Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 8:44 AM
65 online now:
JonF, Percy (Admin), sfs, Stile, vimesey (5 members, 60 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,053 Year: 24,894/28,606 Month: 2,195/1,786 Week: 410/647 Day: 15/79 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   secularists do not want the truth
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 85 (575643)
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


when christians present it, they dismiss or reject it without consideration but whenthey see the evidence for themselves, and as a result of their own work, they still reject it and make up stories to hide from the fact.

case in point:

http://news.yahoo.com/...ageconfirmedforevemotherofallhumans

here is what they found:

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy:

However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

"There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity," said Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistics at Rice University. "So the age of the mitochondrial Eve is always less than the age of the true, first female modern human."

the first true female was Eve Gen. 3:20 states-- "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living...'

even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it. it becomes pointless for christians to present any evidence because if it is not what the secularist wants to hear, then it is ignored, dismissed, rejected and followed by more calls for more evidence.

the evidence is there that proves the Bible true, it is up to you to make your choice to accept or rejectit but you cannot keep demanding more for it will not come.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 5:01 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 5:07 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 5:14 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Meldinoor, posted 08-20-2010 5:38 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2010 5:41 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 08-20-2010 7:03 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 7:28 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2010 9:12 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 12:16 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 12 by DC85, posted 08-21-2010 12:56 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 08-22-2010 1:39 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 43 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 7:42 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2010 2:10 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2 of 85 (575644)
08-20-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


the evidence is there that proves the Bible true, it is up to you to make your choice to accept or rejectit but you cannot keep demanding more for it will not come.

Where is the evidence?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5276
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 85 (575646)
08-20-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy:

There is no story. Every allele in the genome will have a most recent common ancestor, and those MRCA's will not be the same person. Genes like the DRB1 gene have hundreds of different alleles within our population. This much variation requires that there had to be other women alive along side mitEve to pass on this genetic variation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 85 (575648)
08-20-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy:

The evidence is that it is logically and obviously true that the ancient woman who sits at the apex of a mitochondrial family tree is herself not the only woman who was alive at that time, and she must have inherited her mitochondria from her mother, and her from hers.

And, of course, the other piece of evidence is that you can trace male lineage through Y chromosomes (which only men inherit from men) back to another single individual "Y Adam", who lived almost 100,000 years after mitochondrial "Eve."

So, mitochondrial Eve had to mate with someone to have children, that someone was a man, that man must have had a mother. That mother would have been a woman necessarily older than mitochondrial Eve.

I mean, you can deny it, but you're simply denying the facts of life at that point - children are younger than their parents, men and women procreate.

even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it.

How is mitochondrial "Eve" evidence for the Eve of the Bible, when the Bible says Eve lived 10,000 years ago and mitochondrial "Eve" lived over 200,000 years ago? There's just nothing to deny, here - you've become confused by the use of the name "Eve", but of course we have no idea what mitochondrial "Eve"'s name was, we just call her that.

it is up to you to make your choice to accept or rejectit but you cannot keep demanding more for it will not come.

If the Bible is true, why wouldn't more evidence come?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 1282 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 5 of 85 (575661)
08-20-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


Why do you accept these findings when they show that Mitochondrial Eve lived some 200,000 years ago? I thought you rejected any dating method that implies an Earth older than 10,000 years? If you can't trust the data, then why use it to further your argument?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 6 of 85 (575663)
08-20-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them,

Are you trying to say that Genesis 3:20 is evidence for anything other than that a creation story was written down by a Hebrew scribe once? You have not presented evidence for much of anything past your ignorance of science since you showed up here. "Mitochondrial Eve" is certainly evidence for something, but it's for the existence of humans about 30 times as long ago as the age that you creationists typically claim for the universe!

Read your limk before you post it, Arch.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 7 of 85 (575670)
08-20-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


Actually Pretty Good Evidence
Hi Archy,

even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it.

Not true. For instance, you have provided us, right here in this thread, with compelling evidence that you are not a real archaeologist. And I believe it. Simple.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 8 of 85 (575672)
08-20-2010 7:12 PM


The report that archaeologist used as his link is yet another very great example of why science works and creationism is just a bad joke. It looks at ten different, separate and independent studies, each looking at different factors and based on different assumption, yet all end up independently confirming a date around 200,000 years ago.

The truth is that science works and pretending the Bible is historical or science doesn't.

AbE:

Another thing that is important about the study archaeologist provided is that it again refutes the factuality of Genesis 2&3 that we are descended from the mate of the Mt Eve. The most recent common male ancestor was not concurrent with the most recent common female ancestor.

Edited by jar, : add genesis info.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4766
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 9 of 85 (575676)
08-20-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


Arch, this is how mitochondrial descent occurs:

Sorry.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16001
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 10 of 85 (575709)
08-20-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


Small problem, not to rib you about it ...
Hi archaeologist,

here is what they found:

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

the first true female was Eve Gen. 3:20 states-- "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living...'

Here's another piece of information from genetic studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

quote:
In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only). Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.[1]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve for similar wiki article on mDNA-Eve

Also see The Genetic Genealogist: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam ( July 20th, 2007)

So "Mitochondrial Eve" is older than "Y-chromosomal_Adam" ... much older ... way too much older to have lived at the same time, so how'd that rib thing work?

Science minded people (whether theistic or secular) pay attention to all the evidence, not just the evidence that suits their opinion/s.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 85 (575759)
08-21-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


here is what they found:

the article writes:

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy:

the article writes:

However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

"There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity," said Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistics at Rice University. "So the age of the mitochondrial Eve is always less than the age of the true, first female modern human."

the first true female was Eve Gen. 3:20 states-- "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living...'

even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it. it becomes pointless for christians to present any evidence because if it is not what the secularist wants to hear, then it is ignored, dismissed, rejected and followed by more calls for more evidence.

Quote mine much? You left out a major point in the article:

the article writes:

A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms.

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

"There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity," said Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistics at Rice University. "So the age of the mitochondrial Eve is always less than the age of the true, first female modern human."


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 854
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 12 of 85 (575762)
08-21-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


quote:
, and can be traced back to one woman.

I'm willing to bet this was the only line that was important to you and you didn't bother to read the rest of the article

the first true female was Eve Gen. 3:20 states-- "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living...'

No... It didn't say it came from one genetic origin period. Please go back and read the article completely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 85 (575784)
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


The evidence is that it is logically and obviously true that the ancient woman who sits at the apex of a mitochondrial family tree is herself not the only woman who was alive at that time, and she must have inherited her mitochondria from her mother, and her from hers.

BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario, which means that the evolutionist will not be honest in their assessment of the evidence.

Why do you accept these findings when they show that Mitochondrial Eve lived some 200,000 years ago? I thought you rejected any dating method that implies an Earth older than 10,000 years? If you can't trust the data, then why use it to further your argument?

for one thing i doubt the date offered and the same for adam. to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years. those of you who accept these large dates for adam and eve, where are the links to your evidence?

I thought you rejected any dating method that implies an Earth older than 10,000 years? If you can't trust the data, then why use it to further your argument?

i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

we already know that man has not lived on this earth for longer than 10,000 years but secularists will accept something that cannot be proven as long as it comes from their own side and refuse to be discerning about the information.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 4:01 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 4:10 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:41 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 3:20 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 7:09 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Mr Jack
Member
Posts: 3485
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 14 of 85 (575798)
08-21-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

The evidence for the date of 200,000; and the evidence for the existence of "mitochondrial eve" are the same evidence. If the date is wrong*, then the technique is flawed and the evidence for "mitochondrial eve" is invalid.

And, in fact, if you read the paper, mitochondrial eve is assumed and the date determined from the evidence.

* - to within suitable margins of error, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:30 AM Mr Jack has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 15 of 85 (575800)
08-21-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


quote:

BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario, which means that the evolutionist will not be honest in their assessment of the evidence.

As anyone who reads the article can see NO PROOF or EVIDENCE to the contrary is offered either. So, if you only know what is written in the article you cannot say which side the evidence supports.

Of course, the fact is that the article is merely a news report, not a scientific paper and the subject of the paper it deals with is merely an age estimate for the so-called "mitochondrial Eve". So you should not expect the evidence to be there either.

Of course anyone who knows even the basics will be aware of the fact that a "mitochondrial Eve" is a statistical necessity. There is no problem with other women preceding her or other women being alive at the same time, just as there is no problem with other men preceding or living alongside the "Y-chromosome Adam". (If the Bible were literally true then the "Y-chromosome Adam" would be Noah or maybe someone even later).

So a truly honest interpretation does not get us to the conclusion you desire. All you do is jump to a conclusion - and accuse others of dishonesty for daring to disagree.

quote:

for one thing i doubt the date offered and the same for adam. to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years. those of you who accept these large dates for adam and eve, where are the links to your evidence?

The evidence for the age of the "mitochondrial Eve" would be in the paper discussed in the article. Have you read it ?

quote:

i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both

And again we see completely groundless accusations of dishonesty. You do realise that Christianity doesn't really regard tha sort of thing as acceptable behaviour ?

quote:

. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

The data in the article doesn't point to any such thing. Your point is simply false. And I hope you mean that the details are sketchy because you got it from a news site instead of reading the original paper, because that's the real reason. And if you choose to cite a source that only gives sketchy information - and should be expected to give only sketchy information - that really is your problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014