Why do college students buy new science books each year ???
Because of science is dynamic.
Posted on 08/27/2011 10:07:19 AM PDT by fishtank
National Public Radio recently interviewed Trinity Western University biologist Dennis Venema, who stated his belief that humans did not descend from Adam and Eve.1 Venema, an evangelical evolutionist, claimed that genetics studies show "there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple."2 Do the data really contradict the biblical account of human history?
"Given the genetic variation of people today, [Venema] says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history," NPR reported.2 But this claim fails for three reasons. First, it relies on the presumption of "evolutionary history," not scientific data. Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible. Third, a descent from Adam and Eve actually does explain the patterns in modern human genetics....
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
At one point I came across a rabbinical source who reconciled Genesis with evolution by saying that Adam was the first "spiritually aware" human, and thus the first human with a soul. Thus, when Cain went off and found a wife, this was not an unmentioned sister from Adam and Eve, but one of the non-spiritually-aware humans who already existed.
All this evolution vs creationism mixed with racial bias(remember Lucy the black African ‘mother of humanity’ or some such?)is idle diversion. Faith will prove out. Each of us will know when we die.
An inerrant HISTORY book? Really?
Where did Cain's wife come from? At the point that he knew his wife, Eve only had two children: Cain and Abel. Perhaps that "inerrant" history book is incomplete?
I'll grant you it's inerrant in terms of spiritual truths, but scientific and historical accuracy? That's a serious stretch. See the whole problem of Cain's wife.
Why do college students buy new science books each year ???
Because of science is dynamic.
Popcorn is popcorn even if its evolution was not directly observed.
As far I am aware - no matter how young or old your parents are when you are born - each child comes into the world the product of two people - ergo - two parents. That's the math of it.
AND each person born has, biologically, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - and so on....it doubles each generation back: In the 14th generation, each person has over 4,000 ancestors - with the same number between him/her and that generation.p>So far as I know, that's the 'system - each person is the product of two parents, whether the parents were 16 or 46 at the time.
Societies/customs come and go over time - and NO ONE"S ancestry comes on down through hundreds of years from just one of them. People have, throughout history, done a lot of traveling and our ancestry branches out to ancestors from all over the world and numerous ethnic groups that most people have no clue about and would never guess.
It evens out over time.
The same amount of ancestors.
BTW way, I have some of my ancestral lines back to the 3rd century. And in the process have become somewhat familiar with what I'm talking about.
First.
I am not trying to be critical of you.
But your reasoning is wrong.
According to your theory, if somewhere on the planet a child is born, then that somehow increases the number of ancestors I HAVE.
(It was your statement that EAch of us have the same number of ancestors)
If that child then grows and has children of his own, that increases the number of my ancestors!
Based on the same statement.
In mathematics, this is called open set theory and has to do with making lists in what’s called an ORDINAL sense versus what’s called a CARDINAL sense.
Whatever you may chose to believe, I’m not gonna lose sleep over it. And no matter what, I do applaud your efforts to apply logic.
But it just doesn’t work that way.
regards,
djf
What do you believe about the Flood, by the way?
Humans are genetically not apes. The closeness in DNA is another AGW-like “hide the decline” propaganda ploy.
There’s a lot of lying and wishful thinking in the interpretations in the fossil record. Case in point: Ardi from a year or so ago was an ape, notaink
Baloney. Modern “science”, whether it’s global warming or evolution, is a laughingstock of preconceived notions driving the whoring of dollars in the brothels of big science.
Fishtank, PhD in engineering
“not a link” ... Typing on an iPod ...
(A proud descendant of monkeys, reptiles, fish, and worm-like creatures, all of which are now extinct, the poor dears. No room in the Ark, I guess)
It is easy to debate creationists, but strangely they ALWAYS WIN.... so long as they are the judges.
You don’t know what a theory is, but seeming to be confusing theory with speculation.
The fact of gravity are beyond dispute, but gravitational theory is an unfinished project.
fishtank: "Baloney. Modern “science”, whether it’s global warming or evolution, is a laughingstock of preconceived notions driving the whoring of dollars in the brothels of big science.
Fishtank, PhD in engineering"
I'll grant you that "anthropogenic global warming" is a case in point -- an unholy alliance of corruptible scientists and wholly corrupt politicians.
But evolution theory is a different matter, for one: since its genesis goes back to times before government grants played a major role in scientific "research".
For another: evolution theory is based on the confirmed observations of evolution fact, namely descent with modifications and natural selection.
So evolution theory merely extends evolution facts backwards in time -- millions and billions of years -- to hypothesize that all (or nearly all) life on earth descended from common ancestors.
Confirmations of the evolution hypothesis -- making it a theory -- come from the fossil record, from DNA analysis and through inputs from nearly every other branch of science.
On the other hand, scientifically recognized evidence disputing, much less disproving, evolution is nonexistent.
Nor is there a scientifically recognized alternate theory to evolution.
Indeed, as these many threads amply demonstrate, the "alternate theory" most often proposed is not scientifically based at all, but rather descends directly, without much "evolution", from the Bible.
So your argument has to be that scientist -- all of them -- are corrupted to the core by Big Government, which wants to take over the role of God, and therefore, you say, the Bible should be considered more scientific than science.
I'd call that a logical stretch which does not bear scrutiny.
fishtank: "There’s a lot of lying and wishful thinking in the interpretations in the fossil record. Case in point: Ardi from a year or so ago was an ape, notaink" [presumably: "not a link"]
Current thinking on "Ardi":
"Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus.
Two species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago[1] during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).[2]..."...A. ramidus was named in September 1994.
The first fossil find was dated to 4.4 million years ago based on its interval between two volcanic strata: the basal Gaala Tuff Complex (GATC) and the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (DABT).[3]"...More fragments were recovered in 1994, amounting to 45% of the total skeleton.
This fossil was originally described as a species of Australopithecus, but White and his colleagues later published a note in the same journal renaming the fossil under a new genus, Ardipithecus.
Between 1999 and 2003, a multidisciplinary team led by Sileshi Semaw discovered bones and teeth of nine A. ramidus individuals at As Duma in the Gona Western Margin of Ethiopia's Afar Region.[5]
The fossils were dated to between 4.32 and 4.51 million years old..."
Map of the fossil sites of the earliest hominids:
Genera of the Hominini "Tribe":
Wonderful example of a "drive-by" lack of thinking posting. It's also a perfect example of Ann Coulters recent article
Its probably an historical event - don’t know about the details though. The part about the flood story I don’t understand is the one about the daughters of men and the giants in the earth.
I think there is a lot of history and a lot of symbolism and allegory in the Bible. We have to read it and figure out what God is telling us. Sometimes its pretty obvious - such as the ten commandments and the REPEATED injunctions against the Israelites NOT to do what the evil nations before them did (such as depraved sexual practices, offering their children as a sacrifice to Moloch) or the Promised Land would vomit them forth. He’s peaking DIRECTLY to US, HERE AND NOW in that passage.
So, you generally let cartoons do your thinking for you? (Yes, I checked your profile before I typed this).
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.