RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Common Ancestry Proven< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2007,16:35   

Arden sez this merits it's own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.

Discuss!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:05   

Re: that second article, it's amusing that just a few lines above THIS:

 
Quote
Led by Dr. Bing Su of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Kunming, China, researchers analyzed the DNA of humans and several species of apes and monkeys. Their previous work had shown that type II neuropsin, a longer form of the protein, is not expressed in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) of lesser apes and Old World monkeys. In the current study, they tested the expression of type II in the PFC of two great ape species, chimpanzees and orangutans, and found that it was not present. Since these two species diverged most recently from human ancestors (about 5 and 14 million years ago respectively), this finding demonstrates that type II is a human-specific form that originated relatively recently, less than 5 million years ago.


...one finds THIS:

 
Quote
Biblical Adam, First Man - Adam, first man per Bible records, archaeology dates him to 14,000 BP
www.accuracyingenesis.com


14 million, 14 thousand, it's all good! Teach the controversy! Ftk, are you listening?

Also, what a ripoff! An ad for human/chimp hybrids links to this. :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:14   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,17:35)
Arden sez this merits its own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.

Discuss!

Scientists may have found a gene mutation that distinguishes us from apes. There are likely to be many genes involved, and many non-protein-coding regulatory regions.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:24   

Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2007,13:14)
Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,17:35)
Arden sez this merits its own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.

Discuss!

Scientists may have found a gene mutation that distinguishes us from apes. There are likely to be many genes involved, and many non-protein-coding regulatory regions.

[creo monde ON]

Oh yeah, but were those mutations RANDOM?

[creo mode OFF]

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:26   

Quote (jeannot @ May 10 2007,13:24)
Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2007,13:14)
Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,17:35)
Arden sez this merits its own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.

Discuss!

Scientists may have found a gene mutation that distinguishes us from apes. There are likely to be many genes involved, and many non-protein-coding regulatory regions.

[creo monde ON]

Oh yeah, but were those mutations RANDOM?

[creo mode OFF]

Also, this article completely fails to answer the question of why we still have apes. Typical Darwinists.  :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:31   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,16:35)
Arden sez this merits it's own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

EDIT: Oh,  man. And while we're on the topic of exciting evolutionary discoveries: Chinese researchers seemed to have pinpointed the gene mutation that distinguishes our cognitive abilities from that of apes. I feel overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with evidence.

Discuss!

Thanks for the catch and the links - and pointing to the double embarrassment of "Uncommon Descent" is a beautiful thing.

Kristine is shimmying right now in the Galapagos Islands, but I am sure she will do a special shimmy for you when she gets back.  And she could even be taking pictures of boobies for us right now!

Think of all the money and time she could have saved if only she realized like Casey Luskin and the DI Boyz that you don't even have to travel past Seattle to do research.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,13:40   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ May 09 2007,16:35)
Arden sez this merits it's own thread, so...

BAM!

Let, uh, the celebrations begin! Somebody get Kristine in here to shimmy triumphantly or something.

"UncommonDescent" is now a doubly embarrassing blog title.

Well, the common descent of humans has never been denied by creationists.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,15:23   

I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,15:28   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,16:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

REALLY?!?!?!?!?! Can you please show me one reference where creationists predicted "that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years."

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,15:33   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

Me on the other thread :
Quote

Noah's Arch is confirmed!
What, 2000 generations ago? No way. 200 at most.


God I'm good.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,16:23   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

[clears throat]

*ahem. ahem.*

HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!!!!!!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,16:47   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,16:23)
I must be missing something...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,18:37   

ya gotta admit, at least she's consistent about missining things.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,23:25   

Certainly the dates don't jive (never do), but obviously creationists believe that humans evolved from a "small group" of people who emigrated somewhere near Africa and spread throughout Eurasia.

Ever heard of a guy named Peleg?  

I'm sure you've heard the creationist take on “mitochondrial Eve”.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2007,23:52   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

Creationists predicted that humans diverged from apes 5,000,000 years ago?

I must have missed that.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,03:02   

Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,23:25)
Certainly the dates don't jive (never do), but obviously creationists believe that humans evolved from a "small group" of people who emigrated somewhere near Africa and spread throughout Eurasia.

Ever heard of a guy named Peleg?  

I'm sure you've heard the creationist take on “mitochondrial Eve”.

From the linked article
 
Quote
Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10

You know where they are getting that from? 10 referes to the notes, below

Yes indeedy. Proof positive that eve lived only 6000 years ago. No oringial research, just quotemining.

And THIS IS YOUR FOUNDATION FOR YOU BELIEF?

How utterly pathetic.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,05:55   

the thing that gets me is this is a perfect example of how you and your ilk work FTK.

Science is "good" if it seems to agree with your preconceptions. I.E in this case science seems to be saying Eve did live only 6000 years ago.

Tell me, if "science" later proved that you could not say that because of this research Eve really lived 6000 years ago, would you then agree with that, or continue to promote the initial posture?

If you continue to promote the "fact" that Eve lived 6000 years ago because "science" says so, even after it's been *proven* not to be the case then that's called "lying for Jesus". And that would be unchristian right?

So, I ask you one more time. If "science" has proved that the conclusions in the article you linked to are incorrect, why would you then not believe it? Only because it now no longer agrees with your previous belief?

So you are happy to use "science" when it's in your favor, but when it goes the other way it's unreliable?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,06:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2007,05:55)
So, I ask you one more time. If "science" has proved that the conclusions in the article you linked to are incorrect, why would you then not believe it? Only because it now no longer agrees with your previous belief?

So you are happy to use "science" when it's in your favor, but when it goes the other way it's unreliable?

PREDICTION:

FtK:  You materialists do the same thing by ignoring the science of intelligent design!

One or all of Oldman, Albatrossity, and Arden:  What science of intelligent design? Show us, because we have been asking for years and haven't seen it yet.

FtK:  I'm too busy right now.   Is your Jesus white and have a beard?

Lenny:  (ahem)  My pizza delivery boy says this doesn't prove what you think it does. Why should I believe you instead of him?  (snicker) (giggle)

RTH:  Hey! Is this a flagellum in my pocket or am I just glad to see you!

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:06   

ROTFLMAO  :p

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:14   

Oldman,

I'm not "lying for Jesus".  I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth.  Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.  But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.  I'm merely an open minded layperson.

As for "original research".  Brown's book is lengthy, and he's done plenty of it.  But, I know that doesn't mean squat here, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending him in this particular forum.

Merely thought I'd throw that link out there for kicks.  Enjoy.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:25   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:14)
I'm not "lying for Jesus".  

Right.

You're "lying for a Book About Jesus", and can't tell the difference.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:28   

Lenny, you sir, are a mess.

Carry on.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:42   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:14)
Oldman,

I'm not "lying for Jesus".  I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth.  Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.  But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.  I'm merely an open minded layperson.

As for "original research".  Brown's book is lengthy, and he's done plenty of it.  But, I know that doesn't mean squat here, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending him in this particular forum.

Merely thought I'd throw that link out there for kicks.  Enjoy.

   
Quote
I'm merely an open minded layperson.

Then, if I were to provide you with Information that refuted the claim that Mitochondrial Eve was *not* 6000 years old as claimed in that article would you read it and let us know if you've changed your mind?
Logically if you did not believe what was on the other end of that link, why give it?

   
Quote
Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.

It does not. Again, If I give you information that refutes this claim, will you even look at it? Will you look at it with an open mind?

Here's a simple starter for 10. If "Catastrophy" caused the Grand Canyon to come into existance, why only 1 of them? Why not a Grand Canyon set of 100 huge canyons worldwide?

As to Eve, well  
Quote
No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years.  Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.



Subsequent studies have shown the following:



   * RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate
   * There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop
   * Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes
   * Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations
   * The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool
   * The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies
   * The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock'
   * A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
   * The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted.



It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work.  The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:



  1. They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor
  2. They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.



It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now.  They will be as wrong then as they are now.

Source of the Mitochondrial Eve quote above
Dr Carl Wieland at AIG
Reply to Wieland

So C'mon FTK, do you still think the information in your first link stands up to scrutiny?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:46   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:14)
As for "original research".  Brown's book is lengthy, and he's done plenty of it.  But, I know that doesn't mean squat here, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending him in this particular forum.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261_1.html
Quote
Claim CE261.1:
The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud have never been observed. They have been proposed merely as an ad hoc explanation for a source of comets.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 69.
Response:

  1. As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.

     The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.

  2. If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.


If the rest of Browns "work" is as well supported, then you've dug your own hole already. Nobody's asking you to defend Brown, but do you have a comment on the above? How could this be? Could Brown be *wrong* about a few things?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,07:55   

Who to believe...who to believe....

Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows.  

I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not.

Why aren't there more grand canyons?  Why should there be?  

Here, read all of this for shits and grins.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:04   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:55)
Who to believe...who to believe....

Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows.  

I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not.

Why aren't there more grand canyons?  Why should there be?  

Here, read all of this for shits and grins.

Quote
Who to believe...who to believe....

Which set of interpretations best matches the data?
Quote
Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows.  

Unlike your religion where knowledge is granted once and remains static for ever.
Quote
I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not.

All things are possible, only some things have evidence that shows they might be right. It's also possible the earth might be 10 seconds old. Or 10 minutes. But on the balance of probabilities it's not likely.
Quote
Why aren't there more grand canyons?  Why should there be?

It's quite simple. What, in your opinion caused a "grand" canyon in only one place on earth? What was special about that particular place? The flood would not have cared too much about local anomalies and so why would it not have created canyons everywhere? What's *your* opinion on that?

Your Shits and giggles link says  
Quote
SUMMARY:  Geologists admit that they do not know how the Grand Canyon formed, but they insist that the Colorado River somehow carved it and removed the evidence.1

That "1" leads us to the note  
Quote
1


“Though scientists have studied the canyon for more than 150 years, a definitive answer as to how or when the canyon formed eludes them. The one thing scientists do agree on is that the canyon was carved by the erosive power of the Colorado River, but the river itself has carried away the evidence of its earlier history.”  Wayne Ranney, Carving the Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 2005), back cover.


So on the basis of what the back of a single book says, http://www.creationscience.com says the goddit. We don't know alot of things about how the world works, but we don't say "goddit" to any of them, not unless you want to give up, go home and not make any more progress in science ever.

What do you make of the "Eve" information I gave you?
Quote
Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows.  

Bullshit. Read both arguments, decide which makes the most sense. Take it from there. Have you done that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:08   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:55)
Who to believe...who to believe....

I've just shown how Brown was wrong about a specific prediction. No comment on that then? how about believe the people who've not been proven to be wrong?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:14   

Quote
Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.


Really?  Why would that be?  Please explain in your own words.  Linking to AiG or somewhere only proves that you're a sheep.  Plesae explain in your own words why catastrophe is a better explanation.  Then we can have a discussion about said things.

Oh, speaking of discussions, how're the answers to my science questions coming in our email, ahem, discussion?  Great.  Thanks.

Quote
I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.


Um.  In your own words, please tell us exactly why each of the evidences for deep time fall flat.  I mean they must have if we're still missing something to be discovered later.

Radiometric dating?  Plate techtonics?  Cosmology problems (planet formation, speed of light, etc)?

In your own words, tell us why you can completely ignore these evidences and wait for the second coming evidence to finally come in.

Oh, also, you have some questions waiting in your in mailbox--3 days now.  They aren't difficult or terribly complicated questions.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:31   

Quote
So on the basis of what the back of a single book says, http://www.creationscience.com says the goddit.


No where you will find "goddit" in Brown's theory about the grand canyon.  Get your fingers out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and read it.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:45   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,08:14)
Oldman,

I'm not "lying for Jesus".  I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth.  Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.  But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.  I'm merely an open minded layperson.

This is not true.  You are certainly not open minded on this subject.  You lack any objective criteria for evaluating evidence.  So instead you will simply accept anything that seems to support your assumptions, and reject anything that contradicts them.  Your evaluation process begins and ends with whether or not incoming data agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

Do you doubt my words?  Then describe your evaluation process.  You can't, can you?  How about describing some hypothetical evidence that would change your mind?  Can't do that either, can you?  This is because such evidence simply cannot exist in your mind.

Your mind is the opposite of open.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,08:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2007,05:55)
the thing that gets me is this is a perfect example of how you and your ilk work FTK.

Science is "good" if it seems to agree with your preconceptions. I.E in this case science seems to be saying Eve did live only 6000 years ago.

Tell me, if "science" later proved that you could not say that because of this research Eve really lived 6000 years ago, would you then agree with that, or continue to promote the initial posture?

If you continue to promote the "fact" that Eve lived 6000 years ago because "science" says so, even after it's been *proven* not to be the case then that's called "lying for Jesus". And that would be unchristian right?

So, I ask you one more time. If "science" has proved that the conclusions in the article you linked to are incorrect, why would you then not believe it? Only because it now no longer agrees with your previous belief?

So you are happy to use "science" when it's in your favor, but when it goes the other way it's unreliable?

Wait, I'm confused -- Mitochondrial Eve 6,000 years ago???

Completely impossible, the entire earth was already long since settled by humans by then, except for some oceanic islands. Even SOUTH AMERICA had already been settled for at least 6,000 years before that.

What article says Mitochondrial Eve might be 6,000 years old? AIG doesn't count.

Can't help but notice Pirahna lady is ignoring the parts about common ancestry with apes, since she can't claim creationism 'already predicted that'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,09:04   

She's ignoring all the science. She's just taking the title "Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people" as the extent of the research, and saying creationism predicted it. I don't see how someone can confuse a 15-word description of the research with the research itself, but that's what she's doing.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,09:19   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,08:31)
Quote
So on the basis of what the back of a single book says, http://www.creationscience.com says the goddit.


No where you will find "goddit" in Brown's theory about the grand canyon.  Get your fingers out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and read it.

Right, it could have been space aliens, or some kind of Disembodied Telic Entity. We make no statements about his identity, wink wink.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,10:08   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 11 2007,08:59)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2007,05:55)
the thing that gets me is this is a perfect example of how you and your ilk work FTK.

Science is "good" if it seems to agree with your preconceptions. I.E in this case science seems to be saying Eve did live only 6000 years ago.

Tell me, if "science" later proved that you could not say that because of this research Eve really lived 6000 years ago, would you then agree with that, or continue to promote the initial posture?

If you continue to promote the "fact" that Eve lived 6000 years ago because "science" says so, even after it's been *proven* not to be the case then that's called "lying for Jesus". And that would be unchristian right?

So, I ask you one more time. If "science" has proved that the conclusions in the article you linked to are incorrect, why would you then not believe it? Only because it now no longer agrees with your previous belief?

So you are happy to use "science" when it's in your favor, but when it goes the other way it's unreliable?

Wait, I'm confused -- Mitochondrial Eve 6,000 years ago???

Completely impossible, the entire earth was already long since settled by humans by then, except for some oceanic islands. Even SOUTH AMERICA had already been settled for at least 6,000 years before that.

What article says Mitochondrial Eve might be 6,000 years old? AIG doesn't count.

Can't help but notice Pirahna lady is ignoring the parts about common ancestry with apes, since she can't claim creationism 'already predicted that'.

Ftk gave us this link
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp1569925
I was pointing out that the "science" at that link was enough to convince FTK of it's truthiness. Yet when the same "science" 10 years later says something different this time round FTK will not believe it.
Double Standards. It's not AIG, it's creationscience (the clue is *not* in the name!)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,18:41   

Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:28)
Lenny, you sir, are a mess.

Carry on.

FTK, with all due repsect, I am not the one claiming to speak on behalf of God in an international Internet forum . . .  .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2007,06:20   

"I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not."


"I don't close my mind to a Flat earth because we might find in the future that we missed something."

"I don't close my mind to Phrenology because we might find in the future that we missed something.

"I don't close my mind to Holocaust Denial because we might find in the future that we missed something."

"I don't close my mind to the Moon being made of Green Cheese because we might find in the future that we missed something."

Keep an open mind by all means.  Just don't let your brains fall out.
  :)

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2007,06:40   

Just a suggestion, FTK:

Take a couple of courses in Geology. Learn about sedimentary processes. The rock cycle. The properties of minerals. Plate techtonics. Radioisotopes and decay rates. Once you have a solid backing in the basics of the science, then read the ideas  presented by various groups. Then read the critiques of the ideas. Either you accept the consensus view of scientists or you learn enough to make the decision yourself.

Noone has the time or interest to become experts in all the science out there. However, even with just a few undergraduate geology courses I can understand enough to see AIG's claims as faulty. As one of my colleagues likes to quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and AIG ain't got it. No YEC group has it, and it doesn't take a PhD in geology to see it either.

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2007,09:26   

"No where you will find "goddit" in Brown's theory about the grand canyon.  Get your fingers out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and read it."

Not directly, he just assumes all modern science is wrong if it contradicts the Bible.  Then comes out with his own fantastic explanations of how things happened but then doesn't back them up wih any evidence.  Kinda gives the game away, "goddidit", ya know?  I've read some of his stuff.  

You do know the difference between an open mind and an open cranium, don't you?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2007,11:17   

Quote
and it doesn't take a PhD in geology to see it either.


But I thought that creationists only got 2 kinds of doctorates:  Lemming and Obfuscation.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Dr Sven



Posts: 2
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2007,09:23   

I couldn't help myself,but I had to read some of Brown's book about the Grand Canyon.

For example
here

All I can say is: I want to see the movie. Continent sized plates of mile thick sediment sliding of the back of the continent and crashing into each other within hours, setting of volcanoes due to frictional heat.

The special effects would have to be awesome.

Thanks ftk for pointing this book out to us. I haven't read such a good yarn in a while.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2007,10:09   

Quote (Dr Sven @ May 18 2007,09:23)
I couldn't help myself,but I had to read some of Brown's book about the Grand Canyon.

For example
here

All I can say is: I want to see the movie. Continent sized plates of mile thick sediment sliding of the back of the continent and crashing into each other within hours, setting of volcanoes due to frictional heat.

The special effects would have to be awesome.

Thanks ftk for pointing this book out to us. I haven't read such a good yarn in a while.

And if there WAS a movie that wold prove that people were there.  And people have been here since the beginning.  The movie would clear up the non-sense about deep time.  Get the DI working.  There's money to be made at weekend church camps!

working title:  The Quickly Moving Planet: 6,000 years of off-balanced thinking

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
  40 replies since May 09 2007,16:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]