Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA and Creationism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by madman View Post
    People have been on Earth for billions of years here is a man made mountain of clay in Canada and it is a Native American 70 million years old

    here is the Google Earth coordinates 50.010552,-110.113821

    That's beautiful.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BenTurin View Post
      Here is something I have been thinking about. For those of us who take the biblical genealogies literally there are only 40 or so generations from Adam till King David, and then say another 150 generations until today? So how in the world did all these Haplogroups and subclades develop? It seems to me that the only possible answer (if you accept the biblical genealogy) is that at some point in history G-d caused the major branches to form (and maybe even many subclades) on an accelerated timeline. So I was wondering when that point in time might have been and the Tower of Babel story came to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

      I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this.
      Can you actually hear something on this forum? Can someone show me?

      The bible is a mix of historical information AND parables. It's also been re-written several times and translations throughout history have sometimes been "lacking".

      As far as I can tell, the main influence the bible has had on human genetics is that it's been responsible for the murder of millions of people throughout it's 7,000 year history. Talk about cleansing the gene pool.

      Comment


      • #33
        DNA evidence is going to contradict creationism of many religions. It certainly is not unique to the Hebrew world view. The australian bush men believe they sprang from mother earth. They are not going to suddendly buy into a out of Africa migration theory. This concept is also similar to native America
        beliefs.

        Comment


        • #34
          No wonder that people hate us religious people.
          They can never admit a possible error in time of our early history.
          We went back thru nine fathers and found one mutation.
          That should tell us that mutations are really rare unless you marry your relatives.

          Comment


          • #35
            No wonder that people hate us religious
            I think the argument is between literalists and those who hold a relative view.
            One can be deeply religious and believe the bible to be a guide , not an absolute truth on all things.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              Perfect! I'm an expert in eating Italian food!
              Let me know if you want any recipes!

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              Seems like a fair question to ask. Unfortunately, I can't answer it because I don't know enough about how the theory was arrived at.
              Given the number of people who've viewed this thread, I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone "in the know" who could weigh in, but a lot of people don't want to stick their necks out on this topic.

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              The way it should work is the results of one should be used to to test the other. If they disagree then one or both as currently formulated would be wrong. If they agree then it adds weight to the odds that both are right (or at least form a better model to describe reality than what we knew before).

              When you combine things like cosmology which gives us an idea of the age of the universe, geology which gives us an idea of the age of the earth, paleontology and genetics they all add up to give a pretty self consistent picture. It's still an incomplete picture and many of the questions are still unanswered and not everyone agrees on the details.
              Agreed!

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              For example, an earlier poster asked about why we don't see human artifacts from truly ancient times. For the vast majority of human history we lived on a subsistence basis. We didn't build anything that would last. It's only in the last 10% of our existence (roughly) that we developed agriculture allowing for the development of higher culture.

              It's extremely rare for any sort of remains from long ago to be preserved. The vast majority of flora and fauna does not last to be discovered. It's broken down and recycled. We end up trying to reconstruct what happened with only a small fraction of pieces.
              Great points, and the last sentence is another thing that really bothers me.

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              It is probably not coincidental that the biblical age of the earth of around 6,000 years is roughly the same age as the rise of civilization. I wonder if anyone has done any research on that subject. I might pose the theory that the biblical age of the earth is rooted in the rise of agriculture and the ability to pass larger amounts of information from generation to generation. From their perspective of someone hundreds or a few thousand years after the fact this might well look like the beginning of the world.
              More great points that merit discussion.

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              On the other hand if I try the theory that the world is 6,000 years old I have to do a great deal of work to explain how the universe looks to be 14-18 billion years old and how our sun appears to be 4 billion years old with the earth just a bit younger than that.

              There is a principle called Occam's Razor that roughly says that all other things being equal then the simplest explanation is usually correct (not strictly true but close enough for our discussion). In order to make the earth be 6,000 years old and to get from nothing to a populated planet in 6 days *and* come up with reasoning to explain the evidence that suggests a different answer I have to do some pretty convoluted logic or I just have to wave my hands and say that it was created that way.

              Convoluted logic is usually a sign that something is wrong with a theory and the latter isn't a testable theory.
              All reasons why the Roman Catholic Church takes the stance it does on creation. (I'm R.C.)

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              Belief isn't a rational process; it's an emotional one. Science can't deal in belief (though unfortunately it often does and often deals with ego). In the ideal, a scientist should always be willing to abandon a theory in the face of contradictory evidence but scientists are human and get emotionally attached to their theories but eventually the evidence wins out.

              Belief isn't a bad thing but it's not part of the scientific process which is about posing theories and testing them. When someone asks me if I "believe in evolution," I tell that that evolution appears to be the best model for how life changes but the word "believe" often gets used as a convenient substitute.
              Don't know if I completely agree with the first sentence, but I definitely agree with the rest.

              Originally posted by LindaT View Post
              I suspect I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop for now. Have a great night!
              Enjoyed the ramblings!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                Let me know if you want any recipes!
                We'll have to talk!

                Originally posted by LindaT View Post
                We end up trying to reconstruct what happened with only a small fraction of pieces.
                Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                Great points, and the last sentence is another thing that really bothers me.
                It bothers me too but in the sense that people seem willing to jump to detailed conclusions with minimal data. The broad strokes seem fairly clear but the details get fuzzy. That fuzziness doesn't invalidate the big picture but it does make a lot of the detailed conclusions controversial.

                Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                Originally posted by LindaT View Post
                Belief isn't a rational process.
                Don't know if I completely agree with the first sentence
                I don't think I stated what I meant clearly. Let me give an example. As a child I clung to the belief that Santa Claus was real longer than most of my peers. I saw the same inconsistencies that forced them to abandon their belief but I didn't want to accept their conclusions so I didn't.

                I accepted the evidence but I refused to connect the dots and draw the conclusion. That belief wasn't rational (that is to say grounded in logic). I'm not saying my belief was irrational (though perhaps it was! but rather arational. It was a process in my mind that logic had little to do with.

                I think many of the things we are taught as children fall into that category. Because we learn them so young we internalize them and they form very strong roots in our minds. So strong that it can be very difficult to let them go even in the face of conflicting evidence.

                That's what I meant by "not rational by emotional". Hope it clarifies where I was coming from!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by girlperson1 View Post
                  As far as I can tell, the main influence the bible has had on human genetics is that it's been responsible for the murder of millions of people throughout it's 7,000 year history. Talk about cleansing the gene pool.
                  That's simply not true. Why you would say something like that is beyond me. For example Hitler wasn't a follower of the bible. He believed in Darwinism. What was his excuse?
                  Last edited by twang; 10 July 2012, 06:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by twang View Post
                    That's simply not true. Why you would say something like that is beyond me. For example Hitler wasn't a follower of the bible. He believed in Darwinism. What was his excuse?
                    I agree the Bible is nothing more than historical record for Judaism and early Christians. It also the basis for all Christian doctrine.

                    A history book about the Holocaust is not responsible for the murders, just as the Bible is not responsible for all the murders recorded on it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      if man is nothing more than slightly evolved apes and monkeys, why are there still apes and monkeys ?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                        Hi Linda,

                        Believe me, I'm no expert in genetics - Italian cooking, yes (in my opinion) - genetics, no.
                        Some real Italiano Lasagne sounds good right about now. I still can't make it like my mom could. lol

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 507 View Post
                          if man is nothing more than slightly evolved apes and monkeys, why are there still apes and monkeys ?
                          Man evolved from another group of apes or chimps.
                          This is why people have a tail bone.
                          God seemed to be partial to animals with tails.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Third position

                            There is, of course, a third position (and many in between the two extremes being bandied about) - namely those who interpret the Bible in an allegorical fashion and therefore see no contradiction between science and religion. I know a good many folks that adhere to this notion.

                            My own view is that while I am a firm believer in the methodology of science (the use of the scientific method), I am not particularly committed to any given science-based paradigm as such paradigms have shifted many times, even in modern history, whether one is speaking of medical knowledge, chemistry, biology, physics or whatever. Some of the 'scientific facts' taken for gospel in the field of medicine only 100 years ago seem completely crazy to folks today, given our expanded knowledge base and new technologies which allow us to examine data in ways which were not feasible back then. Perhaps in the future, some new discovery or technology will render current scientific knowledge obsolete in a similar fashion.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by girlperson1 View Post
                              Can you actually hear something on this forum? Can someone show me?

                              The bible is a mix of historical information AND parables. It's also been re-written several times and translations throughout history have sometimes been "lacking".

                              As far as I can tell, the main influence the bible has had on human genetics is that it's been responsible for the murder of millions of people throughout it's 7,000 year history. Talk about cleansing the gene pool.
                              I'm not religious and I'm not a big believer in religion, gods, angels, and the like. That said, I think your last statement is, to use the expression, painting with too broad a brush. Yes, people have used the Bible as an excuse to justify murder, oppression, etc. Yes, self-appointed 'priests' and 'prophets' have used religion to manipulate folks into doing their bidding, or the state's bidding or whatever. But that's also true of many other religions and that has also been true of 'science,' as well. Positivism and the use of psychiatry in the last century to justify all kinds of cruel 'treatments' come to mind as examples of this sort of thing.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Generalizations are not arguments

                                To add to my earlier post I don't think it is correct to attribute only evil to the Bible, and I say this as a non-religious person. All religions and ideas can be misused for evil purposes.

                                In the early 1900's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest was misinterpreted and adopted in the realm of sociology and used as an excuse for the oppression of various groups of people, etc. Laissez faire economic principles were grounding in similar claims. In other words, the Bible, just like science or other religions, can be used to justify either good or evil acts. I've known fundamentalists, with whom I wholeheartedly disagreed and whose beliefs I thought had no basis in reality, that were nevertheless good people and had no desire to 'cleanse the gene pool.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X