Genetics demonstrates no such thing, Philo. Though you do not go into detail, one presumes you are referring to mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. These two individuals were neither contemporaries nor the only human beings alive at their respective times. To suggest that the genetic evidence demonstrates what you claim is to grossly misunderstand the science.

And one does wonder what the point of directing the reader to the video regarding China. Interesting though it is, it offers no support to your claim of Chinese origin stories upholding or verifying the Jewish origin stories. Indeed, the flood story presented in the video demonstrates just how different the two traditions are.

In short, both of your assertions are errant nonsense.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722

Posted by runner, Friday, 22 April 2011 11:02:18 AM

That article proposes "Evolutionists must claim that some mutations are helpful because basically, all evolution rests upon that premise."

Evolution - the change *over time* in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms - largely relies on natural selection per se*, genetic drift, genetic recombination (during sexual reproduction), and a few other mechanisms, including mutation, but Not the straw-man red-herring fallacy the article puts forward ... viz.
* natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”

runner, you follow all the wrong leads

I used to be a serious student of history, and of church history in partticular. But that was long ago.

What was apparent then was that the early church had several sources of its values, and in particular drew heavily on the work of the neo-Platonists. The New Testament was not enough, for 1. the various books are not consistent in their approaches to morality; 2. the moral issues that were faced could not be answered ;by the bible alone; 3. the interpretation of the bible required in order to apply its various partially conflicting values needed a system of reasoning which the bible does not provide.

Later, when the works of Aristotle were re-introduced to the West by the Arabs (who were Moslems--yes, Islamic writing contributed heavily to Christian moralities) St Thomas Aquinas made a major contribution developed from Aristotle's Ethics. He needed to do so, because Aristotle's views challenged the neo-Platonic foundations of Church thinking at the time. His approach is still that of Catholic orthodoxy--one set of Christian values. Yes, there is more than one.

The values of the Gospel According to St Luke are well worth reflecting on. When people extoll Christ's own values, they are usually what they have in mind. Those of the Book of Revelation are vile. The Pauline writings are a mixed bag--there are many moral mistakes.

Stephen Moore,
So you believe that humans had many origins. Could you please give us the details?

Stephen Moore,
The point I was making is that the values that Christians should uphold are the inherent values [moral principles of God likeness] from the relationship of the first family or society. Theift, lies, deceit and murder were all present from the earliest man and records showed the moral displeasure of God [In Chinese history from the Lord of Heaven].

I thought LEGO's comment pathetic. In fact exclusivity and exclusion are a knife driven into the very heart of positive Christianity, not that this trait is exclusive of Christianity or Christians.
But true Christianity embraces universal and shared human values and experience, which is why Christ is loved and respected both inside and outside of Christianity, as someone like Rabbi Akiva is mourned and revered by those who take the time to find out about the heroes and heroines of other faiths.
Wallace, as usual, muddies the waters and his comments ought to be dismissed as scurrilous. He makes a good Caiphas.
We are inheritors of the world's values, as are all humans and Christianity remains the powerful input that it is into Australian values only so long as its real truths are not excluded by excluding or exceptionalist perversions, that allow for "othering" and eventually deterioration to exploitation or oppression of "unworthy others".
We were lucky yet remain ungreatful to be given a book of life that rather we should humbly celebrate, along with releif that we were not excluded from access to an explanation of ourselves as withthe devotees of the Talmud, Koran or other books of life,in our abject unworthiness.These appear to be as good explanations as our own, given that other peole are also loving conscious ethical beings indistinguishable from us. These explain values and meaning to oncoming generations within diverse communities, although my theory is that invented many religin and philophies, because (s)he knew we would be too immature to share just one version.
Despite human interference, God's will may yet be done, as the Good Samaritan Story explains.