Posted on 09/22/2012 10:25:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned -- ironically -- from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years. "It's a suspiciously round number," says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified.
In the past few years, geneticists have been able to watch the molecular clock in action, by sequencing whole genomes from dozens of families5 and comparing mutations in parents and children. These studies show that the clock ticks at perhaps half the rate of previous estimates, says Scally.
In a review published on 11 September1,Scally and his colleague Richard Durbin used the slower rates to reevaluate the timing of key splits in human evolution. "If the mutation rate is halved, then all the dates you estimate double," says Scally. "That seems like quite a radical change." Yet the latest molecular dates mesh much better with key archaeological dates.
Take the 400,000-600,000-year-old Sima de Los Huesos site in Atapuerca, Spain, which yielded bones attributed to Homo heidelbergensis, the direct ancestors of Neanderthals. Genetic studies have suggested that earlier ancestors of Neanderthals split from the branch leading to modern humans much more recently, just 270,000-435,000 years ago. A slowed molecular clock pushes this back to a more comfortable 600,000 years ago (see 'Better agreement over the human story').
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Throughout history, various Biblical scholars have used the text of the Bible to determine the date of creation; there is some variability in their calculations, but the 6,000 year old figure is the most widely accepted. Other calculations put the Biblical date of creation about 8,000 years ago. The person you were responding to (so rudely) did not make the number up.
You can read more about young earth creationism here.
Who exactly were those that believed in a 'flat' earth? I actually never heard of stars being affixed to anything, that is a new one to me. There is NOT one shred of 'objective' evidence for that mystical hot steaming pot of primordial scum. But it sure has gotten some mileage, even though in recent years it sorta, kinda gets set up and away on the altar of evolutionists. Every film made explaining the TOE always refers to that hot steaming pot. Well what happened to it? Who cooled it off?
You have yet to give any reason why one should believe the description of the earth and life found in a metaphorical moral lesson is literal truth, while the reality seen and described by countless people over the course of millenia should not be believed. Despite your claims of not caring about the physical world, your desperate clutching to a metaphor while fervently denying the nature of reality says that you care, a lot.
Obviously you have NO clue what the Genesis account literally says. There is not one phrase or hint or suggestion in the whole of the Bible that this earth is young. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation refers to that heaven/earth age that WAS, when dinos and other prehistoric creatures that roamed God's green earth. But there were NO flesh human beings. Our souls/spirits were here but there was no flesh human bodies. Peter states emphatically there are three different heaven/earth ages. We are presently nearing the end of the second heaven/earth age. When the last soul created back in Genesis 1:1 willingly takes this flesh journey then all flesh will be changed.
I have no power or authority to make you understand things which you have chosen to fence off into a mystical metaphorical moral lesson. You do have the God given right to make that choice. He says He in this flesh age, He is NOT going to force Himself upon anyone literally or metaphorically. BUT I will plant seeds of truth and IF they fall on fertile ground that will be between the fertile soil and the Creator.
What I surmise about a lot of literal creationists is that they actually believe that if the earth was not created exactly as described in Genesis, there can be no basis for faith. So the fact that there is no evidence of a sudden, recent creation is very upsetting. They'd be so much happier if they could learn a few lessons from the millions of Christians who are perfectly okay with the fact that Genesis is a metaphor.
Ah, since you have no clue what the Genesis account literally states you have no basis for claiming anything about the Creator. Those of salvation will live for eternity and they will not be in a flesh body. Evolution is a dead theory made up by a man ticked off at God because of the death of his child. I have no doubt old Darwin gets really 'red' in the face over what he started.
Hmm... so, apparently, even though you think it’s incredibly important to believe the physical description of the earth as given in a metaphorical morality tale, you aren’t actually aware of all of the details from that metaphor.
The flat earth is in the Bible. The firmament—the shell that holds all the stars—is in the Bible. The estimate of the age of the earth was calculated by Biblical scholars on the basis of the Biblical text, and most of those calculations place it at about 6,000 years.
As far as the nature of the earth goes, the geologists are the ones who figured out what it was like billions of years ago; life scientists like me really aren’t trained in that area. That stuff you call “scum” actually was a mixture of organic molecules of various sizes and shapes. The traces of those molecules can be found in old rocks. The earth cooled off the same way it cools now: through heat radiation into space. Its temperature is now kept in rough equilibrium by radioactive decay deep underground, and energy from the sun; the atmosphere also acts to stabilize the temperature.
I could go on about the measurable physical properties of the earth, which have been determined by direct observation and experimentation—but I’d probably be wasting my time.
And I’m still waiting on you to explain why you feel it is so important to believe both that the physical world is exactly the way it is described in Genesis (flat, relatively new, solid shell sky), and that the physical world is unimportant. Those beliefs are kind of opposite of each other. Furthermore, if you genuinely believe the physical world is unimportant, then it shouldn’t matter a whit to you that scientists such as myself are driven to describe the physical world (including life upon the world) as accurately as possible.
Throughout history, various Biblical scholars have used the text of the Bible to determine the date of creation; there is some variability in their calculations, but the 6,000 year old figure is the most widely accepted. Other calculations put the Biblical date of creation about 8,000 years ago. The person you were responding to (so rudely) did not make the number up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thx for the NOT rude reply, although I disagree with your point. “Young Earth” Biblical interpretation is a fairly new interpretation based on calculations done in 1654 by Archbishop Usher. Prior to that, it never crossed anyone’s mind that the Earth/Universe was “young.” Many Bible experts don’t accept that number. The whole concept of creation days being 24 hour periods is new and faulty. It’s popularized by Christian haters, because it makes Christians look stupid and anti-science. An to that I agree. It is stupid.
The Genesis “days” were written in Hebrew. The word was/is YOM. It can mean 24 hours, but it is also the ONLY Hebrew word for long period or time, such as in my grandfather’s “day” or the “day” of the dinosaurs. There’s actually NO good reason to think it means 24 hours. The earth wasn’t even there initially to measure the first 24 hours, we are still in the Biblical 7th day, which has lasted since the Creation of man, about 100,000 years ago.
Further, my first comment addressed the very old universe, so it was clear I was by no means saying the earth was 6ish thousands years old, but he/she chose to go ballistic.
Anyway, I’m fully aware of the day/age controversy. My initial response of “Nowhere in my post (it isn’t in the Bible either) is there anything about a “6,000 year old Earth.” Why would you make up something so stupid?” was regarding the incorrect assumption about my post, nothing beyond that.
regards.
We live in an age where pictures taken away from this earth leave NO doubt about its shape. I have never ever considered this earth to be a flat object. And we in this present age can explore the physical earth. I cannot figure out what you mean with this metaphorical morality. There was a depraved immorality that caused this flesh age to be required. Guess what, the reason was metaphorically called 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'.
The flat earth is in the Bible. The firmament—the shell that holds all the stars—is in the Bible. The estimate of the age of the earth was calculated by Biblical scholars on the basis of the Biblical text, and most of those calculations place it at about 6,000 years.
Scripture please. The word 'flat' is used four times in the Bible and none of the places where the word 'flat' is used refers to this earth. You really ought to check out the meaning of that word firmament. (Strong's Hebrew 7749, from 7554 means prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky; - firmament. Comes from a prime root that means "to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by impl. to overlay (with thin sheets of metal): beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates, stamp. stretch. (Strong's Hebrew #7554) Has something to do with the 'arch of the sky'.
The closest to that 6,000 date is when the Adam's soul/spirit was placed in his newly formed flesh body. Some claiming to be Bible scholars say the days of creation were 24/7 hour days. But Peter says God keeps time differently, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years.... IIPeter 3. The literal WORD repeatedly states this earth and heavens are old very very very old.
As far as the nature of the earth goes, the geologists are the ones who figured out what it was like billions of years ago; life scientists like me really aren’t trained in that area. That stuff you call “scum” actually was a mixture of organic molecules of various sizes and shapes. The traces of those molecules can be found in old rocks. The earth cooled off the same way it cools now: through heat radiation into space. Its temperature is now kept in rough equilibrium by radioactive decay deep underground, and energy from the sun; the atmosphere also acts to stabilize the temperature.
I have nothing against geologists. That is unless they make claims contrary to what God had His elected prophets pen that took place through eons of time. God said He destroyed that first heaven/earth age, everything except the 'supernatural' bodies of His children. One can read Genesis 1:3- to see what the vast environmental clean up took place as a result of the complete destruction on this earth stated in Genesis 1:2. God even told those flesh beings created in Genesis 1 to go and replenish this earth. This was 'days' (thousands of years) before the Adam was created in Genesis 2 and placed in the Garden of God, called Eden.
I could go on about the measurable physical properties of the earth, which have been determined by direct observation and experimentation—but I’d probably be wasting my time.
Well I am sure God is waiting with a baited breath for His creation to finish their observations and experimentation.
And I’m still waiting on you to explain why you feel it is so important to believe both that the physical world is exactly the way it is described in Genesis (flat, relatively new, solid shell sky), and that the physical world is unimportant. Those beliefs are kind of opposite of each other. Furthermore, if you genuinely believe the physical world is unimportant, then it shouldn’t matter a whit to you that scientists such as myself are driven to describe the physical world (including life upon the world) as accurately as possible.
Provide the Scripture wherein God said this earth was ever flat or any such thing as a solid shell sky. It is not there it was never Written. I have never said the 'physical' world is unimportant. I have said flesh dies and will never be used again ever.
To tell young children they are here as result of a single cell getting all hot and bothered and through eons of time of animal evolution they are the result is cheating them. God created all souls/spirit intellect, and HE loves them all. TOE removes the direct and individual connection that each and every soul/spirit literally has with the Creator. How can a child love their Creator when they are told they are here as result of eons of evolution through the animal kingdom. Why they act just like animals...
According to the Wikipedia article I linked, the first recorded estimate of the earth's age that would put it at about 6,000 years old now was done in 160 AD. So the calculation is hardly new.
I don't know about "Christian haters", but I do know that most of the literal creationists I encounter embrace that number, and try to claim everything about science is wrong: the geological record, the steady change of species over time, radiological dating, etc. Most of the creationist websites do embrace young earth theology. While one can argue that they are moles pretending to be Christians so as to completely discredit Christians through displaying utter stupidity, I do not think that is the case. I think there are a lot of people who are convinced that to be Christian, one must believe that everything came into existence in its present form 6,000 years ago. I think that those who own the websites like Answers in Genesis are con-men preying on those people.
The Bible doesn't have a great track-record when it comes to scientific accuracy. However, I try to be knowledgeable about what the world would be like if the Bible were scientifically accurate: it's necessary, since I get pulled into literal creationist threads on a fairly regular basis. And I am a scientist; I think that the decline of the US in the sciences is just as dangerous as the decline of the US in other areas. So I want to educate people.
I did not say anything about the Biblical version of the earth that contradicts anything that was taken as fact throughout most of the history of Christianity. Galileo was imprisoned for heresy for saying that the earth orbits around the sun: a statement in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. I'm not going to go into all of the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible; that information is readily available on the internet. The fact remains that if you do not believe the earth is flat (although the Bible is unclear about whether it is a circle or square), the sun races around the earth, etc., you do not literally believe the Bible. And that just begs the question, why do you believe the Biblical version that God waved His hands and all life popped into existence in its current form, when you choose to believe the scientific observations instead of the Biblical version where other scientific disciplines are concerned? Logically, there is no reason to believe that the Biblical is meant to be a scientific authority in *any* manner.
God gave the Bible to us as a spiritual guide; He left the physical nature of the universe for us to discover. And no amount of quoting scripture at me is going to change my mind about that.
Do not worry I will make a note that the Bible is unacceptable for your eyes and ears. Now if what you typed above is representative of what goes for science in the modern age no wonder this nation is circling the literal drain.
Do not put words in my mouth.
You yourself have claimed several times that you don't think the physical world is important and that only the spiritual world matters. That is not much different than my saying that the Bible is clearly not meant to be taken as a literal description of the world, but rather as a spiritual guide. You also said quite clearly that in many cases where there is a discrepancy between the Biblical version and the observed version of many facts about the physical world, you accept the scientific version; you're just inconsistent in that you don't always come down on the same side when choosing metaphorical (Biblical) version vs. observed (scientific) version.
And science has nothing to do with the state the world is in. You'll have to look for scapegoats other than scientists.
Excuse me? Do you even read what you type. Your words. God gave the Bible to us as a spiritual guide; He left the physical nature of the universe for us to discover. And no amount of quoting scripture at me is going to change my mind about that.
You yourself have claimed several times that you don't think the physical world is important and that only the spiritual world matters. That is not much different than my saying that the Bible is clearly not meant to be taken as a literal description of the world, but rather as a spiritual guide. You also said quite clearly that in many cases where there is a discrepancy between the Biblical version and the observed version of many facts about the physical world, you accept the scientific version; you're just inconsistent in that you don't always come down on the same side when choosing metaphorical (Biblical) version vs. observed (scientific) version.
Talk about putting words in another person's mouth. Please point to the post where I said I don't think the physical world is important and that only the spiritual world matters.? You will not find it.
You said Galileo was imprisoned for heresy for saying that the earth orbits around the sun: a statement in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. So was Galileo wrong? He was not the one committing heresy. You cannot produce one single Scripture that the Bible says the earth does not orbit around the sun.
And science has nothing to do with the state the world is in. You'll have to look for scapegoats other than scientists.
This nation turned over the education of its young to the scientific methodology when the supremes made TOE fittest to survive. Liberalism never takes responsibility for what it creates.
I am very aware of what I typed, and how utterly inappropriate your response was. To recap:
I said: God gave the Bible to us as a spiritual guide; He left the physical nature of the universe for us to discover. And no amount of quoting scripture at me is going to change my mind about that.
To which you answered: Do not worry I will make a note that the Bible is unacceptable for your eyes and ears. Now if what you typed above is representative of what goes for science in the modern age no wonder this nation is circling the literal drain.
I have no idea what you imagined I was implying with that statement, but it clearly has nothing to do with what I actually said. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science text, and no amount of quoting scripture is going to change that. Don't read into that things I didn't say.
Talk about putting words in another person's mouth. Please point to the post where I said I don't think the physical world is important and that only the spiritual world matters.?
Okay.
Post 31: People get so wrapped up in these flesh bodies they ignore their purpose.
Post 37: But you assume souls have no bodily form? The flesh body by design was to be shed and return to the dust from which it came. The soul/spirit returns to the Maker that sent it. The assertion that the Creator set in motion evolution mocks Him, the ignorance comes in ignoring why this flesh age need be.
--In this one, you combined your bizarre assertion that only the spirit matters with the diametrically opposed belief that the form of the physical world is supremely important (and must match the Bible). I've asked you to explain this contradiction many times, but you still haven't.
Post 85: I am Christian, and reality is the safest footing any Christian can have traveling through time in a flesh body. Once the last soul created eons ago willingly takes this flesh journey then there will never be a need for flesh bodies again. Imagine that, all the time effort and money spent to prove the evolutionary fairy tail/tale will have been for naught...Once this flesh age ends, the real undisputed education will begin to erase the tales/tails of Darwin.
--Twice in this post, you repeated your theme that the physical world isn't important, and then you contradicted yourself with the claim that Christians must believe in a physical world that is utterly unlike the actual observable world. It may not be as contradictory as it looks, however: insisting that people believe that the physical world is so different than our direct observations actually tell us about the world can be interpreted as a belief that the physical world doesn't matter.
FYI, many devout Christians accept the scientific (that is, observed) description of the evolved, spherical, non-enclosed, billions of years old, sun-orbiting earth--the Pope among them.
Anyway, I'm sure you made other statements about the unimportance of the physical world, but I think I've dug up enough of them for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.