DNA Evidence for the Bible

[bhsmte]

While admitting that they are not the exact truth. That's called being transparent. Anyone who reads the article can see that the computer models (by their very nature) are not examples of reality.

Some need to create strawman though.

Helps protect their faith belief.

 

[amariselle]

While admitting that they are not the exact truth. That's called being transparent. Anyone who reads the article can see that the computer models (by their very nature) are not examples of reality.

Yet, they do claim they can fill in gaps in the fossil record with such methods.

 

[amariselle]

Some need to create strawman though.

Helps protect their faith belief.

Oh the infamous "strawman" argument. Those who do not wish to answer questions continually resort to this in order to evade actual issues and problems in "scientific" research. Convenient.

 

[Armoured]

The unbelievers. You say you are a Catholic, I would NEVER say that about you.

Say what about me??

 

[Armoured]

Yet, they do claim they can fill in gaps in the fossil record with such methods.

Only as far as available evidenc3 allows, and all while fully acknowledging the educated guess work for what it is.

 

[amariselle]

Only as far as available evidenc3 allows, and all while fully acknowledging the educated guess work for what it is.

That's not what the link I provided from the Smithsonian says at all.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

 

[joshua 1 9]

does it not mean only Christians are to post on it.

This is an open forum. There is another forum where ONLY Christians are allowed to post. I post here more then there. Although I may get more accomplished if I posted on that forum.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are trees on earth older than that by about 5000 years.

Yes the bristlecone pine tree become a subject of discussion sometimes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'd like you to answer the question about how you know what the DNA of Biblical figures shows?

Again click on the links in the first post. I can not explain anything any better then that web site explains this.

 

[amariselle]

While admitting that they are not the exact truth. That's called being transparent. Anyone who reads the article can see that the computer models (by their very nature) are not examples of reality.

Why are they using such models and also drawings to support their decision to claim Darwinian evolution as fact? That is hardly transparent and it's far from honest.

They have created their own evidence where actual evidence is lacking. And they consider this created evidence to be adequate "proof" to base their claims on. This and other such "evidence" is what institutions like the Smithsonian base their "knowledge" on.

Seriously, the whole thing is a stable as a deck of cards in a windstorm. And no one wants to answer why this kind of "research" is acceptable. Go find the REAL fossil evidence, we don't have any reason to trust computer models that are mere speculation at best.

 

[Larniavc]

Yet, they do claim they can fill in gaps in the fossil record with such methods.

Except they are very clear to say that they are computer models. Do you understand that people know that computer models are not reality but models of reality?

It even says so in the article. You seem to be implying that they think that the models are exact recreations of reality: is that what you are saying?

 

[amariselle]

Except they are very clear to say that they are computer models. Do you understand that people know that computer models are not reality but models of reality?

It even says so in the article. You seem to be implying that they think that the models are exact recreations of reality: is that what you are saying?

No, that is not what I'm saying.

 

[Larniavc]

No, that is not what I'm saying.

Then we agree.

 

[Larniavc]

Why are they using such models and also drawings to support their decision to claim Darwinian evolution as fact?

They are not. They already know that ToE is fact. Only creationist arguments that ToE is not the best explaination of allele frequency change over time.

 

[amariselle]

They are not. They already know that ToE is fact. Only creationist arguments that ToE is not the best explaination of allele frequency change over time.

That is exactly my point, thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem many Christians have with science, is that not all scientific claims ARE well evidenced.

No. The problem is that they ignore that evidence, and misrepresent other evidence. The Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial DNA Eve are two perfect examples. The entire misrepresentation can be cleared up by one question. How many great-great grandmothers did you have? I had 8. How about you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, they can study the Mitochondrial DNA and the Y-Chromsome for the men. You can click on some of the links in the first post of this thread if your interested in learning anything about the most recent research on this topic.

How many great-great grandmothers do you have?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet, they do claim they can fill in gaps in the fossil record with such methods.

No different than other fields. They were able to "fill in the gaps" of how the Titanic sank by using computer models. That is what science does, produce testable models.

 

[Veera Chase]

The problem many Christians have with science, is that not all scientific claims ARE well evidenced.

If it's not evidenced then it's not science.
You're letting your wishful thinking get in the way of your reality.

 

[amariselle]

No different than other fields. They were able to "fill in the gaps" of how the Titanic sank by using computer models. That is what science does, produce testable models.

Ah, I was just thinking about this earlier today. The Titanic has long been a huge interest of mine.

There are many differences between the fossil record/the theories about our "common ancestor" and the sinking of the Titanic.

First of all, there are many first hand eyewitness accounts from survivors of the sinking. (705 survivors) Many of them described how the ship split in two as it was going under. Even so, several movies and portrayals of the sinking still went with the assumption that the Titanic sank in one piece. One movie in particular, called "Raise the Titanic" was about recovering the ship, and in the movie the ship was completely intact. (Unrealistic, yes, but that's how they chose to make their movie because that is what many people believed for a long time. The movie was released in 1980, five years before the wreckage of the Titanic was found.

It was not until the Titanic was discovered in 1985 by Robert Ballard and his team that it was officially confirmed that the ship was indeed in two separate pieces on the ocean floor. Based on the distance between the two pieces of the wreckage it was concluded that the Titanic had to have split apart at or very near the surface.

Still, there are little details that researchers and historians are not positive about, like did the stern section spin around as it sank for example. The major things can be concluded on with a high amount of certainty however, because we now have the wreckage to study (not mere fragments) and we can compare that to survivor accounts. These survivors were there, they witnessed it for themselves and they told their stories to people first hand. Remember, the sinking of the Titanic occurred only 104 years ago, recent history compared to what scientists are attempting to study regarding the fossil record.

The issue with the fossil record is not even close to what we're dealing with regarding the Titanic. We do not have eyewitness accounts from people who were there and witnessed such evolution over time, and we do not have a complete or even nearly complete fossil record. As already mentioned, we have the actual wreckage to look at in regards to the Titanic.

Comparing computer animation of the fossil record to computer animation of the sinking of the Titanic is highly problematic. Scientists know FAR less about the fossil record than they do about the Titanic, it's not even close. The gaps in the fossil record are quite substantial, and many conclusions are being jumped to, and inferences made.

If all we had were fragments of the Titanic and absolutely NO eyewitness accounts, then MAYBE the two would be comparable.