Wrestling With Mitochondrial Eve

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:
Another example was your claim that unbelievers who endorse evolutionary cosmology "don't like to hear about Farrellian probability," a doctrine you attributed to Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards and The Privileged Planet documentary. I own a copy of the book on which that documentary was based, and the word "Farrellian" does not appear anywhere.

While it is possible that an audio switch was made, I have seen the term in print.
farrellian probability - Bing

But more importantly: I would point out that the PRESUPPOSITION we hold about the existence of God or of His creating is "the opposite is unlikely" or "improbable" etc. So then, what is the matter with providing a Farrellian example or two for such a presupposition.?

 

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:
He qualifies as theologically informed.

Well, the context of that line about Kuiper is that fundamentalists in 1905 believed that the Genesis flood was Caspian. So how would he then be theologically informed?

The whole mission of Lyell was to bust the 'physico-theologians' (his term)--the people like ____ who wrote the hymn "Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise":
"in all life Thou livest, the true life of all."

It was probably the 'sanctimonious' tone they fought, but they wanted to bury Moses once and for all. These people didn't want theologians anywhere in the neighborhood of nature. But there was also the dichotomous twist: Lyell wanted the 10 commands taught in London Sunday Schools, and knew society would collapse without that.

 

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:
You are probably the only person on the planet who "knows" that macroevolution is a cosmological view. Can you name even one source who says this? Just one.
My recent study has been more on cosmology and cataclysm, but I used to hear this many times. Wilder-Smith, I would think. Gish. Geneticist R Carlson.

Have you gone through the doc DARWIN'S ACHILLES HEEL ? There are prob a total of 30 scientists interviewed.

re the term:
Macroevolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

re Wilder-Smith
File:The natural sciences know nothing of evolution.jpg - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[EarlyActs]

John B wrote:

Genesis 1 describes the dawn of redemptive history 6,000 years ago, which was preceded by several hundred million years of natural history.

I think it would save a lot of time if you just spoke positively like this instead of your complaints about sources. I didn't know where you had this line, so having time today, I went back until I found it.

The thing is we may be very close to the same page here, hinging on the term 'natural history.' Because I believe the period between the 'spreading out' and Day 1 was lifeless, and have mentioned Dr Psarris stating that Gen 1 life does not mean the microbial form.

I also once had a collection of evidences of recentness of the universe that makes its total span much shorter, but even with that, if the thing is lifeless, it doesn't really matter to me. For exs:, ocean salinity,
the duration of Pluto's ice mountains (Dr. Giem, YT),
the spiral shape of galaxies,
the duration of elasticity in collagen,
a limitation on the duration earth's magnetic field.

I had a list of about 40 at one time, now misplaced , not all of equal value, either.

Glad to find this line you wrote, as that is what I hope to talk to you about further.