Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
You are wrong I am afraid.
Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her
HowStuffWorks "Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?"
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mitochondrial Eve isn't even a single individual , for starters.
You are wrong I am afraid.
Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or herlineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.
HowStuffWorks "Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?"
- The Scriptures cannot be studied "scientifically" with any degree of accuracy.
- Still, it is not a science book. It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics.
- If God had used evolution or billions of years, He would not have told us otherwise.
- Genesis 1 is not written as a metaphor, and the Fourth Commandment, written by the finger of God, states that He created the world in six days. It is not possible to get any more specific.
- The Scriptures state that man was created by God on the sixth day of creation.
- Either you render the largest part of the Scriptures to be mythology and falsehood, or you acknowledge that God DID create the universe in six days and He allowed a mechanism by which species could go forth and multiply.
- Science is not a synonym for truth, and scientific does not mean indisputably validated.
- Scientific does not equal real. I think that's your biggest problem. You don't understand exactly what science is and you lack an understanding of its limitations.
- For example, science tells us that a man who has been dead for three days cannot return to life.
- Science tells us that there are no demons and there is no demonic possession,
- You state this repeatedly by interjecting "science" as if it were a synonym for "truth." Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.
- Evolution is a lie that serves the father of lies.
- Evolution claims that all life evolved on its own without any supernatural intervention, and that man is merely a more evolved species. That gives man no special value.
- If the story is false then the argument is invalid.
- You state this repeatedly by interjecting "science" as if it were a synonym for "truth." Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.
- You accused him of using a teaching device based on a myth, while Luke taught as factually. It he was teaching a myth as fact, he must have been lying.
Actually, I referenced the verses. AIG just had them all compiled in a nice neat list. What matters is what God says, not any website.KWCrazy is an example (since he quoted AiG).
Don't be silly. The Scriptures teach about our origins. They do not address "origin science."The problem I have here is that points 1 and 2 clearly state that Scripture is not scientific (we agree here) and then points 3 - 6 interpret Scripture as if it were useful for modern day scientific inquiry into origins science.
You seem to have a problem where you think that "scientific" is another word for "truth." It isn't. Again, science is the study of the PHYSICAL world. It deals with NATURAL law. The Bible teaches us about eternity, which is supernatural.I'd like you to clarify why you clearly state that Scripture isn't scientific and then read it as if it is.
That depends entirely on what you believe the bible to be. if it's the inspired word of God, then God was certainly not unenlightened. If it's the writings of man, then it's useless to study and of no more redeeming value than Moby Dick or The Illiad.The bible is clearly pre-enlightenment.
Since there is no scientifically viable explanation for origination, I think "origins science" must be a oxymoron; like jumbo shrimp. There are origins and there is science. Science can't study origins because our origin was supernatural and science has no ability to study the supernatural. So do I elevate the Bible to the same level as science? Absolutely not, because the word of God supersedes the claims of science. Science holds that things which are impossible could not have happened. The Bible shows 333 examples where the impossible DID happen. In fact, miracles still occur today.To read pre-enlightenment text with the view to study origins science is to force it into a post-enlightenment framework.
On that we can agree.Since science is limited to the natural world, it does not and cannot study the full scope of topics, and cannot study the metaphysical at all. Science is not an appropriate tool to make metaphysical discoveries, but it is an appropriate tool to make physical discoveries.
SCIENTISTS can. The study cannot.That is, scientists qua scientists, cannot be atheistic or theistic.
Evolution holds that man is merely a more evolved animal; descended from simpler forms; not created by any God.Evolution does not, therefore, have an opinion on the value of mankind,
Evolution makes the claim that humans evolved from simpler forms, so either evolution is false or any claims to the contrary must be false.evolution cannot claim there is no supernatural power,
Science can tell us what natural laws are and that miracles cannot occur naturally. Contrary to what many here seem to think, you are absolutely correct that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of demons.science cannot tell us that miracles are impossible or that demons do not exist.
In this we are in agreement. However, the "truth" of science is relative to the greater truth, which may or may not agree.In this sense, science can make true statements about the physical world, and no statements about the metaphysical world.
Science and the Bible do not contradict each other. Scientists, and especially internet scientists, attempt to contradict the bible all the time.In relation to the bible, you said "It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics." If the bible doesn't teach physics, and science makes no metaphysical claims, then how is it possible for the two to contradict?
Again, this remains a point of disagreement. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Since God is omniscient, there was never a time of pre-enlightenment. He understands everything about the universe He created. It doesn't really matter if the people who recorded His message knew what He meant to say or not. There are many stories in the Bible. Some of them are represented as parables, but the parables are clearly identifiable as such. Even then, there is nothing to say that the parables didn't actually happen. Jesus, being the son of God, would have seen all the events of mankind and would have been able to use lessons from the real world. Was the prodigal son a true story? Was the Good Samaritan a true story? These were used as teaching illustrations. Whether they happened or not is irrelevant. Jesus said in Mark 4:11 "The secret of Gods kingdom has been given to you, but to those who are outside everything comes in parables." The feeding of the multitudes, however, was recorded as fact. Recorded facts and parables used to instruct are easy to discern from context.Here is where I believe you are still interpreting the bible as a post enlightenment text, failing to take into account the fact that it is pre-englightenment. Pre-enlightenment, stories were the primary vehicle of conveying truth. Pure conveyance of fact was not of primary essence pre-englightenment. But you are reading stories in the bible as a transmission of fact rather than a story that conveys fact. There is a big difference!
Contrary to what many here seem to think, you are absolutely correct that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of demons.
Most who believe in evolution seem to think that science disproves the Biblical account of creation, or that it can somehow prove man descended from a lesser animal.
Evolution holds that man is merely a more evolved animal; descended from simpler forms; not created by any God.
SCIENTISTS can. The study cannot.
This involves the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other options.Either you render the largest part of the Scriptures to be mythology and falsehood, or you acknowledge that God DID create the universe in six days and He allowed a mechanism by which species could go forth and multiply.
Nothing in science is "indisputably validated". Science is primarily inductive in nature and always has to leave open the possibility of new information that can change the picture.Science is not a synonym for truth, and scientific does not mean indisputably validated. Of course not.
Science is just a tool, nothing else. To make a simplified statement, it can only deal with phenomena that care publicly measurable in some way. For this reason, science cannot deal with the supernatural unless it does become measurable thus making it natural.Scientific does not equal real. I think that's your biggest problem. You don't understand exactly what science is and you lack an understanding of its limitations.
No it really doesn't. It tells us that there is, to date, no evidence that this can happen. There are however instances of people who are apparently dead that have recovered. Look at the Victorian fear of being buried alive.For example, science tells us that a man who has been dead for three days cannot return to life.
No it doesn't. It only tells us that there is, to date, no evidence of this.Science tells us that there are no demons and there is no demonic possession,
This is what science does. One way of putting it is that science deals with truth with a small "t" but not Truth with capital "T", Methodical Naturalism if you would.Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.
Oh my, I can see no way for you to back that up except by rejecting the principle of scientific evidence and the *huge* amounts of evidence for biological evolution.Evolution is a lie that serves the father of lies.
This is incorrect. Science does not involve itself with supernatural intervention and stands mute on that. If you cannot measure it in some way, science cannot deal with it so cannot comment on it (simplified but reasonably accurate). On the other point, evolution does not involve with "more" or "less" evolved. That would imply a goal and evolution only deals with the immediate environment.Evolution claims that all life evolved on its own without any supernatural intervention, and that man is merely a more evolved species.
Apparently Delphiki believes it.Who on this board ever said that science can prove or disprove demons?
You haven't read much on this forum, apparently, because those who post here seem to believe that evolution disproves the Biblical account of creation.No, most don't believe that. Science doesn't deal in proof.
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as 'more evolved'. Evolution is not a ladder.
However, God said that he created man from dust on the sixth day, not that He evolved man over millions of years. By definition, God cannot speak an untruth. If God's word is false, then there is no God. If God exists, then His word is truth. Either evolution is right or God is truth. There can be no compromise.Also, evolution does not say man wasn't created by a god. It is entirely possible for a god to exist, and even for that god to have created man...through evolutionary processes.
She said, "That is, scientists qua scientists, cannot be atheistic or theistic."Yeah, that's what she said. What do you think 'qua' means?
Apparently Delphiki believes it.
because those who post here seem to believe that evolution disproves the Biblical account of creation.
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Increasingly complex = more involved. Evolutionists don't like to call it a ladder. They call it tree. Regardless, it's an upward progression of life from more simple forms to increasingly complex forms.
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.
However, scientists CAN BE atheistic or theistic.
However, God said that he created man from dust on the sixth day, not that He evolved man over millions of years. By definition, God cannot speak an untruth. If God's word is false, then there is no God. If God exists, then His word is truth. Either evolution is right or God is truth. There can be no compromise.
not created by any God.
If it's the writings of man, then it's useless to study and of no more redeeming value than Moby Dick or The Illiad.
Again, I should have been clearer. It's a single individual like, say, the president is.
It's a title. It changes.
No, there are not. Removing the six day creation and the first three chapters of Genesis denies several core principles of the Bible INCLUDING one of the Ten Commandments. It is NOT possible for the Bible to be true if its core principles are false. It is NOT possible for man to have evolved if God created him on day six.This involves the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other options.
Therefore science =/= truth, as I said.Nothing in science is "indisputably validated".
I said that. It can't study the supernatural, not can it either affirm or deny its existence.Science is just a tool, nothing else. To make a simplified statement, it can only deal with phenomena that care publicly measurable in some way. For this reason, science cannot deal with the supernatural unless it does become measurable thus making it natural.
You failed biology, I take it.No it really doesn't. It tells us that there is, to date, no evidence that this can happen.
You're begging the question. Being apparently dead is not the same as being dead. Lazarus had begun to decompose. Jesus was also clearly dead. Science cannot account for someone actually BEING DEAD for three days and returning to life.There are however instances of people who are apparently dead that have recovered.
Nothing scientific about it. Miracles defy physical laws.It is part of my faith that Jesus did return but that is my faith and that is adequate for me. I feel no need to try to present it as scientific fact.
Do you really think that something non-physical is going to leave physical evidence?No it doesn't. It only tells us that there is, to date, no evidence of this.
There is no scientific evidence for origination. There is no proof of evolution. Science can only offer a natural explanation for things. If something is supernatural, science cannot possibly supply the correct answer.Oh my, I can see no way for you to back that up except by rejecting the principle of scientific evidence and the *huge* amounts of evidence for biological evolution.
I really don't know what you are trying to say here?
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. Every generation, mitochondrial lineages end, such as when an only daughter has only sons. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.
mtDNA Eve [like y-Adam] only represents the "oldest" female [or male] on record.It is not the Biblical Eve. The site you used as a source actually explains this is great detail - you should read the entire article.
mtDNA Eve [like y-Adam] only represents the "oldest" female [or male] on record.
Meaning the oldest one found.
Not the only woman[edit]
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[7][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent
Isn't that what I just said?Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor. Not the first woman.
Isn't that what I just said?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?