Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Bowman]

And we can expect links from you when?

Let's let the sister show her references first....ladies first...

 

[jonman122]

Let's let the sister show her references first....ladies first...

so you're afraid to show your references? interesting.

 

[Meow Mix]

Please don't tell me that you googled this from wiki...

Show us exactly where you are getting your dates from.

Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking & Allan C. Wilson. "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Nature, 325 (1987), 3 1-6.

"Mitochondrial DNAs from 147 people, drawn from five geographic populations have been analysed by restriction mapping. All these mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman who is postulated to have lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa. All the populations examined except the African population have multiple origins, implying that each area was colonised repeatedly." (Emphasis added)

Some nonscientific, yet fairly reputable confirmation:

Age confirmed for 'Eve,' mother of all humans - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

"A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms." (Emphasis added)

University of Leeds - New ‘molecular clock’ aids dating of human migration history

"...we can put a timescale on any part of the particular family tree, right back to humanity's last common maternal ancestor, known as 'Mitochondrial Eve', who lived some 200,000 years ago." (Emphasis added)

 

[AxisMundi]

More accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica....wow...now thats saying alot...

That's your only reply?

No.

I do not.

Yes, you do. An yDNA Noah is a YECer pseudoscience proposition.

There is no current evidence for an oscillating Universe.

No current "evidence" for a Big Bang either.

Perhaps you have already googled 'wiki' and found that world view wanting....yes?

I find your responses quite juvanile, lacking in substance, and certainly lacking in any citations what so ever.

Let's let the sister show her references first....ladies first...

I also find your responses quite intellectually bankrupt as well.

You keep stating things as facts, yet refuse to cite sources to substantiate your statements, and then you expect others to.

No, you have lost this debate hands down, no doubt about it.

 

[Meow Mix]

No current "evidence" for a Big Bang either.

Incorrect; that the BBE occurred is without doubt in modern cosmology. It's understanding exactly how it occurred, in what sequence, with what happening at the quantum gravity level that is still being discovered -- but there was most assuredly a BBE.

 

[AxisMundi]

[/size][/font]

Incorrect; that the BBE occurred is without doubt in modern cosmology. It's understanding exactly how it occurred, in what sequence, with what happening at the quantum gravity level that is still being discovered -- but there was most assuredly a BBE.

Ah, but what evidence is there, Ms. Mix.

I proprose that the same evidence for a BBE is also the same for a cyclic universe.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ah, but what evidence is there, Ms. Mix.

I proprose that the same evidence for a BBE is also the same for a cyclic universe.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you're asking -- a cyclic universe incorporates the BBE. In such a universe there are infinite BBE's.

Are you asking for evidence that the BBE occurred, or are you asking for evidence against cyclic BBE's?

 

[Bowman]

Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking & Allan C. Wilson. "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Nature, 325 (1987), 3 1-6.

"Mitochondrial DNAs from 147 people, drawn from five geographic populations have been analysed by restriction mapping. All these mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman who is postulated to have lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa. All the populations examined except the African population have multiple origins, implying that each area was colonised repeatedly." (Emphasis added)

Do you usually obtain your recent science from 23 year old publications?

Further, where do you present the recent studies which have 10 - 20% of the human population possessing two types of mDNA (heteroplasmy) and nearly 1% having three types (triplasmy)....?

Some nonscientific, yet fairly reputable confirmation:

Age confirmed for 'Eve,' mother of all humans - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

"A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms." (Emphasis added)

Not even a single verifiable reference from this googled link.





http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/245/new_molecular_clock_aids_dating_of_human_migration_history

University of Leeds - New ‘molecular clock’ aids dating of human migration history

"...we can put a timescale on any part of the particular family tree, right back to humanity's last common maternal ancestor, known as 'Mitochondrial Eve', who lived some 200,000 years ago." (Emphasis added)

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/245/new_molecular_clock_aids_dating_of_human_migration_history




Sure enough, this is already one of the references which one would find in the googled wiki link.

Again...not very credible...nothing more than a few moments of googling...

 

[jonman122]

Again...not very credible...nothing more than a few moments of googling...

and it's already 999% more credible than anything you have given so far. If you have NOTHING to back up your statements, then give up.

 

[Bowman]

The earth and universe are of the same age, both some 6,000 years old....
Genesis 1:1, 1:5. As to the age, it is arrived at by counting generations between Adam and Abraham.

There is no Biblical mandate for summing the generations to arrive at a creation date.

The 'day's' mentioned in Genesis represent epochs of time.

Only the Koran claims a 6,000 year old Universe.

 

[Bowman]

and it's already 999% more credible than anything you have given so far. If you have NOTHING to back up your statements, then give up.

One salient point at a time, brother.

Perhaps you can help out your sister in finding a credible 200,000 year date for her position.

 

[jonman122]

One salient point at a time, brother.

Perhaps you can help out your sister in finding a credible 200,000 year date for her position.

'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago

article was made on august 17th 2010.

The most robust statistical examination to date of our species' genetic links to "mitochondrial Eve" -- the maternal ancestor of all living humans -- confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. The Rice University study was based on a side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth.

first paragraph of the article there for ya.

 

[Meow Mix]

Do you usually obtain your recent science from 23 year old publications?

Further, where do you present the recent studies which have 10 - 20% of the human population possessing two types of mDNA (heteroplasmy) and nearly 1% having three types (triplasmy)....?

I suppose if I pointed out the fact that "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was published in 1905 you would consider that an unreputable source, too?

I've provided you a credible source. You mentioned a date of 50,000 years ago -- where did you get that figure? It's your turn to cite.

Edit: Should it be "a disreputable source?"

 

[McBell]

Let's let the sister show her references first....ladies first...

She has presented hers.

Your turn.
Though I am sure you will have some other bull **** excuse as to why you cannot present anything.

 

[Bowman]

I suppose if I pointed out the fact that "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was published in 1905 you would consider that an unreputable source, too?

I've provided you a credible source. You mentioned a date of 50,000 years ago -- where did you get that figure? It's your turn to cite.

Edit: Should it be "a disreputable source?"

When you step outside your area of training, then we see what occurs....yes?

 

[jonman122]

When you step outside your area of training, then we see what occurs....yes?

so what you're saying is you have no references and you have nothing better to do than blather about literally nothing? congratulations, you have just proved nothing.. other than you're absolutely crazy.

 

[McBell]

When you step outside your area of training, then we see what occurs....yes?

Still waiting for your next bull **** excuse...
...I mean, for you to cite your sources.

 

[Meow Mix]

When you step outside your area of training, then we see what occurs....yes?

Give me one good reason why the paper I cited you is insufficient.

Are you saying that papers from the 80's can't possibly be accurate or well-done science? The only reason to ridicule papers over 10 years ago is if there is extant, more modern research which either expands or contradicts an old find. I haven't found any -- have you?

Where's your source for the 50,000 years figure that you provided?

 

[Bowman]

Give me one good reason why the paper I cited you is insufficient.

Are you saying that papers from the 80's can't possibly be accurate or well-done science? The only reason to ridicule papers over 10 years ago is if there is extant, more modern research which either expands or contradicts an old find. I haven't found any -- have you?

Where's your source for the 50,000 years figure that you provided?

Your very first reference was perhaps valid in 1987, however, this is 23 years later.

Look at what your reference looks like now...

Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson estimated the mutation rate by looking at the mtDNA of groups of people whose ancestors migrated to areas at known times. One group was Australian aborigines, whose ancestors moved to the island-continent a then-calculated 30,000 years ago.[4]

Since the three then knew how long it took for that group's mtDNA to diverge as well as how much it diverged, they determined the mutation rate. Using this rate, they determined that the most recent common ancestor lived 140,000 to 290,000 years ago (which they roughly averaged to 200,000 years ago). That was back in 1987. Since then, researchers have updated the estimate to 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. However, the margin for error for this estimate and the previous one are significant—when all of the variables are taken into account, the current range is more like 50,000 to 500,000.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html


Thus... with such an impure date, my position most assuredly does have merit...

 

[jonman122]

Your very first reference was perhaps valid in 1987, however, this is 23 years later.

Look at what your reference looks like now...




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html


Thus... with such an impure date, my position most assuredly does have merit...

no it doesnt, i put a reference from a few weeks ago, your position has no merrit.