how do creationists deal with this?

[liblady]

Age confirmed for 'Eve,' mother of all humans - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms.

i think it's amazing we have this technology.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

That's not science.

That's Satan lying to us under the guise of science.

Ta-da!

 

[rivrrat]

That's not science.

That's Satan lying to us under the guise of science.

Ta-da!

He's just testing their faith

 

[Goshin]

Doesn't bother me. I'll just ask God to fill me in on the details later.

 

[First Thought]

I would say that it's pretty simple to deal with this. The idea of a world/reality created by God doesn't exclude the use of science to understand the creation.

 

[Cyberhwk]

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

If someone truly believes the literal story of creation in the bible, there's no amount of evidence in the world that's going to allow someone else to change their minds. Because they didn't ARRIVE at that conclusion through evidence. They did so through faith.

 

[obvious Child]

The same way they deal with everything that conflicts with their views: Pretend it's lies. Like how water sorts by mass and shape, not complexity. LIES. Like how there is no evidence that the speed of light changed. LIES.

 

[LizardofOz]

I would say this, being a guy that believes in science obviously, but also God, there is a lot we don't know about God and the way he works. I like to think that the bible is a lose interpretation of how the world became what it is now. God had many experiments along the way until he finally got it right. I do believe in evolution completely, but at the same time if we evolve to adapt why in the hell does a fly or moth still hover towards light like a dumbass? I think God just kind of said eh that's all I got for this one thing now, so I will move on to the next one. I dunno, it's hard to really explain what I believe, but I think satan put them dino bones in the ground to **** with me.

 

[Orion]

In fairness, the concepts of mitochondrial eve and biblical eve don't have to mean the same thing. Scientists could have called it anything, but they chose to usurp a religious name and now everyone is just going along with it.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I would say this, being a guy that believes in science obviously, but also God, there is a lot we don't know about God and the way he works. I like to think that the bible is a lose interpretation of how the world became what it is now. God had many experiments along the way until he finally got it right. I do believe in evolution completely, but at the same time if we evolve to adapt why in the hell does a fly or moth still hover towards light like a dumbass? I think God just kind of said eh that's all I got for this one thing now, so I will move on to the next one. I dunno, it's hard to really explain what I believe, but I think satan put them dino bones in the ground to **** with me.

I tend to side with your particular view of a divine creator.

In addition, I tend to look at the story of the garden of Eden as being a story about growing up and becoming an adult and doing things adults do.

 

[Dezaad]

In fairness, the concepts of mitochondrial eve and biblical eve don't have to mean the same thing. Scientists could have called it anything, but they chose to usurp a religious name and now everyone is just going along with it.

That really misses the point. Forget the name, and consider that they (the bible and science) both speak of the first human woman. They are merely using "Eve" as a shorthand way of saying "first human woman".

The bible claims it was Eve, 6000 years ago. Science claims it was mitochondrial Eve or earlier, 200,000 years ago. A maximum of only one of these camps can be right. Either the first human woman came to be 6000 years ago, or she arose around 200,000 years ago.

Science eventually always helps people to cast aside the yoke of superstition. Nearly everyone has given up the superstition that God created humans 6000 years ago. To be sure, many have replaced it with "God created humans 200,000 years ago", but I am sure science will deal with that in due course.

 

[First Thought]

I would say this, being a guy that believes in science obviously, but also God, there is a lot we don't know about God and the way he works.

Quite right.

I like to think that the bible is a lose interpretation of how the world became what it is now. God had many experiments along the way until he finally got it right.

Interesting viewpoint. How does God, who is all powerful and all knowing, make mistakes? Also, what did he get "right"?

I do believe in evolution completely, but at the same time if we evolve to adapt why in the hell does a fly or moth still hover towards light like a dumbass?

Why do human beings continue to kill each other? You think by now we would have realized that exterminating those who disagree with us is hardly helping or accomplishing anything. Instead of uniting as a race for the benefit of mankind, we're still caught up in posturing and ego stroking that can sometimes turn into war on a world stage.

I think God just kind of said eh that's all I got for this one thing now, so I will move on to the next one.

Move on to the next what? Why does God need to move(this implies that God is not ever-present)?

 

[LizardofOz]

I dunno man I'm not a religious scholar, and like I said it's hard for me to explain. I just know for there to be a God that doesn't mean evolution has to lose out that's all I'm saying.

 

[Orion]

The bible claims it was Eve, 6000 years ago. Science claims it was mitochondrial Eve or earlier, 200,000 years ago. A maximum of only one of these camps can be right. Either the first human woman came to be 6000 years ago, or she arose around 200,000 years ago.

First, does the Bible actually say 6,000 years as a figure?

Second, are we looking at the Bible from a literalist perspective or allegory? Because those are two different takes.

 

[Manc Skipper]

First, does the Bible actually say 6,000 years as a figure?

Second, are we looking at the Bible from a literalist perspective or allegory? Because those are two different takes.

Not as a number, but basic arithmetic (adding up all the "begats", which say in what year of the father's life the son was born) is how the literalists come to the number.

whichhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

 

[deltabtry]

That's not science.

That's Satan lying to us under the guise of science.

Ta-da!

Everything Satan says is a lie, that means he is lying about what he is lying about which would be a lie about the lie which in turn he is lying about lying.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Doesn't bother me. I'll just ask God to fill me in on the details later.

You know that's why I think we should stop even arguing about this.

If I've lived a good life, and I've been a good person, I doubt gods gonna send me to hell because I was taught evolution at school and believed it :2razz:

I'll let him tell me whats up when I get there, or if not. I shall transform into the force.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Everything Satan says is a lie, that means he is lying about what he is lying about which would be a lie about the lie which in turn he is lying about lying.

The following statement is true:

The previous statement is false.

:lol:

 

[deltabtry]

You know that's why I think we should stop even arguing about this.

If I've lived a good life, and I've been a good person, I doubt gods gonna send me to hell because I was taught evolution at school and believed it :2razz:

I'll let him tell me whats up when I get there, or if not. I shall transform into the force.

Now this is Evilllll!!

 

[molten_dragon]

I would think that this would be used as evidence in support of creationism (at least the non-literal interpretation of creationism).

 

[hallam]

The bible claims it was Eve, 6000 years ago. Science claims it was mitochondrial Eve or earlier, 200,000 years ago. A maximum of only one of these camps can be right. Either the first human woman came to be 6000 years ago, or she arose around 200,000 years ago.

The Bible does not claim that Eve is 6000 years old. That date is from a Monk form the 17th century.

 

[iangb]

That really misses the point. Forget the name, and consider that they (the bible and science) both speak of the first human woman. They are merely using "Eve" as a shorthand way of saying "first human woman".

The bible claims it was Eve, 6000 years ago. Science claims it was mitochondrial Eve or earlier, 200,000 years ago. A maximum of only one of these camps can be right. Either the first human woman came to be 6000 years ago, or she arose around 200,000 years ago.

Science eventually always helps people to cast aside the yoke of superstition. Nearly everyone has given up the superstition that God created humans 6000 years ago. To be sure, many have replaced it with "God created humans 200,000 years ago", but I am sure science will deal with that in due course.

Just for the sake of precision (and because there are lot of misconceptions that can be exploited along these lines) - Mictochondrial Eve isn't claimed to be 'the first human woman'. Instead, she's claimed to be the most recent human woman who we all share as an ancestor. She may have had sisters, but none of their genetic heriatage survives today - and she certainly had a mother (who we also all share as an ancestor) - it's just that 'Eve' was more recent.

 

[American]

Age confirmed for 'Eve,' mother of all humans - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com




i think it's amazing we have this technology.

2 Peter 3:[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So, what does it matter if some ancestor is found to be 200,000 years old. Frankly I don't think predictions of the time of certain events are all that reliable.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Frankly I don't think predictions of the time of certain events are all that reliable.

Why do you think that?

 

[American]

Why do you think that?

I don't think forty days and forty nights is completely literal. But I don't think my salvation relies on knowing exact times. We can argue of the time of the creation and many other things, but in the end my salvation will not rely on it.