Origin of Creationism

originally posted by: adnanmuf
read Wikipedia Mrca or Y chromosomal Adam

"Read Wiki MRCA". Ok, I'll check it out.

Wait...what's this?

Wiki on MRCA
Does that mean that the theoretical "Adam" swung both ways? That would be quite the blow...(pun totally intended)

Ok...moving on to this "Y chromosomal Adam"
What the...

Wiki for Y Chromosomal Adam
Now I could be in braindead mode, but doesn't this picture suggest evolution of humans from chimps/monkeys/apes/whatever you want to label them?

a reply to: adnanmuf

Oh? You mean the links I posted earlier in the thread? Are you talking about this adam and this eve?

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

"Those two people didn't know each other," said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.

Oh.

These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.

The rest of the human genome contains tiny snippets of DNA from many other ancestors — they just don't show up in mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA, Hammer said. (For instance, if an ancient woman had only sons, then her mitochondrial DNA would disappear, even though the son would pass on a quarter of her DNA via the rest of his genome.)

Yea...

The Mrca of Adam and Eve are very close in time.both from Africa.
The reason for different ages is wrong belief that Maternal DNA is slower in mutation. The Mrca of eve had not been adjusted to the recent finding that mutation rate is universal .
The finding that both male and female ancestry are both in the very recent history and not millions of years as is found in animals.bolster the fact that man was created not evolved. Whilst evolution is a scam putpotrated by fake science of observations and lying about what observed.

originally posted by: adnanmuf Whilst evolution is a scam putpotrated by fake science of observations and lying about what observed.

So you denounce evolution because it's based on observations, and you feel like the scientists performing the research are lying about what they find. Fair enough.

But you keep referencing this MRCA, and from the source you suggested:

Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.

Sounds like observation to me, what makes you think that what you have read on this subject is any more truthful than the data regarding evolution? Because it supports your view of the world?

Science by definition. If you did not is experimentation not observation.aka laboratory testing.
DNA is not observation.
DNA proved dinosaur was birds before any other observations. And that paleontology was wrong about them being lizards.

a reply to: adnanmuf

lol...

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Science by definition. If you did not is experimentation not observation.aka laboratory testing.
DNA is not observation.
DNA proved dinosaur was birds before any other observations. And that paleontology was wrong about them being lizards.

Well now that this thread has gone completely off topic, I'll leave you with this nugget of wisdom. Observation is a key ingredient to science, if you don't think it is than you should rethink your definition of science.


Best of luck in future studies, I don't believe I can continue this conversation and comply with the T&C's set forth by TPTB.

TObservations is not science. Paleontologists refuse to test their hypothesis based only on observations. Anybody can observe and hypthosize.
You need to test again again using latest labs and methods. Crazy paleontology scammers who are not scientists refuse dna testing .
Than for bringing the chart to prove my point that science is experimenting and testing.

a reply to: adnanmuf

Observation is the basis of science. The flowgraph that ChaosComplex so kindly posted has observation as the starting point of all sciene.

Without observation, all you have is fiction... hence creationism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

Then why hasn't this god of yours produced more of said evidence if he is so insistent on everyone believing in him? Seems kind of odd that he would rely on testimonials of people from thousands of years ago to be the ONLY evidence of his existence that hasn't degraded over time when (according to the bible) he could produce said evidence easily and without much afterthought.

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.

romans 14:11

Romans 14:11New International Version (NIV)

11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[a]

so it doesn't matter if one believes or not.

all will be judged.

christians don't have VIP access to God or a leg up on getting into heaven.

a reply to: tsingtao

No they do not, "I will forgive the ignorant what they do not know", christians actually have more burden of judgement on there head's as they have the message but have the listened, I am as flawed as any so can not judge but he can.

a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

I am a tad confused... Your posts seem to indicate that you believe studies of DNA have proven that the most recent common ancestor to all living humans was rather recent. While I do not discredit the conclusion (I agree that the most recent common ancestor was relatively recent, speaking on a geological timescale...) I must remind you to read your own sources... It was not DNA that was the basis of these claims, but mathematical models of DNA. DNA, itself, has proven nothing at all. Likewise, the models are just models based on observations of mutation rates and a few other assumptions.

See, to me, those models are less reliable than the models predicted in paleontology based on observations of fossil faunal succession, paleoenvironments, and the assumption of uniformitarianism. I grossly misrepresent this to a point of simplicity, so forgive me for that, but my point is that fossils are physical entities which can be seen, can be divided into stratigraphic layers, can be used to predict (oil/gas), and can be examined with your own hands. DNA cannot be examined with you hands and eyes (alone), cannot easily have mutation rates measured, and can only be observed, much like fossils.

What I am trying to so inelegantly say is that I am dumbfounded by your acceptance of a scientific concept based on observations while simultaneously dismissing another scientific concept equally based on observations... Can you please clarify?

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: tsingtao

Certain people?... lol... You mean the entire basis (the bible) for the religion right?... If you read the bible there is a heck of a lot of anthropomorphism in there... if you are trying to say that you don't anthropomorphise god, then you're interpreting it with modern understanding, proving that the "book" isn't an accurate historical record... merely stories with loose historical basis, and open to interpretation.

Actually, the Christian god is exactly like all those other obsolete god's... The story goes that He has a son... who funnily enough looks exactly like us, angels are portrayed as humans with wings... etc.

How did "god" make us in his image if there aren't similarities? Are you suggesting there are no physical similarities with your god? Are you saying that "his image" only applies to our spiritual self? (if you didn't notice, the soul and inner self are another anthropomorphism).

I don't think that god sits on a cloud with a beard, so no need to condescend me, but millions of others have thought that... and still do. The fact that you can come up with that visual image yourself proves my point.

My view of a god... if there is one... is much closer to Olaf Stapledon's "Starmaker".

i think that only 1 or 2 people in the bible actually claimed to see God the Father. in the OT, actually.
even moses just saw a burning bush.

Jesus was God in the flesh, part of the trinity. lots of people saw Him and He is not disputed to have been on earth.

angels, well, no one knows what they actually look like, just artistic portrayals in paintings. like hell in dante's inferno.
no iphones back then.

that is where people are getting the anthropomorphism in christianity.

i guess we are both right on that subject.

i think michelangelo came up with the cloud and beard meme. lol.

the soul is another thing that has not been seen or described or measured.

originally posted by: tsingtao

Jesus was God in the flesh, part of the trinity. lots of people saw Him and He is not disputed to have been on earth.

Not disputed by yourself and other religious believers. It would be more accurate to say, they have a strong belief in such. The same as many other religions have strong beliefs. Others, including genuine historians, most definitely do dispute it.

I don't have time to play with toddlers .
Observing and hypthizing is not science.
Observing then hypothizing then testing and then theory and retesting.

So without testing when it's possible .
Is not science.
The evidence in the details. So I sent you to Wikipedia to check the details not the whole wiki page.!?
As if the main stream media actually support creationism and all the conspiracy theories.
I am tired with playing with toddlers like you all.

The wiki page speaks clearly of DNA studies show beyond doubt all living humans came from one man in very recent times.
While testing two monkeys from same tribe their most recent common ancestor is 100000 years ago. And testing two monkeys from two different tribes is 1000000 ago.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Actually there is little historical dispute other than from professed believers that christ did not exist so that point is null and void based on biased point's of view and the sheep that are lead by there authors.

Persecution of Christians and Jews goes back to before most work's with any detail about Judaea in historical records survives today but Pontius Pilate is confirmed as are the other official figures in the narratives of the bible, many places thought to be fantasy by non believers subsequently turned out to exist and not just to exist but to exist where the bible said they did.

And it is not just isolated to the bible, the greek myths were thought to be fantasy but Heinrich Schliemann found Troy where the myth said that would be.

The early church used the fish as in greek it was an anagram of christ as well as the a signe for christians after Fishers of Men, the crucifix was thought of a blasphemy and insult by those early christians who were much nearer to the time of the crucifixion.

The oldest continuous and now in danger or annihilation Church in the world hold's it's mass in Aramaic the language Jesus and his apostles spoke day by day though the synagogues spoke Hebrew as that is the language the Torah was written in.

That Church is the syriac orthodox church with was not part of the conclave of Nicenea and had nothing to do with the sects in Rome or Greece so never adopted pagan gods as it was a Jewish church or christian synagogue movement.

SO did the so called educated who based there belief solely on Roman sources not take that into account, also the area it survived in was never part of the Roman empire.

It seem's to me your argument is flawed and very weak indeed, it is based on bias rather than research and is down to an atheist agenda that does not mind using lies to reach it's goal.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

I am a tad confused... Your posts seem to indicate that you believe studies of DNA have proven that the most recent common ancestor to all living humans was rather recent. While I do not discredit the conclusion (I agree that the most recent common ancestor was relatively recent, speaking on a geological timescale...) I must remind you to read your own sources... It was not DNA that was the basis of these claims, but mathematical models of DNA. DNA, itself, has proven nothing at all. Likewise, the models are just models based on observations of mutation rates and a few other assumptions.

See, to me, those models are less reliable than the models predicted in paleontology based on observations of fossil faunal succession, paleoenvironments, and the assumption of uniformitarianism. I grossly misrepresent this to a point of simplicity, so forgive me for that, but my point is that fossils are physical entities which can be seen, can be divided into stratigraphic layers, can be used to predict (oil/gas), and can be examined with your own hands. DNA cannot be examined with you hands and eyes (alone), cannot easily have mutation rates measured, and can only be observed, much like fossils.

What I am trying to so inelegantly say is that I am dumbfounded by your acceptance of a scientific concept based on observations while simultaneously dismissing another scientific concept equally based on observations... Can you please clarify?

Regards,
Hydeman

are you saying that DNA science is based on observtion.and finding the mutation rate is based on observations. .you areout out of your mind..
Paleontology is based on observations made by discoverer of the bone who might lied and misreport.
Bone can not be dated

a reply to: adnanmuf

Absolutely. Good science depends on good observations. An important chemical reaction could produce a colour change (indicative of something...) during a titration, but it is meaningless unless it is observed.

I find it sad that you think most paleontologists deal with bones. : / Very few bones are preserved in the fossil record, with the majority of fossils being marine shells and other hard parts (coral skeletons, bryozoans, exoskeletons...). I'm an avid fossil collector and a student of geology (soon to have my degree. ). Furthermore, the paleontologists (as well as the geologists) I know have been pretty reliable... I find your accusations of them are unsound, as you have merely asserted a claim without providing evidence.

Although yes, bone cannot be dated. Well, bone can be dated, but I assume you mean fossilized bone cannot be dated. Well, unless the fossilized bone is in an ash deposit... or the layer of strata containing the bone is bounded by two igneous events... Huh... Well, fossilized bone ITSELF cannot be directly dated, so kudos for that.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Actually there is little historical dispute other than from professed believers that christ did not exist so that point is null and void based on biased point's of view and the sheep that are lead by there authors.

What there is, is little historical evidence (none actually, outside of the claimed second hand accounts of the bible, which is period fiction/propaganda piece, rather at odds with itself). There are a lot of assumptions and claims from psuedo academics (who have a dual role as religious delusionals) and ad hominems toward those who review the subject honestly though...

A lot of historians accept the likelihood that there could have been a man, ordinary and unremarkable enough in every way to have been overlooked by every relevant person at the time, who became mythicised out of all proportion (not all historians even accept this much). This belief isn't based on historical evidence though, as there isn't any that wouldn't comparably make no end of other mythical heroes just as real.

That's the thing about this type religious/political propaganda/period fiction, that is well understood. It can be based around real world places and even events. Where Jesus is concerned, there is every bit as much genuine history to indicate the story of Romulus (probably a bit more for Robin Hood) is true.

We know the Jesus as described in the new testament did not exist. No genuine scholar would dispute that. Academics don't accept claims of magic to begin with (or this would mean no end of mythical people would also exist), only pseudo academics do.

This leaves us with the other claims that are not only unsupported, but extremely unlikely to have happened. So in effect, we know nothing of Jesus in any historical sense, or even if there was a historical person at the heart of the myth.

Anyone in this thread that claims to 'know' whether one theory or the other is correct is, in nice terms, really closed minded, and in not so nice terms, a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.

You can all cite bible quotes and scientific papers all you want. There is no right or wrong answer because nobody 'knows'. Not respecting another persons beliefs is the absolute height of arrogance and hubris.

Human beings are good and becoming better at 'science-ing'. Yay for us.
It's all a bunch of theories and speculations that sometimes work here on this one planet in an extremely, possibly infinite universe, brought to our attention by people that just write articles that we accept as truth because they're smarter than us and have more information.

As smart as we think we are, the theories we have for our own tiny little planet in this unfathomably massive universe are ridiculously inadequate, like a virgin on prom night.

The science we 'think' we know isn't infallible. The religions we 'think' we know aren't either.
Learning is kind of our (homo sapiens sapiens) thing. As soon as we stop learning and start thinking we know everything, that's when we stop progressing.

I see so many people just saying
'hey, this guy said it and he's super smart so there's probably no reason to think of it any other way'

There have been plenty of smart people that were wrong. We need people to challenge ideas in a reasonable manner. There are plenty of theories out there, but until they become laws then we should be challenging them and finding out what doesn't work and why.

We may have to invent new math to explain Quantum Theory/Mechanics, but if everyone just accepts the past theories as facts, then it will never happen. If something doesn't fit, flip over a new piece to the puzzle and don't expect the picture on the box to tell you which piece fits where.