Taking Questions on the Creation

Skaloop · Oct 22, 2008

AV1611VET said:
But in the case of mtEve, she is the end of the rainbow --- the last of the line --- a full human.

Look at it this way --- take infrared, it has a range of so many Angstroms, but then add 1 hertz to it, and you have the weakest shade of red. Add one hertz to that, and technically you have another color, etc. Eventually you hit the color RED --- just RED --- then add one hertz to that and you have a darker red, etc.

To make a long story short --- from the longest wavelength to the shortest, each hertz is a different color.

Eve is the last "color", and she would have to have mated with those who were just 1 hertz behind her.

And that smacks of beastiality.

Nobody involved in the study of mtDNA says that mtEve was the first human. She is the earliest female human that they can determine is a common ancestor of a significant sample of modern humans.

It's like tracing back your family tree. I myself can trace mine back to 1676; before that, the records can't be found, and the trail ends. But that by no means suggests that my one relative we can find from 1676 is the first in my family line. Far from it, he is just the first record of our family that we can find in North America. His parents were back in France, that much we know, but who exactly they were we haven't figured out yet. It just means that it's as far back as we can trace at the moment.

And, as with mtEve, it also doesn't mean that my earliest known ancestor was the only ancestor alive at the time. There were several human females (and human males) around at the same time as mtEve.

I sometimes think that giving the name "Eve" to this earliest determinable female ancestor is one of the biggest naming errors ever, in that it suggests that the finding is in some way related to the Biblical Eve, misunderstood by many such as yourself to mean that mtEve is the first and, at the time, only human female.

As for the colour analogy, perhaps a difference of one Hertz does make a different colour. But a difference of one millihertz or one nanohertz is unnoticable. I could take you through red to blue, at one nanohertz at a time, and you would never know the difference between one step and the previous step.

agentorange20 · Oct 22, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Incest wasn't a crime back then.

Apparently not, Lot had a ball. Somehow in the omnipotence of it all, incest was left out of the big commandments. And people wonder why the hics in the Southern USA partake in incest.

agentorange20 · Oct 22, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Cain wasn't given the Death Penalty --- or put in prison.

Nope, just exiled from all of humanity. Great!

pgp_protector · Oct 23, 2008

agentorange20 said:
Nope, just exiled from all of humanity. Great!

Well he did get to bring his sister along for some fun.
Though I'd have to wonder about any sister that would sleep with their brother after they killed their other brother.

Nathan Poe · Oct 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Cain wasn't given the Death Penalty --- or put in prison.

Are you suggesting that Cain was not punished?

Breckmin · Oct 23, 2008

Split Rock said:
Ken Ham is a fraud, a liar, and ignorant of real science.

General and doesn't deal with anything specific, or anything he has
specifically said. Nothing more than ad hominem.

For the record, I would like to take back what I said and apologize
for it. I found a couple interesting things on the site so it is not
all completely basic.

~Michael

Breckmin · Oct 23, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
Well, you will note that when you do start reading more in the area of the CREVO debate you'll see PRATTS aplenty. Spend more time here and avoid the AV-tinged threads and you'll see plenty of information presented.

I'm an earth scientist by degree. That means I've actually seen rocks up close and personal. I've seen no reason to assume that Literal Genesis is an even marginally reasonable approach to the earth's early history. I'm familiar with how geology is done (BS, MS and PhD) and I've seen no reason to believe a literal "Noachian Flood" is in evidence.

If you have a particular question on geology, please ask it. I've grown tired lately of refuting the PRATTs as do most scientists, but I will come back around to as we all do. It is part of scientific training to face the ignorance and approach it head on as we have the strength.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=49098156

Please respond to this in the other thread "Answering questions on
Creation" because I don't want to step on AV's thread here, and I've
been trying to make an exist out of the debate anyway.

But my question is for you, "How would you refute the interpretations
on the section "Mantle-Wide Flow" and please feel free to critique
the whole article. But specifically, I am looking for the rebuttal on
the low electical conductivity of ocean plates splitting up the
lower mantle's high conductivity and also other issues in the
Mantle-Wide Flow section of the article.

How wrong is Russell Humphrey's?
~Michael

AV1611VET · Oct 23, 2008

Breckmin said:
Please respond to this in the other thread "Answering questions on
Creation" because I don't want to step on AV's thread here, and I've
been trying to make an exist out of the debate anyway.

Don't worry about it, Michael --- this is what I get for not following my own advice about sticking to Genesis 1.

This thread is worth using as a caveat though.

God bless!

thaumaturgy · Oct 23, 2008

agentorange20 said:
I guess that goes the same for anything supernatural....santa, elves, goblins, gnomes, pixes, angels, etc. etc. This wouldn't really help to support your position.

AV1611VET said:
No comment.

The whole debate in a nutshell.

AV1611VET: [insert unsubstantiated claim justified solely by its unsubstantiability]

Other Poster: [response drawing logical conclusion from AV's posts]

AV1611VET: [failure to understand followed by ignoring the comment]

Can someone just write a macro for this?

thaumaturgy · Oct 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Don't worry about it, Michael --- this is what I get for not following my own advice about sticking to Genesis 1.

This thread is worth using as a caveat though.

God bless!

But, as has been pointed out to you, you are not God (or you have failed to prove that you are yet), so you can't unilaterally decree that which is open for discussion.

As I showed in an earlier post, the list from Genesis appears to show the appearance of life forms and items sometimes in the wrong order by a significant amount.

So, again, why would someone take Genesis 1 literally when it appears to go against the mass of physical evidence?

Which is in error: The physical evidence which is available and was not written or penned by any human or anything that can carry a "motive", or the single book of unknown and unverifiable origin which was written by humans for unknown and unknowable motives?

Why would I believe the one that may have a higher probability for error and bias over the one with lower probability for error and bias?

Split Rock · Oct 23, 2008

Breckmin said:
General and doesn't deal with anything specific, or anything he has
specifically said. Nothing more than ad hominem.

~Michael

He is a fraud, because he claims to have a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Hovind," of "Dr. Dino." his so-called PhD is from a known diploma mill called "Patriot University."

He is a liar as evidenced by the fact he was convicted of tax fraud and lied about paying taxes.

He is ignorant of science by the many statements he has made, including:
1. You can cover the earth with a single drop of water
2. Humans and dinosaurs (non-avian, for AVET) lived at the same time and played together
3. If evolution is true, you are not important, or "just" and animal
4. If evolution is true there is no purpose to life
5. The theory of evolution came from Satan in the Garden of Eden
6. Humans evolved from an amoeba
7. Its been proven in the lab that the human brain doesn't even begin to grow until you are 18-20 years old.
etc.

Breckmin · Oct 23, 2008

Split Rock said:
He is ignorant of science by the many statements he has made, including:
1. You can cover the earth with a single drop of water
2. Humans and dinosaurs (non-avian, for AVET) lived at the same time and played together
3. If evolution is true, you are not important, or "just" and animal
4. If evolution is true there is no purpose to life
5. The theory of evolution came from Satan in the Garden of Eden
6. Humans evolved from an amoeba
7. Its been proven in the lab that the human brain doesn't even begin to grow until you are 18-20 years old.
etc.

I would like to see a source for point # 7.

As far as points 2,3, and 4. There are a number of people who know just
as much about science (PhD's in multiple areas) who would agree with him. Perhaps it bothers you that they have access the same information
you have and yet "choose" to disagree with you because they are
interpreting data with a different set of assumptions.

Just because they dismiss D.E.T. (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) does
not make them ignorant, they recognize the role of common ancestry
within genera and the principle of natural selection as a part of creation.
They just do not extrapolate these processes to conclude universal
common ancestry.
~Michael

Cabal · Oct 23, 2008

nevermind.

agentorange20 · Oct 23, 2008

Breckmin said:
. As far as points 2,3, and 4. There are a number of people who know just as much about science (PhD's in multiple areas) who would agree with him.

Problem: Hovind doesn't have a PhD., at least not from anything reputable.

Sure, lets hear some. I'd love to hear this kind of rhetoric from Gould and others, but we both know they don't hold such views, only twits like Hovind and Ham do. People who study and understand the science and evidence nearly universally agree that evolution is a very strong supported science, only wingnuts like Hovind say otherwise.

Hovind is a moron, plain and simple. Only dupes and the scientifically illiterate take his words let alone -defend him.

[SIZE=-1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc[/SIZE]

Breckmin said:
Just because they dismiss D.E.T. (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) does not make them ignorant,

It might indicate at the very least that they are ignorant of the evidence, this would go a long way into explaining why such hucksters as Ham and Hovind play make believe and use strawmen arguments about evolution, quote mine material for their own agenda. It would be in the same manner of someone denying gravity in sake of all of its evidence and someone foolishly defending their ignorance, same difference.

GULO? Human Chromosome 2 fusion? Those hominid fossils I listed, care to retort?

Tomk80 · Oct 23, 2008

Breckmin said:
I would like to see a source for point # 7.

As far as points 2,3, and 4. There are a number of people who know just
as much about science (PhD's in multiple areas) who would agree with him. Perhaps it bothers you that they have access the same information
you have and yet "choose" to disagree with you because they are
interpreting data with a different set of assumptions.

Having PhD's in multiple areas is not equal to having a good understanding of biology. It is a specific field, and quite honestly I have yet to see a creationist who has a good grasp of biology. I'm sorry to say you have yet to show yourself any different in that respect.

Just because they dismiss D.E.T. (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) does not make them ignorant, they recognize the role of common ancestry
within genera and the principle of natural selection as a part of creation.
They just do not extrapolate these processes to conclude universal
common ancestry.
~Michael

No, that they consistently make strawmen of the theory they are trying to attack makes them ignorant. Can you give me one single creationist who has a good grasp of the theory of evolution?

Breckmin · Oct 24, 2008

Tomk80 said:
Can you give me one single creationist who has a good grasp of the theory of evolution?

There is a lot of them. But one, I wouldn't want to you to bother the
one's who are in professions. And, two, many of them are teaching in
Christian Colleges and I wouldn't want you to bother them either. They
don't need any more hate email, from anyone, especially someone
who wishes to debate them (I'm not saying you would write and
bother them, I just don't believe in name dropping and drawing
attention to them here).

What you need to understand is the hatred they receive when they
do come out as creationists, or even some of them as young earth
creationists. We have meetings all over the country. Do you really
believe that none of these guys have multiple PhD's????

I'm sorry, but they would not spend the time to engage in futile
debate, but they DO fully understand DET.

The difference is, they also understand a whole other set of assumptions,
and they choose those.

You have no idea of the hatred that exists toward creationists in
the fields of geology and paleontology or even genetics. They keep
quite because they don't want to get kicked out of school sometimes.

If DET was truly as sound as you say, then there wouldn't be this
insecurity about debating creationism or hatred of those who believe
in creation. I'm not saying you hate me. There ARE those who do
hate creationists, and they make there opinion very well known.

~Michael

Breckmin · Oct 24, 2008

All the video really shows is that God must have created pebbles....

Seriously? If I weak argument is put up, then you have to counter
it with an argument that misses its own premise that is also weak??

Like my good friend who was visually impaired used to always say.

"It is like the blind man reading in braille about how there is no such thing as raised pellets or punching holes..."

The complexity of the pebble should have been enough to demonstrate
something, BUT the video makes a strawman out of God in the first
place by putting an old man with a beard in the clouds.

~Michael

Breckmin · Oct 24, 2008

Tom,
Just to reiterate. I know "you" wouldn't bother them, but name dropping here could
lead to "others" bothering them in the future. Besides, I didn't read it was "you" that
I was answering. My faux pas again, perhaps.
~Michael

EnemyPartyII · Oct 24, 2008

Breckmin said:
General and doesn't deal with anything specific, or anything he has
specifically said. Nothing more than ad hominem.

For the record, I would like to take back what I said and apologize
for it. I found a couple interesting things on the site so it is not
all completely basic.

~Michael

While the fact that Ham IS a fraud and is ignorant of real science does have an element of the ad hominem argument about it, one could say that it goes to credibility... since he is known to use... shall we say "questionable"... claims, and demonstrably has a poor grasp of scientific methodology and theory, it follows that he is not a good source for scientific information.

"The mafia is a criminal organisation" is also an ad hominem... however, it may be relevant when discussing whether or not to do business with them.

Tomk80 · Oct 24, 2008

Breckmin said:
There is a lot of them. But one, I wouldn't want to you to bother the
one's who are in professions. And, two, many of them are teaching in
Christian Colleges and I wouldn't want you to bother them either. They
don't need any more hate email, from anyone, especially someone
who wishes to debate them (I'm not saying you would write and
bother them, I just don't believe in name dropping and drawing
attention to them here).

What you need to understand is the hatred they receive when they
do come out as creationists, or even some of them as young earth
creationists. We have meetings all over the country. Do you really
believe that none of these guys have multiple PhD's????

I'm sorry, but they would not spend the time to engage in futile
debate, but they DO fully understand DET.

The difference is, they also understand a whole other set of assumptions,
and they choose those.

You have no idea of the hatred that exists toward creationists in
the fields of geology and paleontology or even genetics. They keep
quite because they don't want to get kicked out of school sometimes.

If DET was truly as sound as you say, then there wouldn't be this
insecurity about debating creationism or hatred of those who believe
in creation. I'm not saying you hate me. There ARE those who do
hate creationists, and they make there opinion very well known.

~Michael

Blabla. Really Michael, here is what is bothering me. Again it just doesn't answer the question in any way. As all your other posts, it just tries to search for a way to avoid answering it.

Why am I never encountering these scientists? I mean, I could put credence to your story above, but why do none of these scientists work at Answer in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute? And why do I never meet them on the forums where I post? They can remain anonymous there. But all I've ever seen in the last 8 or 9 years I've been participating in this discussion in various forums and in person, is people who when you really get down to it have a number of misconceptions about evolution due to bad research or logical fallacies, usually a combination of both.

Why do I never meet these people? I cannot trust you on the answer, because from what you have posted up to now I see no indication to think you could accurately assess whether these people have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. So why do I never meet them, when I have put in effort to search them out?

Taking Questions on the Creation

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Junior Member

Junior Member

Noted strange person

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Titleless

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency