 |
 |
 |
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third part |
||
 |
 |
 |
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 04:39 AM Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third partEvolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way The Bible and this theory One day I faced the biblical passage of the Creation (Genesis 1:26). God created a man, so says the Bible. But I asked myself: a man as he is today? That is impossible! A man is structured to reproduce himself through a woman and if there is no such woman, that structure would be useless. How would he reproduce himself? If there was no solution to this problem, the species would end right there and then, at the time of his death. Then I said to myself, God got himself into the trap of time. Either He created a woman within Adam’s reproductive life or he has no human species at all. I considered that it was too big a flaw for someone who is Omniscient. But what if a woman was first? I asked myself. It would all be the same: alone, without a male, she can not reproduce either. The only solution would have been to have the first creature be “self reproductive”. Voila! The rest of the passage coincides perfectly with this concept. God created a hermaphrodite that reproduced by herself. Time went by. But given that she needs no one and no one needs her, she gets lonely and clamors to God, who sees that it was not good for her to be alone. God tells her: "I am going to give you a companion, flesh of your flesh and bones of your bones", and the hermaphrodite gave birth to a baby boy. Fabulous! Now everything works well. This demanded a good definition of a hermaphrodite. How was she? Was she more similar to a man or to a woman? The answer was obvious: to a woman. A man has no womb and therefore can not conceive. But, what does it take for a woman to be a hermaphrodite? It takes everything she has today, plus a pair of testicles, a sperm deposit and the necessary ducts to take de sperm to the “G” spot of the vagina. Obviously the following question would be: Where could the hermaphrodite have the testicles? When my studies induced me to consider that “the holes in the pubic bones would be a great place for them”, it was so surprising that it was hard to believe. More and more questions came, and the answers that were brought up, all seemed sound and easy to grasp. Every new little detail seemed to corroborate that the original creature was indeed a hermaphrodite. It was traumatic. The Scriptures are very clear that the original creature was a male, and he had a name, Adam. But with that concept, the Bible has no scientific viability. But if we consider that the first human being was a hermaphrodite, even that same biblical passage has scientific verification, that seemed madness! When the accumulated scientific information got bigger and bigger, the biblical concordances with that information also got bigger, but only if we stuck to the premise that the original creature was a hermaphrodite. The “incongruity” of the biblical narrative, in regards to the creation of the human being, starts with the specification that he was created first. Apparently, the image of being first is given the meaning of being the source of everything and the most important. But we have seen in the first chapters of my book how man is far from being first, and on the contrary, is weak and dependent of women. The importance of a man is derived from his capacity to create science, technology and art from origin, from birth, and his availability to engender. In the narrative of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, to fulfill the specification of being “flesh of the flesh and bones of the bones of the first creature”, necessarily has to be taken as a “miracle” and as an “act of faith”, for it does not stand any scientific analysis. Once Adam and Eve were created, the Bible mentions that they had three male children, and it is not explicit about the names or where did the women with whom they had children came from. To have all three sons procreate with their mother (since there were no more women), sounds improper, to say the least. And all that for what purpose, just to say that man was created first? Now let us look at it from another point of view. Let us consider for a moment that the first created creature was a hermaphrodite. The specification that at the beginning only one type of human being was created gets fulfilled and God does not fall in the trap of time. The human hermaphrodite is by nature independent and auto-reproductive and being a human, a thinking creature, and why not say too, created in the image of God? Being a hermaphrodite makes it possible to have a male as a son (a mutation instead of the normal hermaphrodite). If this had happened one or a thousand generations (or more) later there would have not been any difference, in the mean time the hermaphrodite would be auto-reproduced.  Men were conceived especially for women and not the other way around. So a man, is the divine prescription, God’s recipe to give a woman (into which the hermaphrodite degenerated) the opportunity to get away from loneliness. A man was made dependent of a woman so that he would have to search for her, long for her, to be anxious over her and rejoice at her, so that he would have to search for her again, long for her again, to be anxious and rejoice at her over again. A man without a woman has no reason for living. The fact that a man is born out of a hermaphrodite makes him a kind of a mutant (the normal way would be to have a hermaphrodite be born of a hermaphrodite) and all mutants are more specialized but of less quality of design than the creature they come from. In the case of a man, he is a successful mutant, but nevertheless a mutant. A man is the best therapy (work therapy, the healing of sicknesses through work) to take away the loneliness of a woman, or at least, that is God’s will. I consider that someone changed that portion of biblical scripture with the idea of making a man seem the first human being created. Surely, Adam was the first man of a lineage, but not the first human being, not even the first male. For me it is easier to understand it that way and know that the Bible has scientific agreement, than not to accept it (discarding all the scientific evidence accumulated) and see that the Bible has no scientific agreement. But, of course, each one has to take his own decision. If the Bible was changed to make the statement that a man was the first human being created, then that concept is a lie. With this in mind, it was not even desirable that there would be an acceptance of concepts between science and religión. That would have been terrible. The Lunar Calendar of the Jews establishes that the 11th. of September of the year 1999 was the first day of the year 5760. Taking this into account the Bible could be one 100 percent correct if we take in consideration the intrinsic peculiarities of the Jewish people who wrote it. For them, for as long as there was no male in their midst, nothing existed. Then this world truly is 5760 years old, to the date mentioned, to them. What the Jewish Calendar is measuring, and with precision, is the time they have had a male in their midst, in their lineage of hermaphrodites. Lots of Christian scientists have made a very poor service to science and to religion when they try to transform the times of the existence of the universe to only ten to 12000 years, because in that manner the numbers of religion and science match (according to them). Due to the fact that apparently the biblical times do not allow a longer period of existence, they have said that the continents drift at much higher speed and that the moon only has eight thousand years circling the Earth, among so many other incredible things. Whenever scientists, of any sort, induce experiments to corroborate what they want to prove, they are prone to end up in disaster. I have tried, to the best of my abilities, to keep away from that procedure, even if I have to accept that somebody did change the Bible in the passage of Creation. Another way of putting it is: this is a scientific work and not a religious presentation. Approximately 12,000 years ago, there were males born in the area that now is known as the border between China and Pakistan. This group divided itself in two: the ones descending into Pakistan adopted the Sanskrit Language, from which the occidental languages are derived, and those that moved into the high plateau of China and adopted the Mandarin Language, from which the Far East languages are derived. The search by men of new groups of hermaphrodites, forced the Pakistan group to move, some to the east, and created the Hindu family of languages, and those that went to the west, that founded the Iranian family of languages (and the Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Teutonic, Celtic, Greek and Latin families of languages). Part of the Iranian family of languages is the Aramean one, very much linked to the Jewish people, and one of the languages of the original Bible. The time elapsed between the 12,000 years mentioned before and the beginning of the Jewish Calendar, 5760 years ago to the date referred before, was the amount of time required between the creation of males in the China-Pakistan border and the birth of Adam. The hermaphrodites from where the Jewish people descend, could have given birth a male of their own or had a male through one visitor coming from the East, in any way, they obtained a male to start the greatest and longest religious revolution of the world. The biblical geographic scenario is well established, and the times are within range of credibility. The very important factor of language is also capable of being corroborated, but once again, you have to put first the concept of the hermaphrodite in the biblical scenario in order to have the Bible, history, geography and the linguistic science match.  I have described that in this theory, the evolution of each species repeats itself in its own development and gestation. Since each species has its own development and gestation, then the evolution of each species is different. In the Bible it says that the animals were created each according to its own (in the original Aramean), Genesis 1:21, which could well be interpreted as that each animal has its own history or evolution. Therefore the Bible and this theory coincide surprisingly 100 per cent. This new theory only differs in that it describes the meaning of “its own”, its own development and gestation. The biblical passage is considered to have been written 3,600 years ago and differs totally to what Charles Darwin wrote (hardly 150 years ago), who affirmed that there was a common origin of the species. To the human being and particularly to the Christian, it has always been a puzzle the enigma of the fatherhood of Jesus of Nazareth. To science it is not credible that a woman would get pregnant without the participation of a man (much less in those times of the birth of Jesus in which there was no conceiving in vitro and no cloning). But for religious people it is very different: “for with God all things are possible” (Mark 10: 27). It could seem that “science” has a better hand, given that truly women can not conceive without the spermatozoa of men. Nevertheless “science” (once again in quotation marks) in almost 2,000 years could not come up with a credible theory that could decipher that enigma (and neither the Christian Churches, the most interested in this matter, because they got away from science, could they decipher it). For ancient Greeks, the concept of hermaphrodites was an integral part of their experiences (the word is part of their mythology). In their voyages they had encounters with them (west of Gibraltar). Jesus of Nazareth comes into existence hardly five hundred years later after the Golden Age of the Greeks. Surely enough, at that time there were hermaphrodites in existence as even now they are present. Now let us look at the biblical passage: an angel appeared to a young virgin named Mary (Saint Luke 1: 26-35). The angel informs her that she is going to have a baby to be called Jesus. Let us imagine her astonished and awed face, kneeling down in the manner usual to her, (she is in front of God’s Messenger) knees and chest to the ground. She tells the angel that it is impossible for she is a virgin, but the angel insists. Let us continue imagining Mary's anemic state: with the nerves and hair at edge (the group to which she belonged stoned to death single pregnant women), electricity running down her spine. Lots of people, in situations that are very extraordinary, lose control of their sphincters and end up urinating or even defecating. Mary, being a hermaphrodite, ejaculated, and being in the proper position, knees and chest to the ground, got pregnant so the old scriptures would get fulfilled that the Son of God would come to this earth without male participation. After the conditions are ripe for the conception Mary changes attitude and says that the will of God be fulfilled in her body. Surely, before our eyes, we have a world of new sensations. The narrative has been there, waiting patiently to have some one to interpret it for those that care.  The Bible says that we must search the scriptures (Saint John 5:39), which is far more than just memorizing and repeating them. It also says that the truth shall make us free (St John 8:32), but that truth we must search for it, it is not coming easy. Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that the Bible was changed to say a lie (that a man was the first human being created), would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything? Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that Charles Darwin is wrong as far as evolution is concerned, would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything? (Many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, left a back door open to darwinism because it was politically correct and scientifically wrong). Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that this new theory of evolution, one in which you do not need to be a Believer to believe it (the evidences of it you have them in your own body, whether you are a man or a woman, straight or gay), one in which if you are a Believer you have to accept that the Bible was changed to say a lie (that a man was the first human being created) in order to believe it, would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything? I, Felix Rocha Martinez, did what I considered scientifically and religiously correct, even though it was not politically correct, because only the truth shall make us free. Response to an Angry Evolutionist (Richard Dawkins) I should be as angry as you are. Christians take a translation of the Bible without considering that it is a translation. The Bible changes without having anybody to change it. The value of words change with time. The Bible in itself is an interpretation of translators. The Bible in Aramean says: And God created a man-woman and the translator wrote: And God created a man and a woman. It is not the same. They translated over material they did not know (or willfully mistranslated it, which is worse) and started a process of putting Christians and scientists, needlessly, face to face. The Bible is the binnacle of a lineage, not of humanity. That people decided that life did not start until there was a male in their group of hermaphrodites, so their history starts according to their calender that begins with their first male, very correctly, for the Jews, it is measuring. very precisely, for how long they have had males in their midst. (Muslims do not have the problem of translations, they read the Koran in its original language. Nevertheless, the first 5 books of the Old Testament of the Bible, with minor changes, are also in the Koran. In this way, they share the story of Adam and Eve). I should be twice as angry as you are. Darwinists make exactly the same mistakes than Believers, be them Christians or Muslims. The first time that I put in Internet that before we were men and women we were hermaphrodites, they laughed to their hearts content. Without reading my reasoning they said: What did he smoke? Darwin never said that. If Christians say that by definition I am wrong because I say that before we were men and women we were hermaphrodites and the Bible does not say it, Darwinists say that by definition I am wrong because Charles Darwin did no say it. (Mr. Richard Dawkins, Are you still reading in spite that I wrote about religion?). I do not have a Ph.D. in medicine, nevertheless, I studied by myself anatomy from a totally different perspective to that studied by medics (they study anatomy, among other things, to observe health deviations to see how they are going to face them) that allowed me a very different set of knowledge than they get from their studies. That allows me to make a series of questions that my theory answers and that now I make to you, scientists and Believers: 1.- Why is it that human males have nipples on their chests? 2.- Why is it that women as well as men have holes in their pubic bones? 3.- Why is it that women have a clitoris that when there is an orgasm it travels into the body? 4.- Why is it that women have a G spot? 5.- Why is it that the clitoris as well as the penis have glans, frenum and prepuce and that both are cavernous tissues that become erectile when full of blood? 6.- Why is it that men have raphe? 7.- Why is it that the interior vaginal lips of women as well as the scrotum of men have the similarity of being the darkest parts of their bodies apart of being so similar in the reactions to temperatures and touch? 8.- Why is it that when a man enters into a very cold water swimming pool his testicles shrivel up and some times come up almost to the holes of the pubic bones? 9.- Why is it that women are better designed than men? (They can survive with less food, with less air, They stand more pain. They can carry a baby for a lot more time than men). 10.- Why is it that women as well as men have a scar from the throat to the genital zone? (in women in the ninth month of pregnancy it looks like a zipper about to get ripped apart and in a hairy chest man it is quite obvious). 11.- Why are there homosexuals? Make a survey among your friends and see how many of them can answer these questions. Scientists have an advantage: They do not need to have faith to believe in this theory. The evidences in our bodies are plentiful. Nevertheless, they do not have an easy way out for the same reason, the evidences in our bodies are plentiful. If they do not believe my explanations, What are theirs? (to the 11 questions that I have just made). Inadequate answers: I do not like it. Charles Darwin did not say it, therefore, by definition it is wrong. Believers are at disadvantage. I do not consider an adequate proposition to say that there is a scientific truth and there is a religious truth. No. There is only one truth, no more. There is no easy way out, the evidences in our bodies are plentiful and the evidences in the Bible are surprising. If you do not believe my explanations, What are yours? (to begin with to the 11 questions that I have just made and to the biblical passages mentioned, and there are more). Inadequate answers: I do not like it. the Bible does not say it, therefore, by definition it is wrong. I know it is horrible to accept that the Bible was changed to say that a man was the first human being, I went through that experience many years ago. I know it is not easy. You open Pandora’s box and you do not know what course it is going to take. But if you do not open it, you will be skidding in the same place for as long as there is humanity. It is a great opportunity for scientists and Believers (it would be fantastic for the States of the United States that have an enormous problem in their schools): Only the truth shall make all of us free. I remind my readers that I am capable, willing and available to give talks and conferences about my theory. frocham@yahoo.com.mx |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
sábado, julio 24, 2010, 10:17 AM Très bon article, c'est vrai, elle est interactive, |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comentarios |
||
|
|
|
Agregar comentarioRellene los campos de abajo para dejar su comentario. |
||
|
|
|
