Theres that claim again…“our understandings”
Read the lineages of Christ…is that nderstanding or self explanatory? (Rhetorical question btw and id sugggest you actually read “the begats” rather than discount this post)
Why would that be problematic?
Vincent…ive read most of your pdf. You have some very significant issues in that paper…you regularly cite references that are contrary to the conlusions you draw from them. Im not going to address each of the errors here as it would need an essay to correct the academic mistakes.
Having said that, it is an interesting read.
Im sorry to be negatively criticising the paper and, i am reading it on a mobile phone whilst laying in bed at 4.50am, however, it really does appear to have some serious problems.
Let me suggest one problem…
Citing a writer who makes the statement “if…” that is not evvidence to support that the “if” is actually a fact of evidence. The writer is suggesting that if “if” were true, then one can conclude. Do you understand the dilemma there?
You do this kind of thing regularly in your paper…you cite references who make a lot of “if” claims as support for your conclusion when they do not actually support anything…because they arent academic facts, they are " if claims" and nothing more.
Basic genetics for one. There is not a big enough gene pool for a viable single population let alone the diversity of human races.
To be fair, evolution struggles as well. The existence of “primitive” races dnies any common heritage, let alone the racial differemces from cranial to skin igmentation, The net result would suggest multiple starting points that neither Scripture nor ToE can easily accomodate.
Scripture does not seem to claim any heredity connections to the Philistines, Egyptians or Babylonians, What it does seem to suggest is each race is not only allied but connected to their own God, only the Jewish one is supreme.
The command, Thou shaly not have any other God than me, implies thhat there are other possible candidates other than graven images ,
God shows power greater the gods o Egypt, but the fact that they were at least able to conjur serpents implies that there was genuine power, just not enought to beat Him.
It is as uch about what Scripture doesn’t say as it is what it does.
Richard
And you know this because?
The problem there is you believe that the gene pool started off small and increase in diversity…
There is also a lot of evidence presented by creation science that says the opposite is true.
One of the prpbems that i have is that there are examples where supposedly distinct changes have occured in nature far too rapidly for it to fit the darwinian evolutionary model…
Fish that change from prey to predatory in a generstion or two (example…the Stickleback - Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Birds with different beaks in a generstion or two when the environment around them is changed…these are evidences that the mutations are driven by the switching on and off of genetic information rather than new information being introduced.
This is but one of many areas where the intelligent design community are causing a great deal of trouble for the Darwinian evolutionary model. Funny thing is, ID are not usually Young Earth Creationists.
Basic genetics is still basic genetics,
That is a non sequator, you are good at them.
There are only so many genes in an individual. Even allowing for deviation there are too many diffeences to com from one set of genes.
ToE does not stand scrutiny, especially details.
Theitstic evolution allows for Godly guidance that solve most if not all evolitionary problems, but God is not allowable in science, other than as an unknown or unidentifiable factor.
ID gets bad press because it sticks it neck into all areas, some of which can be accouted for, Having been shown to be vulnerable it is therefore dismissed as fallacious.
irreducibiluty, likewise. Because there is no specific example that cannot be dismissed, Sceintists ignore it. “Anything can be done given enough time”|
Which is a philosophcal standpoint that is almost impossible to argue within science, although relaqtively simple to demonstate outside it. But, that is not enough. Scientists insist that ther emust be a specific example/ How can we show one that happened how ever long ago? The fact that these systems exists means (to a scientist) that they must have been done by evolution. It is a vicious and unaswerable circlular reasoning.
You know that I do not just trot out Darwiniand evolution, but do not seem to understand that theistic evolution is different to the scientific one, rather than just saying
“God did it this way”!
I am sorry, but I cannot subscribe to YEC, but I am not claiming the scientific ruling that seems to be prevalent, either.
Richard
That’s also my assessment. Many of the first major civilizations arose on the banks of flood prone rivers, so it makes sense they would have flood myths. As you say, there is no reason to think the myths were based on a single flood, a series of floods, or a myth based on floods in general.
1 Like
You are forgetting about the ongoing accumulation of new mutations in addition to the genetic variation already found in Africa before humans spread out across the globe. Even today, African populations have the highest genetic variation. A wiki page you might want to look over:
Also, the San people have always fascinated me. This is my own subjective bias, but I see many features in the San people that are associated with what we would consider non-African populations.
2 Likes
Yeah, there have been so many new races of humans in the last 2000 years or so!
I wonder why “half caste” people we shunned when they first started appearing, not due to natural evolution but pure human interaction produced by the abiltiy to tavel further.
I guess you could “spin” human migrations and travel into evolutionary theory but the dynamics have little to do with environmental change, and skin colouration is due to simple gentetics rather than DNA mutation.
The point is that there are a large numbber of self contained races that clearly did not interact before we were able to go on holiday or even explore. Finding comonality between pygmies, Native Americans and Aboriginies might find a discrepancy of less than 2% but still significant.(Has anybody looked?)
Still,l, if you buy into ToE, you will find what you need not to discreit or criticise it.
Richard
Most of what we call races now were bottlenecks in human populations as we migrated out of Africa. Much of it involved a reduction in the genetic variation found in the ancestral African populations. This is why some modern African populations are the most genetically diverse.
Tack onto this the fact that race is mostly a human construct based on a handful of arbitrary characteristics.
Skin color is different due to mutations in the genes that govern melanin production in skin. Light skin is actually the mutant phenotype. Mutations that reduced melanin allowed for higher vitamin D production in higher latitudes which was selected for by natural selection. Higher melanin production is selected for nearer the equator because it offers protection against DNA damage from UV radiation.
Yes, people have compared genomes between human populations. This is how companies like 23andMe are able to tell you about your ancestry. More on topic, we know a lot about human migration through studying mutations in mitochondrial DNA.
You could start by actually criticizing the evidence we are looking at. How does the evidence not support the ToE? For example:
We could also look at lactose tolerance if you want.
2 Likes
Why?
You have made your mind up what it means and will ■■■■ any view that is different. That is the safe haven of all science.
What you will never admit is that you are just imposing your basic theory onto whatever data you have available and are not even looking for anything else.
(I have heard you cry of “we would love proof to the contrary!” iI is hollow and empty.
Richard
That is called psychological projection.
How so? Explain.
Ok. We would love proof to the contrary!!! So where is it?
For example, where is the proof that accumulated mutations in mitochondrial DNA are not remnants of human migration patterns?
Where is the proof that European light skin is not due to mutations in specific genes?
2 Likes
Invisible to science?
We go over and over the same ground.
Science sees what science sees. Science understands what science understands. There is no critticism of scientists. They see what is within their vision and understands within their methodology. But some of us do not look at the world, or data the way science does.
I cannot show you anything that you cannot or have not already seen/
Richard
You are going to have to do better than that. If you are going to accuse the scientific community of ignoring evidence you can’t play make believe when it is asked for.
From all indications, you are just making it up.
SO HOW DO YOU LOOK AT IT???
Start with the mitochondrial DNA patterns that scientists think evidences human migration patterns. HOW DO YOU SEE IT, AND WHY???
Then move to the mutations that give Europeans lighter skin. HOW DO YOU SEE IT, AND WHY???
Or are you just making this all up?
2 Likes
The last bastion when all else fails
You do not have to ask, Or maybe you should not have to ask!
You realise you hav basically said that Africans are further down the evoltionary tree than caucasians. Which is how slavery was justified.
But who cares! Its not personal, its science.
(And I make the same sort of complaint against certain Christian doctrines)
Richard
He was saying “whether the flood is a local event or a global event has little theological importance – that is just an unimportant detail”. Your response does nothing to address that.
Or the region where the Nephilim dwelt.
No it isn’t – and you’ve been corrected on this before. Nothing that can’t be addressed by science can be a scientific fact. Some biologists have claimed that there is no such thing as love, it’s just hormones and programmed responses, but that does not make it a scientific fact, it makes the speakers arrogant fools.
The only scientific facts are things which can be detected, observed, and measured – so tell me, how does science even begin that?
Why should I bother reading anything from a piece of software that is known to make things up?
What? Lineages have nothing to do with the extent of events; at best they have something to do with location. Since the word in Genesis 6 is best rendered “the known world” given the context, and since all the members of that lineage lived in that known world, the lineage can at most say that the Flood covered the known world.
It should be noted that according to the lineages in the Old Testament, the Chinese, Japanese, and American natives cannot exist.
What you present from “the begats” is your understanding, it is not self-explanatory. We know this because the New Testament lineages do not conform to your understanding.
1 Like
No, this is the last bastion when all else fails.
“Invisible to science?”–RichardG
No, I haven’t. Nothing I have said says any such thing. All humans are equally evolved.
So I will ask again.
SO HOW DO YOU LOOK AT IT???
Start with the mitochondrial DNA patterns that scientists think evidences human migration patterns. HOW DO YOU SEE IT, AND WHY???
Then move to the mutations that give Europeans lighter skin. HOW DO YOU SEE IT, AND WHY???
Or are you just making this all up?
2 Likes
Comparing other passages can be helpful in understanding the hyperbolic aspects of the description of Noah’s flood. Joshua 11:14 states that nothing that breathed remained in Canaan after the conquest, yet the chapter notes that domestic animals were spared in many cases. Of course Joshua’s troops weren’t chasing all the wildlife, either. Several other points in Joshua and later books also draw attention to the many remaining Canaanites. Jeremiah 4:23 describes invasion of the land as making it formless and void. The universe has gone back to primal chaos. Actually, the inhabitants of Judah suffered a devastating defeat, which might easily have felt like a total overthrow of creation but certainly was not one literally.
Likewise, the flood narrative uses phraseology and imagery suggestive of cosmic devastation. But the point is the imagery, not geography.
3 Likes
Failure to understand evolution. The existence of “primitive” races is something evolution would predict given that primates all migrate to utilize all their range, and since humans are adaptable due to tool use, the human range even with stone-age technology covers most of the planet.
YEC demands even faster evolution.
It’s not a philosophical standpoint, it’s a conclusion from the evidence.
Skin color is due to mutations – which means it is in fact “simple genetics”.
They can all interbreed, which means they are all one species – and no single species arises from multiple sources.
It’s a human concept that arises from tribalism.
That claim just shows you’ve never been involved with real scientists. A good number of my science professors constantly looked for anything that contradicted any element of what was accepted.
1 Like
It started in Africa and then vrious mutations.deviations/improvemnets/adaptions/changes
been there also.
I can’t help it if you do not remeber or understand previous conversations. Its all there.
You are choosing your battlefield.
Examples! Data! How do you interpret! (as opposed to the right one you have)
You cannot argue any other way!
It is chalk and cheese. (But i don’t expsect you to undrstand that either)
You cannot see things muy way so it is a waste of all our time to explain it.
Richard