Originally posted by sonshipwe have found fossils of people of various sizes, from various points on the evolutionary chain, all around the globe. some are hundreds of thousands of years old. protohuman fossils are millions of years old.There are a number of good scientific reasons for thinking that the flood described in Genesis 7 did not happen. Genesis 6 refers to giants and there is no scientific evidence for that.
Everyone knows that Nephilim means "giants". Right ? Wrong.
That's what the King James says in Genesis 6:4.
What about some other translations?
...[text shortened]...
I don't see why there could not be some bigger than usual people in the Old Testament times.
if we haven't found by now tall people remains from 6000 years ago, in a specific and very small (relatively) region, we can safely say they didn't exist.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ZahlanziAbsence of evidence is evidence of absence.
we have found fossils of people of various sizes, from various points on the evolutionary chain, all around the globe. some are hundreds of thousands of years old. protohuman fossils are millions of years old.
if we haven't found by now tall people remains from 6000 years ago, in a specific and very small (relatively) region, we can safely say they didn't exist.
Isn't that some logical fallacy?
In your sentence above you include your theoretical interpretation along with that which has been unearthed.
Why did they call the late popular wrestler "Andrea the Giant" ?
7 feet 4 inches tall
Has gotten to over 500 pounds
Shoe size 20
At one point the highest paid wrestler in the world.
Here he is on The David Letterman Show
Originally posted by ZahlanziDeclaring bones to be hundreds of thousands of years old does not prove they are that old. That is an example of blind faith. There is no way to date bones accurately to be that old. Do you remember the T-Rex example?
we have found fossils of people of various sizes, from various points on the evolutionary chain, all around the globe. some are hundreds of thousands of years old. protohuman fossils are millions of years old.
if we haven't found by now tall people remains from 6000 years ago, in a specific and very small (relatively) region, we can safely say they didn't exist.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-recover-t-rex-soft-tissue/
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo it is up to you to prove that soft tissue can't exist for millions of years. Where is YOUR proof? Wait, let me guess. More creationist BS video's.
Declaring bones to be hundreds of thousands of years old does not prove they are that old. That is an example of blind faith. There is no way to date bones accurately to be that old. Do you remember the T-Rex example?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-recover-t-rex-soft-tissue/
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseEven your best scientists have never believed soft tissue can last more that a few thousand years and then only in extremely rare cases under the best of conditions. That has been what has been accepted fact, so any extraordinary claim to the contrary needs extraordinary proof. So it is up to the evolutionist to provide such proof, since it is very easy to show soft tissue will decay very quickly.
So it is up to you to prove that soft tissue can't exist for millions of years. Where is YOUR proof? Wait, let me guess. More creationist BS video's.
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSure it decays in atmosphere but the tissue in those bones were hermetically sealed inside the bones and it wasn't revealed to have contained soft tissue till it was cut open with saws. Mammoths have been found dated 50,000 years ago with soft tissue also which argues against your wishful thinking premise of a young Earth.
Even your best scientists have never believed soft tissue can last more that a few thousand years and then only in extremely rare cases under the best of conditions. That has been what has been accepted fact, so any extraordinary claim to the contrary needs extraordinary proof. So it is up to the evolutionist to provide such proof, since it is very easy to show soft tissue will decay very quickly.
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are no mammoths actually dated 50,000 years old or any dinosaurs dated 65,000,000 years old. They were declared that old by some pointy headed scientists. 😏
Sure it decays in atmosphere but the tissue in those bones were hermetically sealed inside the bones and it wasn't revealed to have contained soft tissue till it was cut open with saws. Mammoths have been found dated 50,000 years ago with soft tissue also which argues against your wishful thinking premise of a young Earth.
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBut even geologists agree that the iridium layer in the K-T boundary layer was laid down 65 million years ago.
There are no mammoths actually dated 50,000 years old or any dinosaurs dated 65,000,000 years old. They were declared that old by some pointy headed scientists. 😏
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo, it's the natural consequence of probability theory.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Isn't that some logical fallacy?
Absence of evidence is often [but not always] only weak evidence of absence.
However it is still evidence.
Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence.
Which is probably where the confusion arises.
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo, we can't. The vast majority of human dead do not fossilise. It would be perfectly possible for a race of giant humans to have existed in a small region of the earth without any fossils being discovered to date.
if we haven't found by now tall people remains from 6000 years ago, in a specific and very small (relatively) region, we can safely say they didn't exist.
31 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianneam not "redefining" faith. Well, maybe I am, at that. I believe that the current "textbook definition" of faith is lacking. As Joseph said, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
I am not "redefining" faith. Well, maybe I am, at that. I believe that the current "textbook definition" of faith is lacking. As Joseph said, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." Evidence. The "faith of the mustard seed" explicitly infers a certain knowledge that is gained by those with this faith. One does not become "born again" and then dedica ...[text shortened]... we know."
[b]This is the Faith I am speaking of. Surely, we know.[/b]
Ooh ... the arbitrary re-definition game! lemme try ... 😛
I define faith to be ... erm ... disbelief.
Do you have faith in God Suzianne?
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, it's perfectly possible for dragons to have existed. it would be perfectly possible for a race of dragons to have existed in a small region of the earth.
No, we can't. The vast majority of human dead do not fossilise. It would be perfectly possible for a race of giant humans to have existed in a small region of the earth without any fossils being discovered to date.
humans don't exist in bubbles. either evidence of their migration or some of their tools should have been discovered. a giant grave somewhere with at least some skeletal fragments. also there are limits to how "giant" humans can get.
we can safely say (yes, thank you for noticing, without absolute certainty) that giant humans didn't exist.
what is funny is that you are using the same argument we theists use about the existence of god.