Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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 replied
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 08-20-2010 5:07 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 5:14 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 5 by Meldinoor, posted 08-20-2010 5:38 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2010 5:41 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 08-20-2010 7:03 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 7:28 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2010 9:12 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 12:16 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 12 by DC85, posted 08-21-2010 12:56 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 08-22-2010 1:39 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 43 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 7:42 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2010 2:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
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 Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 4:01 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 4:10 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:41 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 3:20 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 7:09 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 85 (576178)
08-23-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
08-21-2010 4:01 AM


i did read some of the paper and saw thatit was all assumption so i stopped reading it. i never trust the dates coming form secualr sources and if they really tried, they would have found that the dna stopped at about 6-10,000 years NOT 200,000. same for the adam side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 4:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-23-2010 5:08 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2010 5:08 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 85 (576179)
08-23-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Larni
08-22-2010 1:39 PM


You seem to be ignoring the time frame involved
the evolutionary time frame is made up, fictitious, and not real. it doesn't contradict the Biblical record for it does not exisst except in the imaginations of evolutionists. even the archaeological table, the three age sytem, was fictitious and created arbitrarily without evidence or proof. it is wrong as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 08-22-2010 1:39 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 08-23-2010 5:15 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-23-2010 10:03 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 85 (576180)
08-23-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 3:20 PM


If you want to see the evidence you have to go to the actual peer-reviewed journal article
you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?
that is just a lousy system to use as evidence and proof. sorry but i will pass on taking those people's word for anything. that is a faulty system that needs to be scrapped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 3:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by hotjer, posted 08-23-2010 7:24 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2010 2:02 PM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 85 (576204)
08-23-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by hotjer
08-23-2010 7:24 AM


i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.
you all have shown me that you do not want truth but want your alternatives. i am not going to force you to do anything, i may post from time to time but the idea of discussion is moot because the secualrists only want to hear what they want and they hide behind scientific generalities to make sure they avoid the truth.
the truth is secular science and evolution are wrong. let me know when you want to hear the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hotjer, posted 08-23-2010 7:24 AM hotjer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 08-23-2010 8:50 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 31 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 8:56 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 85 (576428)
08-24-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
08-23-2010 10:03 AM


Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-23-2010 10:03 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 85 (576432)
08-24-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Nij
08-23-2010 8:56 AM


Hiding repetition of original premise. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 8:56 AM Nij has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-24-2010 6:14 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 85 (576445)
08-24-2010 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-24-2010 6:14 AM


Re: Time to go, Archie?
Hiding repetition of original premise. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide repetition of original premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-24-2010 6:14 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Huntard, posted 08-24-2010 7:41 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 85 (576448)
08-24-2010 7:01 AM


Hiding repetition of original premise. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add hide.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 08-24-2010 7:34 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 08-24-2010 7:46 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 85 (576962)
08-26-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Blue Jay
08-26-2010 2:02 PM


Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2010 2:02 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 08-26-2010 5:47 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 85 (577098)
08-27-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Jack
08-27-2010 4:36 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
i can already see in the abstract that it is not going to be a genuine conclusion:
We perform extensive simulations
These results are used to estimate
so in reality you just have more of the same.
What actually happened is that people have set out to limit the impact of those assumptions.
A very recent paper looked at how the date changes if you vary the assumptions
my question is how can you limit the impact of assumptions by using more assumptions?
i can't access the rest of the article and it is certainly NOT worth 31 dollars to read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 4:36 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 08-27-2010 8:04 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 85 (577250)
08-27-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
08-27-2010 8:04 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 08-27-2010 8:04 AM caffeine has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 85 (577252)
08-27-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Jack
08-27-2010 1:37 PM


Re: Robustness of the date
Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 1:37 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 7:21 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 08-27-2010 8:01 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024