Rational Christianity

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by ztodd

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]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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]

Originally Posted by Ray A

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.

[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.