Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:14:38 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought
> Remember, Jesus expected the world to end sometime in the
>first century. So it would hardly make sense to place hints where they
>couldn't be found until two thousand years later.
> In short, why would you expect hidden hints? Why not put a
>signature in plain view, in such a way that no one can deny it?
Andrew, Jesus said that the time for the end of the world had not been
revealed. He also said it was not for man to know. The whole apostasy
with the Catholic Church had to take place, (and did), exactly according
to prophecy before the end could come. You have taken the premillenialist's
popular and false view of Matt 24... the destruction of Jerusalem, (which
took place in 70 AD.... the first century), and adopted it as a reason
for not believing. MANY false prophets have gone out into the world... and
that verse speaks of those claiming the name of God. I am a Christian. I
take my truth from the word of God. Please don't assume that the trash
you see and hear on TV or in the News is "gospel." If you want to know
what the Bible actually teaches, I can most definately help with that.
Jesus did NOT teach that the world would end in their generation, but that
Jerusalem would be destroyed. It was.
As far as hidden hints were concerned, there was nothing hidden about the
prophecies and their fulfillments. There is nothing hidden in the
preservation of history where these things are concerned either. Just as
miraculous events which would confirm the teachings were prophesied and
occurred, the end of those signs were also prophesied once the revelation
was complete. This also occurred in the first century. Now abideth love,
hope and faith; the greatest of these is love.
Saul of Tarsus was a man in history who had money, fame, political power,
religious power; everything a modern day "TV Evangelist" SEEKS in making a
show of "Christianity." The difference is, Saul (later called Paul), GAVE
of those things to preach the resurrection of Christ. His explanation as to
why is profound and the evidence of his life speaks for itself. Paul SAW Jesus
after His crucifixion, as did 500 other witnesses. I could go on, but I won't.
>> Since the evolutionists have
>> themselves stated in the article that the mtDNA is "easier to trace outside
>> the nucleus" and that they had been wrong about the constant and grossly
>> inflated rate of mutation, (which actually shows a figure closer to that
>> which a creationsist would expect), I'd say this one is a keeper.
> *Shrug*. I'll wait for the rest of the story to come in. After
>all, the article says that these high mutation rates aren't supported
>by other studies. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
If this were the only evidence to suggest a young age, we'll say less than
30,000 years, then I would be inclined to agree, (strictly from a scientific
viewpoint), however, there is an abundance of evidence that points to the same
young age. I just thought you'd be interested in this particular subject as,
admittedly, I knew little about it before, but now we have both been furhter
> Remind me: what did Dawkins have to say about mitochondrial
Well, I believe you said, he said that it's residing outside the nucleus
was a stupid idea for an intelligent designer, (paraphrased, of course).
>> ("if" there were an intelligent Creator), is put to shame. Wouldn't you?
> No. The "mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis does not say that this
>Eve was the first human; it merely says that she's in all of our
>family trees (on the maternal side). She could have been (and probably
>was) part of a much larger population. Obviously, there's a certain
>amount of play here.
Well, the Bible does say that Adam called her Eve because she was the mother
of all the living, so I guess I'll agree. There were many others living by
the time she died many hundreds of years old.
> Also, from what I've read, the "mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis
>is still controversial, so presumably the evidence for it is
Agreed. I only thought it interesting that, once again, old earth hypothesis
has been diminished once again.
>> Whether I'm right or wrong concerning the purpose for
>> the location, you have to admit that the facts provide a logical hypothesis
>> as to why such a thing was done.
> So, getting back to my earlier question: why mitochondrial DNA
>in particular? And where else would you expect to find such
I expect that no matter how hard and sophisticated a look an honest man takes,
any evidence will be in harmony with the Creation account found in the book
of Genesis. I don't think anyone expected to find SUCH an abundance of
evidence, but then again, an overwhelming amount exists. I merely expect
the evidence to support special creation and have yet to be disappointed.
In other words, look as hard as you want, but you can only find the truth,
(although it is not uncommon for any of us to see something other than what
>> >> (speculative on my
>> >> part, of course, but consistant with my understanding of the origin of lif
>> >> and the preponderance of supporting evidence).
>> > What evidence is this?
> You never did answer this question.
I have been answering the question over and over again. You have just
refused to acknowledge it. I have also offerred to sit and view an
educational video with you on the matter, but you are avoiding the
opportunity. What are you afraid you'll see?
>> You are correct. a) The purpose of the Bible is neither to be a science nor
>> a history book, but sufficient evidence is found in those pursuits to
>> support what one would expect to find based upon the truths found therein.
> Really? Is the Earth really flat? Do rabbits really chew their
>cud? Was there really a worldwide flood? Is Heaven really hotter than
>Hell?> Please elaborate.
Why? You've already said you have no intentions of being converted. To see
and admit the validity of the evidence presented would require conversion.
Since you're so unwilling to change your views for any reason, the reasons
are hostile to your "comfort zone." As the blind man said in John 9, "...I
have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear [it]
again? will ye also be his disciple(s)?"
>> b) The mainstream scientists in Columbus' time thought it was flat. I
>> guess ole' Chris figured a circle was close enough, eh? Of course, all he
>> had to go on was the evidence, (which could have easily been expected based
>> upon scriptures written thousands of years earlier...).
> Actually, no: the shape of the Earth was widely known to be
>round in Columbus's time. The controversy at the time concerned its
>size. In fact, Columbus's estimate was too small (and he fudged his
>figures to make the Earth even smaller, to make his expedition seem
>more plausible, in order to get funding).
> If he had gone by what it says in the Bible, he would have
>stayed at home, since there is no shorter way to China on a flat
Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and the
inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens
as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Now, what does the Bible say again? As to the beliefs of the times, I'm
willing to accept that the predominate view was as you say. Why? Because I
have already learned that what they teach in the text books in public
schools usually have little to do with the facts and much to do with the
political agenda. Why, just take the use of Richard Leaky, "Father of
Modern Evolution" as he was touted. Not bad for a man who never believed
>> Andrew, the only problem is that they will not be adjusted according to
>> what is actually seen, especially if it supports the creation model.
> Why do you say this? Are you accusing someone of dishonesty?
>If so, then please back this claim up.
Watch the video with me. Or better yet, watch all three. There are six
hours worth of proof, but 30 minutes would be enough to convince anyone
brave enough to take an objective look. Of course, you'll never know if I'm
right unless you look!
>> It can be seen that stalacmites grow at Lurray about 4 cubic inches a year,
>> but the scientists they quote still say 200-300 years for just 1 ci.
> Can't comment on that, I'm not familiar with this (other than
>what you've said).
Not to worry, there is better documented and more profound proof in the video.
>> It can
>> be seen and is widely known that very finely detailed fossils encompassed by
>> 100 feet of limestone had to have been covered rapdily, but evolutionists
>> tell us that one foot of limestone accounts for 1,000 years.
> I suspect you've misunderstood something. Could you please
>provide a quotation of the above, along with a reference?
Man, it's in the video series. Are you really interested? I'm willing to
travel up to College Park to show you. (Did I mention that the video
includes actual texts, complete with researchable references)?
> Just what videos are these? You keep mentioning them, but have
>yet to give me so much as a title.
"Creation Evidences," Don R. Patton, Ph.D. August 1995
($40 a set, but I'll be happy to let you view mine for free).
> And anyhow, what does evolution have to do with the formation
>of the Grand Canyon? Aren't you confusing biology and geology here?
No, actually Gould (and I'm assuming others as well), often uses the Grand
Canyon fossils and assumed age, (based upon the errosion surfaces), to
"prove" the geologic column. This can also be debunked using the selfsame
evidence, by the way.
>> Did you miss the part where they stated that if what they actually observed
>> were true, then man could not have been around much more than 6,000 years?
> No. I also didn't miss the part that said that this study was
>not confirmed by other studies. Besides, as I mentioned above,
>disproving the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis (which is all that this
>article talks about) is not the same as rewriting the entire history
>of man from scratch.
Hmmm, wasn't it two separate studies that suggested the 6,000 year thing?
Anyway, you're the one who drew my attention to mtDNA. I just found the
article to be interesting in light of the fact that evolutionists don't
expect to find 6,000 years, creationists do, but it was evolutionists who
actully came to the conclusion. I also found it interesting that one
evolutionist claimed that the location of the mtDNA served no useful purpose
with respect to design, but the others, (and I bet Richard knows this), take
note of it's ease of access for telling study.
>> Ah, but when the Pigstooth man was thought to be accurate, how proudly they
> What's "Pigstooth man"? I haven't been able to find any
>references to it.
That's just my name for the Harold Cook fraud. It was one of so many
"missing link" evidences debunked that I get them all turned around in my
head. It was held to be the best evidence going for years until it was
discovered that the "man" was only a tooth and the tooth was that of a pig.
>> But 40 chucked dates is not science.
> What are you talking about?
On the video...
>> On the other hand, a knee bo
>> found several miles from the rest of the bones does not a fossil make. On th
>> other hand, it is a perfect specimine of the modern Galada Baboon.
> Are you back on Java man now? If so, do you mean "femur"
>instead of "knee bone" and "gibbon" instead of "baboon"?
Ah, so you DO know the truth about Java man. Why do you present him as
evidence then? I did mean Galada Baboon, but confused it with another of
the "men" and the actual picture shown in the text books of man's
"evolution" from an ape. In that drawing, an actual picture of the Galda
Baboon is the first of the creatures, (although we're led to believe that it
was a "recreation" of early fossil evidence like the rest), and the "ape
men" represented in the progression have long since been debunked.
>> We're both attempting to examine our hypothesis through the falsification of
>> assumed criteria.
> Huh? What do you mean by this?
I mean that since there is no way to "prove" our hypothesis, we can only
say, "if this is so then that must necessarily be so also." If that which
must be so isn't actually so, then the hypothesis must be either modified
due to the falsification of the necessary criteria or completely abandoned.
For instance, it was Darwin who expected the fossil evidence would
eventually reveal the transistional forms necessary to uphold his theory.
He said that if the environmental changes couldn't be shown to lead to
changes in family or kind, then his theory would be dead, (falsified).
>> The evidence, however, can only support one or the other,
>> Pascal or no Pascal..
> And where did Pascal creep in to the discussion?
:-) You had "accused" me of placing Pascal's wager which failed to consider
a third scenario in a previous post. I was simply implying that there is no
third scenario as many of the evolutionists (Lewin.. I think is one) have
> I've been asking you for evidence all along, so please tell me
>what it is, already!
We're going in circles here. I've presented plenty of evidence. You have
access to a compilation of all the best evidence ever presented, complete
with references. If you really wanted to know you'd say, "sure, Dave, I'll
watch one of the videos with you for a while. Maybe I'll be interested
enough to look at some more if I can see the integrity you suggest." By
continually asking me to present these things and then refusing the
opportunity to view them, you have proven that you are not yet ready to
accept the facts no matter how well they are presented, (and I admitted from
day one that I was not exactly the best scholar to be comparing notes with).
You have a solid enough background in the evolutionary appologetic to answer
any glaring inconsistencies in the argumentation made on the video.
Besides, the quotes are straight out of the most popular science mags known
to man, by the world's leading evolutionists. How much fairer could it be?
Let me know when you can spare a few hours....
Chapter 16 | Chapter 18