Mitochondrial Eve and Noah's Dames (page 3)

stillajwexelder

If you read ?The Flood of Noah?s Day? there is extremely strong scientific and archeological evidence that there was a flood ?it was not global but in the Black Sea area. Now combine this with ?Who Wrote The Bible? and also ?The Selfish Gene? and it is obvious that there are ?Evolutionary Forces? at work. Let us compromise on that phrase since creationist will not accept evolution. It takes approximately 20000 years for skin color to adapt to sun or lack of it ? so with the Australian Aborigines and other races there is just no way that the Flood of Noahs day (global) occurred 4500 years ago. So what has been said by REM There is no circularity. The mitochondrial calculations are not set out to prove Evolution. Evolution is a given (get used to it). Since Evolution has shown to be an excellent model, calculations based on it are appropriate. If the calculations show that a recent bottleneck is highly improbable, then you'll just have to suck it up. Or you can ignore it like you usually do. And Evolution is not in question. The fact that a couple fringe scientists have a problem with it does not make it a controversial theory. The fact of Evolution and Common Decent is accepted by all scientists. Some argue about the technicalities of the various theories that comprise Evolution, but nobody but crackpot pseudoscientists outright deny Evolution.

REM is correct

hooberus

There is no circularity. The mitochondrial calculations are not set out to prove Evolution. Evolution is a given (get used to it). Since Evolution has shown to be an excellent model, calculations based on it are appropriate. If the calculations show that a recent bottleneck is highly improbable, then you'll just have to suck it up. Or you can ignore it like you usually do.

I responded to this earlier on this thread.

And Evolution is not in question.

Macroevolution is questioned by many (including those with a scientific background who have studied the evidences).

The fact that a couple fringe scientists have a problem with it does not make it a controversial theory.

A couple thousand scientists would be a more accurate statement.

The fact of Evolution and Common Decent is accepted by all scientists. Some argue about the technicalities of the various theories that comprise Evolution, but nobody but crackpot pseudoscientists outright deny Evolution.

Evolution (parcticles to people) is not accepted by "all scientists." The term "crackpot pseudoscientists" is unwarranted.

rem

Hooberus,

Evolution is not "particles to people". You know this, of course, but you continually mischaracterise the theory of Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life - it only deals with what happened after life started.

That was a good catch on my flood question... it was an intentional trap. The sad thing, though, is that you are smart enough to avoid such a trap, and yet you still believe in children's fairytales. Of course, there are rocket scientists who believe in alien abductions, so I guess anything is possible with the right presuppositional mindset.

rem

ThiChi

In their book Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998), Walter Pitman and William Ryan detail the overwhelming evidence that the Old Testament story of Noah and the Great Flood (Genesis 6:9-9:17) was actually based on a real-life event, a cataclysmic flood that took place approximately 7,600 years ago, in 5,600 b.c. Other ancient oral literatures, most notably the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and an older Sumerian version, called The Deluge , also tell of a Great Flood that would have occurred at about the same time as the one recorded in Genesis.

rem

ThiChi,

Even if that's true, what does it have to do with a global flood and Noah saving all of the animals of the earth?

rem

donkey

ThiChi,

So when according to you did the flood occur? The commonly accepted date according to Bible Chronologists is around 2,200 to 2,300 BCE. Give us your estimate please.

Interestingly you quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh to provide us with credibility to your claims. When was Gilgamesh the king of Uruk? Any ideas?

When answering please bear in mind that according to your Bible chronologist buddies Gilgamesh would have had to have lived AFTER the Tower of Babel (an event that supposedly occurred after the flood) and in order for the Gilgamesh epic to be detailed in the Sumerian Language what explanation do you have to offer?

Thanks for responding.

hooberus

Hooberus,
Evolution is not "particles to people". You know this, of course, but you continually mischaracterise the theory of Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life - it only deals with what happened after life started.

The phrase "parcticles to people" encompases the complete naturalistic origins framework. However since evolution can be technically said to begin with self-replicating entities, I will in th future try to use the technically correct slang of "fish to fashion model" or "amphibian to prince"

That was a good catch on my flood question... it was an intentional trap. The sad thing, though, is that you are smart enough to avoid such a trap, and yet you still believe in children's fairytales.

Children's fairytales? like Prince William descending from an ancient (maybe frog-like) amphibian? or fashion models being descended from ancient fish? It seems that evolutionists should be careful when they accuse others of believing in fairytales.

rem

:: Children's fairytales? like Prince William descending from an ancient (maybe frog-like) amphibian? or fashion models being descended from ancient fish? It seems that evolutionists should be careful when they accuse others of believing in fairytales.

Let's see... the human embryo rembles a tadpole and slowly develops into a human form. The entire fetal develpment process seems amazing and impossible, yet it happens. Evolution is no more a stretch.

rem

donkey

ThiChi did you manage to find the answer to the question I asked in my previous post in this thread?

Mitochondrial Eve and Noah's Dames

Share this