sceince yet again proves the bible is wrong

evince said:
Nearly all modern men can trace their lineage back to one man who roamed Africa between 125,000 and 156,000 years ago, according to LiveScience. And the same is true for women, who are linked to one woman who lived at the same time.
Click to expand...

This part is a little annoying to me because it is is misleading. From the nature article...

...the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed from mother to daughter and son...

So, theoretically, we should all be traceable to the Eve, while only men are traceable to the Adam.
 
evince said:
some have a hell of a time understanding science.


This shows we are all Africans in the end.

It shows how long man has existed


It also proves an age to the world that is inconsistent with claims in the bible.
Click to expand...

It does not show how long man (homo sapiens) has existed.
 
Superfreak said:
Is this a chicken and egg type thing?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. They were not the first man and woman.

They are the most recent common ancestor of males in their paternal line and the most recent common ancestor of all of us in our maternal line.

It is highly unlikely that there was ever just one male and one female or a first couple in any modern species. The idea that there has to be is a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
 
tekkychick said:
and what's your point?

The point of the Op was that a) science proves people have been around a lot longer than the bible says and b) there wasn't any Adam and Eve in a garden as the original couple.

At least that's what I took from the article.

So what's your point?
Click to expand...


I don't know what any Bible says....how long does the Bible say people have been around....?
I assumed they were around since the Creation...you say its longer ???? .and I missed the part in the article that spoke about the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve....
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, I don't think so. They were not the first man and woman.

They are the most recent common ancestor of males in their paternal line and the most recent common ancestor of all of us in our maternal line.

It is highly unlikely that there was ever just one male and one female or a first couple in any modern species. The idea that there has to be is a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it doesn't.....anywhere.....
Click to expand...

It does not say a lot of things you claim biblical support for, e.g., the D of I, your crazy ideas about "kinds." If one asserts that Adam and Eve were really the first humans and that the lineages and dates of the bible are accurate then humans can't be more than several thousand years old. Ussher's scholarship based on the Bible is pretty solid. The problem is that it's based on the Bible. Now you can slip out of the noose by focusing on the age of the earth and invent some convenient nonsense about how God's days are longer than man's to argue that the earth could still be much older than humans, but it does not solve the problem that the evidence also shows that the human species is older than 6000 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
then humans can't be more than several thousand years old. Ussher's scholarship based on the Bible is pretty solid.
Click to expand...

so....you and Ussher believe the earth is 6000 years old?......interesting.......tell me this.....according to the Bible, how many years passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3?.......
 
Doesn't that whole "gods days are longer" argument crack you up? it's like whenever science proves the bible wrong, they go back and rework their arguments desperately trying to allow for the science...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so....you and Ussher believe the earth is 6000 years old?......interesting.......tell me this.....according to the Bible, how many years passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3?.......
Click to expand...

There you go dropping context. Watch out, grind claims that is libel and slander.

Again, the problem with Ussher's analyses is that it is based on the Bible.
 
Professor Baxter said:
There you go dropping context. Watch out, grind claims that is libel and slander.

Again, the problem with Ussher's analyses is that it is based on the Bible.
Click to expand...

nope....its based on his assumptions.......cite me a text that supports his claims.......how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3......Ussher never even attempted to address the issue......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top