Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[CabVet]

8*e^(4303*.004784) = 6,970,784,029

And that's completely meaningless because we know for a fact that over the past 100 years the human population grew at like 30%+ per generation instead of the numbers that you use.

 

[Astridhere]

8*e^(4303*.004784) = 6,970,784,029

Zaius, all I can add is that often the opposition demands a better standard of evidence and substantiation than they themselves can supply

Evolutionists are always changing dates corrupted by algorithms based on many assumptions. These not only involve algorithms themselves, these are rooted in fossil evidence for some of the insertion values. Even one new fossil will suddenly change irrefuteable evidence for one divergence date, 4mya, 5mya, 6mya, to meaningless twaddle eg Ardi. Now many researchers ascribe to 8mya. It will continue to go up and down as fossils go around the revolving door of human ancestors.

Evos have found mutation rates are not contant, eg Y chromosome, and have no idea of population sizes millions of years ago let alone billions of years ago. Yet they will demand perfection and a much higher standard from you.

 

[cupid dave]

This is not what the recent studies show. It shows that all men share a COMMON ancestor, but they also have ancestors that they do not share. I explained this before in my post about grandparents. You still carry DNA from your maternal grandfather even if you don't carry his Y-chromosome. Your maternal grandfather is no less your ancester than your paternal grandfather whom you did receive your Y-chromosome from.



You do realize that there is more to the genome than just the Y-chromosome, right?

Of course I realize...

You seem to miss the point that the study ofthe Y-Chromosome shows trhat my grandfather on both sides have a common rleative who lived 40,000 years ago, ie, Noah.

That Noah had three sons 100,000 years before the 40,000 year flood with some woman common to all of us too, accounts for much of the other chromosomal similarities.

Mitochondria "Eve" was not Eve, but Noah's wife.

 

[CabVet]

Of course I realize...

You seem to miss the point that the study ofthe Y-Chromosome shows trhat my grandfather on both sides have a common rleative who lived 40,000 years ago, ie, Noah.

That Noah had three sons 100,000 years before the 40,000 year flood with some woman common to all of us too, accounts for much of the other chromosomal similarities.

Mitochondria "Eve" was not Eve, but Noah's wife.

Nice, so now the flood is 40,000 years, not 4,304 like Zaius claims.

 

[Astridhere]

Nice, so now the flood is 40,000 years, not 4,304 like Zaius claims.

I reckon Zaius is winning because he has the MRCA according to evolutionist at 2,000-5000mya on his side.

Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans
Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know..I know..that evolutionists purport there were others around with the MRCA...of course..I agree there were others for a time before the flood. However yet again the raw data even though biased still aligns with biblical assertions. It takes speculation and non plausible scenarios of maybes and perhaps to hand wave away the evidence of a biblical flood and the resulting genetic bottleneck. Perhaps this is a bottleneck you evolutionists should think about..maybe everyone else drowned.

 

[Psudopod]

I know..I know..that evolutionists purport there were others around with the MRCA...of course..I agree there were others for a time before the flood. However yet again the raw data even though biased still aligns with biblical assertions. It takes speculation and non plausible scenarios of maybes and perhaps to hand wave away the evidence of a biblical flood and the resulting genetic bottleneck. Perhaps this is a bottleneck you evolutionists should think about..maybe everyone else drowned.
__________________

Is there a matching bottleneck for every other species alive at the time? Because if there is not, you cannot claim this one is due to the flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

8*e^

-- What's with the cussing?

 

[cupid dave]

Nice, so now the flood is 40,000 years, not 4,304 like Zaius claims.

In the theistic Evolution Bible interpretation these predecessors to Noah were the now extinct species in modern man's ascent.
Hence, it is merely a continuation of the idea, that Noah (a species itself) fathered the three racial stocks presently inhabiting earth.

That took place about 150,000 years ago.

Genesis tells us that Noah's sons were 100,000 years old before the Flood of 40,000 years, so the numbers jive.

The scriptural support for understanding that these years are really implying thousands of years is based on the two places where we read that a day to the lord is like a thousand years.

 

[cupid dave]

I reckon Zaius is winning because he has the MRCA according to evolutionist at 2,000-5000mya on his side.

Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans
Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know..I know..that evolutionists purport there were others around with the MRCA...of course..I agree there were others for a time before the flood. However yet again the raw data even though biased still aligns with biblical assertions. It takes speculation and non plausible scenarios of maybes and perhaps to hand wave away the evidence of a biblical flood and the resulting genetic bottleneck. Perhaps this is a bottleneck you evolutionists should think about..maybe everyone else drowned.

The link you provided seems to support the story of the "flood" of just one common ancestor whom all living men today have in common. That would be the time between the evcolution of the three "sons" of Noah, Gen 5:32, and the "flood" Out-of-Africa.

Noah would be that one common ancestor. (Gen 11: ie, "all men 'spoke' one language.")

Then, men began differentiating, one from another.

And the idea is compatible with Genesis.
The last "few" thousand years (ie, from your link) since this one common ancestor, (Noah), is found in the three racial stocks, or Primary Group, of his 3 "sons." (See the Graphic Organizer below).

These three Racial Stocks continued to differentiate further, even as recent as a few thousand years ago, into the present complex of seven Negroid and a dozen different varieties of Mongoloids and Caucasians all arising from seven different genetic sources:

 

[Astridhere]

Is there a matching bottleneck for every other species alive at the time? Because if there is not, you cannot claim this one is due to the flood.

You have been busy saying not much at all in many threads. I can speculate as much as you lot do.

Your algorithms are based on dating which are based on an assumption. A young earth irradicates all the mumbo.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net

I'll answer this way by saying your algorithms have the credibility of Alice in Wonderland. Creationists can also play with algorithms and get the dates they want. You can mock diamond dating and I can show the flaws in your radiometric dating. So we can both play with algorithms and use them as evidence.

You lot come up with mumbo jumbo to explain the HMRCA based on how no other line left their trace due to lines of females or males or non reproduction. This is the same story for every species most of which trace back to a single common ancestor. That is what even biased algorithms come up with. It is speculation and desperation on evos part to suggest there were any other cohorts alive at the time because you need this to be true.



In fact many of your own bottlenecks are tied to Toba and KT. It has been demonstrated that they were not as catastophic as believed and many species are still there in newer strata that were thought to be extinguished, making a mochery of your algorithms. Go look it up.

So my point still stands that Zaius is in the lead in the current challenge because he has biased evo science on his side at least.

 

[Astridhere]

The link you provided seems to support the story of the "flood" of just one common ancestor whom all living men today have in common. That would be the time between the evcolution of the three "sons" of Noah, Gen 5:32, and the "flood" Out-of-Africa.

Noah would be that one common ancestor. (Gen 11: ie, "all men 'spoke' one language.")
You like to carry on about issues we both agree with. It is the dating that is up for grabs here.
Then, men began differentiating, one from another.
Yes like Seth the gorilla or chimp
And the idea is compatible with Genesis.
The last "few" thousand years (ie, from your link) since this one common ancestor, (Noah), is found in the three racial stocks, or Primary Group, of his 3 "sons." (See the Graphic Organizer below).


Pretty pictures mean nothing


These three Racial Stocks continued to differentiate further, even as recent as a few thousand years ago, into the present complex of seven Negroid and a dozen different varieties of Mongoloids and Caucasians all arising from seven different genetic sources:
Pretty pictures mean nothing. They are likely from 1988.
If you have evidence of 7 genetic sources then you should be able to go tell these evo researchers they have no idea what they are talking about with the HMRCA.

Aren't you the one that suggests Seth the ape rose to humanity whom now is a gorilla or chimp by the science you are defending.

That is all I need to say.

Zaius is in the lead. He at least is not trying to make men out of apes and has biased evo science in agreement with him.

 

[CabVet]

Zaius is in the lead. He at least is not trying to make men out of apes and has biased evo science in agreement with him.

Yes, sure Zaius is "in the lead". He showed without a shadow of a doubt that the human population grew at a constant exponential rate from 8 individuals 4,000 years ago to 7 billion today...

Oh wait, no, he did not.

 

[cupid dave]

1) Pretty pictures mean

2) Aren't you the one that suggests Seth the ape rose to humanity whom now is a gorilla or chimp by the science you are defending.

1) The Graphic Organizers I am posting are useful pedagogue techniques which are currently in fashion in the educational community.

Their purpose is to visually represent the idea of a one-to-one correspondence between what science people say are the 22 links in the ascent of modern man with what you say is merely the 22 names of actual people or ancestors, (who amazingly lived lives than spanned as many as 950 years).


2) I am not saying which ape-man these scientists will ultimately concur to have been one of our earliests links to the still missing link.

The 22 species these science people are toying aroud with do change and find different positions in their list but they are unwittingly building a list of species names which parallel those ideas in the Genesis genealogy.


3) Theistic Evolution Bible interpretation is headed towards a new church full of spiritually satisfied educated people who can support what they read in the Bible with what they have learned and believe in college.

 

[CabVet]

1) The Graphic Organizers I am posting are useful pedagogue techniques which are currently in fashion in the educational community.

Their purpose is to visually represent the idea of a one-to-one correspondence between what science people say are the 22 links in the ascent of modern man with what you say is merely the 22 names of actual people or ancestors, (who amazingly lived lives than spanned as many as 950 years).


2) I am not saying which ape-man these scientists will ultimately concur to have been one of our earliests links to the still missing link.

The 22 species these science people are toying aroud with do change and find different positions in their list but they are unwittingly building a list of species names which parallel those ideas in the Genesis genealogy.


3) Theistic Evolution Bible interpretation is headed towards a new church full of spiritually satisfied educated people who can support what they read in the Bible with what they have learned and believe in college.

And how is your version of creation better than any of the other hundreds out there again?

 

[cupid dave]

And how is your version of creation better than any of the other hundreds out there again?

1) The Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation has a number of virtues and technical improvements over other Bible Interpretations.
Using brackets right in the passage to insert cpomments and the explanations offered for ideas in the verse, the reader can see what the Bible Interpretation is.

And, since it is already in the context, the reader can note the adherence to that rule of interpretation, while noticing that everything stated in the verse, itself, is accounted for.

A good example of this invaluable approach is illustrated in Gen 7:19, where other methods of interpretation have tried to say the flood of Noah was a local event.

This verse demonstartes that when every clause and statement is accounted for in the passage, such erroneous attempts are seen as flawed:



19And the waters (of Modern Homo sapiens) prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered (with these people).




2) What is better more importantly, concerning the content of the interpretation is that these science ideas evidence that the bible is true.
This is essentially the same thing as undertaken by Bible Archeology.

 

[CabVet]

1) The Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation has a number of virtues and technical improvements over other Bible Interpretations.
Using brackets right in the passage to insert cpomments and the explanations offered for ideas in the verse, the reader can see what the Bible Interpretation is.

And, since it is already in the context, the reader can note the adherence to that rule of interpretation, while noticing that everything stated in the verse, itself, is accounted for.

A good example of this invaluable approach is illustrated in Gen 7:19, where other methods of interpretation have tried to say the flood of Noah was a local event.

This verse demonstartes that when every clause and statement is accounted for in the passage, such erroneous attempts are seen as flawed:



19And the waters (of Modern Homo sapiens) prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered (with these people).




2) What is better more importantly, concerning the content of the interpretation is that these science ideas evidence that the bible is true.
This is essentially the same thing as undertaken by Bible Archeology.

That does not answer my question. I will ask again, why is your version creation better than the other hundreds out there? Hint: just saying "mine is the truth" doesn't count, as all other versions claim the same.

 

[cupid dave]

That does not answer my question. I will ask again, why is your version creation better than the other hundreds out there? Hint: just saying "mine is the truth" doesn't count, as all other versions claim the same.

well it seems better... that science supports the theistic evolution bible interpretation since science opposes all the others.




1. There was a Big Bang beginning.
2. There were seven long durations geological eras) thereafter.
3. The Plant Kingdom did appear before the Animal Kingdom, on the morning of the 3rd duration, the Paleo-Proterozoic Era.
4. All the waters were gathered together into one place called Panthalassa.
5. All the Earth was was surrounded by the oceans which where gathered together into one place called Pangea.
6. The twenty-two (22) hominoid species of Paleontology correspond one-to-one with those linked from Adam through the sons of Noah.
7. The Three (3) Racial Stock Theory supports the three sons of Noah as Caucasian, Negroid, and Asian.
8. The Paleontological population explosion called the "out-of-Africa-theory" agrees with the flood of Noah 40,000 years ago.
9. The decimation and disappearance of Neanderthal and Homo Erectus supports the "Flood Story" eradication of all other mankind approximately 40,000 years ago.
10. Genetic Y-chromosome testing identifies all modern men with just one "Noah Type" man who lived exactly 40,000 years ago.

 

[CabVet]

well it seems better... that science supports the theistic evolution bible interpretation since science opposes all the others.




1. There was a Big Bang beginning.
2. There were seven long durations geological eras) thereafter.
3. The Plant Kingdom did appear before the Animal Kingdom, on the morning of the 3rd duration, the Paleo-Proterozoic Era.
4. All the waters were gathered together into one place called Panthalassa.
5. All the Earth was was surrounded by the oceans which where gathered together into one place called Pangea.
6. The twenty-two (22) hominoid species of Paleontology correspond one-to-one with those linked from Adam through the sons of Noah.
7. The Three (3) Racial Stock Theory supports the three sons of Noah as Caucasian, Negroid, and Asian.
8. The Paleontological population explosion called the "out-of-Africa-theory" agrees with the flood of Noah 40,000 years ago.
9. The decimation and disappearance of Neanderthal and Homo Erectus supports the "Flood Story" eradication of all other mankind approximately 40,000 years ago.
10. Genetic Y-chromosome testing identifies all modern men with just one "Noah Type" man who lived exactly 40,000 years ago.

None of your 10 points are supported by the Bible.

 

[Psudopod]

You have been busy saying not much at all in many threads. I can speculate as much as you lot do.

This is one of several very simple points that blows the flood out of the water (no pun indended). If all living creatures were wiped out apart from those on the ark, then there should be a genetic bottle neck at the point of the flood. If there are even a handful of creatures not showing the bottle neck, then the flood is falsified.

Your algorithms are based on dating which are based on an assumption. A young earth irradicates all the mumbo.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net

Dating methods have nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter when the flood was, what matters is the evidence it left behind in the genetics of the surviving creatures. Or more importantly, the lack of it.

There's a seperate thread to discredit the link you have posted.

I'll answer this way by saying your algorithms have the credibility of Alice in Wonderland. Creationists can also play with algorithms and get the dates they want. You can mock diamond dating and I can show the flaws in your radiometric dating. So we can both play with algorithms and use them as evidence.

Again, why are you talking about algorithms. Dating requires measurements and maths. It doesn't need a computer. Scientific dating methods are consistant. So you can claim there are flaws in radiomentric dating, but you have to explain why it ties up with all the other methods, or believe in a mighty big coincedence.

You lot come up with mumbo jumbo to explain the HMRCA based on how no other line left their trace due to lines of females or males or non reproduction. This is the same story for every species most of which trace back to a single common ancestor. That is what even biased algorithms come up with. It is speculation and desperation on evos part to suggest there were any other cohorts alive at the time because you need this to be true.

How is it mumbo jumbo? If you can trace back a direct line, then each member of that line reproduced. That doesn't mean they were the only ones that reproduced. You only have to take a quick look around to see that not every member of a species reproduces. You don't need a computer for that, just a look out the window.



In fact many of your own bottlenecks are tied to Toba and KT. It has been demonstrated that they were not as catastophic as believed and many species are still there in newer strata that were thought to be extinguished, making a mochery of your algorithms. Go look it up.

So my point still stands that Zaius is in the lead in the current challenge because he has biased evo science on his side at least.

 

[cupid dave]

None of your 10 points are supported by the Bible.

Well Gen 1:1 does admit that the Universe had a beginning which is what Hubble established in 1940 based on his idea of the Big Bang, starting Time, 13.5 billion years ago.