Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Not obsolete (considering it is newer than the method used), rather it is considered “inappropriate”. Do you know why? It’s because it shakes the very foundations of the old Earth paradigm. The methodology behind it is legitimate and used by Old Earth people all the time in Geology and when it yields old ages. Observe a rate (generational mutations), assume this rate is constant, extrapolate how far back mitochondrial eve would be given the amount of genetic diversity in humans today. The result…..6500 years. Uh oh! This doesn’t match our old earth paradigm it must not be an acceptable method! So you really just proved my point.

Actually, it's just obselete because, ever since we mapped out the entire human genome and developed faster, less cumbersome, and more accurate methods of analyzing DNA, there are few uses that still necessitates RFLP analysis. One of them notably isn't involved in something like the kind of DNA sequencing used to determine how far back humans go and the rate of mutation of humans and other animals over time.
Note that the kind of gene sequencing done to trace ancestry and evolution is done commercially and reliably using methods from places like these:
http://www.dnaancestryproject.com
http://www.appliedbiosystems.com
http://www.genecodes.com/
... are all done through (as cited in those websites) Y-DNA 20, 44, 67 or 91 Marker Test for paternal ancestry and mtDNA HVR-1 and HVR-2 Test for maternal ancestry. This test is so easy and reliable that the above links are for commercial tests that you can have sent to your home and you can do the genetic testing yourself with the help of the results done once you return the sample to their laboratory where you can analyze the data yourself online.

Also, note that each of these places states a common ancestor from Africa at around 200,000 years ago, not 6500 years ago. So... yeah. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

The old earth crowd loves to operate like this. We will throw out any method that yields a young earth, and then we will tell the young earth crowd that they don’t have any evidence because all we have done is ignore their evidence.

Yeah that’s quite an inflated rate. The actual observed mutation rate is far lower. Evolutionists are in a huge quandary on this one because the rate is not nearly fast enough to achieve the differences between humans and chimps, however if the rate were any higher it would result in error catastrophe and extinction due to the fact that 90 percent of all mutations are harmful to the organism. Keeping this in mind, in 10 million years (keep in mind Evolutionists believe human history is around 5 million years) the human genome could not amass more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations. This of course is only 7.0X10^-4 percent of the total genome; which is nowhere near the 4 percent needed. Evolutionists love to build little computer models to try and demonstrate this is not impossible, but these programs are always an over-simplification of reality and ignore crucial aspects of genetics such as pleiotropy or polygeny. These models also use grossly inflated numbers for beneficial mutations and will also use very short generational time values. They also ignore the biggest problem of all, we have never observed a single mutation that actually increases information and affects morphology. Until this is observed, and observed to happen quite frequently, Evolution will always be a fairy tale and based on blind faith.

Really? All geneticists are wrong except for those from Baby Jesus University, eh? Or perhaps the "scientist" with a Ph.D in truthology from Christiantech, hmm?
As wikipedia always notes in written articles like these, [citation needed].

According to an actual scientific article (you know, as opposed to what you tell us):

Remarkably, the new research, recently published in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Fortunately, most of these are harmless and have no apparent effect on our health or appearance.

This study is also repeated in other scientific journals.

Those articles state that there are roughly four mutations every thirteen generations, which are usually benign.

I should note that I can't help but notice that you haven't given a rate of mutation at all - just a date that happens to be 6500 years ago for the 'mitochondrial eve'.

Speaking of which...

In 1987, three scientists announced in the journal Nature that they had found a common ancestor to us all, a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. She was given the name "Eve," which was great for capturing attention, though somewhat misleading, as the name at once brought to mind the biblical Eve, and with it the mistaken notion that the ancestor was the first of our species—the woman from whom all humankind descended.

The "Eve" in question was actually the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today. That is, all people alive today can trace some of their genetic heritage through their mothers back to this one woman. The scientists hypothesized this ancient woman's existence by looking within the cells of living people and analyzing short loops of genetic code known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA for short. In recent years, scientists have used mtDNA to trace the evolution and migration of human species, including when the common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals lived—though there has been considerable debate over the validity and value of the findings.

So... yeah. Your unsupported statement was only off by about 193,500 years.
There is also this article, this article, and this article that all support this stance. That stance that the mitochondrial eve is, where she lived, and who she was.
You'd never guess that the scientist named her Eve to grab attention, not to rally support for your wacky theories that otherwise have no scientific basis at all for anything.

I know how they got the number silly, the point is that the number is wrong.

[citation needed]

Well then Evolution is not a Scientific Theory or Principle, because it is certainly not based on the “evidence”. It asserts that things which have never been observed not only happen but happen millions of times (mutations increasing information).

[citation needed], as the evidence (fossils, the genetic rate of mutation I noted and supported above, plus more I'm probably forgetting) unanimously and definatively proves beyond any kind of reasonable doubt so much that anyone with $120 to $200 dollars can trace his or her own ancestry back as far as he or she wants.

Well as I demonstrated with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism is positive belief not just “disbelief”. Atheists love to try and act like agnostics when it suits them, yet the two are mutually exclusive. You’d never see an Agnostic-Theist, just like you will never see an Agnostic-atheist

You've certainly proven that you haven't read jack.
"Jack" in this case being the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which you weakly attributed to being able to cover theology... somehow.

Yet... then I come across things like this:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states:

The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

on the very first line of the long article that describes the claims (counterclaims, actually) by atheists against religious stances on a purely philisophical standpoint (it is a philosophy article, after all) but I can't help but notice that there are no positive claims that don't exist simply to refute positive religious claims.
Then there's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

So I will just say it again, since you affirm the non-existence of God and I affirm the existence of God, the burden of proof is neutral in this instance.

... that's not how things work. Theism made the claim. Atheism denied that claim. That's what atheism is. The burdon of proof, as it has always been, is on those making the claim which, in theism's case, has always been unsupported by any evidence. Much to the contrary of, say, evolution, which has been a major testable and provable science for more than a century.

Well since you never cited any sources, I am assuming this is all just your opinion. Well contrary to how you want to define atheism, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is used more than any other source in these matters, defines atheism as a positive believe system that affirms the non-existence of God. I think I will take their word on the matter over your personal opinion. So the burden of proof is still neutral. Besides, you asserting that the burden of proof lies on my position is in itself a positive assertion that would require proof haha. Something you have not done.

Ahh. Another instance of pot calling the kettle black. How interesting. I've provided evidence and support for my claims since I participated on the balcony thread. All of which you promptly ignored and made fun of while providing nothing of your own. Even in the rare instance where your entire answer wasn't "nope, you're wrong", the best you've provided on the balcony was quote mining and articles from whatever creationist you could find whose 'science' is also blatantly and easily refuted by evidence.

You have nothing and have shown nothing. I, on the other hand, have given reputable scientific articles that have their own good standing and reputation, easy to understand and very basic science that was explained point-by-point by youtube articles, and whatever else I can pull up on the internet from people who actually know what they're doing and from multiple, unrelated sources.

You have given nothing and ignored everything counterargued to you and have only responded with red herrings and tired, repeated, and easily refuted arguements.

You probably think I am “evading” your argument because your argument is very incoherent and not really a true argument at all. I will just say it again; operational science is not origins science! You are trying to mix the two. Operational science deals with direct observation in the present. Origins science deals with past un-observed events. So to say that technologies that were derived by operational science somehow affirm the Earth is old is ridiculous. Like I pointed out earlier, the MRI machine was created by a YEC, the head of the Apollo space program was a Creationist. When man walked on the moon did it affirm the Earth was young? Stop mixing your sciences.

I'm not the one picking and choosing which sciences are real and which ones can only be done by christians or creationists with a very specific point to prove - despite the evidence.
You can say what you want all you want, but that doesn't make your statements true or supported by anything substantial.

Science itself is a direct result of monotheistic religion (Whitehead's Hypothesis).

[Citation Needed]

This is a well known fact that even Richard Dawkins agrees with.

[Citation Needed]

The YEC guys I mentioned did their science because of their Biblical views.

[Citation Needed]

They believed (and rightly so) the universe was created by a rational being and therefore could be rationally understood.

[Citation needed]

If our thoughts were just a result of chemical reactiions that are all a result of one cosmic accident, there would be no reason to believe that the chemicals in your brain could better understand their surroundings than someone else's chemicals. There would also be no reason to even trust your senses. So science itself is based upon purely religious and creationistic axioms whether you like to admit it or not.

Holy conclusion isn't supported by previous statmenets, Batman! (Or anything, for that matter).
I suppose I'll once again have to take your word for it that what you're saying is true, but after saying this I don't know how many times, neither this time nor the next time won't be the magic number for making me believe anything, short of, perhaps, some actual evidence or some equivelent support that you have yet to show.

Actually in Creation, only one human was made from non-living matter, Adam. Since non-living to living matter is impossible by naturalistic means the Bible at least gets it right by ascribing a supernatural cause to this event. Unlike many atheists, who believe humans are direct descendents of a common ancestor which arose from non-living matter, but instead this happened by naturalistic means haha. So it’s quite humorous you are bashing Christians for believing something you also believe in.

As for the sanctity of human life, Christians have the highest respect for it because they believe man was created in the image of God and is separate from the animals. Most atheists believe man is just glorified pond scum and just one of the animals. So you are the one who cheapens human life.

... unless you're gay, worship another god, don't worship any god, are pro-choice, don't follow the right religion in service to god, or don't do what the bible says juuuuust right.
Then again, to know this all you have to do is study history or pay attention to politics.

Case and point.

Who determines whether a source is relevant or not? You?

I allow my sources to stand on their own reputation, as I allow your... what I'll vaguely call 'sources.' That is, when you do bother to provide any.

You just make more baseless assertions without any sources. Not surprising. Small time.

Hah! More pot/kettle antics!

Oh really? Why? It was just humans out competing other humans. Remember when you answer this; don’t borrow anything from my worldview.

Ahh... Godwin's law.
Humans tend to view that the lives of other humans are important because people empathize with the plight of others. Religion is just an unnecessary component in human morality because it assumes humans can't be moral without the threat of eternal punishment.
Of course, the only other option is eternal servitude in heaven, so my perspective dictates that that's a 100% chance of suck, but that's just me.

Well surely you don’t think racism is morally acceptable just because the majority of people in Darwin’s time were racists? Oh wait, yes you do, you said that morals were relative to one’s culture. So if the culture of the time believed whites were superior there was nothing morally wrong with this viewpoint.
If you actually read what he is saying, he is saying that blacks are evolutionarily closer to gorillas than whites are. This viewpoint of course could directly lead to (and did) the view that there was a superior Aryan race that needed to be restored. It’s no wonder that many of Darwin’s own close relatives were deeply involved in the early 20th century eugenics movement.
As to the “you think Jews weren’t persecuted before Darwin came along” argument. This is a complete non-sequitur. It would be like saying, “there were atheists before the theory of Evolution, so therefore the theory of Evolution has never led to someone’s atheism.” Of course Richard Dawkins said that evolution was directly responsible for his atheism. So just because Jews were persecuted in the past means in no way that Darwinism didn’t help fuel their persecution in the 20th century.
I can understand why you would get so defensive when someone criticizes Darwin, nobody likes their religious figures being criticized. Try criticizing Joseph Smith in front of a Mormon sometime and you will see what I mean.

Look at all the strawman arguements. It's a veritable cornocopia of misdirection here.
1) "Darwinism" as you have been using it isn't a thing. If you had bothered to read the dictionary definition or actually know anything about the history of Evolutionary theory, you would know that 'darwinism' is what evolutionary theory was when it was believed that evolution was wholly driven by natural selection.
2) [citation needed] on all counts of just about every 'fact' you profess above.
3) darwinism is not a moral stance

This is the exact same non-sequitur argument you used above, and it is just as insufficient this time. Who knows what would have happened if Darwin had never come along. The Nazis may have still wanted to conquer smaller nations but they would not have had nearly as powerful of a tool for unifying the masses as they did with Darwinism. It’s very easy to get people on your side when you tell them, “we need to do ‘a and b’ because it’s for the good of science and the preservation of our species!” (Just look at some of the ridiculous things people will suggest doing or even do to 'save our planet' nowadays). Many of the evil experiments that were done on the socially “weak” would probably have never happened either, considering they were driven by an atheistic and evolutionary mindset. I hope we get to talk about some of the atrocities that occurred in the Atheistic Soviet Union too! That will be fun.

Keep trying to stand up for Darwin, it makes you look foolish.

Not half as foolish as someone who makes claim after claim after claim with absolutely zero support on this views. You may as well be predicting the storyline of the next major sitcom on NBC. I would have taken on later statements in other posts, but frankly I've already addressed many of your repeated points and the rest are once again are ... just things you say.