100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the truth about dinosaurs...is in my pants!...oh sorry wrong thread...lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krimsa...read the links I shared...then ALSO click on all the "other articles" at the bottom of the three links I shared. For instance, IF you would have read them already, you would have learned , for instance, ...that neandethal and homo sapien were FOUND buried together...and in fact some homo sapien bones were bured UNDER neantherthal bones ... and also , some were NOT even entirely FOSSILIZED yet)... THUS INDICATING , the neanderthal is NOT as old as you indicated in your earlier post here. Also , please share with us, the website from which your "neanderthal child" info came from....... I am not able to be online much .....so please read those links... Be Blessed Now, Krimsa....  Here's a link for the Neanderthals. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/neanderthals4.php Krisma's info actually did state that they lived at the same time period and in cases the same area and had interaction. Neandethals were dying out as modern humans came in. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 09/03/08 06:18 PM
|
|
Thanks Beach, MS Im looking for that same link for the child that I found earlier but I cant find that one specifically now. There are several but that one had great photos. Hold on. But yes, Beach is right their time lines overlapped and it's suspected that they did breed to some extent and intermingle but it may have been hostile interactions because of the difference in appearance. We dont know that though and its conjecture. It would have also been VERY hard for homo sapien females to give birth to Neanderthal babies because of the much larger cranium. So one theory is most of those infants died in childbirth so that could have greatly impacted the Neanderthals ability to continue to pass on his genetic profile thus rendering him extinct and the world left to homo sapien sapien.
Here is the child site but there are several if you hunt around. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/neanderthals4.php This is the American Museum of Natural History so I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was giving you some crackpot website.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 09/03/08 07:02 PM
|
|
Morningstar
I really must protest. I have reviewed the first of your suggested linksl http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/neanderthal.html I began by researching the author, who by the way wrote this article for Biblestudy.org. Obviously, already we are assured not to find anything in the writing likely to cause indifference to those who believe as you do. Then I looked up the author; Written By: Arnold C. Mendez, Sr. and discovered he is quite a prolific book reviewer for Amazon.com. Diet books and quite a few about Biblical type books. I was not, however, able to ascertain any other prominent reasons to accept the authority of this author in any other way, with the exception, possibly of being well versed in biblical scripture. Then I began to read. I looked at citation # 15 (15. Stacey FD. Electrical resistivity of the earth's core. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 3:204-06. 1967. ) The ecological systems of the Earth underwent catastrophic changes with the coming of the Noachian flood. These included; a restructuring of the atmosphere, changes in the magnetic field ( 15) , I chose that quote purposely as I noticed a grammatical error first and then realized that the first sentence carefully made reference to the “NOACHIAN” flood which is not a common term for a biblical scholar to be using. That makes it SEEM as though the scientist being quoted (15) has made that statement. However, the following sentence does not continue in a manner that would appropriately place the two sentences together within the same quote. SO…. I looked up the source. First of all the citation is obviously not made proper as I was unable to find the source. I did find the site, however the (3:204-06) was meaningless as it does not include what is necessary to find the article. So I continued to by checking some other citations, for example 16 & 17 16. Patten, DW. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch. Pacific Meridian Pub. Seattle, WA.1966. 17. Oard, MJ. An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Research. El Cajon, CA. 1990. Does anyone else have any question in their mind as to where those sources stem from? I didn’t even bother trying to look into them. Instead I read some more. Here’s something of interest: • Neanderthal skeletons have been unearthed with the voice box intact. These are called hyoid bones. Neanderthal’s hyoid bones are identical to modern humans. Neanderthal had the ability to speak. • The average brain size for Neanderthal is larger than modern humans ( 9 ). According to the evolutionary theory Neanderthal should have a smaller braincase. Notice there is no citation with regards to the unearthed Neanderthal skeletons with voice box in tact. Huge oversight, don’t you think? Then there was this: Our Perspective? What caused Neanderthals unique facial and skeletal characteristic? Evolutionist will tell you that since Neanderthal is an ancestor of modern humans then the morphological differences are due to the evolutionary changes that are constantly remolding our features. Is evolution the only mechanism by which these changes could have been produced? Many scientists disagree with the theory of evolution. If there is a simpler answer does it not make sense to examine the evidence? What I would like to do is summarize and present evidence from my own research, and the research of others, that shows that non-evolutionary factors and forces could have produced Neanderthals unique anatomical differences. Neanderthal was not a combination half-man half-ape. He was fully human and was a full-fledged member of the human family ( 18 ). Although he carried this distinction there were some slight anatomical differences. I believe that these differences could be explained in the context of the events that occurred in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. This included the events before and after Noah’s flood. I Noticed the author had taken a lot of time to produce singular sentences that are cited and APPEAR to provide factual information in the beginning of his article. I call this THE SET UP. Mixed in with the citations are quotes from highly recognized scientists as well as those quotes (given equal status) by someone who wrote an article for a biblical site. THEN as if to “SUMMARIZE” all information “OUR PERSPECTIVE” is written. Now, I can say that the so & so scientist says “certain bone structures of early man indicate they did not exceed more than 5’ tall” and I can cite that and it can be verified and peer reviewed and considered to be scientific knowledge. Then I can write a summary that says, some scientists will tell you that early man only grew to 5’ tall, while others will disagree with the theory of evolution. So from my own reading of all the theories and of the bible I would like to present my own findings. I’M SORRY – DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING I WANT TO WASTE MY TIME READING??????  Why do you? How can you take that to be proof of anything? When the first thing you present for evidence to support your point of view is something this ridiculous, do you really think anyone will pursue further links you provide? I’m not trying to be mean, but let’s be honest here. When you can provide a scientific journal that has been peer reviewed – then by all means, present it. Until then, what you have to offer is not even just opinion as much as it is a deceitful load of propaganda, meant to keep the believer brainwashed and to teach falsehoods to the ignorant.  Morningstar, have a good evening. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have a nice evening too, Redy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 09/03/08 07:39 PM
|
|
One other thing I noticed in the article was this crazy assertion that scientists were attempting to describe that Neanderthal was this half ape, half man humanoid monstrosity. Oh for petes sake! Neanderthal is one of our closest relatives. He's right on the end of the time line there. Homo sapien co-existed with him.This author is so fearful of evolution he is really jumping to conclusions and basically giving his opinion of what he "assumes" all the scientists are claiming Neanderthal is without doing any kind of research to actually refute the existing evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I am not asking that you support or agree with the evolutionary theory but merely that you demonstrate to us how these scientific discoveries are in fact, inaccurate. That's what I have been asking you to do for about three days now. So you have the dilemma of Neanderthal man's existence in these various museums throughout the world on display. This requires that you legitimately explain what he is. You claim homo sapien in some respect. Okay now this you can attempt to refute also because we do have his DNA on record. Several specimens have been collected that do fall within acceptable range for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA However before that is introduced, can you address any of these issues presented thus far? Well - in my opinion the inaccuracy comes in the interpretation of time and cause. They are not innacuracies of the events themselves - but of the worldview perception of them. We know for a fact that the fossels exist - that is not in denial, it is a matter of what the fossels are telling us, and this is where the perceptions diverge greatly. It is the fine line where theory becomes fact. There is no way to establish this through science because the past cannot be repeated to verify if either the theory of Evolution or Creation can be substanciated. So too - the method for assessing the true dates of things, because the method of determining time is through the process of measuring radiation, and this method has not existed long enough to make any definitive conclusion about what happened in the past because science cannot replicate the environmental circumstance to substanciae any rational claims beyond the present state of the atmostpheric information we have now. Certainly these theories may prove viable towards determining what to expect in the future, but thy hold no absolutes about what occured in the past. Man has no means of measuring anything that may or may not occured 1,000 years ago - let alone a billion. To many failed experiments on Carbon-14 dating has born this fact out. It is accurate to a point, but not reliable. Carbon-14 tests have been done on items, and animals that we know are contemporary - and have given evidence that they are thousands of years old. We are still in the process of discovery on Isochronic aging - so, though scientists are excited about their discoveries, they are a little over-zealous about how factual they are beyond present observation. They have to be, else the money invested in their research would dry up. So - it is still a matter of subjective perception at best. So - while the work being done with Mito-DNA is certainly facinating, it is being extrapolated into a system that remains theory at best in terms of Aging and cause. In the world of forensics - it is progressing by leaps and bounds. In the realm of evolution - it remains waiting for the fossels that provide the evidence that there is evolving rom one species to another. What remains is that we still have the same fossels we had before DNA was discovered, and the continual findings have done no more to provide proof of inter-species evolution than it has since Darwin wrote his book. Eljay, that's a whole lot of diversionary tactic being employed wouldn't you say? Okay, well I will bite. You claim that the age of Neanderthal man can not be accurately determined utilizing scientific means because carbon 14 dating can be fallible under certain conditions. The typical practice in determining age approximation in organic remains from archaeological sites is to utilize radiocarbon dating along with other methods. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated. So by utilizing radiocarbon dating, paleontologists and (other research scientists) have been able to approximate a range for the existence of Neanderthal man. That is theoretically determined to be a time span of about 200,000 years ago up until about 25 ,000 years ago. Now I understand you don't accept the validity of such assertions and claims made by scientists which is absolutely your right.However, if we choose to refute such a time line in order that we appease the bible in some respect than the earliest these men could have existed was about 6000 years ago correct? You feel they ARE in fact Home sapien (modern man) in origin because that is ALL god would have bothered to create. Okay so I need to work within the confines of your own time frame. I am trying to do this the best I can because unlike yourself, I am at least attempting to bridge the gap here and take your beliefs into consideration. I do understand the theory of evolution is NOT nearly as pretty or neatly packaged as Creationism but it is considerably credible and expansive. Okay so working along the proposed biblical time line, these Neanderthal peoples would only be about 6000 years old. God created them at the same time as Adam and Eve. So why are they physiologically so different in their appearance? How many prototypes of homo sapien did god require or need? Those are legitimate questions are they not? It was suggested by Morning Song that they ARE in fact homo sapien in genus but they look peculiar and not totally human only because their normal lifespan was 900 years and they "adapted" over the course of a lifetime. If this was indeed the case, then why do the discoveries of Neanderthal children and younger specimens already show the characteristics of the adult Neanderthal skeletons? One could look to logic for answers and speculate that this might be because Neanderthal children inherited the genetic profiles of their parents and these genes were passed on to offspring. In other words, you are seeing what they looked like as youngsters and there is no indication that their physiology would have changed over the course of a lifetime. So there is yet another question to pose. As mentioned I will wait to introduce the DNA evidence as I am still simply asking that you attempt to explain some of these problems as it relates to the biblical Creation mythology. Diversionary tactic? I'm not sure what you mean. I was merely explaining my rationalization for why I have a problem with the conclusions of time and age, based on the method of testing. To bring it down to a simplistic statement - I do not rationalize the attempts of assuming the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere thousands of years ago to justify the measurements of today as being viably representative of the environment back then. I don't find the theory of attempting to do this unreliable - just the assertion of it as fact. I liken it to the neilsn ratings in television as representative of the whole - or control groups as a viable representation of the whole. To me - testing or questioning a thousand people does no more to represent the 6 billion people on this planet, than drawing conclusions about who the best team in baseball is by talking to 50 Yankee fans. It is unreliable as fact. Especially - when there is conflicting opinions by scientists who have the same accreditation of those claiming their theories are fact. As to the discussion about Neanderthal - I don't find that the difference in fossel records represent a contradiction to the theory of Intelligent design, despite the account of how long the ancients lived in the bible. The fossels of children don't change that. All I need do is see a photograph of Andre the Giant standing beside Warwick Davis (Willow) in a Hollywood photograph to know that there is a viable explination for the differences. The question becomes - are the records of the fossels contradictory (not able to exist in the same time frame) or complimentary (able to co-exist on the planet - though not necessarily in the same local). What evidence is there to support that they could not have existed "complimentary" - without the supposition of a time line? What numbers are representative of the experimental controls? Where were the control examples excavated from? These are all the questions that cross my mind when I read about results of these tests that date things to be billions or hundreds of thousands of years old. As to biblical "mythology" as you put it. (And you get upset when I call evolution Myth - lets stick with theory in our posts shall we.) I can't see justifying a universe that is 4.5 billion years old with the biblical account. The theories are conflicting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I am not asking that you support or agree with the evolutionary theory but merely that you demonstrate to us how these scientific discoveries are in fact, inaccurate. That's what I have been asking you to do for about three days now. So you have the dilemma of Neanderthal man's existence in these various museums throughout the world on display. This requires that you legitimately explain what he is. You claim homo sapien in some respect. Okay now this you can attempt to refute also because we do have his DNA on record. Several specimens have been collected that do fall within acceptable range for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA However before that is introduced, can you address any of these issues presented thus far? Well - in my opinion the inaccuracy comes in the interpretation of time and cause. They are not innacuracies of the events themselves - but of the worldview perception of them. We know for a fact that the fossels exist - that is not in denial, it is a matter of what the fossels are telling us, and this is where the perceptions diverge greatly. It is the fine line where theory becomes fact. There is no way to establish this through science because the past cannot be repeated to verify if either the theory of Evolution or Creation can be substanciated. So too - the method for assessing the true dates of things, because the method of determining time is through the process of measuring radiation, and this method has not existed long enough to make any definitive conclusion about what happened in the past because science cannot replicate the environmental circumstance to substanciae any rational claims beyond the present state of the atmostpheric information we have now. Certainly these theories may prove viable towards determining what to expect in the future, but thy hold no absolutes about what occured in the past. Man has no means of measuring anything that may or may not occured 1,000 years ago - let alone a billion. To many failed experiments on Carbon-14 dating has born this fact out. It is accurate to a point, but not reliable. Carbon-14 tests have been done on items, and animals that we know are contemporary - and have given evidence that they are thousands of years old. We are still in the process of discovery on Isochronic aging - so, though scientists are excited about their discoveries, they are a little over-zealous about how factual they are beyond present observation. They have to be, else the money invested in their research would dry up. So - it is still a matter of subjective perception at best. So - while the work being done with Mito-DNA is certainly facinating, it is being extrapolated into a system that remains theory at best in terms of Aging and cause. In the world of forensics - it is progressing by leaps and bounds. In the realm of evolution - it remains waiting for the fossels that provide the evidence that there is evolving rom one species to another. What remains is that we still have the same fossels we had before DNA was discovered, and the continual findings have done no more to provide proof of inter-species evolution than it has since Darwin wrote his book. I wanted to update you on Carbon-14 dating. As of now with new calibration curves they have accurately measured dates to 45,000 years ago. The problem with Carbon-14 dating is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere varies yearly so that makes it hard to date objects. They have discovered some unaffected caves that have allowed them to determine Carbon levels in the atmosphere back 50000 years which allow new calibration curves. A raw sample with no known place of origin will give inaccurate reading due to varying carbon levels. So how is it determined what the atmospheric measurements were 45,000 y.a. to assess their accuracy back that far? What are the statistical variancies in atmospheric measuring from the time of Carbon 14 discovery to now? What is the consistancies of measuring the atmospheric elements with statistics taken in San Paulo, London, Bejing, and Moscow? Are they uniform? Do you bother to ask these questions of the "facts" as you read them? I do. However, I find this information curiously absent from the reports. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will need to ask a moderator if that is permitted as the topics are closely related. I don't think its a good idea to simply shut a thread down because you don't approve of the context. It seems like it should be up to the site administration to decide that. I think that she means it might be a better idea to start a thread about what we are discussing, since we're miles away from discussing dinosaurs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I told her she can do that but its on her. Im not doing it. Its not my thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 09/04/08 06:14 PM
|
|
Well I am not asking that you support or agree with the evolutionary theory but merely that you demonstrate to us how these scientific discoveries are in fact, inaccurate. That's what I have been asking you to do for about three days now. So you have the dilemma of Neanderthal man's existence in these various museums throughout the world on display. This requires that you legitimately explain what he is. You claim homo sapien in some respect. Okay now this you can attempt to refute also because we do have his DNA on record. Several specimens have been collected that do fall within acceptable range for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA However before that is introduced, can you address any of these issues presented thus far? Well - in my opinion the inaccuracy comes in the interpretation of time and cause. They are not innacuracies of the events themselves - but of the worldview perception of them. We know for a fact that the fossels exist - that is not in denial, it is a matter of what the fossels are telling us, and this is where the perceptions diverge greatly. It is the fine line where theory becomes fact. There is no way to establish this through science because the past cannot be repeated to verify if either the theory of Evolution or Creation can be substanciated. So too - the method for assessing the true dates of things, because the method of determining time is through the process of measuring radiation, and this method has not existed long enough to make any definitive conclusion about what happened in the past because science cannot replicate the environmental circumstance to substanciae any rational claims beyond the present state of the atmostpheric information we have now. Certainly these theories may prove viable towards determining what to expect in the future, but thy hold no absolutes about what occured in the past. Man has no means of measuring anything that may or may not occured 1,000 years ago - let alone a billion. To many failed experiments on Carbon-14 dating has born this fact out. It is accurate to a point, but not reliable. Carbon-14 tests have been done on items, and animals that we know are contemporary - and have given evidence that they are thousands of years old. We are still in the process of discovery on Isochronic aging - so, though scientists are excited about their discoveries, they are a little over-zealous about how factual they are beyond present observation. They have to be, else the money invested in their research would dry up. So - it is still a matter of subjective perception at best. So - while the work being done with Mito-DNA is certainly facinating, it is being extrapolated into a system that remains theory at best in terms of Aging and cause. In the world of forensics - it is progressing by leaps and bounds. In the realm of evolution - it remains waiting for the fossels that provide the evidence that there is evolving rom one species to another. What remains is that we still have the same fossels we had before DNA was discovered, and the continual findings have done no more to provide proof of inter-species evolution than it has since Darwin wrote his book. Eljay, that's a whole lot of diversionary tactic being employed wouldn't you say? Okay, well I will bite. You claim that the age of Neanderthal man can not be accurately determined utilizing scientific means because carbon 14 dating can be fallible under certain conditions. The typical practice in determining age approximation in organic remains from archaeological sites is to utilize radiocarbon dating along with other methods. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated. So by utilizing radiocarbon dating, paleontologists and (other research scientists) have been able to approximate a range for the existence of Neanderthal man. That is theoretically determined to be a time span of about 200,000 years ago up until about 25 ,000 years ago. Now I understand you don't accept the validity of such assertions and claims made by scientists which is absolutely your right.However, if we choose to refute such a time line in order that we appease the bible in some respect than the earliest these men could have existed was about 6000 years ago correct? You feel they ARE in fact Home sapien (modern man) in origin because that is ALL god would have bothered to create. Okay so I need to work within the confines of your own time frame. I am trying to do this the best I can because unlike yourself, I am at least attempting to bridge the gap here and take your beliefs into consideration. I do understand the theory of evolution is NOT nearly as pretty or neatly packaged as Creationism but it is considerably credible and expansive. Okay so working along the proposed biblical time line, these Neanderthal peoples would only be about 6000 years old. God created them at the same time as Adam and Eve. So why are they physiologically so different in their appearance? How many prototypes of homo sapien did god require or need? Those are legitimate questions are they not? It was suggested by Morning Song that they ARE in fact homo sapien in genus but they look peculiar and not totally human only because their normal lifespan was 900 years and they "adapted" over the course of a lifetime. If this was indeed the case, then why do the discoveries of Neanderthal children and younger specimens already show the characteristics of the adult Neanderthal skeletons? One could look to logic for answers and speculate that this might be because Neanderthal children inherited the genetic profiles of their parents and these genes were passed on to offspring. In other words, you are seeing what they looked like as youngsters and there is no indication that their physiology would have changed over the course of a lifetime. So there is yet another question to pose. As mentioned I will wait to introduce the DNA evidence as I am still simply asking that you attempt to explain some of these problems as it relates to the biblical Creation mythology. Diversionary tactic? I'm not sure what you mean. I was merely explaining my rationalization for why I have a problem with the conclusions of time and age, based on the method of testing. To bring it down to a simplistic statement - I do not rationalize the attempts of assuming the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere thousands of years ago to justify the measurements of today as being viably representative of the environment back then. I don't find the theory of attempting to do this unreliable - just the assertion of it as fact. I liken it to the neilsn ratings in television as representative of the whole - or control groups as a viable representation of the whole. To me - testing or questioning a thousand people does no more to represent the 6 billion people on this planet, than drawing conclusions about who the best team in baseball is by talking to 50 Yankee fans. It is unreliable as fact. Especially - when there is conflicting opinions by scientists who have the same accreditation of those claiming their theories are fact. As to the discussion about Neanderthal - I don't find that the difference in fossel records represent a contradiction to the theory of Intelligent design, despite the account of how long the ancients lived in the bible. The fossels of children don't change that. All I need do is see a photograph of Andre the Giant standing beside Warwick Davis (Willow) in a Hollywood photograph to know that there is a viable explination for the differences. The question becomes - are the records of the fossels contradictory (not able to exist in the same time frame) or complimentary (able to co-exist on the planet - though not necessarily in the same local). What evidence is there to support that they could not have existed "complimentary" - without the supposition of a time line? What numbers are representative of the experimental controls? Where were the control examples excavated from? These are all the questions that cross my mind when I read about results of these tests that date things to be billions or hundreds of thousands of years old. As to biblical "mythology" as you put it. (And you get upset when I call evolution Myth - lets stick with theory in our posts shall we.) I can't see justifying a universe that is 4.5 billion years old with the biblical account. The theories are conflicting. Eljay, please try to read my posed questions a little more carefully okay? I understand you do not trust the reliability of radiocarbon dating. We do not need to re-hash that over and over again. When you do this, it tends to appear that you are attempting to use some form of diversionary tactic to avoid the issues and questions posed. As I have explained the method is reliable under many circumstances and under certain conditions it is not. There have been problems associated with it. I do not think anyone ever attempted to assert that there has not been? I personally find it's level of accuracy to be quite substantial and has only improved with continued modifications. I don't believe these scientists are EVER stating that these dates are absolutely erefutable fact. Perhaps that is where your misunderstanding lies? Generally they are attempting to approximate the age of these bones and based on that they have successfully established a time line as it relates to these individual hominids and when they existed on the earth. Now Neanderthal we have a range of about 200,000 years ago up until about 30,000 years ago. So that would be are base time line for him. However you totally glossed over where I assured you that I was willing to work within your own established biblical definition of time. Did you not read that or miss it? Either way, I am making an attempt to take your beliefs into account. I realize I can not expect the same courtesy as it relates to even the basic acceptance of the credibility of radio carbon dating but that is okay. If Neanderthal man did in fact live only a mere 6000 years ago (feel free to rearrange those numbers if you like) then the assumption could be made that he was created about the same time as Adam and Eve correct? You can change the time frame if you think possibly Neanderthal was created either before A+E or after or whatever. So I still need to ask the question why would the physiology of the Neanderthal be so different? Its not merely a matter of one being taller or one being shorter as in the cited case of the pygmy but their entire skeletal and cranial capacity is divergent. So that is one issue right there. Now it was mentioned that perhaps they simply just "adapted" over the course of a 900 year typical lifespan for this period. Well the only issue with that is it clearly is not fully taking into account the definition of adaptation and secondly these Neanderthal children. We have a range of ages. Neanderthal children look the same and are already beginning to show the characteristics of the adult Neanderthal. So what does that mean? Now god perhaps could have created something other than Homo Sapien could he not? Is that totally outside of the realm of possibility? I will let you answer that. You were aware that Homo sapien and Neanderthal coexisted correct? Their time lines actually over lapped. However now, what we know of as Neanderthal man has become extinct. That poses yet another question. Why would god create a people only to select them for extinction? Im sorry, the use of the term "Biblical Mythology " was not intended to insult you in any way. It is a designation assigned in Cultural Anthropology. Were you not aware that nearly every discovered people throughout the planet has some form of creation mythology? How is the bible different in that respect? Thats not the point however. Please focus on the issues at hand if you don't mind. The excavation sites have been located in France but also Iran, Iraq and Germany to name some others. The name Neanderthal comes from the site near Duesseldorf, Germany in the Neander Valley.Eljay I am not asking that you accept that any of these fossilized remains are billions of years old. Please focus. Neanderthal is felt to be a recent ancestor of homo sapien or modern man. As stated he was on the scene only about 200,000 years ago. I even took into account that your belief system limits us to a mere 6000 years and I am totally willing to work within the confines of these beliefs. We aren't in the lab here I understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of Respect for Feral's Request...
that her Thread Stay On The Topic of Dinosaurs... Let's All (myself included) ... Either Stay On Topic Here... OR Start Another Thread. GBY.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 09/04/08 06:02 PM
|
|
Fine. If Feral wants to begin another thread, that's perfectly acceptable to me. It appears Eljay went ahead and responded on this thread so I replied on this thread as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do all u people who say you believe have such a problem with dinosaurs?
Its crazy what are all theses natural history museums a conspiracy? Give your belief system some common sence. It says in the beginning Elohim Recreated the earth not created. To limit Yahweh to 6000 years i will agree with the atheists and non believer. To say they were not here is non sence.. Shalom...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do all u people who say you believe have such a problem with dinosaurs? Its crazy what are all theses natural history museums a conspiracy? Give your belief system some common sence. It says in the beginning Elohim Recreated the earth not created. To limit Yahweh to 6000 years i will agree with the atheists and non believer. To say they were not here is non sence.. Shalom...Miles miles my friend - where does it state that? i donot see it in the masoretic or LXX text? let me know please - thnx. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo why do you make me work so hard
 its not coming out as i thought and i have searched quite a bit. I may be wrong but it does not make since to me at all. But if i am wrong i am wrong  . But thanks bud i have my work cut out for me tommorrow and going to have to revisit several other subjects if i am.. well any way it goes its a win win situation for me. Thanks for questioning me about it you old---I mean friend. Blessings to you and Yahweh for making me prove a hard subject for me. Shalom Tribo..Miles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I am not asking that you support or agree with the evolutionary theory but merely that you demonstrate to us how these scientific discoveries are in fact, inaccurate. That's what I have been asking you to do for about three days now. So you have the dilemma of Neanderthal man's existence in these various museums throughout the world on display. This requires that you legitimately explain what he is. You claim homo sapien in some respect. Okay now this you can attempt to refute also because we do have his DNA on record. Several specimens have been collected that do fall within acceptable range for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA However before that is introduced, can you address any of these issues presented thus far? Well - in my opinion the inaccuracy comes in the interpretation of time and cause. They are not innacuracies of the events themselves - but of the worldview perception of them. We know for a fact that the fossels exist - that is not in denial, it is a matter of what the fossels are telling us, and this is where the perceptions diverge greatly. It is the fine line where theory becomes fact. There is no way to establish this through science because the past cannot be repeated to verify if either the theory of Evolution or Creation can be substanciated. So too - the method for assessing the true dates of things, because the method of determining time is through the process of measuring radiation, and this method has not existed long enough to make any definitive conclusion about what happened in the past because science cannot replicate the environmental circumstance to substanciae any rational claims beyond the present state of the atmostpheric information we have now. Certainly these theories may prove viable towards determining what to expect in the future, but thy hold no absolutes about what occured in the past. Man has no means of measuring anything that may or may not occured 1,000 years ago - let alone a billion. To many failed experiments on Carbon-14 dating has born this fact out. It is accurate to a point, but not reliable. Carbon-14 tests have been done on items, and animals that we know are contemporary - and have given evidence that they are thousands of years old. We are still in the process of discovery on Isochronic aging - so, though scientists are excited about their discoveries, they are a little over-zealous about how factual they are beyond present observation. They have to be, else the money invested in their research would dry up. So - it is still a matter of subjective perception at best. So - while the work being done with Mito-DNA is certainly facinating, it is being extrapolated into a system that remains theory at best in terms of Aging and cause. In the world of forensics - it is progressing by leaps and bounds. In the realm of evolution - it remains waiting for the fossels that provide the evidence that there is evolving rom one species to another. What remains is that we still have the same fossels we had before DNA was discovered, and the continual findings have done no more to provide proof of inter-species evolution than it has since Darwin wrote his book. Eljay, that's a whole lot of diversionary tactic being employed wouldn't you say? Okay, well I will bite. You claim that the age of Neanderthal man can not be accurately determined utilizing scientific means because carbon 14 dating can be fallible under certain conditions. The typical practice in determining age approximation in organic remains from archaeological sites is to utilize radiocarbon dating along with other methods. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated. So by utilizing radiocarbon dating, paleontologists and (other research scientists) have been able to approximate a range for the existence of Neanderthal man. That is theoretically determined to be a time span of about 200,000 years ago up until about 25 ,000 years ago. Now I understand you don't accept the validity of such assertions and claims made by scientists which is absolutely your right.However, if we choose to refute such a time line in order that we appease the bible in some respect than the earliest these men could have existed was about 6000 years ago correct? You feel they ARE in fact Home sapien (modern man) in origin because that is ALL god would have bothered to create. Okay so I need to work within the confines of your own time frame. I am trying to do this the best I can because unlike yourself, I am at least attempting to bridge the gap here and take your beliefs into consideration. I do understand the theory of evolution is NOT nearly as pretty or neatly packaged as Creationism but it is considerably credible and expansive. Okay so working along the proposed biblical time line, these Neanderthal peoples would only be about 6000 years old. God created them at the same time as Adam and Eve. So why are they physiologically so different in their appearance? How many prototypes of homo sapien did god require or need? Those are legitimate questions are they not? It was suggested by Morning Song that they ARE in fact homo sapien in genus but they look peculiar and not totally human only because their normal lifespan was 900 years and they "adapted" over the course of a lifetime. If this was indeed the case, then why do the discoveries of Neanderthal children and younger specimens already show the characteristics of the adult Neanderthal skeletons? One could look to logic for answers and speculate that this might be because Neanderthal children inherited the genetic profiles of their parents and these genes were passed on to offspring. In other words, you are seeing what they looked like as youngsters and there is no indication that their physiology would have changed over the course of a lifetime. So there is yet another question to pose. As mentioned I will wait to introduce the DNA evidence as I am still simply asking that you attempt to explain some of these problems as it relates to the biblical Creation mythology. Diversionary tactic? I'm not sure what you mean. I was merely explaining my rationalization for why I have a problem with the conclusions of time and age, based on the method of testing. To bring it down to a simplistic statement - I do not rationalize the attempts of assuming the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere thousands of years ago to justify the measurements of today as being viably representative of the environment back then. I don't find the theory of attempting to do this unreliable - just the assertion of it as fact. I liken it to the neilsn ratings in television as representative of the whole - or control groups as a viable representation of the whole. To me - testing or questioning a thousand people does no more to represent the 6 billion people on this planet, than drawing conclusions about who the best team in baseball is by talking to 50 Yankee fans. It is unreliable as fact. Especially - when there is conflicting opinions by scientists who have the same accreditation of those claiming their theories are fact. As to the discussion about Neanderthal - I don't find that the difference in fossel records represent a contradiction to the theory of Intelligent design, despite the account of how long the ancients lived in the bible. The fossels of children don't change that. All I need do is see a photograph of Andre the Giant standing beside Warwick Davis (Willow) in a Hollywood photograph to know that there is a viable explination for the differences. The question becomes - are the records of the fossels contradictory (not able to exist in the same time frame) or complimentary (able to co-exist on the planet - though not necessarily in the same local). What evidence is there to support that they could not have existed "complimentary" - without the supposition of a time line? What numbers are representative of the experimental controls? Where were the control examples excavated from? These are all the questions that cross my mind when I read about results of these tests that date things to be billions or hundreds of thousands of years old. As to biblical "mythology" as you put it. (And you get upset when I call evolution Myth - lets stick with theory in our posts shall we.) I can't see justifying a universe that is 4.5 billion years old with the biblical account. The theories are conflicting. Eljay, please try to read my posed questions a little more carefully okay? I understand you do not trust the reliability of radiocarbon dating. We do not need to re-hash that over and over again. When you do this, it tends to appear that you are attempting to use some form of diversionary tactic to avoid the issues and questions posed. As I have explained the method is reliable under many circumstances and under certain conditions it is not. There have been problems associated with it. I do not think anyone ever attempted to assert that there has not been? I personally find it's level of accuracy to be quite substantial and has only improved with continued modifications. I don't believe these scientists are EVER stating that these dates are absolutely erefutable fact. Perhaps that is where your misunderstanding lies? Generally they are attempting to approximate the age of these bones and based on that they have successfully established a time line as it relates to these individual hominids and when they existed on the earth. Now Neanderthal we have a range of about 200,000 years ago up until about 30,000 years ago. So that would be are base time line for him. However you totally glossed over where I assured you that I was willing to work within your own established biblical definition of time. Did you not read that or miss it? Either way, I am making an attempt to take your beliefs into account. I realize I can not expect the same courtesy as it relates to even the basic acceptance of the credibility of radio carbon dating but that is okay. If Neanderthal man did in fact live only a mere 6000 years ago (feel free to rearrange those numbers if you like) then the assumption could be made that he was created about the same time as Adam and Eve correct? You can change the time frame if you think possibly Neanderthal was created either before A+E or after or whatever. So I still need to ask the question why would the physiology of the Neanderthal be so different? Its not merely a matter of one being taller or one being shorter as in the cited case of the pygmy but their entire skeletal and cranial capacity is divergent. So that is one issue right there. Now it was mentioned that perhaps they simply just "adapted" over the course of a 900 year typical lifespan for this period. Well the only issue with that is it clearly is not fully taking into account the definition of adaptation and secondly these Neanderthal children. We have a range of ages. Neanderthal children look the same and are already beginning to show the characteristics of the adult Neanderthal. So what does that mean? Now god perhaps could have created something other than Homo Sapien could he not? Is that totally outside of the realm of possibility? I will let you answer that. You were aware that Homo sapien and Neanderthal coexisted correct? Their time lines actually over lapped. However now, what we know of as Neanderthal man has become extinct. That poses yet another question. Why would god create a people only to select them for extinction? Im sorry, the use of the term "Biblical Mythology " was not intended to insult you in any way. It is a designation assigned in Cultural Anthropology. Were you not aware that nearly every discovered people throughout the planet has some form of creation mythology? How is the bible different in that respect? Thats not the point however. Please focus on the issues at hand if you don't mind. The excavation sites have been located in France but also Iran, Iraq and Germany to name some others. The name Neanderthal comes from the site near Duesseldorf, Germany in the Neander Valley.Eljay I am not asking that you accept that any of these fossilized remains are billions of years old. Please focus. Neanderthal is felt to be a recent ancestor of homo sapien or modern man. As stated he was on the scene only about 200,000 years ago. I even took into account that your belief system limits us to a mere 6000 years and I am totally willing to work within the confines of these beliefs. We aren't in the lab here I understand. Okay - lets put the dating methods aside for now, as they present arguments outside what were focusing on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that God created Neanderthal in addition to A&E, and that A&E are representative of Homosapein - thus, two distinctly different races? I don't see this. I would think that the fossels that date up to 6000 (and beyond) would be decendants of A&E - and that the "adaptation/evolution" into Homosapein is what we have today. I take my logical reasoning from the events of scripture, because I don't find an inconsistancy there, nor do I consider other theories more viable to supplant it. A major event which effects what we are discussing here is the flood. Examining the supposition that a worldwide flood occured accounts for a lot of the answers to the questions asked. It would account for the eventual extinction of Neanderthal, as only 8 people survived the flood. This was a catoclismic event, which would account for the large amount of fossels located in central area's. Archology has never been an interest of mine - other than extremely casual, so I am not privey to how extensive it has become - only what I catch on the discovery station from time to time, and remember as well, that my academic life was over in the early 70's, so a lot of what is taught in schools, and university today, are by professors I likely would have taught in my math classes. Anyway - not only would the flood have eliminated large numbers of animals we now know to be extinct (dinosaurs, etc) - but by and large the entire population of man with the exception of 8 people. After the time of the flood, man's time on earth was greatly reduced. Man no longer lived to be 900 years old on average - but steadily decreased from the time of Noah - through to Abraham - so that the expected age had reduced to less than 200 years, and eventually to about 80. Of course we know that by the time we reached the middle ages - seeing 50 was considered a blessing. There is no real explination for why the radical decline in the umber of years for man on the planet, but it is evident that there had to be a radical change in the way that amn ages, as well as physicality. But this is just a conclusion I reason out by what I observe in the bibical account. It would follow logically that the locations of where the fossels were found are in the eastern portion of the hemisphere, as after the flood, man was dispersed from Babel by God. The whole occurance of Babel, and it's history account for a lot of the explinations as to why we find animal fossels all over the world, but man seems to be more centralized in terms of the older fossels. Anyway... So I don't see that the fossels of adults and children matter that much. This explination of the difference in physicality was not something I introduced - or consider a biblical perspective. I think it was MS who brought it up, and it was just her idea of explaining the difference. I see it more as a transitional occurance as the result of man's days being less in number after the flood. I do think that the occurance of the flood is a majot time-line event fr a radical change in man's physique, the atmospheric make-up, and radical changes to the topography of the earth. I have seen the terain of New Mexico, and the grand canyon from the ground and the sky, and it is obvious that something happened. I'm sort of writing as a stream of consciousness here, and I think I've explained how I've formulated my opinion here. If I missed adressing something - I'll get it on another post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do all u people who say you believe have such a problem with dinosaurs? Its crazy what are all theses natural history museums a conspiracy? Give your belief system some common sence. It says in the beginning Elohim Recreated the earth not created. To limit Yahweh to 6000 years i will agree with the atheists and non believer. To say they were not here is non sence.. Shalom...Miles Recreated the earth? Please explain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do all u people who say you believe have such a problem with dinosaurs? Its crazy what are all theses natural history museums a conspiracy? Give your belief system some common sence. It says in the beginning Elohim Recreated the earth not created. To limit Yahweh to 6000 years i will agree with the atheists and non believer. To say they were not here is non sence.. Shalom...Miles Recreated the earth? Please explain. see miles statement above to me eljay hes loking it up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krimsa...posted another link again(see below).....
..cause it gives both sides of the coin, so to speak.... And If you want, I will start a new thread with it for you, and we all can carry on from there....but it's up to you. Be Blessed Now. Here is the website again, from an earlier time: http://www.ancientdays.net/fivepillars.htm
|
|
|
|
|
