addmoreice vs creationscience7days

[addmoreice]

before we begin, be aware this account was created one day before he sent me the private message demanding a debate. it's a good bet this is simply a sock puppet account.

all of this began because i had pointed out, correctly, that creation isn't science and that further more no creationist had developed a model that correctly matches the facts we can observe.

Alright I'll do my best to address what you mentioned. You said that the model isn't scientific, and there is not much that I can or need to say to refute that being that you just admitted that you haven't seen the model so lets not get hung up on that point just yet. Now there are parts of their model online but for a complete version you need the books, and to this you said you didn't want to spend money on the books. Obviously this is reasonable beause you don't know if it would be a wise way to spend your money and I totally get that. So if you want we can discuss the books more and their other work before you purchase anything. I am also willing to send you a copy of one of their books for free if you are willing to read it. In short they create testable model from the creation of the cosmos all the way until now from a biblical point of view that is falsifiable, verifiable, and makes predictions like all good models do. Also realize that these guys all have PhDs and are graduates from places like CalTech, so where you might conclude that you disagree they do very good science. So if for example you wanted to know how they deal with SINEs then you would go on the site type in "sine" in the search box in the left hand corner. Then this would pop up.

Search results

A Couple of Tasty Morsels
... last few months,just to give you a taste. SINE DNA This class of junk DNA belongs to a category of sequences ... around the genome as reverse transcriptase back-converts SINE RNA into DNA. Previous work has identified a functional role for SINE ...


click on that article and scroll down to where it days SINE and read about it.

I would also encourage you to just click "topics" on the home page then click on which ever one of these topics that pop up

Age of the EarthAstronomyBiologyControversial TopicsDesignEducationEvil & SufferingEvolutionFossil RecordGeology / Earth ScienceHuman OriginsInterpreting GenesisOrigin of LifePeoplePhilosophy/ReligionPhysicsRTB's Creation ModelTheology/BibleUFOs & Extraterrestrials

once you click on one of them there are subtopics to the right of them for example if you click on evolution you would see

Evolution
Cambrian Explosion

Consciousness

Convergence

Evolutionary Trees

Humans vs. Chimps

Junk DNA

Macro vs. Micro Evolution

Mass Extinctions/Extinctions

Molecular Evolution

Morphological Evolution

Neanderthals

Speciation Events

Symbiosis

Theistic Evolution

then choose the subtopic that intrests you and from there pick one of the articles and have at it. Feel free to send all the questions you want, my only request would be that you actually check out the information instead of just dismissing it saying it is wrong.

 

[addmoreice]

You said that the model isn't scientific, and there is not much that I can or need to say to refute that being that you just admitted that you haven't seen the model so lets not get hung up on that point just yet

actually we do need to get hung up on this. you claiming i can ignore a flaw in logic does not mean it isn't a flaw in logic. otherwise we can simply skip this whole thing because you can simply claim 'i am right!'. no sir, both of us have to provide evidence we are right.

so what do i mean when i say it's not scientific? i mean that it fails to reside within the realm of methodological naturalism. ie, not be supernatural. if you claim it is NOT supernatural then you have an infinite regression of explanation which fails to address the question. (how did god form if it was natural? why super god did it! well then how...etc etc etc).

this doesn't mean it is WRONG. this could be 100% completely and utterly right. the bible could be 100% factual, contain exactly perfectly the correct chain of events. but this doesn't make it science.

lets assume for a moment that the bible is 100% correct. lets also assume that scientists have confirmed ALL the claims of the bible with evidence.

would this still be taught in science classes? no.

the science of how the evidence was collected? sure.
the science about how the evidence was used to support the conclusion? sure.

but 'god did it' wouldn't be science. no matter how you dress it up with scientific terms it's still not science.

it would then be taught in schools. don't get me wrong. but it would be of the 'the sky is blue, the trees are green, god created the universe' variety school learning. nothing more.

ok continuing on.

In short they create testable model [sic] from the creation of the cosmos all the way until now from a biblical point of view that is falsifiable, verifiable, and makes predictions like all good models do.

ok, great claim.

what would this model be?

present this model please. it would be nice to know what it is.
a simple link is all i ask. no need to copy pasta. i can do the research, i can go to the link.
if it's testable then surely we can test it and determine the validity of it.
if it makes predictions then we can look at those predictions.

present the model please.

"Also realize that these guys all have PhDs and are graduates from places like CalTech, so where you might conclude that you disagree they do very good science"

um. no?

argument from authority.

it doesn't matter if someone is wearing a clown suit or a cowboy hat or there 'PhD hats'. the evidence determines who 'wins' in science. nothing more. these people could be perfectly good scientists but do horrible science when outside there fields (or even within it). a PhD does not determine competency either, a PhD (a good one) only indicates someone has obtained the necessary knowledge and skill sets required to become a PhD, this says nothing about there FUTURE work or even the actual skills they posses...only what they demonstrated at the time.

as to there 'tasty morsels' article.
http://www.reasons.org/couple-tasty-morsels

yes lets delve into it shall we?

the central idea of SINEs are that they are junk DNA that jump around and copy themselves within the genome as we reproduce. this is pretty simple the dynamics and specifics are complex but the general principle is easily understood. whats more these are the basis for most paternity tests. the reason for this should be rather obvious. it's unlikely you have the SINEs of someone unrelated to you as the regions they copy themselves to when they 'jump' is essentially random, furthermore you are likely to have the ones your parents had. you might have MORE of them...but you are HIGHLY unlikely to suddenly lose all the ones your parents had and instead gain all the ones of some other persons family tree.

this is a pretty solid bit of evidence. so what does the article come up with?

it mentions how some segments of junk DNA have been found to have a purpose and not be junk after all....fair enough. this is a perfectly good observation and true entirely.

and?

it says nothing about the patterns of SINEs you would or would not expect in parents (and there forefathers) even more telling it never actually says that SINEs are of this classification of junk DNA that has this trait...it just implies it.

let us assume though for the sake of argument that SINEs _do_ get selected for. does this change the evidence of heritability? certainly not! even if these segments of junk DNA _are_ selected for and _do_ serve a purpose this in no way shows that they do not demonstrate a perfectly good familial tree.

in fact _all_ junk DNA when taken to an extreme will be selected against if it has no purpose eventually. we know this because of simple logistics. there is finite space a genome can fit in and still be viable. DNA takes resources. if the junk DNA grows to such a length that it can not be copied effectively then it will be selected against in reproduction. simple really.

why then do we have junk DNA? simple again. copying with modification is a very easy way to have large amounts of change in the genome. culling this variability is detrimental to the long term survival of any adaptable species. therefore saving some portion is of benefit.

a more interesting question is...why do puffer fish have NO junk DNA? how did this form? what are the consequences? etc etc. we will know eventually

Brenner, S. et al. Characterization of the pufferfish (Fugu) genome as a compact model vertebrate genome. Nature 366, 265-268 (1993).

&

Elgar, G. et al. Generation and analysis of 25 MB of genomic DNA from the pufferfish Fugu rubripes by sequence scanning. Genome Res 9, 960-971 (October 1999).


to support this consider that a mouse with all of it's junk DNA remove is essentially exactly the same metabolically and phenotype wise:

Nobrega M A, et al. (2004) Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature 431: 988-93.


this article is similar to many of there other articles. it attempts to blind with science in order to confuse the issue. it doesn't show that SINEs don't show a common descent...instead it says 'hey they might be wrong about some obscure part of junk DNA research...therefore SINEs are wrong!'

this at least attempts to resemble science, they attempt to falsify something. three cheers! but the failure to address what they are actually arguing as well as the failure to cite means they failed at that as well.

oh well. still a good attempt and links to some fun articles with science in them.

 

[addmoreice]

Alright, on the issue of, so lets not get hung up on that point just yet. I think you missed my point. If I were to tell you that I had an argument for something, and before hearing the argument you told me the argument was a bad argument, I would be justified in saying you cant say that yet. The reason being that there is no way you could possibly know that the argument was bad until you heard it, hence the just yet. I do agree that the model could be totally wrong, but the point is there is no way that you could know that beforehand. So I never contended that I could just claim I am right, on the contrary I absolutely agree the both of us must provide evidence we are right, which you did not do, you simply said its not scientific, before even hearing what it was.

Then we come to what, if I understand you correctly, would be your way of responding, which is by saying that, it (the model) fails to reside within the realm of methodological naturalism. However, in science, the term model refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena) that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and complete history. A model is much more than a mere idea, inference, method, hypothesis, or rudimentary theory. Its a scenario that offers reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history (origin to ending) of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena. So is it unscientific to have some form of a creator complete a model if there is logic to back it up? Let me pose this situation. Say that a billion years from now (I know we wont be around in all probability) we finally discover all that there is to know about science from astronomy to biology and so on. The only piece of the puzzle that is missing is what started it all, and to our surprise we discover its the guy from the Wizard of Oz (or any being that somehow transcends the cosmos for that matter). Now wouldnt this information be fair and even logically necessary to include in a comprehensive model? In fact doesnt this deal with the situation, if you claim it is NOT supernatural then you have an infinite regression, which might I add is a logical fallacy?

Now to touch briefly of the whole God/super god situation. I believe this is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of God. There logically cannot be a super god because God is by definition the most powerful being imaginable, which actually creates a logical starting point for us to begin at.

But I definitely do feel that you are and the right track to a certain extent with how we teach things in school. Take this text from Edwards v. Aguillard for instance, In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. You see I believe that it is fair to say it appears that we were created by this kind of being or that kind of being, but I think that you cross the science line when you start doing things like pushing the entirety of a religion on a person. For example, say that the God of the Bible in the end provides the best creation model, then we can in all fairness present that part of the model, but we cannot begin indoctrinating the children with Christian teachings as well with scientific justification. So I think on this note we agree until the point of whether or not God is part of a comprehensive model or not.

Okay, moving on a bit. I will continue to search the site in order the find the most comprehensive version of the Reasons to Believe creation model that is on the web, but I know that in the end the books will have the most organized and useful information. So to this I say once again I am willing to send you several books for free if you would like them.

Now for the argument from authority. Up front, my bad, I didnt word that wisely. I was simply trying to make it clear that the people at this organization are legitimate scientists, and not just some random uneducated people. Even so your point is well taken.

Finally into the SINEs issue. Firstly I know that it wasnt a great issue of contention but in the beginning of the article it says SINE DNA This class of junk DNA belongs to a category of sequences known as transposable elements,pieces of DNA that jump around the genome, or transpose The point being that it does directly allude to SINEs being junk DNA in a particular category, which you said it only implies. But I may have misunderstood your point so correct me if I did. Now dealing with the with the whole issue of Junk DNA, the underlining point which you agreed with, and correct me if Im wrong, was that the DNA was not so junky after all or that it is purposeful. Now does this completely debunk evolution? Off course not, it merely takes away the argument that states Why would a Creator purposely introduce nonfunctional, junk DNA at the exact location in the genomes of different, but seemingly related, organisms?

Let me know if I forgot go touch on anything that you said, or if I was unclear at any point.

 

[addmoreice]

OK, I think that we have a contradiction here. You say, Why is it that I am required to show them to be wrong, but then you turn around and say sciences works by falsifying wrong answers. Realize that I absolutely acknowledge this is a daunting task to falsify the model, but the purpose of the RTB creation model is to be the most accurate scientific model and if it is to be proposed it is to be scrutinized. And if everything goes as planned we will get closer to the true model of how things actually happened. As a quick side note, Im not sure if you were asking whether or not you were supposed to provide evidence for the big bang? Just in case you dont know where they stand on the big bang, they are actually proponents of the theory. In reality they are very much in line with mainline science. The two points off of the top of my head that they disagree on are whether there is a God and did evolution occur. So in this case being that you appear to know a lot about evolution you could simply go to town on trying to falsify their evolutionary claims. If you absolutely destroy their claims than that is that, and if you cant then it is time to reconsider your current model.

Your point about us coming from the monster is a great point and it deserves real consideration, so lets ask a few basic questions on that without going into great detail. Is the monster transcendent? Do we have reason to believe there is such a monster within the cosmos? How did the monster come into existence? Those are just a few basic questions that should be addressed. Now lets look at the RTB creation model. They have provided arguments based on science, which reflects the Bible, which they have provided historical and philosophical reasons to believe in. Do you see what Im trying to say?

Strictly from a scientific point of view if creationism and evolution go head to head and creationism comes out on top then you would say that we still dont know if creationism is true. Fair enough to say that the model might have flaws, but one thing is for sure and that is we should get rid of the problems with the evolutionary model and then come up with new models that can go head to head with creationism. The hope being that we will get closer and closer to the truth as time goes on right?

On to the point about Hugh Ross never stating which model is the superior one. Well I think that this is actually the noblest of things to do. You see he simply says I have this model and they have that one. You look at the evidence and come up with the answer on your own. Now of course he thinks his model is best but he doesnt throw that in your face, he lets you decide. Now as far as you having to buy the book, realize they are a non-profit and if they dont make sells they dont exist. But once again if you dont want to waste your money I will get you some of the books for free. About Christian propaganda and its prevalence. I will be the first to admit that it is all over the place and there are countless hypocrites out there, but part of the problem all of this time has been the lack of a model that people could just look at and compare the evidence. This model allows you to do just that.

Now as far as the book title I dont think that you can just look at it and say, look its not a scientific title and nothing in it can be true cause I say so, you have to actually prove it to be so.

Im not sure what they have to say about ambiguous proteins, but Ill look it up and let you know when I find it.

 

[addmoreice]

OK, I think that we have a contradiction here. You say, Why is it that I am required to show them to be wrong, but then you turn around and say sciences works by falsifying wrong answers. Realize that I absolutely acknowledge this is a daunting task to falsify the model, but the purpose of the RTB creation model is to be the most accurate scientific model and if it is to be proposed it is to be scrutinized.

no, your missing the point. yes, i do have to falsify there 'model', it IS a daunting task. first though they have to PROVIDE a model. they don't. they simply continue making false accusations, misrepresenting, and using rhetoric on the model we currently have.
it would be ONE thing if they provided serious arguments against the models they are trying for but it's another to make baseless assertions then proclaim 'god dun it!' which is basically there entire argument.
even if they where correct in there rhetoric, it still wouldn't make there claims true. they have to provide EVIDENCE for there claims, then i can either try and debunk it and fail OR i can debunk it.
they have to take the first step. they haven't even made the effort. they are still playing the 'you can't show everything therefore your wrong! and I'm right' card. this isn't science or an attempt to do science. this is an attempt to trick converts. nothing more. they are preying on your lack of scientific knowledge and your wish for your beliefs to be true.

And if everything goes as planned we will get closer to the true model of how things actually happened.

this is a VERY telling sentence. what makes you think we are not all ready onto the correct model of how things happened? after all....the evidence points this way, all the science indicates the models we have are nominally right in at least part. it's like watching 99% of a movie saying 'it's a murder mystery' and the guy next to you says 'no it's a love story'. well it could be....but it's not likely, and if the person next to you can't provide evidence of it....then why would you accept the claim? we have the evidence. see my point? we could very well be wrong, every scientist (at least decent one) says it's possible. it's just not PROBABLE.

In reality they are very much in line with mainline science. The two points off of the top of my head that they disagree on are whether there is a God and did evolution occur.

science says nothing on god. science makes no claims for OR against the supernatural. the scientific community makes no claim on god. this is a basic science fail. it's like saying 'what does science say about the worth of post modernistic art?' the answer is the same 'it says nothing about it's worth, for, or against'

as to not accepting evolution, this would be roughly akin to saying 'we accept science, accept for that whole part about the round earth. it's flat'
yes. they are ignoring that much evidence. do you take any medicine? of any kind? then you tacitly accept evolution. modern medicine is founded solidly on the conclusions of evolution. if evolution was found to be false our methods of testing drugs would be destroyed. we could not use any animal testing. why? because we have no way to be assured that our metabolic pathways and an animals would be the same. in fact we would assume if there was special creation as the claim goes then god would make the animals however he wanted, and if he was a SMART designer he would create animals in the way most suited for that animal to survive (same metabolic pathways, share the same viruses and diseases, it's DETRIMENTAL for them to share pathways, god isn't a bad designer now is he?)

Your point about us coming from the monster is a great point and it deserves real consideration, so lets ask a few basic questions on that without going into great detail. Is the monster transcendent? Do we have reason to believe there is such a monster within the cosmos? How did the monster come into existence? Those are just a few basic questions that should be addressed.

replace 'monster' in that sentence with 'god' and you get why your own argument is nonsense. do we have evidence of god. no. we have claims of god sure but nothing in the way of evidence. how do we know he is transcendent....why because we define him to be so because we need him to be so! perfect! how did god come into existence? he always existed! why and how do we know this? because we define it to be so because we need it to be so!

again, not buying this argument.

Strictly from a scientific point of view if creationism and evolution go head to head and creationism comes out on top then you would say that we still dont know if creationism is true.

no. don't put words in my mouth.

i said if creationism was shown to be the best explanation for the facts then it would be true but it still wouldn't be science. science is not the only area of study. art does not require us to use science to study the 'worth' of a painting. it still would be true that art has worth even if science can't make comments on it.

we would know it's most likely to be true if it had the evidence to support it. it wouldn't be science, it just would be most likely true.
evolution IS science and IS supported by the evidence, hence why we know it to be most likely to be true and hence why we teach it in science classes.

Fair enough to say that the model might have flaws, but one thing is for sure and that is we should get rid of the problems with the evolutionary model and then come up with new models that can go head to head with creationism.

what problems? you keep saying there ARE problems. but you never state what they are. is it perhaps the fact that in the last 150 years every prediction of evolution has been shown to be correct? in some cases out to decimal places that we haven't even taken the universal constants out to? how about the fact that EVERY species ever gene mapped has pointed at the evolutionary model? how about how multiple diverse subjects whenever they overlap biology all point towards evolution and not creation? what problems?

The hope being that we will get closer and closer to the truth as time goes on right?

exactly. the problem is that the evidence points in a direction creationists don't like. instead of revising there beliefs to fit the evidence they try and make the evidence fit there beliefs.

let me ask you a question. if we KNOW the bible can be changed, modified, and altered over time (and we do know this, we have multiple versions of the bible, this means things have changed and can change. no other conclusion). but the universe is NOT changeable by man....why would you assume that the universe is wrong and the book is right?

On to the point about Hugh Ross never stating which model is the superior one. Well I think that this is actually the noblest of things to do. You see he simply says I have this model and they have that one.

one is likely to be right, and one is not. do we get to teach the flying spaghetti monster theory of creation? how about the Greek one? the Babylonian one? Carpathian one? how about the Roman one? Egyption? why does YOUR creation myth get any more support then any of the others?

why not stick to the scientific model that has the evidence when teaching science? otherwise why not teach alchemy in chemistry class? phrenology in psychology class? how about astrology with astronomy class? see the problem?

it's not noble to willfully misrepresent science, it actively does harm. it KILLS PEOPLE. thats not a joke. it's plain, unfortunate truth. worse then that it kills people that DON'T accept the silly stupidity. it actively pushes to make people second class citizens when you accept claims without evidence (like me. i'm a second class citizen in many places in the US, i do not have the same rights you do as a theist).

Now of course he thinks his model is best but he doesnt [sic] throw that in your face, he lets you decide

thats to bad. because if he has evidence to support his claim HIS idea would be taught. thats how it works. creationists don't try and show they are right, they either try and undermine science, or they try and confuse people into believing there bull. thats all.

Now as far as the book title I dont think that you can just look at it and say, look its not a scientific title and nothing in it can be true cause I say so, you have to actually prove it to be so.

science is not a synonym for true. they are not the same thing. things can be true but not be science. i said the title is not science. thats not a lie. anything that includes the supernatural is not science. it still could be true. it just requires evidence before i will ACCEPT the claim. it _still_ wouldn't be science. get it? i think i have covered this like 6 times now. science tells us about the natural world. nothing more. the supernatural could still be the answer, it just demands EVIDENCE for it to be so. a non falsifiable claim that includes the supernatural is ALWAYS more unlikely then a natural claim. even if the natural claim is insanely unlikely...it's still more likely because we have never had evidence of the supernatural.

it would take strong evidence and zero naturalistic explanations to show the supernatural is likely to exist...and even then it would only apply to the supernatural phenomenon in evidence. nothing more.

avoid the word 'proof' it applies (in a scientific discussion) only to definitional's and mathematics.

i can claim that no snakes can talk. i can show you evidence that no snake can talk, i could demonstrate rather convincingly that snakes lack the intellect and the required components to talk. but it's still not proven because all it would take is but one example to negate the claim. not proven. all i can show is that it's highly unlikely that snakes can talk.

let me get a hold of an address to send the book to if the offer is still open. i never allow anything to come directly to my home for obvious reasons. will take a bit to set that up.

as for ambiguous proteins, let me make a prediction. there entire argument will consist of trying to confuse with science then claim ambiguous proteins don't work (or even more fun, support there claim instead of what ambiguous proteins ACTUALLY suggest). lets see how this prediction works shall we?

 

[addmoreice]

Look all your arguments basically come down to this: they do not use a real scientific model because they have God incorperated into the model. Watch these two videos and tell me whether or not, after hearing what they have to say, you are willing to take a look at their model. If so I will send you the books, if not then the converstation will go no where because are unwilling to even look at the model which halts everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P57YAA1_eeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7B3iyNMBqE&feature=channel_page

 

[addmoreice]

notice i never said they couldn't be correct (i said the opposite in fact, multiple times). I'm simply saying it's not SCIENCE. i also think they are not correct but thats because i haven't seen there evidence yet and the evidence FOR evolution is so strong. nothing more.

let me see if i can explain this in another way.

if someone said 'this candy bar costs $1, poetry says so' you would think they where silly. now the candy bar _could_ cost 1$, no one says that it doesn't. if you also saw a sign in front of you saying candy bars $2's. again, you wouldn't be basing your rejection of the '$1 hypothesis' based on _poetry_ you would be basing it on the basis of the sign. again, they could STILL be correct. but claiming that the $1 thing has anything to do with poetry...is a bit silly.

see what I'm saying?

I'm not rejecting there argument (because i haven't seen it yet) but EVEN if they are _100%_ correct it still wouldn't be science. remember science is NOT synonymous with truth. science just happens to be a very good way to GET to truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P57YAA1_eeQ

he says roughly paraphrasing ''we have a model, we are still working on it (notice he doesn't present it at all), but so far we haven't gotten anyone to agree to our new definition of science' yeah well your trying to throw out how we do science. you could be right and science wrong, but throwing out the baby with the bath water is stupid. science works BECAUSE it limits itself to only methodological naturalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7B3iyNMBqE&feature=channel_page

this one pisses me off in ways i can not describe.

6:09 to 6:13 he blatantly lies. this should be a BIG clue that this is all bull shit..doesn't mean it is...but it's a big red arrow pointing out the probability of it.

heres the argument. we have one man and one women that give birth to all of us.

first problem. the genetic pool is FAR to small. you will get two MAYBE three generations before this collapses and the species goes extinct. the only way to fix this is if you posit god stepping in to fix everything constantly. ok this isn't suggested by the evidence. in which case, why not simply posit a population instead of two? it would remove this requirement...oh thats right, because you would have to change your assumption to fit the evidence instead of the other way around. notice this claim can't be falsified? if you simply go 'well god stepped in and fixed the genetics for the first 20 generations or so to make everything be ok' there is no way to falsify it. ANYTHING you find will support the conclusion.

do i need to explain the whole solipsism thing again? universe created 2 seconds ago, etc etc etc. it's not worth much as a 'model' because all the 'predictions' are 'god dun it this way because he wanted to'.


then he says something that pisses me off. y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve.....this is to imply they are ADAM AND EVE!

This is a blatant lie. if he knows who these two people where he knows they are not adam and eve and furthermore he knows it does NOT suggest a recent origin of humanity. it blatantly supports the OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.

first off, y chromosome adam lived approximately 60,000 years ago. a tad older then the 10k of the bible. while mitochondrial eve lived about 170,000 years ago. this should give you a HINT about how they lied right there.

who is y chromosome adam? if your male you have the y chromosome of your dad. if your a girl you do NOT have a y chromosome. if you follow the line of descent back for ANY male you eventually come to y chromosome adam. we are all related to him (along the male lineage) but that does not mean he is the only one who existed! he just happens to be the patriarch we can follow back on the male line, nothing more. we only follow the male line because when y chromosome adam gave birth to a girl...his y chromosome wasn't passed on and so we can't go back any further. this is answering the question 'where does my family tree overlap yours on the father side? who is the earliest male of my family tree that overlaps EVERY males family tree on this planet following the male line of descent?'

mitochondrial eve is the same thing only on the female line. mitochondrial DNA (which is the DNA of the organism which lives inside our cells, and ALONE is evidence enough to support evolutionary theory) is only gotten from our female line. you have the same mitochondrial DNA as your mothers and she has the same as her mothers. it doesn't matter who you select on this planet, if you keep following the mitochondrial DNA back you eventually come to this female. but that doesn't mean she is the ONLY women around!
this is answering the question 'where does my family tree overlap yours on the mother side? who is the earliest female of my family tree that overlaps EVERY family tree on this planet following the female line of descent?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFOTgvRKhD4

explains this well enough, the first one in the series explains some of the misconceptions in evolution and this one touches upon it.

not a good start to there 'model' when they basically misrepresent the evidence in order to convert people to there way of thinking. are they trying to show the bible is most likely true or are they trying to get people to be Christians by misrepresenting science so it looks like they are right.

do you see a pattern? misrepresent the conclusions of the evidence of SINEs and now y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve....hmm. notice my prediction coming true? again, they still could be right. but this is not a good sign.

 

[addmoreice]

Here are some more links that I have found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4&feature=PlayList&p=C0F4F992866C633F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJY&feature=PlayList&p=A8F8DBA72FC21D51&index=0&playnext=1

 

[addmoreice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4&feature=PlayList&p=C0F4F992866C633F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23

ok, right from the start, baseless assertion! good way to start!

0:00 - 0:44

what has been the cause of educational crisis? two main causes.

1) people being unwilling to teach the evidence of the material when it contradicts there long held and cherished beliefs. there are people who campaign to have the heliocentric model removed from the education system. i would like to say this is some minority fringe group. it's not. it's a strongly supported, well funded group within the young earth creationist group. these people have consistently voted from education boards to reduce the quality of the education programs.

2) money. yeah thats right. MONEY. simple expense. tax payers don't want to pay for schools, representatives can push money from school funding to other programs and so they have. being required to do more and more with less and less money means something has to give. education quality is the first to go. this is undoubtedly the number one cause.

0:44 - 1:00

they have _always_ had an open competition. the problem for them is that they keep failing to make the grade. this is a well veiled 'scientist conspiracy' argument. YOU could publish today a paper arguing the 'science' of creationism. the problem is that doing the pier process invariably shows where they are wrong. instead of correcting there 'theory' based on the evidence they threw up there hands and proclaimed 'fine we will start our own paper system for scientific work' except there 'pier reviewed' system is so bad that conclusions like 'a giant sheet of ice was suspended over the planet then melted and thats where the flood came from' is not only accepted but WILDLY SUPPORTED!!!

1:00 - 2:35

ooh love that one. miss-represent the lemon test to mean we can teach creation as long as we don't mandate a single religious view.

heres a bit of a wake up call:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

that is the first amendment. the basic idea is 'you can neither SUPPORT nor HINDER a religion' it expressly forbids supporting one religious system over another as part of the state.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602:

1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

tell me again how you can teach creationism?


2:35 - 3:55

ok this one pisses me off. this was the decision that says 'you can teach science NO MATTER how it impinges on the religious beliefs of others AS LONG as it is correctly supported by science'

they miss represent this to mean you can teach science even if it has theological implications. He implies it is in SUPPORT of the religion, instead of directly contradicting it as both evolution and cosmology do. (just as geology and linguistics and many OTHER fields of research contradict MANY religions).

the big bang does not point to ANYTHING as a creator. we can only show evidence up to the plank instant. we can not conclusively say anything about BEFORE this instance. if quantum loop gravity theory is correct then the question 'what happened before the big bang' is literally like asking 'whats south of the south pole'. this is nonsense. if loop quantum gravity is right then time becomes a space like dimension at the plank instance and there really _isn't_ anything 'before' the big bang.

if instead quantum foam theory is correct then we can conclude that our universe just happened to be one of many universes given rise to within the multiverse that just happened to obtain a high enough level of stability to become expansive. there is nothing that makes us any more unique then the other possible universes and instead we just happen to think it's unique because we are here to think it in the first place.

lets for a second assume that there IS a creator that created the universe through some supernatural means. how do you get from that (a deist god) to the Christian god of the bible specifically? he is out right lying.

3:55 - 4:20

finally an honest statement! there ARE people trying to force one idea through....it just happens to be the creationists. evolutionary scientists are not trying to force anything through simply because they have the evidence to support there claims. mitochondrial formation theory when first presented WAS mocked. once she did the science to support the claim....it was accepted. it's now taught in biology textbooks. he implies though he doesn't outright state it that the reason his 'model' has not been accepted is because there was no fair playing field. the truth is that creationism simply doesn't explain the evidence and the science reflects this. the part about legality at the beginning is very telling. it's the common creationist ploy of attempt to apply public pressure to include creationism irrespective of the scientific evidence (or the actual legalities).

4:20 - 5:30

here he talks about hoyle and cosmology. now this should be of major interest to you. hoyle was a supporter of the steady state model of cosmology. this model stated that the universe existed, always existed, and will always exists. in this form and unchanging. hoyle was the gentleman who coined the phrase 'big bang'. remember 'big bang' was a pejorative naming and actually miss represents the argument entirely. the 'big bang' was neither big, nor a bang. it was the expansion of space time itself. there was no 'bang'.

the evidence indicates this is wrong.

if 'Reasons to Believe' accepts the big bang theory and are 'so in line with the scientific community' why is he using a quote to support the bible (and how it's inline with the big bang) when he is talking about someone who categorically DENIED it?

lets continue shall we?

5:30 - 6:33

ex nihilio creation
continual expansion
continual cooling.

well what bible phrases are these...we will get back to these later (and have some fun with them)
of course this is something coming from nothing (funny how thats the creationist claim but thats NOT what the big bang says) ex nihilio literally means 'out of nothing'.

continual expansion. well sure....except we have seen some evidence there are localized contractions! he isn't even up to date on the science!

continual cooling...if we have contractions then there is no cooling. if loop quantum gravity is correct or we find more information about dark energy or dark matter then it could turn out we are headed not for the big chill but instead for the big crunch! the universe may not end in ice but in fire (as the phrase goes).

bible authors didn't come up with this. (sigh) fail on knowledge of his OWN bible? ugg!

the bibles authors describe a young, flat earth, with fixed stars in a heavenly firmament with the planets and the sun rotating around the flat circular earth. they do not discuss cosmology because as far as THEY where concerned the night sky was a fixed dome that the stars where attached to.

6:33 - 7:25

he specifically lists the bible versus he uses to support his claim here.

lets have a look shall we?

genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

uh oh! theres a problem! this is a creation of all of the universe and the earth at the same time....this should be a bit of a surprise to anyone familiar with cosmology as the big bang came a LONG time before the formation of stars and much earlier before those stars went nova producing the heavier elements and even longer still before OUR star formed and longer still before our earth formed around the sun.

maybe this was just a writing slip aye? maybe he meant 'the universe...then later the earth' ok whats next?

Genesis 2:3

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"

um still looks like at one time created but hey lets just give them the benefit of the doubt aye? i mean it could be simply the clumsy phrasing, it's not like it's stating it's in the same time frame here.

Genesis 2:4

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

ok...i guess he DOES mean the universe was created at the same time as the earth.....ok continuing on

Psalm 148:5

"Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created."

um, ok so we are no longer discussing cosmology but instead jumping right to biology?

isiah 40:26

"Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing."

ok, god created the stars...i get it...evidence for the claim? ah forget it. continuing on...

isiah 42:5

"Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it,"

um not the best selection to make to support the whole 'cosmology and the bible are in agreement' idea. you don't 'stretch out' the stars in the sky. they are placed in many locations all over the place in space. this is a reference to the 'celestial sphere' idea. the crystal dome of the heavens.
you don't 'spread out the earth' it's a sphere. why not use a better phrase like 'molded the earth like a marble' or 'like a weaver forming his basket he formed the sphere of the earth'

ok, maybe it's just bad prose.

isiah 45:18

"For this is what the LORD says,
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited,
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other."

founded it is a great word there. it implies a foundation like a house. again a reference to the flat earth idea. you know, the four pillars.

john 1:3

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

ok, if it has been made, he made it. this is the argument that IF something is complex and formed then it must have the complex maker argument.

of course we know the whole snowflake idea though kills that one. simple rules produces complexity.

now if you mean this in the infinite regressions sense 'he is the first cause' well....you have to SHOW that first....what happened to cosmology here anyways? ok anyways, next!

Col 1:15-17

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "

again, what happened to cosmology in this litany? anyways. this one isn't even about the creation of anything! this one is supposed to explain how jesus has the right to remove sins! this explains that GOD gives to the people and GOD is jesus and hence jesus is able to remove sin. read Col 1:8 - 18 to get the whole context. taking your own bible out of context to support your religious views? isn't that supposed to be a no no?

Hebrew 11:13

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

this is my personal favorite of all of them. god created everything out of nothing. this IS the faith.....the big bang (in it's most strongly supported version based of the evidence we have and the relativistic model and not the untested and unconfirmed models) says that EVERYTHING in the universe _including time and space_ was in a singularity and then time and space started to expand. this is important. this isn't 'something coming from nothing' this is everything being packed up tight then the lid came off and it expanded.

this is a contradiction.

as for the apostle paul....yeah he supported a creation of the universe model...specifically a strict interpretation of the creation story. namely the EXACT order given in the bible...the one that contradicts known evidence.

lets continue.

7:25 - 7:54

he makes a claim about god creating the universe independent of space and time and no other religion makes this claim.....well lets check shall we?

the greek tradition has a story of how all was in chaos and without form. this might be a very accurate description of the singularity, further it says that form arouse from this chaos and then developed mind.....you know this one (in it's looses understanding) more accurately depicts the evidence.

ok how about the hebrew myth...it IS what the christian story is based on. it makes this same claim. doesn't this alone show he is wrong?

how about the Rig Veda? the creator god Tvastar who created the devine pair of earth and sky....hmm seems to be similiar.

what about the Chinese creation myth? all was within the egg' then the egg cracked open and the heaven, the earth, and the P'an-ku formed. the P'an-ku continued to expand there after for many years. well heck! this one is even better in line with the evidence!!!

ok enough jokes. lets continue.

7:52 - 9:10

ok. he points to Einsteins first paper describing general relativity and then he says it points to the big bang and a 'first cause' as well as a creator.

ok first, Einsteins FIRST paper was a horrible mistake. this is where he had 'Einsteins folly', sure it was a technological tour de force...but he also blundered into letting his personal beliefs dictate his science. this is where Einstein put in the universal constant. this constant was not supported by the evidence, it was JUST there to balance the equations so that you wouldn't HAVE a collapsed state (ie the big bang). so this paper doesn't actually point to the big bang (in fact at this paper alone you could have had the big bang or we could have been experiencing a big crunch, either would fit the evidence we had at the time).
ok, does this indicate a first cause? no it doesn't. Einstein himself argued 'i don't believe god plays dice with the universe' this isn't einstein talking about god per sey, instead this is him discussing another discovery in quantum mechanics (the field where he is actually recognized with a nobel prize). quantum fluctuations are random. there is _no_ cause for them. heisenberg uncertainty shows that under certain conditions (namely the very small) there is a limit to how much we can know about a system. this is a fundamental limitation of the universe. we can not know both the position AND the speed of a particle for example. this isn't some limitation with measurement, it's a limitation of how the universe can be perceived because the more you know about one the more random the other IS.

cassimir effect is an uncaused effect.

the big bang could very well BE this exact type of thing (though we can't look before the plank instant to be sure yet). further how could we know even if there IS a cause of the universe...that this cause is not purely naturalistic? we very well could be the result of a previous big crunch.

further then ALL of this, why would we assume that the rules _of_ the universe applies TO the universe itself? especially at the event called the singularity? especially when we have seen that in many cases the cause and effect rule doesn't even apply _within_ the universe itself.

finally how do you go from the deist position of 'there is a god to kick start everything then stepped back to watch the show' to the very specific and intercessionary Christian position?

9:10 - 10:00

here he says that relativity is the most exhaustedly tested theory in physics.

thats wrong.

quantum mechanics is. quantum mechanics has been tested EXTENSIVELY. FAR more then relativity has. the reason is simple. it's far easier to get to very high energies and speeds of sub atomic particles and do many different types of collision tests...then it is to move stars around and get THEM moving at high speeds.

now don't get me wrong. both are well supported but quantum mechanics has been tested far more exhaustively.

he talks about 15 decimal places of accuracy.....


The American Physical Society
URL: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.485
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.485
PACS: 03.65.Bz, 06.30.Ft, 32.30.Bv, 35.80.+s
Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 485 - 488 (1989)

in this article they suggest that the range at which QM conforms to reality is within approximately10^-21 of a FRACTION of the resonant frequency of the 9 Be atom.....and they expect to reduce this range by 2 to 3 orders of magnitudes further.

this is all ready 6 orders of magnitude more accurate then what he mentions, and this was the FIRST paper i looked up. this is by no means the most accurate measurement of quantum mechanical predictions.

but lets ignore that for a moment. at the VERY end he says 'if relativity is right, and mass exists, there was a casual creator that transcends space and time.'
again. no.

there is NOTHING that supports the conclusion that god exists, god caused the big bang, or that god if he did exist, and did cause the big bang, IS the Christian god and interfered in the universe since then.

all of this is the same as the other paper. dazzle them with the science then tell them it supports your belief system and therefore be a Christian.

this is what is known in the atheist community as 'lying for jesus!'

Martin Luther King said it best (the founder of protestantism)

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

i'm not going to debunk the whole 17 part video. but as you can guess in each section he either missrepresents science, lies about what the evidence indicates, falsely indicates conclusions not supported by the facts, or outright lies entirely.

on to your second link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJY&feature=PlayList&p=A8F8DBA72FC21D51&index=0&playnext=1

0:00 - 1:00

pretty intro, not that great music.

1:00 - 2:00

mentions some other talks he is doing, (i take it this is from a conference or something). but it's interesting how he throws cosmology and the life sciences together in even this one section.

dark energy and dark matter being used to explain life's origins and humanities origins?

sure, just like how you put plumbing in your house determines if you can go to the library or not. they are THAT far from each other.

ok so lets go on:

2:00 -

he mentions some biblical versus and claims they have strong scientific information, far more then genesis he says.

so lets start.

job 38 - 39


"1Then the LORD(A) answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that(B) darkens counsel by words(C) without knowledge? 3(D) Dress for action[a] like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

4"Where were you when I(E) laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements,surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars(F) sang together
and all(G) the sons of God(H) shouted for joy?

8"Or who(I) shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and(J) thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed(K) limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your(L) proud waves be stayed'?

12"Have you(M) commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
13that it might take hold of(N) the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be(O) shaken out of it?
14It is changed like clay under the seal,
and its features stand out like a garment.
15From the wicked their(P) light is withheld,
and(Q) their uplifted arm is broken.

16"Have you(R) entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17Have(S) the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of(T) deep darkness?
18Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this.

19"Where is the way to the dwelling of light,
and where is the place of darkness,
20that you may take it to its territory
and that you may discern(U) the paths to its home?
21You know, for(V) you were born then,
and the number of your days is great!

22"Have you entered(W) the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23which I have reserved(X) for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?
24What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

25"Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain
and(Y) a way for the thunderbolt,
26to bring rain on(Z) a land where no man is,
on(AA) the desert in which there is no man,
27to satisfy the waste and desolate land,
and to make the ground sprout with(AB) grass?

28"Has(AC) the rain a father,
or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29From whose womb did(AD) the ice come forth,
and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
30The waters become hard like stone,
and the face of the deep is(AE) frozen.

31"Can you bind the chains of(AF) the Pleiades
or loose the cords of Orion?
32Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
or can you guide(AG) the Bear with its children?
33Do you know(AH) the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you establish their rule on the earth?

34"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
that(AI) a flood of waters may cover you?
35Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go
and say to you, 'Here we are'?
36Who has(AJ) put wisdom in(AK) the inward parts[c]
or given understanding to the mind?[d]
37Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
38when the dust runs into a mass
and(AL) the clods stick fast together?

39"Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
or(AM) satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40when they crouch in their(AN) dens
or lie in wait(AO) in their thicket?
41Who provides for(AP) the raven its prey,
when its young ones cry to God for help,
and wander about for lack of food?"

thats right. pillars of the earth, flat description of the earth, etc. my personal favorite part is where god says 'you can't go further then this i said it shall be!' (a reference to the tower of babel).....but yet we have space ships that travel to the moon!?!?

did he perhaps think people wouldn't look these references up?

these are obviously supposed to be allegorical stories which provide a moral code and conduct for the people of the time. i don't AGREE with the moral codes but to read this stuff like it's science and literal truth is to miss the point of the passages! (sighs deeply)

ok

i know i said i was going to break this whole thing down step by step but here is the jist of it

this whole video series consists of 1) claims without evidence. 2) claims with references to 'evidence' that doesn't support the claim 3) claims to 'evidence' that actually actively discredits the claim and finally 4) outright lies.

this _whole_ series consists of nothing but this.

 

[addmoreice]

Watch the Creation as Science video that I sent you the link for, it addresses the science issue in the very beginning of his talk. It will also begin to reveal their model so you dont have to keep saying I havent seen it yet. In 6:09 to 6:13 he doesnt blatantly lie. He says you may find. NOT that you will find. The genetic pool would not be too small, especially when we realize that science shows humans used to live a lot longer than they do now. Historical documents of ancient civilizations also talk about kings that lived from much longer than people do now. I think that RTB would contend that we dont live as long because of a double supernova, but Ill have to double check. This means that more reproduction is occurring within one generation, therefore life could survive far more generations. Watch the Who Was Adam video for more details on that. Ironically I could turn the argument right around and say that your genetic pool of a single celled organism is far too small for all life to come from! RTB doesnt contend that the world was created 10k years ago and neither does the Bible for a debate about this, which will also address that they do believe in the big band and that the universe is billions of years old watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI&feature=PlayList&p=E0190D9456365346&index=0&playnext=1

The Adam and Eve issue should also be addressed in the video, and I think that you will understand their contention better. Here is my problem with your arguments that say, we are all related to him (along the male lineage) but that does not mean he is the only one who existed! You are suggesting that there may have been more than one male and more than on women. For our purposes say there were 5 males originally and 5 women originally (the number isnt really important, just the fact that there is more than one of each gender) all of which had the ability to mate. Say that they all have sex with each other we would get something like this

M1 F1M2 F2M3 F3M4 F4M5 F5
OffspringOffspringOffspringOffspringOffspring

I could keep drawing it out but basically imagine that they had multiple children and multiple partners. The number of offspring would get up to say 50 kids being there was no birth control back then, and people used to have more kids than they do now. If the cycle continued until modern day and we traced back the X and Y chromosomes we would not find the common ancestry pointing solely to M1(Adam) and F1(Eve), but also to M2, M3, M4, M5 and so on. We might find people with M2 F5 ancestors. So if there were other males and females it means none of them reproduced with other original males and females or that their offspring died. Either way it is consistent with us(humans) having one common male and female ancestor. Which contradicts you point about the gene pool being too small once again, because even if there were others they were useless and did nothing to contribute to human life that exists today, thus making two humans a large enough gene pool. So I dont feel that they have been just twisting science and telling lies to mislead you.

 

[addmoreice]

The genetic pool would not be too small, especially when we realize that science shows humans used to live a lot longer than they do now

1) the diversity of a genetic pool has nothing to do with how long someone lives
2) the average life span of our ancestors was short. and i mean SHORT.
EVEN when you consider that because they had high mortality rates among children the average would be lowered. most died before 40, few made it to 70, and almost no one EVER made it to 80. kings and queens faired the best but even then they usually never made it to 70.

references:
Hillard Kaplan, ect. al, in "A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence,weed knowledge and Longevity" (Evolutionary Anthropology, 2000, p. 156-185, - http://www.soc.upenn.edu/courses/2003/spring/soc621_iliana/readings/kapl00d.pdf

Caspari & Lee 'Older age becomes common late in human evolution' (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2004, p. 10895-10900

Conrad, Lawrence I. (2006), The Western Medical Tradition, Cambridge University Press, p. 137, ISBN 0521475643

Mabel C. Buer, Health, Wealth and Population in the Early Days of the Industrial Revolution, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926, page 30 ISBN 0-415-38218-1


this is a simple fact and easily confirmed. if they claim otherwise you know they are not conforming there 'model' to the facts there they are trying to shift the facts to the model. thats not science.

ok continuing on.

Historical documents of ancient civilizations also talk about kings that lived from much longer than people do now.

aye! they do! upper Mesopotamia in the ancient days DID have written record of kings and queens that lived thousands of years....also ones that where 40 feet tall (these manuscripts where sometimes buried with the normal sized body), as well as kings and queens that could speak hundreds of languages (even mention of languages that don't exist according to all other records of the time).

it's called hyperbole. they made shit up in order to exaggerate the greatness of there kings and queens. it's actually a tradition in the area to do this. it's not literally true. there is NO corroborative evidence supporting the claims. when we look to other writing from neighboring countries in the writings of it's merchants (who needed to know about regime changes) to the kings and queens of those times (who needed to know about the new person) they wrote very accurate time tables that all agreed with each other.

I think that RTB would contend that we dont live as long because of a double supernova, but Ill have to double check.

WTF?

again,
WTF?


i'm just going to set that aside and not comment.

This means that more reproduction is occurring within one generation, therefore life could survive far more generations. Watch the Who Was Adam video for more details on that. Ironically I could turn the argument right around and say that your genetic pool of a single celled organism is far too small for all life to come from!

except i never claim a single cell as the gene pool for all life.

evolution happened far AFTER life formed. there was a very wide diverse gene pool in place before evolution started up in any major form. before that it was a lot of horizontal gene transfers. transposition etc.

RTB doesnt contend that the world was created 10k years ago and neither does the Bible for a debate about this, which will also address that they do believe in the big band and that the universe is billions of years old watch...

there basic argument goes like this:

the universe had a start, everything has a cause, therefor god!

it's stupid.

1) not everything has a cause (in the cause and effect sense) because we know of things IN THE UNIVERSE where cause and effect breaks down. hawking radiation, quantum fluctuation, cassimir effect etc.
2) positing an unknown and non evidential 'god' for the creation of a universe hurts the argument because of infinite regress....but then creationists (or deists) say 'oh but he doesn't need a cause!' if you throw out one of the basic principles of the argument then why not simply claim the thing we DO have evidence for (the universe) doesn't need a cause and save a full chain of logic. occams razor.
3) why would you assume that what governs the INSIDE of the universe applies to the WHOLE universe?
4) there is no evidence of an 'outside' the universe in which god can act. ANOTHER unknown without evidence postulated to prop up another unknown. occams razor again.
5) if you do the equations you find that at the plank instant the time dimension become a space like dimension and curves 'around' into the space dimensions. asking what happened 'before' the big bang may be as dumb as asking 'what is south of the south pole?'.

The Adam and Eve issue should also be addressed in the video, and I think that you will understand their contention better. Here is my problem with your arguments that say, we are all related to him (along the male lineage) but that does not mean he is the only one who existed! You are suggesting that there may have been more than one male and more than on women. For our purposes say there were 5 males originally and 5 women originally (the number isnt really important, just the fact that there is more than one of each gender) all of which had the ability to mate. Say that they all have sex with each other we would get something like this

M1 F1M2 F2M3 F3M4 F4M5 F5
OffspringOffspringOffspringOffspringOffspring

before i go any further i want to explain the 2 points your absolutely missing.

1) mitochondrial eve lived BEFORE y chromosome adam. by about 120 thousand years. _this should wake you up_ this _definitely_ make you realize they are lying. this isn't some little slip. this a a HUGE difference. 'eve' is older then adam by a LARGE amount and she also would be dust and gone before he was ever born. how again are these the first two humans who gave rise to all of us according to RtB?
2) these two are the EARLIEST common ancestors. not the OLDEST. the distinction is important. when they sampled a large portion of the human race and traced back the mitochondrial sample they got mt eve. if instead they sampled all of humanity AND THE OTHER APES....we get another mt eve, an even older one. if we sample all of humanity and the other apes AND all other mammals, we get another even older eve. if we sample all humanity all of the hominids all of the other apes and all reptiles we get another even OLDER eve. if we sample all of humanity and all of the hominids and all of the other apes and all the reptiles and all other eukaryotes we get ANOTHER even older mt eve. tell me again how this _doesn't_ support evolution but instead supports creation?

i am _absolutely_ saying he is not the only one who existed. in fact i'm flat out saying he was a member of a larger population. thats what the evidence OBVIOUSLY points to. your friends at RtB are implying this. not me.

when you go back in time further you find that men mated with many women, family trees looped far more often then they do now, this only increases the effect, it doesn't eliminate it.

your 'analysis' lacks DEPTH the only ones on that tree that would be seen are the females of the female line (all females up ONE branch, EVERYTHING on the males line is ignored with mt analysis, thats what you keep missing).

could keep drawing it out but basically imagine that they had multiple children and multiple partners. The number of offspring would get up to say 50 kids being there was no birth control back then, and people used to have more kids than they do now.

<jaw drops to the floor>

i'm going to assume you didn't think about that before you wrote it and it was an obvious mistake you don't want me to go over (though i will anyways).

1) the reason they had many offspring is because most of them died before making it to 'breeding' age. almost all of them in fact.
2) try to think about the number 50. really consider it hard. how many YEARS of gestation period are involved there. how long was the average life span? how many years where taken up in the time before maturity? taken into account the 50 / 50 birth rate of males to females. take into count the normal male ego and how it responds to being deprived of female attention as well as knowing another male has more then one mate....take into consideration the amount of RESOURCES needed for 50 offspring and how strong a community with how much effort it would take to support that number of children at one time if EVERYONE was doing that.

yeah. try again. most families had between 5 and 8 children and most of the time they only got to 'keep' 1 or 2 all the way through to adult hood. it wasn't till slightly before the industrial revolution that the population boom started to occur (and thats because previous breeding habits meet science and it's help).

If the cycle continued until modern day and we traced back the X and Y chromosomes we would not find the common ancestry pointing solely to M1(Adam) and F1(Eve), but also to M2, M3, M4, M5 and so on

again your missing the point. most RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR along the matriarchal/patriarchial lines. your father would be counted for y chromosome adam, as would your grandpa on your fathers side. but NOT your mothers father. see how that works? only up the father line. one line. single. UNO!

So if there were other males and females it means none of them reproduced with other original males and females or that their offspring died.

<sarcasm on> sure just like how your mothers father didn't give you his y chromosome and so HE never bred. <sarcasm off>

Either way it is consistent with us(humans) having one common male and female ancestor.

jets have wheels. cars have wheels. jets go fast, cars go fast, jets can make it around the world in a few hours, therefore cars can make it around the world in a few hours.

some how i think you need to review your 'logic'

just because all of humanity shares a common ancestor does not mean we came from only one ancestor.

just because i share the same family tree with my cousin does not mean that there was only one person we came from.

Which contradicts you point about the gene pool being too small once again, because even if there were others they were useless and did nothing to contribute to human life that exists today, thus making two humans a large enough gene pool.

see my earlier comment about your mothers father not contributing to your existence. if you finally understand where your going wrong then you can answer the following for yourself:

So I dont feel that they have been just twisting science and telling lies to mislead you.

yeah, they have.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

My (non-existant) god.......

That was a large debate, wish I could find someone to debate me like that, most of the time they just run off and hide under a rock with their "Jesus Goggles" placed firmly on their head.

 

[e2iPi]

Wow, me too. I can't seem to get anybody to debate me about anything

I was thinking of becoming a creationist for a day or two just so I could have a good debate, but then I realized that I actually like to win my debates

i^2

 

[addmoreice]

a long debate is the other debate i had which is hosted on the old archive site. that one goes on for page after page.
here is the link if you want to see that one:


http://leagueofreason.forums-free.c...524.html?sid=64e36fe1eaedd32ed4458b05b4d1190b