- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by UllrTHE DEVIL MAKES THEM SAY IT!!!!!!!! 😲😲😲😲😲😲
Actually human remains (skulls) have been found in Ethiopia that are around 200,000 years old. Prior to that the oldest human remains were 40,000 years old.
Satan trying to confuse us again?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHosianna, robbie has spoken! Hosianna and Halleluja! But not saying much.
lol, when my theory is published and i become famous you shall wish that you had not opposed us creationists ! it is backed up by sociological evidence, which i provided extensive details of. the problems that you noobs seems to be having trouble with the fact that Noahs sons had wifes, different wives, leading to diversity, you do know that in orde ...[text shortened]... h it, then give it up and play the trumpet slow with the tingling of the triangle in between!!
Do you have scientific sociological evidence that Noah was of mongolian race? Or what? Or still evading the questions posed? Afraid of the truth, are you?
Originally posted by Ullryou new here? you must be new since you don't understand how we do things here.
Actually human remains (skulls) have been found in Ethiopia that are around 200,000 years old. Prior to that the oldest human remains were 40,000 years old.
Satan trying to confuse us again?
we are not allowed to use isotope dating. not ever. because it is evil. and the work or satan which is the reason it is evil. unreliable. and evil.
the ones that were around for a while in this forum have learned to adapt. we try to find easier to understand proofs. but under no circumstances are we allowed to use carbon dating or the natives will get us. it doesn't go so well either way.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd what's wrong with carbon dating? Could it be because it's not accurate? I don't even have to give you links for this one. It's all over the internet to see.
you new here? you must be new since you don't understand how we do things here.
we are not allowed to use isotope dating. not ever. because it is evil. and the work or satan which is the reason it is evil. unreliable. and evil.
the ones that were around for a while in this forum have learned to adapt. we try to find easier to understand proofs. but ...[text shortened]... we allowed to use carbon dating or the natives will get us. it doesn't go so well either way.
Also if all humans did not come from a single set of parents such as Adam or Eve or Noah's family, where did the races come from? Was there more then one evolutionary line? Must have been....
Originally posted by Ullrhuman skulls, nope, simian skulls have been found, the nearest you people can claim to any type of humanity is Neanderthal, and lets be quite clear on this, Australopithecus, simain, ramapithecus fraud, entire skeletal structure made from a lower jaw bone and two teeth, lucy, simian, piltdown man, fraud, in fact if these humans had lived for hundred of thousands of years where is the plethora of skeletal remains, the truth of the matter is, you could fit the evidence on my coffee table, despite the fact that there are more than one hundred million extant fossils! perhaps you shall be more careful when imputing impure motives and vague assertions of the influence of Satan, in future. what is clear is that instaed of looking at the evidence objectively, you people have really tried to make evidence fit the theory, with disastrous results.
Actually human remains (skulls) have been found in Ethiopia that are around 200,000 years old. Prior to that the oldest human remains were 40,000 years old.
Satan trying to confuse us again?
Originally posted by FabianFnasif you take the time out, form your sensationalistic journalism, usually frequented upon the front pages of tabloid newspapers, you shall see that i have provided the evidence, already! i have warned you before about imputing bad motives to others and you were made to eat your words then, please do not make me do so again, for its a tiresome and messy business!
Hosianna, robbie has spoken! Hosianna and Halleluja! But not saying much.
Do you have scientific sociological evidence that Noah was of mongolian race? Or what? Or still evading the questions posed? Afraid of the truth, are you?
Originally posted by Badwateryou wussie, here we are defending the inspired word and the teachings of the Christ and you have been sucked over to the dark side, i can here Emperor Zapansy now, 'it is your destiny young badwalker, come over to the dark side!', 'as you wish Emperor Zapansy'.
THE DEVIL MAKES THEM SAY IT!!!!!!!! 😲😲😲😲😲😲
Originally posted by Ullr“More Dating Problems”
I don't know if all the mountains have ocean fossils on them but Mt. Everest for instance does. However, scientists have dated those fossils as 2-3 million years old. So either Noah's Ark was 2 million years ago or Mt. Everest has grown substantially since then or once again you'll claim Satan is trying to deceive us.
The inexact nature of the methods currently used by scientists to date the earth has been discussed numerous times in this column. A recent example of this inexactitude was discovered by Elizabeth Catlos, associate professor of geology at Oklahoma State University. She and her colleagues undertook numerous scientific expeditions to the Himalayas, the highest mountains in the world. During these expeditions she collected rocks bearing garnets. According to the journal Smithsonian:
“Forged tens of miles beneath the surface of the earth, garnets are more than semiprecious gems; they are also exquisite recorders of geologic data. Through variations in their chemical composition, garnets preserve information about the extreme pressures and temperatures at which they crystallized. They also contain tiny grains of monazite, a rare earth mineral that lends itself to radioactive dating” (Nash 2007: 91).
Back when she was a graduate student at UCLA, Catlos sliced these garnets and dated the monazites inside them with an instrument known as an ion microprobe. As reported by Smithsonian: “The data she recorded contradicted the prevailing picture of how the world’s highest mountains were formed” (Ibid.).
Current theory had maintained that the Himalayas were formed when the tectonic plate on which India sits floated northward and slammed slowly into what was then Asia’s south coast. The resultant upward crumpling of the land created the Himalayas. According to conventional dating assumptions, this occurred 20 million years ago. “But Catlos’ rock samples,” reported Smithsonian, “told her they had been buried as recently as one million years ago….” (Ibid.).
The date of one million years of course does not fit in with young-earth creationism, but that’s not the point. The point is that Prof. Catlos’ discovery reduces by a whopping 19/20ths the assumed date of the creation of the Himalayas.
Another example of this can be found in supervolcanoes, whose descriptive name needs no explanation. One of the best-known remnants of these is the Bishop tuff, a volcanic layer hundreds of meters thick and known commonly as the Volcanic Tablelands in eastern California. According to Dr. Ilya Bindeman, a geochemist and assistant professor in the department of geological sciences at the University of Oregon,
“For decades, many geologists assumed that a series of distinct eruptions OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS must have occurred to produce the extensive Bishop tuff. But careful studies of microscopic, magma-filled bubbles trapped inside tiny crystals of quartz tell a different story….Alfred Anderson of the University of Chicago and his colleagues studied the size of the bubbles under a microscope to estimate how long it took the magma [underground lava] to leak out. Based on these and other experiments and field observations from the 1990s, geologists now think that the Bishop tuff—and probably most other super-erupted debris—was expelled IN A SINGLE EVENT LASTING A MERE 10 TO 100 HOURS” (Bindeman 2006: 41 [emphasis added]).
Dr. Bindeman further added: “Since that discovery, investigators have had to modify their reconstructions of supervolcano eruptions” (Ibid.).
“The Human Race: A Young Species?”
A recent series of genetic studies has revealed tantalizing hints of the origin of the human species. What‟s more, these new discoveries would seem to lend support to the ancient history of the human race as outlined by the Book of Genesis.
Thanks to these and earlier studies of human genetics, scientists now know that the human race had a single point of origin and then spread out from there. One of the most recent of these studies was completed in December 2007, when a group of anthropologists and geneticists examined 3.9 million DNA sequences from 270 people belonging to four human populations around the globe. According to Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah, a member of the team, the study indicates that genetic variation among humans increased rapidly as they spread out from their point of origin and became agriculturalists (Biello 2007: 30).
Another discovery made by this spate of recent studies is that the human race as we know it is much younger than scientists had previously postulated. Geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, who participated in a comprehensive study of human genetic variation published in the February 2008 issue of the prestigious journal Nature, concluded from his studies: “We are a young species. Different human populations have not been separated for long enough periods of time to develop their own new alleles [different forms of the same genes]” (Ibid.). After quoting Prof. Rosenberg, the June 2008 issue of Scientific American reported: “Many geneticists therefore express doubt that genes have evolved very much in the relatively short span of human existence in all parts of the planet” (Ibid.).
There is another fact to be gleaned from these new discoveries, one that lends plausibility to the Genesis scenario of a sudden choking off of almost the entire human species, to be followed by a worldwide expansion. Scientific American reported:
“Instead of [human] evolution working on a relatively small number of genes to actively promote functional adaptations—a process known as positive selection—„the alternative is a demographic factor, which is a bottleneck,‟ explains geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University. A bottleneck describes the rise of a new population from a few individuals. Feldman participated in a study of DNA samples from 938 people in 51 different populations, finding evidence for the alternative explanation in declining DNA sequence (haplotype) variation with increasing distance from Africa. The work appeared in [the journal] Science in February [2008]” (Ibid. 31).
A relatively young human species, a single point of origin, a sudden reduction of the human population to a small number of individuals, followed by a spreading out these individuals from their point of origin to become agriculturalists all across the globe—all these scenarios reflect the basic outline of the early history of the human race as described in the Book of Genesis
Reference:
Biello, D. 2008. “Need for Speed?” Scientific American 298, no. 6.
Stephen Caesar holds his master’s degree in anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. He is a staff member at Associates for Biblical Research.
Originally posted by galveston75excellent work! but i fear as RBHill does, even if God caused another apocalyptic flood with rain for forty days at present , Noobster and Zapansy, Ullr and Fabian, while being washed away in the deluge would attribute this divine phenomena to climate change.
“The Human Race: A Young Species?”
A recent series of genetic studies has revealed tantalizing hints of the origin of the human species. What‟s more, these new discoveries would seem to lend support to the ancient history of the human race as outlined by the Book of Genesis.
Thanks to these and earlier studies of human genetics, scientists now kn ...[text shortened]... anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. He is a staff member at Associates for Biblical Research.
Originally posted by Proper KnobInteresting......http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html
That sounds like a lovely theory, but to be honest i don't really understand what you're talking about!!
Could you back up this new fangled theory with any evidence though, if not, it doesn't really hold any water (pardon the pun).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt the end of the day the scientists/athiest types don't have an agenda. Scientists are just trying to find the truth about how old things are , whereas you have an agenda to make the emergence of humans fit in with an old Jewish history book.
human skulls, nope, simian skulls have been found, the nearest you people can claim to any type of humanity is Neanderthal, and lets be quite clear on this, Australopithecus, simain, ramapithecus fraud, entire skeletal structure made from a lower jaw bone and two teeth, lucy, simian, piltdown man, fraud, in fact if these humans had lived for hundred ...[text shortened]... ectively, you people have really tried to make evidence fit the theory, with disastrous results.
So you see the athiest types are always going to seem more credible with more evidence because there is no reason for them to bend the truth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust tell us that you don't have any answers of the questions posed. Just tell us. You will be forgiven. We already know that you know nada about science. Just admit it. You are amongst friends.
if you take the time out, form your sensationalistic journalism, usually frequented upon the front pages of tabloid newspapers, you shall see that i have provided the evidence, already! i have warned you before about imputing bad motives to others and you were made to eat your words then, please do not make me do so again, for its a tiresome and messy business!