evolutionist

[NOFX]

As man was evolving they were separated, Some went north and some near the equator in africa. Orginally we thought neanderthals were extremely primitave homo saphien and we took over quickly.

 

Where did homosaphiens come from? Us and the neanderthals had the same ancestors. We went in two directions. Neanderthals started showing up in the north in europe and homosapiens the tropical areas of africa. By studying the fossils it is clear that the neanderthals have been in the cold climate for a long time. Their bones were much thicker and stronger than ours and the forearm was much shorter. Hard to imagine but homosapien had the dark skin. We migrated up to europe in the cold, Even though we were nowhere near as suited for the harsh enviroment as the neanderthal. We still managed to outsurvive them.(Why? Our brain) Well, Neanderthals were not as primative as we are to believe. When studying fossils, jewelery and decoration did not come around until homosapiens were introduced. Recently, a cave was found in Europe with Neanderthal fossils, not only that but jewlery was found with them. The years the fossils date back 7,000 years and some time after homosapiens came into the picture. So that means neanderthals and homosapiens lived together once and the neanderthals even got some ideas from us. Even though we know they could learn something from homospiens they did not have the brains to survive.

 

If you do not like this idea

 

Why do you find this not to be reasonable?

Where does this go wrong on your idea of what evolution is?

Edited March 2, 2004 by NOFX

[soul .gc]

Us and the neanderthals had the same ancestors.

 

We did?

 

What was the ancestor before that? How about farther back? Did we actually evolve from a tiny amoeba in the oceans covering the world? If so, why can no scientist to date recreate this "spark" that would have been our beginning?

[NOFX]

Nowhere in the post did I say we started from a "spark". I was not looking at exactly how we started. If it makes one feel more comfortable, a higher power could have set the spark and "biological changes over time" did exactly what it says its doing

 

Or an ice metor could have hit the earth, shattered and life could have came to earth that way. Just because we dont know exactly how it started does not mean "biological changes over time" is false.

 

When you compare to fossils you look at

climate, date, location.

 

im going to use arbitrary numbers

You can clearly see how two fossils 5,000 years apart are related to one another. If a set of fossils from 0 are clearly related to a set of fossils that dates back to 5000 B.C, then why would you not see both sets at 5,000 B.C.? Plus when the land on earth started moving around so did the organism. Which would then expose it to different climates. Im assuming thats why you find the same type of fossils in antartica as you do in australia.

 

The only explanation for this would have to be "biological change over time". Im not saying im 100% correct, but Before jumping on the bandwagon and flaming me, then please give me your explaination for this.

 

I didnt want to talk about if evolution exists or not, because I have my own ideas and I doubt someone has something to say that would change my mind(im not saying I know all, but im saying you will probably be repeating somethign I have already read) I would be happy to answer questions for you though

Edited March 2, 2004 by NOFX

[Playaa]

I didnt want to talk about if evolution exists or not, because I have my own ideas and I doubt someone has something to say that would change my mind(im not saying I know all, but im saying you will probably be repeating somethign I have already read) I would be happy to answer questions for you though

and that right there is the reason this is a pointless topic.

I feel the exact same way you do about my beliefs...

 

question (and this is not me trying to disprove you): can you show me some evidence of Neanderthal? Some fossils found and where and when? I really would like to read something that isn't filled with opinion, just fact about where and when the fossils were found.

[dwEEziL]

Fossil dating is flawed by design. If you use Carbon dating, for accurate dating it must be a closed environment (meaning nothing comes into it, nothing goes out). Since fossils are not in closed environments, we have no way of knowing how much carbon could have been transferred to or from the fossil. Many things can lower the carbon percentage, thus making the dating older. Without the "fossil" being in a closed environment for it's entirety, the dating will be suspect.

 

If you use the "Geological Ages" dating method, you still can't accurately predict the age because this method (fossils are dated based on the layer of strata, i.e. the "geological age", it was found in) uses circular reasoning. Fossils are dated based on what layer of strata they were found it. Know how they set the dates for each layer of strata? You guessed it. The date for each layer of strata is based upon what types of fossils are found there. Answer me this riddle. If A is true than B is true. If B is true than A is true. Is A true?

[soul .gc]

Evolution, in the sense of biological-changes-over-time is correct and I have no problem with that theory. We see it currently in some animals. I do think man has evolved in some ways but nothing drastically different from today. Just my opinion.

[jane]

Im sorry that first post by NOFX makes hardly any sense to me. Could you rephrase what you are trying to get at? Are you asking us what we think about evolution? of are you just stating something about evolution? Whats up NOFX? Whats going on inside your head?

 

jane

[Preacher]

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/boot.html

 

Why does man want to rule out God? It seams much more plausible that the grand design is inspired by a creator rather than chance. The second law of thermodynamics states that all energy is subject to entropy. (What the heck does that mean?) This means that energy always disperses. That means that the sun is no longer as hot as it was even a year ago. It is also smaller than it was. This is verified by actual scientific measurements. A few years ago CAL Tech did a study on this and determined that even with a different rotation the sun would have prevented all life on this planet 28,000 years ago because of it's size and temperature. Wow does that mean that evolution is false? No (wait your a pastor lol) Yeah Evolution is very real and occurs every day. Our skin is a simple example it turns to a darker shade protecting us from the sun when we spend time under it. Really evolution is a poor word for what occurs. Adaptation would be more suitable. What happened is that God had a grand scheme and over time things that He created adapted to that design. People are taller in the US than they were 100 years ago.

 

This is just a testimony that God knew what the heck He was doing when He created the universe.

Edited March 2, 2004 by Preacher

[NOFX]

question (and this is not me trying to disprove you): can you show me some evidence of Neanderthal?  Some fossils found and where and when?  I really would like to read something that isn't filled with opinion, just fact about where and when the fossils were found.

thats what I was trying to get at. Im not saying that im right, in fact I want to see evidence against this and how this could wrong.

 

Dweez did a pretty good job. I know how the fossils are dated, and speaking on terms of how long it takes for noticble evolution to occur it dont think you need to be exact on the date.

 

Answer me this riddle. If A is true than B is true. If B is true than A is true. Is A true?

 

if a=true

then b=true

and

if b=true

then a=true

 

is A true? what do you mean? If your using a XOR gate A = false:P

[jane]

hes just saying that to prove something is true with something else, that something has to be true. But when you use both things to prove each other, than you just have circular reasoning, which is the loosest, most incorrect way to prove things. and he is right. That is how they teach geology these days. Using one thing to date a another, while using that "another" to date the "one". really goofy.

[Watchtower]

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Coursew...gon_Dating.html

 

The carbon 14 argument dosen't hold much water.. In fact many other methods of dating prehistoric materials..

Read if you want answers..

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/an...datingtech.html

 

For Playaa, not something on Neanderthal, but interesting link none the less.. Check out the temp. changing theories.. The cave art is pretty cool too http://www.tigtail.org/TIG/TVM/E/PreHistor...ory-europe.html

Edited March 2, 2004 by Watchtower

[Playaa]

that is pretty interesting (will look at it more later tonight hopefully). heck it even could agree with the Bible (from what I read about the time issue).

I don't think anyone would fight that the first man came from around Africa...what we consider the Middle East is in the region of Africa (though technically considered part of Asia).

[jane]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...2/i1/dating.asp

 

i think the P-Ar method is rather in question too...

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...radiodating.asp

 

why would there be stuff in these two test (on two different mountains) that show incorrect correlation to the P-Ar test if it were correct?

 

want more?(this next one is the same as the one directly above but the actual report by Dr. Austin)

 

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

 

 

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r03.htm

 

 

http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01b.htm

 

 

now these pages all show that they used the same methods as:

 

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Coursew...gon_Dating.html

 

im assuming there will be some cutting into the quality or the "forging" of these reports. Go ahead, but you gotta wonder why they would? to prove a point? Why would they feel they had to make something up if it weren't there? They already have their faith. What more could they need?

 

 

jane

[Watchtower]

Ok Jane, those reports mean little to me because they are just showing ONE test, with one specimen etc. Paleontology is alot more than radio dating certain compounds.. There are layers upon layers that Many tests have already show them to be a certain age. Then they go off that. You are providing 1 test that was wrong. I'm talking about thousands of tests that have been close. If it it such an innacurate way to measure, why do you think they still use it? Hmmm. Look at my earlier link.. http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/an...datingtech.html

[jane]

i guess my point is that the method is being used based upon assumed time period. They look at something, say "by our priciples this is older than that", and since they dont know how long ago the lava was formed they assume that its as old as they see. But you never ever see tests done on modern rocks, the kind being formed today to make sure that they aint screwing up. These few individual tests show that it just doesnt work. Maybe Mt St. Helens is an exception. But what about that Grand Canyon find? How many are there that will be called exceptions before it becomes logical to call it a mistake?

 

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/ICCS...ETDAM_2-AAS.pdf

 

http://www.icr.org/research/as/index.html

 

 

[Watchtower]

Ok but my point is so what a few tests were shown to be inaccurate. How about when we dug and found Pompeii.. We knew about how long ago that was by whatever method. Anything you found Beneath that is obviously older no? Basically I'm trying to say there are more methods to date something than just one or two. And by you providing a couple links, that is supposed to debunk the whole dating process? Those sites Are slightly biased by the way.. Find a neutral site about prehistoric dating and tell me what you find. Bottom line is we have a general idea how old the earth and most of the things on it are. We have constructed many timelines and are updating them all the time with new data that is being discovered. We know that for something to be buried so many feet deep, it's probably at least "this" old. You also look at the layers is buried under. What exactly is the point you are trying to make Jane? Nothing that we have dated is accurate? You are from the school that the Earth is only 6000 years old right? Because that is what the site you linked thinks it is proving..

 

More dating techniques.. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/

[jane]

Im from the school that thinks God makes thinkgs to show His glory. (read my sig) I dont think there is anything to prove, as far as I'm concerned. I just like to toss up stuff that may or may not ruffle feathers. My point WT, is that as far as science goes, there is always room for error, always room for miscalculations, especially when your point of view is on the line. The Scientific Method is held to such highstandars these days, that we forget to notice that the research is to be objective study. Your hypothesis is not necessarily going to be right.

 

 

I dont think evolution or the old earth theory is justifiable as far as a Chrisitian is concerned. But, if I werent a christian I would have little but my common observations to base my creationist point of view on.

 

jane

[NOFX]

hes just saying that to prove something is true with something else, that something has to be true. But when you use both things to prove each other, than  you just have circular reasoning, which is the loosest, most incorrect way to prove things. and he is right. That is how they teach geology these days. Using one thing to date a another, while using that "another" to date the "one". really goofy.

your right, we are declaring things "Truths" based on theories. But thing is, when we do that, There is very little chance that theory is false. Mathmatics is based on many many theories, such at the intermdiate value therem which states that if f(x) and g(x) are both continous from point[0,1] then there is a point f© that both functions have the exact same value for. Or otherwise its saying that if you go from point 0 to 1 then going from 1 to 0 you will find an exact point that you crossed eariler. If the line is continous. This is not a fact, But mathmaticians have been using this theory and many many others like it to prove things for years.

 

Plate tectonics is a theory, obvisouly it cannot be proven by seeing it. But given all the details there is not much that shows evidence otherwise. If it could be proven wrong then they would not teach it. Like my geology professor said "We dont try to prove our theories, we try to prove them wrong"

Edited March 4, 2004 by NOFX

[Watchtower]

Like my geology professor said "We dont try to prove our theories, we try to prove them wrong"

Yeah that's the way to think about it..

[dwEEziL]

That's inductive reasoning which tends to be less accurate (it goes on implied assumptions). Not saying this means everything theorized by it is wrong, Just saying that this type of reasoning has a wider margin of error.

[Preacher]

I was involved in a debate in 2002 with some of the better known Evolutionists (biologists,chemists and geologists) And every major example of "proof" was always based on the original assumption that Evolution was true.

 

The problem with this is very simple: " That isn't how science works "

 

The way to prove something is true is to prove it. I don't say because my car is green all cars are green. Therefore you cannot say that a single instance of adaptation proves that all things evolve from one thing to the next.

[Watchtower]

It is theorized that adaptation along with isolation can lead to the changes necessary to produce the changes we need to create different species. I think?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[NOFX]

I was involved in a debate in 2002 with some of the better known Evolutionists (biologists,chemists and geologists) And every major example of "proof" was always based on the original assumption that Evolution was true.

 

The problem with this is very simple: " That isn't how science works "

what was this debate about? and What were thery trying to prove?

Wouldnt they be trying to prove evolution true? instead of using the assumption of evolution is true to prove something? I dont see what your saying.

I guess those guys could say that your evidence is based on the assumption that there is a god.

[DJ Premier]

Well, given that you can't really prove religious history, this discussion is really flawed. People can debate this topic and have done so for lifetimes w/o coming to a conclusion.

 

You cannot tell a person of faith to prove something because having faith means that you do not require proof.

 

Scientists can't answer where life started because the question of "where did it all start" cannot be answered. A lot of scientists ignore this though because there is no need to answer it. There are schools of thought that simply state that a start and end is not required. So...when ppl ask when it all started, the answer is that it isn't an intelligible question because it was always there. The concept of infinity is sometimes hard to grasp and understand or accept.

 

So when a person of faith asks me, how did it start, I could answer that it never needed a start because it was always there. It draws a parallel to this debate in an ironic way. This debate is philosophical. There is no end to this discussion. Infinite because the fundamental reasoning can never be proved by either side.

 

I'm not exactly sure why this was brought up. Was it to "convert" ppl to another school of thought? That would be pretty difficult to do. I for one, fell out of religious belief because of the constant invasion of folks trying to somehow "convert" me. I'd hate to see it go the other way with scientists trying to "convert" religious folk.

[Fatty]

Great post by DJ....we've been down this road enough in these forums alone to prove this accurate.