- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: All Humanity Comes From One Couple.................... You don't say
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:17 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:17 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
It sounds like to me you wanted to use a long word.
It sounds to me as though you are out of arguments, but are still willing to try. Go ahead and address the comparability of the time periods you posted. I can't wait to see how you swing that.
Edit: I also didn't see a denial, could you also please tell me whether or not you subscribe to Ken Hovind school of apologetics?
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 1:18 pm
2
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:18 pm to Yak
quote:
I thought Earth was only like 10,000 years old though
Now you are arguing models of time. Young Earth vs Old Earth vs I don't really care how old earth.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:20 pm to Jjdoc
41 upvoted? Lol. You people are fricking retarded. There literally no cited sources and nothing about it suggested Adam and Eve were real. Of course human beings came from the first ever human beings in a chain of evolution. If you guys stop being so fricking retarded for once you'd realize how stupid all of that sounds
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:23 pm to blackrose890
quote:
Explain to me then, how is the estimated average length of time for a species to exist comparable to the current estimated lineage of a specific mitochondrial line.
Both are estimates. He accepts one estimate beacuase it suits him. He refuses to accept the other because it suits him.
Both are estimates. Either you accept that estimates are estimates or you don't.
With him 500,000 years to 10 million years is ok... EUREKA! The MATH WILL WORK FOR ME...
If you can't wrap your mind around that.. oh well.
quote:
These 2 lengths of time are not comparable.
I did not suggest they did. I suggested that estimates are used EVERY DAY in science. For him to attack these estimates is to go against his OWN standards.
quote:
There were women before this Mitochondrial Eve and women contemporary with her. So her 100k-200k year snapshot doesn't trigger the beginning of the species, but rather a specific coding that persists in the species that all members currently share in lineage.
Once again... He is trying to refute the study based on the fact they USED estimates. Yet when he uses estimates it's ok.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:24 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Well when the difference of the timelines is literally billions of years, I'd say it's a good argument
Now you are arguing models of time. Young Earth vs Old Earth vs I don't really care how old earth.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:25 pm to blackrose890
quote:
t sounds to me as though you are out of arguments, but are still willing to try. Go ahead and address the comparability of the time periods you posted. I can't wait to see how you swing that.
I have addressed these and While we are talking, I want to know why you believe that the MOON is actually a ball of gas like the sun.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:26 pm to blackrose890
quote:
Ken Hovind
Dinosaur Adventure Land! Where the Bible and Dinosaurs meet!
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:27 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
I have a Nuclear Physicist friend who could not understand the reading of Genesis. His argument to me was life could not happen without light. He concluded that because of that Genesis is wrong therefore the Bible is wrong.
My response was God started with light. He would not accept that. Why? Because I am not allowed to start at that verse, I had to start at the first verse. In the beginning God created..... to him that was an act of creation. But it's not. It's to say "once up on a time God created".... then it breaks down the acts and in order.
"God did it".. good luck with that
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:28 pm to Yak
quote:
Well when the difference of the timelines is literally billions of years, I'd say it's a good argument
And? I'm simply staying on Topic.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:29 pm to bmy
quote:
bmy
As usual, you can not address the content. Do you get a hard on doing stuff like that?
quote:
"God did it".
Truth.
Next?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:33 pm to Jjdoc
quote:How old is Earth in your opinion? Simple question.
And? I'm simply staying on Topic.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:34 pm to Yak
quote:
How old is Earth in your opinion? Simple question.
I simply don't care.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:35 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
As usual, you can not address the content. Do you get a hard on doing stuff like that?
The content isn't real just like the likelihood that none of your religion ever adds up to your version of truth.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:35 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Yeah I wouldn't either in this 'argument' of yours
I simply don't care.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:35 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
As usual, you can not address the content. Do you get a hard on doing stuff like that?
Trust me I addressed the content
it's not possible to reason with true believersPosted on 11/27/18 at 1:39 pm to Jjdoc
You are too stupid to insult. The fact that they are both an estimate of years is irrelevant as they do not compare similar effects. If I say "it takes 5 minutes to melt ice in the sun," that is irrelevant to you saying "well it take 25 minutes for me to eat this ice cream."
You didn't read the article, he disputes the idea of a single breeding pair based on the lack of evidence of bottleneck occuring in the given time frame. He goes on further to dispute the idea of global bottle necking on the basis of the existence of species older than the provided snapshot. And that the fossil records shows that currently extinct species give the impression that the longevity of species is the stated amount. It was more of a tangent and less of a dismissal of the snapshot, as he goes on to state that "plus all the upheavals caused by humans and our extinct relatives, the finding that most species alive today are fairly young shouldn't surprise us."
quote:
I suggested that estimates are used EVERY DAY in science. For him to attack these estimates is to go against his OWN standards.
You didn't read the article, he disputes the idea of a single breeding pair based on the lack of evidence of bottleneck occuring in the given time frame. He goes on further to dispute the idea of global bottle necking on the basis of the existence of species older than the provided snapshot. And that the fossil records shows that currently extinct species give the impression that the longevity of species is the stated amount. It was more of a tangent and less of a dismissal of the snapshot, as he goes on to state that "plus all the upheavals caused by humans and our extinct relatives, the finding that most species alive today are fairly young shouldn't surprise us."
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:40 pm to bmy
No. you didn't. Your response to this:
Was This:
And that has nothing to do with the content you responded to. But that's ok. I don't really concern myself with people who do those kinds of things.
quote:
I have a Nuclear Physicist friend who could not understand the reading of Genesis. His argument to me was life could not happen without light. He concluded that because of that Genesis is wrong therefore the Bible is wrong.
My response was God started with light. He would not accept that. Why? Because I am not allowed to start at that verse, I had to start at the first verse. In the beginning God created..... to him that was an act of creation. But it's not. It's to say "once up on a time God created".... then it breaks down the acts and in order.
Was This:
quote:
"God did it".. good luck with that
And that has nothing to do with the content you responded to. But that's ok. I don't really concern myself with people who do those kinds of things.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:40 pm to Jjdoc
So, what's your point with all of this?
To prove that we all came from 1 man and 1 woman who had 3 sons (Seth?) and one was murdered.
Let's then assume (because we have to) that Adam and Eve had a girl.
So, our beginning (commanded by God) was to be products of incest. Scientifically, that means we were are products of retardation (directly or recessively) at the rate of nearly 50%.
Then, we abandon our foundation in Leviticus and Deuteronomy when we ban incest.
Why do you think we went against God's original law to procreate?
To prove that we all came from 1 man and 1 woman who had 3 sons (Seth?) and one was murdered.
Let's then assume (because we have to) that Adam and Eve had a girl.
So, our beginning (commanded by God) was to be products of incest. Scientifically, that means we were are products of retardation (directly or recessively) at the rate of nearly 50%.
Then, we abandon our foundation in Leviticus and Deuteronomy when we ban incest.
Why do you think we went against God's original law to procreate?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:41 pm to Jjdoc
I linked the 30 page study on page 3. Anyone want to take a stab at an over/under on how many on this thread have actually read it?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 1:42 pm to jptiger2009
quote:
Why do you think we went against God's original law to procreate?
I can't wait for him to bust out the 6 levels of evolution and the creation of genetically perfect beings. This is going be fun.
Page 8 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News