Even MORE [sigh] "non-existent evidence ...

[TheLurch]

Was there any particular word in my last post that you could not understand?

Get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

Basic rule # 1 of any investigation: the primary source is always the best.

Based on having read the primary source myself, there is a problem with this work. The problem should be obvious to anyone who has a bit beyond a basic understanding of biology. You keep highlighting this work, despite what should be the obvious caution. When asked why, you basically say "go ask someone else".

That's not really taking responsibility for the information you're promoting.

[HMS_Beagle]

Based on having read the primary source myself, there is a problem with this work. The problem should be obvious to anyone who has a bit beyond a basic understanding of biology. You keep highlighting this work, despite what should be the obvious caution. When asked why, you basically say "go ask someone else".

That's not really taking responsibility for the information you're promoting.

Pretty sure no one's ever used "taking responsibility" when describing Jorge's posts at TWeb.

[Roy]

I care the WORLD about science! That is precisely why - for decades - I've taken on the mission to seek out and expose science pretenders, pseudo-scientists and those that wish to promote Materialistic and other anti-Christian ideologies under the guise of "science".

When exactly were you going to exposeKent Hovind over his manufacture of a quote supposedly from 1975 about a mammoth (Dima) that wasn't unearthed until 1977?

Or does Hovind get a free pass because you agree with him?

[Roy]

Basic rule # 1 of any investigation: the primary source is always the best.

...except when the primary source doesn't fit the welcher's agenda, so he cites a YEC reinterpretation of the primary material instead.

[Jorge]

Agree wholeheartedly about primary sources especially wrt science news, but it would be nice if you could provide a coherent summary or review of what you posting to at the very minimum demonstrate that you understand what they're saying and not just mindlessly regurgitation.

Please note that I'm not saying you're mindlessly regurgitating but rather providing a summary in your own words removes any question of it.

It would be wonderful to see the dishonesty around here go away.

I DID give the bottom line regarding my point about "lack of evidence":

"What is this supporting evidence? It is simply that there appear to be exactly three central "trunks" or nodes of human mitchondrial DNA (mtDNA) --- which is exactly what one would expect given the Bible's account of the Flood (three females leading to all humans alive today). But it doesn't end there. From the article:

Fudge those numbers 10%, 20% or even 100% if you like, you'll get thousands of years, never millions of years.

So again, this isn't going to prove the case for Biblical Creationism, but it does provide some fairly strong evidence supporting it -- evidence that the less-than-honest deniers vehemently claim "does not exist". "


That you wish to pooh-pooh and dismiss this evidence is another matter. That it EXISTS was my point.

Only at Infidels did I see as much intellectual dishonesty as around here.

Jorge

[Jorge]

When exactly were you going to exposeKent Hovind over his manufacture of a quote supposedly from 1975 about a mammoth (Dima) that wasn't unearthed until 1977?

Or does Hovind get a free pass because you agree with him?

Ah yes, the ol' "change the subject" dishonest strategy. Caught you red-handed ... AGAIN!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I haven't heard back but then it has only been a day and this is a holiday weekend so I wasn't expecting to.

Still, considering my experiences requesting clarification of something I had with AnswersinGenesis (no response whatsoever) I'm not going to hold my breath.

Maybe if you wrote him and invited him to post something himself?

First, I won't do your work for you.

Second, you began the post honestly for a change. I too would not expect anything for several days given that this was (and still is) a long holiday weekend. Give him this week and if you don't hear anything then we'll see. Also keep in mind that he isn't sitting at his desk doing nothing but answering emails. Like I said, we'll see ...

Jorge

[Roy]

When exactly were you going to exposeKent Hovind over his manufacture of a quote supposedly from 1975 about a mammoth (Dima) that wasn't unearthed until 1977?

Or does Hovind get a free pass because you agree with him?

Ah yes, the ol' "change the subject" dishonest strategy. Caught you red-handed ... AGAIN!!!

Ah yes, the old "dodge the question" dishonest strategy. This must be at least the 50th time you've ed out of admitting you posted a bogus quote, welcher.

Also, I'm not changing the subject. You started talking about exposing pseudo-scientists, not me. I'm just exposing your blatant hypocrisy.

[Roy]

."How many mtDNA differences would mutations cause during the 4,365 years since Noah? That depends on generation times. At most, a culture where the women typically give birth near age 15 could have produced 115 mtDNA differences. Adding those to Jeanson’s eight estimated pre-Flood differences gives 123. In a spectacular confirmation of Genesis history, the most diverse human mtDNA on record actually shows 123 differences."

This is the usual YEC dishonesty with calculations.

The preceding paragraph says:

At today's mtDNA mutation rate, two to eight nucleotide differences would have accumulated in the nine generations between Adam and Noah.

So that's up to 0.888 nucleotide differences accumulating per generation.

If generations are 15 years, then 4365 years is 291 generations, giving a possible accumulation of up to 291*0.888 = 258 mtDNA differences. Not 115.

So which is it? Is eight nucleotides differences in nine generations too high, or is 115 nucleotide differences in 291 generations too low? They can't both be right. Or is Thomas being untruthful when he says the number of mtDNA differences is dependent on generation times?

Hey, welcher! You chastised me for "changing the subject". What's your response to this on-topic criticism? And don't bother referring me to the author - you posted this crap:

"In short, if all peoples descended from three genetically unique mothers, then our mtDNA sequences should trace back to their three nodes. Those nodes should have about eight differences between them. Plus, a strict biblical timeline suggests 123 as the highest number of mtDNA differences that should be observed today.

...so you can defend it.

[Jorge]

This is the usual YEC dishonesty with calculations.

The preceding paragraph says:

So that's up to 0.888 nucleotide differences accumulating per generation.

If generations are 15 years, then 4365 years is 291 generations, giving a possible accumulation of up to 291*0.888 = 258 mtDNA differences. Not 115.

So which is it? Is eight nucleotides differences in nine generations too high, or is 115 nucleotide differences in 291 generations too low? They can't both be right. Or is Thomas being untruthful when he says the number of mtDNA differences is dependent on generation times?

Hey, welcher! You chastised me for "changing the subject". What's your response to this on-topic criticism? And don't bother referring me to the author - you posted this crap:...so you can defend it.

Your dishonest agenda aimed solely at vilification is out in the open, Roy.
You've been made ... your cover has been blown ... your stealth is nonexistent.
You are fully exposed as the dishonest fraud that you are.

Just go home and fabricate another strategy - you are busted!

Jorge

[Roy]

Hey, welcher! You chastised me for "changing the subject". What's your response to this on-topic criticism? And don't bother referring me to the author - you posted this crap:...so you can defend it.

...or not.

Looks like Jorge the welcher can't defend his YEC buddy's inability to present evidence that passes high-school arithmetic.

[Jorge]

...or not.

Looks like Jorge the welcher can't defend his YEC buddy's inability to present evidence that passes high-school arithmetic.

Jorge

[Roy]

Looks like Jorge the welcher can't do the high-school arithmetic that highlights a problem in his YEC buddy's meanderings.

[Jorge]

I haven't heard back but then it has only been a day and this is a holiday weekend so I wasn't expecting to.

Still, considering my experiences requesting clarification of something I had with AnswersinGenesis (no response whatsoever) I'm not going to hold my breath.

Maybe if you wrote him and invited him to post something himself?

I had posted this before but maybe you should take another, harder look at it while waiting for a response.

http://www.icr.org/article/9325

I remind you once again that my main point here is that there IS evidence - something that TEs/OECs dishonestly do not ever admit. And why would they? If they did it would signify the absolute end of their 'faith'.

Jorge

[Roy]

I had posted this before but maybe you should take another, harder look at it while waiting for a response.

http://www.icr.org/article/9325

I'll just check the maths in it:

Assuming that God placed the ideal mtDNA sequence into Eve, all those differences arose by mutations since the Genesis 3 curse, about 6,000 years ago. Other scientists measured the rate at which these copying errors occur. Though very slow—we acquire about one mutation every 6 generations—a few dozen mutations could appear after several millennia.

Ok, so 1 mutation every 6 generations is 1 mutation every 90 years (given minimum generation times) or 48 mutations since the flood; a maximum of 96 differences if two lineages are compared.

Unfortunately the measured variation has a maximum of 123 differences, of which 115 are considered post-flood.

Oops. There isn't enough time for that to happen. Their date for Noah's flood is refuted.

The above rate also contradicts the other garbage cited:

two to eight nucleotide differences would have accumulated in the nine generations between Adam and Noah.

So what is the mtDNA mutation rate? Is it one mutation every six generations, or four mutations every nine? 0.11/gen, 0.16/gen or 0.44/gen?

Publishing in Answers Research Journal, his results show that the number of today's mtDNA differences exactly matches the number predicted by the Bible's 6,000 years of human history.

Well that's a lie for a start - there's no way the numbers can match exactly when there's a fourfold spread of mutation rates to play with.

I remind you once again that my main point here is that there IS evidence ...

Where is it then, ? The stuff you've linked to here is numerology and lying with statistics, not evidence. It isn't even good numerology.