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

[Roy]

One other point:

This study produced two Genesis-confirming results. First, the human mtDNA tree has three trunks, which fits the Genesis model that all peoples descended from three foundational mothers—the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Second, 6,000 years of today's slow mutation rate would exactly produce today's measured number of mtDNA differences. Genetics again confirms Genesis.

Such a pity that combining those two results leads to the flood happening less than 400 years after creation, thus refuting Genesis.

This reminds me of the population 'studies' which 'proved' that a 'reasonable' population growth rate since the flood would lead to today's global population, while ignoring trifling details like the Great Pyramid having to be built by 13 people, or the global population at the time of the Exodus being 17.

[Jorge]

One other point:
Such a pity that combining those two results leads to the flood happening less than 400 years after creation, thus refuting Genesis.

This reminds me of the population 'studies' which 'proved' that a 'reasonable' population growth rate since the flood would lead to today's global population, while ignoring trifling details like the Great Pyramid having to be built by 13 people, or the global population at the time of the Exodus being 17.

It's fascinating how you continue at this yet ignore the simple request of contacting THE PRIMARY SOURCE.

As I stated in an earlier post, you've been exposed ... your cover is blown ... you are busted!

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom would simply retreat but your narcissistic hubris doesn't allow that.

So go ahead, Rrrrrroy ... I'll just watch the sorry spectacle.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

It's fascinating how you continue at this yet ignore the simple request of contacting THE PRIMARY SOURCE.

:chickren:

I posted the only scientific paper referenced by your YEC liars . It didn't say anything close to what the liars quote-mined and claimed.

Why did your YEC sources lie so much about the actual data?

[TheLurch]

It's fascinating how you continue at this yet ignore the simple request of contacting THE PRIMARY SOURCE.

And i'll ask again: doesn't it bother you that the sources you promote have such blatantly obvious problems?

[TheLurch]

Warning: a bit of rumination on the people who push this stuff out.

For starters, i'd just note that none of them are doing the actual grunt work of generating data. With all the money they take in, they could easily buy a few DNA sequencing machines. Instead, they build an Ark. Kind tells you a little something about how seriously they take this science stuff.


Their analysis keeps focusing on the mitochondrial genome and its mutation rate. The fact is, we now have the entire nuclear genome, along with mutation rates for that. That would provide a far more accurate estimate of what's gone on in humanity's past than mitochondrial DNA. My guess is that they don't have the computational chops to handle something like that.

More seriously, all they're doing is pulling out random assortments of numbers (as per Roy) that they use to try to bolster their pre-existing beliefs. If they really wanted to engage in science, they'd be trying to show that the mainstream interpretations of the data are wrong. That would mean going through the chimp genome, and figuring out what features in the DNA are incompatible with common ancestry. The chimp genome has been out nearly 11 years now - if anyone's even attempted that analysis, then i've not seen anything about it.

There's probably a simple reason why: it can't be done. There's nothing in the chimp genome that would allow them to make the claim they'd want to make.

So i have a modest proposal: we celebrate Clint Day on September 1. Clint was the chimp that donated the genome that we sequenced, publishing the results on September 1st, 2005.

[HMS_Beagle]

So i have a modest proposal: we celebrate Clint Day on September 1. Clint was the chimp that donated the genome that we sequenced, publishing the results on September 1st, 2005.

I like it! I'm in.

[Roy]

It's fascinating how you continue at this yet ignore the simple request of contacting THE PRIMARY SOURCE.

That's because I've read THE PRIMARY SOURCE and it doesn't support the claims of THE SECONDARY SOURCE.

Anyway, as I wrote earlier - you posted this stuff, so you defend it. If contacting the primary source is necessary, you do it. I'm not going to waste my time contacting some YEC fraud who's misrepresenting the work of another YEC just because yet another YEC fraud has cited it uncritically.

Why don't you explain how this dreck doesn't refute Genesis by dating the flood to 390 years after creation?

[Roy]

So i have a modest proposal: we celebrate Clint Day on September 1. Clint was the chimp that donated the genome that we sequenced, publishing the results on September 1st, 2005.

That's one talented chimp to have published his own genome sequence.

[Jorge]

And i'll ask again: doesn't it bother you that the sources you promote have such blatantly obvious problems?

That is your opinion, one that you have a right to express and I have the right to not share.

Is any of that unclear to you?

Jorge

[TheLurch]

That is your opinion, one that you have a right to express and I have the right to not share.

Is any of that unclear to you?

Then we get back to the issue that if you can't recognize these are problems, then you have a really limited understanding of basic biology. So which is it?

[HMS_Beagle]

That is your opinion, one that you have a right to express and I have the right to not share.

Is any of that unclear to you?

No one is denying your right to remain a willfully ignorant putz . We're just remarking on your propensity for demonstrating the fact with almost every post.

[Roy]

Then we get back to the issue that if you can't recognize these are problems, then you have a really limited understanding of basic biology.

And arithmetic.

[rogue06]

I sent an e-mail to Brian Thomas at ICR. I'll let you know if I get a response (I also invited him here).

I should note that I'm still awaiting a response from Brian Thomas

[rogue06]

I sent an e-mail to Brian Thomas at ICR. I'll let you know if I get a response (I also invited him here).

Three weeks later and not even an acknowledgment of the request. So much for "go to the ICR website and PM him."

[oxmixmudd]

Three weeks later and not even an acknowledgment of the request. So much for "go to the ICR website and PM him."

The guys at AIG/ICR et al do not want their ideas reviewed or discussed by anyone that might be able to ask meaningful questions or show logical inconsistencies with their ideas. Just like Jorge and this thread, they don't want to talk about the evidence. They wish to invent claims that sound good to those unfamiliar with the science and/or the data, and have them be accepted without critique or question.

When they do dare to venture into that arena - like when woodmorape (or was it someone else?) ventured into the thread on the old TWEB on residual c14/lake suigetsu, as soon as the discussion of the evidence was not going in his favor, he went directly to claiming those pointing out the problems with his ideas were not 'real' Christians. Just exactly like Jorge does and has done. As if the raw data or basic science that conflicted with the proposed 'answers' should somehow be hidden away or swept under a rug if the guy proposing the flawed idea was a Christian and if it was being used to support a particular Christian belief.

Reality is, it's exactly the opposite. Comically, its the religious equivalent of "Friends don't let Friends drive drunk".

If we really care about the truth, we don't foist untruth on others - ESPECIALLY in the name of God, and if we really are seeking to speak and teach the truth, then we WELCOME correction, because we do not want to be accidentally leading people astray.

THAT kind of attitude is almost non-existent at AIG/ICR, and certainly I've not once seen it in Jorge.

To be fair, there is one twist. In the AIG/ICR/Jorge mindset, Evolution, long ages itself is leading people astray and is not true.

But even IF that were the case, it is still the responsibility of the teacher to teach the truth as regards what science does or does not support. And in this case, it means admitting these AIG 'evidences' are flawed, and they don't provide a legitimate scientific reason to believe in a global flood or anything even close.

The truth then, from what they can actually see, integrated with what they believe is true, is that there was a global flood, the world is much younger than it appears to be, but those ideas can't be discerned using science.


Jim