Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
designerror:
The cave paintings (those which are not frauds) date terribly inconsistently. However, even if they could be confirmed as being that old, it would still be consistent with an Old Earth Creationist paradigm. The book of Genesis allows for liberty regarding the age of the earth, IMO. If you are interested in the Creationist position on cave paintings, do a search here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/…
I believe they were drawn by ancient homo sapiens.
- Mimio0
Give me a break, there's plenty of evidence for homosapiens being around 160,000+ years ago. There's also not a single piece of evidence supporting longer lifespans of ancient humans like the Bible claims. In fact, all the evidence shows very short lifespans.
- discipler0
Show me the falsified, published research for your claim, mimio.
And are you suggesting that for 150,000 years the homo sapien species experienced total social and technological stasis? That in only 6,000 years of recorded history, in an evolutionary instant, we went from scraping on stone to sending astronauts to the moon?
Doesn't add up.
- cphunk0
Still very curious what discipler has to hide.
- PonyBoy0
What I DO know is this specific issue. Because the topic of origins is of particular interest to me. That's all. And I get impatient when I see a philosophical position which lacks empirical support, being pushed as scientific fact. Especially in light of the last 30 years of scientific discovery.
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 07:41)
---
Enter response:All religious beliefs aside... discipler - you have my respect. Whether or not your opinion is correct - you at least back your opinion w/a foundation (you've studied much of what the folks on here belittle you for - yet you stand your ground)... you're not just spewing 'theories' as you put it...
One of the most rediculous occurances on this forum is people belittling people simply because of their beliefs... you 'open-minded' thinkers as you like to call yourselves... do you realize what massive hypocrits you are for the way you handle yourselves on here? It must seriously be a pain in the ass to be 'you'... living everyday in the 'perfection' that only exists in your head.
Why don't you get an education on matters before attacking those who obviously have something worthwhile to add to this conversation.
- Mimio0
Look into the work of:
Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum in London
Tim White, UC Berkeley
http://ib.berkeley.edu/research/…
- ********0
actually, discipler's got a point there, Radio-Carbon Dating is inconsistent.
Finally, although radiocarbon dating is the most common and widely used chronometric technique in archaeology today, it is not infallible. In general, single dates should not be trusted. Whenever possible multiple samples should be collected and dated from associated strata. The trend of the samples will provide a ball park estimate of the actual date of deposition. The trade-off between radiocarbon dating and other techniques, like dendrochronology, is that we exchange precision for a wider geographical and temporal range. That is the true benefit of radiocarbon dating, that it can be employed anywhere in the world, and does have a 50,000 year range. Using radiocarbon dating, archaeologists during the past 30 years have been able to obtain a much needed global perspective on the timing of major prehistoric events such as the development of agriculture in various parts of the world.
- mrdobolina0
discipler shot himself in the foot by naming himself discipler and spouting religious stuff before starting up with all this ID stuff.
- ********0
never mix religion with science, like I said 50 posts ago. ID is one thing, but leave it as it is.
- discipler0
mrdobs, i'm gonna change my name just for you. In fact, you guys may name me. Nothing mean spirited though. Remember you can disagree with my positions, but you don't have to hate me. Go ahead, give me my new name.
- mrdobolina0
bible dude
- ********0
AlexPKeaton
- ********0
it's SMOTE! smote, ferchrissake! hasn't chossy taught y'all nothing?
paraselene
(Jan 4 06, 09:09)
------------------------
Well, technically it'd be:ἐπάτα...
in Koine Greek, the original biblical language. "Smote" is just how those medieval english people translated it..I think we can translate it into today's vernacular as "smack" or even "smack down"...
- discipler0
Good point JazX. It was others who brought up religion in this thread about "Darwinism". People are so quick to conflate science with it's implications. My posts were regarding specific scientific issues, until people started harping on religious text based topics.
- Mimio0
WilliamPaleyII
- discipler0
Good one, mimio. Sold.
- discipler0
Though not terribly accurate. Since ID is not a theological argument, whereas Paley's was.
- shilohous0
bible dude,
the nuttiest,
batshit crazy
- ********0
Law_of_Uniformitarianism
my favorite law
- discipler0
shilohous, don't be intimidated. Address the scientific issues rather than name calling.