Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie, Theodoric (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,369 Year: 20,405/19,786 Month: 802/2,023 Week: 310/392 Day: 41/129 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   secularists do not want the truth
Nij
Member (Idle past 3202 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 31 of 85 (576209)
08-23-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 8:18 AM


You ignore the papers and articles that demonstrate how the findings are correct, and which answer all of those supposed problems you love to bandy on.
You didn't think they'd sit and not answer their critics in support of their works? You didn't think they would just keep repeating something they knew to be wrong? You didn't think.

Despite the opportunity to show us how you would improve the system, you just kept asserting your single-minded brand of creotardness was perfect regardless of evidence to the contrary. You have been shown that your alternative is still nonsense, just like it was last year, last decade and last century. We want truth, and so far evolution is the closest thing to be found. But guess what? Science will find something better, because that is how science works.

All you did was preach that brand and spam your website. You call scientists as a whole dishonest liars. You ignored almost every rule on this forum. You ran away whenever somebody disagreed with any form of expertise.

If that's how you expound "truth", I and most others here are probably happier without it. Though the humour at your expense might be missed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 8:18 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 5:11 AM Nij has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2503 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 85 (576222)
08-23-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:32 AM


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.

You made the above statement, now back it up with some real evidence.


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 24 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:32 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 5:02 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
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

after you back up all your statements with real evidence from credible and legitimate sources.

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 yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 34 of 85 (576431)
08-24-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:30 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.

Well, those are bold claims.

Could you identify the assumptions present that invalidate the conclusions? Could you explain how these assumptions have led to the date being erroneous by a factor of 30 or so? And, finally, do you have any data that supports the 6-10,000 year date? (Although I'm confused by your 6-10,000 year claim? Surely it should be roughly 4-4.5k years since it would date from the flood not creation).

Thank you


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:30 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
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

You ignore the papers and articles that demonstrate how the findings are correct, and which answer all of those supposed problems you love to bandy on.
You didn't think they'd sit and not answer their critics in support of their works? You didn't think they would just keep repeating something they knew to be wrong? You didn't think.

i itgnore those papers that do not present the truth, and guess what 100% of all evolutionary papers do not. i have have researched peer review, i thik iou should do an honest search yourself and see the mess it is in.

you just kept asserting your single-minded brand of creotardness was perfect regardless of evidence to the contrary

there is NO evidence to the contrary of creation.

We want truth,

so why are you using secular science then. someone else just said secular science is NOT about the truth. if you want truth GO TO the BIBLE for secular man lies, cheats, distorts, looks in the wrong places for the wrong answers and so on. you need to get away from secular science if you want truth.

You ran away whenever somebody disagreed with any form of expertise

if it disagrees with the Bible then it is wrong, regardless of the amount of the so-called expertise of the person making the contrary remarks.

All you did was preach that brand and spam your website

this is another reason why creationists cannot have discussions with secularists--they distort and falsely label what creationists do.

Though the humour at your expense might be missed.

thisis another good reason why creationists cannot have discussion with secularists {and i hope the admins. are writing these reasons down so they get a clue} you treat them in a disrespectful manner, though demanding respect for your lies and distortions.. or you treat them like entertainment, well guess who gets the last laugh--we do, if we weren't so sad at seeing you sent to hell.

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 yet responded

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

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3255 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 36 of 85 (576439)
08-24-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by archaeologist
08-24-2010 5:11 AM


Time to go, Archie?
if it disagrees with the Bible then it is wrong, regardless of the amount of the so-called expertise of the person making the contrary remarks.

Thank you for confirming what has already been obvious. You have literally stated that it doesn't matter to you how good any evidence contrary to the Biblical creation story is. As far as you are concerned, if it is contrary then it is wrong.

You have admitted you will not pay any attention to any point of view other than your own, which means you are not engaging in any kind of argument or debate.

Read the statement at the top of this page: "Understanding through Discussion". That's what this site is about. People have very strong opinions, but they should still be willing to listen to and consider other points of view. You're not willing to do that, which means you're certainly not engaging in the spirit of the forum, and probably not the rules either.

Unless you're willing to change your attitude, you might as well leave now and stop wasting everyone's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 6:59 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
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

Thank you for confirming what has already been obvious. You have literally stated that it doesn't matter to you how good any evidence contrary to the Biblical creation story is. As far as you are concerned, if it is contrary then it is wrong.

as has been stated ad naseum, you do not have any evidence to the contrary to the biblical account and no scientific discovery has ever proven the bible false.

You have admitted you will not pay any attention to any point of view other than your own, which means you are not engaging in any kind of argument or debate.

blame yourself for that is whom you are describing and just about every other member on this board. throughout these forums i have posted reasons why discussion fails with secularists BECAUSE they are closeminded, intolerant, biased, and so much more. you are the ones who do not listen to anything so don't accuse the christian who has listened and made the right choice.

Read the statement at the top of this page: "Understanding through Discussion

yup it is there alright...and when your side practices what it preaches then maybe you would learn something. but your hypocrisy and double standards and other misrepresentations ruin it for you and show that you refuse to listen to the truth no matter how many times you are told.

we christians have the truth and we do not listen to secularists, secular science, evolutionists because they are deceived and being decieved and until you realize that, discussion with you all is impossible.

Unless you're willing to change your attitude, you might as well leave now and stop wasting everyone's time.

why don't you for you have shown you cannot discuss and you are unwilling to listen to the truth. it is your attitude that has to change because you all are wrong. there are no secular science rules that dictae how science should be, they are moot and an exercise in futility--their is only truth and error, right and wrong no matter how hard you try, you can't change that fact.

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 yet responded

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

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


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


Hiding repetition of original premise. --Admin

P.S.-- you and the rest of this board forget ONE very important little detail--you all and the rest of the secularists do not own science, so not own the world, do not own the science classroom and so on.

this is God''s creation, God's universe, God's earth, and God's science THUS it is His rules that rule.

Edited by Admin, : Add hide.


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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 85 (576458)
08-24-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by archaeologist
08-24-2010 7:01 AM


archaeologist writes:

P.S.-- you and the rest of this board forget ONE very important little detail--you all and the rest of the secularists do not own science, so not own the world, do not own the science classroom and so on.


Yes we do.

this is God''s creation, God's universe, God's earth, and God's science THUS it is His rules that rule.

Yep, and science is the way of finding out how he did it. Heretic.

Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 7:01 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 40 of 85 (576461)
08-24-2010 7:41 AM


Anyone else get the impression Archy is channelling Ray Martinez?

Next thing we know evolution will be his god's punishment on us for believing in evolution.


  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 41 of 85 (576462)
08-24-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by archaeologist
08-24-2010 6:59 AM


Re: Time to go, Archie?
archaeologist writes:

as has been stated ad naseum, you do not have any evidence to the contrary to the biblical account and no scientific discovery has ever proven the bible false.


You have been provided with several. Stop lying about this.

blame yourself for that is whom you are describing and just about every other member on this board. throughout these forums i have posted reasons why discussion fails with secularists BECAUSE they are closeminded, intolerant, biased, and so much more.

Yet more insults? One wonders why you are so angry. ISn't your faith about love for others?

you are the ones who do not listen to anything so don't accuse the christian who has listened and made the right choice.

If you have listened, you have not heard.

yup it is there alright...and when your side practices what it preaches then maybe you would learn something.

I understand you perfectly Archie, you are right and everybody else is wrong, even though they have the evidence, and you have made up stuff.

but your hypocrisy and double standards and other misrepresentations ruin it for you and show that you refuse to listen to the truth no matter how many times you are told.

Insults insults insults. Is that all you have, or can you actually refute the points made?

we christians have the truth and we do not listen to secularists, secular science, evolutionists because they are deceived and being decieved and until you realize that, discussion with you all is impossible.

Now who's closeminded.

why don't you for you have shown you cannot discuss and you are unwilling to listen to the truth.

JUC can discuss very well, just ask any member here, except you. That should tell you something, but I doubt it.

it is your attitude that has to change because you all are wrong.

No, you are!

there are no secular science rules that dictae how science should be,

Yes there are.

they are moot and an exercise in futility

No they're not.

their is only truth and error, right and wrong no matter how hard you try, you can't change that fact.

Yes, and the only way to find out what is true is through science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 6:59 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12644
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 42 of 85 (576464)
08-24-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by archaeologist
08-24-2010 7:01 AM


Hi Archaeologist,

I'm sorry that participation at EvC Forum is raising such strong feelings within you about secularists and evolutionists, but you're going to have to keep those feelings to yourself except in threads where that is the topic. And in threads like this one where it *is* the topic you must participate in the discussion instead of just repeating your initial premise.

For a while I will hide those parts of your posts that are off-topic or do not move the discussion forward, but that is a labor intensive process, so if it doesn't cause any noticeable improvement wthin a few days then I'll begin issuing short suspensions.

Please, no replies to this message. Take issues and complaints about discussion to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

Edited by Admin, : Clarify.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by archaeologist, posted 08-24-2010 7:01 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1713
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 43 of 85 (576701)
08-25-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


I meant to write this as a new topic a while ago, but never quite got round to it. There’s a lot of confusion around about things like Mitochondrial Eve and what she means for our understanding of the world – problems compounded by typically poor science reporting in the media and by sloppy language from those that should know better. I thought it would be useful to have one post briefly summarising what we know about these common ancestors, how we know it, and what it all means for the EvC debate. Here seems like an appropriate thread!

Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondiral DNA is useful to study, because it is inherited wholly from the mother. Sperm don’t have any mitchondria, so all the mitochondria in your body are directly cloned from the mitochondria in your mother’s egg. Most DNA is a mixture from both parents, so your particular DNA will be unique, but, without any mixing with the father’s DNA, your mitochondrial DNA should be exactly the same as your mother’s, and her mother’s, and her mother’s (and so on ad inifinitum).

Of course, it’s not exactly the same, because mutations occur, changing it slightly. You and your sister, then, would have ever so slightly different mitochondrial DNA. Your cousins who share a maternal grandmother would be slightly more different again. Your more distant cousins, with whom you share your mother’s mother’s mother, would be slightly more different still.

By working out the average rate of mutations per generation, scientists can take mitochondrial DNA from different people, and estimate how long it’s been since the direct-line of female ancestors of these people separated. And that’s what was done – taking the DNA of people from different ethnic groups all over the world to see how far back the last common matrilineal ancestor may have lived. The estimate arrived at is 200,000 years ago.

Note that this research isn’t about establishing that we had a matrilineal common ancestor – this is assumed as obvious. It’s about trying to work out how recent she was.

Y-chromosome Adam

Y-chromosome Adam works on similar principles, except this time its DNA passed down only by men. Y-chromosomes come only from your dad, and the DNA isn’t mixed with any from the woman at all. So, using the same idea, we can look at how different the Y-chromosone DNA is between different people from all over the world, and come up with an estimate as to how recently they all shared a patrilineal ancestor. The estimate for this is much more recent – about 60,000 years ago.

Why so much more recent? It’s because of the difference in reproductive success between men and women. Men have to put a lot less effort into making a baby, so they can have far more children than a woman ever could. There are only so many women to go around, however, so if some men are having piles of kids, a lot of men are having none. The Y-chromosome lineage of every man who fails to produce a son is lost, just as the mitochondrial lineage of every woman who fails to produce a daughter is lost. Throughout history, many more men have failed to produce a son than women have failed to produce a daughter.

The most recent common ancestor

The important thing to remember about this Adam and Eve, is that they are not our most recent common ancestor, nor our most recent common male or female ancestors. This is obvious once you think about. Look at my hastily-drawn diagrams of Dave and Zebedee’s recent ancestors below.

There are eight different ways Dave and Zebedee could share an ancestor in the top generation. A could be the same person as E, A could be the same person as G, B could be the same person person as F, B could be the same person as H etc. etc. There are four ways each that they could share a common male or female ancestor.

However, for them to have the same matrilineal ancestor, there is only one way. A has to be the same person as E. If we continued to join the trees backwards, the number of people in each generation would double, and so there’d be ever more and more people we could look through to find a common ancestor. In each new generation, though, there’d only be one new direct-matrilineal ancestor, or one new direct patrilineal ancestor.

What all this means for the Creation/Evolution debate

As noted about, the fact that we have common ancestors does not support creationism. It’s a prediction of evolutionary theory that all people have a common ancestor (as, indeed, does all life), so it would be evidence against this that different races had been created separately, as some people used to think.

This evidence does provide problems for a young-earth creationist view, though. If all people are descended from one woman 6,000 years ago, then there have only been 6,000 years for one mitochondrial genome to mutate into all the different versions of it in the world today. Similarly, if all people are descended from one man 6,000 years ago, then there has only been 6,000 years for one Y-chromosome to mutate into all the different versions knocking around today. As we’ve seen, at current rates of mutation, these figures are about 30 and 10 times too short, respectively.

The actual problem is worse as, according to the literalist biblical account, the population was reduced dramatically by the flood, just over 4,000 years ago. All the men that survived the Ark were a father and his three sons, so diversity was reduced back to one, almost identical Y-chromosome, which must have explosively diversified at rates totally unheard of today, to make it look like it underwent 60,000 years of mutation in just 4,000. And, sadly for the classic creationist response that ‘things were different before the Flood’, all of this had to happen after the Flood.

This has gone on plenty long enough, so I'll leave it there.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 08-25-2010 10:41 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 44 of 85 (576840)
08-25-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by caffeine
08-25-2010 7:42 AM


And how did they calculate the mutation rates ?

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 7:42 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2010 4:12 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-26-2010 8:22 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 45 of 85 (576850)
08-26-2010 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by slevesque
08-25-2010 10:41 PM


By looking at mutations in documented family groupings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 08-25-2010 10:41 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019