Creationists have some 'splainin to do!

[tas8831]

In another thread (and elsewhere on the interwebs) creationists have been implying that the observed mutational differences between humans and chimps are "too many" to have accumulated in 10 million years. The specific numbers vary, depending on which creationist is making the claims, but the current numbers being tossed about on this forum are that even a 1% DNA difference it 'too much' to have accumulated in 10 million years, if evolution were true.

No real explanation is given as to why this is the case, but it is asserted several times.


Alas...

It seems that any 2 random humans will differ by nearly double the amount creationists allow for:

We can expect any 2 random humans to differ by about 1.6%.

Too much for evolution to accomplish in 10 million years, but twice the amount in only 0.06% of their allowed time for YECism to accomplish?


Young earth creationists must explain that level of divergence in only 6,000 years.*


But they won't.


*please note that the numbers here (the 1% difference between humans and chimps, the 10 million year ago divergence) are apparently made-up, but it really doesn't matter - the premise is nonsense.

 

[Earthling]

In another thread (and elsewhere on the interwebs) creationists have been implying that the observed mutational differences between humans and chimps are "too many" to have accumulated in 10 million years. The specific numbers vary, depending on which creationist is making the claims, but the current numbers being tossed about on this forum are that even a 1% DNA difference it 'too much' to have accumulated in 10 million years, if evolution were true.

No real explanation is given as to why this is the case, but it is asserted several times.


Alas...

It seems that any 2 random humans will differ by nearly double the amount creationists allow for:

We can expect any 2 random humans to differ by about 1.6%.

Too much for evolution to accomplish in 10 million years, but twice the amount in only 0.06% of their allowed time for YECism to accomplish?


Young earth creationists must explain that level of divergence in only 6,000 years.*


But they won't.


*please note that the numbers here (the 1% difference between humans and chimps, the 10 million year ago divergence) are apparently made-up, but it really doesn't matter - the premise is nonsense.

To me speculation regarding "mutational differences between humans and chimps are 'too many' to have accumulated in 10 million years" is pure speculation. From either side.

Otherwise you make a wise distinction of Young Earth Creationists and their views on 6,000 years of creation. That distinction rightly indicates a variation in interpretation. So . . . no argument there, other than it's still speculation. No one knows and to suggest otherwise would indicate some knowledge, i.e. facts that don't exist, either by YEC (shudder) or, equally ridiculous . . . science

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me speculation regarding "mutational differences between humans and chimps are 'too many' to have accumulated in 10 million years" is pure speculation. From either side.

Otherwise you make a wise distinction of Young Earth Creationists and their views on 6,000 years of creation. That distinction rightly indicates a variation in interpretation. So . . . no argument there, other than it's still speculation. No one knows and to suggest otherwise would indicate some knowledge, i.e. facts that don't exist, either by YEC (shudder) or, equally ridiculous . . . science

Scientists that understand the topic do not have to speculate very much. They can measure the number of mutations per generation in an organism. That alone eliminates most of the speculation. In fact charges of "speculation" should be avoided by creationists since then you put the burden of proof upon yourself to show how their work is speculation. Not supporting one's claim makes it a specious and worthless.

So can you support your claim of "speculation" or are you merely making charges that you cannot support?

 

[Earthling]

Scientists that understand the topic do not have to speculate very much. They can measure the number of mutations per generation in an organism. That alone eliminates most of the speculation. In fact charges of "speculation" should be avoided by creationists since then you put the burden of proof upon yourself to show how their work is speculation. Not supporting one's claim makes it a specious and worthless.

So can you support your claim of "speculation" or are you merely making charges that you cannot support?

On this specific subject, old friend, if it had been anyone else I might have. We've said all we can say on the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On this specific subject, old friend, if it had been anyone else I might have. We've said all we can say on the subject.

Weak excuse as usual. A tendency to make claims that one cannot support gives one a bad reputation. You made a claim. In a debate that would put the burden on you when challenged. And the Bible even has a commandment against making false accusations. Can you follow either authority?

 

[Earthling]

Weak excuse as usual.

Be that as it may, has the thought not occurred to you? That's a significant question which has a hidden meaning. If you don't get it the answer is likely of the negative.

A tendency to make claims that one cannot support gives one a bad reputation. You made a claim. In a debate that would put the burden on you when challenged.

[Looks around] This is a debate?!

And the Bible even has a commandment against making false accusations. Can you follow either authority?

The authority of quasi debate or of the authority which would negate your own supposition by default? Ironical is what that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Be that as it may, has the thought not occurred to you? That's a significant question which has a hidden meaning. If you don't get it the answer is likely of the negative.

Don't blame others for your failures.

[Looks around] This is a debate?!

I suppose not. It is merely corrections of your errors.

The authority of quasi debate or of the authority which would negate your own supposition by default? Ironical is what that is.

I can support my claims even about debates. One thing that I very very rarely see you do.

 

[Earthling]

Don't blame others for your failures.

That's an interesting response that could be taken as positive. Though I think it probably as uninformed as you typically are and just a rubber stamp response. I don't actually think you know what you are talking about. So the answer to the hidden question is obviously no.

I suppose not. It is merely corrections of your errors.

Well, like I've already said, you and I have peppered this dubious tome with our musings on that subject ad nauseam. So, no.

I can support my claims even about debates. One thing that I very very rarely see you do.

On any other subject I would take you up on that obvious challenge. Now I can't because I've given my word. That's all I will say about it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To me speculation regarding "mutational differences between humans and chimps are 'too many' to have accumulated in 10 million years" is pure speculation. From either side.

Otherwise you make a wise distinction of Young Earth Creationists and their views on 6,000 years of creation. That distinction rightly indicates a variation in interpretation. So . . . no argument there, other than it's still speculation. No one knows and to suggest otherwise would indicate some knowledge, i.e. facts that don't exist, either by YEC (shudder) or, equally ridiculous . . . science

So you hold scientific conclusions to be equal to YEC conclusions?

 

[tas8831]

To me speculation regarding "mutational differences between humans and chimps are 'too many' to have accumulated in 10 million years" is pure speculation. From either side.

As has been indicated, this is not quite the case. We can directly measure, and therefore estimate mutation rates (over time) in many groups of organisms, to include humans. Coupled with estimates of generation times, etc., we can infer a range of accumulated mutation over any given time period.
The other side, on the other hand, seems merely to make proclamations premised on their mere 'disbelief.'

Otherwise you make a wise distinction of Young Earth Creationists and their views on 6,000 years of creation. That distinction rightly indicates a variation in interpretation. So . . . no argument there, other than it's still speculation. No one knows and to suggest otherwise would indicate some knowledge, i.e. facts that don't exist, either by YEC (shudder) or, equally ridiculous . . . science

See above.
It is a mistake to equate the two in terms of addressing evidence and drawing conclusions or making inferences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Be that as it may, has the thought not occurred to you? That's a significant question which has a hidden meaning. If you don't get it the answer is likely of the negative.



[Looks around] This is a debate?!



The authority of quasi debate or of the authority which would negate your own supposition by default? Ironical is what that is.

Ahem, look up ... you are in the Religious Debates forum.

 

[dfnj]

Young earth creationists must explain that level of divergence in only 6,000 years.*
But they won't.

First, people accept the idea, "God exists" is an assumption or axiom that does not require any proof. Second, most people attribute God has having omnipotent powers. The work omnipotent meaning "without having limitations."

So based on the above context, an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence.

Is it the atheists who choose to make the assumption God is bounded by the laws of physics and logic. So what you are complaining about seems to me like you are saying, "why won't the theists accept our atheist assumptions about God as being true."

 

[tas8831]

First, people accept the idea, "God exists" is an assumption or axiom that does not require any proof. Second, most people attribute God has having omnipotent powers. The work omnipotent meaning "without having limitations."

So based on the above context, an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence.

Is it the atheists who choose to make the assumption God is bounded by the laws of physics and logic. So what you are complaining about seems to me like you are saying, "why won't the theists accept our atheist assumptions about God as being true."

So, what you are saying is that creationists live in a fantasy world devoid of empirical or logical underpinnings. Understood.