Model of Origins

Model of Origins

I have been asked what my opinion is, regarding origins. I'm a vocal critic of ancient earth common descent, so some are curious what my leanings are, regarding origins.

I present this as a model, that fits with the current evidence. My model can change (and has!), as better data becomes available. I am not dogmatic, but see this model as the most likely, given the physical evidence. Scientific minded people have to be open to possibility, and not lock themselves in dogmatic belief.

I also have the luxury of inside information, regarding a very important factor in this quest for understanding our origins. I met the Creator, and can take His creative power into account. When i was an atheist, i denied the Ability of a Creator, and assumed godless naturalism. But knowing there is a Supreme Being, Who hath wrought all things, my quest can concern itself with HOW, God accomplished this feat of creation.

Most people, who attended State run Indoctrination centers (like i did), have a limited, biased slant, regarding origins. It is a very difficult thing, to question Authority and the status quo, especially now. I was fortunate to be in the waning moments of a classical liberal education, where critical thinking and skepticism were emphasized. Mandated conformity of belief was not emphasized, in my day, as it is now.

So.. now, the model, and the facts that support it. I won't overwhelm the thread with every minutia of data, but summarize. Other threads can be used to examine the science behind individual points, and scrutinize detail.

There Exists a Creator
HOW He did this thing, is my goal of inquiry.

Age of the Earth
This is a foundational element, in any model. I was spoon fed ancient dates, of millions and billions of years, and assumed there was valid science behind those assumptions. But as i examined the evidence more critically, i could see many problems with the ancient earth assumptions. The formation of fossils, oil, coal, canyons, etc, did not require 'millions and billions!' of years, but could have happened rapidly. Isotope dating is fraught with unrealistic assumptions, and the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, as well as the magnetic half life of the earth, indicate a MUCH shorter time frame. I now see a time frame of 10k yrs or so as most likely. The entire universe was created, 'ex nihilo', fully functional, with the earth able to support life.

Age of Man
The discovery of mtDNA, and especially the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor (mt-MRCA) has revolutionized the beliefs about man's origins. Neanderthal is now known to be just another human tribe, descended from the mt-MRCA, like all of us. The mitochondrial clock has been measured, using Russian Romanovs, Swedish kings, and others. The dates arrived at were extrapolated backward, following the mutation rate they were able to calculate, and the time to the mt-MRCA was discovered to be ~ 6k years. That fits with other data, even though it flies in the face of the majority belief of ancient dates.

Common Ancestry?
No. Every family/genera/phylogenetic type of organism appear suddenly, fully formed and developed, and then varied from there. All living things were created less than 10k yrs ago, and varied within their genetic parameters as they spread across the planet. There is no evidence of universal common descent, and plenty of evidence against it. It is a competing religious belief, in the progressive religion, that is based on the assumption of atheistic naturalism.

To summarize my current perception of the facts, and the model of origins:

1. God created the universe, in a 'big bang' creation event.. ~10k yrs ago
2. All living things were created soon after, including man. They have remained in their individual genetic states (with some variability), inviolate.
3. Fossils, oil, coal, canyons, etc, were formed in a short time frame, thousands (not millions) of years in the past. They were formed primarily from cataclysmic events, that seem to be uniformly spread across the globe.

I will be happy to clarify, or provide further detail, for this model, and offer critiques for conflicting models, if there is interest. I am not interested in a flame war with intolerant religious bigots, who demand conformity with THEIR indoctrinated beliefs. I have studied this subject for decades, am conversant with much of the technical language, and can see through assumptions, conjecture, and assertions. Bullying and intimidation will not change my perceptions of the scientific facts, nor do they refute the reasoning and methodology behind this model.

 

Shall we call this the, "Hi, I slept in a Holiday Inn Last Night Theory of Origin"?

 

Call it whatever you like..

I offer this as a model of origins, based on the evidence.

 

All scientific evidence to date refutes every one of your assertions above.

 

Websites are still showing the genetic Eve to be about 200,000 years in the past. What is the source of info on the retro calculation 6k years?

 

What you "Offer" is quite simply BS and inaccurate.

 

The perfection issue aside, try this: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-of-an-atheist.556327/page-59#post-1070808102

 

OP is just utter, utter rubbish.

 

If He knew that some, when tried, would prove to be dross, and that others would come forth as gold, why wouldn't He?

 

Well, your ideas here aren't based on ANY evidence. All you've provided are entirely superficial excuses for ignoring evidence of all kinds.

You could just as easily claim that god created the universe at 0 AD, including fabricated evidence of prior existence.

Then, after discarding science you posted it in the Science section, not the religion section!!??

 

I will be happy to debate the science, in detail, for the central points in this model. It was not possible nor desirable to address every bit of physical evidence in what is a summary. I thought i was clear on this.

I'll start another thread on dating methods, the age of man, or the universe, if you want.

But a model of origins IS appropriate, in a scientific thread, as it presents the premise and conclusions, that the data suggests. We can examine (and debate) the evidence, here or elsewhere, if deeper inquiry is desired.

Or, did you just ask for a summary of my opinions on origins so you could berate me?

 

Time to most recent common ancestor, aka 'mitochondrial clock'.

Source:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/279/5347/news-summaries

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
...
The most widely used mutation rate for noncoding human mtDNA relies on estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, taken to be 5 million years ago. That date is based on counting the mtDNA and protein differences between all the great apes and timing their divergence using dates from fossils of one great ape's ancestor. In humans, this yields a rate of about one mutation every 300 to 600 generations, or one every 6000 to 12,000 years..

..aka, circular reasoning.. you presume the descendancy of apes and humans, THEN calculate a 'rate!'. It is convenient if the data fits within (and is based upon) the preconceived assumptions.

The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134 different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled..

So the ACTUAL, MEASURED rates, from real life data and evidence, is suspected, while the ASSUMPTIONS are clung to with dogmatic certainty. The measured, scientifically based rate is dismissed, in favor of the assumed and believed rate that fits the status quo dogma.

 

Knee jerk defensiveness, for deeply held religious beliefs, is a common reaction, if any of those beliefs are in question from scientific analysis. I expect those reactions, and am not offended. It merely shows the success of State sponsored indoctrination.

But for those with an inquiring, scientific mind, close scrutiny of the facts is appropriate. I suggest other threads, where individual points of fact can be analyzed in greater detail.

 

I'd say the refiner of gold, knowing the process will produce both gold and dross, goes through it anyway because he wants the gold. Wouldn't you?

Because...?

That's a fool's errand.

 

That seems to be a theological or philisophical question, that the facts of science cannot answer.

But some questions to ponder:

1. Who says they are 'imperfect?' What standard of 'perfection' do you have that humans do not meet?
2. If a Creator was able to create the universe, life, and humanity, how is man's ability to make moral choices a negative reflection on the Creator?

 

Maybe He wouldn't, but He would go through the process of refining souls, which is obviously the point.

Spoken with the authority of one who has both created and refined a soul - neither of which you've ever done, I'll wager.

Your point being...?

 

I just expected it in a religion section, since you didn't address any signifiant issue of science.

And, you shouldn't be worried about science, as the real issues aren't ones of science.

The real issue is one of first cause, isn't it?

You would like to believe that:
- there is an eternal existence that includes this universe, a universe which may not itself be eternal.
- there is a superintelligent everlastng and all powerful being within that eternity.

I'm open to the idea of an eternal existence - a steady state, if you will, that encompasses this universe and whatever else may exist. We don't have evidence to answer that question, of course. But, it's at least not irrational.

However, then you add the supreme being idea. That's not testable by science, making science irrelevant to the question.

And, given the idea of an eternity unlimited by our current universe makes odds calculations ridiculous, because timeframe becomes irrelevant, and our ignorance of that eterninty and its processes leaves us with nothing to say..

In general, any time you add a supernatural being, you're into religion and the logic of religion. And, the methods, logic and conclusions of science become irrelevant.

You should move this thread to religion.

 

just to flesh out your ideas.... how did you come up with the 10,000 ~ year dating/time frame

 

How does positing a Creator conflict with scientific inquiry?

IF.. there is indeed an Intelligent, Creative Entity..

..THEN.. the empirical facts in the physical world could reflect that Reality.

IF.. the universe was indeed a random accident, under complete godlessness,

..THEN..

The empirical facts should reflect that reality.

But what do the empirical facts compel? Godlessness, or an Intelligent Designer? That is the debate on origins, to determine which model seems most likely, given the physical evidence.

Dismissing intelligent design because it posits a Creator is just atheistic bias.. the phony narrative that,

'Atheists have science! Christians have religion!'

It is religious bigotry, nothing more. There is nothing 'scientific!', that conflicts with the POSSIBILITY of a Creator.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/origins-millions-and-billions-of-years.563782/