Hugh Ross, Genetics and honesty with the readers

[grmorton]

I ran into an interesting passage by Hugh Ross today. It frankly, made me mad because Christian apologists should do a better job of being honest with their readers about what data is out there. Hugh Ross, acts like a young-earth creationist when it comes to anthropology. Here is the quotation:


“By measuring DNA differences across several generations in different families, geneticists can measure the rates at which mtDNA and Y-DNA mutations occur. Such rates allow them to determine the dates back to the most recent common male and female ancestors for all humanity. These dates are 37,000 to 49,000 years ago for the most recent common male ancestor10 (Noah) and about 50,000 years ago for the most recent common female ancestor(Eve)11.”

Ross cites 2 authors: Reference 10 is Simon I. Whitfield et al, “Sequence Variation of the Chromosome, Nature, 1995, p. 379-380 and reference 11 is Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science 279(1998):28-29
Hugh Ross engages in selective data manipulation which would make a young-earth creationist blush. Take his claim that the most recent common mail ancestor is dated from 37,000 to 49,000. This is true from that article, but he totally ignores the first half of the same sentence. The entire sentence is:

“Assuming that the Homo and Pan clades diverged 6 million years before present, the coalescence time of the mtDNA sample is estimated to be between 120,000 and 474,000 years, and the coalescence time of the Y chromosome sample is estimated to be 37,000 and 49,000 years. If the population samples are equivalent, this suggests a significant difference in the population genetics and demography of the Y chromosome and mtDNA.” (Whitfield, et al, 1995, p. 379)

What’s this? Eve is dated between 120 and 474 kyr ago? Why doesn’t Ross tell his readers this? He only chooses those values which support what he already believes. Like a YEC, he only sees what he wants to see and that is unconscionable. Honesty demands that we tell people contradictory data. Hugh Ross fails to do that. It is this type of failure among the Christian apologists that has made me distrust whatever they say until I can check it out personally. They don't tell me the whole story, only that which they agree with.

When we look at Ross's claim that Gibbons' paper says Eve dates around 50,000 years I find an amazing thing. I can't find "50,000" in that article. The article is talking about a problematic study for mtDNA. It isn't even doing study on the dating of Eve, although some discussion of her has to come up in the problem at hand. Where Ross got that number from is a total mystery. This isn't the only time I have caught Ross making up things from references cited. One can only conclude that he must have a reading problem.

Ross also fails to tell his readers of the dates for mitochondrial Eve from the following studies which have been published since 1994. They are

Eve date.....reference
200 kyr.......Svante Paabo, 2001
200 kyr.......Alan Templeton, 1997
70-600 kyr..Parsons, et al 1997
143 kyr.......Horai et al, 1995
(and this doesn't include Whitfield mentioned above!)

For the Y-chromosome, it has consistently given younger dates than the mtDNA but Ross ignores such studies as

Adam age....reference
200 kyr.......Paabo, 2001
<120 kyr.....Pritchard et al, 1999

And more to the point, Ross and colleagues at RTB fail to tell their readers that the Y chromosome may not be a suitable tool to study population history because of natural selection. Pritchard et al, state:

“Second, we assume selective neutrality of the Y chromosome. It is difficult, a priori, to know whether the signal of population growth that we have seen here, coupled with the apparently recent MRCA time, is the result of neutral demographic processes or of natural selection. It has been found in other species, particularly in Drosophila, that regions of little or no recombination— like the human Y chromosome—frequently have very little genetic variation as a result of selection (e.g., Berry, Ajioka, and Kreitman 1991; Begun and Aquadro 1992). Recent results of Nachman et al. (1998) suggest a similar trend in humans. It would be of considerable biological interest if natural selection were shown to have been an important force on the human Y chromosome, but the value of the Y chromosome as a tool for interpreting human history would then be reduced. Of course, these comments apply to any loci, and ultimately a clear picture of human history will emerge only by combining information from many loci.” (Pritchard et al, 1999, p. 1797)

This stance, by Ross, also ignores the fact that mtDNA and the Y-chromosome are only a very very tiny portion of our genome. The nuclear genome is showing a vastly older age, using the same techniques applied to mtDNA, yet Ross totally ignores them. They don’t give the answer he wants.
I have compiled a list of nuclear genomes and the calculated ages. All of these indicate an ancestry MUCH older than Hugh Ross desires, and, like the YECs, he fails to inform his readers of this information.

gene..............age of the gene......reference
green opsin.....>5,500,000.............Ayala et al, 1994
HERVs............~5,000,000............Johnson & Coffin 1999
Lipoprotein......~2,000,000............Ayala et al, 1994
PDHA1............~1,860,000............Harris and Hey, 1999
Beta-globin......~1,360,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
dys44.............~1,350,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Plp.................~1,280,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Ace................~1,110,000 ..........Takahata et al, 2001
Pdha1.............~1,050,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Melanocortin-1.~1,000,000...........Harding, et al, 2000
Zfx................~930,000...............Takahata et al, 2001
Lpl................l~910,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
ß-globin.........~800,000...............Harding, et al, 1997
ms205
minisatellite.....720,000-1,040,000..Alonso and Armour 2001
Mclr...............~710,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
non-coding
area on X.......~675,000...............Kaessman et al, 1999
Xq13.3...........~560,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
Hprt...............~530,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
Chromosome 22 504,000-2,112,000 Zhao et al, 2000
Gk.................~410,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
ZDF...............~306,000..............Huang et al, 1998

The inability of Ross to inform his readers of these issue costs him credibility. Only those who lack credibility fail to inform readers of contradictory data. And Hugh Ross has failed to inform his readers of huge amounts of contradictory data.

References

Alonso, Santos and John A. L. Armour, 2001, “A Highly Variable Segment of Human Subterminal 16p Reveals a History of Population Growth for Modern Humans Outside Africa,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 98:3:864-869, p. 868.

Ayala, Francisco J., Ananias Escalante, Colm O'hUigin, and Jan Klein, "Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences, USA, Vo. 91:6787-6794

Harding, Rosalind M. et al, 1997, "Archaic African and Asian Lineages in the Genetic Ancestry of Modern Humans," Am. Journal of Human Genetics, 60:772-789.

Harding, Rosalind M., et al, 2000. “Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R,” Am. J. Human Genetics, 66(2000):1351-1361.

Harris, Eugene and Jody Hey, "X Chromosome Evidence for Ancient Human Histories" Proceedings Nat'l Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 96:3320-3324

Horai, Satoshi, et al, "Recent African Origin of Modern Humans Revealed by Complete Sequences of Hominoid mitochondrial DNAs," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92(1995):532-536, p. 532

Huang, W., Fu Y-X, Chang BHG, Gu X, Jorde L.B. and Li W-H, 1998, "Sequence Variation in ZFX Introns in Human Populations," Molecular Biology and Evolution 15:138-142 cited in John Relethford, 2001, Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins, (New York: John Wiley).

Johnson, Welkin E. and Jon M. Coffin, 1999 "Constructing Primate Phylogenies from Ancient Retrovirus Sequences," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 96:10254-10260.

Kaesmann, H., V. Wiebe and S. Paabo, 1999, "Extensive Nuclear DNA sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees, Science 286:1159-1162 cited by John Relethford, 2001, Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins, (New York: John Wiley).

Paabo, Svante, “Human Evolution,” Trends Cell Biology, 9, p. M14.

Parsons, Thomas, J. “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, 15(1997):363

Pritchard, Jonathan, K, et al, 1999 “Population Growth of Human Y Chromosome: A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites,” Mol. Biol. Evol. 16(12) 1791-1798

Templeton, Alan R.,1997. "Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis with Mitochondrial DNA Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York: Aldine de Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360, p. 329-330

Whitfield, Simon I. et al, “Sequence Variation of the Chromosome, Nature, 378(1995), p. 379-380.

Zhao, Zhongming et al, “Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10-kilobase noncoding region on human chromosome 22” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 21, 11354-11358, October 10, 2000

[kofh2u]

I ran into an interesting passage by Hugh Ross today. It frankly, made me mad because Christian apologists should do a better job of being honest with their readers about what data is out there. Hugh Ross, acts like a young-earth creationist when it comes to anthropology. Here is the quotation:


“By measuring DNA differences across several generations in different families, geneticists can measure the rates at which mtDNA and Y-DNA mutations occur. Such rates allow them to determine the dates back to the most recent common male and female ancestors for all humanity. These dates are 37,000 to 49,000 years ago for the most recent common male ancestor10 (Noah) and about 50,000 years ago for the most recent common female ancestor(Eve)11.”

Ross cites 2 authors: Reference 10 is Simon I. Whitfield et al, “Sequence Variation of the Chromosome, Nature, 1995, p. 379-380 and reference 11 is Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science 279(1998):28-29
Hugh Ross engages in selective data manipulation which would make a young-earth creationist blush. Take his claim that the most recent common mail ancestor is dated from 37,000 to 49,000. This is true from that article, but he totally ignores the first half of the same sentence. The entire sentence is:

“Assuming that the Homo and Pan clades diverged 6 million years before present, the coalescence time of the mtDNA sample is estimated to be between 120,000 and 474,000 years, and the coalescence time of the Y chromosome sample is estimated to be 37,000 and 49,000 years. If the population samples are equivalent, this suggests a significant difference in the population genetics and demography of the Y chromosome and mtDNA.” (Whitfield, et al, 1995, p. 379)

What’s this? Eve is dated between 120 and 474 kyr ago? Why doesn’t Ross tell his readers this? He only chooses those values which support what he already believes. Like a YEC, he only sees what he wants to see and that is unconscionable. Honesty demands that we tell people contradictory data. Hugh Ross fails to do that. It is this type of failure among the Christian apologists that has made me distrust whatever they say until I can check it out personally. They don't tell me the whole story, only that which they agree with.

When we look at Ross's claim that Gibbons' paper says Eve dates around 50,000 years I find an amazing thing. I can't find "50,000" in that article. The article is talking about a problematic study for mtDNA. It isn't even doing study on the dating of Eve, although some discussion of her has to come up in the problem at hand. Where Ross got that number from is a total mystery. This isn't the only time I have caught Ross making up things from references cited. One can only conclude that he must have a reading problem.

Ross also fails to tell his readers of the dates for mitochondrial Eve from the following studies which have been published since 1994. They are

Eve date.....reference
200 kyr.......Svante Paabo, 2001
200 kyr.......Alan Templeton, 1997
70-600 kyr..Parsons, et al 1997
143 kyr.......Horai et al, 1995
(and this doesn't include Whitfield mentioned above!)

For the Y-chromosome, it has consistently given younger dates than the mtDNA but Ross ignores such studies as

Adam age....reference
200 kyr.......Paabo, 2001
<120 kyr.....Pritchard et al, 1999

And more to the point, Ross and colleagues at RTB fail to tell their readers that the Y chromosome may not be a suitable tool to study population history because of natural selection. Pritchard et al, state:

“Second, we assume selective neutrality of the Y chromosome. It is difficult, a priori, to know whether the signal of population growth that we have seen here, coupled with the apparently recent MRCA time, is the result of neutral demographic processes or of natural selection. It has been found in other species, particularly in Drosophila, that regions of little or no recombination— like the human Y chromosome—frequently have very little genetic variation as a result of selection (e.g., Berry, Ajioka, and Kreitman 1991; Begun and Aquadro 1992). Recent results of Nachman et al. (1998) suggest a similar trend in humans. It would be of considerable biological interest if natural selection were shown to have been an important force on the human Y chromosome, but the value of the Y chromosome as a tool for interpreting human history would then be reduced. Of course, these comments apply to any loci, and ultimately a clear picture of human history will emerge only by combining information from many loci.” (Pritchard et al, 1999, p. 1797)

This stance, by Ross, also ignores the fact that mtDNA and the Y-chromosome are only a very very tiny portion of our genome. The nuclear genome is showing a vastly older age, using the same techniques applied to mtDNA, yet Ross totally ignores them. They don’t give the answer he wants.
I have compiled a list of nuclear genomes and the calculated ages. All of these indicate an ancestry MUCH older than Hugh Ross desires, and, like the YECs, he fails to inform his readers of this information.

gene..............age of the gene......reference
green opsin.....>5,500,000.............Ayala et al, 1994
HERVs............~5,000,000............Johnson & Coffin 1999
Lipoprotein......~2,000,000............Ayala et al, 1994
PDHA1............~1,860,000............Harris and Hey, 1999
Beta-globin......~1,360,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
dys44.............~1,350,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Plp.................~1,280,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Ace................~1,110,000 ..........Takahata et al, 2001
Pdha1.............~1,050,000...........Takahata et al, 2001
Melanocortin-1.~1,000,000...........Harding, et al, 2000
Zfx................~930,000...............Takahata et al, 2001
Lpl................l~910,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
ß-globin.........~800,000...............Harding, et al, 1997
ms205
minisatellite.....720,000-1,040,000..Alonso and Armour 2001
Mclr...............~710,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
non-coding
area on X.......~675,000...............Kaessman et al, 1999
Xq13.3...........~560,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
Hprt...............~530,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
Chromosome 22 504,000-2,112,000 Zhao et al, 2000
Gk.................~410,000..............Takahata et al, 2001
ZDF...............~306,000..............Huang et al, 1998

The inability of Ross to inform his readers of these issue costs him credibility. Only those who lack credibility fail to inform readers of contradictory data. And Hugh Ross has failed to inform his readers of huge amounts of contradictory data.

References

Alonso, Santos and John A. L. Armour, 2001, “A Highly Variable Segment of Human Subterminal 16p Reveals a History of Population Growth for Modern Humans Outside Africa,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 98:3:864-869, p. 868.

Ayala, Francisco J., Ananias Escalante, Colm O'hUigin, and Jan Klein, "Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences, USA, Vo. 91:6787-6794

Harding, Rosalind M. et al, 1997, "Archaic African and Asian Lineages in the Genetic Ancestry of Modern Humans," Am. Journal of Human Genetics, 60:772-789.

Harding, Rosalind M., et al, 2000. “Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R,” Am. J. Human Genetics, 66(2000):1351-1361.

Harris, Eugene and Jody Hey, "X Chromosome Evidence for Ancient Human Histories" Proceedings Nat'l Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 96:3320-3324

Horai, Satoshi, et al, "Recent African Origin of Modern Humans Revealed by Complete Sequences of Hominoid mitochondrial DNAs," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92(1995):532-536, p. 532

Huang, W., Fu Y-X, Chang BHG, Gu X, Jorde L.B. and Li W-H, 1998, "Sequence Variation in ZFX Introns in Human Populations," Molecular Biology and Evolution 15:138-142 cited in John Relethford, 2001, Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins, (New York: John Wiley).

Johnson, Welkin E. and Jon M. Coffin, 1999 "Constructing Primate Phylogenies from Ancient Retrovirus Sequences," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 96:10254-10260.

Kaesmann, H., V. Wiebe and S. Paabo, 1999, "Extensive Nuclear DNA sequence Diversity Among Chimpanzees, Science 286:1159-1162 cited by John Relethford, 2001, Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins, (New York: John Wiley).

Paabo, Svante, “Human Evolution,” Trends Cell Biology, 9, p. M14.

Parsons, Thomas, J. “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, 15(1997):363

Pritchard, Jonathan, K, et al, 1999 “Population Growth of Human Y Chromosome: A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites,” Mol. Biol. Evol. 16(12) 1791-1798

Templeton, Alan R.,1997. "Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis with Mitochondrial DNA Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York: Aldine de Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360, p. 329-330

Whitfield, Simon I. et al, “Sequence Variation of the Chromosome, Nature, 378(1995), p. 379-380.

Zhao, Zhongming et al, “Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10-kilobase noncoding region on human chromosome 22” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 21, 11354-11358, October 10, 2000

Mr Morton,

You make me curious about the possibility of noting differentiations on Y-chromosomes over such a short period of time as indicated in the article in journal Lancet. What are your comments on this exerpt, I do not have the actual article?

"The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron."

The implied significance has been stated as follows:

"Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to
point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of
Aaron, at @1200 BC"

[grmorton]

Mr Morton,

You make me curious about the possibility of noting differentiations on Y-chromosomes over such a short period of time as indicated in the article in journal Lancet. What are your comments on this exerpt, I do not have the actual article?

"The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron."

The implied significance has been stated as follows:

"Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to
point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of
Aaron, at @1200 BC"

I am not where I can access my database but there are a few mutations which mark the Cohen lineage. This lineage was also found in a tribe in South AFrica who may be descended from the Jews of Ethiopia and who may have been responsible for Zimbabwe which had statues of circumcised male genitalia. When I get back, I can look this up.

[CatholicSage]

Hmmm...in all honesty, I think you are being a bit hard on Ross. From the admittedly relatively little I know about genetics, the Y chromosome would indeed seem to be the most reliable chromosome for dating because of its great stability over time. As one of the selections says, if natural selection were found to be a strong force on the Y chromosome it would become unreliable, but as far as I know this has not been found. The selection treats it as a hypothetical.

[shunyadragon]

Hmmm...in all honesty, I think you are being a bit hard on Ross. From the admittedly relatively little I know about genetics, the Y chromosome would indeed seem to be the most reliable chromosome for dating because of its great stability over time. As one of the selections says, if natural selection were found to be a strong force on the Y chromosome it would become unreliable, but as far as I know this has not been found. The selection treats it as a hypothetical.I do not feel Glenn is being hard on him, considering the history of Hugh Ross's selective use of scientific evidence to support his positions. There are not any major geneticists or paleontologists that support his positions. 99%+ of the professionals in these fields will not side with his views or cite his published opinions.

[reyvin]

I don't mean this in a nasty way, but if Morton is correct I'd rather hear him call into Ross' radio show (free call, on each week) and complain about the scientific points than pander to us laymen. Go a couple rounds with Dr. Rana who seems very up to date on the issues. Again, no nasty tone meant.

[grmorton]

I don't mean this in a nasty way, but if Morton is correct I'd rather hear him call into Ross' radio show (free call, on each week) and complain about the scientific points than pander to us laymen. Go a couple rounds with Dr. Rana who seems very up to date on the issues. Again, no nasty tone meant.

I have personally debated Rana on an internet fora. I have met Hugh and showed him a Neanderthal flute which casts serious doubt on his proclamations of the animal nature of N's. Since I have done the above and work during the day when Ross' show is on, calling in is not especially useful or easy.

I would point you to a couple of articles on the web which recount my meeting with Hugh.

This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rossrev.htm

This is blatantly false and goes against the latest research. And it is a sad story of willfully ignoring the data. How do I know it is willful? Here is how. In September 1996, I was invited to a meeting here in Dallas with Hugh Ross. I went an hour early hoping to meet Ross and show him the Neanderthal flute which anthropologists had just discovered. This led to the exchange between Ross and I concerning the flute (Morton, 1996, Ross, 1997, p. 6-7).

At this meeting, I was seated at a table with three friends, Ray Bohlin, co-author of The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Jim McIntosh, Prof. of Anatomy at Baylor Dental School, and Daryl Wilson, a Campus Crusade for Christ staffer. During the talk, Hugh made the claim that he made above. During the question and answer session, I stood and told Hugh that there were left-handed amino acids in the Murchison meteorite and that unless he believed that there was life in outer space, there was an inorganic process capable of manufacturing amino acids of the proper handedness. He categorically denied that there was any evidence of the sort. Considering that meteors are part of astronomy I was surprised by this strong denial from him. I told him that there had been several articles in Nature about the issue. He looked at the audience and once again denied it. I sat down and looked at Ray, shaking my head. Ray was shaking his also. After the meeting I talked to Tad, his staff member who was selling books. (I forget his last name). Tad gave me his e-mail address. I told Tad that I would send him the references for the articles and Tad assured me that he would get them to Ross. Here is the e-mail I sent a blind copy of this to Ray Bohlin so that he would be a witness to the sending of this data (Besides, since Ray is anti-evolutionary, I wanted Ray to know that the information exists) Here is my e-mail:
Thu Sep 12 22:10:37 1996
X-State: 3
X-Total-length: 1476 Bcc: raymond.bohlin@chrysalis.org
X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:10:37
From: GRMorton@gnn.com (Glenn Morton)
To: Tadd@Reasons.org
Subject: Non-biological L-form amino acids

Sir:

I am the guy who asked the question of Hugh about the left handed amino acids. Here is a reference to back up my statement that some type of non=biological process must exist to produce statistically significant left handed chirality. I told Hugh that night that it was 60-70%. I was wrong. it is 70-80%.

amino acid d/l ratio in Murchison meteorite

GLU ASP PRO LEU ALA H2O
.322 .202 .342 .166 .682
H2O .30 .30 .30 nd .60
HCl .176 .126 .105 .029 .307

This proves non-biogenic hydrocarbons can be optically active ~Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, 1982, p. 838.

and

This has been verified by further work in

Amino Acids extracted from Murchison meteorite are not racemic but actually have a higher L concentration. no quote ~M. H. Engel, S. A. Macko and J. A. Silfer, "Carbon Isotope Composition of Individual Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature, 348, November 1, 1990, p. 47-48.

Sincerely

glenn Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
*************************************************

Tad did acknowledge receipt of this via e-mail and told me again that he would give it to Ross.

What is sad is that Hugh, instead of doing the scientifically honest thing, mentioning these articles and then attempting to explain why it won't work, still denies that this evidence exists. He KNOWS of this data because I personally told him of it face to face.

THe exchange mentioned above about the flute can be found at:


http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/97q1faf/mortonresp.shtml
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199612/0148.html
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199704/0027.html

I have talked to these guys. I don't see any more openness on things anthropological among Ross and Rana than I find with YECs on things geological. They don't like the observational data either.

[reyvin]

Once again though, why not confront them on their show and see what answers they may have? I'd rather hear it openly from both parties (you and he) than hearing only one side of the story on here.

[grmorton]

Once again though, why not confront them on their show and see what answers they may have? I'd rather hear it openly from both parties (you and he) than hearing only one side of the story on here.

They are quite aware of my activities and could appear anywhere I am any time they wanted to. If that doesn't satisfy you, you contact them. I am willing to debate either Ross or Rana in the gym here or on any forum they wish as long as the whole thing is un-edited and I do not have to give them publication rights for them to make money off of me. Do I think either of them will show up? Nah--they will claim to be too busy, as if I sit around twiddling my thumbs every day.

and if you have heard one side, send them the criticism and see if you get any really substantive response.

[reyvin]

They are quite aware of my activities and could appear anywhere I am any time they wanted to. If that doesn't satisfy you, you contact them. I am willing to debate either Ross or Rana in the gym here or on any forum they wish as long as the whole thing is un-edited and I do not have to give them publication rights for them to make money off of me. Do I think either of them will show up? Nah--they will claim to be too busy, as if I sit around twiddling my thumbs every day.

and if you have heard one side, send them the criticism and see if you get any really substantive response.

I'll take that as a 'No, I'm not going to call' then. If you're willing to debate then I don't understand what is wrong with you calling. They likely are busy fellows and calling them to have them to get them to a forum doesn't seem reasonable.

[grmorton]

I'll take that as a 'No, I'm not going to call' then. If you're willing to debate then I don't understand what is wrong with you calling. They likely are busy fellows and calling them to have them to get them to a forum doesn't seem reasonable.

Reyvin, how exactly do you think a private call or email to them will let you see both sides of the issue? You are the one who wants something done, but unfortunately, like too many in the Christian community, you want others to do your work for you. If you want me and them to debate, then YOU set it up. I will be glad to debate, but I don't think they will and am unwilling to waste my time just because some guy on the internet wants me to dance to his tune and do his work for him. Quit being lazy Reyvin. If it isn't worth your time to get this accomplished so that you can see us debate, then it certainly isn't worth my time. I won't dance to your tune on this one. Do it yourself or let it drop.

[dizzle]

I'll call them. If it comes from the Owner of the forum maybe that will get a hearing. However, I suspect that Glenn is correct that they will not be interested in a forum situation but perhaps some other kind of debate. Glenn please PM me with how I may have them reach you (email, etc) if they are interested.

My memory stinks so remind me if I don't get back on this.

[reyvin]

Reyvin, how exactly do you think a private call or email to them will let you see both sides of the issue? You are the one who wants something done, but unfortunately, like too many in the Christian community, you want others to do your work for you. If you want me and them to debate, then YOU set it up. I will be glad to debate, but I don't think they will and am unwilling to waste my time just because some guy on the internet wants me to dance to his tune and do his work for him. Quit being lazy Reyvin. If it isn't worth your time to get this accomplished so that you can see us debate, then it certainly isn't worth my time. I won't dance to your tune on this one. Do it yourself or let it drop.

Glenn I'm trying to keep this polite and simple. That being said, I've got to agree with Dee Dee in that you're not the final authority on everything science. You and Socrates are two peas on opposite ends of a pod. When someone disagrees with you or challenges either of you, you bristle and get nasty about the entire issue.
Basically I'm asking you to put up or shut up. All I suggested you do is be honest enough to call the man's show (accessible to anyone, NOT a private call as you clearly misquoted/misrepresented or misunderstood me) and present the perceived challenges you constantly bring up to a bunch of non-professionals. I see you doing exactly what the YEC do in their literature and don't really care for that style.
That being said, its clear you're unwilling to do that so I'm through here and apologize for apparantly raising your hackles.

[Augustine2004]

I'll take that as a 'No, I'm not going to call' then. If you're willing to debate then I don't understand what is wrong with you calling. They likely are busy fellows and calling them to have them to get them to a forum doesn't seem reasonable.Would Ross have enough time to thoroughly answer Glenn's objections in a radio show?

[George Murphy]

Glenn I'm trying to keep this polite and simple. That being said, I've got to agree with Dee Dee in that you're not the final authority on everything science. You and Socrates are two peas on opposite ends of a pod. When someone disagrees with you or challenges either of you, you bristle and get nasty about the entire issue.
Basically I'm asking you to put up or shut up. All I suggested you do is be honest enough to call the man's show (accessible to anyone, NOT a private call as you clearly misquoted/misrepresented or misunderstood me) and present the perceived challenges you constantly bring up to a bunch of non-professionals. I see you doing exactly what the YEC do in their literature and don't really care for that style.
That being said, its clear you're unwilling to do that so I'm through here and apologize for apparantly raising your hackles.Glenn has already raised the issue in a public forum with Hugh Ross. He is under no obligation to put himself in the position of an amateur posing questions to an expert, which is what one does in calling a radio show. Hugh uses the means available to him to try to convince people of the correctness of his views. There is no reason why Glenn should not do the same and use a setting such as Tweb to try to convince people that he's right. Suggesting that he needs to validate his arguments by jumping through some hoops you set up is silly. If you can't understand his arguments, either ignore them or do some reading.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

I'll call them. If it comes from the Owner of the forum maybe that will get a hearing. However, I suspect that Glenn is correct that they will not be interested in a forum situation but perhaps some other kind of debate. Glenn please PM me with how I may have them reach you (email, etc) if they are interested.

My memory stinks so remind me if I don't get back on this.

I just gave Dee Dee a lot of ways to reach me. Anyone want to place bets? (oh, ...right...that's illegal). :lol:

[dizzle]

Thanks Glenn. I will do my best to get on this next week and keep you guys posted. I was on vacation last week so I suspect that I will be crazy busy at work, but I will certainly work on this. I am trying to rack my brain to think if I know of any contacts that have an "in" there so that I get past the first level.

[grmorton]

Thanks Glenn. I will do my best to get on this next week and keep you guys posted. I was on vacation last week so I suspect that I will be crazy busy at work, but I will certainly work on this. I am trying to rack my brain to think if I know of any contacts that have an "in" there so that I get past the first level.

I sent you something by pm.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

What’s this? Eve is dated between 120 and 474 kyr ago? Why doesn’t Ross tell his readers this? He only chooses those values which support what he already believes.

What I'm wondering is why Hugh Ross is concerned about this difference. Doesn't he hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis?

So why should he fuss about an extra 50,000 to 400,000 years?

I think he might just say "Oops! Well, fine..."

Blessings,
Lee

[grmorton]

Hi everyone,



What I'm wondering is why Hugh Ross is concerned about this difference. Doesn't he hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis?

So why should he fuss about an extra 50,000 to 400,000 years?

I think he might just say "Oops! Well, fine..."

Blessings,
Lee

You would have to ask him, but he is adamant that Adam couldn't be earlier than 60 kyr ago. He cites certain theologians for support. While I haven't chased down all of them, so far none of the ones I have checked up on say anything about 60 kyr as a Biblical limit.

[reyvin]

Glenn has already raised the issue in a public forum with Hugh Ross. He is under no obligation to put himself in the position of an amateur posing questions to an expert, which is what one does in calling a radio show. Hugh uses the means available to him to try to convince people of the correctness of his views. There is no reason why Glenn should not do the same and use a setting such as Tweb to try to convince people that he's right. Suggesting that he needs to validate his arguments by jumping through some hoops you set up is silly. If you can't understand his arguments, either ignore them or do some reading.

Shalom,
George

You people are making this harder than it needs to be. Yes, Hugh does the same thing Glenn does. But I'm not suggesting anyone 'jump through hoops' by simply requesting a public phone call. Good grief George.
I never said anything about having a hard time understanding his arguments and it frustrates me that you'd say that because you tossed that same charge at me about your arguments a while back and the two situations are nowhere near similar.

[George Murphy]

You people are making this harder than it needs to be. Yes, Hugh does the same thing Glenn does. But I'm not suggesting anyone 'jump through hoops' by simply requesting a public phone call. Good grief George.
I never said anything about having a hard time understanding his arguments and it frustrates me that you'd say that because you tossed that same charge at me about your arguments a while back and the two situations are nowhere near similar.Your reference to "perceived challenges you [Glenn] constantly bring up to a bunch of non-professionals" suggests that he was trying to intimidate people with technical backgrounds. Maybe you didn't put yourself in that category. If not, why not debate the matter on its own merits?

& you're right, our earlier encounter was different. Then it was your insistence on holding onto your view of Gen.2 in the face of the evidence that made me wonder if you understood my argument.

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

Your reference to "perceived challenges you [Glenn] constantly bring up to a bunch of non-professionals" suggests that he was trying to intimidate people with technical backgrounds. Maybe you didn't put yourself in that category. If not, why not debate the matter on its own merits?

& you're right, our earlier encounter was different. Then it was your insistence on holding onto your view of Gen.2 in the face of the evidence that made me wonder if you understood my argument.

Shalom,
George

But the first point is true; that really is the situation. As for the earlier encounter, I didn't at all understand what your argument regarding how Scripture should be interpreted in light of your understanding of how nature is. The insistence on my understanding of Gen 2 wasn't just plucked out of the air, but come from those who know the text and have reasonable answers (ie: Hebrew scholar Jack Collins in Science & Faith to name one).

[George Murphy]

But the first point is true; that really is the situation. As for the earlier encounter, I didn't at all understand what your argument regarding how Scripture should be interpreted in light of your understanding of how nature is. The insistence on my understanding of Gen 2 wasn't just plucked out of the air, but come from those who know the text and have reasonable answers (ie: Hebrew scholar Jack Collins in Science & Faith to name one).1) Technical questions require technical answers. Suppose Hugh did respond at the same level. What then? Those who are not technically trained & aren't prepared to become so would be left in the same state.

2) I recognized that the view of Gen.2 you were defending was a traditional one and that a lot of Christians hold it. What I objected to in our earlier exchange was you refusal to recognize that the view I was presenting - also held by a large number of competent OT folks - had any merit and, most importantly, that there was some legitimacy to proceed from there to a theological treatment of evolution. & it was that latter concern that was the main point of the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread.

I'll be out of touch for a few days.

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

1) Technical questions require technical answers. Suppose Hugh did respond at the same level. What then? Those who are not technically trained & aren't prepared to become so would be left in the same state.

Exactly my point George. Most folks on here don't have the technical expertise so I simply requested Glenn take his complaints not only to a higher level, but to a public one which happens to be the exact source of his complaints. ie: the horses' mouth.

2) I recognized that the view of Gen.2 you were defending was a traditional one and that a lot of Christians hold it. What I objected to in our earlier exchange was you refusal to recognize that the view I was presenting - also held by a large number of competent OT folks - had any merit and, most importantly, that there was some legitimacy to proceed from there to a theological treatment of evolution. & it was that latter concern that was the main point of the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread.


I wasn't being stubborn in refusing to see what you were saying. The only thing that stymied me was your interpretation (because thats all this is for EVERY view, YEC included) of Genesis and your somewhat hostile reaction when I asked for clarification.

[Augustine2004]

this is for EVERY view, YEC included) of Genesis and your somewhat hostile reaction when I asked for clarification.Hostile? No, I don't think so. George M is a far better Christian than I.

[reyvin]

Hostile? No, I don't think so. George M is a far better Christian than I.

Hostile is probably too strong of a word. Impatient would probably fit what occurred much better.

[lee_merrill]

[Ross] is adamant that Adam couldn't be earlier than 60 kyr ago. He cites certain theologians for support. While I haven't chased down all of them, so far none of the ones I have checked up on say anything about 60 kyr as a Biblical limit.

Well, I'm surprised, could you point me to where Hugh Ross states this restriction? It would be interesting to know who the people are who give evidence for this, to know what reasons they are giving.

Blessings,
Lee

[Benster]

You quoted:

"Such rates allow them to determine the dates back to the most recent common male and female ancestors for all humanity. These dates are 37,000 to 49,000 years ago for the most recent common male ancestor10 (Noah) and about 50,000 years ago for the most recent common female ancestor."

I'd just like to reiterate the fact that the time of the most recent common ancestor for all humanity is not necessarily coincidental with the time of the first example of the species.

For example, if humans were wiped out in some global apocalypse, and only myself and Scarlett Johansson survived on a desert island...to reproduce...then whatever humans there might be a million years from now would all be descended from us, so 2004 would then be the date of the most recent common ancestor. But the first humans would still be the supposed "Adam" and "Eve" in 50,000 BC.

[lucaspa]

I ran into an interesting passage by Hugh Ross today. It frankly, made me mad because Christian apologists should do a better job of being honest with their readers about what data is out there. Hugh Ross, acts like a young-earth creationist when it comes to anthropology. Here is the quotation:


“By measuring DNA differences across several generations in different families, geneticists can measure the rates at which mtDNA and Y-DNA mutations occur. Such rates allow them to determine the dates back to the most recent common male and female ancestors for all humanity. These dates are 37,000 to 49,000 years ago for the most recent common male ancestor10 (Noah) and about 50,000 years ago for the most recent common female ancestor(Eve)11.” Glenn, excellent post, but Ross' misinformation is even deeper than that.

Mitochondrial Eve or Y-chromosome Adam are not the "most recent common male and female ancestors". Instead, they are the last in a series of woman or men where they are the only ones that contributed the mtDNA or y-chromosome to the population.

There would be other men around at the time, but they either had all daughters or their sons had all daughters. So their y-chromosome never shows up today. There would have been an "Adam" before them and another "Adam" before that. It's an accident that just one of the males alive at the time ended up contributing his DNA to all successive generations to the present.

The same applies, of course, to the woman. The other women alive at the time had all sons or their daughters had all sons.

[lucaspa]

For example, if humans were wiped out in some global apocalypse, and only myself and Scarlett Johansson survived on a desert island...to reproduce...then whatever humans there might be a million years from now would all be descended from us, so 2004 would then be the date of the most recent common ancestor. But the first humans would still be the supposed "Adam" and "Eve" in 50,000 BC.Actually, it looks like H. sapiens is about 120,000 years old, give or take a 20,000 years or so.

[lucaspa]

I have talked to these guys. I don't see any more openness on things anthropological among Ross and Rana than I find with YECs on things geological. They don't like the observational data either.I'm not surprised. All creationists have in common the insistence that humans are a special creation. While YECers add a young earth to that they also deny anthropological data.

Glenn, it all comes down to what Richard Berry noted in his essay in Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye, 1982. Creationists have tied the existence of God to a particular method by which they say God created. If God didn't create that way, creationists fear God does not exist. Yes, it is not logical, it is non sequitor. However, rather than give up God, they will deny the data. Now, apparently Ross has been able to separate the age of the earth and universe from the existence of God, but still hasn't separated the direct creation of humans from the existence of God.

Below is Berry's essay, so you can follow his whole logic chain. I think it will help you in the frustration you feel when creationists won't accept data:

"The objective of this article is to analyze the evolutionist and creationist positions and explain why the debate is so intense and the controversy so inflamed with passion. We will first examine what is meant by "stories of ultimate meaning" and what happens when they are told.
"We all have areas in our lives where factual data are absent or inadequate to allow us full understanding of what is true, real, and meaningful. When faced with such a circumstance, humans usually tell a story about what they believe to be true, real, and meaningful. The more vital an area of a person's life which is involved, the more important the story becomes until it develops into a story of ultimate meaning, a story which expresses the ultimate truth about life and death. The more people who share the same story, the more powerful it becomes.
"The absence or inadequacy of factual data leading to stories of ultimate meaning occurs in two different ways. In the first instance, the necessary or desired data are available but technological limitations prevent their acquisition. The flat earth story is an example. It was invented, had meaning, and was accepted as truth by those who needed to have a concept of the earth's shape but were unable to measure it accurately. The second reason for data being absent is that there simply are none in existence. Typical of this condition are stories which concern the presence, absence, and nature of God. No amount of technological advance will allow humanity to either prove or disprove stories about God. We are faced, therefore, with two varieties of stories of ultimate meaning. One variety is testable but for some reason has not yet been verified (or falsified). The second variety of story is inherently untestable and cannot be verified or falsified.
"Most people found it relatively easy to accept the demise of the flat earth story when data showed it to be false. Flat earth people certainly felt frightened and threatened as their story was destroyed, but most of them moved ahead with a new and better story about an earth with the shape of a ball. For some flat earth people, the transition was devastating because their story about the shape of the earth was all tangled up with their story about God. Let us examine why it may have been relatively easy for some to change from a flat earth story to a spherical earth story while for others it was not. To do this we must observe the differences in the ways the shape-of-the-earth stories and God stories interacted.
"Those who found it easier to shift to the spherical earth story might have said, "The earth is flat and God is in heaven." The statement really tells two independent stories. Destruction of the flat earth story does not threaten the God story. In contrast, those who found it difficult to accept a spherical earth story in the face of overwhelming evidence might have said, "The earth was created flat by God who is in heaven." This last statement resembles the first statement because it also consists of two totally different stories. Where it differs from the first statement is in the ultimate tangling of the two stories with each other. They are so closely interdependent that the destruction of the flat earth story, at the very least, called into serious question God's existence and place of residence. When faced with a threat to their concept of God, it is understandable why some flat earth people refused to reject the flat earth story. It is also understandable why it was easier for some to deny rational evidence, personal testimony, and overwhelming masses of data concerning a spherical earth than it was to deny God. Any time culture or a significant segment of society tells a story that is inherently not verifiable (a God story) and makes it dependent upon another story which is testable (verifiable), we risk intense and divisive conflict. ...
"Society can get itself into deep trouble when a large segment tells a story of ultimate meaning which is believed immutable but which is also potentially refutable. Why does society do such a disservice to itself? At least two reasons come to mind. The first reason is simple and straightforward. Many of the testable stories were believed to be inherently untestable when they were first told. The flat earth story was told by people who could not conceive of the earth beyond the horizon. Not only that but they couldn't conceive of traveling far enough to see what did indeed exist beyond the horizon. As far as they were concerned, the earth looked flat from their perspective and beyond that the story was untestable. The second reason why society will ascribe untestable qualities to a story which is indeed testable is slightly more complicated and indirect. We can start first with the God stories. Despite the fact that such stories of ultimate meaning are inherently untestable, we humans are tempted (even driven) to try to test the untestable. Many, perhaps all humans have some degree of yearning to prove or disprove the existence of God on a more concrete basis than faith. It is insidiously easy to tie a testable story of ultimate meaning to the God story for when the testable story is verified it also gives a sense of verification of the God story. All is well unless the testable story is refuted; then the God story is called into question at the same time. At this point the story-teller must either ignore the refutation or risk losing God.
"For either of the two reasons, society has placed many booby traps in its stories of ultimate meaning. One of the causes of society's uneasiness in these modern times is that science and technology are revealing mythic booby traps at a rate which we find difficult to accornmodate. As science and technology challenge stories of great or ultimate meaning, they also engender a growing sense of anti-science/anti-technology.
"Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created. . .") and a story about the order and timing of creation. The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. Creationists find the theory of evolution to be very threatening, as legislative tactics and court actions attest.
"Exactly why evolution is so threatening is not obvious. Evolutionists intend no threat to the God story. Christian evolutionists share the God story about who was responsible for creation. Atheist evolutionists find the God story irrelevant to their study of the process of development of life on earth. A study of the process of creation (evolution) is as little affected by Christian or atheistic beliefs as a study of combustion would be affected by who lit the fire. The God story concerns the who of creation whereas evolution concerns the when and how of creation, so there is no direct threat to the God story.
"At one time, creationists demanded that evolution be taught as a theory. Scientists were quick to agree. Most scientists who are actively involved in research pertaining to evolution view it as a theory or concept which has much merit and is generally valid. They also agree that the understanding of the details of evolution needs refining and much more research is necessary before the theory is substantiated in all its parts. The theory of evolution is testable., and the testing is going on continuously. The creationists had made a demand, and the evolutionists had acquiesced. For a while it appeared that the threat to the creationist's story had been removed. Since there was no direct threat to the God story, this should have resolved the controversy and the creationists and evolutionists were free to go their separate ways. The creationists soon revealed, however, that the threat to them had not been removed. If a controversy had indeed been resolved, it was the wrong controversy. The battle quickly resumed.
"The question remains, what is it that the creationists find so threatening in evolution? Evolution does not directly threaten the supremacy of God as Creator because it concerns itself with the "how" of creation, not the "who" or "why." Evolution does not threaten creationism by claiming to be an immutable law of science or the universe because it isn't. We must conclude by process of elimination that evolution is threatening to creationists even in the form of a theoretical alternative to the two accounts of creation which are given in Genesis. Creationists respond to the threat by calling evolution "non-Christian" and "humanist" inspired. This doesn't tell us why evolution is threatening but it does help delineate the threat and gives us a direction to follow in our inquiry. Despite the fact that creationists assert that one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian, there are many Christians who are not at all troubled by the theory of evolution. Let us pursue the difference in response of Christians to evolution in an attempt to understand more fully the threat as perceived by creationist Christians.
"Most, if not all, Christians share the story of God's responsibility for creation, so we must look elsewhere for the reason for the different responses to evolution. This leaves the Genesis accounts of the order and timing of creation to which some Christians respond as evolutionists and some as creationists. Why don't all Christians turn to creationism in the face of the theory of evolution? It is because despite the sharing of the story of God as the "who" and "why" of creation, not all Christians tell exactly the same story about the "how" of creation. We all share the same words but the story is not quite the same.
To some, the steps and timing of creation in Genesis represent what the ancient Hebrews and their predecessors were able to understand about creation. To others, these same words and passages are a poetic statement, and the structure of the language in which the verses were spoken, and then written, did more to control the nature and order of events which were included than did any insight into fact. When creationists use these same words in Genesis they tell yet another story which is that the Genesis account is the way that God actually chose to create the universe. All of these examples are consistent with the idea of God as Creator. All of them are interpretations of Genesis to be found in Christendom today. Only one of the examples is told by people who find evolution to be threatening. The creationist not only finds evolution threatening to the biblical steps of the creation story, but it is also threatening to the ultimate role of God as Creator even to the point of threatening the existence of God.
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.

[dizzle]

I left a message with a representative I was given at RTB and emailed as well. I will let you guys know if I hear anything further. I have another contact to try, actually maybe two, if I get no success this route.

[reyvin]

I'm not surprised. All creationists have in common the insistence that humans are a special creation. While YECers add a young earth to that they also deny anthropological data.

Glenn, it all comes down to what Richard Berry noted in his essay in Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye, 1982. Creationists have tied the existence of God to a particular method by which they say God created. If God didn't create that way, creationists fear God does not exist. Yes, it is not logical, it is non sequitor. However, rather than give up God, they will deny the data. Now, apparently Ross has been able to separate the age of the earth and universe from the existence of God, but still hasn't separated the direct creation of humans from the existence of God.

Below is Berry's essay, so you can follow his whole logic chain. I think it will help you in the frustration you feel when creationists won't accept data:

"The objective of this article is to analyze the evolutionist and creationist positions and explain why the debate is so intense and the controversy so inflamed with passion. We will first examine what is meant by "stories of ultimate meaning" and what happens when they are told.
"We all have areas in our lives where factual data are absent or inadequate to allow us full understanding of what is true, real, and meaningful. When faced with such a circumstance, humans usually tell a story about what they believe to be true, real, and meaningful. The more vital an area of a person's life which is involved, the more important the story becomes until it develops into a story of ultimate meaning, a story which expresses the ultimate truth about life and death. The more people who share the same story, the more powerful it becomes.
"The absence or inadequacy of factual data leading to stories of ultimate meaning occurs in two different ways. In the first instance, the necessary or desired data are available but technological limitations prevent their acquisition. The flat earth story is an example. It was invented, had meaning, and was accepted as truth by those who needed to have a concept of the earth's shape but were unable to measure it accurately. The second reason for data being absent is that there simply are none in existence. Typical of this condition are stories which concern the presence, absence, and nature of God. No amount of technological advance will allow humanity to either prove or disprove stories about God. We are faced, therefore, with two varieties of stories of ultimate meaning. One variety is testable but for some reason has not yet been verified (or falsified). The second variety of story is inherently untestable and cannot be verified or falsified.
"Most people found it relatively easy to accept the demise of the flat earth story when data showed it to be false. Flat earth people certainly felt frightened and threatened as their story was destroyed, but most of them moved ahead with a new and better story about an earth with the shape of a ball. For some flat earth people, the transition was devastating because their story about the shape of the earth was all tangled up with their story about God. Let us examine why it may have been relatively easy for some to change from a flat earth story to a spherical earth story while for others it was not. To do this we must observe the differences in the ways the shape-of-the-earth stories and God stories interacted.
"Those who found it easier to shift to the spherical earth story might have said, "The earth is flat and God is in heaven." The statement really tells two independent stories. Destruction of the flat earth story does not threaten the God story. In contrast, those who found it difficult to accept a spherical earth story in the face of overwhelming evidence might have said, "The earth was created flat by God who is in heaven." This last statement resembles the first statement because it also consists of two totally different stories. Where it differs from the first statement is in the ultimate tangling of the two stories with each other. They are so closely interdependent that the destruction of the flat earth story, at the very least, called into serious question God's existence and place of residence. When faced with a threat to their concept of God, it is understandable why some flat earth people refused to reject the flat earth story. It is also understandable why it was easier for some to deny rational evidence, personal testimony, and overwhelming masses of data concerning a spherical earth than it was to deny God. Any time culture or a significant segment of society tells a story that is inherently not verifiable (a God story) and makes it dependent upon another story which is testable (verifiable), we risk intense and divisive conflict. ...
"Society can get itself into deep trouble when a large segment tells a story of ultimate meaning which is believed immutable but which is also potentially refutable. Why does society do such a disservice to itself? At least two reasons come to mind. The first reason is simple and straightforward. Many of the testable stories were believed to be inherently untestable when they were first told. The flat earth story was told by people who could not conceive of the earth beyond the horizon. Not only that but they couldn't conceive of traveling far enough to see what did indeed exist beyond the horizon. As far as they were concerned, the earth looked flat from their perspective and beyond that the story was untestable. The second reason why society will ascribe untestable qualities to a story which is indeed testable is slightly more complicated and indirect. We can start first with the God stories. Despite the fact that such stories of ultimate meaning are inherently untestable, we humans are tempted (even driven) to try to test the untestable. Many, perhaps all humans have some degree of yearning to prove or disprove the existence of God on a more concrete basis than faith. It is insidiously easy to tie a testable story of ultimate meaning to the God story for when the testable story is verified it also gives a sense of verification of the God story. All is well unless the testable story is refuted; then the God story is called into question at the same time. At this point the story-teller must either ignore the refutation or risk losing God.
"For either of the two reasons, society has placed many booby traps in its stories of ultimate meaning. One of the causes of society's uneasiness in these modern times is that science and technology are revealing mythic booby traps at a rate which we find difficult to accornmodate. As science and technology challenge stories of great or ultimate meaning, they also engender a growing sense of anti-science/anti-technology.
"Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created. . .") and a story about the order and timing of creation. The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. Creationists find the theory of evolution to be very threatening, as legislative tactics and court actions attest.
"Exactly why evolution is so threatening is not obvious. Evolutionists intend no threat to the God story. Christian evolutionists share the God story about who was responsible for creation. Atheist evolutionists find the God story irrelevant to their study of the process of development of life on earth. A study of the process of creation (evolution) is as little affected by Christian or atheistic beliefs as a study of combustion would be affected by who lit the fire. The God story concerns the who of creation whereas evolution concerns the when and how of creation, so there is no direct threat to the God story.
"At one time, creationists demanded that evolution be taught as a theory. Scientists were quick to agree. Most scientists who are actively involved in research pertaining to evolution view it as a theory or concept which has much merit and is generally valid. They also agree that the understanding of the details of evolution needs refining and much more research is necessary before the theory is substantiated in all its parts. The theory of evolution is testable., and the testing is going on continuously. The creationists had made a demand, and the evolutionists had acquiesced. For a while it appeared that the threat to the creationist's story had been removed. Since there was no direct threat to the God story, this should have resolved the controversy and the creationists and evolutionists were free to go their separate ways. The creationists soon revealed, however, that the threat to them had not been removed. If a controversy had indeed been resolved, it was the wrong controversy. The battle quickly resumed.
"The question remains, what is it that the creationists find so threatening in evolution? Evolution does not directly threaten the supremacy of God as Creator because it concerns itself with the "how" of creation, not the "who" or "why." Evolution does not threaten creationism by claiming to be an immutable law of science or the universe because it isn't. We must conclude by process of elimination that evolution is threatening to creationists even in the form of a theoretical alternative to the two accounts of creation which are given in Genesis. Creationists respond to the threat by calling evolution "non-Christian" and "humanist" inspired. This doesn't tell us why evolution is threatening but it does help delineate the threat and gives us a direction to follow in our inquiry. Despite the fact that creationists assert that one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian, there are many Christians who are not at all troubled by the theory of evolution. Let us pursue the difference in response of Christians to evolution in an attempt to understand more fully the threat as perceived by creationist Christians.
"Most, if not all, Christians share the story of God's responsibility for creation, so we must look elsewhere for the reason for the different responses to evolution. This leaves the Genesis accounts of the order and timing of creation to which some Christians respond as evolutionists and some as creationists. Why don't all Christians turn to creationism in the face of the theory of evolution? It is because despite the sharing of the story of God as the "who" and "why" of creation, not all Christians tell exactly the same story about the "how" of creation. We all share the same words but the story is not quite the same.
To some, the steps and timing of creation in Genesis represent what the ancient Hebrews and their predecessors were able to understand about creation. To others, these same words and passages are a poetic statement, and the structure of the language in which the verses were spoken, and then written, did more to control the nature and order of events which were included than did any insight into fact. When creationists use these same words in Genesis they tell yet another story which is that the Genesis account is the way that God actually chose to create the universe. All of these examples are consistent with the idea of God as Creator. All of them are interpretations of Genesis to be found in Christendom today. Only one of the examples is told by people who find evolution to be threatening. The creationist not only finds evolution threatening to the biblical steps of the creation story, but it is also threatening to the ultimate role of God as Creator even to the point of threatening the existence of God.
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.

This is a good point, and I'm not sure why anyone thinks that evolution = atheism myself either. I don't want anyone mistaking me above (way back). I respect Ross' work and simply wish for Glenn to face him with his challenges. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross has to say. That goes for his take on certain scripture also. I'm much closer to Derek Kidner in my creation views.

[Benster]

Actually, it looks like H. sapiens is about 120,000 years old, give or take a 20,000 years or so.
Sure. The actual age is not as important as the state of development of each variety at certain times, and what the stages were. I used to throw out an age for humans of, say, a half million years. That's not far off. But that would include neanderthal and some other pre-human species as being enough like us to be considered human. In recent times, the date has moved closer to us. But that's partly because people are making more of a distinction between Homo sapiens sapiens and the other varieties than they used to! I consider Cro Magnon man fully human. Some wouldn't.

The question becomes: Do we not identify every Homo species as our genus-mates? I do. And that puts the date back a million years or more. (But then, I've got a prominent forehead and a lot of hair on my back.)

[lee_merrill]

I have another question...

“Assuming that the Homo and Pan clades diverged 6 million years before present, the coalescence time of the mtDNA sample is estimated to be between 120,000 and 474,000 years, and the coalescence time of the Y chromosome sample is estimated to be 37,000 and 49,000 years. If the population samples are equivalent, this suggests a significant difference in the population genetics and demography of the Y chromosome and mtDNA.” (Whitfield, et al, 1995, p. 379)

If there are two such widely varying estimates, is it not reasonable to take the minimum as the actual starting point?

Otherwise, you have to explain why the Y chromosome apparently stayed the same for 70,000 to 420,000 years! Which I think is more difficult than explaining how one person could have different versions of mtDNA, or maybe mtDNA changed faster than expected.

It's much more reasonable to say that mutations increased much more than usual, somehow, than it is to say that they virtually stopped, for such a long time.

Blessings,
Lee

[grmorton]

This is a good point, and I'm not sure why anyone thinks that evolution = atheism myself either. I don't want anyone mistaking me above (way back). I respect Ross' work and simply wish for Glenn to face him with his challenges. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross has to say. That goes for his take on certain scripture also. I'm much closer to Derek Kidner in my creation views.

You don't listen well do you? I did face Hugh Ross face to face and then face to face with his second in command. In the mid 1990s I went to a meeting where Ross was going to speak an hour early. I wanted to tell him things face to face and to take the measure of the man. I must say I was disappointed in his handling of the data. So, if it is just a case of facing Ross personally, then I have done it. Stop playing this broken record.

[reyvin]

You don't listen well do you? I did face Hugh Ross face to face and then face to face with his second in command. In the mid 1990s I went to a meeting where Ross was going to speak an hour early. I wanted to tell him things face to face and to take the measure of the man. I must say I was disappointed in his handling of the data. So, if it is just a case of facing Ross personally, then I have done it. Stop playing this broken record.

Give it a rest, Glenn. You're totally ignoring what I'm saying.

[lucaspa]

I have another question...



If there are two such widely varying estimates, is it not reasonable to take the minimum as the actual starting point?

Otherwise, you have to explain why the Y chromosome apparently stayed the same for 70,000 to 420,000 years! Lee, this gets back to my point: the mtDNA and Y-chromosome are NOT the most recent common ancestor. That is, they have nothing to do with when H. sapiens evolved. Nor do they have anything to do with hte "stability" of a chromosome.

What the data shows is when was the most recent time when we have one male or one female such that all Y-chromosomes or mtDNA were inherited from that person.

As I said, with the woman, all the other women of the had sons (so that their children would have the woman's mtDNA) or their daughters had sons. In the case of the Y-chromosome, all the other men had daughters (so that they would not have the Y-chromosome) or their sons only had daughters.

Which I think is more difficult than explaining how one person could have different versions of mtDNA, or maybe mtDNA changed faster than expected.

The data simply does not say what Ross says it says. The DNA is helpful in looking at 1. where humans immigrated from (Africa) and 2. whether other old DNA lineages (such as neandertals) are mingled with sapiens DNA. But deciding the split between the clades Pan and Homo? Not a chance.

[lucaspa]

This is a good point, and I'm not sure why anyone thinks that evolution = atheism myself either. But it explains why Ross will deny the existence of data. Ross has a theory that has ultimate meaning to him: special creation of Adam and Eve. Therefore, any data that disproves such a special creation must either be ignored or distorted. Ross can't give up his ultimate meaning.

I respect Ross' work and simply wish for Glenn to face him with his challenges. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross has to say. Glenn did. Ross blew him off. Why do you think it would be any different on his radio program? Or do you simply want something written to document Ross' response?

[reyvin]

Glenn did. Ross blew him off. Why do you think it would be any different on his radio program? Or do you simply want something written to document Ross' response?

I think it would be different in that everyone would get to hear a firsthand account rather than just Glenns side of it.

[lee_merrill]

Lee, this gets back to my point: the mtDNA and Y-chromosome [b]are NOT the most recent common ancestor.

I think they're saying it's not possible to measure the other ones, though, so they measure what they can.

As I said, with the woman, all the other women of the had sons (so that their children would have the woman's mtDNA) or their daughters had sons. In the case of the Y-chromosome, all the other men had daughters (so that they would not have the Y-chromosome) or their sons only had daughters.

For thousands of years, though? That would be surprising, it seems to me.

But Glenn's main point was that Ross was hiding some evidence that contradicted his view, I think your point is a different one, and the presence of the papers such as the ones Ross quotes (e.g. one of them has "The Origin of Modern Humans" in its title) indicate that people think that they can find the sort of estimates that serve the purpose Ross is looking for.

And I do think it is reasonable to pick one of two apparently contradictory numbers, I don't think that is deception, especially when the choice you make is the more probable one.

Also, Glenn's other point bears mentioning, he could not find a reference to 50,000 years in Gibbons' paper, but Glenn does not mention(!) that the footnote in the book actually references two publications, one by Gibbons, and another coauthored by Ross himself.

Surely Ross knows his own work well enough to quote it appropriately, and most probably the reference to 50,000 is there, and the other reference could be more descriptive, and general background.

One more point! I found the reason Ross sticks with a 70,000 year ceiling, it's actually in the book Glenn did his opening post about. It's because of the genealogies, which he (and others, as was mentioned) claim can reasonably be streched to that amount, but not much further.

Blessings,
Lee