Need Help Understanding Genetics and Arguments for Mankind's Age

[EccentricM]

3 hours ago, M.J. said:

Tale?

 

 

This is actually debunked in our literature.

I know, I debunked it myself in my own writing. And I used "tale" in a secular way, because the book is not just to beleivers, but to bridge grounds with others.

I use the word "tale, as most consider it a "tale" (though it can also mean "account" too). But remember, my whole book is to provide evidence of why to 'beleive' in the Bible, but you have to ease a athiestic reader into it. It's a bad idea to say "the factual event" as they'll just close the book and laugh. I comfort the reader into opening their mind by playing on their own mentalilty.

Try not to get too caught up in the semantics here, it's designed for the very objective reader who may be off put by the notion of the Bible being real, but I approach in a "scholarly" manner, to "open the door" to the realms of "well actually... these things may have happened if you look at the evidence in this light", and the aim to make a person look at the Bible, and seek out the evidence in there in the real world, without any other world view or intepretation of knowledge colouring their outlook... and one finds, it's actually out there in secular form, just presented to us in an athiestic framework.

Edited April 13, 2021 by EccentricM

[EccentricM]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Wouldn't this require knowing what the initial genome looked like?  How does one count the number of changes when one doesn't know where to start? 

 

Let's say I hand you a mixed up Rubik's cube or a shuffled deck of cards.  You might know how many changes it takes to get the cube solved or the deck back in numeric order by suit, but why assume that was how the cube or deck was when I found it? Maybe that's a bad illustration because Rubik's Cubes and card decks are sold in "solved" order, but I think you can see my point. How can I tell you how many changes were made when I dont know the initial start order? 

 

 

Yes you're correct, I've also made that point in my book. It's very similar to Radiocarbon dating, in that the mistake is assuming carbon has been "the same" in all life forms, with the same measure of decay and starting ammount, but.. we actually can't confirm such.

Edited April 13, 2021 by EccentricM

[Shawnster]

10 hours ago, EccentricM said:

Try not to get too caught up in the semantics here,

On the one hand, I applaud this sentiment, especially when talking to the friends or posting here. On the other hand, a good author knows his audience and writes accordingly.  If you know some words or phrases are going to sound like nails on a chalkboard or get a negative reaction, it's the course of wisdom to reword the thought. 

 

10 hours ago, EccentricM said:

Yes you're correct, I've also made that point in my book. It's very similar to Radiocarbon dating, in that the mistake is assuming carbon has been "the same" in all life forms, with the same measure of decay and starting ammount, but.. we actually can't confirm such.

That was another thought I had. I'm sure your target audience wants to rely on this dating. A quick Google search revealed there is not agreement on how old the oldest DNA evidence is. Perhaps this disagreement should also be included in your results. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Shawnster