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

Ray Martinez wrote:
> 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.

Are you finished with your reply? I would prefer to respond to it all
at once, rather than piecemeal.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
    ... RICHARD CLAYTON: ... RAY MARTINEZ: ... 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: 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)
  • 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)