Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees

RICHARD CLAYTON:

So, wait... now you are arguing that genetic similarity IS evidence of
relation? You can't have it both ways, Ray!

RAY MARTINEZ:

This was your comment about the genetic evidence proving a major
Biblical claim - the Aaronic Priesthood.

My argument was and is:

Chimp DNA being similar to human to whatever degree does not in itself
support that genus Homo evolved from an ape ancestor over millions of
years. It only does if you assume. The Creationist explanation of one
Designer is a better fit - logically.

The weight of scientific evidence corroborating the Aaronic Priesthood,
an office that only exists in the context of being instituted by God -
far outweighs the mere observation and identification of chimp DNA
being similar with human. In other words, the Aaronic Priesthood and
its genetic evidence ALSO supports the existence of the Deity that
created it, unless of course you arbitrarily ignore the context of the
claim.

God ordained Aaron and his descendants to be consecrated as priests. We
have genetic evidence in support. Accepting the claim and its evidence
minus the context is equal to winking at evidence which supports the
existence of God - evidence which naturalists always claim to want to
entertain. When ANY Biblical claim or fact is externally supported, not
only does it substantiate the micro claim, but in fact, also supports
the larger claim of which it resides: the assumption of the Deities
existence. When enough claims are evidenced this way an objective
person concludes the Deity exists and has a basis to assume other
claims are indeed true as well.

CLAYTON:

Actually, what this evidence supports is that this particular male line

didn't outbreed very much. It certainly does not demand divine
intervention; historically, Jews have often been a culture within a
culture, preferring to marry their own people.

Of course, even if this particular Biblical claim were supported by the

facts (and many are-- I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks the
Bible is wholly wrong about everything) that does not imply that all
other claims should be regarded as true. An idea stands or falls on its

own merits, not by its source; and even the best-written textbooks
sometimes contain errors.

MARTINEZ:

Predictible discounting of evidence supporting the Divine because if
too many are true then the God created Adam suddenly declaration will
be forced to accept.

CLAYTON:

Science is not out to discredit the Bible, Ray; but the Bible doesn't
get a free pass. Neither does any other holy book or religious claim.
Divine revelation simply is not relevant to the scientific method. It's

not a conspiracy against your religion, it's just the way science
*works.*

MARTINEZ:

I agree science is not a personal pronoun so it cannot consciously even
know about the Bible, the same is true with the Bible - as it is an
inantimate object.

But Darwinists are sure out to discredit the Bible for obvious reasons,
everything they have spoken up for, and their credibility and
livelyhood is on the line the more the Bible is seen and proven true.

We are having a debate where if you are right then the Bible is wrong.
In response, I post evidence showing the Bible is right and you you cry
foul.

You are attempting to pit science against the Bible. In response I say:
what else would a Darwinist do ?
This tactic attempts to frame dissent coming from a false straw man of
an unattractive cultural stereotype: religious paranoia.

When two mutually contradicting facts appear to be true, logically,
facts supporting the Divine outweigh any other.

I suggest you practice what you preach and contain your paranoia that
the Bible is somehow menacing science. The Bible is menacing Darwinian
explanations of scientific data - nothing more.

CLAYTON:

You seem to be assigning the dates for "modern" or "advanced"
scientific times somewhat at random. For example, you have just placed
quantum mechanics, general relativity, and nuclear bombs outside of the

realm of "advanced scientific times," and you have implicitly declared
Newton's discoveries outside of "modern" science.

MARTINEZ:

Nonsense.

I simply established that the Renaissance is the earliest anyone could
date the beginning of the scientific era.

Space flight did not happen until 1957. This fact means this level of
advanced science was not attained until this year.

CLAYTON:

Except the Earth's dimensions have been known, with ever-increasing
accuracy, since around 240 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of
the Earth with a relatively small margin of error. And he did it using
science that is still current today. Sputnik no more proved the Earth's

diameter than it proved the Earth was round.

MARTINEZ:

I nominate this comment Chez Watt of the Year.

Mankind did not know the exact dimensions of the Earth until Sputnik.
Suddenly scientific evidence is being ignored and insulted. I thought
you were loyal to evidence ?

Why are you against knowing the exact dimensions of the Earth ?

Is it because ancient men 4700 years ago knew and this fact has no
place in the Darwinian worldview, but in fact falsifies the
evolutionary scenario of man getting progressively smarter ?

CLAYTON:

Exactly where in the Great Pyramid is this "sacred cubit" found?

MARTINEZ:

In the measurements I provided and the scientific rationale to augment
the British inch to its true size (an increase of 1/1000th of an inch).

Of course you know this which makes your question an evidence evading
insult.

CLAYTON:

Given that the author believes it was assigned a great deal of meaning,
is
there any writing on the walls of the pyramid, detailing the uses of
the
"sacred cubit" and defining it explicitly?

MARTINEZ:

You are saying if an inscription said what you are asking that this
would be proof. If that was the case it would instantly be branded a
forgery. The sacred cubit is found when measuring the GP with the
British inch augmented to its true size which was confirmed by the
Sputnik satellite as explained.

The three base lengths of the side of the GP matching the three
astronomical years exactly is ultra-intelligently designed to show the
builders knew this data.

CLAYTON:

Or is the author just post-shadowing, trying to find coincidences and
claim that they mean
something? Self-proclaimed psychics and clairvoyants often use similar
techniques, using allegorical readings of everything from the Eddas to
the fluctuations of the stock market to "predict" things that have
already happened.

MARTINEZ:

Rutherford measured the GP with the augmented length of the British
inch and it fit perfectly and produced the stunning facts.

Your comment above is attempting to deflect away from these facts via
mystical non-sequitur nonsense.

CLAYTON:

Unless the author can evidence that this was the intent of the "sacred
cubit," and indeed that the Egyptians even had a notion of such a
thing,
this is merely an interesting coincidence

MARTINEZ:

By saying "coincidence" you are admitting the facts are true but was
the product of chance.

This is the epitome of evading solid physical evidence because the
implications do not fit into your worldview but spectacularly support
the Supernatural worldview.

Nobody, regardless of who built the GP, can accidentially incorporate
the dimensions of the Earth into the monument and the astronomical
years to the exact figures confirmed by modern science. This evidence
simply means the builders, whoever they were - knew.

Camel riding Egyptians thought the Earth was flat. Joshua, who was
raised in Egypt, thought the sun revolved around the Earth.

Even though this is straying off topic, the GP was erected way before
Egyptian civilization appeared. There is no evidence Egyptians built
the GP (unlike the others), the Suez Canal is in Egypt but we know the
British built it.

CLAYTON:

On the other hand, if there were an explicit inscription saying
something like "Here is shown the
Sacred Cubit, exactly one ten-millionth the diameter of the Earth.
Which, by the way, is roughly spherical," I would be impressed, as that

was not general knowledge in 2600 BC.

MARTINEZ:


http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8028/ray.jpg

Click on the above link and view the Ante Chamber in the Great Pyramid.

If the image works properly then there should also be an icon somehere
to click to super-enlarge.

This diagram is from "Pyramidology Book 1" [1957] by Dr. Adam
Rutherford.

The following data is from the same source:

"Egyptian Royal Cubit = 20.6285 British inches.

Sacred Cubit = 25.0266 British inches.

The ERC was in general use during the construction of the Giza
Pyramids.

Flinders Petrie: ERC used from the IVth to VIth Dynasties = 20.63 +/-
0.02 British inches."

Rutherford: "The Great Pyramid itself, however, by its own geometry
reveals the length of its unit of construction to a much higher degree
of precision than Petrie was able to do, and gives it as equivalent to
20.6285 British inches. It will be observed, that Petrie's figure is
only about .0015 of an inch higher than this, which is well within the
range of error allowed in Petrie's figures (+/- 0.02)."

Sacred Cubit = 25 sacred/pyramid inches. 1 PI" = 1.001064 British
inches.

Royal Cubit = 20.6285 British inches or 20.6066 PI"

Rutherford: "The geometric derivation of the ERC from the Sacred Cubit
is clearly revealed in the GP".

Now refer to the diagram:

When entering the Ante Chamber (also called the "Map Room") from the
first low section, the limestone construction ends just beyond and
granite flooring begins.

This offset construction of limestone to granite is marked by a
vertical line.

The distance from this vertical line to the start of the second low
section vertical line = 5 ERC.

Using the above linear distance, that is from where the limestone
ends/granite begins TO the vertical line marking the very edge of the
beginning of the second low section is 5 Royal Cubits.

This distance SQUARED forms the square as shown in the diagram.

When a circle is drawn touching the floor and both sides (limestone and
granite) the sub-division of that circle = 365.242 EQUAL PARTS =
365.242 PI"

Thus as shown in the diagram: area of the square = area of the circle.

Rutherford: "Because of this direct mathematical relationship between
the Sacred and Royal Cubits, all the measurements of the GP are readily
expressible in BOTH cubits, for the Royal Cubit was precisely 1/5
square root of the area of the circle."

365.242 = number of days in Solar Year.

365.242 = length of AB = side length of GP from outer edge socket to
opposite outer edge socket = 365.242 Sacred Cubits.

CLAYTON:

If the builders of the Great Pyramid knew all this, why did they leave
no other traces of their wisdom?

MARTINEZ:

They did if you read Hancocks book: "Fingerprints of the Gods", the
book simply records the worldwide evidence showing a master Atlantian
peoples were responsible. Dr. Scott has produced volumes of evidence
supporting the Garden of Eden was on Atlantis, hence the homeland of
the Antidiluvians.

Why do eels swim to the area in question as if land was there, and
migratory birds fly to the same area and drop to their deaths expecting
land ?

CLAYTON:

How can you reconcile this with the
unambiguous Egyptian belief that the Sun went around the Earth, and not

vice-versa?

MARTINEZ:

Question assumes Egyptians built the GP. They did not, but my point
here is that ancient men knew what we didn't know until 1957 thus
falsifying the Evolutionary Scenario.

CLAYTON:

Of course, even if you could prove divine involvement in the
construction of the Great Pyramid, that wouldn't help you a bit, since
this entire tangent is a non-sequitur. The subject of the debate is
whether or not humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

MARTINEZ:

If I could prove Divine involvement with the GP this fact refutes the
resolve because the only source we have about the universal Deity says
He created Adam suddenly. In fact, the interior passage system of the
GP is the major Bible claims in stone built prior to the written word
being produced. This is Divine prophecy in spectacular fashion. It is
self-evident and irrefutable once someone points it out. To have the
interior passage system MATCH Biblical claims BEFORE they were writen
confirms the written claims and their veracity. Implacable opponents
can still deny = more proof of Romans 1 penalty claim.

Funny how you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as needed but this
physical unambiguous GP evidence escapes your understanding = proof of
Romans 1 penalty claim operating.

Ray Martinez

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... > RICHARD CLAYTON: ... > This was your comment about the genetic evidence proving a major ... > Exactly where in the Great Pyramid is this "sacred cubit" found? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
    ... RAY MARTINEZ, previously: ... Your answer intentionally twists the quote to have said so called ... Leakey assumes hominid evolution is a fact but he is honest to report ... that the crucial evidence supporting the assumption is non-existent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Peanut Gallery: Richard Clayton/Ray Martinez debate
    ... biblical evidence as scientific propositions beeing deduced from ... I think Mr. Martinez ... Are some mutations beneficial? ... as a sidenote speciation has been seen in the laboratory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Peanut Gallery: Richard Clayton/Ray Martinez debate
    ... Ray Martinez; scientific evidence, taken too strongly, denies the ... Mr. Martinez uses Biblical evidence to argue with Mr. Clayton; ... mutations can occur (and that bird flue, AIDS, or any other type of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: slightly OT, but still connected
    ... Clayton> Have they? ... modern theologians, with some notable exceptions, most of their views ... are modern repeats of materials which can be heard in second and third ... >> After looking at countless evidence. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)