Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[BobRyan]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.

The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

=====================


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for YEC from bible worshiping science deniers doesn't even have visible proof.

To the contrary

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

See it in living color ---

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

 

[Colter]

To the contrary

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

All answered and debunked long ago. Life isn't a Hollywood production.

 

[BobRyan]

All answered and debunked long ago.

Just not in real life.

 

[Colter]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

Ice core dating in addition to radiometric dating also debunks the YEC myths.

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


"Ice cores are obtained by drilling very deep holes in the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica with specialized drilling rigs. As the rigs drill down, the drill bits cut around a portion of the ice, capturing a long undisturbed "core" in the process. These cores are carefully brought back to the surface in sections, where they are catalogued, and taken to research laboratories under refrigeration. A very large amount of work has been done on several deep ice cores up to 9,000 feet in depth. Several hundred thousand measurements are sometimes made for a single technique on a single ice core.

A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers (D. Meese et al., J. Geophys. Res. 102, 26,411, 1997). Recently, absolute ages have been determined to 75,000 years for at least one location using cosmogenic radionuclides chlorine-36 and beryllium-10 (G. Wagner et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 515, 2001). These agree with the ice flow models and the yearly layer counts. Note that there is no indication anywhere that these ice caps were ever covered by a large body of water, as some people with young-Earth views would expect."

 

[Colter]

Just not in real life.

Yes in real life outside of the Bibliolatry bubble.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

Ice core dating in addition to radiometric dating also debunks the YEC myths.

Sadly you don't deal with the facts listed - rather you shell-game to a different list of your own "selection".

And sadly - ice cores are flawed - because of compression. Ring counting has to be "extrapolated" when you get beyond a few thousand. Plus the cold-warm cycles are not limited to just yearly events in climate change - but can be caused by geothermal events and meteorological events ice flows, snow storms etc. Your reliance on "guesswork'-- noted.

 

[Colter]

BobRyan said: ↑
Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years



Sadly you don't deal with the facts listed - rather you shell-game to a different list of your own "selection".

And sadly - ice cores are flawed - because of compression. Ring counting has to be "extrapolated" when you get beyond a few thousand. Plus the cold-warm cycles are not limited to just yearly events in climate change - but can be caused by geothermal events and meteorological events ice flows, snow storms etc. Your reliance on "guesswork'-- noted.

So many of the things you list have already been debunked, what's sad is that you live in a state of denial, no amount of evidence will get you to sober up and get honest. So really, I don't waste much of my time talking to a closed minded, hard headed YEC-ist.

And what's so absurd is that you use the same misspelled "clip and post" rebuttals without even realizing that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are said to be 100-200,000 years old by those who did the study!

In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".

 

[BobRyan]

So many of the things you list have already been debunked, what's sad is that you live in a state of denial, no amount of evidence will get you to sober up and get honest. So really, I don't waste much of my time talking to a closed minded, hard headed YEC-ist.

And what's so absurd is that you use the same misspelled "clip and post" rebuttals without even realizing that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are said to be 100-200,000 years old by those who did the study!

In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".

In atheism and "attack-the-Bible-first-ism" any ol excuse will do.

The fact that blind-faith evolutionism predicts many Adams and Creationism only "one" and the fact that y-chromosome Adam dictates one - not many is "just another observation in nature to be ignored" for the blind faith evolutionist adopting the "attack-the-bible-first" solution.

The mtDNA "observation in nature" is so strong that blind-faith evolutionists had to 'invent stories' about how all other "Eves" and all of their descendents were wiped out... and so also for all the other strains of Adam(s).

How sad.

Follow the "story telling"

The self-serving circular logic in this bit of evol storytelling is what you call 'debunking' the observations IN nature we have in actual science!

How sad.
==========================================
example from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

The existence of a YMRCA for any given human population is a consequence of the fact that every human being has a biological father, and that every human male inherits his Y chromosome from his biological father.

<That is the one shred of truth they are willing to retain -- since it is blatantly obvious to all>

We assume quite reasonably that every man inherited his Y chromosome from some common ancestor (say, the first creature to have a Y chromosome). So there had to be a male who was the last one from whom all men inherit their Y chromosome. (It is not a logical necessity that that male was a Homo sapiens however.)

<In that case they merely "assume" the salient point of their own argument with that bit about a non-human adam - instead of proving it. How sad>

Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time.[8] His other male contemporaries also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent.

<no matter the fact that this denies observations in nature already stated at the start of the article!! Now to "invent" a scheme for deleting all but one strain - magically>

Due to the definition via the "currently living" population, the identity of a MRCA, and by extension of the human YMRCA, is time-dependent (it depends on the moment in time intended by the term "currently"). The MRCA of a population may move forward in time as archaic lineages within the population go extinct: once a lineage has died out, it is irretrievably lost. This mechanism can thus only shift the title of YMRCA forward in time. Such an event could be due to the total extinction of several basal haplogroups.[4] The same holds for the concepts of matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs: it follows from the definition of YMRCA that he had at least two sons who both have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. If the lineages of all but one of those sons die out, then the title of YMRCA shifts forward from the remaining son through his patrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two sons who both have living, patrilineal descendants."

<how "desperate" the "attack-the-Bible-first" mentality.>

 

[BobRyan]

In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman,

How sad that you think this 'back to one woman' feature is not exactly what YEC predicts!

How sad that the a self-serving circular argument that is STILL forced to admit that all lineages go back to one-woman because of "observations in nature" -- is not a 'wake up call" to the desperate groups dedicated to "attack-the-bible-first" mythologies.

By contrast - blind-faith evolutionism posits multiple genetic strains not one - then has to "magically" kill off all strains - but one.

the "attack-the-bible-first-mentality" is desperate in every respect.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's not forget that it takes millions of years for ice to form to a depth of 260 feet; though 8 WWII planes were buried that deep in just 49 years.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's not forget that it takes millions of years for ice to form to a depth of 260 feet; though 8 WWII planes were buried that deep in just 49 years.

So then that should have been 70 whopping ice rings with each ring measuring 3.5 feet thick??

How many miles of ice for 60 million years?

 

[BobRyan]

Each failed and horribly flawed attempt to answer an irrefutable point - is wrapped in a bow and pronounced "done" by the true devotee to blind-faith-evolutionism... no matter how flawed... no matter that no response at all is given to try and rescue the flawed attempt.

Highly "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader

Give me the Bible instead of the junk-science religion of the blind faith evolutionist.

Give me the irrefutable facts of science in actual observations in nature - over the science-deniers that we have in blind-faith-evolutionism.

 

[Colter]

There isn't a "attack-the-bible-first-mentality", for thousands of years Western and Middle Eastern cultures have been indoctrinated into the teachings about history from a Biblical perspective. As science developed (growing out of religion) we began to discover that the material world doesn't fit some of the YEC claims of the Bible. So, its really the other way around, the church and it's indoctrinated Bible worshiping flock have sought to attack the findings of science. The church brutally suppressed, disfellowshipped and even burned at the stake it's critics.

Honestly, you are heavily invested in the YEC theory of the Bronze Age Hebrews, it would be too devastating for you to EVER admit any of the flaws of the Bible.

We have the evidence of an old earth, you don't have the evidence of a singular YEC event.

 

[BobRyan]

Honestly, you are heavily invested in the YEC theory of the Bronze Age Hebrews, it would be too devastating for you to EVER admit any of the flaws of the Bible.

We have the evidence of an old earth, you don't have the evidence of a singular YEC event.

Already debunked your efforts to double-down on Othaniel Marsh's "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"

The "arranging of fossils" to "tell a story" was already found to be "lamentable" by your own atheist evolutionists.

meanwhile in "real science" we have --

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

 

[BobRyan]

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

 

[Colter]

List of oldest rivers by ages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age

 

[Colter]

Y chromosomes millions of years old:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Origin