carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Hey, Dutch! I'm all for "true" science....but not the cockamamie slop thrown at us by pseudo-intellectuals who refuse to accept the fact that there is not one single shred of evidence in support of organic evolution!
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Hey, Dutch! I'm all for "true" science....but not the cockamamie slop thrown at us by pseudo-intellectuals who refuse to accept the fact that there is not one single shred of evidence in support of organic evolution!
Red
Well-Known Member
The problem with your question is that I cannot possibly summarize "the peopling of the Americas" as understood by the past approximately 20 years of American prehistoric archaeology. You have to understand, that, despite your own beliefs, they fly against everything brought to light since the initial realization that Clovis technology and Clovis sites were in the 13,000 year old range. You don't agree with any modern dating method, or you would not be asking that question. Or so I must surmise. But, bottom line, how can I possibly develop the entirety of prehistoric archaeology, just here in the United States, let alone the even earlier dates from South America? It would be foolish of me to even try in this instance. Here is a long article you can peruse, should you wish, that summarizes some of what is presently known.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-come-to-the-americas-4209273/?all
Another article, including findings from South America:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/...mans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?ref=science
That's about all I can do to address your question. Knowledge of prehistory does come from many sources. But, as you observe, it does not come from writings, the appearance of which denotes the dawn of history. But there are many ways to extract information from prehistoric sites, as well as genetic studies, when possible, of human remains found at such sites....
An interesting study of a Siberian skeleton shown to bear relation to the early arrival of man in the Americas:
https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/
I expect you to firmly reject all of this. I can only provide you with this side of the equation that you do firmly reject. For which reason, I am reluctant to take this any further. You can take it or leave it. It matters not.
Red
Well-Known Member
This is perhaps the best online resource in one place for understanding the various avenues of scientific inquiry involved with the peopling of the Americas. The "Clovis First" paradigm dominated for decades. Only about 20 years ago did support for it erode enough to permit discussion of Pre-Clovis sites. It's actually a good example of how established "received wisdom " paradigms go out kicking and screaming. And why pioneers often risk their careers until such time as new ideas can begin to hold the day. Provided they really do represent an advancement in knowledge, obviously. And so, today, it is no longer heresy to point to dates of 30,000 years or older at certain South American sites. Still a minority opinion though, in that instance. Most see arrival occurring in the 15,000-20,000 years ago time range. Theories as to the route as well. The majority still favor across the Bering Strait, but arrival by a so-called. "Pacific kelp highway" route, by boat, in other words, is also very possible. All of this is to say this is the most open ended and exciting time in American archaeology as it pertains to the question of when humans first arrived in this hemisphere, and by what route or routes. And was there more then one migration time frame? Again, a big subject that cannot be simply stated. You will have to dig into the literature to understand the dates obtained. We are in different worlds, you and I, and I certainly don't expect we will see eye to eye on this subject.
https://csfa.tamu.edu/who.php
I made an assumption in the post you responded to, but you did not quote it. You quoted a conclusion based on evidence. Do you know the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-writing
I am?
They obviously do coexist, and I would never deny the obviously factual.
I take your advice with all the earnestness your prior posting has earned for you.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...they die off fairly quickly from sexually transmitted diseases? Certainly long before reaching the average age of 74!
DutchJazzer
Banned
thats why i keep saying neill degrasse tyson is a hack and has the iq of a .......
yes i cant say what iq he has, i would not have said monkey. but all other animals i can come up with i realise mods see it as "racist"
there ya go mods. because neill degrasse tyson is black my speech is stifled.
but lets say hypothetically neill was white i would say he has the iq of a field mouse
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Adam and Eve were created toward the end of the sixth creative “day.” (Ge 1:24-31) There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026*B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. Since the Scriptures outline man’s history from the very creation of the first human pair, there can be no such thing as “prehistoric man.” Fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals. Then, too, there is a total absence of reference to any subhumans in man’s earliest records, whether these be written documents, cave drawings, sculptures, or the like. The Scriptures make clear the opposite, that man was originally a son of God and that he has degenerated. (1Ki 8:46; Ec 7:20; 1Jo 1:8-10) Archaeologist O.*D.*Miller observed: “The tradition of the ‘golden age,’ then, was not a myth. The old doctrine of a subsequent decadence, of a sad degeneracy of the human race, from an original state of happiness and purity, undoubtedly embodied a great, but lamentable truth. Our modern philosophies of history, which begin with the primeval man as a savage, evidently need a new introduction. .*.*. No; the primeval man was not a savage.”
The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The earliest records of written language, the only linguistic fossils man can hope to have, go back no more than about 4,000 or 5,000 years.” This time span fits in well with what Bible chronology allows.
The science of archaeology contradicts instead of supports evolution. Note the following: “Strangely, in view of the consistent demands of the evolutionary school, we find no evidence of human evolution in the land of Egypt. More than this, the doctrine that man began with a brutish intellect and gradually developed his high and peculiar culture is refuted by the evidences from this country. In fact, the contrary is strikingly the case. Instead of proving a process of evolution, the history of man as found in the archaeology of Egypt is a consistent record of degeneration.
Instead of finding the dawn of a developing humanity, we see mankind already in the high noon of cultural accomplishments. .*.*. Egypt, as elsewhere, shows us no dim, brutish beginning, but a startling emergence of this people in a high degree of culture. .*.*. It must not be presumed that this condition is unique in Egypt, or peculiar to any one race or country. The same queer discrepancy between the fallacious theories of the philosophy of organic evolution and the facts of human history is observed wherever archeology has been able to hold the torch of discovery over a given area.”—Pages 41, 42, 49, 50, Dead Men Tell Tales, by H. Rimmer.
DutchJazzer
Banned
evolution will turn half of em in females, and then we have 50 couples which each of em 2-3 babies
so after a generation the population on island will be 175 assuiming the island could sustain 175 people, they will thrive and then the 3rd generation will be born
and so forth
after 5-6 generations the population will number in the thousands.
assuming the island is big enough.
maybe we where talking about the island tom hanks was stranded on in cast away. or are we talking bigger island ike oliver queen in arrow tv show. or ofcourse a big island like aruba.
but evolution will take care of the gays.
DutchJazzer
Banned
DutchJazzer
Banned
we need a poll
what are u?
Science guy
Religion guy
Science and Religion GUY
CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE guy
what are u?
Science guy
Religion guy
Science and Religion GUY
CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE guy
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Not a "creationist" but a supporter of "creation!" There's a very BIG difference!
Fundamentalists of Christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old. Those who teach this doctrine—known as creationism—may have high regard for the Bible, but they contend that God created all things in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. They reject credible scientific evidence that contradicts their view. As a result, the teaching of creationism actually discredits the Bible, making it appear unreasonable and inaccurate.
While the Bible clearly states that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created by God, it does not say when those things were created. Most of the defense witnesses were shackled by the religious dogma that the six creative days in Genesis were all encompassed in a period of 144 hours. This harks back to an erroneous fundamentalist teaching that was not challenged by the science of the 17th*century, but that is no longer tenable in the light of present knowledge. The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation.
If geologists want to say that the earth is 4*billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20*billion years old, or a Dinosaur bone is 10 million years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events.
The next point to note is that the word “day” is used in many different senses in the Bible. It does not always mean a 24-hour period. Sometimes it means only the hours of sunlight, that is, 12, more or less. Sometimes it stands for a year. Sometimes it means the years during a certain generation. In several references a day is 1,000 years, and in some even longer. No doubt the days in Genesis chapter*1 were very much longer. But the Bible does not there say how long they were.
The fact of creation is clearly stated in the Bible. It is in harmony with scientific evidence found in astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and biology. The theory of evolution is directly contrary to the Bible. It has failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the facts of paleontology and biology. The Bible does not set the time of creation of “the heavens and the earth.” The creationists’ position on this is not supported by the Bible, and their theories conflict with the facts of astronomy, physics and geology.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Science and Religion GUY....and I love ALL kinds of cheeses!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
How do we know there has been a fairly accurate transmission of these ancient records in the Bible? Perhaps many mistakes that greatly distort the records have been made during the ages. The remarkable thing is that the Bible has experienced comparatively little corruption of text in spite of the imperfect copyists.
Between 1947 and 1955 what are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These old scrolls include copies of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. They date from 100 to 200 years before Jesus was born. One of the scrolls is a copy of the book of Isaiah. Before this was found the oldest copy of the book of Isaiah available in Hebrew was one that had been made nearly 1,000 years after Jesus was born. When these two copies of Isaiah were compared there were only very small differences in them, most of which were small variations in spelling! This means that in more than 1,000 years of copying there had been no real change!
There are more than 1,700 ancient copies of the various portions of the Hebrew Scriptures available. By carefully comparing these many very old copies, even the few mistakes copyists made can be found and corrected. Also, there are thousands of very old copies of the Greek Scriptures, some of which copies date back nearly to the time of Jesus and his apostles. Thus, as Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”—The Bible and Archaeology, pages 288, 289.
Furthermore, the way the Bible is written, using plain language, everyday illustrations and prophetic symbols that are common in ordinary life, has made possible translations into many languages without distorting the dynamic power of the original messages. This could not be accomplished with any other book, whether philosophic or religious, because such books lose a large percentage of their original force in the first translations. This ability of the Bible to retain a high degree of the force of its original messages further testifies to the brilliance of the master mind behind it, its one Author, the True God.
You believe in Old Earth Creationism. Creationism is the doctrine that humans were specifically created, as opposed to developing without interference from an outside power.
You also reject credible scientific evidence, just less of it.
How about essentially infinite prior worlds creationism? you know, the kind of creationism that postulates a specific intelligent selection comparable to what we now do in genetic engineering labs, which however is subject to evolutionary processes as well. Lots of possible explanations of scientific data.
You pride yourself on the application of Occam's razor in selecting the one explanation that involves no possible intelligent interference in materialistic terms on the universe. I differ in that I find the undirected randomness you sorta presume to be incredibly complicated as a final explanation of everything.
Another area of difference is my apprehensions, from actual observation at close quarters, that our scientific community is in some important respects, corrupt. Specifically in the influence of the pharmaceutical corporates on the AMA and the broad spectrum of university research departments where they make heavy contributions to research. In addition, to the general "progressive" political movement of the twentieth century and continuing. . . . the impact of Oxford/Cambridge intellectual fashions on Western thought.
At the University of Utah in the 1960s, the biology department screened out Mormon or other religious applicants by presenting testing of beliefs, like offering coffee. I have seen such things to be so widespread that I simply deny the validity of what you presume to be "credible scientific evidence", because the evidence produced, and the explanations of it promoted, is today far from unbiased and objective.
President Eisenhower warned of the developing military/industrial influence in our government, via campaign contributions and lobbyists. The same corruption exists in our scientific/educational institutions. It is not a respectable attitude to view "established science" or "settled science" as valid today, without going to the critical evaluation of research results. If you don't care to invest the energy and time required to do that critical evaluation of published science being produced today, you have taken a step away from actual "science", or the "scientific method", which is inherently open to new questions and challenges.
Why do we object to government-established "religion" but fail to object to government-established education, or government-established national priorities or programs for social progress? It is inherently the exact same thing, the only thing differing is the "established" beliefs.
DutchJazzer
Banned
can you tell me what evidence he is rejecting?
if i interpret you correctly, you are saying there is evidence that contradicts the old testament?
if so what evidence are you speaking of?
Red
Well-Known Member
One of the more recent discovery in the search for human origins is the discovery of a group of humans distinct from ourselves as well as distinct from Neanderthals. This human branch is known only from a single finger bone, and a few teeth. Fortunately, a complete genome sequence was obtained from the DNA found in that finger bone. The Denisovan cave in Siberia is the site. Here are a number of articles describing this discovery and it's implications in understanding a time when several branches of the human tree inhabited the Earth at the same time:
https://news.sciencemag.org/archaeo...as-home-generations-mysterious-ancient-humans
"In 2010, scientists discovered a new kind of human by sequencing DNA from a girl’s pinky finger found in Denisova Cave in Siberia. Ever since, researchers have wondered when the girl lived, and if her people, called Denisovans, lingered in the cave or just passed through. But the elusive Denisovans left almost no fossil record—only that bit of bone and a handful of teeth—and they came from a site that was notoriously difficult to date.
Now, state-of-the-art DNA analysis on the Denisovan molars and new dates on cave material show that Denisovans occupied the cave surprisingly early and came back repeatedly. The data suggest that the girl lived at least 50,000 years ago and that two other Denisovan individuals died in the cave at least 110,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 170,000 years ago, according to two talks here last week at the meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution. Although the new age estimates have wide margins of error, they help solidify our murky view of Denisovans and provide “really convincing evidence of multiple occupations of the cave,” says paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor of University College London. “You can seriously see it’s a valid species.”
https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...s-them-occupying-altai-cave-170000-years-ago/
https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...rian-cave-that-holds-the-key-to-mans-origins/
"As scientist Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said: 'The one place where we are sure all three human forms have lived at one time or another is here in Denisova Cave.'
https://news.sciencemag.org/archaeo...as-home-generations-mysterious-ancient-humans
"In 2010, scientists discovered a new kind of human by sequencing DNA from a girl’s pinky finger found in Denisova Cave in Siberia. Ever since, researchers have wondered when the girl lived, and if her people, called Denisovans, lingered in the cave or just passed through. But the elusive Denisovans left almost no fossil record—only that bit of bone and a handful of teeth—and they came from a site that was notoriously difficult to date.
Now, state-of-the-art DNA analysis on the Denisovan molars and new dates on cave material show that Denisovans occupied the cave surprisingly early and came back repeatedly. The data suggest that the girl lived at least 50,000 years ago and that two other Denisovan individuals died in the cave at least 110,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 170,000 years ago, according to two talks here last week at the meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution. Although the new age estimates have wide margins of error, they help solidify our murky view of Denisovans and provide “really convincing evidence of multiple occupations of the cave,” says paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor of University College London. “You can seriously see it’s a valid species.”
https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...s-them-occupying-altai-cave-170000-years-ago/
https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...rian-cave-that-holds-the-key-to-mans-origins/
"As scientist Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said: 'The one place where we are sure all three human forms have lived at one time or another is here in Denisova Cave.'
Red
Well-Known Member
Here is another major, and very recent, monkey wrench for those narratives that date the beginning of monumental architecture to civilizations like Egypt or Sumer. Witness the site known as Gobekli Tepe, in Turkey, and some 12,000 years old!! While Paleolithic hunters were roaming the plains and forests of the Americas, somebody was obviously organizing labor to produce a stunning monumental temple:
https://gobeklitepe.info/
https://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
View attachment 4470
Thousands of years older then the pyramids of Egypt......
The discovery of this "temple", thousands of years older then the oldest civilizations known, is one of the most stunning archaeological discoveries/revelations of modern times. Who was capable of organizing the labor required so very long ago? And why did later generations deliberately bury the site under a mountain of sediment?? What is Gobekli Tepe?!?!
https://gobeklitepe.info/
https://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
View attachment 4470
Thousands of years older then the pyramids of Egypt......
The discovery of this "temple", thousands of years older then the oldest civilizations known, is one of the most stunning archaeological discoveries/revelations of modern times. Who was capable of organizing the labor required so very long ago? And why did later generations deliberately bury the site under a mountain of sediment?? What is Gobekli Tepe?!?!