DNA and Creationism

[on the edge]

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 think Hitler was a Catholic, so the bible must have been in the mix surely? It's said that he had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. It also cannot be disputed that many attrocities have been done in the name of Christianity and its ''good book''.
Anyway, I think we need to take this argument outside [of this forum]!

[girlperson1]

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?

Then you don't know history very well.

[Dave123]

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.

I myself am a believer in the evolutionary process covering billions of years for life on Earth. However, you might find this interesting. Back in the 90s my brother bought a book written by Gerald Schroeder titled "Genesis and the Big Bang". Basically what he proposes is that the Biblical narrative is correct, if you interpret the time presented in the Bible as corresponding to "Cosmic" time as explained at these websites: http://www.genesisbigbang.com/ http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/schrev.html

When I became interested in genetic genealogy, I remembered the author's surname, Schroeder, which is my surname. I actually wrote to him enquiring if he had done a Y-DNA test, and if he was in haplogroup E. I don't recall if he ever wrote back.

[BenTurin]

[QUOTE=Dave123;344059]I myself am a believer in the evolutionary process covering billions of years for life on Earth. However, you might find this interesting. Back in the 90s my brother bought a book written by Gerald Schroeder titled "Genesis and the Big Bang". Basically what he proposes is that the Biblical narrative is correct, if you interpret the time presented in the Bible as corresponding to "Cosmic" time as explained at this website: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/schrev.html QUOTE]

Thanks Dave. That review was fascinating.

[LindaT]

I myself am a believer in the evolutionary process covering billions of years for life on Earth. However, you might find this interesting. Back in the 90s my brother bought a book written by Gerald Schroeder titled "Genesis and the Big Bang". Basically what he proposes is that the Biblical narrative is correct, if you interpret the time presented in the Bible as corresponding to "Cosmic" time as explained at these websites: http://www.genesisbigbang.com/ http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/schrev.html

It's an interesting concept but it seems to fall into the convoluted logic category. The day-as-age theory has been around for a long time but most of the bible literalists reject it. They (and I'm basing this on the words of one of my sisters who falls into this group) say that when the bible says "day" it means "day". From their perspective, it seems, if you start questioning what the words mean or the understanding of the people that wrote them then it becomes much harder to use as the basis of a belief system.

When she goes down that path I ask her which version of the bible is the correct one and how that determination was made. Since we can trace a lineage of the bible through it's various versions over the centuries and some of those versions differ how do we know which is correct? That's usually where our conversations go into the weeds...

[girlperson1]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you, humans have always found some method of madness to institute control over others.

Historically, here's some information about religious wars and their death tolls, which did run into the millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#List_of_major_religious_wars

This doesn't even include all the bombings that occur on an almost daily basis in places like Nigeria. Perhaps these are not "wars" by modern definition but they are the taking of life by one religion against another. Almost invariably, it's one of the psychotic Abrahamic religions that's behind it. There are exceptions of course, but it's nearly always one of the three so-called great religions of Abraham.

Some exceptions are Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, they've had their share of violence but for the most part, these two religions taught and still teach tolerance for others and the respect of differences in others and it shows in their populations, well over 1 billion people in China and India. Even with all their instances of disease and disasters, each country has managed to attain over 1 billion people in their populations. I think their religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, has made this possible.

[girlperson1]

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?

Actually, the Nazis had a very perverted view of religion. Damn them for taking a magical, blessed Hindu symbol of good luck and turning into a symbol of death. Bastards.

[Lincoln]

GREAT thread to get religious people to believe in evolution. /sarc

[GayeSherman]

IMHO

The reason that there have been more atrocities committed in the name of religion than in the name of science is that the "scientific establishment" is relatively recent compared to organized religion.

I also think that some people place their faith in science even though they have neither direct exposure to scientific evidence nor the training with which to interpret it.

It is just as frustrating to atheists (such as myself) when someone insists that science has not proven something (even when the Truth is so obvious to ME) as when the religious literalists are told that the existence of God, miracles, angels, etc. has not been proven. The Truth is so obvious to THEM.

Very few of us on either side of the debate have the expertise to judge the evidence for ourselves. I would also say that none of us has access to ALL of the evidence for or against.

[vinnie]

I am sincerely impressed with the tenor of this thread. We've been discussing difficult and controversial topics, and I don't think I've ever seen such respect and politeness (for the most part) among participants in any forum talking about these types of issues.

At the time of my posting this, there have been 1,222 views and I'd really appreciate it if someone who understands how mutation rates are derived could jump in and answer my question: Does the presupposition of Darwinian evolution affect our understanding of mutation rates?

[LindaT]

At the time of my posting this, there have been 1,222 views and I'd really appreciate it if someone who understands how mutation rates are derived could jump in and answer my question: Does the presupposition of Darwinian evolution affect our understanding of mutation rates?

Some quick googling turns up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate. It's not detailed enough to give a clear answer to your question but from my reading it appears to lean toward not deriving the rate from presumptions about the age of a species based on evolution. I'll have to see what else I can find.

[ekc123]

I'm not disagreeing with you, humans have always found some method of madness to institute control over others.

Historically, here's some information about religious wars and their death tolls, which did run into the millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#List_of_major_religious_wars

This doesn't even include all the bombings that occur on an almost daily basis in places like Nigeria. Perhaps these are not "wars" by modern definition but they are the taking of life by one religion against another. Almost invariably, it's one of the psychotic Abrahamic religions that's behind it. There are exceptions of course, but it's nearly always one of the three so-called great religions of Abraham.

Some exceptions are Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, they've had their share of violence but for the most part, these two religions taught and still teach tolerance for others and the respect of differences in others and it shows in their populations, well over 1 billion people in China and India. Even with all their instances of disease and disasters, each country has managed to attain over 1 billion people in their populations. I think their religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, has made this possible.

Even Hinduism and Buddhism have their evil sides. Hinduism tolerates a caste system where people are born into certain classes without the hope of improving their lot if they are unfortunate enough to belong to the lowest rungs of society and Buddhism has been used by some as an excuse to not involve oneself with the problems of this world, closing a blind eye to oppression, etc. My point is that your statement is a generalization, not an argument against creationism. An argument against creationism would consist of demonstrating how it is contradicted by known scientific facts, etc.

Communism was, for the most part, an atheistic ideology and it has been used to justify the killing of millions of people as well. So what's your point? Are you trying to say the Bible is somehow unique in regard to its being used to oppress and justify the wholesale killing of groups of people?

[LindaT]

vinnie,

Here's another one where they directly measured the mutation rate on the y chromosome: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0908....2009.864.html.

It sounds more like research on mutation rates are lending support to the Darwinian model of evolution than assumptions about the Darwinian model being used to derive mutation rates.

[girlperson1]

Even Hinduism and Buddhism have their evil sides. Hinduism tolerates a caste system where people are born into certain classes without the hope of improving their lot if they are unfortunate enough to belong to the lowest rungs of society and Buddhism has been used by some as an excuse to not involve oneself with the problems of this world, closing a blind eye to oppression, etc. My point is that your statement is a generalization, not an argument against creationism. An argument against creationism would consist of demonstrating how it is contradicted by known scientific facts, etc.

Communism was, for the most part, an atheistic ideology and it has been used to justify the killing of millions of people as well. So what's your point? Are you trying to say the Bible is somehow unique in regard to its being used to oppress and justify the wholesale killing of groups of people?

In modern Hindu society, those who wish to move out of their caste system can and do, though many remain by their own choice.

Communism used slave labor to which millions died. Slavery has an ugly history, (which by the way, was condoned in the bible) and it wasn't just the communists who used it to build their so-called utopia.

The problem I have with the three great religions of Abraham is simple, "thou shalt not murder", unless it's someone from a religion other than............(fill in the blank). Religion has contributed more to murder and killing, racism and hatred than anything else I can think of; it seems to cater to man's innate desire to kill anyone who is not like himself. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have all the great arts, paintings, sculptures, famous works and writings if it were not for religion.

As for the creation story, there might be some truth to it, but the timeline is definitely way off.

[vinnie]

In modern Hindu society, those who wish to move out of their caste system can and do, though many remain by their own choice.

Communism used slave labor to which millions died. Slavery has an ugly history, (which by the way, was condoned in the bible) and it wasn't just the communists who used it to build their so-called utopia.

The problem I have with the three great religions of Abraham is simple, "thou shalt not murder", unless it's someone from a religion other than............(fill in the blank). Religion has contributed more to murder and killing, racism and hatred than anything else I can think of; it seems to cater to man's innate desire to kill anyone who is not like himself. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have all the great arts, paintings, sculptures, famous works and writings if it were not for religion.

As for the creation story, there might be some truth to it, but the timeline is definitely way off.

I'm really hoping we can keep this to the science side of things, but I have to respond. Please start adding up the numbers (millions upon millions) of people who have been murdered/persecuted by atheistic/secularist/Marxist movements and regimes including the following: the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, Red China, Khmer Rouge, Vietcong, North Korea, Castro, etc. As for Hitler, it's true that he was baptized Roman Catholic, but there's absolutely no evidence that he was ever a practicing Catholic, but instead turned to Occultism, and consequently was responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians of all stripes who opposed him including clergy, members of religious orders, and lay people.