Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin. A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant. The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

It seems to be because they have no personal experience of either professional science or higher education level science. It is not just that they don't know what they are arguing about, they are unaware of the extent of what they don't know.

This phenomenon even has a name. It is called the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Gracchus, Mr Strawberry, bhsmte and KTS,

Hold onto your wild horses gentleman, lady,

I've been reading some of the other arguments that Doveaman has made -- and from what I understand he holds to a similar belief which was held by the Spirit-filled evangelist Kathryn Khulman, the philosopher and scholar Derek Prince, the remarkable level-headed master theologianJohn Stott and the Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross.

Having read and studied, both Prince and Stott (Prince more than Stott), who were both remarkably disciplined and highly educated men -- I think it might be nice to take this a little slower and have a nice long look at what Dr. Francis Collins and those who started the Human Genome Project** have to teach us about what God's other book "Nature" is saying.

Having made the transition out of the heavy theological mindset (Christian Philosophy too), where I was faced with having to decide between one horse or the other -- trust me, it was a very hard choice. I have had so much rejection and so much hatred poured on me, as a result -- that I sometimes find myself become quite frustrated with the gulf that exists between the two books. (The Bible and Nature) -- and still have to contend with Atheists/Agnostics who want to rape me of all my beliefs.

----

* Pre-Adamite hypothesis or Preadamism : Pre-Adamite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'....More recently, these ideas have been promoted by Kathryn Kuhlman and Derek Prince among the Pentecostals, John Stott among the Anglicans, and Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross.'

** The Human Genome Project: http://unlockinglifescode.org/timeline

'In 2003, the Human Genome Project's ambitious goals had all been met or surpassed. The sequences produced by the Human Genome Project covered about 99 percent of the human genome's gene-containing regions. Not only was the project finished two-and-a-half years ahead of time, but it was also significantly under budget. In addition, to help researchers better understand the meaning of the human genetic instruction book, the project successfully undertook a wide range of other goals: from sequencing the genomes of organisms used in disease research, to developing new technologies for studying whole genomes. The Human Genome Project has been compared to the moon-landing project as an outstanding scientific achievement of humankind.'

 

[bhsmte]

Gracchus, Mr Strawberry, bhsmte and KTS,

Hold onto your wild horses gentleman, lady,

I've been reading some of the other arguments that Doveaman has made -- and from what I understand he holds to a similar belief which was held by the Spirit-filled evangelist Kathryn Khulman, the philosopher and scholar Derek Prince, the remarkable level-headed master theologianJohn Stott and the Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross.

Having read and studied, both Prince and Stott (Prince more than Stott), who were both remarkably disciplined and highly educated men -- I think it might be nice to take this a little slower and have a nice long look at what Dr. Francis Collins and those who started the Human Genome Project** have to teach us about what God's other book "Nature" is saying.

Having made the transition out of the heavy theological mindset (Christian Philosophy too), where I was faced with having to decide between one horse or the other -- trust me, it was a very hard choice. I have had so much rejection and so much hatred poured on me, as a result -- that I sometimes find myself become quite frustrated with the gulf that exists between the two books. (The Bible and Nature) -- and still have to contend with Atheists/Agnostics who want to rape me of all my beliefs.

----

* Pre-Adamite hypothesis or Preadamism : Pre-Adamite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'....More recently, these ideas have been promoted by Kathryn Kuhlman and Derek Prince among the Pentecostals, John Stott among the Anglicans, and Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross.'

** The Human Genome Project: Timeline | Genome: Unlocking Life's Code

'In 2003, the Human Genome Project's ambitious goals had all been met or surpassed. The sequences produced by the Human Genome Project covered about 99 percent of the human genome's gene-containing regions. Not only was the project finished two-and-a-half years ahead of time, but it was also significantly under budget. In addition, to help researchers better understand the meaning of the human genetic instruction book, the project successfully undertook a wide range of other goals: from sequencing the genomes of organisms used in disease research, to developing new technologies for studying whole genomes. The Human Genome Project has been compared to the moon-landing project as an outstanding scientific achievement of humankind.'

Cool.

Still want to know what doveman was referring to with; "recorded history of man's origin".

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Cool.

Still want to know what doveman was referring to with; "recorded history of man's origin".

One thing at a time, mate.
I forgot now, but I noticed that he's been dealing with some of your rapid fire, here he unpacks his first idea on 'Proof of Creation' (which seems to be the parallel thread to this one) :

'The answer is simple.

Genesis 1 is describing the creation of new earth life on an old rocky planet.

The rocks are old. The life is new.

It's not complicated.'

To which you ask: here

'How new?'

To which he replies: here

'5,500 to 6,000 years.'

To which you further ask: here

'How do you explain this?'

How long have we been here? | Natural History Museum

(note to self: argument by link, doth not an argument make )

To which he finally replies: here

[FONT=&quot]'I’m not opposed to the idea of prehistoric life existing before Genesis. There were a number of mass extinctions throughout earth’s history, the most recent occurring during the last ice age. During that time the earth had become frozen and the remaining prehistoric life went extinct. Eventually the ice melted and the earth was buried in water. It was at this time that “the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”, and the rest is history.[/FONT]'

Now we're facing the current response to KTS's comment:

The patterns of the similarities of DNA and genes between different species is best explained with evolution.

The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin. A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant. The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

Plus you questions:

What recorded history of man's origin would you be referring to?

And, why wouldn't objective evidence align with this recorded history, if the history is accurate?

Perhaps in the morning, the veil will be lifted and we will know precisely what Doveman means.

I can't wait for the next thrilling episode in Lines of Evidence: Homologies : Cellular/Molecular Evidence

This is by far the most interesting to me thus far, because it's the kind of stuff we were doing in school back in the eighties. I'm not going to post anything yet, as it's quite a bit of brain strain for me -- but if anyone feels-thinks they'd like to go for it.

Here's a little primer, for discussion:

'....The molecular level
Different species share genetic homologies as well as anatomical ones. Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry. In fact, the DNA code itself is a homology that links all life on Earth to a common ancestor. DNA and RNA possess a simple four-base code that provides the recipe for all living things. In some cases, if we were to transfer genetic material from the cell of one living thing to the cell of another, the recipient would follow the new instructions as if they were its own.
These characteristics of life demonstrate the fundamental sameness of all living things on Earth and serve as the basis of today's efforts at genetic engineering.'

 

[bhsmte]

One thing at a time, mate.
I forgot now, but I noticed that he's been dealing with some of your rapid fire,

Three simple straight forward questions asking for clarification in a 24 hour period.

Did I set a new "rapid fire" record?

I didn't know you were the referee of how many questions I could ask someone else?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Three simple straight forward questions asking for clarification in a 24 hour period.

Did I set a new "rapid fire" record?

I didn't know you were the referee of how many questions I could ask someone else?

I counted 4, that's three too many already -- don't you think?
Do you think they'll make you a Moderator if post enough posts?. You know like KJ1611VET, with the counting threads?
On this thread, I'm limiting you to one question per. day. Does that suit you?
How many's that?

 

[bhsmte]

I counted 4, that's three too many already -- don't you think?
Do you think they'll make you a Moderator if post enough posts?. You know like KJ1611VET, with the counting threads?
On this thread, I'm limiting you to one question per. day. Does that suit you?
How many's that?

I will ask as many as I like.

Thanks for the tip though.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I will ask as many as I like.

Thanks for the tip though.

Not on my watch, you won't.

I have not yet read back through all of Doveaman's related posts, but I'm sure that it's probably going to be something along the lines of Velikovsky's work.*
Do you know it?

---
* Of which Stephen Jay Gould said, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

 

[bhsmte]

Not on my watch, you won't.

I have not yet read back through all of Doveaman's related posts, but I'm sure that it's probably going to be something along the lines of Velikovsky's work.
Do you know it?

You will stop me from asking questions to other posters?

Are you sure it isn't you who wants to be a moderator?

I asked the question to doveman and he can answer for himself, don't ya think?

When I ask you a question, you can answer and you are even free to use cartoons.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You will stop me from asking questions to other posters?

It's my goal. You ask too many questions. If you want to be a good Freudian -- then stop asking questions.

Are you sure it isn't you who wants to be a moderator?

No thank you. Now that would be very boring!

I asked the question to doveman and he can answer for himself, don't ya think?

He's not going to answer you. Your questions are too confrontational. You need to take it slow, and easy. Sort of like the start of Tina Turner's tune, 'Proud Mary'

When I ask you a question, you can answer and you are even free to use cartoons.

I might, but I think the Moderator won't like that. Well, I've got work tomorrow -- so it's time for beauty sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0rhA5-Aow

 

[Mr Strawberry]

... I sometimes find myself become quite frustrated with the gulf that exists between the two books. (The Bible and Nature) --

As I understand it, there is only an irreconcilable gulf between the two if one takes a literal reading of the bible. Theistic evolution, the viewpoint held by most christians, takes a more metaphorical view of the bible's creation stories and thus doesn't have the same problems reconciling the two.

and still have to contend with Atheists/Agnostics who want to rape me of all my beliefs.

Well, they'll disagree with you and ask questions, but categorising that as a rape of your beliefs speaks more of how personally disturbing you find the experience of your beliefs being challenged and than it does of the challenging itself.

 

[Kylie]

The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin.

But it is very consistent with reality.

A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant.

I see no evidence that a person can be resurrected as a new person and I see no evidence that evolutionary processes are irrelevant.

The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

Care to provide any actual scientific evidence to support this? Something that can be checked and tested?

 

[Kylie]

One thing at a time, mate.

Yes, one thing at a time...

Now we're facing the current response to KTS's comment:

The patterns of the similarities of DNA and genes between different species is best explained with evolution.

The problem with this explanation is that it is not consistent with the recorded history of man's origin. A better explanation would be Recreation. When a person dies and is resurrected as a new person, all evolutionary processes becomes irrelevant. The new person is not the product of evolution, but the product of recreation. And the same DNA would have existed in both the old and new person. Adam as a new person is the product of recreation, not evolution. So are the apes.

So, one thing at a time, like you said, so let's not go off on this tangent you seem to be aiming for and let's deal with Doveaman's claims first, shall we?

 

[bhsmte]

It's my goal. You ask too many questions. If you want to be a good Freudian -- then stop asking questions.

Good luck with your goal.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Deleted.

Awaiting Doveaman's response to bhmste and KTS.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I can't wait any longer.

I'm currently preparing to study this next aspect of the Lines of Evidence, as a University subject (and again in about four months time) -- so leaving bhmste and KTS, to pick up their answers from Doveman, let us delve into what I've been told by RickG ( Dating Methods & Sediments left by Noah's Flood ) is where the rubber meets the road: DISTRIBUTION OF TIME

'Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.'


A. LINES OF EVIDENCE : DISTRIBUTION OF TIME : CHRONOLOGY


B. LINES OF EVIDENCE : DISTRIBUTION OF TIME : GEOGRAPHY

 

[stevevw]

It seems to be because they have no personal experience of either professional science or higher education level science. It is not just that they don't know what they are arguing about, they are unaware of the extent of what they don't know.

At the same time though the average person doesnt have a degree in science, geology, biology or genetics. So they are relying on the experts to give them the info and story about what happened. But they have no way of discerning if that is true themselves because they dont understand it. So in some ways they are relying of faith as well that the scientists have got it right. You can use common sense to work out some things. You can do some research as well. But you can just take what they say as gospel just because they may have some letters after their name. You have to check things out.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

At the same time though the average person doesnt have a degree in science, geology, biology or genetics. So they are relying on the experts to give them the info and story about what happened. But they have no way of discerning if that is true themselves because they dont understand it. So in some ways they are relying of faith as well that the scientists have got it right. You can use common sense to work out some things. You can do some research as well. But you can just take what they say as gospel just because they may have some letters after their name. You have to check things out.

This is my thread, and though I'm not a professional scientist, geologist, biologist or geneticist -- this thread is pretty close to a primer for a University subject discussing 'The Lines of Evidence' relating to Evolution.

So, take you seat please - and let's wait for Doveman to reply to bhmste and RTS.

 

[stevevw]

On lines of evidence for evolution and common decent scientist are finding some inconsistent evidence in the genetics of creatures. It seems the traditional tree that Darwin made for how life evolved may be wrong. There is more vertical transfer of genetics that was thought. Some distant creatures on the tree branches are more closely related in some ways while those thought to be closely related have some big differences. Then there can be some unrelated creatures linked into lines that just shouldn't be there. Whereas they use to connect creatures via similar features in their anatomy now the genetics is showing that they may not be so closely related or not related at all.
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph
Reasons To Believe : Horizontal Gene Transfer Masquerades as Common Ancestry

 

[stevevw]

This is my thread, and though I'm not a professional scientist, geologist, biologist or geneticist -- this thread is pretty close to a primer for a University subject discussing 'The Lines of Evidence' relating to Evolution.

So, take you seat please - and let's wait for Doveman to reply to bhmste and RTS.

Oh Ok sorry I didn't realize. No worries then. I look forward to the debate.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Your first article is dated 22 January 2009.
You second article is dated 19 August 2010.

I've already explained to you what we are doing here, so please settle down and take a seat and let's wait for Doveman to reply.

Thanks in advance.