Help Me Understand, part duex

[TheRocketSurgeon]

1) Everything we know about genetics is wrong, and humans once had incredibly long lifespans that worked in some way despite everything we know about cellular aging through copying errors during mitosis, or

You assume that copying errors are inevitable. They are common now, but that does not mean they always were.

2) The Patriarchs' 900+ year lifespans are taken from the Sumerian mythologies in the land of Ur, from whence the family of Abraham originated, and they changed the legends from Sumerian God-Kings who lived 900 years to Hebrew Patriarchs who lived 900 years.

It could easily have worked the other way around. Sumerian mythology corrupted history.

Um, no. Copying errors are a byproduct of how the chemistry works. You'd have to argue that there were no oxidants anywhere in nature, that ultraviolet radiation didn't exist, and that, again, everything we know about how genetics and cellular biology today is wrong. If Adam had "perfect DNA" that was "corrupted by sin", as Hovind (et al) have proposed, then "sin" also causes universal and identical endogenous retroviral scars, junk DNA like the deletion in our gene for the final stage of making ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), and identically transposed elements within the genome. 

As to the "Sumerian mythology corrupted history" quip, are you implying that the Hebrew monotheistic culture is older than the Sumerians, and that the Sumerian Empire's God-Kings were modeled after the patriarchs of a nomadic tribe that once lived in their territory before moving to Canaan?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Copying errors are a byproduct of how the chemistry works. You'd have to argue that there were no oxidants anywhere in nature, that ultraviolet radiation didn't exist, and that, again, everything we know about how genetics and cellular biology today is wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't chance have a role to play in how many errors are introduced and when.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Copying errors are a byproduct of how the chemistry works. You'd have to argue that there were no oxidants anywhere in nature, that ultraviolet radiation didn't exist, and that, again, everything we know about how genetics and cellular biology today is wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't chance have a role to play in how many errors are introduced and when.

There are some things we still don't know about cellular aging, but we've made huge leaps in the past two decades, since we became able to rapidly scan DNA. Since you would (rightfully) be skeptical of whatever I explained, anyway, and were decent enough to say "correct me if I am wrong" (kudos... seriously), I won't ask you to take my word on it.

Instead of just telling you, I'll point you to the major science journal, Nature, which has a sort of encyclopedia entry about it, and to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) article that explains what we do know about it, what the known causes are, and what we're still learning about it. I think you'll find both of them fair and balanced, to borrow FNC's parlance.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...n-14230076

http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/inside...pter5.html

---

Addendum: I noticed, while reading the articles myself, that it mentions the work my (Christian, Methodist) fiancee and her team are doing with the genetics of C. elegans worms, where they are looking at a gene that causes the worms' cells to age at half their normal rate, resulting in twice the lifespan. It is a gene shared by humans, so mapping out all of the pathways and effects of switching that gene "on" could have huge implications for the future of humanity.

"The same enzymes also made the microscopic roundworm C. elegans live significantly longer than normal."

[Drich]

No, Drich, what he means is we know that civilization was up and functioning more than 4000 years prior to that point, and there were millions of people in the fourth millenium BCE.

We know through Mitochondrial DNA scanning techniques that there are 29 (I think) separate matrilineal lines that have mutated since the woman who (since mtDNA is not passed to offspring by the father) is the source of all modern mtDNA would have had to have lived over 80,000 years ago. They dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve", but she wasn't the only woman alive, then; she's just the one whose mtDNA made it through the process of elimination, and sub-versions of her mtDNA are how they now track how humanity spread out since then. There's also a way to track the part of the Y-chromosome in men, which is of course not passed to daughters and so gets eliminated the same way, and we can trace all our Y-chromosomes (by the same process of elimination and rediversification by mutation) to a guy who lived roughly 150,000 years ago, whom we have dubbed "Chromosomal Adam". Note that Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived roughly as far apart from one another in time as Eve is from us.

We have examples of humans making stone tools, found in layers going back millions of years (recent finds suggest even some of the Australopithecus tribes may have used crude tools), and we have traced the migration of modern-type humans out of Africa into what is now Israel as early as 150,000 years ago, and certainly by 80,000 years ago.

The idea of there being only two individuals living 6000 years ago is contraindicated by a mountain of evidence to the contrary, of which those examples are just a fraction.

So?

How exactly does any of that cancel out what the bible says?

[Drich]

PERSERVED Human bones or are they Fossils?

If Bones are not PRESERVED/Fossilized what happens to them sport, and how long does it take?

If you mind isn't completely blown yet let me ask one more question: Are bones more often than not PRESERVED/fossilized (intentional or not) so as to last thousands of years, or do most bones decay?

Heres a hint: They decay otherwise we would be over run with old bones...

So, again to make my point (because it seems you missed it first go around) If Adam and Eve's bones were not preserved, they would have turned to dust even before the first 1000 years after their death was up.

That said nothing in history says that anyone if the Jewish Patriarchal history were preserving bodies/bones ever. Their whole Burrial rituals were centered around returning the bones back to the ash in which we came.

Our point is that we know there were humans in the Israel region 100,000 (some think as much as 125,000) years ago, possibly by a small group, who would have been in contention with our Neandertal cousins who already inhabited the region starting from 500,000 years ago. We know that a large-scale migration out of Africa, which spread across the northern coast of the Indian ocean and eventually reached southeast Asia and down to Australia (by boat!) occurred 80,000 years ago.

We aren't looking for the bones of Adam and Eve because no serious paleontologist thinks they were real people.

So again, what would constitute 'proof' of A&E? That was the topic the OP challenges. If you say no serious paleontologist would ever look for bones of a specific individual, then you have proven my point.

[Drich]

Bones/Fossils, if your going to indulge in semantics, what the fuck is a bone "perserve?"  You knew damn well what I meant.

So.. Mr. Science needs Mr. religion to explain the difference between a preserved bone and a fossil? You know by not knowing that their is a difference between a preserved bone and a fossilized bone, everything you conclude that is based on the age of a given bone is now in question...

A preserved bone is actual 100% bone material that has been kept from decay.

A fossilized bone is when minerals from the surrounding substrate leach into the bone fortifying or even replacing the bone material completely, turning the sample into a bone/mineral hybrid. Fossilized bones are much harder to date, that is why their are such big swings/Date ranges when ever a fossil is found

Now, as it seems my point has totally flown over your empty head, I shall attempt to slow it down.

I love it when you guys make such critical errors and don't even know it. whats even better is when your arrogant about your own stupidity. Well done sir, well done. My only wish is that you remain obstinate about what you understand even after I serve you up some crow to eat.

Adam and Eve supposedly were the first Human beings on Earth.  They were here 6,000 years ago.  We have found Human fossils (just for you) that are over 100,000 years old.

Ah... No.
Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden 6000 years ago.. we have no record of how long they were in the Garden. We know by Genesis 2 that the garden was complete long before the earth was completely formed, we also know the Garden was a picture of what the world looked like at the time of the fall, but again we have no idea how long the Garden existed with Adam and Eve living immortally in it with God. It could have been a week month, a year or even 5 billion years or maybe even a bazillion years. (truly who cares)
So where do we get 6000 years? if we count back the number of generations from Christ to Adam and add 2000 from now to Christ. But seeings how A&E did not have children in the garden, the most accurate thing we can say is it's been 6000 years since the exodus from the Garden. Because again counting back from Christ to Adam was 4000 years (supposedly, I've never actually counted)

Are you getting there Drichy?  Has that big ol' penny dropped yet?

you tell me sport. Your the noob with his foot in his mouth right now. Do you get it? Do you get the garden was a protected preserve that COULD have housed Adam and Eve the 5 billion years 'science' says Evolution took place? and upon the fall of man and his explusion the world outside the garden had time to 'evolve' to the point that Adam and his decendents would have been compatible with the food sources and people? Or do you need further explaination?

How are we finding remains that are 94,000 years older than the first Humans who supposedly set foot on Earth?

Adam was the first man made in the image of God (Which means he was the first man with a soul.) and Adam existed long before Monkey/man 'evolved.' So technically again he was the first man. That said.. Nothing in the bible says Adam was the only Man. In fact it would suggest otherwise. For instance where did the city of Nod Cain was banished to come from? A city then and now is not based on buildings but a given population in a region/community. Who were the people that Adam and Eve's Children marry? The bible makes no claims of incest, it seems to assume that we know that what went on in the garden was not a picture of what was going on outside it's boarders. As Genesis 1,2& 3 focous on the goings on in the garden Anything like say IDK EVOLUTION could have happened outside of it!

Now, take your time.  Make sure you read this, then re-read it, re-read it again and maybe get an adult to read it back to you before replying.

I don't ask simple questions because I don't understand what you maybe saying. What I'm doing is making you commit to your broken logic, and reasoning. so when I begin to up root and proceed to break your fundamental (3rd grade sunday school) understanding of Christian origins and how the relate to 'science' you have no where to go when I start force feeding your ignorance back to you.
One more simple question sport:


Do you like apples??

[TheRocketSurgeon]

So.. Mr. Science needs Mr. religion to explain the difference between a preserved bone and a fossil? You know by not knowing that their is a difference between a preserved bone and a fossilized bone, everything you conclude that is based on the age of a given bone is now in question...

A preserved bone is actual 100% bone material that has been kept from decay.

A fossilized bone is when minerals from the surrounding substrate leach into the bone fortifying or even replacing the bone material completely, turning the sample into a bone/mineral hybrid. Fossilized bones are much harder to date, that is why their are such big swings/Date ranges when ever a fossil is found

Quick! Notify the scientific community. They're apparently completely unaware (in your mind) of this information.

Why do you think they don't know this, that they use the method you're suggesting, or that they can't compensate for it?

Adam and Eve supposedly were the first Human beings on Earth.  They were here 6,000 years ago.  We have found Human fossils (just for you) that are over 100,000 years old.

Ah... No.
Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden 6000 years ago.. we have no record of how long they were in the Garden. We know by Genesis 2 that the garden was complete long before the earth was completely formed, we also know the Garden was a picture of what the world looked like at the time of the fall, but again we have no idea how long the Garden existed with Adam and Eve living immortally in it with God. It could have been a week month, a year or even 5 billion years or maybe even a bazillion years. (truly who cares)
So where do we get 6000 years? if we count back the number of generations from Christ to Adam and add 2000 from now to Christ. But seeings how A&E did not have children in the garden, the most accurate thing we can say is it's been 6000 years since the exodus from the Garden. Because again counting back from Christ to Adam was 4000 years (supposedly, I've never actually counted)

We know what your mythology says about A&E. We know how Bishop Ussher calculated the 6000 years based on the geneaology of the "begats".

What we're telling you is that we know there were not two people on earth 6000 years ago, but millions. The cities of Jericho, and Çatal Höyük are over 9000 years old. And the cities of Uruk, Eridu, and Ur (the homeland of Abram) were all founded by the time you're claiming Adam was the lone man in the Garden.

you tell me sport. Your the noob with his foot in his mouth right now. Do you get it? Do you get the garden was a protected preserve that COULD have housed Adam and Eve the 5 billion years 'science' says Evolution took place? and upon the fall of man and his explusion the world outside the garden had time to 'evolve' to the point that Adam and his decendents would have been compatible with the food sources and people? Or do you need further explaination?

I have to confess, I have not heard this argument before. But it begs a question. If humans waited, in a state of eternal life, while everything else evolved and diversified into modern life, why do we show every sign of evolving (shared genetic markers in our noncoding DNA like viral-infection scars, for instance) the same way as everything else on earth? Why would it be necessary to fake the appearance that we evolve the same way as everything else?

How are we finding remains that are 94,000 years older than the first Humans who supposedly set foot on Earth?

Adam was the first man made in the image of God (Which means he was the first man with a soul.) and Adam existed long before Monkey/man 'evolved.' So technically again he was the first man. That said.. Nothing in the bible says Adam was the only Man. In fact it would suggest otherwise. For instance where did the city of Nod Cain was banished to come from? A city then and now is not based on buildings but a given population in a region/community. Who were the people that Adam and Eve's Children marry? The bible makes no claims of incest, it seems to assume that we know that what went on in the garden was not a picture of what was going on outside it's boarders. As Genesis 1,2& 3 focous on the goings on in the garden Anything like say IDK EVOLUTION could have happened outside of it!

Another way to look at it is that humans evolved normally, and that Adam symbolically represents the first modern humans, the ones who had the intelligence and spiritual capacity to recognize their Creator. If you treat it as allegory about mankind rising to know God, in the perfect garden (earth) that was made for us, and living according to God's laws (laws of nature) as hunter-gatherers for the first ~100,000 years of our existence as modern man, before we decided we didn't want to live by natural laws anymore and instead developed agriculture, which meant that we (not God) decided what plants went where, what animals had to die, and what territories were "ours" to build cities on. From then on, instead of living by the providence of God for what we eat, we had to "live by the sweat of our brows". In other words, we decided for ourselves we had the knowledge of good and evil, and destroyed the garden of God. We're still destroying it. It's a powerful allegory... if you don't treat it as a literal history, it becomes something even more important: a warning from our most ancient ancestors of how their ancestors ruined our created relationship with God by defying the laws of Natural Selection.

I suppose by that definition, both agriculture and penicillin are sins, since they defy the laws of NS.

You have a more nuanced understand of science than the average Creationist, so it looks like SofaKing assumed you were an Answers In Genesis-type Creationist incorrectly. Hope you'll forgive us. It's not an unfair assumption-- your kind of theology is more rare, here. Most Christians who debate here tend to either 100% accept evolution or 100% reject it.

[Angrboda]

[Drich]

Another way to look at it is that humans evolved normally, and that Adam symbolically represents the first modern humans, the ones who had the intelligence and spiritual capacity to recognize their Creator. If you treat it as allegory about mankind rising to know God, in the perfect garden (earth) that was made for us, and living according to God's laws (laws of nature) as hunter-gatherers for the first ~100,000 years of our existence as modern man, before we decided we didn't want to live by natural laws anymore and instead developed agriculture, which meant that we (not God) decided what plants went where, what animals had to die, and what territories were "ours" to build cities on. From then on, instead of living by the providence of God for what we eat, we had to "live by the sweat of our brows". In other words, we decided for ourselves we had the knowledge of good and evil, and destroyed the garden of God. We're still destroying it. It's a powerful allegory... if you don't treat it as a literal history, it becomes something even more important: a warning from our most ancient ancestors of how their ancestors ruined our created relationship with God by defying the laws of Natural Selection.

Why would I want/need to treat this as an allegory when I can easily reconcile both accounts?
The genesis account only need be treated as an allegory if I can't get past the 6000 year begetting cycle some well meaning brother bound the church to by pointing out that his math only pointed to the exodus of the garden.

I suppose by that definition, both agriculture and penicillin are sins, since they defy the laws of NS.

Another reason not to look at creation as an allegory.

You have a more nuanced understand of science than the average Creationist, so it looks like SofaKing assumed you were an Answers In Genesis-type Creationist incorrectly. Hope you'll forgive us. It's not an unfair assumption-- your kind of theology is more rare, here. Most Christians who debate here tend to either 100% accept evolution or 100% reject it.

That's the thing I have a 100% evolution acceptance AND A literal 7 day creation belief. One does not preclude the other. IF one can look past what religion says, and wants to balance what the bible actually says against what we know to be true. Then it all makes perfect sense. The questions in the biblical account get cleared up (where did the spouces of Adam and Eve's children come from. The 'religious belief' was incest of all things.. and where did the city of Nod come from when cain was expelled from his family.) Monkey/man answers a lot of questions from the bible and the fossil record. So again, why would we run from the truth?

[Drich]

I don't know what happened to the first 1/2 of my post. it's gone!