Celtic Heroes

As far as internet debates vs real ones, the biggest problem with internet debates on open forums like this is the flow of people who only think they know what they are talking about.
Just so you know, a quick internet search does not afford you the level of knowledge and understanding needed to debate any but the most simple topics. You get a lot of uneducated rabble thinking that their ability to quote wiki articles makes them masters of debate.
Also no one actually has any intention of changing their minds. They aren't debating to learn, they are arguing because they want to be right.

Wiki articles are great. They are around 99% accurate and free to anyone. People who say they are completely worthless are usually ignorant and butt hurt over truth.

I agree bill isn't good at debates but he does know a reasonable amount of science. He has a masters in mechanical engineering and has taught science to children for decades winning many awards for his contributions.

Bill said evidence would change his mind. There simply is none. Hammy said nothing would change his mind. There is a difference, a big difference, between people who deny reality and those who accept reality - wherever the facts lead. Honestly untill there is any evidence, any at all, there is no need for a creation/evolution debate. The mystical lost out over 150 years ago.

Why do people in the bible have longer lives...? What changed?

Just my theory but I think we can infer from the scripture that Adam and Eve were originally created with perfect bodies that did not die but after the fall they started to die. Genetically their bodies were far better than ours and so the closer people were to the beginning the more perfect their genes would be. So something like the perfection of our genetics is decreasing and our bodies are becoming less resistant to age would make sense from this point of view.
(Notice as the Bible progresses people's average life spans decrease)

There is a massive amount of genetic evidence disproving this. In fact humans never had a breeding population under about 2,000-5,000. Just DNA evidence disproves genesis beyond any doubt, not to mention the geological, arechogical, radiological and many other kinds of evidence as well.

Can you post where you got this genetic evidence? I want to look it over before I take your word for it.

You kind of have to be ignorant, mentally challenged, obtuse, mentally Ill or a combination of them to believe young earth creation.

I don't, but this last part is just your rude opinion and is not at all necessary. You constantly do this and it accomplishes nothing except making people angry and killing the discussion. Please keep it to yourself.

As far as internet debates vs real ones, the biggest problem with internet debates on open forums like this is the flow of people who only think they know what they are talking about.
Just so you know, a quick internet search does not afford you the level of knowledge and understanding needed to debate any but the most simple topics. You get a lot of uneducated rabble thinking that their ability to quote wiki articles makes them masters of debate.
Also no one actually has any intention of changing their minds. They aren't debating to learn, they are arguing because they want to be right.

Wiki articles are great. They are around 99% accurate and free to anyone. People who say they are completely worthless are usually ignorant and butt hurt over truth.

I agree bill isn't good at debates but he does know a reasonable amount of science. He has a masters in mechanical engineering and has taught science to children for decades winning many awards for his contributions.

Bill said evidence would change his mind. There simply is none. Hammy said nothing would change his mind. There is a difference, a big difference, between people who deny reality and those who accept reality - wherever the facts lead. Honestly untill there is any evidence, any at all, there is no need for a creation/evolution debate. The mystical lost out over 150 years ago.

Hate to be picky but the post you are quoting wasn't about the Bill vs Ham debate.

I never said wiki articles are inaccurate or useless, I use Wikipedia all the time. It is a very useful site, but it really only give a shallow amount of information compared to an actual education. It simply does not allow you to comprehend the information on the same level. Just doing a Google search and skimming over a wiki doesn't qualify you to debate a topic, but that is the level of knowledge of the majority of internet debaters on open forums.

Wiki articles are great. They are around 99% accurate and free to anyone. People who say they are completely worthless are usually ignorant and butt hurt over truth.

I agree bill isn't good at debates but he does know a reasonable amount of science. He has a masters in mechanical engineering and has taught science to children for decades winning many awards for his contributions.

Bill said evidence would change his mind. There simply is none. Hammy said nothing would change his mind. There is a difference, a big difference, between people who deny reality and those who accept reality - wherever the facts lead. Honestly untill there is any evidence, any at all, there is no need for a creation/evolution debate. The mystical lost out over 150 years ago.

Hate to be picky but the post you are quoting wasn't about the Bill vs Ham debate.

I never said wiki articles are inaccurate or useless, I use Wikipedia all the time. It is a very useful site, but it really only give a shallow amount of information compared to an actual education. It simply does not allow you to comprehend the information on the same level. Just doing a Google search and skimming over a wiki doesn't qualify you to debate a topic, but that is the level of knowledge of the majority of internet debaters on open forums.

I never said you said Wikipedia articles are completely worthless. It's just a common meme that's been around a long time. And yes people think thier opinion matters over facts and there is no need to root your opinion in them. It's kind of sad that people are taught its ok to make up reality and disbelieve facts from a young age.

Can you post where you got this genetic evidence? I want to look it over before I take your word for it.

It's quite common knowledge. Aren't you in the biological sciences? I would have thought that you would have already been exposed to this. Here are just a few of the sources I looked up recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck (sources cited at bottom of article)
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... lose-to-2/
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .1473.full

But there are literally thousands of published peer reviewed papers on this. There is no controversy except perhaps if the number was 2000 or 5000 - or if the low spot in population was 70,000 years or 50,000 etc. no one believes it was 2 -10 that is absurd.

Can you post where you got this genetic evidence? I want to look it over before I take your word for it.

It's quite common knowledge. Aren't you in the biological sciences? I would have thought that you would have already been exposed to this. Here are just a few of the sources I looked up recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck (sources cited at bottom of article)
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... lose-to-2/
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .1473.full

But there are literally thousands of published peer reviewed papers on this. There is no controversy except perhaps if the number was 2000 or 5000 - or if the low spot in population was 70,000 years or 50,000 etc. no one believes it was 2 -10 that is absurd.

Ok, next I would appreciate it if you gave a clear and simple explanation of how they calculate this. Please answer these questions: how did they get the 2000-5000 people and the number of years ago? What do the calculations look like? What data are they looking at to do these calculations? How does this data actually work? I would like you to be specific and to do the explaining on your own without telling me to read an article.

I carry out experiments daily at my job and understand how the different variables must be controlled and how details can be presented to support the view you want. I would like an outline of the exact method/procedure they use to get these numbers. This looks like a very interesting and convincing piece of evidence but I will not be happy until I can scrutinize every tiny detail of the procedure. You don't have to type this part out, just give me a link going directly to the procedure so I can find exactly what I am looking for.

Since I am at a co-op college I am currently on work rotation and I cannot contact my teachers, but I will be certain to get more information from them once I start up classes again.

Why do people in the bible have longer lives...? What changed?

Just my theory but I think we can infer from the scripture that Adam and Eve were originally created with perfect bodies that did not die but after the fall they started to die. Genetically their bodies were far better than ours and so the closer people were to the beginning the more perfect their genes would be. So something like the perfection of our genetics is decreasing and our bodies are becoming less resistant to age would make sense from this point of view.
(Notice as the Bible progresses people's average life spans decrease)

That may be true for the bible but the average life span has been increasing for centuries. I am not a geneticist but I do not think we have found any mechanism or any pattern of change in our DNA that would suggest any form of decay.

Regarding the debate, Bill may not have won against creationism (perhaps no one ever will or it will fade away eventually) but I think he did provide enough evidence to disprove "Ken Ham's" model of a 6000 year old Earth and literal translation of the bible. That seemed to be the main topic of the debate: "Is Ken Ham's model viable?" Not "Is creationism completely false?"

I would also like to point out that at least Bill said he could change his mind. Ken Ham literally said nothing would change his mind and that is exactly what stops progress.

Why do people in the bible have longer lives...? What changed?

Just my theory but I think we can infer from the scripture that Adam and Eve were originally created with perfect bodies that did not die but after the fall they started to die. Genetically their bodies were far better than ours and so the closer people were to the beginning the more perfect their genes would be. So something like the perfection of our genetics is decreasing and our bodies are becoming less resistant to age would make sense from this point of view.
(Notice as the Bible progresses people's average life spans decrease)

That may be true for the bible but the average life span has been increasing for centuries. I am not a geneticist but I do not think we have found any mechanism or any pattern of change in our DNA that would suggest any form of decay.

It is just my theory of what the Bible is implying.
It is true that the average life span may be increasing, but that is due to improvements in medicine, not superior genetics.

I do not necessarily believe that genetics are decaying, I am just theorizing that that is what the Bible is implying.
Unless I say something like: "It is my personal belief", then it is probably not my personal belief and I posted it to spur on the discussion.
Not saying this to try and pick on Vraelan, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of my posts.

Can you post where you got this genetic evidence? I want to look it over before I take your word for it.

It's quite common knowledge. Aren't you in the biological sciences? I would have thought that you would have already been exposed to this. Here are just a few of the sources I looked up recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck (sources cited at bottom of article)
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... lose-to-2/
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .1473.full

But there are literally thousands of published peer reviewed papers on this. There is no controversy except perhaps if the number was 2000 or 5000 - or if the low spot in population was 70,000 years or 50,000 etc. no one believes it was 2 -10 that is absurd.

Ok, next I would appreciate it if you gave a clear and simple explanation of how they calculate this. Please answer these questions: how did they get the 2000-5000 people and the number of years ago? What do the calculations look like? What data are they looking at to do these calculations? How does this data actually work? I would like you to be specific and to do the explaining on your own without telling me to read an article.

I carry out experiments daily at my job and understand how the different variables must be controlled and how details can be presented to support the view you want. I would like an outline of the exact method/procedure they use to get these numbers. This looks like a very interesting and convincing piece of evidence but I will not be happy until I can scrutinize every tiny detail of the procedure. You don't have to type this part out, just give me a link going directly to the procedure so I can find exactly what I am looking for.

Since I am at a co-op college I am currently on work rotation and I cannot contact my teachers, but I will be certain to get more information from them once I start up classes again.

It's not a single method or procedure. There are literally dozens of approaches with thousands of papers on the subject. Often mitochondrial DNA is used because this is the easiest kind to extract from bones and stays preserved over long timeframes quite well. There are thousands more peer reviewed papers explaining the processes and procedures used to extract and replicate this DNA without contamination ( such as http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/7 ... 3452267047 )

Often these studies use various mutation models, the royal Society paper used 783 micro satellite (short repeating chains) from 53 existing populations and analyzed them using 5 different mutation models. The data itself came from another source (http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707639901). Basically they looked at mutation rates such as increases or decreases in the repetitions and whose rate can be measured given we have access to many generations of human DNA.

The Oxford journal article use mitricondrial DNA studies and combined it with arechological evidence to form thier results. They did this because of how well it is preserved and extracted from bone remains. They also used growth modeling based on mutation. It's is quite complicated when tryin to determine a possible size and scope of a bottleneck 2M years ago in human ancestors.

In short it would take many many pages to explain the methods and hundreds to show procedures and many thousands to show the data. If we all came from 2 people 6 thousand years ago (or any timeframe) it is quite easy to show there is no possible way to explain the variation we see in both living samples, as well as recently exhumed, as well as the arechogical samples. I won't even bring up that we have human DNA samples far older than 6k years.

The short two sentance answer is : You can find people that do not share common ancestry (have a high amount of genetic difference) since they came from different portions of this early breeding population. This wouldn't be possible if everyone came from two people and doubly so if this was a mere 6,000 years ago.

Since you attend college - tuition often grants you access to journals that are behind pay walls. If you are interested you should be able to look at far more than I can as I do not have multiple (or any) journal subscriptions that publish these papers.