How many creationists can identify their exact ancestors from 3000 years ago?

[pitabread]

I've seen more than one creationist lately make demands to know the *exact* common ancestor from extant species with millions of years of divergence. It's a bit of a silly request since a) the vast majority of living things haven't left behind fossils, and b) even if we did have every single fossil of everything that lived ever, trying to pin down 100% exact ancestry would be neigh impossible.

By the same token though, I wonder how many creationists here can identify their exact ancestors from say, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000... etc?

Heck, I'd be surprised if most people know their family tree going back more than a couple generations.

So if you can't identify those precise ancestors shall we assume those ancestors never existed?

 

[rjs330]

I've seen more than one creationist lately make demands to know the *exact* common ancestor from extant species with millions of years of divergence. It's a bit of a silly request since a) the vast majority of living things haven't left behind fossils, and b) even if we did have every single fossil of everything that lived ever, trying to pin down 100% exact ancestry would be neigh impossible.

By the same token though, I wonder how many creationists here can identify their exact ancestors from say, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000... etc?

Heck, I'd be surprised if most people know their family tree going back more than a couple generations.

So if you can't identify those precise ancestors shall we assume those ancestors never existed?

All I have to say is those ancestors were human beings. They didn't come from the same ancestor that births the spider.

 

[SeventyOne]

I've seen more than one creationist lately make demands to know the *exact* common ancestor from extant species with millions of years of divergence. It's a bit of a silly request since a) the vast majority of living things haven't left behind fossils, and b) even if we did have every single fossil of everything that lived ever, trying to pin down 100% exact ancestry would be neigh impossible.

By the same token though, I wonder how many creationists here can identify their exact ancestors from say, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000... etc?

Heck, I'd be surprised if most people know their family tree going back more than a couple generations.

So if you can't identify those precise ancestors shall we assume those ancestors never existed?

Sure. I'll go with Noah and Adam.

 

[drjean]

www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah/

Count me in!

Now the idea that if you can't discover just WHOM then they never existed? Does this mean some people spawned more recently?

Can you see gravity? Does that mean it doesn't exist? *you get my drift yes?

 

[pitabread]

Sure. I'll go with Noah and Adam.

3000 years ago? Are you sure?

 

[pitabread]

www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah/

Count me in!

3000 years ago?

Now the idea that if you can't discover just WHOM then they never existed? Does this mean some people spawned more recently?

That seems to be the implication.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've seen more than one creationist lately make demands to know the *exact* common ancestor from extant species with millions of years of divergence. It's a bit of a silly request since a) the vast majority of living things haven't left behind fossils, and b) even if we did have every single fossil of everything that lived ever, trying to pin down 100% exact ancestry would be neigh impossible.

What are you saying here?

Do you mean the exact binomial?

By the same token though, I wonder how many creationists here can identify their exact ancestors from say, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000... etc?

Easy ... they were humans ... all the way back to Adam.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Are you asking for the person's name?

If so, I don't know the name of my ancestors in 1517, 17, 982 BC... etc.

But, as I said, I can tell you he was a human.

Heck, I'd be surprised if most people know their family tree going back more than a couple generations.

That is correct.

So if you can't identify those precise ancestors shall we assume those ancestors never existed?

Of course not.

 

[pitabread]

All I have to say is those ancestors were human beings. They didn't come from the same ancestor that births the spider.

Not in the last few thousand years, no. But who were those ancestors? Do you know who your specific ancestors from a few thousand years ago were? How about only 1000 years ago? 500 years ago?

 

[SeventyOne]

3000 years ago? Are you sure?

The question changed in the OP to indeterminate years when he changed the range by 2,500 years with a question mark. It implied the range was non-specific. My answer was valid.

 

[pitabread]

Are you asking for the person's name?

If so, I don't know the name of my ancestors in 1517, 17, 982 BC... etc.

But, as I said, I can tell you he was a human.

If you don't know who they were, how can you be so sure?

 

[AV1611VET]

The question changed in the OP to indeterminate years when he changed the range by 2,500 years with a question mark. It implied the range was non-specific. My answer was valid.

I don't even understand what he's asking.

 

[pitabread]

The question changed in the OP to indeterminate years when he changed the range by 2,500 years with a question mark. It implied the range was non-specific. My answer was valid.

If you don't know who your ancestors were 3000 years ago how can you be sure of your ancestors before then? Seems like a pretty big assumption to me.

 

[pitabread]

I don't even understand what he's asking.

I'm asking if creationists can identify their specific ancestors for any given point in time. IOW, do you know your entire family tree going back ad infinitum?

 

[SeventyOne]

If you don't know who your ancestors were 3000 years ago how can you be sure of your ancestors before then? Seems like a pretty big assumption to me.

Because you are asking 'creationists'. In other words Bible-believers. Where else would you expect the source of our answers to come from?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Cut to the chase.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't know who they were, how can you be so sure?

I don't know who they were.

Nor do I care.

If they were saved, I'll see them in Heaven and we can talk about it at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Are you implying that I'll be discussing my lineage with non-human grandparents?

 

[pitabread]

Because you are asking 'creationists'. In other words Bible-believers. Where else would you expect the source of our answers to come from?

Whatever sources you can muster.

 

[pitabread]

I don't know who they were.

Nor do I care.

But you assume they existed all the same, yes?

 

[pitabread]

Cut to the chase.

It's a satire of the creationist position of claiming that if we don't know specific ancestors for extant species that somehow we can't be sure those ancestors existed in the first place. Despite people not knowing their own much more recent ancestors yet having no trouble assuming they existed.

It's pointing out a disconnect of the demands of some creationists on this forum.

 

[Hank77]

Heck, I'd be surprised if most people know their family tree going back more than a couple generations.

I think you would be surprised then. I have traced my mother's maternal side back to early 1600s England and it wasn't hard to do when there is so much information online. I haven't put out the money to go back further.

However, I agree with the rest of your post.