[Dirkadirkastan]

I wrote out a draft awhile back responding to the most recent post you addressed to me, Dalm, but I never finished it and the thread has since continued. So I'll just post what I have.

A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards.

That's basically the how it goes, yes.

These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!

Source or it didn't happen.

Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.

There is uncertainty, yes, but uncertainty in the form of 100,000 vs. 200,000. Not 100,000 vs. 6,500. So contrary to what you believe, science is very candid about its uncertainty. But it turns out even their estimated ranges are enough to discredit creationism, and creationists don't like that.

Now I'm not a biologist, but I can still tell you're trying some underhanded tactics here. Every time you mention a nugget of scientific knowledge, you label it as an assumption. But when you suggest an uncited report implies an idea that could potentially be spun as creationist, you label it as FACT. Somehow I'm getting the sense there's a double standard here.

Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?

Um, are you serious? You're going the wrong direction here. Ah well, at least your credulity is consistent.

We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.

Which we shall accept unconditionally.

Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.

It's a shift from gullibility to rational inquiry. That's how we finally escaped the dark ages.

Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?

Uh yeah, actually it would kinda ruin the whole creation story. Let's not turn this into another one of those "it's always infinite regression until somebody blurts out the G-word" discussions.

We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.

The "other alternative"? False dichotomy.

But more importantly, this quote reveals the fact your beliefs are rooted in an ulterior motive. More on that later.

yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.

OK, I will try this one more time, but I'm losing my patience here.

Click this link. Scroll down to the definite integral. You see your favorite numbers 5568 and 8033 in there, right? You can even see the 1/2 in there for half-life, though it's disguised as a 2 to a negative power. This formula computes the average expected lifespan of a carbon atom. I said the average, not the maximum. You do know the difference between average and maximum, right?

Here's the kicker. Look at the limits on the integral. These specify the endpoints on the timeline. So the lower limit t=0 specifies the beginning of the decay process, and the upper limit t=∞ specifies the end of the process, i.e. no limit. And yet, even with the infinite time to decay, the average still computes to less than 10,000 years.

This really shouldn't be surprising if you think about it. Let's take the simpler, more intuitive case and suppose we have a sample of atoms that all live through the first full half-life of 5000 years, at which point exactly half of the atoms disappear. Then let's suppose the sample continues in this manner, so it's just like true exponential decay except in a discrete case that's easier to calculate. So half the atoms decay at 5000 years, a quarter of the original sample decays at 10,000 years, a eighth at 15,000 years, a sixteenth at 20,000 years, and so on. Then the average expected lifetime of a single atom would be the infinite sum

(1/2)(5,000) + (1/4)(10,000) + (1/8)(15,000) + (1/16)(20,000) + ...

which converges to exactly 10,000 years. This happens despite the fact there will still be a tiny sample left even after millions of years (thousands of terms into the sum).

And of course, a real sample under exponential decay will have a slightly lower average, since atoms decay continuously starting immediately. But again, there are still atoms that last millions of years. That's the whole premise of exponential decay: about half the remaining sample always survives the next half-life.

Are there other factors that could affect the decay rate in certain environments? Perhaps. I don't know, I'm no archaeologist. But even if the decay rate λ changed, it would NOT affect the fact that the differential equation solves into an exponential decay function.

Now I wonder how soon you're going to flip your story. You just championed the 8033 as a prominent sign of creationism triumphing over evolution. But now that I've shown you how the number itself is derived directly from giving carbon an infinite time to decay, you're probably going to condemn it as obviously fabricated. Neither attitude is based in reason, however.

Again, I'm not a biologist. But at least I'm not so brash as to proclaim everything discovered in science is a baseless assumption just because I don't like what they've found.

I just don't understand why your default position is that the limits of everyone's scientific understanding are the same as your own, and the universal incentive behind all scientific studies are to bullshit preconceived answers they want. And not just any preconceived answers, but the ones you have supplied for them, something about "being in charge" or whatever.

You may not like science to value observation over dogma, but at the very least, you have to admit the system is specifically designed to weed out personal bias and objectively expand our understanding of reality. Evidence is required. Independent testing and peer review are required for verification of any hypothesis. Need I repeat this?

It's a far cry from the sweeping brush you wish to paint across the scientific frontier. There comes a point when everyone recognizes your paranoia is creeping in, except for you.

Meanwhile, you have absolutely no suspicion that the ancient writers of the bible had anything other than pure motives. Further than that, you believe the unverifiable dogma they insist upon has merit because... they dogmatically insist upon it.

Why do you treat the two parties so differently? I already know the answer. In fact, you admitted it right here:

I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.

Which is fantastically ironic and hypocritical, considering how stridently you accuse everyone else of having a bias!

But your bias is even worse than that. You have already made up your mind that not only is the earth young, but that this means the "real" scientific evidence that everyone wants to cover up points to this fact. So in your biased state, when you see the average life of a carbon atom to be 8000 years, you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame. By doing this, you not only betray your personal agenda to try to discredit evolutionary science, but you also demonstrate how your personal agenda drives you to misinterpret a simple exponential curve, something that's taught in Algebra II.

Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?

You probably don't realize it, but every time you bring this up you dig yourself further in the hole. You're telling me that the only reason you don't rape, steal, and murder is because you believe the invisible man in the sky is watching you? Unlike you, I don't need to think the secret police is forever constantly breathing down my neck to be able to control myself. The fact you can't think for yourself and can only take orders doesn't make you morally upstanding, it makes you a drone.

What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )

The only reason I linked the video was for the list. I would've simply copy/pasted the list instead but it's in the video itself and I didn't feel like typing out each one individually.

now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.

It's not that simple, no. People on either side of the aisle often disagree strongly with others on the same side. Considering how non-descript gods are, this isn't a surprise.

Those that believe one or more deities exist can agree or disagree on any of his/her/their attributes.

Those that don't still have their whole worldview to figure out. And no, they usually don't go in the direction you think they do.

Besides, your reasoning doesn't logically flow automatically in the manner you claim it does. There is this common thread in many religions, but "a personal deity created the universe" is not even sufficient to imply "this deity knows and cares about everything we do," let alone "this deity is virtuous," which I claim yours is not.

Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)

Oh no, not the Coriolis myth.

Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.

No, that's what religion does. That's not just a cheap retort.

Where does creationism come from? The bible. Someone just threw out the idea a few thousand years ago, and now creationists call it fact and try to force it in schools. There is no more rigor in their reasoning than that.