Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

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

  • #16
    JDchess:

    I am not a creationist, true, but I suspect you will not find that many on this forum (I could be wrong).

    The point about Noah is important from a creationist point of view simply because the genes seen today would reflect his markers and not Adam's. If you were to accept the current variability of the markers and fit them to a 6000 year timeline, what you are saying is that changes happen about 10 times the current rate. Scientists say the current set of markers evolved/changed over the last 80 to 100,000 years. Therefore it logically follows that the generations between Adam and Noah may have accumulated changes in their DNA. Effectively Noah would have been the bottleneck, and heres the kicker, all the animals on his Ark would have also experienced the same genetic bottleneck. That point alone should point out the flaw in this reasoning. From what I have read animals even within the same species are hugely diverse when compared to humans.

    My point about markers is that the Y-DNA sequence we have today shows incremental changes that do not go up against a hard barrier between species. I have read that based on this sequence the human chimp split is estimated at something like 7 million years. The oft quoted 98% figure talking about all of the genome examined so far. I am willing to bet the percentage is higher for the non-recombining portion of the y-DNA.

    Last point, much of the DNA found in living beings appears to be so-called junk DNA that is baggage carried over from mutations, due to environment, virus, bacteria and yes...the evolutionary process. If God were to build each species from a common toolbox, why would he include the same junk in different species?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by EBurgess
      JDchess:

      I am not a creationist, true, but I suspect you will not find that many on this forum (I could be wrong).

      The point about Noah is important from a creationist point of view simply because the genes seen today would reflect his markers and not Adam's. If you were to accept the current variability of the markers and fit them to a 6000 year timeline, what you are saying is that changes happen about 10 times the current rate. Scientists say the current set of markers evolved/changed over the last 80 to 100,000 years. Therefore it logically follows that the generations between Adam and Noah may have accumulated changes in their DNA. Effectively Noah would have been the bottleneck, and heres the kicker, all the animals on his Ark would have also experienced the same genetic bottleneck. That point alone should point out the flaw in this reasoning. From what I have read animals even within the same species are hugely diverse when compared to humans.

      My point about markers is that the Y-DNA sequence we have today shows incremental changes that do not go up against a hard barrier between species. I have read that based on this sequence the human chimp split is estimated at something like 7 million years. The oft quoted 98% figure talking about all of the genome examined so far. I am willing to bet the percentage is higher for the non-recombining portion of the y-DNA.

      Last point, much of the DNA found in living beings appears to be so-called junk DNA that is baggage carried over from mutations, due to environment, virus, bacteria and yes...the evolutionary process. If God were to build each species from a common toolbox, why would he include the same junk in different species?
      I am willing to bet that there are many Creationists / Christians who are interested enough in genealogy research to have found this forum. I know several that are very "up" on the current DNA progress as far as genealogy goes. However, the GP is more about ancient human migration than it is about more recent genealogy. But, I don't have any issues with the DNA research itself as it has already broken down two brick walls so to speak.

      Also, if the evolutionary process is known to be moving at a rate so incredibly slow that it cannot really be observed, then would a rate of only ten times that make a real difference to us as observers?

      I have to admit that I am enjoying our discussion and I just wanted to thank you for actually discussing and presenting facts and arguments and not just bashing my belief system because it does not match yours.

      Comment


      • #18
        I have just one last point about the markers. The ones relevant to the discussion are the SNP markers. The rate of change IS what is observed, so currently they don't fit into a 6000 year time frame.

        I suppose this is full circle and the reason for your original post to fellow creationists, how to reconcile the above observation with your beliefs.

        I have also enjoyed the exchange. I am glad you did not perceive my responses as bashing and you seem to be open-minded enough to test your belief system.

        I would discuss the other points you raised, but they are really off-topic for this forum. I think we are at an impasse for the marker time frame issue?

        Comment


        • #19
          I have no problems reconciling evolution with the Genesis story of creation. Science and religion have no conflict for me.

          Just one small question:

          How is it known the exact dates that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Eternitat
            I have no problems reconciling evolution with the Genesis story of creation. Science and religion have no conflict for me.

            Just one small question:

            How is it known the exact dates that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived?
            This is same feeling that I have. My problem is also with the timeline.

            My understanding is that this is done through a form of radioactive dating (decaying isotopes). Of course, we now know that these dating methods have serious flaws and are considered by many scientists to be inaccurate back of 3500 - 5000 years.

            If someone knows more about the exact methods used in dating these marker lineages, please let us know.

            Comment


            • #21
              The Jewish Adam

              "Adam" - Original Man; first human being created by G-d. He is created "B'tzelem Elokim," "in the image of G-d." One of the meanings of this is that he has "bechirah chof****," free will, and therefore the ability to choose between "Tov," that which is good, and "Ra," that which is evil.

              You must remember that the Torah and the Jews see Adam as not of the body That only comes after leaving Paradise and "falling out" of the Garden of Eden/Paradise

              Rebbe Meir comments on Genesis 3:21 (l5) (based on the homonymity of the word for light, ohr, and the word for skin, 'ohr): Originally Adam's body was made of light (Ohr [with an Aleph]). But after he sinned G-d clothed his body [in a thick, opaque covering called] skin (Ohr [with an Ayin]). (16)

              And further:

              The heels of Adam's dead body were like two radiant suns." (l7)

              Rav Dessler elaborates: If his heels shone thus, imagine the light of his head...and even more before his death. . . and even more, before he sinned. This is the Midrashic way of teaching (in about 200 C.E., and approximately 1700 years before Einsteinian relativity) that Adam and Eve were bodies of light.

              The first human being spanned from the heavens to the earth, and from one end of the world to its other end. (18)

              Comment


              • #22
                I think this is probably not the best place for Talmudic debate, but I agree with the point that through history, most religious scholars have INTERPRETED the Scriptures, not read them word for word literally. These writings have survived and thrived because they are a source of moral and spiritual guidance, not because they are handbooks of science and medicine.

                A commentator on NPR recently pointed out that the creationists who cannot accept the fact of evolution seem nonetheless just as worried about bird flu as everyone else, not realizing that the potential for bird flu to become a human pandemic is nothing more nor less than evolution and natural selection at work.

                Comment


                • #23
                  My understanding is that this is done through a form of radioactive dating (decaying isotopes). Of course, we now know that these dating methods have serious flaws and are considered by many scientists to be inaccurate back of 3500 - 5000 years.

                  The Carbon-14 dating method is limited because of the half-life, but as stated before other elements can go much further back in time, as in billions of years. The different methods can be tested against one another and time after time they corroborate.

                  rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead

                  Another method dendrochronolgy is also a problem for young earth theory because now we have tree rings we can count in some trees that go beyond 6000 years.

                  The problem of course is that you have to believe in the science behind all of it. My issue is that you can't pick and choose from science to fit a world view and reject what does not. This is tricky because many of the disciplines in science intertwine.

                  So you can't accept C-14 and then reject potassium/Argon...

                  BlackWolf: a very illuminating post (pardon the pun)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I only point out that religion and science do not mix IMO. I will only say that there is the unexplanied, and I have witnessed it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Very interesting post BlackWolf. I appreciate the input.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Eve, an ancient mail order bride???

                        I've read the bible many times and have studied it since I was a kid. But in my heart always knew it was not the religion of my culture, and though for all it's shortcomings and hypocritical passages, there are elements of truth that even reflect some history. But a lot of the hypocrisy comes from the human desire for power, control, influence, over others. So if it's to be taken with an open mind, yeah the bible has some elements of truth, and other of fable and fantasy of the sometimes overcreative mind. Boredom does strange things I suppose. But no matter what belief, faith, philosophy.... Power corrupts all.

                        With that being said, I found an answer (I think). Eve was an ancient mail order bride and therefore the distance factor. Time factor I haven't figured out but working towards a speculation of some alien spaceship warping thru the ethreal spacetime. Just gotta figure it out how to persuade people to believe my story so I can find the non-believers and persecute them. Must follow the tradition of the christian religion LOL I'm waiting to burn

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Torn by a belief

                          Originally posted by jdchess
                          Could you explain exactly what you meant by "the last word?" Also, why is it so incomprehensible?
                          jdchess,

                          It isn't without some reluctance that I'm responding to your question. First because it goes in an off topic direction; and second, because it is difficult to tread on religious ground without offending some susceptible souls. But all participants in this discussion are very open minded and I respect very much everyone's right to their own beliefs. If someone is offended I apologize.

                          Metaphorically speaking, science and dogma are not like minifigs from a box of Lego toys which can be interchanged and assembled into harmonious figurines. It's like comparing oranges and apples. It's taking the long way home opposed to the fast shortcut. It's someone inviting you to watch a good movie, and someone else promising to reveal the movie's ending before you get a chance to see it.

                          Biblical cosmogony, as well as other sacred cosmogonies in the world, has played a determinant role in civilization as we know it today. As rational beings we have a need to find meaning in our life and in the universe that surrounds us. Religions have historically been the main providers of meaning for us humans. But every religion has at its foundation human beings, so in essence we have human beings providing religious meaning and answers to other human beings. Yes, I hear someone replying... but these were no ordinary human beings because they were divinely inspired!

                          Of course they were inspired and inspiring, otherwise they would not have become so successful in setting the foundation for a popular and lasting religion. The problem starts later when someone introduces the concept of infallibility and the unquestionable authority of the religious leader in turn. When you're required to trust and not to ask any questions that's what is called blind faith. Can blind faith truly illuminate one's soul?

                          Cohesiveness of a religious organization doesn't always originates from spontaneous and single-minded individuals that gravitate naturally to a set of common ideals. Sadly, religious cohesion is subtly (and actively) promoted by the traditional dialectic model of good versus evil; either you're with us or against us; the officially sanctioned books have to be taken monolithically; no single iota or tilde can be added to or taken from the sacred texts lest you risk being condemned for all eternity. That sorry situation of many is hardly what could be called an earthly paradise.

                          That's more or less my convoluted answer to your question about the last word of the divine creator. If we accept the concept of a Creator why would someone try to stop us from reading his living creation and limit us to the dead letters in a religious book? Science and/or scientists don't have all the answers to our questions either. In fact, there is much more that remains unknown and ignored than what is currently understood by the brightest scientific minds, but now we have been set free to explore the nature of things, to experience the amazement of new discoveries and to reflect on the meaning of it All. Let's make it good!

                          Best Regards,

                          Victor

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            derinos

                            Very brave of you, jdchess, to raise this question here, but why not? You are thinking scientifically!

                            When a scientist finds a discrepancy between a theory, and new, honest, real, evidence, what does he or she do? Change the theory to fit the evidence?
                            Or hide the evidence?

                            The material in Genesis comes from about 4000 years ago, the time of Abraham. It was a satisfactory theory for the evidence they had then. We have found out more, and parts of the theory may now need adjustment.

                            Take a look at :-
                            www.talkorigins.org

                            The Light be with you!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I thought the creation time-line was 8000 years or so?

                              Why are we calling this ancestor Adam?

                              Is this a cruel joke by the discoverer?

                              I think he should have a Cool name..like Michael..hehe

                              is the name confusing people?


                              aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

                              I have faith in science as it unfolds.
                              I think Religion is a science of the time it was written.
                              That's what we were given.
                              Last edited by M.O'Connor; 16 December 2005, 06:11 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X