Is Mitochondrial Eve proven or theory?

[WHAMPOM]

The 6,000 year old thing is based on genealogy, which may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, there is literally no way to ever know these things and any discussion is moot.

6,000 years? It does not work out with the Bible's genealogy if you divide the "900" life spans by 13(MOON CYCLES), you get a normal life span and wonder about other timelines found there.

 

[alkemyst]

Not really, no. It doesn't state the opposite. In fact, it very clearly states that there was one peoples and one language before the Tower of Babel.

Your 3rd paragraph is irrational. People writing about it doesn't make it true. If that were the case, StarWars and StarTrek would be real because there are more people writing about those than the sum of all the people who wrote books of the bible (more, still, even if you include the books that weren't "allowed" into the bible like Mary Magdalene).

Your 4th paragraph doesn't even make sense.

I thought you were refering to the Tower of Babel....so regardless we are in agreement then on the 'original tribe'. Actually historically the original families is a great list...whether
you believe in God or not, that is factual and historical.

As far as my third paragraph and you refering to 'witness testimony' as 'fictional' writings that is a hoot. Fiction has always had a place in history. There is no denying the books you are referring too are non-fiction. The 'other books of the bible' mostly also are not fiction...not sure where you are going with that. Like any book, you have to make cuts especially back then...maybe today with PDF format the original books would be longer.

Also you have to acknowledge the accepted languages of the day and the way that played out into what was accepted and not.

My fourth point doesn't make sense??? You said there is absolutely no proof in creation. I say there is proof in it, indirectly. You have several books quoting the words of 'reliable witnessed testimony' (one of the major requirements to be included in any of the great religious books) that there is a God and common stories.

Yeah it doesn't prove directly any creator exists.

In the end I don't think you have much experience in this debate though and are pulling the common layman's arguments.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Malak is actually very right above. Creation or not doesn't take away there could be evolution. Also many fail to realize the old belief that in Evolution all life is believed to come from the proverbial tadpole or whatever has been replaced with several base species that evolved. Many evolutionists are also creationists.

Very right about what? That the start of life is not the same thing as biodiversity and life evolving?

Uh yeah, no shit Captain Obvious.

No one is saying that's wrong, in fact, people had to explain this to him repeatedly before. He used to spout off as though they are the same (or rather that because he believes god created it that then that makes evolution false and that god designed everything), but he like all the other retards just evolved their argument so they don't look as monumentally idiotic. Now, they can be like, see we totally agree, that god creating stuff doesn't have to do with evolution. Of course, since he designed everything, then evolution is clearly wrong, but that's not the same as him starting everything. You do know Malak doesn't believe in evolution, right?

Oh no, and you mean, he was right in that, someone was like mean when discussing this? So, being mean makes you wrong, so I guess being nice automatically makes you right. Right?

The difference is that most of those "many" are religious people who know pretty much nothing about the topic, they're just going with the consensus or the religious leaders they follow were willing to change (only because they pretty much had to). Thankfully though, these people don't go around trying to debate topics like Mitochondrial Eve, specific instances of evolution, microbiology, among many other topics that they don't know anything about just because they think believing in god is all they need to be able to do that.

The thing is, saying it has to be god is completely different from saying that it was not just randomly started, or that it was the primordial soup, or any of the other theories that generally at least have scientific reasoning behind them. What if it was an alien? Would the alien then be god? What if it was satan? What then?

 

[darkswordsman17]

6,000 years? It does not work out with the Bible's genealogy if you divide the "900" life spans by 13(MOON CYCLES), you get a normal life span and wonder about other timelines found there.

HE SAID DISCUSSION IS MOOT!!! Don't you understand? That's the final say. Gosh!

 

[alkemyst]

6,000 years? It does not work out with the Bible's genealogy if you divide the "900" life spans by 13(MOON CYCLES), you get a normal life span and wonder about other timelines found there.

First...no serious religious scholar believes our universe is only 6,000 years old. However, they almost will all agree that is the age of man and in the end that is why we have 'a manual' that was created. We are all really finite in the whole scheme of things, both in our lives and in the time man has lived.

I am not sure where you are going on normal life spans though. There was some falling out in almost all the major stories with man and God and we lost our long and easy lifespans.

Just the fact that our normal live spans went from 30ish to into the 80's in a few hundred years shows that whole moon cycle thing not really an argument on the reported life spans reported.

 

[alkemyst]

Very right about what? That the start of life is not the same thing as biodiversity and life evolving?

Uh yeah, no shit Captain Obvious.

No one is saying that's wrong, in fact, people had to explain this to him repeatedly before. He used to spout off as though they are the same (or rather that because he believes god created it that then that makes evolution false and that god designed everything), but he like all the other retards just evolved their argument so they don't look as monumentally idiotic. Now, they can be like, see we totally agree, that god creating stuff doesn't have to do with evolution. Of course, since he designed everything, then evolution is clearly wrong, but that's not the same as him starting everything. You do know Malak doesn't believe in evolution, right?

Oh no, and you mean, he was right in that, someone was like mean when discussing this? So, being mean makes you wrong, so I guess being nice automatically makes you right. Right?

The difference is that most of those "many" are religious people who know pretty much nothing about the topic, they're just going with the consensus or the religious leaders they follow were willing to change (only because they pretty much had to). Thankfully though, these people don't go around trying to debate topics like Mitochondrial Eve, specific instances of evolution, microbiology, among many other topics that they don't know anything about just because they think believing in god is all they need to be able to do that.

The thing is, saying it has to be god is completely different from saying that it was not just randomly started, or that it was the primordial soup, or any of the other theories that generally at least have scientific reasoning behind them. What if it was an alien? Would the alien then be god? What if it was satan? What then?

Now you are just focused on Malak and not what the discussion is here.

I was only answering one point he posted, and I quoted it.

You have just failed the internet. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[alkemyst]

HE SAID DISCUSSION IS MOOT!!! Don't you understand? That's the final say. Gosh!

dude, you straight nuts.

 

[Jeff7]

First...no serious religious scholar believes our universe is only 6,000 years old. However, they almost will all agree that is the age of man and in the end that is why we have 'a manual' that was created. We are all really finite in the whole scheme of things, both in our lives and in the time man has lived.
...

I'll say this: As far as a "manual" goes, the Bible and all other holy texts combined, are pretty pitiful.
The manual for the $5 18F4520 PIC chip, a humble little device that has 32kB of program memory and a total of 40 pins, sports a manual that's 412 pages long.

The documentation booklet on humans should probably be a tiny bit more substantial than that. Just the service manual alone would be immense. Then there's the datasheet on the Universe...

 

[911paramedic]

 

[Malak]

Very right about what? That the start of life is not the same thing as biodiversity and life evolving?

Uh yeah, no shit Captain Obvious.

No one is saying that's wrong, in fact, people had to explain this to him repeatedly before.

When? That has been my stance for as long as I have been here. Hey look, we have more baseless accusations that add nothing to the discussion!

Either agree, or disagree. Don't waste time trying to insult.