Genesis Re-Creation Confirmed

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread
From Physical & Life Sciences
To Creation & Evolution
This is a
More Fitting Forum
For this Subject

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[pitabread]

The article the OP links to is a perfect example of click bait journalism designed to cater to a specific audience. And creationists fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[tas8831]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

Man, this has been making the rounds - even saw it on Facebook. Pity that it is a better example of non-scientist journalists putting click-bait titles and claims in their work. A more competent writer handles it:

No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago
No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago

 

[Doveaman]

Man, this has been making the rounds - even saw it on Facebook. Pity that it is a better example of non-scientist journalists putting click-bait titles and claims in their work. A more competent writer handles it:

No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago
No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago

Scientists are always offering explanations that are later proven not to be accurate when new lines of evidence is discovered. They then alter the old explanation with a new explanation that is also later proven wrong.

Scientists may not conclude that this new evidence of human descent points to the Genesis creation, but it does prove that scientific explanations of human descent are often wrong, and this new evidence, along with the fact that scientific explanations are often wrong, does give more credence to the Genesis account.

 

[VirOptimus]

Scientists are always offering explanations that are later proven not to be accurate when new lines of evidence is discovered. They then alter the old explanation with a new explanation that is also later proven wrong.

Scientists may not conclude that this new evidence of human descent points to the Genesis creation, but it does prove that scientific explanations of human descent are often wrong, and this new evidence, along with the fact that scientific explanations are often wrong, does give more credence to the Genesis account.

No, thats just plain wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

Scientists are always offering explanations that are later proven not to be accurate when new lines of evidence is discovered. They then alter the old explanation with a new explanation that is also later proven wrong.

Scientists may not conclude that this new evidence of human descent points to the Genesis creation, but it does prove that scientific explanations of human descent are often wrong, and this new evidence, along with the fact that scientific explanations are often wrong, does give more credence to the Genesis account.

So you tout the article as evidence for your unusual theology, but when you find out it's not, suddenly "scientific explanations are often wrong"..... which "gives credence" to the Genesis tale.

Creationism at it's finest.

 

[USincognito]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

Oh my. Not this clickbait again.

The study merely shows that Y-Adam and mt-Eve might have lived closer in time than originally thought and there might have been a population crash close to when they existed - about 20-50,000 years apart.

Hardy a "couple".

 

[tas8831]

Scientists are always offering explanations that are later proven not to be accurate when new lines of evidence is discovered.

Always?

They then alter the old explanation with a new explanation that is also later proven wrong.

Always?

Surely you must have hundreds of examples if this "always" happens.

Of course, what do you prefer? Sticking to something even if it is wrong? Like, I don't know, the stories from ancient middle eastern nomads?

Scientists may not conclude that this new evidence of human descent points to the Genesis creation, but it does prove that scientific explanations of human descent are often wrong, and this new evidence, along with the fact that scientific explanations are often wrong, does give more credence to the Genesis account.

Non sequitur.

Then you should be able to supply the evidence that the scientific explanations of human descent provided in either the hyped news release or the Forbes' article rebutting it were "wrong"are often wrong, and how Genesis is the winner no matter what.

You have set up a nice little fallacious dichotomy there, and on top of that, you want your preferred 'explanation' to be accepted devoid of any actual evidence or rationale.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

 

[Aman777]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

Amen. In order to be a Human being, you MUST be a descendant of Adam and Eve. The only way to be a Human is to INHERIT it from other Humans. Mindless Nature does NOT and cannot insert the superior intelligence, which only God and Humans have, Genesis 3:22 into any other living creature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientists are always offering explanations that are later proven not to be accurate when new lines of evidence is discovered. They then alter the old explanation with a new explanation that is also later proven wrong

It is called "learning" and it is the strength of science.
It's thanks to that self-correcting process that you can use your device today to communicate with someone at the other side of the world at lightspeed.

The technology inside that device is literally the result of getting it wrong 100s of times before nailing it.

Scientists may not conclude that this new evidence of human descent points to the Genesis creation, but it does prove that scientific explanations of human descent are often wrong, and this new evidence, along with the fact that scientific explanations are often wrong, does give more credence to the Genesis account.

No.

What would give credence to the Genesis account, would be positive evidence in support of that account. Not negative evidence disproving something completely different.

As it stands, you have no positive evidence whatsoever. But there's a lot of evidence against it though. You just haven't figured that part out yet. Scientists have. A couple centuries ago, actually.

 

[Kylie]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

Fraid not.

No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

yes, it is giving them fits.....

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

What they can't answer is how mutations shared between humans would be the entire population if the population was not all descended from the same people that had that mutation.......

No matter what they try to argue a mutation would not become set in the entire population unless the offspring are all from an individual that the mutation arose in.... Instead they want you to believe mutations magically arise in an entire population......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fraid not.

No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago

Probably not? They didn't sound too convincing, when they aren't even sure themselves.......

 

[Kylie]

Probably not? They didn't sound too convincing, when they aren't even sure themselves.......

Ah, you're always so happy to embrace anything that you can make support your position, no matter how weak it is, and always so eager to dismiss anything that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is.