Evidentially I'm descended from Adam

[Calm]

Oops...link

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/01/our-inner-viruses-forty-million-years-in-the-making/

[bcuzbcuz]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I did and I realize that.
I don't think ALL these genealogies that go back to Adam include mythological characters.  (Although some would say Adam and Noah are mythological).
Biblical geneaologies go as far as the time of Christ.  And royal records go back through the middle ages to the time of Christ.
Just a matter of connecting the two.

 

Just  a matter of connecting the two? What utter nonsense.

Royal families made up/invented/demanded family links back to Biblical times. But people wanting to claim links into such families far out number the actual possible links into such royal families. 

Anyone who thinks/claims/imagines that they have  family links back to Noah......and Noah's family is, by definition, the ONLY link back to Adam. Needs to compose or imagine how the link through Noah occurs only after Noah became 500 years old.

How many 500 year olds do you know who are still fathering children (or in Noah's case) starting their family?

CFR for birth records to the time of Christ.

And I guess your claims ONLY apply to people of European/Jewish lineage. True?

[UtahTexan]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough you understand the argument...then explain to me why my point is invalid... How exactly,  in your educated opinion, is evolution invalidated despite the testable, dublicatible, observible evidence that overwhelmingly supports it's reality..

Explain to me why chimps and humans share the same exact retro virus mutation in the same exact short arm of chromosome 10, keeping in mind that in so doing you'll need to explain away how this mutation, which is inherited, occured by chance knowing that the odds of such a random occurrence is 1 in 2,057,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  I look forward to you enlightening me...

oh and it's not my opinion...it's the accepted opinion of the science of biology which without would make absolutely no sense

I am not sur why this is so difficult for you......so, let me try very simply to break it down for you. 

Ok....let's say I tell you Abraham Lincoln said something amazing.  You ask me for a CFR.  I produce a link to the quote.  I do this, even if I believe the quote is widely known.  It is common courtesy.  It allows me to read the entire article to get context if I choose.

You have given a figure that claims to be odds.  I asked for a CFR.  Instead of just giving me the CFR, we have now disputed over the CFR for a couple of days....this leads me to believe that you simply made up the number or have no idea where you got it.

I am ok with that.  You simply make stuff up to suit you.

Anyway, I was originally interested in your post and was hoping for a CFR to do additional reading.  Now, I could care less, because I figure you simply made it up and have spent the last two days dodging my requests for a simple CFR.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

You can call me whatever name you want... Reductionist, or whatever. You can call me multiple names, but it still won't change what I know.

Not calling you names. Just informing you of your logical fallacies. 

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Neutral Agnostics are undecided about God and the ultimate nature of reality. Of course Agnostics make a wise decision not to quickly jump to conclusions. Again, agnostics haven't made a decision about God or the ultimate nature of reality, why is it so hard to understand that? You take a logic course! 

Agnostics aren't all that neutral. The agnostic claims is that no one knows, OR CAN NOT KNOW, anything about God.

SEE Agnosticism

ag·nos·tic

aɡˈnästik/

noun

plural noun: agnostics

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

It can also mean 

1. a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

2. having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something

: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic

Let's look at the definition of Theism. "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe"

Some LDS don't believe God created the universe. 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It can also mean 

1. a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

2. having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something

: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic

Let's look at the definition of Theism. "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe"

Some LDS don't believe God created the universe. 

Theism is the belief in one or more Gods. A belief that one God as creator of the universe is an unnecessary speculation.

Some LDS don't believe a lot of things that are a reality. A more informative statement would be which LDS believe that God didn't create this universe.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

 A belief that one God as creator of the universe is an unnecessary speculation.

but that is in the dictionary. You challenged my view on Agnosticism using the dictionary, so I am doing the same. 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you saying the only way identical retro viruses can show up is through shared ancestry?  I am confused.  Obviously viruses can be shared between unrelated people since my grandkids bring home colds from school all the time.  Does the DNA of these viruses change each time it is transferred to a new host so that the only way to share identical DNA is to inherit it?

No that's not what I'm saying.  But these particular retro virus insert their DNA into their hosts cells by way of a reverse genetic transcription which converts their RNA into DNA.  These mutations are then passed on through reproduction of parent species to child without additional mutation as a permanent ancestry marker or progenitor roadmap.  Each subsequent generation would carry this same mutation in the same exact location.  If the species mutates enough to form a new species, each new species would still carry the mutation of their common ancestor and this is exactly why we know the chimpanzees and humans had a common ancestor...well this and about 100,000 other markers

[Calm]

Thanks.  It appears  (because I may always misread something) to confirm the identical virus mutation in the identical spot that I finally figured out (trying to figure it outfrom more technical sites than Nat Geo didn't help).  I am so out of date with the science.  Need to go back and take my college course again.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I am not sur why this is so difficult for you......so, let me try very simply to break it down for you. 

Ok....let's say I tell you Abraham Lincoln said something amazing.  You ask me for a CFR.  I produce a link to the quote.  I do this, even if I believe the quote is widely known.  It is common courtesy.  It allows me to read the entire article to get context if I choose.

You have given a figure that claims to be odds.  I asked for a CFR.  Instead of just giving me the CFR, we have now disputed over the CFR for a couple of days....this leads me to believe that you simply made up the number or have no idea where you got it.

I am ok with that.  You simply make stuff up to suit you.

Anyway, I was originally interested in your post and was hoping for a CFR to do additional reading.  Now, I could care less, because I figure you simply made it up and have spent the last two days dodging my requests for a simple CFR.

Country boy, it's simple math...retrovirus attack randomly along the genome.  They tend to only go for easy targets spread across half of our 3 billion base genome ...so the chance that we would share one of these with a chimp would be 1 in 1.5 billion.  (Make sense?) To share two would be 1 in 2.25 quintillion. Each subsequent match increases the odds exponentially with each subsequent match only increasing the odds in support of evolution.

To prove me wrong all you'd have to do is find this same app family specific ERV's in both humans and say some other organism...choose any living organism you like...if you can find this same posterity mutation marker say with cats and humans or with cactus plants and humans in the same exact 10th chromosome...then I am wrong and you are right...it's as easy as that...oh and go ahead and take your time...oh and good luck, you'll need it

 

 

[UtahTexan]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Country boy, it's simple math...retrovirus attack randomly along the genome.  They tend to only go for easy targets spread across half of our 3 billion base genome ...so the chance that we would share one of these with a chimp would be 1 in 1.5 billion.  (Make sense?) To share two would be 1 in 2.25 quintillion. Each subsequent match increases the odds exponentially with each subsequent match only increasing the odds in support of evolution.

To prove me wrong all you'd have to do is find this same app family specific ERV's in both humans and say some other organism...choose any living organism you like...if you can find this same posterity mutation marker say with cats and humans or with cactus plants and humans in the same exact 10th chromosome...then I am wrong and you are right...it's as easy as that...oh and go ahead and take your time...oh and good luck, you'll need it

 

 

I was not trying to prove you right or wrong.  But you answered my question.  You did not post a fact, you posted your opinion based on your math which stemmed from your conclusions.  

Ok....it is clear why you have dodged my requests for CFR.  Thank you.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I was not trying to prove you right or wrong.  But you answered my question.  You did not post a fact, you posted your opinion based on your math which stemmed from your conclusions.  

Ok....it is clear why you have dodged my requests for CFR.  Thank you.

It's my opinion the same as 2+2=4 is my opinion...it's just math

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL  I am talking about undecided voters! What is your problem? Undecided voters haven't made a decision yet, that is why undecided voters get invited to presidential debates. 

Undecided voters are themselves deciding not to make a decision about whom to vote for, if at all.  Your brain function is making decisions all the time. It isn't possible not to make a decision of some kind.  Think about it, Skeptic.

Neutral Agnostics are undecided about God and the ultimate nature of reality. Of course Agnostics make a wise decision not to quickly jump to conclusions. Again, agnostics haven't made a decision about God or the ultimate nature of reality, why is it so hard to understand that? You take a logic course! 

Making a decision to be neutral is still a decision and requires brain function.  You yourself even admit that "Agnostics make a wise decision not to quickly jump to conclusions."

Why not answer my question instead? "How do you know your testimony is not the result of patternicity? confirmation bias? the Improbability principle? false memory? hallucination?" You going to tell me that you are not convinced? 

I already reacted twice to your suggested variety of phenomena to account for a testimony:  I thought they were excellent suggestions and well worth consideration.  Not that I haven't heard all of them before.  In fact a lot of research exists in scholarly literature on each of those suggested phenomena.  Since you suggested them, perhaps you have a favorite one which you would like to discuss in this thread (or begin a new thread).  Meantime, it seems to me you still have a very hard time reading and understanding ordinary English responses.

 

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It's my opinion the same as 2+2=4 is my opinion...it's just math

assuming you start from the same assumptions, I suppose.  Hence my requests...I wanted to learn where you base all your assumptions.

Does that make sense?

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

assuming you start from the same assumptions, I suppose.  Hence my requests...I wanted to learn where you base all your assumptions.

Does that make sense?

They aren't assumptions it's just math

[Calm]

Isn't there an assumption that it is random in placement and there is nothing inherent that might attract that virus to latch onto that particular spot in the DNA of primates?

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

They aren't assumptions it's just math

The math itself may be solid....but you are starting from a premise that is opinion.  Hence my continued requests.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

The math itself may be solid....but you are starting from a premise that is opinion.  Hence my continued requests.

Country boy : you win.  Score another resounding victory to country boy, he sure exposed me and played me as a fool.  Never before have my arguments been so utterly and completely laid bare.  His overwhelming rhetorical skills, his ability to string words together in concise, intelligent counter arguments is just too much. He can drill through to the very core of an opposing point of view and unmask it's ulterior motivations to deceive the very elect.  He is just too superior for my puny efforts to take root. Truth is I never stood a chance, when county boy entered the fray I should have known that facts, science, logic and even CFRs being answered had no chance of carrying the day...and just raised the white flag...because when your up against CB...those things don't matter.

i mean with arguments like:

Quote

...you are starting from a premis that is opinion

And

Quote

You did not post a fact, you posted your opinion based on your math

Wow with these kinds of counter arguments...I should have known I was dealing with a mental superior.

So give yourself a pat on the back...you've earned it...CB

Why did I ever believe that a reasoned argument backed by facts and observible, repeatable, measurable science available to anyone who would merely look at the evidence could over come CB super skills...lesson learned

Edited July 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[UtahTexan]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Country boy : you win.  Score another resounding victory to country boy, he sure exposed me and played me as a fool.  Never before have my arguments been so utterly and completely laid bare.  His overwhelming rhetorical skills, his ability to string words together in concise, intelligent counter arguments is just too much. He can drill through to the very core of an opposing point of view and unmask it's ulterior motivations to deceive the very elect.  He is just too superior for my puny efforts to take root. Truth is I never stood a chance, when county boy entered the fray I should have known that facts, science, logic and even CFRs being answered had no chance of carrying the day...and just raised the white flag...because when your up against CB...those things don't matter.

i mean with arguments like:

And

Wow with these kinds of counter arguments...I should have known I was dealing with a mental superior.

So give yourself a pat on the back...you've earned it...CB

Why did I ever believe that a reasoned argument backed by facts and observible, repeatable, measurable science available to anyone who would merely look at the evidence could over come CB super skills...lesson learned

I am sorry you have been stumped.  I have not tried to "win"...I have not tried to "debate".  I have not tried to "expose".  Your snarky response is uncalled for, but not surprising.  All this is simply because you made a post and I responded with "CFR".  All of this because I had an interest in reading where you got your premise.

All you needed to do was say, "I do not have one"....instead, you have spent two days dodging, deflecting and, now, being snarky.  I truly apologize for my horrible post that requested  "CFR".  

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I am sorry you have been stumped.  I have not tried to "win"...I have not tried to "debate".  I have not tried to "expose".  Your snarky response is uncalled for, but not surprising.  All this is simply because you made a post and I responded with "CFR".  All of this because I had an interest in reading where you got your premise.

All you needed to do was say, "I do not have one"....instead, you have spent two days dodging, deflecting and, now, being snarky.  I truly apologize for my horrible post that requested  "CFR".  

The source of my frustration with you is that even when I answer your CFR you summarily dismiss it as "Oh that's just your opinion" and walk a way imagining that you've some how "Stumped me"  Ha Ha Ok.  You are not really interested in any truth that conflicts with your closely held, cherished beliefs or learning and expanding your knowledge...instead you're looking to win points in an imaginary game you've made up in your own mind. Fair enough...You win.  I concede defeat.

If you ever decide to challenge yourself, let me know...but like those who explain difficult scientific realities away with calls on the superstitions of man...I say, enjoy your bubble...I hope it keeps you warm at night.

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 9:57 AM, JLHPROF said:

Except the royals.
If you have traced your genealogy back to kings and queens (like Charlemagne) the royal families did keep records all the way back.

We have biblical geneaologies from Adam to Noah, then from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, from the Children of Israel to the time of Christ, and from the time of Christ to the bloodlines of Europe.

It may not be possible on most lines, but if you can tie into royal lines you can absolutely go back to Adam.  https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/08/27/147-generations/

Because genealogy records that trace ancestry back through mythical gods are completely reliable...

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:17 PM, bluebell said:

I was looking thru family search's "relative finder" and discovered I'm related to a lot of the European royalty (which isn't a surprise since they are all related to each other). Charlemagne is my 44th great grandfather!  

If anyone has their genealogy already on family search you should check it out, it's a lot of fun!  I'm cousins with all 12 apostles (of varying degrees and numbers removed) and had no idea!

To the OP-I didn't know it was even possible to trace a genealogy back to Adam. Seems fishy. Most people don't really get past the dark ages because no one really kept records before that. 

All of us are related to Charlemagne in theory.  Everyone just needs to link on Familysearch to one of the royal lines.  To do so is easy because when you get back there a bit you have no choice but to make a few assumptions. 

From my link above:

Quote

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Yes, if you are of European heritage at all, today, you are most likely cousins (to varying degrees) to everyone else who is of European heritage.  FamilySearch is a crowdsourced tree--meaning anyone can add to it and make stuff up.  There are tons of unconnected duplicate persons.  There are tons of family connections that have no business being connected.  Each person who gets an account and familysearch and starts tapping into family links are relying on links created by others.  In order for you to confirm your genealogy you have to go through link by link, person by person.  When you do so you'll find errors and problems to fix, which often readjusts your cousin linkages to others.  Anyway, just clarifying familysearch is a representation of all we have when it comes to this stuff.  It may often reflect errors. 

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but that is in the dictionary. You challenged my view on Agnosticism using the dictionary, so I am doing the same. 

The Hindu's are theists that believe many gods created the universe.

SEE http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/gods

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

All of us are related to Charlemagne in theory.  Everyone just needs to link on Familysearch to one of the royal lines.  To do so is easy because when you get back there a bit you have no choice but to make a few assumptions. 

From my link above:

Yes, if you are of European heritage at all, today, you are most likely cousins (to varying degrees) to everyone else who is of European heritage.  FamilySearch is a crowdsourced tree--meaning anyone can add to it and make stuff up.  There are tons of unconnected duplicate persons.  There are tons of family connections that have no business being connected.  Each person who gets an account and familysearch and starts tapping into family links are relying on links created by others.  In order for you to confirm your genealogy you have to go through link by link, person by person.  When you do so you'll find errors and problems to fix, which often readjusts your cousin linkages to others.  Anyway, just clarifying familysearch is a representation of all we have when it comes to this stuff.  It may often reflect errors. 

It's been fun comparing mine with my husband's.  We have some stuff in common and then some not.  I'm related to more french royalty and he has a lot of Spanish.  He's closer to charlemagne than i am though by about 14 generations. 

My family has been in the US since the mayflower on both sides so i'm more interconnected with early americans than he is.  I'm related to quite a few declaration and constitution signers and he's only related to a few.  He has a few relatives in the current quorum of the 12 while i'm related to all of them (distant cousins).

Lots of fun!