U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:02 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,584,082 times
Reputation: 1787

Advertisements

Link
Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.
But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."


Researching The Human Genome
Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.


To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
Now what?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,055 posts, read 11,160,292 times
Reputation: 2807
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Now what?
Easy! They'll do what they have always done when their Bible has been shown to be wrong. They will go back to their Bibles, jiggle a few words around, claim that certain words don't actually mean what they say, claim that what they have claimed as 'truth' for so long was mistranslated, twist a bit here, tweak a bit there and before you know it they will be claiming that 'Adam and Eve' translated from ancient Hebrew actually means 'single cell organism' and that it's clear their Bible has never taught anything but evolution all along.

Job done!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,145 posts, read 20,210,992 times
Reputation: 14041
Maybe someday they will grow up and realize the story is just an allegory to illustrate the price of being sentient.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
47,138 posts, read 13,939,095 times
Reputation: 5674
Thanks for that. It saves me from starting a New thread.

I have sometimes asked Theists who have a go at evolution theory what is the evidence for creation - not their objections to evolution theory, but the evidence FOR creation?

In the absence of any response I thought I'd look myself. The objections are to more than Evolution (the theory of the development of life) but also address the wider arguments about the appearance of the cosmos and geology. I rather like the term 'Evilution' coined by creationists which I have defined as 'A God - denying Darwinian atheist science religion which claims that the universe and life appeared out of nothing'

I see no point in giving the sites since they often rhearse the same arguments cut from Creationists books and pasted on - site without checking.

Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? (
This an objection to evolution theory. It is not an argument FOR creation. It is also misinformed, but this is not the place to refute it.)

The second most compelling evidence for instantaneous creation pertains to the spherical halos caused by the decay of a radioactive core. These halos are found by the trillions in all Precambrian granites, the foundation stones of the earth's crust. More particularly they are found in biotite, the mica portion of the granite. (This is one of the few pieces of evidence for Creation or at least evidence for Young Earth - the 'Polonium Haloes' case. It has been proved to have been based on false data. The polonium was found to have penetrated through cracks in the granite. It was NOT in the granite when it was formed.)

After a preamble about 'evolutionary science' we get a list of refutations. It hopefully suggests that the huge ages are top estimates and could be a lot less...but hardly around 10,000.

Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."
Comets disintegrate rapidly as they approach the sun, most surviving less "than 100,000 years..

At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," (still a lot more than 10,000)

.. the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." ..(still a lot more than 10,000)

Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. ...(still a lot more than 10,000)

The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. (Science says the age of the earth is around 5 billion years old)
Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. ..." (Science says layers were deposited over millions of years)

"Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and ..."

... "'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates."
(we saw the Polonium fabrication above)

"Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. ...."
There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people ..."



The term 'evolution' is applied rather loosely here as a lot of it is cosmological, geological or palaeontological. All of these arguments have been refuted but still they are presented. But the point here is that they try to refute 'Evolution' (in the wider sense) and make no case for creation.

One commonly used argument against the Creation week as detailed in Genesis is that the sun and moon were created on day four. This was after the creation of plant life on day three. How could the plants survive without sunlight?

This again is not evidence for creation it is supposedly refuting an objection to the genesis account. I had never seen it before now but of course, plants could survive a day without light and in any case if you can believe there was light before the sun was made then one can believe that plants could survive without anything if God said so.

This is still no evidence for creation.

I have to post this one

"After the Flood and during the time that the C-14 levels in the atmosphere were reaching equilibrium, living objects would take in less C-14 than their modern counterparts for the same time period. Thus using the C-14 method on the fossils of these animals would date them in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. Fossils of animals dying after the C-14 level had reached equilibrium would be dated fairly accurately using current methods." (While again explaining away apparent objections to Creationism it is no evidence FOR creation and is nonsense because you can't date stone fossils with the C14 method which needs organic samples.)

Creation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples: Lack of Transitional Fossils. evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Lack of a Natural Mechanism.

"Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth
(as set out above these have been refuted and again try to discredit 'Evilution'.)

The Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps, (again this tries to refute natural origins. It does not present any evidence for creation)

First Cause. Every single effect first had a cause that can be traced to a previous effect from another cause, and so on. But where did it begin? It all started with a single First Cause—the God who is above and existed before all other causes. (While this Creation Institute preaching is hardly evidence, it does approach an argument for creation. - something must have started it all off and it is only common sense to suppose that something 'decided' to do it. Of course that 'something' is assumed to be a very particular god. In any case, we have heard that this 'cause and effect' argument is looking flimsy these days. It is a sort of argument for Creation,)

Btw While looking at the Creation museum site I had to laugh at this.

http://creationevidence.org/images/kp_logo_180.gif

The expression on the faces says it better than any words of mine...


here are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.


(These arguments from the laws of Thermodynamics/entropy have also beed refuted but here again they are not evidence FOR creation but objections to 'Evilution'.)

Widespread marine strata and fossils in the earth's highest mountains and upon elevated continental plateaus imply that the ocean once covered the continents. (Again wrong. It not only could mean that the sea floor was lifted up but marine - worm holes fossillized in the rock proves that it what it is. This is clear proof of an old earth yet this tosh is still being peddled. In any case it is objections to Old Earth. It is NOT evidence for Creation.

But carbon 14 has been measured within natural diamonds. Either the decay rate of carbon 14 is not uniform, the diamonds are younger than believed, or both. (I shall have to look this one up! But again it has a go at Old earth there is NO evidence FOR Creation.)

. So here's the dirty little secret the evolutionists don't like talking about. There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal. (Again no evidence for Creation only attempts to discredit evilution. And here's the dirty little secret this dirty little Creationist conceals and I'll give his name (Bob Dutko) as he's so impolite about it - there is plenty of evidence of macro - evolution both in the fossil record and DNA and in present biforms. However, again, this is attacking evolution theory, it is presenting NO evidence for Creation.)

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.


(This is an argument for intelligent design and is a sort of argument for creation but again is really relying on arguing that evolution theory cannot account for it. As I have said, Behe's ID is some of the best efforts to argue God -created beings. The science is flawed and the conclusions don't follow but there are something approaching evidence FOR Creation.

points 1 - 8 are the same sort of arguments encountered above - Polonium haloes, Helium in the atmosphere - attempts to fiddle the distance of galaxies, lies about Geologic columns, tosh about Flood legends and hoaxes like the the human prints with dinosaurs. Apart from the very poor material, this is just trying make objections to 'evilution' or explain away objections to Young earth. There is no evidence for Creation.)

Also, much physical evidence exists that directly supports creation and a young earth. One is evidence that shows that everything on earth is undergoing devolution rather than evolution. (Amusing since Creationists make so much objection to assumptions of regular rates of processes. This is terribly blinkered but the point here is is this is again objection to evolution theory, there is no evidence for Creation. In fact the next site attacked this idea of constant processes 'uniformitarianism'.)

Evidence for Creation. First, the time estimates are based on two fundamental presuppositions: naturalism and uniformitarianism. In other words, things happen by chance or natural forces only (naturalism) and generally in the same way and manner they always have (uniformitarianism). (Apart from the poor science and reasoning here, it tries to refute Old earth/Deep Time and presents NO evidence FOR creation)

(The next site rehashed the old debunked arguments but I noted this) Soft tissues, blood vessels, and DNA strands have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (I recall how I was shocked when that story broke, Of course it turned out to be a complete and brazen misrepresentation of the facts. In any case it is again trying to disprove Evolution. It is adducing no evidence for Creation.

Of course I know that the Bible is considered to be all the evidence one needs but what I mean is, where is the scientific evidence for 'Scientific Creationism' as there is scientific evidence for Evolution and evilution which Creationists and ID bods try to argue away? Polonium Haloes (discredited) First cause (a closing gap for God) and Behe's ID (unsound science) plus zones of comfort (highly arguable) are the only arguments FOR Creation.

I don't doubt that there will be a demand that I rehearse the claimed refutation of each of these claims. I have mentioned some that I recall off - hand. The point is here that I have answered the question I have asked so many times 'What scientific evidence is there FOR Creation - not against evilution ...sorry, the habit has got to me...but FOR Creation? The answer is apparently, none or as near as makes no difference.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:49 AM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 11,561,487 times
Reputation: 20019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Easy! They'll do what they have always done when their Bible has been shown to be wrong. They will go back to their Bibles, jiggle a few words around, claim that certain words don't actually mean what they say, claim that what they have claimed as 'truth' for so long was mistranslated, twist a bit here, tweak a bit there and before you know it they will be claiming that 'Adam and Eve' translated from ancient Hebrew actually means 'single cell organism' and that it's clear their Bible has never taught anything but evolution all along.

Job done!

you mean you don't believe in adam and eve
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 11:57 AM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,489,910 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Link
Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.
But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."


Researching The Human Genome

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.


To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
Now what?
Absolutely startling! You mean to say that there are people claiming to be Christians who don't believe the Bible?

Astounding...who knew?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:15 PM
 
45,431 posts, read 29,350,883 times
Reputation: 6481
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Link
Now what?
It has NEVER been about the physical, Seeker . . . just the Spiritual. ALL life on earth is nothing but the "dust of the earth" . . . so using any existing evolved lifeforms would qualify as breathing a "living soul"(Spirit) into the "dust of the earth."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:41 PM
 
16,308 posts, read 25,977,644 times
Reputation: 8322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Now what?
That easy............

Fingers in ears, eyes squeezed tightly shut while attempting to drown reality out by wailing "does not.......... does not......... does not.........."



just watch
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 01:12 PM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,584,082 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I don't doubt that there will be a demand that I rehearse the claimed refutation of each of these claims. I have mentioned some that I recall off - hand. The point is here that I have answered the question I have asked so many times 'What scientific evidence is there FOR Creation - not against evilution ...sorry, the habit has got to me...but FOR Creation? The answer is apparently, none or as near as makes no difference.
That was a long list and no theist here will attempt to refute it. They have nothing.

I have posited that the fossils of A&E and a bashed in skull of Abel might sway us to believe in the creation event as far as humans go. My other thread got no traction when I dumbed down the requirements for proof or the exodus, fossils in the desert etc. and the ark of the covenant with fragments of commandments 1.0 tablets at Mount Sinai.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Absolutely startling! You mean to say that there are people claiming to be Christians who don't believe the Bible?

Astounding...who knew?
One of your own coming to the realisation and note the university...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Englewood, FL
1,464 posts, read 1,601,012 times
Reputation: 977
Please. Christianity involves the soul, not physical genomes. That there are people claiming to be Christians that don't believe the bible is nothing new. And it's getting fewer and fewer as the world becomes more apostate -- any true Christian knows that, and the Bible has often stated that in the end times people will fall away. In biblical terms, it's "chaff vs the wheat" -- false Christians eventually get sorted out. You believe your faith, and we'll believe ours.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top