Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2019 2:52 PM
31 online now:
Aussie, celestialGyoud, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,941 Year: 6,977/19,786 Month: 1,518/1,581 Week: 340/393 Day: 64/99 Hour: 2/3


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 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

  
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 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

  
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 responded

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

  
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 responded

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

  
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 yet responded

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

  
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 yet responded

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

  
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

  
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

  
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

do the research, it is there. i do not care if you were one of the lucky ones who got reviewed, all that does is show that you use limited samples to prove your point against mine and it is not broad enough to be valid.

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 yet responded

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

  
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 yet responded

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

  
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

So, you vary the assumption and try a bunch of different numbers for A. If it turns out that you get a very similar answer, even with very diferent numbers for A, then the estimate is robust. You can be confident in it, because it's approximately right even if you got A quite significantly wrong.

but that still doesn't mean you are correct. because populations have not been around for 200,000 years the whole equation is still off.

if you are looking for natural answers, you will never get it right because you are using the wrong variables and the wrong equation.

you are also assuming that secularists are on the right track when they are far from it.

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 yet responded

  
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

Now, if we followed the Creationist fantasy of what Scientists do everyone would now gather round and have a big back patting session about how we've proved the Bible is wrong again.

except you haven't proven the Bible wrong (ever). you cannot verify your results and no ancient record supports the modern science conclusion thus you are just trying to convince yourselves you are right when you are not and have no hope in proving you are.

It's a direct description of how Evolutionary science is described by the likes of Archaeologist. I have no pretence that you would say something so ridiculous.

Yes, I know what the paper was about. I was replying to Percy, not you. The paper tests the assumptions behind the calculation of the date, not the measurement of the rate.

Is typical strawman, and I'll hope you'll cut down on those if you want to discuss with me. Don't pretend to know how creationists think.

It's no strawman. It's a direct description of how Evolutionary science is described by the likes of Archaeologist. I have no pretence that you would say something so ridiculous.

you do not seem to understand my position at all. secular and evolutionary science is merely the blind leading the blind. you cannot prove your results and your excuse that 'science is not about the turth' undermines any claim you make about the past. if science is not about the truth then what it claims about origins and other unprovable conclusions is not true tus secular science destroys its own self appointed authority.

you just do not have a leg to stand upon.

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 responded

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