Next-generation sequencing provides the most accurate estimate to date.That is not accurate.
This letter does illustrate the problem with the misapplication of evolution: People who ignore the fact than man has a soul, and that evolution is simply our best understanding of what God did when He created all living things.
“swing from tree to tree”? Before his legs were shaped “by the need to move quickly,” how did he survive fast, climbing predators?
The same way primates do today: By being just a little bit faster than the other guy.
We were primates yet we still have primates? The level of speculation is still too high.
I can answer that one. Nobody claims we come from a primape still alive today. That wouldn’t make any sense. We come from a different species of ape. The reason it’s not around today is because it’s us. Had we come from gorrilla’s we wouldn’t see Gorrillas, because they would all be humans. Really the whole “if we come from monkey’s why are monkey’s still around” argument is probably one of the easiest to refute.
Thank you, buffalo, for providing a lot of very good information. Again, I don’t see science at work here but the promotion of an ideology, which we will see again after this thread ends. Keep up the good work.
You might want to read the rest of his paper, instead of prooftexting out of context: here. There’s also an explanation and analysis of the various numbers given for the how closely humans and chimpanzees are related here.
Yes, the deceiver God. I know I’ll be seeing that again and again and again. When did the first radioactive material form on earth? By what means? I’m in favor of reason too, that’s why threads like this help me to look for other reasonable explanations. And the other thing that motivates me is comments like “nothing is ever proven in science.” If I was a juror in a court of law, could I ever reach a verdict? Of course not. But here, it’s all set in concrete. Like Jesus didn’t raise the dead or remove leprosy or give sight to the blind with zero science or technology. Did He deceive us as well? Of course not. Being God, He did things only God can do.
but i just said that scientists have discovered that bone is added to during the life of the animal or person. so what makes you think we would look the same after 2.5 million years of development.
The deceiver God argument is bogus. First off, He is under no obligation to disclose everything. Second, science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Human reasoning of our observations is suspect and must be challenged continually or we lapse into believing our own story telling.
The oldest radioactive material on earth is actually older than earth itself: Uranium 238. Its half-life is roughly 4.5 billion years, which means we can use it to date something nearly as old as the universe itself. It formed the same way that every naturally-occurring element heavier than iron did: In the final, spectacular seconds of a star’s life as it went supernova. The way that we can tell how much radioactive material was originally in a given sample is that we know what these elements become as they decay (for uranium, it’s a particular isotope of lead), and we can use the amounts of those “daughter” materials to figure out how much of the original material there was.
When scientists say that “nothing is ever proven”, what is meant is that we use the best models we have available, but if new observations come along which definitively overturn that model then we start looking for a new one. For example, Newton’s model of gravity vs. Einstein’s: The Newtonian model, while useful for simple situations, consistently gave errors when calculating where Mercury should appear in relation to the Sun during an eclipse, if the position was within a certain arc length from our point of view. Einstein gave us a new model, and that model - because it took the bending of light rays by the Sun’s gravity well into account - gave correct predictions of Mercury’s position, as verified by observation. But even Einstein’s model has problems, because it breaks down under certain conditions, so we’re still looking for a model of gravity that can give correct predictions under all circumstances. When one says that something is “proven” in a scientific context, it means that we know absolutely everything about it with 100% certainty, and no further research is necessary or even useful.
And I believe every word that is in Genesis. What I don’t do is mistake the history of our salvation for a scientific treatise on biology, geology, and cosmology. The technology we have now is based on the same principles that we use to determine things like the age of the earth. If we’ve gotten the age of the earth wrong because of variable radioactive decay rates, than radiation therapy couldn’t work - both are based on the same model. Not to mention that - like I said above - the amount of daughter isotopes we can detect tell that, for that much decay to have occurred in only 6,000 years, our first parents would have been exposed to over 300 times the lethal limit of radiation. Not could-someday-cause-cancer lethal, but instantly lethal.
That is Our Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - hidden under the appearance of bread.
But when we take the results of our reason, and see that they work for things like nuclear reactors and radiation therapy, and find that applying those exact same rules to the problem of earth’s age gives a result that is - according to your model - wrong, what should we conclude? We know how much radiation has been released over the earth’s lifetime. If the rate changes to fit a 6,000-year timeline, then the dosage of radiation received by our first parents would have killed them instantly. If the amount of radiation released is incorrect, then either our model of how radiation works is incorrect and nuclear power stations, atomic bombs, and radiation therapy don’t really work at all or God planted the “daughter” isotopes that we see in such amounts that we would come to a false conclusion about how much original material was present. There are only four terms to the equation: Remaining = Original - (rate of decay x time). We can measure the original amount from the daughter isotopes. We can directly measure the rate of decay and the amount of material remaining. From those terms, we can calculate time. Which term is incorrect?
No, but neither should he conclude that he is a monoped without supporting evidence. If the revelator tells us something specific about the physical universe in the context of imparting physical knowledge, we should see clear evidence supporting it - such as looking down and seeing two feet.
The “paradigm” never said that there were no more impacts on the moon after a given point. In fact, there are records of an abbey in Canterbury describing a fairly spectacular lunar impact event in 1178.Much of this “false evidence” is subject to revision. One recent example is moon cratering. The paradigm was the craters were produced eons ago. Now we see that with the aid of a 10X telescope impacts occur routinely. Is this an example of “false evidence” planted by God?
Of course. But if he tells us that the water washed them away, then we should find water. If we find no water, then is he still worthy of trust, or was he referring to something else?