Rational Christianity

[ztodd]

I went to the website you referenced, and I have to say it reminded me of the religious zealot who starts writing books that stray from doctrine, such as archeological evidence that is really the author's opinion, but has never been sanctioned by the Church.

I find these types of "evidences" very concerning, because a number of members will be persuaded, and in my opinion, exploited. Although I have not seen the DVD, this is a very good example of what I am talking about.

On the other hand, it is their choice to buy, or not buy, into the products. They are adults, and can do what they want.

I'm am confused as to whether you are saying this women is the ancestor of "all" the women who lived at the same time as she, which would be about 4000 bce, or that she is the ancestor of all women, period.

One very serious problem is that human women had been on the planet for approximately 150,000 years. Therefore, there is no way this woman was the ancestor of “all” the women who lived at the same time as she.

I realize people like to dismiss the archeological record, but there is no denying the skeletons, etc., exist.

Elphaba

Just reporting what the latest data has shown.

This is from How Old is Humanity? :

Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.

This calculation is done in the following way. Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings, assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA. After 33 generations, two such random humans will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.

We see that the mathematics is extremely simple. However, this timetable would revolutionize the history of humanity from a scientific standpoint, so biologists attempt to explain away the data. They do this in the following way: They assume that in this control region, most of the mutations are harmful. This means that individuals having more mutations are more likely to die, so that among surviving individuals, the number of mutations increases more slowly.

However, this explanation is implausible for the following reasons. First, we know that the control region does not code for any protein or RNA, so it is unlikely that mutations there would be harmful. Second, the fact that there is a lot of variation between individuals in this region suggests that mutations there do not have a harmful effect. Finally, one study noted that humans evolve (that is, accumulate mutations) 1.8 times faster in the control region than in silent sites in the mitochondrial DNA. (See ``Recent African origin of modern humans revealed by complete sequences of hominoid mitochondrial DNAs'' by S. Horai, K. Hayasaka, R. Kondo, K. Tsugane, and N. Takahata, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995 Jan 17;92(2):532-536.) Silent sites do not affect the amino acid coded for, and so they generally do not have much of an effect. The fact that the control region evolves 1.8 times faster (that is, mutations accumulate 1.8 times faster) indicates that the control region has even less of an influence than the silent sites, also making it unlikely that mutations in the control region are harmful. A similar result was found for ducks, in which the control region evolves 4.4 times faster than the mitochondrial DNA in general. See Michael D. Sorenson and Robert C. Fleischer, Multiple independent transpositions of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences to the nucleus, PNAS 1996 93: pp. 15239-15243. This is additional evidence that the control region is not constrained much, and that mutations there are not very harmful.

Despite the sensational impact of this calculation on the chronology of the human race, we see that the most reasonable interpretation of the data is to assume that the human race is in fact about 6000 years old.

Now what do we have here... we have an old theory that the human race is much older, but now we have new data that says humans are about 6000 years old.

Which will you go with- Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

[Elphaba]

Just reporting what the latest data has shown.

This is from How Old is Humanity? :. . . .Which will you go with- Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

The latest scientific data? From a computer programmer who can’t make a website that doesn’t look 20-years old? Who thinks all living females are related via MtDNA to a woman who lived in 4000 bce? You can't be serious!

What is it on this board that people think they can send me an amateur web-site as “proof,” and I will be ignorant enough to accept it as such?

But I’ll be honest, after this egotistic blathering, I was done!

One can understand in evolutionary terms why there should be animals such as apes that are so close to humans. But why would God create a creature that is so close to a human, but not quite? To answer this, we have to reason from what we know or can infer about God's motives in the creation. This may lead us to considerations that seem far removed from those that are expected in this context. The original creation was intended to contribute to the happiness of man and animal. We can assume that in many cases the Lord created animals that would be a delight to man, and created man to be a blessing to the animals. Even today, both children and adults enjoy seeing gorillas and chimpanzees in zoos. It is reasonable to assume that these creatures were partly made for just this reason, to be a joy and entertainment to us. In a similar way, we can speculate in unorthodox terms that an animal such as the koala bear was created because of its cuddly appearance, which is a delight to children and many adults. Even if such creatures don't seem well adapted from our viewpoint, they serve their purposes very well.

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

If this man expects anyone to take him seriously, he needs to publish an article or essay in a peer-reviewed, reputable journal. Otherwise, he is just one more fruitcake on a sloppy looking page in the internet.

Are you going to go with this latest scientific data, or are you going to stick with your previous theory of an older human race?

The latest scientific data indicates the human race is 150,000 years old.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

Ray's Wiki:

Ko-ala bear. Another version of "Teddy Bear". No relation however. Because of similarity in appearance, some speculated there was a connection through "bear" genetics. It was later discovered that while Teddy Bears were lifeless, Koalas were real animals native to Australia, officially known as Phascolarctos cinereus. The connection between the two still persists, however.

More about the Koala (from a reliable source this time):

The koala gets its name from an ancient Aboriginal word meaning "no drink" because it receives over 90% of its hydration from the Eucalyptus leaves (also known as gum leaves) it eats, and only drinks when ill or times when there is not enough moisture in the leaves. ie during droughts etc.

Too bad they aren't as big as camels.

[ztodd]

The latest scientific data? From a computer programmer who can’t make a website that doesn’t look 20-years old? Who thinks all living females are related via MtDNA to a woman who lived in 4000 bce? You can't be serious!

What is it on this board that people think they can send me an amateur web-site as “proof,” and I will be ignorant enough to accept it as such?

But I’ll be honest, after this egotistic blathering, I was done!

:) Thanks, I got a kick out of that response. Interesting that you got so defensive about wanting to defend the old theory. Also interesting that you thought this data actually came from the website programmer.

You see, the website was just a means of helping to communicate the latest scientific data. Kind of like how Joseph Smith was just the young farm boy messenger chosen to tell the world about the true character of God. There were many who scoffed at him and said, "God the Father and Jesus Christ are actually personages who look like us? You can't be serious!" After all, he was just a boy that wasn't yet 20 years old.

I was just trying to help point you in the right direction so you could do your own further researching of this latest data. If you're interested.

Someone needs to tell your arrogant friend Koalas are not a bear.

?? I didn't see anything about koala bears... Where did that quote come from?

[Elphaba]

Too bad they aren't as big as camels.

Actually, Ray, I suspect David Plaisted, the man who claims animals are put on this earth to delight and entertain human beings, would reject the camel. That is because camels are such homely creatures, and we couldn't have "homely" in our zoo now, could we?

Such self-important arrogance, not to mention the impact this would have on the environment, is stunning in its impudence.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

I was just trying to help point you in the right direction so you could do your own further researching of this latest data. If you're interested

Todd, this isn't "the latest data", it's age old, recyled garbage. Maybe you think it is "the latest data"? The evidence for an old earth and evolution is quite stunning, IF you understand even the basic "data". It is no coincidence that we humans share more than 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. Based on that average, I'd say it's a bullseye for evolution, looking at it simplistically. If you'd care to read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, where he doesn't attack religion, you'd see how silly it is to think the world was created in seven days, or even seven thousand years.

[Elphaba]

Thanks, I got a kick out of that response. Interesting that you got so defensive about wanting to defend the old theory.

The old theory?

There is no “old theory” in the way you define it. What we do have is science, which continues to evolve as new discoveries disprove old, or they prove but add to others. This continuing science includes, but obviously is not limited to such luminaries as Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Hawking. Do you seriously think Hawking believes in a 6,000 year earth? Do you even know who Planck or Heinsenberg are? What does Hawking think of Plaisted’s “new theory”?

Actually I can answer that last one for you. Hawking thinks nothing of it because I am fairly sure Hawking has never heard of Plaisted. But let's just say, for kicks and giggles, that he had. I assure you, once Hawking started reading the drivel on the website you linked me to, his voice machine would start uttering inappropriate words, and the session would be over.

I went on line and discovered I am not the only person who thinks Plaisted is a self-seeking, obtuse plagiarist. When he is confronted by true scientists, he misrepresents the science, and re-configures the data to give him results he wants, rather than accepting the results as they are. I've listed some of the websites below so those who are interested can read them.

And you are doing the same thing by insisting a web page is proof of the the "latest data." I don’t care whether he designed it or not. YOU sent it to me as proof of a phenomenal discovery. A bright green web page full of nonsense. I am not that gullible.

You see, the website was just a means of helping to communicate the latest scientific data. Kind of like how Joseph Smith was just the young farm boy messenger chosen to tell the world about the true character of God. There were many who scoffed at him and said, "God the Father and Jesus Christ are actually personages who look like us? You can't be serious!" After all, he was just a boy that wasn't yet 20 years old.

Using Joseph’s experience as an analogy here is a huge straw man.

Your friend Plaisted has had complete access to all of the scientific data in the world. His misuse of it is not anyone’s fault but his own.

Nor did I see where Plaisted was visited by angels. If I missed it, feel free to point it out to me.

I was just trying to help point you in the right direction so you could do your own further researching of this latest data. If you're interested.

I’m sorry, but I am never interested in pseudo-scientists who insist one woman is the mother of all women via her MtDNA, and that the earth is 6,000 years old when it is so obviously billions of years old, etc., etc,. etc.

And it appears I am not the only one. I did a google search of Plaisted and within five minutes found the following sites where people were very critical of Plaisteds misuse of the data:

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, A Response to David Plaisted

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/plaisted.html

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review3.html

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 3

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review2.html

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 2

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/plaisted_not_amusing_henke.htm

?? I didn't see anything about koala bears... Where did that quote come from?

Apparently you didn’t read my post that closely.

Elphaba

[WANDERER]

Cuddly and cute koala bears: the guy doesn't know anything about them. They have big claws, they hiss and growl and catch them on the ground and you'll wish you'd left them alone. Spitty, bad-tempered little things when it comes to socialising.

The ones you hold for cute pictures at the zoo are especially bred for temperament..even then they have their failures that take a swipe during photo shoots and are subsequently retired. They don't do much..they eat...that's it. Lively they are not. Entertainment value: about the same as watching cows chew grass. Comments around the koala sanctuary: Look, it just blinked! Did not! Did too! Seriously.

They're not quite up there with bears, but give me a break, they're no one's teddy bear.

[ztodd]

Apparently you didn’t read my post that closely.

??

I saw where you quoted ...

...In a similar way, we can speculate in unorthodox terms that an animal such as the koala bear was created because of its cuddly appearance, which is a delight to children and many adults...

But I don't know where that came from. It's not from How Old is Humanity? ...

What page does it come from? I'm curious now...

Thanks

[ztodd]

Todd, this isn't "the latest data", it's age old, recyled garbage. Maybe you think it is "the latest data"? The evidence for an old earth and evolution is quite stunning, IF you understand even the basic "data". It is no coincidence that we humans share more than 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. Based on that average, I'd say it's a bullseye for evolution, looking at it simplistically. If you'd care to read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, where he doesn't attack religion, you'd see how silly it is to think the world was created in seven days, or even seven thousand years.

Age-old? The article stated:

"Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367)"

That seems pretty recent. These kinds of DNA studies haven't been around that long.

I agree it's no coincience that we share a great majority of our genes with chimps. But I guess I don't look at it simplistically, or maybe I look at it more simplistically :), or maybe we should just say I'm just looking at it in a totally different way altogether. Animals and humans alike were all created by intelligent design. God altered 1% of monkey DNA to create us, or he altered our DNA to create monkeys.

It would seem silly that the earth was created in such a short time if you didn't believe in the miraculous. I happen to believe though.

I'm actually still open to the idea that the earth might been around for a few billion years. But I'm convinced that the Adam and Eve story is the true origin of humanity and that it was about 6000 years ago when they fell from the garden and started having children.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

How does evolution account for the need of a fall? For evolution to take place there must be death to eliminate the "original" creation. Well the Earth was created in a terrestrial state where death and sickness and pain had no place on the Earth. With the Fall of Adam and his inherent dominion over all the Earth, death was brought to the world. So then begins time in the Earthly sense of our 6000 year history. Things evolve in the sense of natural selection at that point. However, that the processes of men have grown from an ape is absurd or all things came from a single amoeba or some rabbit is retarded.

That is also the big issue with science. It is a process of man. The study of statistics can only look at and accurately predict things within the data set. So it is with science. Science therefore cannot accurately prove what happened 125,000,000 years ago or longer. The sun is 2 billion years, ithink that is what science says. Do we know the original properties of the sun. No, so we cannot predict how it will deteriorate. This is our issue with science. Man cannot prove the providences of God. That is what science attempts to do, and thus because it can't, they say there is no God. Science can prove, though often unintentionally, some principles of truth. For instance, the stars. There are obviously too many for us to count. God has even said that there are worlds without number. Science can be a testimony builder so I do not have anything against those that use it. And it is useful. But using science, and with the learning gained from the study, the fact that a God exists is refuted because the observers think or understand the material to contradict God's Presence.

[Getaclue]

I can't tell you how HARD that hit the wall for me. I'm going through an UGLY divorce and that is the exact basis of my troubles. Its a battle for our kids as to what they choose to fight for and when we turn them into drones for the cause they fail to actually get the tools to survive against the adversary. My wife focused so hard on the kids "welfare" even though it meant hovering and molly coddling them to death that she failed to teach them the skills required to KNOW what God wants for them in their lives. I tried to teach the important stuff but most of the time I was deflected by my wife. Our marriage failed because when the times got tough... mom blamed dad instead of putting it in Gods hands. What did the kids learn for this example? Beats me. They can't tell me because they are not sure what the original point was.

Teach your kids to seek truth and enlightenment. Teach them the importance of character and honor. Teach them to have open minds and test EVERYTHING. Nothing is doctrine until its been tried and proven by God. Otherwise its here-say and prone to deception. I have always said that there is ONLY ONE FLAVOR OF TRUTH.

dude the reason your kids are messed up is because you have been molesting them since they could remember... your wife coddled them because you were hurting them... you need to really quit acting like your a priesthood holder and acting all high and mighty... you lost the priesthood the day you touched your own kids. and in my book I hope to tell hell you never get it back. your no better then Joseph Edward Duncan that just received a execution sentence a few days ago. he killed the family and one of the kids he raped but you raped your own KIDS. and IMHO you should be put to death and will never be able to atoned for your SINS. the Savor spoke loud and clear on the issue... so do us a favor and tie a mill stone around your neck and take a swim in the snake river.

What I can say out of all this that you have put your family and our ward thru is that I got to know your oldest daughter very well and I know she is now in good hands and her husband will take care of her. You have put her thru hell for years and now she has to deal with that but leadership in the church will protect her and help her heal from what you have done to her. I can tell you that you’re a lucky man because if anyone hurt my child like you did I would have taken a very fast action towards them. Maybe that is why you raped your own kids because you knew if you touched someone else you wouldn’t be around to hid behind a P.C. and fake that you’re a respectable member of this church.

[rameumptom]

I believe that death as discussed for Adam was regarding the Garden of Eden, in which Adam was stuck full time. Personally, I believe that Eden was circling Kolob in a terrestrial/celestial state. Once Adam sinned, the Garden literally fell out of its place and onto the Earth and into its telestial orbit. At that point, death entered the Garden and all its inhabitants.