Creationists: Here's your chance

[tumbleweed41]

Regardless of when the Mitochondrial Eve or Adam was about the point I am making is that the science that so many hold as God has itself proclaimed a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. This is line with bible teaching. So nit pic all you wish on side points... there you have it.

No, there was no common ancestor around 5000 years ago. At that time mankind had spread from Africa to points all over the world.

All animals are all made from the elements that can be found on the earth, there's nothing magic about humans.

Indeed. In fact all matter is made from one element or another. However, If one were to say a star is made from clay, they would be incorrect. They may contain many of the same elements, but the clay did not form the star.

It is difficult to refute genetics from a lay mans terms. We rely on the hypothesis of data that scientists come up with. And from the mouth of science a common ancestor around 5000 years ago is fantastic for those that believe in the inspiration of the bible as a whole. Maybe 5000 years ago mutant apes got it together to make us. That's no more a ridulous scenario than believing in creation.
Those of you that see yourselves as knowledgeable enough to dispute this finding feel free.

There was no common ancestor 5000 years ago. Mito. Eve is not the single ancestor we all sprang from, she is the most recent of of common ancestors to be recorded. And this may change as genetics continues researching. Recent studies put her at about 150,000 years before the present, in Africa.

The name “Eve” leads to a number of misconceptions, by association with the Biblical “Eve”. The following misconceptions are not implied by the research at all:

• That “Eve” has no ancestry of her own. She indeed has ancestors, and all such females are also qualify as ancestors through the female line of all currently living humans, though only the one is the latest such.
• That “Eve” is the only common ancestor of the human race. There are probably thousands, or tens of thousands, of her contemporaries who were and millions of others both before and after her, including, of course, all of Eve's ancestors.
• That “Eve” was the only female in existence. She no doubt had many contemporaries, but she is the only one who is a common ancestor of all humans alive today by strictly matrilineal descent; the rest may or may not individually be ancestors of some of us; indeed, some her contemporaries may, like her, be ancestral to all living humans, just not matrilineally.
• That “Eve” knew “Adam”. There is no reason why they should have lived at the same time or in the same place; in fact we suspect that they lived some tens to hundreds of thousands of years apart in time, though they were both Africans.
• That all humans ever in existence were descended from “Eve”. She is an ancestor of all people alive today, and since that situation changes daily, her identity may also change. She may move from being the Mitochondrial Eve, the latest common female ancestor, to just one of Eve's ancestors as one of her descendants becomes the "latest".

Source

 

[newhope101]

This is an extract from Wikipedia "Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendents or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve."
Look I'm no intellectual but the info above and on the Wikipedia site appear to me to be saying that indeed prior to 5000 years ago we all had the same ancestors meaning we came from the same 2 parents, around 5000 years ago. Yes, I do not see it saying that these 2 have no ancestors.
Tumbleweed, am I still misinformed?
For someone like me that wants to believe in something after this life I take this info to fit in with the flood where Moses and family were the only survivors hence a sole genetic line from there but with ancestry behind it.
I do not want to be a pig about this. I just want to understand. Reading genetic data is way over my head.
Thanx for your reply Tumbleweed 41.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is an extract from Wikipedia "Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendents or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve."
Look I'm no intellectual but the info above and on the Wikipedia site appear to me to be saying that indeed prior to 5000 years ago we all had the same ancestors meaning we came from the same 2 parents, around 5000 years ago. Yes, I do not see it saying that these 2 have no ancestors.
Tumbleweed, am I still misinformed?
For someone like me that wants to believe in something after this life I take this info to fit in with the flood where Moses and family were the only survivors hence a sole genetic line from there but with ancestry behind it.
I do not want to be a pig about this. I just want to understand. Reading genetic data is way over my head.
Thanx for your reply Tumbleweed 41.

From the WIKI

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living humans are descended. Passed down from mother to offspring, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.
Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens were developing as a species separate from other human species.
Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP.[4] The dating for 'Eve' was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis that modern humans originated relatively recently in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis is now the dominant one.

 

[Autodidact]

Regardless of when the Mitochondrial Eve or Adam was about the point I am making is that the science that so many hold as God has itself proclaimed a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. This is line with bible teaching. So nit pic all you wish on side points... there you have it.

All animals are all made from the elements that can be found on the earth, there's nothing magic about humans.

I see you made no refute of the substance of my point.

As for H. Heidelbergensis, who or whatever that is, thank God someone or something was able to create life because scientists have never been able to do it!

It is difficult to refute genetics from a lay mans terms. We rely on the hypothesis of data that scientists come up with. And from the mouth of science a common ancestor around 5000 years ago is fantastic for those that believe in the inspiration of the bible as a whole. Maybe 5000 years ago mutant apes got it together to make us. That's no more a ridulous scenario than believing in creation.

Those of you that see yourselves as knowledgeable enough to dispute this finding feel free.

200,000 does not equal "around 5000."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The "around 5000" comes from a blurb near the bottom of the Mitochondrial Eve article

The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5000 years, even for people born on different continents

There's a source article on this:

'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent

However, the article places the MRCA only 1000 years in the past. The person making the claims has no connection to biology, he's a mathematician. The model he used to reach his figure on the MRCA admittedly ignored geography and migration. I don't know why he created his "simple world" model but it shouldn't be used, much less cited, for any serious research.

The MRCA article on Wikipedia also seals the fate of the young MRCA idea.

However, Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)[4], using a non-genetic model, estimated that the MRCA of all living humans may have lived within historical times (3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD). Rohde (2005)

[emphasis added by The_Evelyonian]

Newhope, what you need to understand about the Rohde-Olson-Chang model is that no genetic research was done. They simply used a few mathematical ideas and said, "If life follows a very simple set of rules then the MRCA would have lived between 6,000-1,000 years ago". The problem is is that life doesn't follow "a very simple set of rules".
Plus, their model left out many important factors (migration, geography, etc) and therefore isn't a realistic model of how life would have developed.

The most recent common ancestor that has been found using genetic research is Y-Chromosomal Adam and he lived between 90,000-60,000 years ago.

 

[newhope101]

Thanks again tumbleweed41. I found this on World IQ, -The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organism is the most recent individual which is an ancestor of all of them. The term is most frequently used of humans. A recent article by Douglas Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph Chang, "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals" suggests that the MRCA of all humans now living was a human within historical times (3000 B.C. - A.D. 1000), while other studies suggest the MRCA of those living in Western civilizations is as recent as 1000 A.D. The same article provides surprisingly recent estimates for the identical ancestors point, the most recent time when each person was an ancestor to all or ancestor to none of the people alive today.
I won't argue the genetics anymore. There are heaps of theories about it. I have research credentials but in the social work/psychology field. From this I know how easily data can be maniplated to suit ones own agenda. The last line of the above article threw me pretty well. "Ancestor to all or ancestor to none". I read the above article... which sounds simple yet it appears I'm not getting it, from Tumbleweeds reply. Its' all just too hard. Scientists in this field remind me of the blind leading the blind. It's not like maths where 1 + 1 always equals 2. I just hope science will one day support the validity of the bible with or without creationism.
Thanks for trying.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks again tumbleweed41. I found this on World IQ, -The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organism is the most recent individual which is an ancestor of all of them. The term is most frequently used of humans. A recent article by Douglas Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph Chang, "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals" suggests that the MRCA of all humans now living was a human within historical times (3000 B.C. - A.D. 1000), while other studies suggest the MRCA of those living in Western civilizations is as recent as 1000 A.D. The same article provides surprisingly recent estimates for the identical ancestors point, the most recent time when each person was an ancestor to all or ancestor to none of the people alive today.
I won't argue the genetics anymore. There are heaps of theories about it. I have research credentials but in the social work/psychology field. From this I know how easily data can be maniplated to suit ones own agenda. The last line of the above article threw me pretty well. "Ancestor to all or ancestor to none". I read the above article... which sounds simple yet it appears I'm not getting it, from Tumbleweeds reply. Its' all just too hard. Scientists in this field remind me of the blind leading the blind. It's not like maths where 1 + 1 always equals 2. I just hope science will one day support the validity of the bible with or without creationism.
Thanks for trying.

So, in spite of everything brought to your attention about your misunderstanding of science, you're willing to go on assuming that you're right?

Why can creationists never admit when they are wrong? Why is it that, whenever they are backed into a corner, they always have either one of two responses, either "this is all too technical for me, but I'm going to continue to believe that I'm right", or "all the scientists are just manipulating everybody to their agenda"?

Why not just acknowledge the possibility that you were/are wrong and change your mind? Why is that such a hard thing for you to do?

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Why can creationists never admit when they are wrong? Why is it that, whenever they are backed into a corner, they always have either one of two responses, either "this is all too technical for me, but I'm going to continue to believe that I'm right",

Listen to me very carefully Mr, when I say something is too technical, that is I don’t understand the point, that does not mean I am CORNERED, that means I don’t understand what your saying. That’s EXACTLY what that means. It means exactly what I say. I’m not a liar, so put that in your dam pipe and smoke it.

In other words, i am not going to admit your right if i don't understand something you say! So back off with implying i am a liar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame



Listen to me very carefully Mr, when I say something is too technical, that is I don’t understand the point, that does not mean I am CORNERED, that means I don’t understand what your saying. That’s EXACTLY what that means. It means exactly what I say. I’m not a liar, so put that in your dam pipe and smoke it.

I didn't accuse you of lying. My issue is not with you not understanding it, it's with not understanding it but then making no effort to and then just assuming you're still right.

And yes, that is something I see creationists regularly do when confronted with something that they don't know how to respond to. That's what is meant by being cornered.

And I don't own a pipe.

 

[darkendless]

ImmortalFlame



Listen to me very carefully Mr, when I say something is too technical, that is I don’t understand the point, that does not mean I am CORNERED, that means I don’t understand what your saying. That’s EXACTLY what that means. It means exactly what I say. I’m not a liar, so put that in your dam pipe and smoke it.

In other words, i am not going to admit your right if i don't understand something you say! So back off with implying i am a liar.

Then you are simply ignorant and your opinion is unfounded.

Sorry to say it mate but if you don't know what we're talking about, you're not qualified to make a logical point.

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

I didn't accuse you of lying.

Your implying it.

My issue is not with you not understanding it, it's with not understanding it but then making no effort to and then just assuming you're still right.

Wrong, I am making an effort to understand it. And yes I do believe I am right UNTIL shown otherwise.

And yes, that is something I see creationists regularly do when confronted with something that they don't know how to respond to. That's what is meant by being cornered.

It’s not that I don’t know how to respond to it, as if I am stumped by it, it’s that I don’t understand it in ORDER TO respond to it. Get it right.

And I don't own a pipe.

You get the point I am sure.

Darkendless

Then you are simply ignorant and your opinion is unfounded.

No it’s not because I can ask lots of questions and read more. And then depending on the answers, ask more questions or make arguments.

Sorry to say it mate but if you don't know what we're talking about, you're not qualified to make a logical point.

No, I am qualified to ask questions if I don’t understand what you’re saying. That’s how it works.

And I am building a post for redOne77 with lots of those questions.

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

A theory is not a conjecture nor an unsupported guess/assertion.

I understand that, but your supports are NOT AIR TIGHT SOLID. I am hearing so many folk ASSUME it’s airtight solid, but NO IT’s NOT. If it was, I would not be QUESTIONING. Now you could say, well yea I would still question it out of being not sincere about reality, but that would be your assumption on me, to which you would be wrong because I know who I am. So that would leave me to think these folks would not be sincere since they don’t clearly realize what a NONE airtight solid support is and what it isn’t.

Theories explain why things are the way they are.

True, but there are different theories. And two differing theories cannot be both right.

Oxygen theory, for example, explains why some metals gain weight during combustion. It was a fact that metals gain weight before the theory was developed, but it was the theory that explained why (which is that oxygen combines with the metal upon combustion adding to the weight of the metal, fyi).

Ok, but a theory is still a theory, a theory is not a fact. A theory EXPLAINS a fact, yes, I understand that, but a theory that explains a fact is STILL NOT A FACTUAL explanation of the fact it is trying to explain. And in the case of the theory of cosmic and biological evolution, I QUESTION that theory that explains the facts. I do not question the actual facts themselves.

Science is about doing what is testable. It searches for the truth without ever saying that it has found truth.

Great, so it cannot say then that they have found that the theory of evolution is the “truth”.

The supernatural simply cannot be tested under the scientific method.

One SUPER important questions I have for you and it needs to be answered.
1: why can’t the supernatural (IF IT’s TRUE) be tested under the scientific method? That would mean they could never find truth.

However, you could take certain materialistic claims made by scripture, and test them out.

Agree

The problem that I see with doing this, is that scripture is largely concerned with the spirit, not the physical universe.

FIRMLY disagree. The scripture is concerned with BOTH worlds, since God created BOTH worlds. Science does not OWN the physical world and God own the spirit world, that’s NOT how it goes, science owns NO WORLD, God OWNS BOTH.

Many people have tried to develop ways to contact the spirit realm, but none of it is science.

Ok, lets do this again, what is science and what is it’s purpose? Is it’s purpose ONLY to seek a natural explanation, or the actual explanation of things? If it’s the second, then it has to be open to the spirit realm. If it’s the first, then science is closed minded.

So if the spirit world exists, why is it NOT science to contact it and study it?

How can you take a method to understand the natural, and use it to detect the supernatural? It just can't be done.

So your saying science is only seeking a natural explanation of things? They make preconceived notions that a spirit realm is not there to bother with?

When you die, your body sends a flood of chemicals, with a ton of endorphins (chemicals that give you euphoria), to the brain. These chemicals can cause intense hallucinations and extreme sensations.

Hold on their, how do you know it’s hallucinations they are seeing and not real things?

There is no real way to verify anything these people on scientific grounds.

Your wrong there, there are cases where people left their body and saw some stuff while out and then verified it when they reentered.

All science can say is that a rush of chemicals went into the brain that can cause extreme euphoria and hallucinations.

How do they know the chemicals was giving them the experience? And how do they know it was a hallucination and not real? And how do they account for cases where things were verified?

 

[Jollybear]

If you decide that such experiences are spiritual, you can't back it up scientifically, yet it cannot be disproved by science either. I personally think that God works in mysterious ways and that God does use these experiences (at least some) to change people's lives. However, that is my opinion.

I disagree, some of these are verified. I remember one, this girl was BORN BLIND, then had a near death experience and SAW the doctor and what he was doing. Then told what she saw when she came back to her body. But when she came back to her body, she could not see again. And there are other such experiences.

Because it is helpful to teach basic concepts, that is all. Maybe to add in a little poetry as well, but mainly it is used for teaching purposes.

Well it certainly don’t teach much if that is not what DNA IS. It would only teach a misleading teaching and confuse people. And if they are going to use it, they should attach to it that they don’t really mean that it’s literally a blue print or whatever.

DNA is a biological molecule that is a double alpha-helix

As I said, I am just going to keep asking more questions. What is a alpha helix?

that is composed of an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone

What is a sugar-phosphate backbone?

with various nitrogenous bases in the middle; adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine.

What are nitrogenous bases?

We know its structure through various experiments. Would you like me to go over them?

Yes if you don’t mind.

We know that it is the molecule of inheritance through various experiments as well. Would like me to go over them?

Yes, if you don’t mind.

DNA is simply a molecule that is passed down from one generation to the next. The different sequences of the bases (A T G C) is largely responsible for the organisms structure and chemistry. That is the function of DNA, it is not what DNA is.

Ok, so what I hear you saying is similar to me saying a blue print IS paper and ink, that is what a blue print IS, but that is not it’s FUNCTION or PURPOSE. The PURPOSE of the blue print is to give information on building the house.

Is this similar to what you’re saying about the DNA? Because it CERTAINLY sounds like it.

You say the DNA is responsible for the organisms structure and chemistry. How is it responsible if it’s not a blueprint or information? I just don’t get it?

It is a metaphor. The "lock" is the enzyme itself.

Ok, how is a enzyme like a lock? Also what is an enzyme?

The "key" is the substrate that binds to the enzyme.

How is a substrate like a key? Also what is a substrate?

Each enzyme is substrate specific – it is analogous to having a square binding site on the enzyme and the substrate to be square shaped (and the right size). It is a very good metaphor to teach people that enzymes are substrate specific; much like you can't fit a non-square shape perfectly into a square shaped hole, only the right molecule will bind to the right site.

However, the metaphor breaks down once you get into the more nitty gritty part. It turns out that there can be some slight variation between the substrates; the "key" part of the analogy; as described by something called "induced fit".

What do you mean by induced fit?

(I know we could go on about 'master keys' and such, but there is no 'master substrate'. It is simply a metaphor used to teach people basic concepts and is not meant for in-depth analysis)

So in other words some keys (substrates) don’t fit into the locks (enzymes)? Do I understand correctly? If so, why not just get another key?

 

[Jollybear]

As long as they are sincere and appropriate.

1: why would the questions I have not be sincere?
2: what is appropriate and what is not?

I doubt they will having anything too technical at a local library, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look, sometimes libraries will surprise you. I quickly looked over the first 3 lessons (Intro, chem 1 and 2) on the bio book. The material is probably accurate. I would view the book as an overview of what you might expect from an introductory bio course, which is basically what the person who made these lessons says at the bottom of the page. The only thing I'll caution you about reading it is that some of the things mentioned could be out of date, like in the first lesson they talk about 5 kingdoms and the possibility of adding a 6th, now there are just 5 kingdoms classified under 3 domains.

Here is a question for you, if a biology book is dated to be around 2009 (out of date) what HUGE differences would there be in the 2010 one?

Or is the differences going to be too little to even ponder?

Yes, many more. There is no set number, and I don't think it ever ends. But eventually you will stop reading textbooks and only use them as references and focus more on reading journals like "Science" and "Nature". Maybe Painted Wolf can tell you about how many biology textbooks you would need to get through 4 years of school. Off the top of my head, I would say it is around 10-12, and that is not counting any chemistry, physics or math/statistics you would need to take as well, just biology.

10 or 12, ok. I noticed in the biology book they also talk about chemistry.

I think you can get in without being a student. I didn't mean to imply that only students could get in, although I doubt they would let you check out anything unless you were a student or faculty. As far as I know there is nothing stopping you from entering a college library picking up a book and reading it.

So there is nothing stopping me from going into the college and picking up the book and reading it? I am by their rule allowed to do that? Just not allowed to take it home, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your implying it.

Not even that. I just said it was a usual tactic to avoid admitting you were wrong, I never said it was dishonest - just cheap.

Wrong, I am making an effort to understand it. And yes I do believe I am right UNTIL shown otherwise.

Once again, where, precisely, to I make the accusation against you specifically?

It’s not that I don’t know how to respond to it, as if I am stumped by it, it’s that I don’t understand it in ORDER TO respond to it. Get it right.

And it's not that creationists don't or can't respond to it, it's that they refuse to respond to it and continue to assert that they are right regardless that I take issue with. Admitting fault or ignorance is not what bugs me - it's admitting ignorance and then continuing to assert that you are correct. "Get it right."

I've explained this three times now. And where did you get this bizarre notion that I was accusing you, specifically? I'm talking in generalities.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand that, but your supports are NOT AIR TIGHT SOLID. I am hearing so many folk ASSUME it’s airtight solid, but NO IT’s NOT. If it was, I would not be QUESTIONING. Now you could say, well yea I would still question it out of being not sincere about reality, but that would be your assumption on me, to which you would be wrong because I know who I am. So that would leave me to think these folks would not be sincere since they don’t clearly realize what a NONE airtight solid support is and what it isn’t.

What's not "airtight" about ERVs? Fossils? DNA? Not a single fact has ever been found that contradicts evolution theory, and every new discovery in the field of biology, archaeology and paleontology matches the specific predictions of evolution perfectly.

If that's not "airtight" to you, then clearly your standards are absurd.

True, but there are different theories. And two differing theories cannot be both right.

Which is why evolution is currently the only accepted theory on the diversification of life on earth.

Ok, but a theory is still a theory, a theory is not a fact. A theory EXPLAINS a fact, yes, I understand that, but a theory that explains a fact is STILL NOT A FACTUAL explanation of the fact it is trying to explain. And in the case of the theory of cosmic and biological evolution, I QUESTION that theory that explains the facts. I do not question the actual facts themselves.

Basically, all you're doing here is claiming that theories could be wrong. Well, of course they could. But there is a reason that evolution is regarded as the most widely evidenced and accepted theory in all of modern science - it has been used repeatedly to make successful predictions. If the theory were incorrect, that could simply not be done. That's not to say the theory is perfect, it is still being worked on (unlike creationists, real scientists don't sit on their laurels). This whole "it's a theory not a fact" attitude just shows that you're willing to grasp at straws to deny evolution rather than actually address the facts or evidence presented within it.

Great, so it cannot say then that they have found that the theory of evolution is the “truth”.

Again, scientists don't rest on their laurels. The fact that scientists are always willing to test their explanations, no matter how well founded they are, makes their work more reliable. Not less.

One SUPER important questions I have for you and it needs to be answered.
1: why can’t the supernatural (IF IT’s TRUE) be tested under the scientific method? That would mean they could never find truth.

Because, by definition, science is the study of the natural world and the laws that govern it. And, by definition, the super natural is something that is neither contained within nor explained by the natural world or natural laws.

What's more, there does not exist any means by which we can test for the super natural, and the super natural is not known or evidenced to exist in any capacity. Why waste time trying to study something of which we have no reason to think it exists? True or not, that would be a waste of time.

FIRMLY disagree. The scripture is concerned with BOTH worlds, since God created BOTH worlds. Science does not OWN the physical world and God own the spirit world, that’s NOT how it goes, science owns NO WORLD, God OWNS BOTH.

Or neither, if God doesn't exist. Which many of us think is probably likely.

Ok, lets do this again, what is science and what is it’s purpose? Is it’s purpose ONLY to seek a natural explanation, or the actual explanation of things? If it’s the second, then it has to be open to the spirit realm. If it’s the first, then science is closed minded.

Well, present evidence of the spirit realm's existence and maybe science would have something to study.

Until then, calling science close-mined because it refuses to study "spirits" is no different than calling it close-minded because it refuses to study the Harry Potter mythology.

Science does not exist to indulge your beliefs. It concerns itself only with the study of what can be known, and right now any supposed spirit world falls firmly in the realms of the unknown (if being generous) or the realm of fantasy (if being honest).

So if the spirit world exists, why is it NOT science to contact it and study it?

See above.

So your saying science is only seeking a natural explanation of things? They make preconceived notions that a spirit realm is not there to bother with?

Wrong. Many scientists are spiritual, but keep their beliefs separate from science - because they know and understand that beliefs have no place in science until demonstrated otherwise.

Hold on their, how do you know it’s hallucinations they are seeing and not real things?

The same way we know that when we look at a cartoon dragon on television it's not a real dragon. Logic.

Your wrong there, there are cases where people left their body and saw some stuff while out and then verified it when they reentered.[/QUOTE]
And there are cases of people claiming to have out of body experiences under controlled conditions and failing to notice specific, unusual objects while having their experience.

What's your point?

How do they know the chemicals was giving them the experience? And how do they know it was a hallucination and not real? And how do they account for cases where things were verified?[/QUOTE]
How do you know that when you're dreaming you're dreaming? Because we know that there is a set standard way of determining fact from fiction.

And no, there has never been any case where any out of body experience has ever been verified under scientific conditions. Having looked into it myself, I can say that with absolute certainty.

 

[painted wolf]

Maybe Painted Wolf can tell you about how many biology textbooks you would need to get through 4 years of school. Off the top of my head, I would say it is around 10-12, and that is not counting any chemistry, physics or math/statistics you would need to take as well, just biology.

I would say 10-12 introductory Biology books are about average for a BA/BS run.
Not counting lab manuals of course. Then you have to almost double that number.

Here are some of mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Maste...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276831241&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Vertebrates-C...r_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276831437&sr=1-11
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Inver...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276831534&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Genetic-Analysis-Griffiths/dp/0716768879/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Exper...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276831711&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Physio...r_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276831947&sr=1-10
http://www.amazon.com/Ornithology-F...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276832077&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276832202&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Co...2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276832421&sr=1-2-spell

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Not even that. I just said it was a usual tactic to avoid admitting you were wrong, I never said it was dishonest - just cheap.

If someone says “that is too technical to respond to” and uses that as a motive to avoid admitting they are wrong, THAT IS DISHONEST. Why are you bull crapping me? I don’t have time for that.

You can call it cheap all you want, it still means the same thing, dishonest, liar, whatever. It’s not good whatever you want to call it. But in my case, it IS good, just not BEST since I don’t understand YET all the technical language.

Once again, where, precisely, to I make the accusation against you specifically?

You did not make it to me specifically, but you generalized, and used something that I spoke about. Concerning technical language.

I had mentioned in this thread already that there are some technical language that I don’t yet understand. I did NOT say that to try to COVER up being stumped by a point, I said that because it is REALLY the truth.

Here is what don’t make sense to me. You guys realize that we young earth creationists (or fundamentalists, whatever you want to call us, I personally don’t care what you call us at this moment) are SOOOOO strict about genesis chapter 1 and the flood story, but you’re so bent on thinking we are dishonest. Does it not occur to you by SIMPLE logic that if we are so strict about Genesis chapter 1 and the flood story, would we also not be just as strict with the rest of the bible, such as the commandments to be HONEST! Like ding dong, clue in. If we believe in genesis, we are also going to believe in the other parts of the bible to be honest. Come on now, logic.

And it's not that creationists don't or can't respond to it, it's that they refuse to respond to it and continue to assert that they are right regardless that I take issue with.

Maybe the creationists that you have experienced time with REFUSE to respond to your points, but I CERTAINLY am not like them. And I personally get VERY ticked off if someone runs from responding to my case about ANYTHING. I think it’s cowering. And cowering and hypocrisy is the two things I hate the most in this whole world. But anyway, I will not run from ANY of your questions and arguments. Even if I have to research something MORE, or READ some more, I will DO so, but I certainly will not run or refuse. I don’t care HOW HARD your argument or point or question is, I will not refuse. And in ANY debate I have EVER done in my life, I have NEVER refused. Also as a side note, there has been atheists and agnostics who have REFUSED to answer some of my questions. So, no need to pick on SOME of those creationists, even SOME atheists do the same thing. It really depends on the type of PERSON your dealing with whether he is an idiot or not. That is what it boils down to. And I assure, I am not an idiot, I may get mad, but I am not an idiot. If I get mad, it’s for a GOOD reason.

Admitting fault or ignorance is not what bugs me - it's admitting ignorance and then continuing to assert that you are correct. "Get it right."

Admitting ignorance and then still asserting they are correct is not wrong if what they are asserting by faith is correct. Also if I admit I am ignorant in my understanding of some of the techno language used in biology textbooks, that is not admitting that I am ignorant of what I believe and that also is not an admittance to not knowing ANYTHING of the subject whatsoever.

Your acting like I am suppose to know everything if I talk about the subject. Give me a break man, you don’t know everything, no one knows everything.

Also immortal, my response to RedOne77 was to him, not you. There is a reason why I wanted him to respond to what I said TO him and not you. It’s because we had a previous posts to each other, and my questions to him were built from there, to which you cannot appreciate that short history. If he does not respond, then I will respond to your points. But if he does, then I will respond to his points, but it will be like responding to yours, slightly, since his responses will probably be slightly different. Perhaps, less frustrating to me. And this is not me “REFUSING your challenge, this is me having TIME management and order to my conversations.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

How long would it take to read all those 12 books and double if one were to read about 3 hours of them a day?

 

[painted wolf]

It took me three years...

wa:do