Truly: Then I looked at the name of the site "reason.org". "Reason.org" and "answers in Genesis", both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract. I should have started at the end first.
And neither have THEY! Not to mention your arrogance in asserting, without knowing of their backgrounds and contentions, that they have shelved their commitment to scientific integrity. That you don't even know of Hugh Ross and Reasons.org shows me you only want to read info that doesn't challenge what you think you already know. And your bias per your implication that any Christian who is a scientist can't rigorously hold to the scientific method in what is discovered.
Note that the writer did not say that the existence of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam SCIENTIFICALLY proves that these were the Biblical pair, but asks the reader to consider that possibility in the context of "what we believe as Christians." But make no mistake, many scientists theistic beliefs are greatly re-enforced by what they have learned per scientific research, studies and observations - as did Einstein and many others. To assert that all such people have abandoned their commitment to and their immense respect for the scientific method - that would appear to be an assertion driven by the desire to paint scientists of faith as incompetent fools. Only one exceptionally arrogant would assert such a thing.
Buy Reasons.org's book on presenting a testable creation theory: https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/B015X4IRCK
And here is a list of topics within: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Morethan.html
Firstly, I know what I know. I don't think that I know what I know. If I only thought that I know something, then I really don't know it. To think that you know something, and actually not know it, is called BELIEF. The more you know about something the less you need to believe
that you know it.
Let me repeat this again. SCIENCE DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE! SCIENCE ONLY CARES ABOUT WHAT YOUR PERSONAL SCIENCE IS! Considering that over 82% of the US population have some religious belief, it doesn't take more than a few working brain cells, to deduce that many scientists from the population will also have their own personal beliefs. I did not hire research staff based on their beliefs, and no one else would. In other words, there are no scientists of faith, THERE ARE ONLY SCIENTISTS, PERIOD! If their research work is fueled by their beliefs, so what? If their work is only
based on their beliefs, then we have a problem.
You don't know me at all. No one in my community or my inner circle of friends, would ever consider me as being an arrogant person. Most people consider me as being honest, fair, patient, formidable, respectful, and knowledgeable. My comments are based on personal firsthand experiences, research, and information from the general scientific community, including information from other colleagues. This is the sort of information that would never be spread all over the internet. Most earlier scientist since Galileo were agnostics. Einstein was a secular Jew and Pantheist at best. Hawking, Sagan, Curie, Franklin, Darwin, Tyson, Kaku, etc., are and were all agnostics at best. And, Atheists at worst. But NONE
searched for their answers in Theism. I love the quote by the Nobel Prize winning physicists and molecular biologist, Venkatraman Ramakrishna, "A culture based on superstitions, will do worst than one based on scientific knowledge and rational thoughts". Just take a look at the few true Theocratic Governments left in the world. This video might best give you an understanding of my position and why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB90bBL2pxk
. So NO
, I am not trying to paint a demeaning picture of scientist with religious beliefs, no matter how poorly you try to misrepresent my comments. It is just thoroughly irrelevant, immaterial, and tangential, to the science they do. So please, if you are going to make up your own straw men, argue against it and not me.
Regarding Y Chromosomal Adam, it is only a tag that indicates the first Y chromosome. It does not mean that the Biblical Adam is the origin of its paternal lineage. This chromosome can be traced back over 100,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve(X chromosome) can be traced back over 150,000 years ago, there can be no doubt that the X chromosome came first, and the mutated Y chromosome came later. If this fact WAS
in any way biblically related, you might need to rethink who came first. Although the author made clear his perspective, I was simply disappointed after reading so much positive information, to conclude with this perspective. That's all.
Regarding Dr. Ross, I'm a little surprised why you would support his Christian position. https://creation.com/the-dubious-apolog ... -hugh-ross
, https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ion-story/
, http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005 ... hugh-ross/
. His views are controversial to say the leasts. Because his views and interpretation of Genesis, Science, Creationism, Biblical and Scientific Truths, and belief in extraterrestrials, I would have thought he would be been your last choice
of Christian scientist you'd wish to champion. But this Canadian is also entitled to his own opinions. Don