Saturday, May 13, 2006
[I am here commenting on a blog in blogsphere. Oftimes we may agree on the conclusion but disagree on the reasonings. Here is an example. I might agree that Christianity is the biggest fraud on the human race (what with their 'only son of God' and 'only salvation' thesis) but this blogger is trying to 'scientifically' deprecate Christianity when his science itself is a bit immature.]
Christianity is the biggest fraud on human race
[It is fine to say that Christianity is the biggest fraud. But what is your basis for this opinion? Do not expect me to take you for your word. Here is a critique of your opinion.]
Science may have caught up with the Bible, which says that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans alive today. [It is very logical that human beings trace their ancestors to a lesser number of people till they reach the mathematical dead end of one father and one mother.] This theory is impossible as per the scientists. [It is impossible that this theory is impossible. Even if we evolved from monkeys, tracing back the parentage would lead to lesser and lesser monkeys till we come to a father monkey and a mother monkey as the original parents of us all.] Now it is being said that there is no historical Jesus [there can only be a historical Jesus] and that Christianity is the biggest fraud committed by some determined group of writers on human race. [This writer says that Christianity is the biggest fraud on the basis of scientific opinion. I am considering the scientific opinion as we go along, but in my opinion Christianity is a fraud because the Church talks about God and his only begotten son and this son being the only gateway to salvation. This is a fraud. It would be truer to say that Jesus was a self-realised man, as many before him and since were and God is a concept to help man build-up the superstructure of truth by and by.] In the scientists' version, based on DNA analysis, ''Adam,'' the genetic ancestor [what is the meaning of this new term ‘genetic ancestor’?] of all men living today, and ''Eve,'' the genetic ancestor of all living women, seem [note the word ‘seem’ – they are just not sure] to have lived 84,000 years apart. [so say the scientists now. After sometime, they may say something else.] In science, unlike the Old Testament, Eve came before Adam [unless they were contemporaries, how could the succeeding generations have come about] and the analysis of Y chromosome [why analyse only Y chromosome, it is the be all and end all in our search for understanding of human genesis?] shows that Adam was an African. [By saying ‘Adam was an African’, are they confirming that there was an Adam, whatever his colour was?] A common modern male ancestor, Adam, is a mathematical concept [What does the writer mean by this? By saying Adam is a mathematical concept does he say anything specific about Adam?] and made their appearance about 59,000 years ago, and the common modern female ancestor, Eve made her appearance some 1,43,000 years ago. [How did the human race come about if the female and male were separated by such a vast period of time? Does not the scientific theory make less sense than the religious theory?] Prior to the modern male there were males but they were more related to chimpanzees than modern man based on the study of a noncoding region of the Y chromosome and Haplotype 1A, defined by an A at a particular site, appears to be ancestral because the A is found in chimpanzees, and that in humans, it occurs only in some Africans [something occurs both in animals and man and therefore they are related. Sure, eyes occur in all living beings and therefore we are all related]. The study even pinpointed the living men whose Y chromosomes most resemble Adam's, [The assumption is that Adam has been identified] are few Ethiopians, Sudanese, and Khoisan people living in southern Africa, including groups once known as Hottentots and Bushmen. [so what?] The genes reflect known history. Fossil records suggest that Homo sapiens, or modern humans, first appeared in Africa about 150,000 years ago, then moved out and spread across the world fairly quickly: perhaps 50,000 years ago to Europe and as long as 60,000 years ago to Australasia. It is concluded that the last common ancestor of modern humans was a population probably in Africa, suggesting a recent African origin for all the modern 'races' and excluding Neanderthals and other non-African archaic humans form direct ancestry to modern humanity. Chapter 8.6 of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution covers this quite briefly. But detailed studies have pinpointed the fact that the modern male and female had a gap of tens of thousands of years. [The modern male and female must have been contemporaries, obviously. If any study suggests otherwise, the study is a frace.] Females have two X-chromosomes, whereas males have one X and one Y. Only men carry a Y chromosome. All the information in a man's Y chromosome is passed to his son, and every man's Y chromosome carries a virtual pedigree of his male family history. This could be one subconscious reason why Hindus are very particular to have a male child to carry forward the legacy of their father. Using mutation rates of genes, as molecular clocks the small DNA differences between different men's Y-chromosomes are used to figure out how populations from around the world are related, and where and when these populations evolved. Eve’s identity was traced by analysing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) passed exclusively from mother to daughter. The genetic trail leading to Y-Adam was found to be at the same place where the modern female ancestor, mitochondrial Eve lived. Using mtDNA, the genetic ‘Eve’ was found to have lived 1, 43,000 years ago. The so-called races have no genetic basis, but genetics have relevance only to ethnic and geographic groups. Comparing date collected from the two genetic systems, the researchers found consistency in the estimates of the timing of the various migratory events out of Africa. At the level of the Y chromosome there is very little difference and the skin colour differences are strictly a consequence of climate. Women were good at passing on their genes, while men were less lucky. One tribe conquers another tribe and mate with all the women. Polygamy and a few dominant males get to marry and have children and the rest see their genes consigned to the rubbish heap of posterity. Also if a man has only daughter, he would not pass off his Y chromosome and so would chalk up a big zero in the ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ genetic stakes. The data show that variants in the Y chromosome, which sons inherit from their fathers, have a different geographic distribution from variants in mtDNA, which is passed from mother to daughter. Particular mtDNA markers are widespread. Women on different continents often carry the same markers, showing that women move more than men. It may be that women move into their husband’s homes and have their children farther from their birthplaces. Thus over the millennia, women spread their genes farther than men do, eventually across entire continents. But most variations in the Y chromosome are restricted to small geographic areas. Finally in simple language it means that the early eve had males of different genetic markers and after a period of 84,000 years later, the Adam who is the forefather of all males living today met Eve’s descendent female. [I am not able to understand the logic of scientific theory – is the writer saying that for 84,000 years there were only females? But how is this possible? How could females have come about without males around?] This also calls for a review of the stories of Bible, and as per scientists there never was a Jesus Christ [which scientists? How could scientists say there was no one named Jesus Christ? Or are they saying there could not have been anyone with traits ascribed to Jesus Christ? What traits did they consider to say that they were not possible in a man?] also known as that there is no historical Jesus. So, Christianity is the biggest fraud on human race.
[As to whether Christianity is fraud or not might be determined in many ways. But to base it on ‘scientific’ findings is premature. Because the scientists are also clueless as to the truth of creation. They are good at naming various phenomenon and we assume that in so naming a phenomenon, the scientist has unravelled the mystery of it all. This is an erroneous understanding. Religion makes it more interesting than naming a phenomenon – they tell a plausible or exciting story about it, but actually are no nearer to understanding the truth.]
# posted by Anandkumar_V @ 3:36 AM 0 comments links to this post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
