Why is it?

Originally posted by Feastboy
Although the fact that these people could create paint by the mixing of natural ingredients then paint the wall in a cave, presumably by using firelight doesn't convince you of the fact that maybe people were around at that time? Or maybe God put it there to confuse archaeologists? I guess if he did it with all those dinosaur bones he's vindictive enough ...[text shortened]... I just re-read this and realised I'd been a bit nastier than healthy debate calls for 🙂

It's okay. I like it when folks get snotty. I gives me an excuse to be snotty too. 😉

It's the dating of when and what is discovered that bugs me. I just don't trust the science. People are still living in caves and drawing on the walls today.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How much do you know about science?

Do you use a cell phone?

Science.

Do you eat food?

Science.

Are you typing on a computer?

Science.

Medicine?

Science.


EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy.

"EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy."

Not everything.
I feel that you have missed my point.

If anything, science is in it's infancy. There's too much room for error and doubt. The time frames given for what existed more than 10,000 years ago is uncertain at the very least. There are too many variables for science to account for.

Originally posted by josephw
It's okay. I like it when folks get snotty. I gives me an excuse to be snotty too. 😉

It's the dating of when and what is discovered that bugs me. I just don't trust the science. People are still living in caves and drawing on the walls today.

What people?

Originally posted by Feastboy
What people?

Cave people! You know, the ones living in caves.

Originally posted by josephw
Cave people! You know, the ones living in caves.

Where? I didn't know people still lived in caves.

Originally posted by josephw
"EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy."

Not everything.
I feel that you have missed my point.

If anything, science is in it's infancy. There's too much room for error and doubt. The time frames given for what existed more than 10,000 years ago is uncertain at the very least. There are too many variables for science to account for.

Where's your evidence?

Sure, there are things we don't know, but there is a lot of stuff we're very, very sure of.

Originally posted by josephw
It's the dating of when and what is discovered that bugs me. I just don't trust the science. People are still living in caves and drawing on the walls today.

Why don't you trust the science?

Is it because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion of how old the earth is?

If so, that would have to rank amongst the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Science does not 'do' anything; it is a field of study, so I put it in quotes to show I was using it in the sense that others on this forum say things like 'science does not advance this or that'.

I felt the latter paragraph was simply the basic facts. How could it be rude? Perhaps you are a little sensitive?

I don't know the relevance of the last statement either. I don't think I was being too sensitive, but I have no real desire to get into an arguement over it. Maybe you will figure it out later.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
As I mentioned before, Ragnorak has a point.

There has been a correlation between an increase in prevalence in processed foods and some health problems in the western world. However, correlation is not causation.

It is necessary to take a real hard look at all the real causes and target them in a rational way.

Just like you can't prove that smoking causes cancer. 😉

I give up! I mean, I am asked to give PROOF for my reasoning as well as for my belief in God yet it escapes me even though I know it is the truth as well as you probably do as well.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Maybe religion was conceived 6000 years or so ago, rather than your conjecture that God intervened at that point.

Which seems more likely in your opinion?

Wait.


Don't answer that.

I guess that is one theory. There evoloved a change in mankind that caused him to form civilizations and such as well as develope religions of various kinds and begin to develope written languages. The problem, however, is that we have no written records of the people beforehand, therefore, it is all speculative is'nt it? Actually this is the one point I disagree with evolutionists. This transformation into the modern man of today we saw occur some 6000 years ago was NOT merely a physiologic change, rather, God breathed a soul into him distinguishing us from the other animals.

Originally posted by whodey
I guess that is one theory. There evoloved a change in mankind that caused him to form civilizations and such as well as develope religions of various kinds and begin to develope written languages. The problem, however, is that we have no written records of the people beforehand, therefore, it is all speculative is'nt it? Actually this is the one point I d ...[text shortened]... siologic change, rather, God breathed a soul into him distinguishing us from the other animals.

Are you saying that the people of Catal Huyuk 9,000 years ago were not human? They made art, pottery, and tools, buried their dead, made religious figurines, farmed, raised animals, and engaged in trade with other far flung communities. They had culture and religion and were fully human by every measure. Only your obsessive commitment to your farcical 6,000 year old date keeps you from seeing it. And if we wanted we could take that back to 200,000 BCE when homo sapiens first appeared. THAT was the origin of your "modern man", and not some speculative date a mere 6,000 years ago.

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you saying that the people of Catal Huyuk 9,000 years ago were not human? They made art, pottery, and tools, buried their dead, made religious figurines, farmed, raised animals, and engaged in trade with other far flung communities. They had culture and religion and were fully human by every measure. Only your obsessive commitment to your farcical 6,000 ...[text shortened]... HAT was the origin of your "modern man", and not some speculative date a mere 6,000 years ago.

Ok, so lets say it is 9,000 years ago that modern man began religious pracitces and formed civilizations etc. Why is it then that there is no record before that? You are suggesting that homo sapiens are now what we consider to be modern man yet there is no evidence for this other than what you are saying happened merely 9,000 years ago. Does this not trouble you?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, so lets say it is 9,000 years ago that modern man began religious pracitces and formed civilizations etc. Why is it then that there is no record before that? You are suggesting that homo sapiens are now what we consider to be modern man yet there is no evidence for this other than what you are saying happened merely 9,000 years ago. Does this not trouble you?

What??? There are records of all those things prior to that. They all just happened to come together in Catal Huyuk to form a thriving city. As I said earlier, animals had been domesticated in 15,000 BCE. People started making pottery around 11,000 BCE. Agriculture started around 8,000 BCE, which was pivotal. Once people started farming, cities became possible. More advanced civilizations could then be built. There is evidence of irrigation being practiced as early as 6,000 BCE. People even began brewing beer, possibly as early as 6,000 BCE.

The origins of religious thought could be much older. The first evidence we have of people burying their dead is from about 100,000 years ago, although some scholars feel that what we would call 'religious thought' did not develop until about 50,000 years ago, between the middle and upper Paleolithic. By then mankind had evolved the traits associated with modern human behavior, including abilities such as modern language, abstract thought, symbolism and religion. That's 50,000 years ago, not 6,000.

All these developments mentioned were in place before 4,000 BCE. What you need is to spend a little more time reading about archaeology and a little less time reading the bible. There is nothing particularly special about the timeframe of 6,000 years ago. There is no evidence of a burst of technology originating from that time, although some things, like the wheel, did make their first appearance around then.

Originally posted by Feastboy
Where? I didn't know people still lived in caves.

Start looking in caves.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Where's your evidence?

Sure, there are things we don't know, but there is a lot of stuff we're very, very sure of.

I'm very, very sure that the spirit of God is in me too. Do you think if I cut myself open you could see it?

Tell me, why can't science produce any missing links? You'll need them if you are going to believe in evolution.