- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsBut mitochondrial eve was never considered the first fully human female by anyone, so your statement revealed more about your ignorance on the subject than maybe you care to admit now? Well, it's out there. Just admit you were wrong, and you'll get at least a little respect, kudos for admitting when you're wrong.
I said "THEY" meaning the "EVILUTIONISTS" NOT ME. 😏
If the Bible were to be taken as accurate, then Mitochondrial Eve would be either Noah's wife or one of her descendants. So anyone attempting to match the DNA evidence of Mitochondrial Eve with the Biblical account has to deal with the date of the flood, not the date of creation.
As always, creationists actually have to accept faster evolution than scientists do.
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessI understood them to mean mitochondrial eve was the first fully human female evolved from apes. If that is not what they meant then I was wrong. But my understanding of that has nothing to do with the conclusion made by the woman on the video.
But mitochondrial eve was never considered the first fully human female by anyone, so your statement revealed more about your ignorance on the subject than maybe you care to admit now? Well, it's out there. Just admit you were wrong, and you'll get at least a little respect, kudos for admitting when you're wrong.
Mitochondrial eve or whoever they were referring to turned out to be much younger than the expected 100,000 to 200,000 years old. The age would be reduced down to about 6,000 to 13000 years. If we take the lower estimate of 6,000 years old, as the woman on the video did, then that is very close to the calculated estimate age by young earth creationists of the Eve of the Holy Bible. 😏
HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt was somewhat deceiving to use the name Mitochondrial Eve and also say it was named after the biblical Eve, if they really did not mean the first woman for they even said she was the maternal ancestor of all living today. And that seems the same as what the Holy Bible says:
He was celebrating the fact that you admitted being wrong.
Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
(Genesis 3:20 NASB)
But if you look more in detail they say they believe she was not the same as the biblical Eve, because they believe other women lived before her.
Hmmm, I wonder if perhaps that was to cover up the fact that they found out she could have lived as early as 5,000 years ago as stated in the Wikipedia article. That's too young to be the biblical Eve. So its back to the drawing board, ugh, laboratory.
If they ever discover the one they believe to be the real first women that is equal to the real mother of all living, what will they name her?
Originally posted by RJHindsIf Eve was the first woman, where did their boys find wives?
It was somewhat deceiving to use the name Mitochondrial Eve and also say it was named after the biblical Eve, if they really did not mean the first woman for they even said she was the maternal ancestor of all living today. And that seems the same as what the Holy Bible says:
[quote]Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all ...[text shortened]... be the real first women that is equal to the real mother of all living, what will they name her?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt was not deceiving. You just found it confusing. Not the same thing at all. And you were only confused because you did not bother to actually read the Wikipedia page.
It was somewhat deceiving to use the name Mitochondrial Eve ...
But if you look more in detail they say they believe she was not the same as the biblical Eve, because they believe other women lived before her.
As I have already pointed out, that by Biblical accounts, Noah's wife is also the maternal ancestor of all humans - and being more recent, her or one of her descendants would have to be the Mitochondrial Eve.
Hmmm, I wonder if perhaps that was to cover up the fact that they found out she could have lived as early as 5,000 years ago as stated in the Wikipedia article.
No, the Wikipedia article states no such thing, and there was no cover up. You just can't be bothered to read and understand the Wikipedia article so you are talking nonsense.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat would not work because the wives of her three sons would also have to be considered. 😏
It was not deceiving. You just found it confusing. Not the same thing at all. And you were only confused because you did not bother to actually read the Wikipedia page.
[b]But if you look more in detail they say they believe she was not the same as the biblical Eve, because they believe other women lived before her.
As I have already pointed out, ...[text shortened]... just can't be bothered to read and understand the Wikipedia article so you are talking nonsense.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsIf the sons wives were on the Ark too, then they too are possibilities. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Mitochondrial Eve would have been close to the time of Noah or more recent.
That would not work because the wives of her three sons would also have to be considered. 😏
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes it could be, but why would they use the biblical name Eve, which was the mother of all living and was at least 1,000 years before Noah and those four women?
If the sons wives were on the Ark too, then they too are possibilities. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Mitochondrial Eve would have been close to the time of Noah or more recent.
The only logical and reasonable answer is it was a mistake or meant to deceive. If it was not meant as deception, then they must have orginally thought this women was the equivalent of the biblical Eve.