L
larkin31
Guest
We’ve been over this all before. If the evidence had any empirical weight, the discoveries would win the Nobel.
And the authors would list their names.
- Status
And the authors would list their names.
B
buffalo
Guest
Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was
ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was
ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
L
larkin31
Guest
Intellectually, America is still a frontier country in some ways.
L
larkin31
Guest
No.
It is a request for intellectual honesty. Every single one of those folks here who argue for a young earth do so from religious motivations and interests. It is not at all about empirical evidence, which overwhelmingly (and increasingly so) points to an earth approx. 4.5 billion years old.
Honesty gains respect.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genetic analysis is showing that we can trace our maternal DNA back to a first woman. It is also showing a paternal bottleneck and that it does not go back to the first man. The bottleneck could be the Noah of the Bible.
B
buffalo
Guest
Making a point that no one believes in a young earth is indeed an argument from popularity. Make your argument based on something more substantial than that.
Oh and by the way - ages are not based on empirical (testable, repeatable and predictable) evidence. We cannot duplicate in a lab what happened in the past. These are educated guesses.
E
edwest2
Guest
Then I would ask you to please stop misrepresenting what Americans think.
I don’t think the intellect has anything to do with this.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m not one of those arguing for a 6K year old earth, although I’m open to evidence in that regard. However, you seem to be defining as “intellectual honest” those who agree with you, and intellectually dishonest those who do not agree with you.
Honesty deals with what one believes to be true. It is not dishonest for someone to believe in a 6000 year old earth. For whatever reason, your evidence has not convinced them. And it would actually be dishonest for them to say “I believe the Earth is 14 billion years old” when in fact they think it is 6000 years old.
.
L
larkin31
Guest
I did not say what you claim here. You are being dishonest again from your faith. You are simply making my point for me. You can’t even summarize my point accurately because it reveals the truth of the young earth position: that it is a position of faith that disregards the overwhelming evidence that keeps accumulating.
It would be more honest to simply state that you do not and will not “believe” in an old earth because of your faith in your interpretation of Genesis.
I did not claim that “no one believes in a young earth”. Clearly, many many people do. And some are more honest about it than you.
L
larkin31
Guest
This is not my point. I stated my point just above.
How old do you think the earth is? Why would you disagree with the current estimates, from several fields, that have been converging on 4.55 billion years over the last few decades?
L
larkin31
Guest
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think that intellect has nothing to do with science of an old earth.
Accurately evaluating science and educating youth is very much about intellect. America, in several regards, is losing an intellectual race with Europe and Asia. We had better wise up and start making changes, or more and more of the future of science/technology will move overseas, and we will simply become a service country, manning malls and restaurants and automobile repair shops.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Your prior post.
"Oh, come on.
No one in America today believes in a 6-10 thousand yr-old earth simply from the empirical evidence.
Stop pretending that this is about inconclusive evidence. That is an insult to other adults here. "
R
ricmat
Guest
I think the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the earth about 4 billion. I stated above many times that I’m not a YEC.
Your point referenced above laments the fact that some folks put other concerns (like revealed truth) above empirical evidence. Or perhaps they have other “empirical” evidence. And to you, this makes them intellectually dishonest. Actually, it just means that they honestly believe that the earth is 6000 years old based on something that is not important to you. I don’t think they’re intellectually dishonest.
.
B
buffalo
Guest
Oh another sound argument. Get with it America or you will lose the race. Huh? Just go with flow - go with the consensus, even if it is incorrect. You have betrayed your own a priori bias.
As I posted - prove your point with evidence, not rhetoric.
B
buffalo
Guest
Look, there is a point to be made here.
As I have posted before - look at time like a curled up measuring tape. From God’s perspective maybe it is 7 layers, but man who is living on the tape itself has to look back through each event (graduation). We can count back all the events (graduations/markers) to the very beginning and count 14 Billion. But how old is it really?
There can be harmony with Genesis since it appears Gen 1 is from God’s perspective.
The point I am interested in is where Man appeared on this tape. I look at the genealogies as giving us invaluable historical data.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I make a tiny observation.
The age of the earth is a scientific question. Anyone of any faith or non-faith is free to explore this question and report results.
P
Philipp
Guest
Some of us on this thread sense that phrase, Evolution of life from a common ancestor, or whatever is currently promoted by whatever evolutionary sect and their computer modeling, is simply a nonsense phrase made up by Darwin’s friends in the 19th century. Empirical science like C-14 dating of the fossils tells me so
Darwin fizzles while Moses sizzles.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is 100% false and a common propaganda statement that I commonly see on antitheist sites. What did the highly rational people on Wall Street just do?
Pure baloney.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
R
ricmat
Guest
You present an interesting concept above. Perhaps that is a good model to understand what is happening.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Philipp, “evolution” is not nonsense to the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world who study it. Since 1859 it has been strengthened year by year until today there is no convincing alternative explanation for species diversity.Some of us on this thread sense that phrase, Evolution of life from a common ancestor, or whatever is currently promoted by whatever evolutionary sect and their computer modeling, is simply a nonsense phrase made up by Darwin’s friends in the 19th century. Empirical science like C-14 dating of the fossils tells me so
At present “IDvolution” has no traction within the scientific community. If you believe it has merit as a theory, perhaps you should gain some scientific credentials and write up your theory for presentation to the community. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a staunch advocate of the advancement of science, so that might be the place to begin presenting your ideas. That is the way to gain traction for your theory to replace the theory of evolution.
StAnastasia
- Status