Evidence for God from Science

What does this mean for current evolutionary theory?

An article on the study including some interesting links: Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species

The study itself: Why should mitochondria define species?

Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 am Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 am Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

How so?

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 am Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

How so?

If all species are 100,000-200,000 years old, then that puts a nail in the young earth coffin.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:09 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 am Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

How so?

If all species are 100,000-200,000 years old, then that puts a nail in the young earth coffin.

I'm not young earth, I'm still undecided.
But if you combine that study with this one below then you get young earth.

A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:21 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:09 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 am Has no one got any comment on this?
Surely it has huge implications for evolutionary theory if all current species are only 100,000 - 200,000 years old.

Even the studies participants fought against the results initially, but they had to relent when that is what the data showed.

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

How so?

If all species are 100,000-200,000 years old, then that puts a nail in the young earth coffin.

I'm not young earth, I'm still undecided.
But if you combine that study with this one below then you get young earth.

A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results

Undecided? So that means you're still weighing the evidence, right? What would happen if while weighing the evidence, you find that it points to evolution?
Would you go where the evidence points?

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:32 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:21 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:09 am

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 am

If true, then it seems you've been hoist by your own petard.

How so?

If all species are 100,000-200,000 years old, then that puts a nail in the young earth coffin.

I'm not young earth, I'm still undecided.
But if you combine that study with this one below then you get young earth.

A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results

Undecided? So that means you're still weighing the evidence, right? What would happen if while weighing the evidence, you find that it points to evolution?
Would you go where the evidence points?

No, on macro-evolution I'm pretty well decided. It's a load of crap

Stu wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:27 am What does this mean for current evolutionary theory?

An article on the study including some interesting links: Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species

The study itself: Why should mitochondria define species?

What about the fossils of past life? Even early humans/hominids? Genetic back tracing by scientists round the world show that what's sometimes called H. sapiens is older than 200kya.

Then you have stuff like zicrons which show the age of the earth. Flood geology doesn't seem to hold up under a lot of thinking and evidence.

How can all the beasts of the world coexist with each other in a sinful world with wimpy short humans to rule over them? The titanosaurs were some of the LARGEST animals to exist, not to mention some Tyrannosaurids. Especially as numerous amounts of fossils as we have found of pelycosaurs, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, terror birds, etc etc.

Sifting through all of this is immensely impacted by just what COLLECTIVE evidences are sifted. It also has a lot to do with how one views Scripture and interprets it. There is no one chain of evidences a Christian should be open to examining. A whole lot of people don't believe Scripture because of what they think they definitively know from science. And there are some who think they understand the Bible so clearly that they believe the scientific evidences for an ancient earth must be wrong. But if they misinterpret either stream of the evidences available, or misinterpret a bit of both, they're gonna get it wrong. There's just a whole lot to consider. But if one has determined that God is unnecessary to explain what exists, to me, they wandered beyond science into wild theories and speculations - and into Byblos "unsupported bookshelf" assertion.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:04 am Sifting through all of this is immensely impacted by just what COLLECTIVE evidences are sifted. It also has a lot to do with how one views Scripture and interprets it. There is no one chain of evidences a Christian should be open to examining. A whole lot of people don't believe Scripture because of what they think they definitively know from science. And there are some who think they understand the Bible so clearly that they believe the scientific evidences for an ancient earth must be wrong. But if they misinterpret either stream of the evidences available, or misinterpret a bit of both, they're gonna get it wrong. There's just a whole lot to consider. But if one has determined that God is unnecessary to explain what exists, to me, they wandered beyond science into wild theories and speculations - and into Byblos "unsupported bookshelf" assertion.

I stole that right out of Feser's book. I wish I were that smart.

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:47 am

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:04 am Sifting through all of this is immensely impacted by just what COLLECTIVE evidences are sifted. It also has a lot to do with how one views Scripture and interprets it. There is no one chain of evidences a Christian should be open to examining. A whole lot of people don't believe Scripture because of what they think they definitively know from science. And there are some who think they understand the Bible so clearly that they believe the scientific evidences for an ancient earth must be wrong. But if they misinterpret either stream of the evidences available, or misinterpret a bit of both, they're gonna get it wrong. There's just a whole lot to consider. But if one has determined that God is unnecessary to explain what exists, to me, they wandered beyond science into wild theories and speculations - and into Byblos "unsupported bookshelf" assertion.

I stole that right out of Feser's book. I wish I were that smart.

But it's a great and very powerful, image-inducing statement, nonetheless! (Yes, I know great minds think alike )

So just how could T. rex and Giganotosaurs and Brachiosaur coexist with human beings? It would be different if they were rare, but fossils show they were rather common.
Heck even the earlier races of mankind like Neanderthal, Herto, and Cro-Magnon man which were very strong would've have a hard time.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:15 pm

Stu wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:27 am What does this mean for current evolutionary theory?

An article on the study including some interesting links: Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species

The study itself: Why should mitochondria define species?

What about the fossils of past life? Even early humans/hominids? Genetic back tracing by scientists round the world show that what's sometimes called H. sapiens is older than 200kya.

Then you have stuff like zicrons which show the age of the earth. Flood geology doesn't seem to hold up under a lot of thinking and evidence.

You brought up zircon crystals which seem to be changing the view that the earth in its beginning was a molten lave hell like has been believed but instead had water on it as far back to the beginning as Geologists can go.This is important to Gap Theorists because we believe that the former world was beautiful and inhabited by life from the beginning like the bible actually reveals to us but became without form and void as we see in Genesis 1:2 after billions of years and the former world perished.Isaiah 45:18,Job 38:4-7.We have never believed God created the earth in a without form and void state as we see in Genesis 1:2 and then decorated it in order to create it,as God would not do that,he speaks and it happens and it is beautifal and good the way he wants it.