Amusing Nonsense

I intended this post as a response to Ark’s argument regarding the implications of findings from the Human Genome Project [which he’s raised twice in one week for impact?]

In making and reiterating his point, that the biblical Adam and Eve could not be the progenitors of the human race,  Ark has cited the following excerpts, made by those ‘supposedly’ in the “know”:

Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true.  There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.  That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D. Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago –


… reported scientific indications that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors perhaps 100,000 years ago—long before the Genesis time frame—and originated with a population that numbered something like 10,000, not two individuals.”

Dr. Francis Collins: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

It’s quite amusing really, and totally disingenuous, that Ark and these scientists would use the above as proof that the human race could not have descended from just two individuals; yet, they would have us believe that all life evolved from just one single cell.

Of note: these “scientific conclusions” are based on evolutionary assumptions. This means that these assumptions have no way of being tested and therefore renders such “conclusions” nothing more than – you guessed it – amusing nonsense! This also further highlights the dishonesty of those intent on deception.

One cannot legitimately claim something to be proven without testing the assumptions behind that claim.”

So my friend, Ark, while you’re busy taking all the necessary precautions to stay safe in a very dangerous society (as you should)… take a few minutes to ponder why you must do this, since there’s no such thing as ‘sin’…’missing the mark’… ‘crime’ … ‘whatever you may/may not want to call it.’

Not so fast! Hold on to that basketball. Nothing like a slam-dunk that really wasn’t.

Cheers friend! For now, we celebrate something else.

All the best to you.

[I am aware there’s a blog that shares the title of this post. I’m sure we don’t read each other, so this is where all similarities meet and end].


97 thoughts on “Amusing Nonsense”

  1. Wonderful. And not once did you bother to offer a single piece of evidence to refute the findings of the Human Genome Project.

    Why is that I wonder?

    1. Hi Ark,
      I did! It’s so simple it went under the radar: Their findings are based on assumptions that cannot be tested
      Where or how else do you propose to proceed from here.

      1. For clarity: the HGP is an extensive body of research.
        What we’re speaking of specifically here is the conclusion drawn/made that says there’s proof humans could not have descended from two individuals

        If this is true, then humans and all living things could also not have descended/evolved from just one single cell.

      2. Francis Collins – “reported scientific indications that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors…”

      3. Simply this – how can you so readily accept that all humanity did not descend from 2 people; yet you accept that all living things descended/evolved from 1 single thing?

      4. You are asking for an opinion, which I am not qualified to give
        . I am asking you for the evidence you have that refutes the scientific findings of the Human Genome Project.

        By the way, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

      5. I cannot make up an answer that will be satisfactory to you, so you’ll have to settle for what I give.

        I already answered this question.
        The HGP is an extensive body of research and findings.
        My issue is with the specific part that you posted on – citing that there is proof that humanity could not have descended from 2 individuals.

        I’ve said and have shown you that this specific finding is made based on the assumption of evolution – a claim that neither scientists nor you & I can test.

        Scientists believe the earth came into existence about 4.54 billion years ago. The truth is no one knows the true age of the earth. God did not say the earth was 6000 years old. No one knows how long Adam was living in the garden of Eden before he was sent back to the ground (earth realm) from which he was formed. So Adam could have been in Eden for 6 million years, 600 million years, 6 billion years—no one in this realm knows

      6. I already answered this question Ark.
        Perhaps Peter can interpret my answer for you. It starts at: Scientists say…

  2. It’s quite amusing really, and totally disingenuous, that Ark and these scientists would use the above as proof that the human race could not have descended from just two individuals; yet, they would have us believe that all life evolved from just one single cell.

    That was quite interesting.

    1. Isn’t it.
      I think Ark believes I’m trying to prove one side is right.
      No, I’m just trying to show, they don’t have the answers they pretend to.

    2. Perhaps you have evidence Wally that refutes Francis Collins sterling work. And remember, your mate, James put up an entire post lauding Collins for his belief in Yahweh, and now you seem to be trashing the man for his scientific work.

      I consider that to be disingenuous. Or maybe you simply don’t understand the nature of the topic?

      1. I didn’t trash anyone. Read more carefully and pay attention to what people say, rather than putting out what you desperately want them to say.

        Should I repeat the comment I made, or are you up to actually reading it. I said NOTHING about Francis Collins or his research, nor will I. Unlike you, I won’t pretend to be an expert on something about which I am not.

        You are clearly ignoring the direction of this post and tossing out distractions rather than address what the blog host has said. Try answering The Ancients comment why don’t you.

        Again, I did NOT say anything about Francis Collins. Either you have limited understanding of English…or something else.

        Stay on topic, you can do it.

      2. Fair enough. So you agree with Collins and the findings of the Human Genome Project, as this is the scientist I am referring to, Wally.

      3. Ok..I will type reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaal slow.

        YOU were asked a question. I have zip to say about Francis Collings, but eagerly await to see how you answer the question you were very clearly asked.

      4. I answered.
        And you are behaving rather silly again,Wally.
        Collins was head of the HGP
        Collins, an evangelical christian supports evolution; albeit theistic.
        But he certainly has no truck with YEC types such as you.
        Collins and the hundreds of scientist have produced the evidence that shows the human race could not possibly have arisen from a single couple as portrayed on the bible.
        If you have any other questions I strongly suggest you bone up a bit on the HGP and direct your queries to scientists who were involved , okay?

      5. Silly eh? That’s compelling argument for sure. Gosh, you win and I lose solely on the strength of your position that I am silly. have NOT answered the question posed by the Ancients.


      6. This is not my claim Ark.
        Since you’re indicating this is not what you believe, then take the opportunity to correct me and clue me in on what exactly it is that you believe.

      7. The question was directed at Wally. You will note the speech marks, yes?
        But if you concure feel free to answer.

        And I am still waiting for the evidence you have that refutes the findings of the HGP.

        So you are an Old World Creationist?

        I am an atheist. Surely you know this?

      8. *sigh*
        deflect, obfuscate, complicate, …
        seriously don’t appreciate
        your inability to articulate
        so I’m off to eat a cake
        or better yet, to meditate
        besides, it’s getting late.

        There you have it folks – amusing nonsense – or not.

      9. I never made that claim. You are confused again. I asked a question, I did NOT make that claim.

        As The Ancients said, if we have misunderstood your position, now is y our chance to set us straight. If all life didn’t come from one cell, then how many was it? Where and when did it occur? Do you have the peer reviewed observations of those events? Documented evidence based on observation? The credentials for the persons who observed it? You know, the list of stuff you demand from Christians.

        Now perhaps the actual point here will seep into your head. You and you friends posture around as if you are experts, but you won’t apply the same standard of demand to your ever shifting beliefs that you constantly barrage Christians to provide.

        You have no answers, but only pretend that you do.

        Anyway, we await all of those studies that must surely exist. After all, if you state something is fact, surely you have studies, observations, records.


      10. “Simply this – how can you so readily accept that all humanity did not descend from 2 people; yet you accept that all living things descended/evolved from 1 single thing?”

        In case you missed it, that is the question you were asked.

        Try actually answering one for a change.

    1. haha… I’m actually back and forth as I have work doing.
      I totally agree with you regarding the lack of response yet the demand for one.
      Something is wrong when a person keeps asking the same question without recognizing when an answer has been provided.

  3. A couple of thing here.

    First, the question of the origin of life is seperate from the question of the accuracy of the human genome project. It’s introduction into a discussion of the HGP seems to be an intentional misdirection, a sleight of hand trick. Ark’s post was about the HGP? Why not stick to the topic of that post?

    Second, I see no answer to a rather important question. How, specifically and in detail, do you know that the findings of the HGP are “untestable?” To put it another way, can anyone tell me how the the research that is a part of the HGP was used to draw conclusion about the origin of our species? Please explain how this science is done.

    Or, if you prefer, speaking more broadly, why is evolution untestable?

    Finally, the hypothesis that Adam lived millions of years is contradicted by the observation of the science of geology.

    1. David,
      I think it’s great advice for all of us, yourself included to stick to the point of the post. Thank you.

      Ark’s point –the biblical Adam and Eve could not be the progenitors of the human race, because there was never a point when there were only two people on the earth. “Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true.”

      My point – if this is true and acceptable that all humanity could not have descended from only 2 people, why or how is it then possible for all living things to have evolved/descended from 1 single cell/organism [as Ark seem to be having trouble deciding what’s the view point of those who tout evolution as a fact.]

      To your second point – if like Ark, your premise is that evolution is a fact, then clearly you should know in detail exactly how this “fact” was “tested.”

      Finally, your last line is simply wrong! and an outright lie really.
      If you don’t know when Adam lived in the earth realm (because clearly you do not know, understand or believe the biblical narrative) how then could it have been tested and proven wrong by the science of geology? What a hoot!

      1. First point. Abiogenesis is a different phenomenon from the evolution of a new vertebrate species. These are two very different types of events, and so yes, it’s possible for both to have occurred, although I don’t think that the origin of life is likely to have been as simple as “all living things descended from one cell.”

        In any event, we could hypothesize that God created the first cell, and even if this is so, it would have no effect on the conclusions of the HGP that Homo sapiens did not start with a single couple living…according to most A and E fans…about 6000 to 10000 years ago. That is regardless of the answer to the question of how life began, the A and E hypothesis is contradicted by the data from the HGP.

        Second point. You post appears to take the position that evolution, in general, and the conclusion of the HGP, in particular cannot be tested. However, you appear to provide no support for these positions. So, again, I would ask, how do you know that these things are untestable?

        Your position that certain things are untestable appears to be the key to your dismissal of the conclusions of the HGP. This a central assertion of your post. So, I would ask that you provide support for this position.

        Last point. To explain how geology shows that Adam did not live for a million years, I first need to ask you a couple of questions so that I can understand your views. Do you think that Adam was created at essentially the same time as all other species on Earth, and did global flood create the vast majority of the fossil deposits that we see today?

    2. “Finally, the hypothesis that Adam lived millions of years is contradicted by the observation of the science of geology.”

      Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

      1. Wally, was Adam created at the same time as all other species, give or take a day? Are the vast majority of fossil deposits the product of a global flood?

      2. David, that is not the question. You stated some business about a hypothesis that Adam lived millions of years.

        Here is the deal. Nobody postulated that hypothesis, ever. Not one person, not here, ever

        Soooooooooooo…either you don’t actually understand the thing you are arguing about, or you have some hope that by arguing against patently absurd things in your comments, you will plant seeds that some other comment actually believes the thing you are arguing against(even though it was never said)

        I would rather believe that you are simply ignorant of the Biblical narrative. In that case, go study and come back later. The other alternative, which I find unpleasant, is that arguing against something that was never said is well….dishonest.

        I really don’t want to believe that, but the trend of misspoken words seems to be growing.

        So, rather than chase your geological rabbit trail around, now might be a good time for you to explain this bizarre hypothesis you are arguing against…where it came from, who said it, and so forth.

      3. Brilliant Wally!
        Thank you. This encapsulate my response as well.

        All David had to do was take his own advice.

      4. And I quote…”so Adam could have been in Eden for six million years.”

        Now, where did I read that?

        I believe I read that here.

      5. Actually, David, that was simply a statement reflecting the idea that..we don’t know. I don’t think that was presented as a hypothesis, but it wasn’t my comment, so I can’t really talk to it.

      6. One other note. Sometimes I misunderstand. I don’t lie.

        So, could we maybe tone down the accusations of dishonesty? Or is the this just something that you all find useful in some way?

      7. Wally, it true that we don’t know the past with absolute certainty. However, I think that we can conclude that some things are very highly unlikely. Like Adam living six million years.

        So, what’s the point of throwing out such an “hypothesis” or whatever you wish to call the string of words written by Ancient? Here at this site. A statement which, yes, I did read. And which I did not make up as a rabbit trail” after all.

        What was the point?

      8. David,
        My point was this:
        We’re told Adam was formed in the earth, then he was taken to the garden.
        We’re never told how long Adam lived in the garden before he was sent back to the earth from which he came.

        So, I said it this way – no one knows how long he was in Eden. He could have been there 6-million years, 6-billion years; the truth is no one in this realm knows because that information was not given to us.

        Hope this makes sense to you… if you let me know.

      9. Ok, I think I understand. And what I’m suggesting is that there are ways to narrow down the possibilities. For example, geology can tell us that it is very, very unlikely that Adam lived six million years.

      10. I agree there are ways to narrow down the possibilities.
        The reality is, even I, without the use of geology could tell you that it is highly unlikely that Adam lived on this earth 6 million years ago.

        So we both agree here.

      11. Ah, good.

        So maybe there are some things that we can know after all; maybe not perfectly, but with a relatively high degree of confidence.

  4. If any of you, Ancients, Wally, IB, have an intelligent question then please,ask.

    Francis Collins is an Evangelical Christian and he believes in theistic evolution.
    He headed the Human Genome Project and the findings prove conclusively that the human species did not originate from a single couple – Adam and Eve – as depicted in the Old testament.

    If you have evidence to refute this, please feel free to present it or provide a link.

    1. Hi Ark,
      good morning! [Yes! His Mercies Are New Every Morning]

      Clearly, you don’t expect the question to be directed to you – as we all know, what’s that expression – hell will freeze over – before we get an answer out of you.

      Before you keep embarrassing yourself by using the term: “the findings prove conclusively,” you might want to take a closer look at exactly what both scientists say.
      1. Genetic data show no evidence
      2. reported scientific indications
      There’s absolutely nothing there to indicate a “proven conclusive finding”.

      Science 101: Data is interpreted. You know, conclusions are drawn; which means the possibility of drawing wrong conclusions exist [just as you’ve exhibited] (especially when faulty assumptions are thrown into the mix.
      Of note: science is (or at least should be) neutral and tells us nothing. Scientists do.

      Enjoy my Father’s sunshine!

      1. Any minute now you will assert that there is no evidence for evolution.
        Take it up with Francis Collins and the hundreds of scientists who were involved in the HGP over several years.

        Ignorance is curable but willful ignorance amounts to stupidity. I suggest you concentrate on the former and hope you don’t remain in the latter.

      2. Stick to the point Ark, is that too much to ask.
        Conflating the whole body of work of a group of people with one unsupported finding is dishonest and misleading.

        Yes, lets talk about willful ignorance – the idea that all humanity did not descend from TWO; but oh dear, ALL living things descended from ONE.

        Have a nice day!

      3. The HGP has proved that humanity did not derive from a single couple as per the bible story.
        Don’t agree? Provide evidence the take it up with Collins .

      4. Ark,
        please go do some research on the difference between ‘drawing a conclusion’ and an actual ‘proof.’

        Don’t ask for what you can’t recognize upon receiving.

      5. Ancients.
        Please do some research on the HGP and if you have evidence that refutes it then please present it.
        You obviously feel quite strongly about this so I am going to presume you do have the necessary evidence to at least make a challenge to Collins and his team.
        I am presuming this, as otherwise the only alternative would be you were blowing smoke out of your backside.

        Seriously, I will investigate whatever you can put forward. ( unless I have already done so, of course)

        Surely we are in pursuit of the truth and not just here to merely score points?

      6. Ark, you’ve demonstrated time and time and time again that you have difficulty recognizing presented ‘evidence’.

        It’s very simple actually. Test all assumptions… not just one.

      7. Then offer me evidence that refutes the HGP. I continually ask and so far you have offered frak all.
        What are you having difficulty with here?

      8. Your post and point, and my response are based on the conclusion drawn from analysis of a set of data points (NOT THE WHOLE GENOME PROJECT).

        Your incessant desire to conflate the two is telling.

        This is the last time I will speak to this. Your inability to understand is on you.

        Here goes:
        The conclusion was drawn based on the assumption of evolution only. No other assumptions were brought to bear in the interpretation of the data.

        The main point of my post, which you’ve been conveniently avoiding is:
        How is it realistic to accept this conclusion: humanity did not descend from TWO… yet all living things descended from ONE – whoohoot no problem!…
        especially when this was thrown in for good measure….”there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true”..

        In any event… this is your conundrum, not mine.

        God gives all of us the capacity for critical thinking and analysis.

      9. As you obviously have no understanding of your ”main point of the post” and have no viable alternate theory how on earth are you able to even ask the question?
        I have repeatedly said: If you have evidence to refute the findings of the HGP present it. But you have offered nothing.

        When you say ”God gave ..etc.” are you referring to Yahweh?

      10. Ark, trying to insult me is like trying to insult a corpse.

        Asking the same question 100 times doesn’t mean you haven’t gotten an adequate response.
        It shows your inability to recognize one.

        Good day to you my brother.

      11. Insult a corpse? Hmm.
        Yes, well you do seem dead from the neck up.
        The reason why you haven’t responded honestly is because you cannot.
        And this is where the Creationist worldview comes up against a brick wall.
        What next, dinosaurs on the Ark?

      12. LOL…. point proven!

        I take it you read and understood what I wrote… huh?
        So much for your conclusions. Just can’t be trusted!

        And, Congratulations Ark, it took you longer -than even I expected- to devolve into “yourself” 🙂 I’m sure you know what that means.

        A good weekend to you.

    2. Ark, you have wrapped yourself in a snare of your own words I fear. This is a direct quote from you

      “Proofs are generally reserved for Maths.”

      Unless I am mistaken, we aren’t talking about math here.

      1. Point taken. I apologise for my choice of words.
        One tends to get a little frustrated having to continually explain the same thing over and over as if I am lecturing to remedial children.
        So, to rephrase, the evidence from the HGP project shows conclusively that the human race did not derive from a single human pair -Adam and Eve – as told in Genesis.
        Thanks again for the heads up, Wally. I must always be mindful of my choice of words.

  5. This thread is just too silly. 🙂

    Not that anyone cares, but science has a terrible problem trying to estimate and measure time. We can be off millions of years. So you can see the potential problem with trying to trace DNA backwards until you arrive at a core group of 10,000 humans. It’s done under simulation and must assume everyone lived precisely 40 years and cannot even take into account the humans that died out and did not contribute any DNA at all. The margins of error are huge because time must be set somewhat arbitrarily and applied uniformly.

    I have to tell you, no scientist is their right mind would ever try to claim they are able to “prove conclusively” anything at all having to do with human DNA, evolution, or time. Heck, we’re currently busy redefining the very definition of “gene” itself. So we’re trying to track genes we cannot even fully define, backwards through time we cannot even properly measure.

    1. Thank you tremendously for this IB.

      And it’s always unfortunate when things are reduced to pure silliness so the atheist mind can feel ‘accomplished in it’s illogical reasoning.’

      The fact that Ark cannot even accept that it’s a ridiculous notion to claim ‘conclusive proof’ yet has the nerve to speak of willful ignorance is hilarious…amusing… and yes…silly.

    2. Just a quick point. In the research in question, as I understand it, we are not “tracking genes,” exactly. We’re tracking changes and differences in base sequences. This can be done regardless of how one wishes to define a gene, so that the challenges are not quite as great as one might think.

      More broadly, this discussion seems to be mostly about semantics.

      1. @David.

        The Creationist worldview does not allow for any consideration other than Goddidit and the Young Earth Creationist worldview is unfortunately, beyond the pale.
        However, there are often lurkers who may be reading and one has to hope that there is intelligent life beyond the blog host and his minions.

      2. Thanks for this, David.
        The reality is, we weren’t even discussion “tracking genes”… but simply the assumptions brought to bear in the interpretation of data points.

        So, this discussion was basically the acceptance of a specific scientific conclusion and labelling it as “conclusive proof”… when the assumptions made in that determination are not factual, and impossible to test.

      3. You are free to spend the time and answer it yourself David?

        In a manner that you can answer.
        Why are the assumptions factual and possible to test?

      4. You made the assertion in the original post. It’s yours to defend, support and/or explain. Or not.

      5. Ok, I admit that I’m a little slow sometimes, but where did you support or explain the position that evolution is not testable? Just point me to a previous comment, please, no need to repeat it here.

      1. Sorry, I should have clearer. My fault. What does this have to do with the testability of evolution?

      2. “One cannot legitimately claim something to be proven without testing the assumptions behind that claim.”

  6. Yes, right, good, but why do you think that evolution can’t be tested?

    I understand what you are saying, yes we should test the assumptions, but I don’t get why you think why evolution isn’t testable? Just saying that it isn’t testable doesn’t make it so.

    And while we’re on the subject, how could one test the conclusions presented in the Bible? Don’t we need to test the assumptions behind biblical claims as well?

    1. David, I brought up micro & macro evolution for a reason.
      I have no desire to debate the validity of either. Simply, it’s a tiresome, futile endeavor.

      I know you have no proof for the evolution of one specie into another, yet you will present your information as though you do.

      Perhaps some other time when I have the time, but not today.

      We’re all graced with a mind and the ability to think and discover, so absolutely, we’re to test what’s presented in the Bible.

      1. Ok, you brought up micro and macro for a reason. But you don’t say what that reason is and you don’t want to discuss it. So, not very productive.

        You’ve decided I have no “proof” before I say a word, so you’re right, further discussion of that topic is pointless. You clearly are fully informed on the subject, and there are no data that I could present that you do not already possess.

        So, in the end, still no support or explanation for why evolution is not testable. Just assertions. Or should I say that what you have are … untestable assumptions?

        In the meantime, how would you suggest that we test what’s in the Bible? Should we start by asking what the Bible says about global floods?

      2. My reason for disengaging is I have no desire to go beyond the scope of the point of this post.

        Yes, I know all the tried and tired arguments and I have zero desire to participate. It gets old after a while.

        The “evolution” of one distinct specie into another is NOT factual and certainly cannot be tested.
        Yes, I know, this would have been where you bring up all your pseudo-scientific assertions and word plays.

        I know you have no proof!

  7. You know that the evolution from one species into another is not factual, because…? This cannot be tested, because…?

    Assertions piled on assertions, but no substance or evidence or argument. Just a rejection of all data before we start.

    The post says we can reject the conclusions of the HGP because the assumptions of evolution are untestable. However, you don’t seem able to explain how or why they are untestable. And you reject any evidence of testability or speciation before it is offered.

    I can see why you wish to disengage.

    And I assume that you don’t really want to test the Bible? Not really?

    (By the way, it’s not specie, it’s species. Species is both plural and singular. Like “sheep”.)

    1. Sorry, one last thought. One species cannot give rise to another species, right? So, how many species were there on Noah’s Ark?

      1. Let’s waste some more time speaking of “amusing nonsense” right.

        Have a good day.

      2. Not wasting time, just proving that one species can give rise to another. QED. You have a nice day, too.

      3. There is ZERO proof that one distinct species gave rise to another! ZERO.

        I have access to same information you do. I have zero interest in trading scientific reports… as that’s all you guys are capable of… making a pretentious show of knowledge.

        You’re free to display your “evidence” on your own blog.

      4. Zero proof? How many species were present on Noah’s Ark? I’m not referring to scientific reports here, I’m talking about what’s in the Bible.

        Since I’ve worn out my welcome, I’ll leave you to ponder the above question. Sorry to have disturbed you.

  8. Those “experts” are in error. Our current population came from a “bottleneck” of 8, the pre-flood population came from a bottleneck of 2.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s