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.
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 ?
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 ?
. 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|