Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Neanderthals Interbred With Modern Humans



Scientists Lied and Real Neanderthals Died! Neanderthal DNA 99.97% Identical to that of Evolutionary Scientist’s!

Posted by Chris Parker
May 10 2010


A DNA study discussed in the article below proves that Neanderthals interbred with “modern” humans; thus Neanderthals belong in our species, Homo sapiens.

Metaphorically speaking, science has murdered the “Neanderthal”. They robbed him of his humanity. They portrayed him as little more than an animal; unable to speak, to sing, to create tools, to love their children or to care for their dead.
They were literally considered sub-human or non human. They were drawn as “hairy” (a sure sign of primitiveness), stooped, knuckle draggers. Science told us that those primitive “things” were wiped out by the smarter “humans” or often “modern humans”-a term that should soon be extinct.
I do not exaggerate about the impact of science’s assault on Neaderthal. In the recent history of the world, considering Black people sub-human aided the continuation of the instutution of slavery and considering people of Jewish descent an inferior species led directly to the Holocaust.
With the dehumanization of Neanderthal, the religion of evolution was boosted. Science needed primitive half-men to support their theory of man’s descent from apes. But, it was always a lie and though it has now been proven to be a lie, science is still attempting desperately to hold on to it.
Humans are one of the most genetically similar species living. The DNA of each person alive today is 99.99% genetically identical to that of the next person. A West African population of only 55 chimpanzees had twice the genetic diversity as the entire human race one geneticist pointed out.
Christians who had knowledge of this area of science have wondered what was going to become of the “Neanderthal as primitive cave-man” if ever DNA from Neaderthal was sequenced. If the account in Genesis is true, then we would expect that the DNA analysis would prove creationists correct and evolutionists wrong; that men were men and that there had been no evolution of mankind.
The initial conclusions from a study of Neanderthal DNA appeared to uphold the evolutionary view. The researchers erroneously concluded that there was No genetic connection between Neaderthal and “people”. That was a very popular conclusion, however, now that’s been flipped on its head. here is a quote from the article describing the new conclusions:




Svante Paabo, the geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who spearheaded the study, said he now sees his ancestors in a new light. His initial research on a different type of DNA that contains far less information had concluded – incorrectly, it turns out – that Neanderthals have no genetic connection to people alive today.
The real conclusion is that Neanderthal was 99.97% identical to “modern” humans. Since only 60% of the actual genome was recovered, one can attribute the tiny difference either to errors in the science or one might conclude that men were very slightly more genetically diverse prior to the flood. Recent science articles have stated that we share 4% of our genes with Neanderthal. Other scientists insist that Neanderthal couldn’t speak. Scientists argued up to this year whether pollen found in Neaderthal graves indicated that they buried their dead with flowers. (Not very apelike behavior).
Some might argue that science or scientists didn’t “lie”. At worst, perhaps, maybe they were wrong but this was not intentional. We would say; there couldn’t have been evidence that Neandethal was sub-human, since as we all now know–he wasn’t it. There couldn’t have been evidence that he looked as he was portrayed, so to portray him that was was not “truth” and was now known by all to be obviously untrue. Lie: “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression..dictionary.com
The false impression they wanted to create? That Neanderthals were primitive biologically- a fact that if true would have disproved Genesis. That evolution is true.
A recent comment on Panda’s Thumb, an evolutionary website wondered how the initial “wrong” conclusions were going to be spun by the “creos”. No doubt it is his along with the Darwinist’s heads that are now spinning….s8int.com

Study suggests humans mated with Neanderthals

By KAREN KAPLAN
Los Angeles Times
Published: Thursday, May. 6, 2010

LOS ANGELES — The first modern humans to leave Africa 80,000 years ago encountered Neanderthal settlements in the Middle East and – on at least some occasions – chose to make love instead of war, according to an international team of scientists who have pieced together the genetic code of humanity’s closest relatives.
Traces of that ancient DNA live on in most human beings today, the researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
The finding, which was made by analyzing DNA from Neanderthal bones and comparing it to that of five living humans, appears to resolve a longstanding mystery about the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, who coexisted in Europe and western Asia for more than 10,000 years until Neanderthals disappeared about 30,000 years ago.
“We can now say with absolute certainty that we’ve got these Neanderthal genes,” said John Hawks, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Wisconsin who was not involved in the study. “They’re not ‘them’ anymore – they’re ‘us.’”
Svante Paabo, the geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who spearheaded the study, said he now sees his ancestors in a new light. His initial research on a different type of DNA that contains far less information had concluded – incorrectly, it turns out – that Neanderthals have no genetic connection to people alive today.
Now, Paabo said, “I would more see them as a form of humans that were a bit more different than people are from each other today.”
Most important, scientists said, knowing the precise structure of the Neanderthal genome will help answer the fundamental biological question: What makes us human?
Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to that of people, according to the analysis, which involved dozens of researchers. Something in the remaining 0.3 percent must make us unique.
“It’s not about understanding Neanderthals,” said genome biologist Ed Green, who led the study as a research fellow in Paabo’s lab and is now at the University of California at Santa Cruz. “It’s understanding us.”
By lining up the Neanderthal genome with DNA from humans and chimpanzees, Green and colleagues identified small changes that are unique to humans. Some were in genes involved in energy metabolism, skeletal structure and brain development, including four that are thought to contribute to conditions such as autism, Down syndrome and schizophrenia.
The researchers constructed the Neanderthal genome from three bone fragments found in Croatia’s Vindija Cave. Using a sterile dentistry drill, the scientists removed 400 milligrams of bone powder – an amount equivalent to the size of an aspirin.
Extracting DNA from ancient bones was a dicey proposition.
For starters, 95 percent to 99 percent of the DNA the team found came from microbes that colonized the bones after the Neanderthals died more than 38,000 years ago. To address that problem, the scientists discarded DNA fragments with letter combinations that were especially common in microbes.
In addition, the Neanderthal DNA was badly degraded, which caused sequencing machines to misread some of the chemical letters in the sequence. The researchers developed a computer program to correct those mistakes.
The researchers took special precautions to keep their own DNA out of the Neanderthal samples. Workers wore full-body suits, including masks and gloves. The air pressure inside the lab was kept high so that nothing could blow in accidentally, and the room was irradiated after the researchers went home, Green said.
After four years of work, the team identified 4 billion fragments of Neanderthal DNA and organized them into a draft genome. The sequence is 60 percent complete.
“It is a very poor quality for a human genome, but it is outstanding for a 30,000-year-old extinct hominid,” said Eddy Rubin, who has sequenced samples of Neanderthal DNA at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory but was not involved in the Science study.
To look for evidence of gene flow between humans and Neanderthals, the researchers sequenced the DNA of five people who now live in southern Africa, western Africa, France, China and Papua New Guinea. Since they didn’t think Neanderthals genes had passed to humans, they expected to find the same degree of difference between the Neanderthal genome and all five people.
Instead, they discovered that the Neanderthal DNA was slightly more similar to the three people living outside of Africa. Even more surprising, the relationship was just as strong for the individuals from China and Papua New Guinea as for the person from France, who lives in the Neanderthals’ old stomping grounds.
The simplest explanation is that a small group of humans met the Neanderthals 50,000 to 80,000 years ago after they left Africa but before they had spread throughout Europe, Asia and beyond. The logical meeting place was the Middle East, which connects northeast Africa to the Eurasian continent.
“The contact must have happened early for the Neanderthals genes to have spread so widely and uniformly,” Henry Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study.
The amount of mixing was small – only 1 percent to 4 percent of the DNA in non-African humans originated in Neanderthals, according to the study. The researchers said none of that DNA is functional; in fact, the particular 1 percent to 4 percent is different in every individual.
Interbreeding may well have continued in Europe, but that would be harder to detect because both populations there were large and any small Neanderthal contribution would be too dilute to see, Paabo said.

SOURCE
SEE ALSO Story 1
Story 2

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Knowledge of Four Elements Pre-Dates Empedocles




Genesis 1:10 (BHS/WIVU)
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃
wayiqra – elohim – layyabbashah – erets ulemiqweh – hammayim – qara – yammim – wayyareh – elohim – ki+tov
and (he) called – God – to the dry ground – earth and to collection – the waters – (he) called – seas – and (he) saw – God – for+good

The construction of this verse is familiar. See in particular this post on Genesis 1:4 regarding “seeing.”
Genesis 1:10 marks the last time in the creation narrative that God himself names things. Take a look at what he’s named: day & night (in 1:5), sky (in 1:8), earth and sea (here in 1:10). Are these meant to correspond to the four primal elements fire, air, earth, and water? Fire is perhaps a leap from day & night. But if the correspondence is intentional, God is shown to be the creator and fashioner of what was understood to be the substances from which everything else was formed until relatively recent history.
This is a pretty nifty observation, but it presents a small challenge to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1. The problem is that the four primal elements idea is normally attributed to a Greek philosopher by the name of Empedocles who lived in the 5th century B.C. – about 1,000 years after Moses and the traditional date for the recording of Genesis. The Wellhausen hypothesis posits later dates for Genesis but is still 400 years before Empedocles.
We show our Western bias however when we focus on the Greeks. The Egyptians actually had a similar concept dating back to the late 3rd millennium B.C. (about 1,000 years before Moses and closer to the days of Abraham). The Egyptian idea was embodied in a group of deities called the Ogdoad, and the four primordial substances were darkness, air, the waters, and infinity/eternity.
All of this is to say that even from a purely secular standpoint it is not unreasonable to grant that the Greek primal elements concept existed in the Ancient Near East well before the Greeks. Is the periodic table a revolutionary modern invention or simply a late refinement in a long history of examining the structure of the universe? Of course, where Genesis 1 breaks with modern materialism is where it breaks with 3rd millennium B.C. Egyptian mythology. Those primal substances – whether they be the Ogdoad, or Empedocles’ four, or the 118 elements of the periodic table – did not always exist and should not be confused with the creator.
Here’s my translation: “And God called the dry ground ‘earth,’ and the collection of waters he called ‘seas’ and God saw that (this was) good.”
Extra credit: Note the first word of the second line transliterated ulemiqweh above. This is ule (“and to”) + miqweh (“collection”). In modern Hebrew pronunciation, miqweh becomes mikveh. This is the term for a ritual bath (see Leviticus 11:36), and the practice of immersing in a mikveh for ritual cleansing forms a basis for baptism in the New Testament. The baptisms that happen in churches around the world every week have a root in a word that goes back to the creation of the sea itself!

....

Taken from: http://revelationorbust.com/wordpress/?p=376#more-376

Friday, June 7, 2013

Transubstantiation into the Immaculate, in the Thought of St. Maximilian Kolbe



05FridayApr 2013


Posted by in Spirituality

....
 

Transformation into Our Lady has been spoken of by the saints for many centuries. In True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, St. Louis de Montfort, repeats the words of St. Ambrose, writing, “The soul of Mary will be communicated to you to glorify the Lord. Her spirit will take the place of yours to rejoice in God, her Savior…”(1). It is St. Maximilian, however, who has given this transforming union its boldest and most descriptive formulation: “transubstantiation into the Immaculate.”
The Eucharistic terminology is very enlightening. St. Maximilian speaks of Mary’s devotees being changed, as it were, into Our Lady. One becomes, “in a certain sense, her living, speaking and working in this world” (2). Negatively, this means the uprooting of sin and imperfection. Positively, it entails growth in Charity and sanctity. “Let yourselves be led by the Immaculate, let Her form you with an ever greater freedom and you will become like Her, because She will make you ever more immaculate and She will nourish you with the milk of Her grace” (3).
At a certain point, this transforming union becomes so radical, the term “transubstantiation,” used analogously, becomes a very descriptive and accurate way to express the extent of Marianization. St. Maximilian writes, “We want to be so much the Immaculate’s that there remains nothing in us that is not Hers, that instead we come to be annihilated in Her, changed into Her, transubstantiated into Her, that She herself alone remains. That we might be thus Hers, as She is God’s” (4).
St. Maximilian thus draws an analogy between the relationship we seek to have with Our Lady, and her own union with God. Describing this union, he gives the Latin formulation: Filius incarnatus est: Jesus Christus. Spiritus Sanctus quasi incarnatus est: Immaculata (5). That is, “The Son is incarnate: Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is quasi incarnate: the Immaculata.” St. Maximilian elaborates:
The Holy Spirit manifests his share in the work of Redemption through the Immaculate Virgin who, although she is a person entirely distinct from him, is so intimately associated with him that our minds cannot understand it. So, while their union is not of the same order as the hypostatic union linking the human and divine natures in Christ, it remains true to say that Mary’s action is the very action of the Holy Spirit (6).
Mary’s actions are the very actions of the Holy Spirit, and as St. Maximilian points out elsewhere, the Holy Spirit acts always (by His own divine decree) through Mary. These two persons operate as if they are, so to speak, one person. This union is founded on the grace of the Immaculate Conception: Our Lady’s first grace, and that which radically conforms her to her Spouse, such that, in the words of St. Maximilian, she is the created Immaculate Conception, whereas the Holy Spirit is the Uncreated Immaculate Conception (7). The Blessed Virgin is a manifestation of her Spouse. St. Maximilian writes, “Just as the Son, to show us how great his love is, became a man, so too the third Person, God-who-is-Love, willed to show his mediation… by means of a concrete sign. This sign is the heart of the Immaculate Virgin…” (8).
Transubstantiation into the Immaculate means being changed into her, such that one’s actions are truly hers. We become concrete manifestations of the Blessed Virgin, “in a certain sense, her living, speaking and working in this world” (9). In this way, we become hers, as she is God’s.
Both the positive and negative dimensions of this transubstantiation are achieved through total consecration to the Immaculate. Such a consecration means entrusting ourselves to her maternal Heart; placing all of our goods, corporeal and spiritual, at her disposal; and doing everything for her honor. It further entails a real striving to imitate Our Lady interiorly and exteriorly, and to fulfill her will in all things. “Let us strive to live in such a way that every day, every moment, we become ever more the property of the Immaculate, fulfilling always more perfectly the will of the Immaculate” (10).
It is interesting to note that St. Maximilian promoted total consecration without having knowledge of St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion. He became familiar with this classic little treatise only later in life. Instead, his devotion is drawn from the Franciscan tradition, which profoundly shaped all of his theological insights. He wrote to a confrere:
For seven centuries we strove for the recognition of the truth of the Immaculate Conception, and our efforts were crowned with the proclamation of the dogma and the apparition of the Immaculate at Lourdes. Now we move on to the second part of the story: the sowing of the seed of this truth in souls, fostering its growth and ensuring that it produce fruits of sanctity. And this in all souls who are and who will be until the end of the world (11).
In St. Maximilian’s view, the Immaculate Conception may be likened to a blueprint. In the first chapter of Franciscan history, the order strove to make this blueprint known by all the Church‒ an effort which ended with a definitive victory in 1854. Now, according to St. Maximilian, the blueprint must be implemented throughout the Church by means of Marian consecration. With this consecration, lived out authentically, the faithful can be increasingly transubstantiated into the Immaculate, and thus, patterned ever more closely on the Immaculate Conception‒ Our Lady herself.
The more this transformation takes hold, the more one becomes, as it were, an extension of Mary. The soul acquires an increasingly profound insertion into the depths of the Holy Trinity. Exteriorly, however, the person appears no different from any other. Here we see again, how carefully chosen and enlightening St. Maximilian’s terminology really is. At Holy Mass, the accidents of bread and wine remain in place, even after the consecration. Likewise, transubstantiation into the Immaculate entails a radical change, but leaves the exterior appearance intact. No one could guess, simply by looking at a true Marian devotee, the degree to which his soul is flooded with grace.
The analogy is likewise instructive as to the proper mode of evangelization for Catholics. If one’s sanctity consists in being Marianized, then hiding the truth about Our Lady amounts to concealing the means of sanctification. Obfuscating Mary’s necessity, beauty, and queenship, can be likened to hiding the truth about the Blessed Sacrament.
St. Maximilian’s formulation, “transubstantiation into the Immaculate,” also draws attention to the relationship between the Holy Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin. Eucharistic mediation is profoundly Marian, and Marian mediation cannot be other than Eucharistic. Jesus and Mary are indissolubly united, including in the Blessed Sacrament and, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate,” (12).
The Church and Our Lord are united in a spousal manner. As in all spousal unions, however, a real distinction remains. The Personhood of Christ is that of the Son of God, while the personality of the Church is strictly Marian. Herein lays the distinction between Christ and the Church. Reflection on this point cannot fail, however, to also shed light on the union between Christ and His Church, since, “Jesus and Mary always go together,” as St. Bernadette puts it.
The genius of St. Maximilian’s terminology lies, in part, in his succinctly locating the Christification of the Church (we might say, transubstantiation into the Eucharist), and each of its members, precisely in Marianization. The Holy Spirit is the “Soul” of the Church, and Our Lady is the Spouse, or better still, Quasi-Incarnation, of the Holy Spirit. This accounts for the Marian presence which pervades the entire Church, which Bl. John Paul II writes of in Redemptoris Mater. It also illustrates why sanctification‒ that is, Christification‒ can only mean Marianization.
The reflections and insights of the Franciscan saints on Our Lady have developed within a unique, yet thoroughly Catholic tradition. The thought of St. Maximilian is no exception. His insights, like those of St. Bonaventure, Bl. John Duns Scotus, St. Bernardine of Siena, and St. Leonard of Port Maurice, have developed in a manner congruous with the charism and spirituality of the Seraphic Father. It has rightly been said that Franciscan theology flows from the stigmatized heart of St. Francis.
The content of Franciscan Mariology can be found in the thought of St. Francis himself, albeit, stripped of academic terminology. He calls Our Lady the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” rather than the Immaculate Conception; instead of Co-redemptrix, “Handmaid”; and rather than Type or Exemplar of the Church, “Virgin made Church.” These themes have formed the core of Franciscan Mariological thought, centered on the Immaculate Conception as the metaphysical basis for Marian mediation‒ both in its mode (virginal-maternal, whether we speak of the objective or subjective redemption) and in its end, namely, the growth of the Church and each of its members into the likeness of the Immaculate.
The thought of St. Maximilian represents a simple development in this Mariology. At San Damiano, Christ gave St. Francis, and the Franciscan Order, a mission: “Rebuild my Church.” Franciscans of every age have held that Mary, qua Immaculate Conception, is both the blueprint to be followed and the means of success in this mission.

Notes
(1) Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 2001, p. 112
(2) SK# 486
(3) SK# 1334
(4) SK# 508
(5) Bonamy, 63, quoting from Sketch by Kolbe, 1940
(6) Miles Immaculatae. I, 1938. Emphasis added
(7) H. M. Manteau-Bonamy, O.P., Immaculatae Conception and the Holy Spirit, trans. Richard Arnandez, F.S.C. (Kenosha, Wisc.: Prow Books/Franciscan Marytown Press, 1977), 2-3, quoting from Final Sketch
(8) Miles Immaculatae. I, 1938
(9) SK# 486
(10) SK# 1232
(11) SK# 485
(12) Mark 10:9

Jesus Christ "divided all human history into two, into "B.C." and "A.D.""

Philosophy of Jesus, The

Kreeft, Peter

Amazingly, no one ever seems to have looked at Jesus as a philosopher, or his teaching as philosophy. Yet no one in history has ever had a more radically new philosophy, or made more of a difference to philosophy, than Jesus. He divided all human history into two, into "B.C." and "A.D."; and the history of philosophy is crucial to human history, since philosophy is crucial to man; so how could He not also divide philosophy?
Philosophy of Jesus, The

....
Taken from: http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/the-philosophy-of-jesus/