Cavemen?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
#41
After looking at Smithsonian and Nat. Geo. comparisons of modern man and Neanderthal bones, and considering evolutionists say the two interbred, that makes the two ONE species by definition of "species", able to exchange genes. There is reason to consider "varieties" of one species man. I liken that to "mountain men" usually are easy to pick out from "flatlanders" . I was looking at some ancient Peruvian skeletons that sure look 'Neanderthalish', the main difference being adaptation to thin air and harsh terrain. Nasal cavities are bigger down there, I suppose due to cold air needing more warmup.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
#42
And the world and everything in it is around 6,000 years old.

I suspect that many who have posted here follow Fox News religiously, as opposed to say CNN.

If you can't believe Fox News, who can you believe?

Neanderthals and humans first mated 50,000 years ago, DNA reveals | Fox News

I have little doubt that human males mated with Neanderthal females.

Obviously, there are males (ones who say the world is 6,000 years old) posting on this thread more likely to prefer the Neanderthal type female form, as opposed to say Kate Upton.
Why Faux News is the absolute in truth.
 
Sep 30, 2014
2,329
102
0
#43
After looking at Smithsonian and Nat. Geo. comparisons of modern man and Neanderthal bones, and considering evolutionists say the two interbred, that makes the two ONE species by definition of "species", able to exchange genes. There is reason to consider "varieties" of one species man. I liken that to "mountain men" usually are easy to pick out from "flatlanders" . I was looking at some ancient Peruvian skeletons that sure look 'Neanderthalish', the main difference being adaptation to thin air and harsh terrain. Nasal cavities are bigger down there, I suppose due to cold air needing more warmup.
Prehistoric Peru.

Was thinking about that as well, would've loved seeing Neanderthal and humans build with 50 ton stones...or whole plazas.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
#44
Prehistoric Peru.

Was thinking about that as well, would've loved seeing Neanderthal and humans build with 50 ton stones...or whole plazas.
Your very own article you cited dates various items at 12,000 years old.

So what's up with this 6,000-year-old world business?
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
#45
Fox News is Great.

Not everything in the world is 6,000 years old. Each succeeding year many new things on earth were younger. A new thing today is one day old. An example is lava from a volcano a hundred years ago is only 100 years old. Note that too often scientists using "trusted" radiometric dating have such rock dated at millions of years old instead of 100 years back to the rock formation.
The patron saint of Young Earth Creationists, Bishop James Ussher, said the world was created in 4004 BC. That date was printed in King James Bible for a couple hundred years right next to the verses in Genesis 1.

Now, you say the world was created when, exactly?

And your date includes the earth, humans, rocks, dinosaurs, and everything else?
 
Sep 30, 2014
2,329
102
0
#46
Your very own article you cited dates various items at 12,000 years old.

So what's up with this 6,000-year-old world business?
Whhhatever... It's not 6m or 6b .. A lot more reasonable assertion ..
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#47
"These are not your Daddy's cavemen. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say cavepeople."


Who is your "daddy" dude

My "daddy" is going to soon sack the cave people in Revelation's account .... you may be one of them

6000 years passing ..... from cave man ..... to cave man

No changing

Get it?
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
#48
The patron saint of Young Earth Creationists, Bishop James Ussher, said the world was created in 4004 BC. That date was printed in King James Bible for a couple hundred years right next to the verses in Genesis 1.

Now, you say the world was created when, exactly?

And your date includes the earth, humans, rocks, dinosaurs, and everything else?
Of course, Jack. The granite support of the earth's crust, the amazingly deep sedimentary strata showing rare deformity, practically no sign of any erosion expected in strata separated by millions of years of deposition and erosion. WOW, thousands of feet of geologic column without erosion of each stratum over hundreds of millions of years!

But I am aware there's been some dispute over the 4,004. A few years up or down doesn't matter.

Ussher is not a necessary player for young earth advocates. The science is doing a better job. But I see you still avoid the true science link, or are a bit intimidated about discussing such things. I understand why, that atheist-inspired evilutionary bias getting in the way. Many are being cured of that these days. All it takes is letting God open your eyes.

Did you look over that radiometric article series I linked to?
[h=1]Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1[/h] [h=2]by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. The Institute for Creation Research[/h]Nuclear physics guy there. Not your typical evolutionist "scientist" that is interested only in refuting expert knowledge. But I will assume you are in favor of examining all the evidence in the spirit of the true science method. Be sure to move on to Part 2. He's a brilliant man. I do realize the atheists are already attacking that, but they lack professionalism and integrity, are ignoring the science method, blindly defending the indefensible like Nazis defending racism. But you can rise above the hyena pack mentality, sir.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
#49
Of course, Jack. The granite support of the earth's crust, the amazingly deep sedimentary strata showing rare deformity, practically no sign of any erosion expected in strata separated by millions of years of deposition and erosion. WOW, thousands of feet of geologic column without erosion of each stratum over hundreds of millions of years!

But I am aware there's been some dispute over the 4,004. A few years up or down doesn't matter.

Ussher is not a necessary player for young earth advocates. The science is doing a better job. But I see you still avoid the true science link, or are a bit intimidated about discussing such things. I understand why, that atheist-inspired evilutionary bias getting in the way. Many are being cured of that these days. All it takes is letting God open your eyes.

Did you look over that radiometric article series I linked to?
Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1

by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. The Institute for Creation Research

Nuclear physics guy there. Not your typical evolutionist "scientist" that is interested only in refuting expert knowledge. But I will assume you are in favor of examining all the evidence in the spirit of the true science method. Be sure to move on to Part 2. He's a brilliant man. I do realize the atheists are already attacking that, but they lack professionalism and integrity, are ignoring the science method, blindly defending the indefensible like Nazis defending racism. But you can rise above the hyena pack mentality, sir.
As far as I am concerned, anybody associated with the Institute for Creation Research has about as much credibility as A-Rod.

I like what Dr. Hurd just said over on the dinosaur thread, which is:

"As you should be able to see above, the radiocarbon dating of organic remains becomes fairly useless at a little over 55,000 years. In practical terms, we need a very large hunk of what ever it is we want to date for every old material. But the bigger the sample the more likely we get a contaminant along with the sample. The theoretical maximum C14 age would be near to 100 thousand years, but that will never be practical. As instrumentation improves we will push this back to 60, or 70 thousand years. I have seen some published dates for bone, and charcoal at the limit.

There are a nearly a dozen direct dating methods that do not use the measurement of radioactive decay. Examples that I consider highly reliable are thermoremnant luminescence, thermoremnant magnetic field orientation, electron spin resonance, amino acid racimization, and fission track dating of glasses (obsidian for a prehistoric example). They generally require better training in field collection, and sample preparation than simple radiometric methods.

For example, nearly any large tooth can be dated by Uranium/Thorium ratios. All you need to do is find a big tooth, and send it to the proper lab. Thermoremnat luminescence required recognizing a suitable specimen, sealing it in a dark container (or aluminum foil), collecting a liter of surrounding soil, detailed notes on the humidity profile of the site ... Then the lab work started with analysis of the soil sample for its isotope profile, porosity, and more. A lot of freaking work. But, the published TL data on ancient pottery and then the radiocarbon data on the contents of the pot were very cool. (Oh, and they matched)."

.
 
Sep 30, 2014
2,329
102
0
#50
. But, the published TL data on ancient pottery and then the radiocarbon data on the contents of the pot were very cool. (Oh, and they matched)."

.
Even a broke clock is right 2x a day... Who made these machines ? Man...
There's fault in man, Wordswordsman can probably make a machine that grades soil and another machine that grades rocks that will both equate to 6,000 years, scientific community won't hear that though. They will say our carbon machine is boss and we make the rules. Pretty simple.
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,171
113
#52
Neo-cavemen

Revelation
6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
What does this have to do with a caveman? I really don't get it...
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#53
Doesn't surprise me

Caveman to caveman ..... in just 6000 years

Nothing has changed
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,171
113
#54
"These are not your Daddy's cavemen. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say cavepeople."


Who is your "daddy" dude

My "daddy" is going to soon sack the cave people in Revelation's account .... you may be one of them

6000 years passing ..... from cave man ..... to cave man

No changing

Get it?
No not really, I didn't get your first post. But I do know that God loves you and I'm sure you love Him back.
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,171
113
#55
Doesn't surprise me

Caveman to caveman ..... in just 6000 years

Nothing has changed
Is this something like walk softly and carry a big stick?
Last time I checked I don't think I am a cavewoman....Just a Blond that likes to have fun.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#56
As far as I am concerned, anybody associated with the Institute for Creation Research has about as much credibility as A-Rod.

.

Thats like saying an anti-god athieistic scientific institution has no credability, because their minds are closed.

You can not have it both ways,

if you reject one, you must reject the other.

As for radiocarbon, If the flood was as catostrophic as it was, and the major changes in the earth at that time was as major as we think it is, Then the earth was not the same before flood than it is or was after, thus anything before this could be be calculated by radiocarbon,

Radiocarbon assumes that things are the same today as it has been since the begining of time.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,315
16,302
113
69
Tennessee
#57
Is this something like walk softly and carry a big stick?
Last time I checked I don't think I am a cavewoman....Just a Blond that likes to have fun.


I am not sure if this guy is walking softly but he is carrying a big stick.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
#58

Thats like saying an anti-god athieistic scientific institution has no credability, because their minds are closed.

You can not have it both ways,

if you reject one, you must reject the other.

As for radiocarbon, If the flood was as catostrophic as it was, and the major changes in the earth at that time was as major as we think it is, Then the earth was not the same before flood than it is or was after, thus anything before this could be be calculated by radiocarbon,

Radiocarbon assumes that things are the same today as it has been since the begining of time.
And since lifespans pre-flood were 900+ years and 120+ years post-flood, environmental conditions were completely different.
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
#59
"Last time I checked I don't think I am a cavewoman....Just a Blond that likes to have fun"


Check again .... no difference

Ashes to ashes .... dust to dust .... all the same

Cave to cave

And it is the Lord who walks softly and carries the big stick


 
Last edited:
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#60
And since lifespans pre-flood were 900+ years and 120+ years post-flood, environmental conditions were completely different.
yes,, things are not the same, neither was radioactive decay.