for even you CountyBoy. A retrovirus insertion can enter in between all these nucleotides, so the chance of it ending where ever it ends, it had a 1 in 3,2b chance for that.

For it to land in the exact same position for both you and chimps, by chance, meaning, without common descent and biological relatedness, the chance would be 1/3,2b^2 which gives=9.765625 × 10^-20 or to put it another way, around 1 in (rounded) 980,000,000,000,000,000,000

However, the fact is that we share more than 1 ERV with chimps, 16 ERV sites that both chimps and humans have in common, the chance of this increases expodentially: (1 / 3 200 000 000)^16 = 8.27180613 × 10^-153   or  2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1    Got it now? Satisfied?

 

I've now schooled you in both evolution and math...which both point to only one conclusion which I have no doubt you'll reject...that evolution is true. Hope your happy

 

 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

This CFR of your was propted by this comment of mine:

I tried to make it simple for you by giving you the easy math

1/2 of 3b = 1 in 1.5 billion chance

But since you insist on the actual math...here it is...good luck:

Your genome contains around 3,2 billion nucleotides. That is 3,200,000,000 letters which codes for even you CountyBoy. A retrovirus insertion can enter in between all these nucleotides, so the chance of it ending where ever it ends, it had a 1 in 3,2b chance for that.

For it to land in the exact same position for both you and chimps, by chance, meaning, without common descent and biological relatedness, the chance would be 1/3,2b^2 which gives=9.765625 × 10^-20 or to put it another way, around 1 in (rounded) 980,000,000,000,000,000,000

However, the fact is that we share more than 1 ERV with chimps, 16 ERV sites that both chimps and humans have in common, the chance of this increases expodentially: (1 / 3 200 000 000)^16 = 8.27180613 × 10^-153   or  2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1    Got it now? Satisfied?

 

I've now schooled you in both evolution and math...which both point to only one conclusion which I have no doubt you'll reject...that evolution is true. Hope your happy

 

 

I have not rejected anything you have posted...so your dishonesty is not required.  I simply asked for your CFR on your premise.....the topic was interesting and I went to school for 19 years...I have a Juris Doctor.....but very little math or science.  I apologize for being interested enough to ask.

Let me give you examples.....since this is not my forte......where is your reference that my genome contains 3.2 billion nucleotides?   You have not schooled me in anything....you made assertions, the n used math on them.  You have been nothing but snarky with someone who simply asked for references.  Had I known my requests would throw you into a childish tizzy, I would have refrained.  But, your math includes asserts facts not in evidence...as it were.  But, like I said...to avoid future squealing by you, I will never ask for a CFR again.

[UtahTexan]

and your evidence only supports your opinion.......which I accept as your opinion.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Now....(and this is what meant as a link when a CFR is requested since you appear to not know) this is a link with a differing scientific opinion.

Personally, I do not care.  Though, I can see where YOU might be descended from a chimp

For all I know, evolution is accurate and was partly how God created everything.

Again, I do not care.  

All I wanted was to read where you got your premise.........I had no argument with your math.  I will await another snarky comment to my serious and honest request.

Though, at this point, I really do not care anymore.  Any interest you generated has long since dissipated....

[Calm]

3.2 billion reference is on second page:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21134/#!po=1.16279

"The nuclear genome comprises approximately 3 200 000 000 nucleotides of DNA"

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

3.2 billion reference is on second page:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21134/#!po=1.16279

"The nuclear genome comprises approximately 3 200 000 000 nucleotides of DNA"

wow...thank you.  That was not hard at all.  That does not answer to the other assertions...but I do appreciate you answering.  

[Calm]

Your link, btw, does not address issue of the identical nature of the viral insertion.

I suspect jc just assumed everyone understood the huge number of nucleotides even if they did not know the number attached to it of 3.2 billion.  Generally what is viewed as common knowledge doesn't require cfrs because even if someone wants more info, it is easily found o. Its own.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your link, btw, does not address issue of the identical nature of the viral insertion.

I suspect jc just assumed everyone understood the huge number of nucleotides even if they did not know the number attached to it of 3.2 billion.  Generally what is viewed as common knowledge doesn't require cfrs because even if someone wants more info, it is easily found o. Its own.

perhaps.  But, again, though I have a doctorate, this is not my field of study.  Hence my request.  I have never complained or resisted so much when I have been asked for a CFR.....but I see requesting here is a no-no.  

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

perhaps.  But, again, though I have a doctorate, this is not my field of study.  Hence my request.  I have never complained or resisted so much when I have been asked for a CFR.....but I see requesting here is a no-no.  

I sincerely apologize. In retrospect I was snarky, I misinterpreted your CFR as a snarky unnecessary effort on your part to undermine by credibility particularly when I answered your CFR with an easy to understand example yet you still brushed it off as just my opinion.  The math does not lie, those are the odds of evolution not being true...its the equivalent of 2 blind men being sent out from opposite sides of the earth in search of a single grain of sand from all the beaches and deserts scattered throughout the world and them picking the same exact grain of sand.  ( no I don't have a CFR for that example) but it's similar odds. That's how strong the odds are in favor of evolution.

So I again apologize, hold me accountable for my claims, but also respect me when I respond and answer your CFR's. Give me the courtesy that I respect truth too much to just try and slip an unfounded lie into a discussion...  And if you disagree with me fine but don't brush facts off as just my opinion

cheers

BTW it's estimated that there are seven quintillion, five quadrillion grains of sand on earth.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake