Cavemen?
- Thread starter Jakob
- Start date
-
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.
It is a accurate as my truck's speedometer. It works great on the highway. It is useless if I drove off a cliff. It would not work in a jet airplane.
For the properly scientifically collected samples, competently analyzed radiocarbon dating is good to a little over 50,000 years. It is actually poor for less than 500 years old.
For the properly scientifically collected samples, competently analyzed radiocarbon dating is good to a little over 50,000 years. It is actually poor for less than 500 years old.
Attachments
Sorry, but that was stupid. You are hopefully not stupid, so you should not resort to stupid arguments.
For example, you relied on a popular newspaper. That is not a proper scientific publication. Second, it is nearly 25 years old. That is just stupid unless there have been 25 years of publications confirming the result. There were not.
The third reason this is stupid is that the result posted by Hizikyah showed that radiocarbon dates based on marine carbonate and published before 1990 were TOO YOUNG! Creationists need to pretend they are too OLD!
Finally, marine radiocarbon dates need to be calibrated based on C13/C12 and Oxygen 16/18. It is late and I don't feel like giving a full lesson. The creationists won't bother to learn anyway.
For example, you relied on a popular newspaper. That is not a proper scientific publication. Second, it is nearly 25 years old. That is just stupid unless there have been 25 years of publications confirming the result. There were not.
The third reason this is stupid is that the result posted by Hizikyah showed that radiocarbon dates based on marine carbonate and published before 1990 were TOO YOUNG! Creationists need to pretend they are too OLD!
Finally, marine radiocarbon dates need to be calibrated based on C13/C12 and Oxygen 16/18. It is late and I don't feel like giving a full lesson. The creationists won't bother to learn anyway.
Seeing how Dr. Spock Hurd wont answer in the dino thread I will post this here.......
Originally Posted by Dr_GS_Hurd
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
I think the easiest path to atheism is Bible, or Q'uran study coupled with discussions with fervent creationists.
I still stuggle to maintain a properly scientific agnostic perspective.
My Quote begins here!
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
If you are really agnostic by definition then your view and what you believe and teach is a total farce because according to your belief ANY REALITY (including the age of the earth, dino bones and evolution to name a few ) is UNKNOWN and probably UNKNOWABLE....
So....you argue that which you do not know and or cannot know according your own testimony!
How does that jive with your most highly prized education, and boast concerning your education, and what you say you know....Just asking?
Dr. Hurd seems to prefer to answer intelligent questions rather than mindless drivel.
But tell me, getting back to the subject matter of this thread, do you think Homo erectus did or will attain eternal salvation?
How long ago do you think Homo erectus walked on the earth?
Do you think there were Homo erectus on the ark?
Quite frankly, I am much more interested in what knowledge you have to impart on these matters, as opposed to Dr. Hurd's philosophy of religion.
But tell me, getting back to the subject matter of this thread, do you think Homo erectus did or will attain eternal salvation?
How long ago do you think Homo erectus walked on the earth?
Do you think there were Homo erectus on the ark?
Quite frankly, I am much more interested in what knowledge you have to impart on these matters, as opposed to Dr. Hurd's philosophy of religion.
Well Crack in the Box,
It seems that you are Dr. Spock's spokesman when it comes to answering a valid question based upon HIS choice of words as applied unto being AGNOSTIC....You do know the definition of AGNOSTIC right? Here I will post it for you to review...
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
So... If a man openly states by belief that he cannot know any ultimate reality....then how can anything he has to say be worthy of consideration and or be something that is worth my time, your time or anyone's time?
Now, having said that.....Homo Erectus came to being from who's mind exactly? And besides maybe a bone fragment, tooth and or some other anomaly where is the proof that Homo Erectus ever actually walked the earth? Seeing how there are anomalous humans with distorted bones, heads, teeth and other bodily features TODAY based upon disease, genetic mutation and so on and so forth..it STANDS to REASON that HOMO ERECTUS (so-called) was just another HUMAN that had similar anomalous characteristics and or genetic disorders!
It seems that you are Dr. Spock's spokesman when it comes to answering a valid question based upon HIS choice of words as applied unto being AGNOSTIC....You do know the definition of AGNOSTIC right? Here I will post it for you to review...
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
So... If a man openly states by belief that he cannot know any ultimate reality....then how can anything he has to say be worthy of consideration and or be something that is worth my time, your time or anyone's time?
Now, having said that.....Homo Erectus came to being from who's mind exactly? And besides maybe a bone fragment, tooth and or some other anomaly where is the proof that Homo Erectus ever actually walked the earth? Seeing how there are anomalous humans with distorted bones, heads, teeth and other bodily features TODAY based upon disease, genetic mutation and so on and so forth..it STANDS to REASON that HOMO ERECTUS (so-called) was just another HUMAN that had similar anomalous characteristics and or genetic disorders!
Why should I believe you regarding Homo erectus as opposed to the source I cite below?
Homo erectus | Natural History Museum
Fossils are proof. Better proof generally than eyewitness or written testimony.
Homo erectus | Natural History Museum
Fossils are proof. Better proof generally than eyewitness or written testimony.
My point stands......so I will repeat it......
Now, having said that.....Homo Erectus came to being from who's mind exactly? And besides maybe a bone fragment, tooth and or some other anomaly where is the proof that Homo Erectus ever actually walked the earth? Seeing how there are anomalous humans with distorted bones, heads, teeth and other bodily features TODAY based upon disease, genetic mutation and so on and so forth..it STANDS to REASON that HOMO ERECTUS (so-called) was just another HUMAN that had similar anomalous characteristics and or genetic disorders!
And the evidence you site is pure speculation based upon the opinions of men....nothing more and nothing less! No proof that there was such a species that walked the earth........!
Now, having said that.....Homo Erectus came to being from who's mind exactly? And besides maybe a bone fragment, tooth and or some other anomaly where is the proof that Homo Erectus ever actually walked the earth? Seeing how there are anomalous humans with distorted bones, heads, teeth and other bodily features TODAY based upon disease, genetic mutation and so on and so forth..it STANDS to REASON that HOMO ERECTUS (so-called) was just another HUMAN that had similar anomalous characteristics and or genetic disorders!
And the evidence you site is pure speculation based upon the opinions of men....nothing more and nothing less! No proof that there was such a species that walked the earth........!
Last edited:
The post script was in reference to criticisms in the German Edition to "Origin of Species" specifically about plants. And the holograph leads some to conclude that it was written at a later date, or by someone else. I think the context is that Darwin wrote it. I cannot get the holographic image to copy, which is very frustrating. The post scripted text as transcribed reads:
"In fact the belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) on its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; & the certain geological fact that species do somehow change (2) from the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) & chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts.—
When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed: nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed & others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely & in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain the old creationist school & the new school why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse—& one plant more pointed leaves than another plant."
You will see that the creationist version did not follow the letter text. The section in brackets "[i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed];" in the creationist version is an inserted text not in the original letter.
Finally, what Darwin knew in 1863 was much less that we know today. We have directly observed the change in species, and why it has been beneficial. For example, Y. E. Stuart, et al, "Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener" Science 24 October 2014:Vol. 346 no. 6208 pp. 463-466
DOI: 10.1126/science.1257008
"In fact the belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) on its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; & the certain geological fact that species do somehow change (2) from the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) & chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts.—
When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed: nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed & others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely & in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain the old creationist school & the new school why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse—& one plant more pointed leaves than another plant."
You will see that the creationist version did not follow the letter text. The section in brackets "[i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed];" in the creationist version is an inserted text not in the original letter.
Finally, what Darwin knew in 1863 was much less that we know today. We have directly observed the change in species, and why it has been beneficial. For example, Y. E. Stuart, et al, "Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener" Science 24 October 2014:Vol. 346 no. 6208 pp. 463-466
DOI: 10.1126/science.1257008
That would be because "hunched-over furry ape-like men" were more of an artist's popular conception of early man found in the early 1900s than a physical reality. There are some much better restorations built from more-or-less full skeletons. I suggest the Smithsonian Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program .
Even rock art by modern humans is very stylized when depicting the human form while animals are often quite realistic:
Even rock art by modern humans is very stylized when depicting the human form while animals are often quite realistic:
You said this a about a half dozen times on two different threads.
One of the definitions of "agnostic" is "undogmatic.
According to my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Okay, I get it. Dr. Hurd is undogmatic and you are dogmatic.
And according to the same dictionary "dogmatic" means: "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts."
Yep, that's you. You express nonsensical opinions as if they were facts, and you repeat them over and over and again and again.
Maybe you think if you say something over and over and again and again and again enough times, it will become a fact.
That appears to be a typical YEC tactic.
One of the definitions of "agnostic" is "undogmatic.
According to my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Okay, I get it. Dr. Hurd is undogmatic and you are dogmatic.
And according to the same dictionary "dogmatic" means: "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts."
Yep, that's you. You express nonsensical opinions as if they were facts, and you repeat them over and over and again and again.
Maybe you think if you say something over and over and again and again and again enough times, it will become a fact.
That appears to be a typical YEC tactic.