Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Rules for this conversation from this post onward:

1. Lack of 100% evidence for a theory does not prove it false, for the millionth time.

2. Disproving one aspect of evolutionary theory does not disprove the entire theory, nor does it mean Creationism is proven.

3. Disproving the entire current evolutionary theory does not mean other theories of evolution aren't possible, and does not mean that there is no other explanation. (You will not disprove evolution because it is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it is possible.)

4. Remember, evolution is a FACT because micro-evolution is observable and proven, and macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over time.

5. There is no imaginary wall of separation which stops a specimen sub-group from becoming incompatible with other members of its species. Enough mutations WILL force it to happen. Therefore, new species WILL be created through micro-evolution and divergence over time, if they do not mate with each other for many, many generations. Such an imaginary wall has ZERO evidence and is illogical to assume without evidence.

6. Creationism can include evolution as the process by which life changes and adapts. Creationism itself, even if proven, which it never will be, does not disprove evolution either.



I grow weary of these concepts, which are basic, not being understood even after they are self-evidently true, provably true, logically true, and have already been told repeatedly.

Link back to this post any time you see someone not getting these concepts. Maybe they will read it enough times to get it.

 

[Miles Teg]

It's like a roadrunner cartoon...

 

[negZero]

Rules for this conversation from this post onward:

1. Lack of 100% evidence for a theory does not prove it false, for the millionth time.

2. Disproving one aspect of evolutionary theory does not disprove the entire theory, nor does it mean Creationism is proven.

3. Disproving the entire current evolutionary theory does not mean other theories of evolution aren't possible, and does not mean that there is no other explanation. (You will not disprove evolution because it is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it is possible.)

4. Remember, evolution is a FACT because micro-evolution is observable and proven, and macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over time.

5. There is no imaginary wall of separation which stops a specimen sub-group from becoming incompatible with other members of its species. Enough mutations WILL force it to happen. Therefore, new species WILL be created through micro-evolution and divergence over time, if they do not mate with each other for many, many generations. Such an imaginary wall has ZERO evidence and is illogical to assume without evidence.

6. Creationism can include evolution as the process by which life changes and adapts. Creationism itself, even if proven, which it never will be, does not disprove evolution either.



I grow weary of these concepts, which are basic, not being understood even after they are self-evidently true, provably true, logically true, and have already been told repeatedly.

Link back to this post any time you see someone not getting these concepts. Maybe they will read it enough times to get it.

Number of times this will be read: 1 859 025
Number of YECs who will read this: 0

 

[Berzerker]

1. Lack of 100% evidence for a theory does not prove it false, for the millionth time.

2. Disproving one aspect of evolutionary theory does not disprove the entire theory, nor does it mean Creationism is proven.

I dont see that standard applied by some of the critics of creationism

 

[negZero]

I dont see that standard applied by some of the critics of creationism

Okay please explain to us right now one part of creationism that has and still is proven.


Edit: When you guys going to learn that am always going to call you out on your claims of proving creationism.

 

[Miles Teg]

I dont see that standard applied by some of the critics of creationism

Evolution doesn't claim any holy texts. Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff, but that doesn't reflect on the overall soundness of his theories. The bible is theoretically inerrant, at least according to creationists. If the Bible has errors, creationism dies with it.

It's a different standard of proof, but Christians claim a different level of authority.

 

[Berzerker]

Personal pet peeve of mind. However, you clearly referenced the concept of Mitochondrial Eve. Since the concept doesn't really provide support for a creationist theory (much the opposite), I stated current scientific thought on the matter.

If I misconstrued what you intended to say, what were your thoughts on Mitochondrial Eve?

I doubt creationists count me in and this theory is in conflict with their views, but the mtDNA "Eve" - the researcher's term - presents us with an interesting problem (so to with the Y Adam). We've supposedly been evolving for millions and millions of years, but our most recent common ancestors are very young. Maybe thats not unusual, tracing the DNA of other critters might tell us. But why? Bottlenecks? That supports the Sumerian and Akkadian stories about our creation - the "gods" (plural in Genesis) bound their image onto a creature roaming the southern lands of the Sumerian serpent deity Enki to create humanoid hybrid slaves. Eventually humans were modified or enabled to procreate by the same serpent deity... And their timeline for these events goes back far enough to cover the estimates for the DNA "Adam and Eve".

Evolution doesn't claim any holy texts. Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff, but that doesn't reflect on the overall soundness of his theories. The bible is theoretically inerrant, at least according to creationists. If the Bible has errors, creationism dies with it.

It's a different standard of proof, but Christians claim a different level of authority.

I'm not a Christian nor am I YEC creationist, but I've seen several people get real obnoxious and dismiss everything and anything the Bible and related sources claim based on things the Bible supposedly got wrong. Thats a double standard... Now you're telling me the Bible must get everything right because someone else said it has no errors.

 

[Berzerker]

Okay please explain to us right now one part of creationism that has and still is proven.


Edit: When you guys going to learn that am always going to call you out on your claims of proving creationism.

I did that earlier and you told me to gtfo of the thread

so, go back and read the first thread because I've been posting scientific evidence supporting Genesis and its earlier incarnations from Sumer and Akkad...

 

[Miles Teg]

But why? Bottlenecks?

Nope, statistics. Some Eurasian Man Whore a couple tens of thousands of years ago slept with a lot of women and had a lot of kids, who followed his noble example. There wasn't anyting special about the EMW, he lived at the same time as hundreds of thousands of men trying to do the same thing. His lineage got lucky, and eventually Europeans slaughtered millions of people who weren't descended from the EMW, slept with the rest, and drained the gene pool to a fraction of it's proper depth.

There probably was a population bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. That's tens of thousands of years before our most recent common ancestor, and well over a hundred thousand years after Mitochondrial Eve. It's relatively close to when Y-Chromosomal Adam lived, if you call "Within the same 30,000 year range" close. You're just cutting terms out of scientific magazines and gluing them into your scrapbook, and eating half the glue in the process.

I dunno what would be so special in the eyes of the All Mighty about any of these events, but I'm sure you have some justification.

 

[PeteAtoms]

We've supposedly been evolving for millions and millions of years, but our most recent common ancestors are very young.

I don't get the problem? Recent...young... seems like a totally logical connection... Now if you had said ancient and young, than I see an issue. Wait, am I confusing myself here?

Also, when you say 'common ancestor,' what is this other species that you are seeking a common ancestor? Or do you mean the common ancestor to all people in the human race? EDIT: I'm starting to think I just misinterpreted the statement. Nevermind.

 

[negZero]

I doubt creationists count me in and this theory is in conflict with their views, but the mtDNA "Eve" - the researcher's term - presents us with an interesting problem (so to with the Y Adam). We've supposedly been evolving for millions and millions of years, but our most recent common ancestors are very young.

Every heard of Bacon numbers or how about going on wikipedia to see how many articles you need before getting to Hitler. We can always find one thing in common with a large group of people if were willing to expand the search. Also someone (I think Miles) has already said that Eve is the MRCA for all women and Adam MRCA for men.

Maybe thats not unusual, tracing the DNA of other critters might tell us. But why? Bottlenecks?

Expand your search and he will get common thread in almost anything. Plus it has been theorize that Human population on Earth was once reduced to 10000 people. Also we have found the same thing with Northern Elephant Seals but thats because there population fall to only 30 back in 1890s.

That supports the Sumerian and Akkadian stories about our creation - the "gods" (plural in Genesis) bound their image onto a creature roaming the southern lands of the Sumerian serpent deity Enki to create humanoid hybrid slaves. Eventually humans were modified or enabled to procreate by the same serpent deity... And their timeline for these events goes back far enough to cover the estimates for the DNA "Adam and Eve".

Things this get wrong:
1)The Adam and Eve in question were 30000 years a part so this pretty much debunks any creation myth in question that involves them being alive at the same time
2) We know that early man came from Africa far from the lands of Sumeria and Akkadian
3) MRCA move as time goes on.
4) There were other men and women alive when those 2 were around in there only respective life time

I'm not a Christian nor am I YEC creationist, but I've seen several people get real obnoxious and dismiss everything and anything the Bible and related sources claim based on things the Bible supposedly got wrong. Thats a double standard... Now you're telling me the Bible must get everything right because someone else said it has no errors.

And I've asked you to post one creationism well anything that was proven correct. Before you say " I already did that" remember that it was wrong on how many objects are in our solar system and was explained to you way it was incorrect by several posters here.

 

[sanabas]

I'm not a Christian nor am I YEC creationist, but I've seen several people get real obnoxious and dismiss everything and anything the Bible and related sources claim based on things the Bible supposedly got wrong. Thats a double standard... Now you're telling me the Bible must get everything right because someone else said it has no errors.

If the bible has obvious errors and contradictions (it does), why should we assume it has anything right? We shouldn't. Lots of people do, though.

If Darwin has obvious errors (he does), why should we assume he has anything right? We shouldn't. We don't. It's correct because that's what the evidence, the testing says, it's not correct because Darwin said so.

As long as creationists want to use a double standard in the reasons to accept the bible as a source compared to other stuff, then there should also be a double standard in dismissing a book's credibility because of errors within it.

 

[Berzerker]

Nope, statistics. Some Eurasian Man Whore a couple tens of thousands of years ago slept with a lot of women and had a lot of kids, who followed his noble example. There wasn't anyting special about the EMW, he lived at the same time as hundreds of thousands of men trying to do the same thing. His lineage got lucky, and eventually Europeans slaughtered millions of people who weren't descended from the EMW, slept with the rest, and drained the gene pool to a fraction of it's proper depth.

There probably was a population bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. That's tens of thousands of years before our most recent common ancestor, and well over a hundred thousand years after Mitochondrial Eve. It's relatively close to when Y-Chromosomal Adam lived, if you call "Within the same 30,000 year range" close. You're just cutting terms out of scientific magazines and gluing them into your scrapbook, and eating half the glue in the process.

I dunno what would be so special in the eyes of the All Mighty about any of these events, but I'm sure you have some justification.

So there were no bottlenecks, just "statistics" - and then you cite a potential bottleneck ~70 kya (when Toba blew). How about "statistics" for other critters? If tracing their DNA shows recent ancestors then our Adam and Eve may not be unusual. The dating of Y Adam aint exact and I've seen ~ 50 kya as the low estimate. As for the insults, keep hiding behind a computer - but I wont be responding to your BS again lest I speak my mind and anger a mod. Cya...

I don't get the problem? Recent...young... seems like a totally logical connection... Now if you had said ancient and young, than I see an issue. Wait, am I confusing myself here?

Also, when you say 'common ancestor,' what is this other species that you are seeking a common ancestor? Or do you mean the common ancestor to all people in the human race? EDIT: I'm starting to think I just misinterpreted the statement. Nevermind.

We've been evolving for millions of years, but our male and female common ancestors are recent. That means a possible major bottleneck during or after they lived. The creation of man stories describe a major bottleneck...

Every heard of Bacon numbers or how about going on wikipedia to see how many articles you need before getting to Hitler. We can always find one thing in common with a large group of people if were willing to expand the search. Also someone (I think Miles) has already said that Eve is the MRCA for all women and Adam MRCA for men.

Expand your search and he will get common thread in almost anything. Plus it has been theorize that Human population on Earth was once reduced to 10000 people.

Things this get wrong:
1)The Adam and Eve in question were 30000 years a part so this pretty much debunks any creation myth in question that involves them being alive at the same time
2) We know that early man came from Africa far from the lands of Sumeria and Akkadian
3) MRCA move as time goes on.

And I've asked you to post one creationism well anything that was proven correct. Before you say " I already did that" remember that it was wrong on how many objects are in our solar system and was proven incorrect.

1) "Adam and Eve" were ~150,000 apart, but those are estimates based on mutation rates that may not be all that accurate - just look at the "Hobbits" of Flores. The "Eve" researchers bumped their 200 kya estimate up to 500 kya for the high and ~50 for the low - and that low matches up with Adam's date ~ 50 kya. But the Sumerian creation myths describe a much more convoluted situation, following a period of experimentation with various "abnormal" beings and hybrid slaves mankind was granted the ability to procreate, and not necessarily at the same time - the "modification" to enable procreation may have affected men while women were already being used by the gods to produce slaves (and later, demi-gods).

2) The Sumerian myth places the creation of man in the southern lands of Enki, thats Africa for them - the land of minerals and mining. And the myth describes Enki using a creature roaming his southern lands to make a smarter being capable of following simple instructions.

As for the Enuma Elish, where is this proof? Quote it... And the verses I cited didn't describe the solar system as it is now, it described it as it was before Tiamat became "Heaven and Earth". And the Sumerians even gave us a cylinder seal showing a star surrounded by 11 globes that matches the Enuma Elish (I linked it in the 1st thread and it was completely ignored).

 

[Berzerker]

If the bible has obvious errors and contradictions (it does), why should we assume it has anything right? We shouldn't. Lots of people do, though.

If evolution theory has errors, why should we assume it has anything right? Thats the double standard... How about we minimize assumptions (y'all assume these myths are bogus) and deal with what the myths say and what the science says...

If Darwin has obvious errors (he does), why should we assume he has anything right? We shouldn't. We don't. It's correct because that's what the evidence, the testing says, it's not correct because Darwin said so.

I never said Genesis (or anything else) was right because it says so...

As long as creationists want to use a double standard in the reasons to accept the bible as a source compared to other stuff, then there should also be a double standard in dismissing a book's credibility because of errors within it.

I'm not using a double standard, some of you guys are... But why are you "justifying" the use of a double standard when you dont approve of others doing the same thing? Or do you approve of creationists using double standards?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

We've been evolving for millions of years, but our male and female common ancestors are recent. That means a possible major bottleneck during or after they lived. The creation of man stories describe a major bottleneck...

No.... there is no bottleneck. Further, the creation of man stories also involve specific people. This does NOT reference a specific, unchanging person.

You're confusing Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam for actual people. No, they reference DNA shared between people according to specific parameters. These parameters are constantly changing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Common fallacies
[edit]Not the only woman

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[9][10] However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands;[9] there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one generation with no female offspring (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children). By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes at least one line of descent to each person which is purely matrilineal.
[edit] Not alive at the same time as "Adam"

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. However there is no such parallel with the Biblical story. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[11]
[edit] Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestor of modern human populations:

* The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[12]

Full stop. Before anyone starts coughing out Bible pages saying this proves Noah's Ark, without understanding what it means, let's educate ourselves.

Most Recent Common Ancestor is something that changes as generations go by. At one time, the most recent common ancestor was further back in history, just like "Adam" and Mitochondrial eve.

These are not historical figures, as the Bible would explain them to be, but simply markers that move with history.

It's like the term "great grandfather". I have one (or four, to be precise) but it won't be the same one as my child's.

Many thousands of years from now, Most Recent Common Ancestor will be someone different.

These are NOT historical figures! It's simply a label given to a person whose DNA matches those parameters, and the parameters are always changing!

* The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendants or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[12]
* "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.

These points do not seem to be fully understood by people discussing the topic.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If evolution theory has errors, why should we assume it has anything right? Thats the double standard...

No, evolution theory is a thing which replaces bad information with newer, better information, and is formally a part of science.

The Bible does not replace old, bad information with newer, better information. It is not scientific.

Don't confuse the two. One is a constantly changing thing which improves with new knowledge, the other is a story book filled with instructions for how to live written by ancient man with ancient values which are not relevant to science.

 

[negZero]

So there were no bottlenecks, just "statistics" - and then you cite a potential bottleneck ~70 kya (when Toba blew). How about "statistics" for other critters? If tracing their DNA shows recent ancestors then our Adam and Eve may not be unusual. The dating of Y Adam aint exact and I've seen ~ 50 kya as the low estimate. As for the insults, keep hiding behind a computer - but I wont be responding to your BS again lest I speak my mind and anger a mod. Cya...

I've already mentioned animals with recent bottlenecks none of them match up with Adam or Eve

We've been evolving for millions of years, but our male and female common ancestors are recent. That means a possible major bottleneck during or after they lived. The creation of man stories describe a major bottleneck...

Again I already mentioned the 10000 people bottleneck

1) "Adam and Eve" were ~150,000 apart, but those are estimates based on mutation rates that may not be all that accurate

There 60000 to 90000 is the generally accepted answer

The "Eve" researchers bumped their 200 kya estimate up to 500 kya for the high and ~50 for the low - and that low matches up with Adam's date ~ 50 kya.

Am sorry but this is just wrong, everyone has Adam and Eve appearing thousands of years apart, so just cut it out.

But the Sumerian creation myths describe a much more convoluted situation, following a period of experimentation with various "abnormal" beings and hybrid slaves mankind was granted the ability to procreate, and not necessarily at the same time - the "modification" to enable procreation may have affected men while women were already being used by the gods to produce slaves (and later, demi-gods).

Okay what you just wrote he makes no sense.

2) The Sumerian myth places the creation of man in the southern lands of Enki, thats Africa for them - the land of minerals and mining. And the myth describes Enki using a creature roaming his southern lands to make a smarter being capable of following simple instructions.

Sorry everything I look up says that Enki was a god in Sumerian mythology not some land.

As for the Enuma Elish, where is this proof? Quote it...

Not my job to prove your arguments

And the verses I cited didn't describe the solar system as it is now, it described it as it was before Tiamat became "Heaven and Earth". And the Sumerians even gave us a cylinder seal showing a star surrounded by 11 globes that matches the Enuma Elish (I linked it in the 1st thread and it was completely ignored).

I ignored because I thought it was nonsense and the fact that several posters in this thread alone have respond to your about this and have debunked it. So quit talking about unless you want people to bring back the same old arguments against it that seem to go right over your head.

No.... there is no bottleneck. Further, the creation of man stories also involve specific people. This does NOT reference a specific, unchanging person.

Sorry but your wrong on this one 1.2 million years ago there was only about 20000 peoplecapable of breeding , not the 2 person bottleneck YECer want but still bottleneck. Another one is Northern Elephant Seals which dropped to about 30 around 1890. So yes bottlenecks happen but none that would prove Noah's Ark or Biblical Adam and Eve.

 

[sanabas]

If evolution theory has errors, why should we assume it has anything right? Thats the double standard... How about we minimize assumptions (y'all assume these myths are bogus) and deal with what the myths say and what the science says...

Not what I said at all. I said Darwin has errors. He does. On the Origin of Species is an excellent read. But there's plenty it doesn't cover, and there's bits that have since been proved wrong. Evolutionary theory has stuff it doesn't know, maybe it has stuff that gets proved wrong as we find out more. So what? We don't assume it's right anymore than we assume geosynchronous satellites are going to stay up, even though Newton has errors.

As for assuming creation myths are bogus, yep, sure do. Will continue to do so until there's some actual evidence of their writers having that sort of knowledge, until all the bits they have wrong turn out to actually be right, based on evidence. As I said, I could easily write a couple of pages discussing Australian Aboriginal creation myths, and how they are an alegory for evolutionary theory. Does that mean I should assume that 60,000 years ago, Australia's population had a good understanding of evolutionary theory?

If we deal with what the myths say, and with what the science says, we quickly discover that they say two different things. Whether it says that the earth was once a ball 100% covered in water, that fruit was around well before there were any animals, that the moon & sun are younger than the earth, that there's water somewhere beyond 'the firmament' that contains all the stars, or that Uranus was created from Saturn, and Neptune was created from Uranus. If you're going to look at evidence, you can't just dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your hypothesis, while claiming that anything that does conform to it reinforces it and makes it more believable.

I never said Genesis (or anything else) was right because it says so...

No, you said it was right because it is an obviously factual account that fits with the evidence we now have. Which it self-evidently doesn't. Same deal for the Babylonian myth you cherry-picked bits of. If you cherry-picked some other bits and explained just why Neptune was unchallenged among the planets, and then we found evidence afterwards that supported your theories, then we might have something to discuss. But at the moment, your examples of how these creation myths are factual is in exactly the same class as 'proof' of Nostradamus actually being prescient, as 'proof' of there being secret messages in the bible that tell us about the future (still waiting to hear what you & the YEC think of the bible code, btw), as 'proof' of astrology.

I'm not using a double standard, some of you guys are... But why are you "justifying" the use of a double standard when you dont approve of others doing the same thing? Or do you approve of creationists using double standards?

For all things that are based on actual evidence, that correct their errors when evidence exposes them, that is honest about saying 'we don't know' when we don't have evidence either way, then there's no reason to be dismissive of stuff because one person who worked on it got things wrong. I don't dismiss evolutionary theory because Darwin got some stuff wrong, I don't dismiss gravitational theory because Newton got some stuff wrong, I don't dismiss physics & chemistry because Niels Bohr's model of the atom was basically incorrect.

For all things based on telling a story, for claiming that the author of a story actualy had detailed scientific knowledge based on explaining how his story was an allegory for evidence-based fact, then I am going to dismiss it based on contradictions, based on the things it has obviously wrong. I'm not going to look at the story with the assumption they knew stuff, and then pick & choose bits that support my view as being irrefutable evidence, while picking & choosing the bits that don't as being authorial license.

Where's the double standard in that?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sorry but your wrong on this one 1.2 million years ago there was only about 20000 peoplecapable of breeding , not the 2 person bottleneck YECer want but still bottleneck. Another one is Northern Elephant Seals which dropped to about 30 around 1890. So yes bottlenecks happen but none that would prove Noah's Ark or Biblical Adam and Eve.

Wait, how is the 20,000 people thing a bottleneck? Does that mean there were a lot more people alive earlier than that? I didn't know that part, if that's the case.

Please do explain.

 

[negZero]

Wait, how is the 20,000 people thing a bottleneck? Does that mean there were a lot more people alive earlier than that? I didn't know that part, if that's the case.

Please do explain.

Well yes there was more before whatever caused it to drop(near extinction event) to 20,000 happened (read the artical for more details) but yeah its hard to call that Noah's Ark level bottleneck but you still have to call that bottleneck none the less. In fact I would call the Seals one more of bottleneck since they were at the point of no return (they somehow were able to comeback through)