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

  • Full quote attached

    [QUOTE=purple flowers]OH my yes I will rest easy tonight knowing the Most high poopness, thinks God created man through VATICAN CITY


    Oct 31 (Reuters)
    Last edited by derinos; 2 November 2008, 12:55 PM. Reason: VATICAN CITY (Reuters)

    Comment


    • Catholic sources adopted by non -Catholics?

      VATICAN CITY (Reuters) VATICAN CITY (Reuters)
      Last edited by derinos; 2 November 2008, 01:29 PM.

      Comment


      • Some of you may enjoy the attached video from National Geographic about evolution in motion - peaceful plant-sapsucking moths turning into blood-sucking vampire moths!
        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...video-vin.html

        John

        Comment


        • Social Darwinism and Darwinism

          This is something like social Darwinism and Darwinism. Creation means a gradual change in time not man came from an ape. DNA only supports the idea of a comman ancestor.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GregKiroKHR1bL1
            This is something like social Darwinism and Darwinism. Creation means a gradual change in time not man came from an ape. DNA only supports the idea of a comman ancestor.
            Agreed! I like to think that in my own family tree, the founder-ancestor was a very respectable microsphere, living about 2 billion years ago.

            (Sorry technology prevented me posting the Pope article here. Relevant to the headline of this thread, "young Earth" followers should note that it was a Catholic bishop called Ussher in the 17th C who calculated an incorrect age of the planet. Since then, Ussher's own Church continues to regard it as "a matter not yet determined".)

            Comment


            • Evolution doesn't claim very much.

              Originally posted by jdchess
              The only problem is that this supporting evidence is simply non-existent.
              Just got back from demanding overseas trips and missed the excellent discussion referred to below. Can't help joining in!

              Originally Posted by jdchess
              "Ahhh...but I did not really ask for an example of a "mutation increasing the amount of genetic information in an organism."...I'm talking about an example of a mutation leading to entirely new, unrelated information which in turn leads to coding of a function that was not present in the line beforehand, which then (eventually) leads to speciation."

              Response:
              This formidable question requests more than can be (yet?) delivered by our brief human timescale of direct observation, hindered by the concept that the Biomass of which we are part operates by a form of statistical order conceptually within Chaos Theory.

              My present understanding of the evolutionary process from reports of the fossil record and relatively short-term observation of the Biosphere, does NOT indicate the occurrence of sudden mutation events producing "entirely new, unrelated information leading to coding of a function not present.. beforehand."

              Rather, there appears to be a gradual change,embryo by embryo, not in the quantity, but the quality or detail, of information in the genome, coding, not for functions, but DNA-directed embryonic STRUCTURE progressions or regressions. The structural changes gradually condition "biofunctions" ie the details of biologic activity, favorably or unfavorably to speciation, as determined by the individual organism's local and general relationship to the entire planetary Environment (which of course includes the other organisms).

              As to the Entropy, red herring perhaps; the tiny energy required to recode DNA informational structure is but part of a localised distortion of the direction of entropy which is the basic nature of all biologic activity "BA". This BA modulates the local environment physically and chemically in directions which tend to satisfy the physiologic drives produced by the organic structure of a particular organism. Though local, this is inescapably a delayed contribution to a larger multifactorial interactive system the Biomass.
              The entire Biomass works in this multiphasic or "chaotic" systemic relationship that alters, and is altered by, the physics and chemistry of the entire planet as well as the biosphere's internal activities.
              It seems therefore that what Jefe, Chess, and Greg so intelligently discussed, is a fascinating discrete "how", which is difficult to extract in isolation from wider planetary and Universal imperatives, the Universe as Information, experienced in this local corner called Mother Earth, Gaia or Terra.
              As to those wider imperatives, which we like to call the Universal physico-chemical Laws, the origin has to be looked for in what astrophysics now calls a "Singularity" apparently triggered from outside our four-dimensional space-time continuum. Inside it, the human brain, recently evolved as an integral part, has the startling information-processing quality and effrontery to question the whole. As demanded in the Jewish Shemot, "Listen, The Lord is a singularity"

              Comment


              • Maybe, there are Gregorian Whispers about the honesty of Gregor Johann Mendel.

                Originally posted by derinos
                Agreed! I like to think that in my own family tree, the founder-ancestor was a very respectable microsphere, living about 2 billion years ago.

                (Sorry technology prevented me posting the Pope article here. Relevant to the headline of this thread, "young Earth" followers should note that it was a Catholic bishop called Ussher in the 17th C who calculated an incorrect age of the planet. Since then, Ussher's own Church continues to regard it as "a matter not yet determined".)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jdchess
                  I am just curious what other Creation believers think about the timeline back to the theoretical Eurasian "Adam." DNA doesn't lie. There is no doubt about that and it one of the most effective tools in the genealogist's toolbox. I find it interesting that it is stated that this "Adam" DID have human ancestors, but that there was NO proof since the genetic trail stopped with him. Now the obvious question (for me anyway) is if there is NO genetic trail back of him, how do they know for a fact that he had human ancestors??

                  Anyway, I'm not trying to start a big debate, but I find myself somewhat torn between knowing that the DNA research is basically proof positive and believing that the earth is not as old as what is implied in the GP results. I suppose in a way the two really aren't related as the DNA research can obviously exsist and can assist us in our genealogy research without the GP, but I am very curious to know what others think. I wish I could have stated all this a little better, but oh well...
                  Adam, and Eve were bad choices of names for these ancestors. I would rather see names like Fred Flintstone, and Wilma.
                  I doubt every religion has a person named Adam.
                  I think religious names belonging to particular religions should not have been used in this international field.

                  Perhaps those names were used to sell books in the author's part of the world.

                  Just my opinion
                  Last edited by M.O'Connor; 18 November 2008, 04:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by M.O'Connor
                    Adam, and Eve were bad choices of names for these ancestors. I would rather see names like Fred Flintstone, and Wilma.

                    Just my opinion
                    gosh I think so too... yes I thought it was extremely and throughly to the core, kind of deceptive. even beyond a mocking kind of deceptive
                    since science is going with the cartoon version of history. and they can't seem to think more than two demensional .. I think 'Wilma and Fred" would be very appropriate.

                    Comment


                    • DNA timeline or Ussher 's in 1701.??

                      James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar.

                      Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ,

                      ******it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself.


                      Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'.

                      Comment


                      • It is remarkable to me

                        that this thread has been viewed, what, over 12,700 times and has over 480 posts. It is such a popular debate and yet one I have never understood.

                        It seems to me both views begin with a common assumption that is internally inconsistent- that there is a timeline set out in scripture. As the prior post illustrates, individual men have calculated timelines based on on their readings of, on the one hand, scripture, on the other hand, equipment test results. So wouldn't this be more accurately described as a debate between the followers of one calculation v. the followers of another?

                        One can as easily harmonize scripture and science as I once heard the famous Dr. Leaky do at a discussion in college. To me it is a mostly unnecessary misplacement of spiritual passion. A faith in a G-d that is not containable within human delimits does not need to fight with scientists about their theory of the hour as to timeline. It is like the arrogance of viewing G-d as a projection of our inner Id. Neither are science. Neither are required prerequisites of faith.

                        Comment


                        • Since this thread has turned largely philosophical I am going to go ahead and close it down for now, as it is dealing more with the abstract and less and less with genetic genealogy.

                          -Darren Marin
                          Family Tree DNA

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X