Description: Theory of fact?
Corvid Creeper - June 7, 2006 10:27 AM (GMT)
Iíve been reading up on this a lot (I can be sitting at the computer from between 5-14 hours studying on this alone) and have come to my own conclusions based on DNA, traits and skull size.
When a bone is found it is not always fossilized and so DNA can be extracted, the DNA is a different kind from the CSI DNA. This DNA is a link between species, not family and not unique to each individual this form of DNA in me may be exactly the same as Kalís or Zeromarks. Chimps and Humanís DNA of this sought differ by two or three things only and so Neanderthals and Floresiensis also differ. So this DNA has proven that weíre related to some other kinds of humans. This prompted creationists to say that Neanderthals are diseased people and Floresiensis are pygmies but this is dismissed by evidence of the bone structure. Floresiensis are not pygmys or midgets as their bone structure shows no symptoms of the Pygmy thing and midgets are far too different in structure. Neanderthals were said to have rickets, but everyone who knows anything about rickets dismissed this and laughed, some even said that Aboriginal Australians were Neanderthals but I know people who are evidence they arenít (Neanderthals canít breed with Sapiens weíre incompatible like us and chimps).
The basic story of evolution is that all apes have a common ancestor, from this ancestor others evolved. See the ape is wide spread it started in Africa but as you can see spread to almost every continent. The original Ape evolved into a few forms, Australopithecus (potential ancestor of us) and a few others I canít recall. What happened was that it moved around Africa adapting to the various locations, some staying in trees, some walking on all fours and some of them eventually taking to Bipedal movement. From that ape who I donít want to spell again evolved other species which lead up to Homo Habilis, the handy man. Habilis was the first great step in the theory of evolution, sharing some modern human traits, a larger brain and the ability to invent new tools Habilis became the dominant ape. Habilis built shelters, he sharpened rocks and he thought about where to go and what to do. There is a number of theories after this, some believe Habilis left Africa first, some believe he didnít go that far before evolving into Erectus.
Homo Erectus is the first to invent tools beyond a sharp rock and migrate that we know of they sharpened sticks, built better shelter and started to migrate. Erectus was also the first to use fire and cook food, he was truly an advanced ape. Erectus migrated into Europe as Ergaster or Antecessor they have different names because they took on a different form and they reached areas like Spain and eventually Asia(some think theyíre just different traits like our skin colour). From erectus stemmed three forms of humans first being Neanderthals (large and stronger than modern humans but not as adaptable) then Sapiens (us) and homo Floresiensis (smaller versions slightly different looking).
Neanderthals were the first of the new species to die, being less intelligent than the others or possibly he was hit by a plague or maybe we killed them because weíre ass holes, either way they died. Neanderthals have been DNA tested and share the link with us they do not have rickets and they are not diseased Sapiens thatís fact. Some people claim to have found Neanderthals in Cahin Mail armour, how ever these are just bones of a European race I forget the name of, they sailed down streams while their women traveled in carts on shore)
Flores is a small island in Indonesia, itís not a large island but it is a very important one. Around 90,000 years ago Erectus arrived; when they got there they changed dramatically like all animals do. We shrunk to a meter in height, half the size we were. This new species made fire, it cooked food and made tools and it needed a language and would have had to have had one, so it was advanced. The species hunted pygmy elephants which as 400 pounds and around 4 feet tall they also hunted giant komodo dragons (around 10-20 feet long). Flores changed many species but after a massive volcano around 13,000 years ago none of the islands unique creatures were found (at least not at any of the sites we search at). There is a theory that they existed up to 300 years ago, myths tell of them stealing children then being hunted and made extinct but this is just a story like leprechauns, but there is also a theory they may still exist in the mountains where no man has ever gone on Flores, this how ever is highly unlikely (I hope its not true either weíd be so horrible to them).
Finally we have Sapiens, us. Believed to be the smartest species to stem from the Homos Genus and possibly the most advanced species to ever exist (some evidence supports weíre not the first highly evolved species). We came close to extinction around the time Floresiensis was believed to have died out, we have reached all parts of the world. Our skulls share traits from all the species before us and so we are believed to stem from them.
There is another theory that Erectus stemed only two ancestors, Floresiensis and GOliath (nick name) Goliath was six foot tall at his full size, he resembled Andrew the giant but built more widly and lived never rivers in africa (he's too big to live away from water he'd over heat). From GOliath came Neanderthals (who resemble him more but are smaller) and Sapiens who are a far more frail version.
I am an evolutionist, I believe this to be fact how ever it is not certified as fact, itís a theory like creationism the only difference is we have more evidence.
SO what are you Evolutionsit (darwanist) or Creationist (beleiving that God made us in Eden with the other apes and we lived side by side them since the dawn of time)?
Creationsists come in two varieties, some say God made earth in 7 days or what ever and others say the earth was made slowly but god put us there as we are.
Sorry for the long rant but I wanted to take Paulís claim to fame of being the only person to post a serious topic in the section (DAMN HIM!) and this was the shortest I could get it to show my beliefs and what science has shown me.
Kal - June 7, 2006 12:33 PM (GMT)
After Cain killed Abel, it's said that he and his other brother left home to find wives.
Optimustoe - June 7, 2006 01:12 PM (GMT)
I belive the entirity of earth and all of it's creatures that walk the earth today were created in 7 24hr periods of time.
and creation it'self has a LOT of evidence.
The problem is that Evolutionist look at soil reports and say "the earh at one point had a floodgate of water around it and when it broke the ice age began"
And then Creationists say
"Okay The Bible gives a description of the floodgate breaking and therefore must be historicaly accurate in that regaurd, although there was no Ice age to be seen of"
Then the Evolutionist says "No thats just circumstantial....it's a mere coincidence.
People don't Want to hear it......thats the problem.
Zeromark - June 7, 2006 03:32 PM (GMT)
My thinking is towards a middle ground - Divine Evolutionism.
Yes, the universe was probably created through the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that God wasn't directing it all. We probably do descend from apes, but that doesn't mean we weren't instilled with a soul at one point or another. (And logically, if you follow the idea of Original sin, there was a fall from grace - humans willingy turned away from the divine)
And Optimus, can I ask you what makes you think that the terms we put on a day, 24 hours and all, applies to the divine? If God is not bound by time, as most people believe, then his "days" could have been eons long. :P
The way I see it, it doesn't matter how the Universe came to be. It's a fun thing to speculate about, but ultimately has very little to do with the physical and spiritual life in human history.
Optimustoe - June 7, 2006 03:37 PM (GMT)
Simple....I believe my Bible dosen't lie to me
If it were not a day as we define it (time it takes for the earth to rotate once)...the bible would have used another term (some people think that the 7 days are represenative of different evolutionary ages which is why I made the distinction)
No God isn't bound by time but when he says "I made the world in 6 days and on the 7th rested" I belive him without trying to re-interprate (hacked that word to pieces)
Corvid Creeper - June 7, 2006 05:08 PM (GMT)
Coral clock state that the moon is slowly lengthen days, itís slowing our rotation as we speak there was on average 400 days in any year when the flood suposedly happened. SO God did not make the Earth as it is today, if he indeed did create the earth then he made it able to change. I believe in the possibility of god I believe that for us to be a chance creation is WAAAAY to slim so like Zeromark said chances are God is guiding our evolution the way it has been said to happen, if you ask me thatís the most possible one.
Before you read this Optimus and anyone else realise I seriously didnít want to do this but I have argued against the flood TOO many times for me to stand. The following is scientific evidence supported by some priests, its fact not fiction and some of it is actually taken from the bible itself. Take the time to read it, it may not sway you but it certainly should make your realise the bible is not literally, itís not possible. The bible is a guide, itís not literally itís a guide of fiction to help people be more civilised, some may be truth but not all of it is.
1. For the Rain needed to exist in the atmosphere the pressure would superheat the water, Noah would be boiled alive. The air would also be toxic and if the water came from the ground it would be super heated and rocks would have rained down on us all.
2. Ice cores show no evidence of a flood.
3. For the flood to have taken place god would have had to erase the memories of cultures world wide, what would be his point if cultures that worship rainbow snakes (false idols) survive wasnít his point to eliminate people who did that? Point is he didnít kill all sinners because he didnít make a flood.
4. Noahís ark wouldnít have had anywhere near the ability to contain the Dinosaurs he would have taken (also why didnít he mention them they existed when he supposedly took them for a ride). He also doesnít mention Rhino size Wombats, they existed till 20,000 years ago.
5. Rock sediment and layers of the earth are organised in neat layers, which contain fossils. For the floods have existed these layers would be non existent and all exist in one lump of crap. Basically when I dig up a T-Rex Iíd find a modern hammer next to him but that doesnít happen. For it to lay down the layers the way they are theyíd have to lay down 15 meters of sediment a day, it would have to lay them down in layers change their dates and keep them neat, water doesnít think it canít happen.
6. The ice caps would be lifted, they would be moved and they would break down and melt. Under current climate Greenland could NEVER get its ice cap back it would just be another Finland or something.
7. The green river in Wyoming has 20,000,000 layers of sediment and stuff, the sediments are so fine they need to be laid one month at a time for that to happen the flood would have to take 1666666.666666666666667 (too many to put in it would end in around 15 6ís and then a seven) years, but the flood was only 1 year longÖ how can a flood change dates of things.
8. Noahís ark canít fit the amount of animals it claimed to have on it (weíre talking millions if not a billion) even a ship today couldnít hold them and there are less animals today then there was then (we donít have dinosaurs Thylacines and Dodos *cries*). Letís not forget ships back then leaked a lot, their hulls required constant draining and Noahís ark would never have been able to support itself under the conditions the flood would create. If the sea beds dropped to drain the water from the land Noahís ark would be hit with Tsunamis that can cross the globe, if it canít handle stormy seas how can it handle that? Where does he get the wood to repair it? Letís not forget the demanding diets of the animas.
9. For all the volcanic layers to be added WHILE the flood took place weíd experience temperatures of 1000 degrees Celsius thatís 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.
10. The white cliffs in England would be a meter high, it takes way too log for plankton fossils to form chalk in a year weíd have around half a meter.
11. Layers of solid salt (which have fossils in them) require salt water to be trapped from its source of fresh water and then the water evaporates. For that to happen salt would have to be laid down by man later, its fun to burry things so lets burry fossils!
12. Fossils wouldnít exist, theyíre be bones right now they would be like the corpses of the Egyptians and still bone.
13. There are 800 billion fossils in one specific spot in Africa, all of them claimed by Creationists died during the flood. For this to happen there would have literally been 21 animals per every acre of land, thatís just silly. It is also known that Leningrad contains around 500,000 tons of Mammoth Tusks for them all to have been made extinct by the flood there would be mammoths across Russia for that to happen they wouldnít be able to move without hitting another mammoths ass. This states simply that none of these animals would have survived up to the flood, itís not possible.
14. There would be no plants, Noah couldnít have had all the seeds for plants and the only mountain able to survive the flood canít support trees that high. All seeds would be buried under miles of sediment, the flood would strip the soil needed to grow, some seeds need to be burned or eaten by animals to even begin to create a tree. Noah canít have gathered all the seeds, most seeds would have died LONG before Noah saw land again.
15. Some fish require certain kinds of water, if the flood covered the earth then they wouldnít have those conditions. If the fish then were formed after the flood, then evolution becomes fact. Coral survives in shallow water, yet coral exists and existed thenÖ impossible if this flood occurred.
16. Diseases wouldnít survive, for disease to survive Noah and all his animals would have to be infested. Measles canít survive long after itís in the body the immune system gets rid of it, so Noah would have to have literally no immune system for it to survive. Also the Ark would be ripe with MANY plagues, Noah would have died early, I can prove it if you come to Australia and let me lock you in a ship the arks size with just 200 animals, youíd get diseased and die.
17. Short-lived species couldnít survive, theyíd have to have thousands taken for the population to grow. Mayfly males die in days and their lava require running water to live, simply put Noah would need to float on the most ecologically diverse island ever to exist.
18. Plants would be dead so Animals wouldnít survive, death to all.
19. Inbreeding, thatís enough to prove this wrong.
20. There would need to be MASSIVE land passages between Noahís final destination and countries like Australia. Two individual kolas had to make their way to Australia along with Kangaroos and Dingos, theyíre not migratory animals theyíd need to be taken there besides how can Koalas get Eucalyptus in nations that doesnít have it? If they ate something else then they would have evolved. Animals wouldnít be specific to countries, unless Noah then sailed around putting them all back where he found them.
21. Iím not inbred and I take offence to the accusation.
22. Why does no other cultures report the flood? Why do the ones that do report it tell it TOTALLY different. Most flood myths involve people climbing trees and not all the animals dying, if it was global then humans would report it. Why should I take the account of one god over another, no evidence supports on over the other so why yours? Many have faith in a Rainbow snake carving valleys, but theyíre wrong because they donít agree right?
23. Flood models by creationists contradict the bible, many say many animals died but Noah rescued them all God says he got them all. Not to mention the events that many creationists describe as causing the flood to occur and disappear were never detailed in the bible, so they bend their supposed truth as well.
24. The bible itself contradicts itself. Genesis 6:20 and 7:14 -15 say there was two of each of the clean beasts (there was 24 according to Jewish faith yet more than that number live today) and yet Genesis 7:2,3 and 5 say the animals came in sevens, nice source it contradicts itself. BTW everyone who now prints a bible is going to hell.
25. Ants need whole nests to survive, they couldnít have survived in pairs, an exception like this would be mentioned in the bible. Letís not forget some are A sexual and some are hermaphrodites so what did he do with earth worms.
26. Also the bible say the earth is flat and stationary. Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1
Conclusion the flood never occurred, it was a lie in the bible most likely a parable to explain what god could do. I apologise for posting this again, I hate to do this I once believed that the Bible was literally but I researched, I know now that God may exist, he may have granted me a cat the day after I begged for a purpose but he did not flood the earth.
Zeromark - June 7, 2006 05:22 PM (GMT)
The funny thing about the flood narrative, is that it isn't unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition; quite a few other cultures of antiquity also posses a flood narrative where the god or gods wipe the earth clean and start anew with a set of moral people from the previous group.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
Paul - June 7, 2006 06:09 PM (GMT)
Excellent discussion. Good talking points on all sides. I, for one, believe evolution is true. And to those that say it couldn't have happened by chance, it didn't. It's not like Homo Habilis sat around waiting to evolve. He went out and did stuff and that caused him to evolve.
"Dude, can't this go any faster? I want to start using tools and screwing with my ancestors' heads for next few million years! Pass the cheetos."
Optimustoe - June 7, 2006 06:14 PM (GMT)
|Before you read this Optimus and anyone else realise I seriously didnít want to do this but I have argued against the flood TOO many times for me to stand. The following is scientific evidence supported by some priests, its fact not fiction and some of it is actually taken from the bible itself. Take the time to read it, it may not sway you but it certainly should make your realise the bible is not literally, itís not possible. The bible is a guide, itís not literally itís a guide of fiction to help people be more civilised, some may be truth but not all of it is.|
and in the same spirit I will make my aurgument.Your point is moot cause they found the Ark
That last page has a lot of information and a few examples of where the bible acknoledges the existance of Dinosaures...... now tell me ....How did the ark get up on mount Arat (or in this case lesser Arat) if there was no flood?....the demographic would not allow the boat to be built THERE.
and before this dose evolve in to a fight >.> <.<
I understand that the Bible will never again be considered "science fact" but I feel I have a responsability to stick up for it.
Corvid Creeper - June 7, 2006 06:18 PM (GMT)
These stories that more than likely stemmed from the one experience, it was not how ever a global flood no evidence supports it. It is more likely that to rationalize a flood that killed many one man or many men told stories that were exaggerated. A great example of this was that a giant ape 10 feet tall and one that was linked to orangutans was found in Vietnam. The giant was ten feet tall four hundred pounds, ate bamboo and fruits and itís bones were traded as Dragonís teeth or Dragonís bones in Chinese shops. The ape was a huge story around the time of Vietnam Iím told and when that happened people who were stationed in Vietnam claimed they saw the ape wandering. How ever an ape so large would leave traces, itís too big not to knock down some trees or for us to have found its remains in the battle.
Basically one story can be changed into a cult following and later adopted as truth itís the way the world works.
While this cant be a 100% explanation itís one of many.
Sorry for taking this down, i didn't expect people to post new things and would have rathered address them in one post not two posts. ANyway their back so Optimus doesn't look crazy :P.
Optimustoe - June 7, 2006 06:23 PM (GMT)
That is a point I will agree with if there was only ONE story to explain the planet writen by man then no doubt would people mess with it to try to gain control
but lets look at it like this...... If you were a God and you had inspired and dictated to a few men the historical origins of the planet.....would you let ANYONE mess with it for their gain?
This is a faith issue I believe what the Bible says because I beleive it is inspired by God and I belive he dosen't lie to me, for me that is the end of story.
Edit: D'oh he took the comment away :wacko:
Corvid Creeper - June 7, 2006 08:02 PM (GMT)
Iím shaking as I write this, Iím shivering in a way thatís moving my chair so bare with me please.
If I was god there would be no people or religions, they all distort what the bible claims I did and thus they would have died with Habilis who worshipped his tools. I would have eliminated the aboriginals of Australia for founding a religion before I had and I would laugh at them for the rainbow snake story. If God was real and the flood story is then Revelations is nonsense and any other apocalypse stories are that as well, either that or god is not only a liar but a maniac. He said after Noahís ordeal he would never do it again (purge sinners) Rainbows are the reminder of this promise, but revelations says heíll kill sinnersÖÖ.
Before I explain this I bring your attention to Moab man and Malachite man two remains claimed to be centuries old but were that of Native Americans, the stories were exaggerated in the media and the press, scientists dismissed them and proved them false. If they were how ever real I would have head of them. This runs the same; if this was real National Geographic wouldnít just speculate as to the strange shape found on Ararat where no snow falls, they how ever have no stories on this. They have once already accused a Turkish scientist of faking it and proved the photos of an alleged ark were faked, this once again may fall into the situation Malachite man fell into. Malachite man was Moab man just the pictures were reposted by a guy who claimed a rotting shark was a dinosaur, there is a good chance these are the same faked photos but I digress as I am speculating like the guy in the last line you provided(more on that later).
You sites are moot, they do not explain how the land masses could be organized as they are.
If a flood shaped the earth then the earth would not be organized the way it is, read my large post above to find out why the flood never took place. Its fact it didnít, no rock mass can prove otherwise.
That last site you posted has no credibility the owner and writer himself says heís filling in blanks and speculating on things he also leaves out many things we know and see.
The devils pile thing is actually Basalt column, Jesus would have traveled to every corner of the world and into the future to cut down everyone that has formed, good luck to him! Thatís speculation based on no information and the rationalizing of ones belief with un founded things and nonsense.
If behemoth and Leviathan existed they would not be fossilized and thus we would find them easily and actually have their bones. T-rex thing is a dragon and a myth (donít say that Blacki the 10 foot species Orangutan found in Asia is Big foot). The brachiosaurus lays under the Lotus Tree, a tree that is believed to be the Date Palm or a small shrub and no evidence of the tree is found today. So either the beats is in fact under two feet tall or its dead and laying underneath a tree, a fossil fits underneath a shrub. The lotus tree is a myth to measure another beast by it is to measure a myth with a myth, neither is proven to exist.
That paragraph on the creation of the earth is laughable at best (all this refers to the last link). He states that the creation story is true because it says there was a day and a night, thatís hardly evidence itís merely him using circumstantial evidence to prove his point which is scientifically unsupported. Under his thinking I can say simply this, when I created the earth, I made homo habilus, I made day and night and because I can say these things existed I am right, how ever fact states I am wrong his thinking is flawed and stupid. Thus this site loses all credibility it could have retained.
The bronze sky is simply speculation not backed up by anything he is speculating on how explaining how light that took billions of years to get here only appeared recently, this magnetic shield is a patch to cover a plot hole so to speak. Like stated above he is simply adding things to things to try and explain what is said in a book, in that case vampires are real, when I step into the sun my eyes hurt sometimes so it must be hurting me like it did Dracula but not killing me like him as well, there fore I can conclude that I am Dracula, silly isnít it?
ďThe relative height of the mountains would have been quite low; maybe as little as 300 feet. Also, for the Earth to be totally flooded-out in Noah's time, it works out better when the hills aren't too high to begin with.Ē Quoted from the site, he no longer has ANY credibility with that statement. Carbon dating states that to find mount Everest and most mountains under 20 feet (the height I hear the flood was) youíd have to go back really far and well, that ark they claim to have found would be buried to far to find.
He also states the Milky way is unique and weíre special and nothing is like us so we must be the centre of development or something but galaxies like ours exist everywhere some even bigger. Only in appearance is it unique as no other galaxies have us in it and have the same number of branches I know of. So far he denies facts, speculates on some and uses some because itís convenient (Gish anyone?).
Gish is a creationist who is famed for quoting people wrong, cutting sentences short to suite his purpose and for changing his mind like Melbourne weather (we have four seasons in one day). He also said that the discoverer of Java man called it a baboon, he simply said it was baboon like in appearance and was some kind of ape. Gish said that he himself (the finder) says it is a large baboon a giant one and that it was the skull of a monkey, the passage he quoted was French and in the French language ape and monkey are the same word, sarnge(sp?) so he miss translated and cut quotes to suite himself.
Several theories come to mind on that so called ark.
1. Itís a big ass recreation many attempted it and found it didnít float so how did Noah a man whose grasp of sailing was less than that of skilled engineers get it to float? Simple he didnít this is just a recreation, also how the hell did it stand up while becoming fossilized, it needs to be buried and replaced with minerals before itís fossilized. You wouldnít just wander by and see this shape you would HAVE to dig it up, so itís possible a ship was there but didnít cover the whole thing shwon and the sites are mostly speculation and dug in a shape, how ever I just speculated lol.
2. Noah was wrong, he built it and went oops my mistake and there it sat, the least likely of the theories how ever.
3. Itís just a big boat possibly designed to be a house. I am speculating but if this WAS the ark it would be taught in history as fact not in bible studies as religious speculation. National Geographic does not cover it I checked, it only covers an anomaly on mount Ararat where no snow falls which was explained.
The funny thing is that many have faked the ark if this is it how did someone find a large piece of wood supposedly from it? Simple this is a recreation designed to fool us into believe the bible, that is speculation but it how ever has evidence the flood does not.
Your sites fail to explain ANY of what I said above, explain there being no evidence of a flood before saying there was a flood and this proves it because I have over 26 pieces of evidence and you have simply one unproven picture.
After Moab man was found scientists quickly checked and dismissed it yet the media still said was the missing link despite being SHOWN the evidence in person and many still report it today but as Malachite man. It is possible these were debunked and like Moab man a new finder was named and people went along claiming it to be real despite it was already disproved. All possibilities my point is chances are we know what it is just people ignore it and resurface the information as something new.
I have gone through those sites, they hold little credibility compared to the sites I quote, find me a reputable source and I will turn. Also find creationist evidence to support that Iím wrong on my fact that a flood would have killed ALL life with super heated water and toxic gases.
To anyone to posts be kind, these are peopleís beliefs respect them. If I donít seem to be respectful I apologise
Optimustoe - June 7, 2006 08:21 PM (GMT)
Thats what I mean evrything that could ever be used to prove the bible will Discredited. evrey archeological find will be explained away. I actually EXPECT it.
infact it is one of the things that strengthen my faith.
However we have spent the most of the day going back and forth suffice to say ....we cannot change each others minds.
Corvid Creeper - June 7, 2006 09:21 PM (GMT)
Yeah youíre right neither one of us will change the others opinions, but this was fun. I enjoyed it and you made me research things Iíd never considered looking into such as the flood and the alleged ark SO yeah thanks a lot for pushing me, itís great you did.
Iíll continue to debate this so donít think Iíve let this go, how ever Iíve come across something else I want to discuss so I may not really put as much research into my responses.
I also didn't mention that you can literally watch Evolution happen on a rapid scale, the AIDS virus evolves under the pressure of medication using the natural selection theory. Those that cope better to the medications survive that's why medication will ease the problem but not fix it. Test conclude that using one tablet at a time is more effective in fighting aids some suggest not taking any tablets then blasting htem for a quick fix, thats another topic though.
Once again thanks to anyone who opposed, agreed or even read the topic itís always nice to hear other peopleís views.
Paul - June 8, 2006 06:03 AM (GMT)
I think we got a bit off topic. The topic is evolution. If you guys would like to make a thread debating biblical events, that would be acceptable.
Corvid Creeper - June 8, 2006 12:44 PM (GMT)
If some evidence of the flood (so far the only evidence is against it) could be found the theory of evolution would be thrown on it's ass, the earth would not have evolved and creationists would dance around and say we told you so! Despite it only proving one small facete of evolution wrong, still not evidence supports the flood and that is FACT. SO debating the bible goes along side debating evolution, this post drifts off topic but it discredits Ron Wyatt a man who's qualifications mean he can put me to sleep but not educate me on geology.
I return to the debate because I have new evidence, evidence that proves that the link provided by Optimus had information taken from a man who LITERALLY was a fraud. He was not an archaeologist he was a man who went around tying lose evidence to his crazy theories, he was a Christian who wanted to confirm his beliefs but failed miserably. He makes false claims and distorts the course of humanity with his lies and bullshit, Ron Wyatt was proven wrong by me, I dropped out after year 10!
The man is not a trained archaeologist and not a train geologist, he is a Christian fundamentalist who wants to be Indiana Jones. To provide evidence to debunk Ron Wyatt as a fraud and a charlatan in itís most literal form Iíll explain everything on the first link as I already did the for the last link and the ones in between offer nothing new.
Sodom and Gomorrah Ė Wyatt (he was a nurse-anaesthesiologist not a doctor of any kind) sailed near the dead sea where he claimed to have seen tall vertical cliffs he though looked like walls so one day he went in and found a slab that fell, he was excited because he saw round balls he thought were sulphur. Firstly sulphur is a rhombus shape, I havnít found any evidence to back up that sulphur can form in a sphere and he wasnít anywhere near qualified to analyse them like it said he did. He concluded they were sulphur, how did it get there sulphur needs a volcano right? So it must be god right? Wrong! Sulphur can form on Salt Domes itís a long process but it can happen, so it explains everything he claims about sulphur being there but fact states that it can form there like it did in Mexico. See the area he looked at is in fact an inland sea, the sea was cut off from itís supply of fresh saltwater and so the water evaporate leaving salt which made the land barren and desolate. The salt dusting the cliffs slowly and developed sulphur, so yes he did find sulphur but it was not put their divinely it is natural and everything he found there was his imagination, thatís fact. Letís not forget the cliffs werenít ash they were stone, the city was reduced to ash so why isnít it?
The Red sea crossing, any number of explanations can explain it, most likely he faked it he has done it before.
His ark of the covenant has literally NO evidence, he had blurry photos and when asked where it was he simply replied ďprivate property canít get itĒ one member of the Israeli Antiquities Authority said this about him and his claims. ďRon Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc.Ē He has no credibility and is not qualified. The only image of it is an artists rendition, but artists said Neanderthals were apes with hair all over them, but that was false so he has no evidence but his ridiculous claims and no training. He has blurry photos and says itís on private property, at least the book of Mormon was shown to other people!
When he claimed to find Noahís Ark he lead and expedition and said ďYES ITíS IT!Ē and yet qualified people who checked it blew a section out of the lump itself and found NOTHING. They scanned it and checked it, they dug down and they found nothing at all, yet Wyatt the untrained man checked it and found it! So why should we trust the untrained over the trained? Simple we shouldnít it was debunked and he was found to be a fraud that is why National Geographic has not sign of this article. Also why the hell do they think this is the ark, itís too wide to be the one claimed in the bible so the information is actually wrong. The so called anchor stones are actually pagan worship sites, the site.http://www.anchorstone.com/index2.php?opti...do_pdf=1&id=228
Was a creationists website in which I found my information, they say the doubts of the archaeologists prove they were wrong, how ever it only means the people who run the site have selective hearing. The only info as I said before on an Ark is a patch of land on the mountain where there is no snow, besides why should I trust Wyatt over all the people who pulled out bolts, wood and other things that are actually in the spot the bible says they were, they have more evidence than he does.
All this information addresses Optimusí first link.
Tomorrow I will watch all of his videos and analyse them myself, but he is a fraud seeking justification in his beliefs through flagellant claims and pathetic evidence.
Sources: Wikipedia on Sulphur, Ron Wyatt and the Covenant Box. http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/index.html
Is the site that Optimus used it is a Ron Wyatt fan site, nothing more.
In conclusion Ron Wyatt is no more qualified than I am, in fact he is no more qualified than a nine year old child.
So far i have seen no evidence at all that there was a flood, the evolution did not take place and that the bible is close to right. The most plausable theory to the bible is one ebelived by many, that you HAVE to look into it not take it at face value only then will you find the knowledge it holds. It's possible God had a hand i do not say he didn't but i do say that we evolved from a species like the AIds virus does, we change to match what happens around us. As for the flood, most likely the truth is found in Zeromark's link he posted, during the Ice Age a man fled Ice brought by a god or something not water, it's easy to see where this fits in with the timline of the earth's evolution and change and where it can be changed after all Ice and Water a VERY similar they only differ in their arrangement.
Zeromark - June 8, 2006 01:45 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Paul @ Jun 8 2006, 12:03 AM)|
| I think we got a bit off topic. The topic is evolution. If you guys would like to make a thread debating biblical events, that would be acceptable. |
I agree. Stay to evolution, or take it to a new thread, gents.
Corvid Creeper - June 8, 2006 02:12 PM (GMT)
I still feel we're in topic, but i think we should keep this to human evolution or plants will become subject to debate and we'd never come close to solving this.
Last points i make before i try to redirect this to specifically human evolution.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Arguements not to use, ALL or Wyatts claims are on that list.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0...rkdiscovery.asp
Those links discuss his other stupid ideas, one of which i debunked and i'm proud of myself for doing it.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/ark.asp
THis one actually says EXACTLY where Wyatt went wrong and well i was right on his account of the so called Sodom and Gamorah site, yey for me!
"Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Basically don't take things at face value prove them and you held them at face value but they were proven wrong.
If anyone want's to conitue this subject (i doubt you will because creationists who tudy this also beleive he was a fraud) start up another topic on Wyatt or biblical theories and such, religion is a field i love to debate as i have no exact thought on wether its all true or all false (i have personal evidence both for and against). So let's continue this down the right path of human evolution.
We start with an ape, a base basically for all apes after it, from it stems Oraguntangs (i can never spell that lol) they leave africa and goto Asia, and evolve into a giant one which evolves in two ways to the 10 foot blacki who ate bamboo and its smaller cousin i don't know about. Only the orangutaun survives though. Gorillas and other monkeys stem from the base ape as well htye branch off before us though and then we come to chimps who branch off closer to when we did (which is why thier DNA is so similar) and then we have us!
So we have a small biped (maybe semi bipiedal but on a chimp model it looks down not straight forward so most likely was fully bipedal) who looks like a chimp, who evolves into several things and branches into the ape nicknamed Lucy who was Bipedal but wandered the plains more than it's ancestors did then we get Habilus who was the first to sharped rocks and spears, then erectus who perfected it and even discovered fire and left africa and went out into asia.
The we have two theories, Goliath came next but he was so large he couldn't live far from water in africa so in Europe he ws cooler (he geenrated too much he because of his size). Floresiensis also evolved from erectus and is ebelived not to have evolved from gliath. From goliath we have Neanderthals and us.
The most popular theory is that erectus evolved into four branches (mayeb more we don't know) we have floresiensis, goliath, Neanderthals and us.
We lived near the coast beause i recquire less hunting and we begun painting and crafting tools that arn't just functionla but look good so we develop art. Like Habilus (as paul perfectly stated) we ran into challenges like the Ice Age which pushed our cdevelopement because of our ocean home our brains were better equiped so the volcano that killed Floresiensis and caused the Ice Age was no biggie for us, we simply adapted because we confronted problems.
Neanderthals like us do art and even music but i don't think they took pride in their tools like us.
Floresiensis crafted tools but not like we did they were less developed.
So yeah discussion please.
We have evolutions theory, creations theory and Zeromakrs theory which is the only one to expain ALL aspects of our life religion and evolution. Any more theories?
Corvid Creeper - July 3, 2006 05:48 AM (GMT)
Sorry to necro and double post but something cool was on tv and it was the evolution of Whales.
A quick run down is that CHarles Darwin suggested that Bears evolved into whales, he had no evidence for this but suprisingly he was nearly right he just picked the wrong animal with a taste for fish and water, Whales infact DID come from WOlves, prehistoric wolves not modern wolves well wolf like canines anyway.
Pretty recently they've been unearthing fossils in pakistan that show (clearly) the evolution of whales, see the progression is based on bone structure and anatomical similarities. WHen you look at it the evolution is slow which is unusual as evolution is know to be rather fast then stops then fast then stops instead Whale's kept going slowly. I don't have species names but you can look it up the show is PaleoWOrld on DIscovery science.
See the shallow sea near pakistan (where india pushed itself in) was FULL of fish, many would wash up on the shore and the wolf caught on, soon it realised more fish were in the water and swam and hunter there. The wolf slowly lowered isteld and look similar to a crocodile (it's bone structure was a mix of modern whale and prehistoric wolf) and prodominantly remained on land. Soon it's legs shortened, it would have issues on land and could go there but it's small hind legs mean't it was poorly adapted to it now. Then that slowly lost it's back legs and they were replaced with a modern whale tail it kept it's front legs for a while though, most likely to help paddle then they changed to fins like the back legs had and you have the modern whale. Most fossil records have large gaps in them but the whale has a slow smooth evolution similar to human's but more complete.
Optimustoe - July 3, 2006 01:37 PM (GMT)
don't know how much of that I can belive without actually seeing the compleated skeletons... Scientist have this nasty habit of finding one odd deformed bone and running to their computers and trying to find what evelotunary step between 2 animals that it "could" have come from. or taking bones found in similar locations and using them in the same skelatal model when the bones actually came from 2 different animals. Now most of the time this is done by accident but if anyone remembers how many "missing link" fiascos there were they would be sceptical about a claim like that.
Corvid Creeper - July 4, 2006 09:08 AM (GMT)
|Scientist have this nasty habit of finding one odd deformed bone and running to their computers and trying to find what evelotunary step between 2 animals that it "could" have come from.|
Dude you're so far off the mark with that one. When i scientist finds a bone, it's compared to fossil records, if it shares characteristics between two speces then a link is potentially found and moe bones are sought after, no link is made off of one bone. A good example of the process of linking speces is the one between Raptors and Modern birds. The arm joints if the raptors and wing joints of the birds are similar, normally this would be put down are just chance but since the discovery of raptors with feathers the link between the two has become more solid. They do not say they are 100% related they say they may be and search for more evidence, that's the process there is a fair amount of evidence for and against raptors evolving into birds but that's all just theory it won't be fact until a smooth transition between the two is found.
Besides no matter how deformed a bone is it ALWAYS carries characteristics of the speces it came from like similar joint systems. FLorensiensis was claimed to be a midget by many but it had no symptoms of dwarfism, no characristics of midgets or pygmys it had new characteristics that it's very doubtful a disease would cause after all there are so many. Not only is it visible to anyone who studies them that they are a speces of human but if they were effected by a disease the disease would show up either today or around the world not just on that one island. Creationists have claimed that new evolutionary links are deformed people or some unknown ape for years but not a single one of the so called deformed people has any visible signs of any known disease.
|or taking bones found in similar locations and using them in the same skelatal model when the bones actually came from 2 different animals.|
That happens rarely, most of the time it's the same type of animal just different individuals that are linked together, it's very rare that two animals are put together and claimed as the same and when they are they are usually found out about in no time.
|Now most of the time this is done by accident but if anyone remembers how many "missing link" fiascos there were they would be sceptical about a claim like that.|
Most missing link claims are made by the media or people without any real training or experience, most often they jump the gun. I have only read about a few claims one was a guy found a pig's tooth and said he didn't know what it was but it looked human and sent it off then the media said it was a missing link and then the other two were the same skeleton but just claimed to have been found at different times, the first time it was found they proved it wrong, sent the information ot a newspaper to post the real facts but instead the Paper claimed it to be a missing link dispite having the real evidence.