Creationists

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by selig

I believe this is called shifting the goalposts.

You said the clue was in it's name need a better clue

[selig]

Originally Posted by cwl3

You said the clue was in it's name need a better clue

I'm not surprised, based on your inability to write coherent sentences.

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by selig

I'm not surprised, based on your inability to write coherent sentences.

Haha insults are the way of the scientist

[m6000000]

Originally Posted by cwl3

Could be gods not God, so a higher force maybe not too bad a linguistic

If there was more than one, then we would not have seen this perfect creation.

[cwl3]

Originally Posted by m6000000

If there was more than one, then we would not have seen this perfect creation.

I'm not saying there is more than one, but your statement doesn't make sense.

[extremecheese]

Originally Posted by hhelmsley

I'd be happy to change my mind if I saw any evidence. That is the difference between us. Evidence means nothing to you. As illustrated by your comments on the big bang and age of the universe.

If you believe that there is evidence that proves the world is billions of years old then you are easily fooled I'm afraid.
There is no evidence one way or another - you only have assumptions!
If you think a bunch of fossils proves anyting other than something died, then you've instantly shown me your faith.
If you believe any kind of dating such as radiometric or carbon, then all you are showing me is a faith that everything in this world has been always been constant.
There is no evidence, only assumptions based upon the known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years I'm afraid.

[m6000000]

Originally Posted by cwl3

I'm not saying there is more than one, but your statement doesn't make sense.

Thanks for letting me know that.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by extremecheese

If you believe that there is evidence that proves the world is billions of years old then you are easily fooled I'm afraid.
There is no evidence one way or another - you only have assumptions!
If you think a bunch of fossils proves anyting other than something died, then you've instantly shown me your faith.
If you believe any kind of dating such as radiometric or carbon, then all you are showing me is a faith that everything in this world has been always been constant.
There is no evidence, only assumptions based upon the known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years I'm afraid.

science is observation, but there is a translation process that happens from phenomenon to observer/tester. we interpret what we see. it is possible that a particular understanding of a phenomenon can be completely logical but still incorrect.

for instance, everyday that I wake up the sun rises. I conclude that the sun rises because I wake up.

it's funny to me that this is a conspiracy forum but we are expected to accept science at it's word, always. what a joke.

[johnfb]

Originally Posted by extremecheese

If you believe that there is evidence that proves the world is billions of years old then you are easily fooled I'm afraid.
There is no evidence one way or another - you only have assumptions!
If you think a bunch of fossils proves anyting other than something died, then you've instantly shown me your faith.
If you believe any kind of dating such as radiometric or carbon, then all you are showing me is a faith that everything in this world has been always been constant.
There is no evidence, only assumptions based upon the known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years I'm afraid.

6000 only...according to you...excluding the Chinese of course....



Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[30] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[31]

Modern humans spread rapidly from Africa into the frost-free zones of Europe and Asia around 60,000 years ago[32]. The rapid expansion of humankind to North America and Oceania took place at the climax of the most recent Ice Age, when temperate regions of today were extremely inhospitable. Yet, humans had colonised nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe by the end of the Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago. Other hominids such as Homo erectus had been using simple wood and stone tools for millennia, but as time progressed, tools became far more refined and complex. At some point, humans began using fire for heat and cooking. They also developed language in the Palaeolithic period and a conceptual repertoire that included systematic burial of the dead and adornment of the living. Early artistic expression can be found in the form of cave paintings and sculptures made from wood and bone. During this period, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, and were generally nomadic; this means they hunted and foraged for food, and moved constantly from place to place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d#Early_humans


.

[night_gaunt]

Actually new evidence suggests we originated in Asia

[hhelmsley]

Originally Posted by extremecheese

If you believe that there is evidence that proves the world is billions of years old then you are easily fooled I'm afraid.
There is no evidence one way or another - you only have assumptions!
If you think a bunch of fossils proves anyting other than something died, then you've instantly shown me your faith.
If you believe any kind of dating such as radiometric or carbon, then all you are showing me is a faith that everything in this world has been always been constant.
There is no evidence, only assumptions based upon the known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years I'm afraid.

Again, all that needs to be done is to underline this post.

You are merely reinforcing my point - evidence means nothing to you.

Millions upon millions of verifiable facts, independently investigated within a wide range of different disciplines, all converging on a common and uncannily similar conclusion. This means nothing to you.

Such is the power of faith.

Though I still can't fathom why the evidence scares you so much. Your faith wouldn't be worth anything at all if the evidence actually supported your position. Faith would be unnecessary.

You should be embracing all this evidence to the contrary, admit that it goes against everything you believe, yet be proud and humble enough to affirm your faith anyway.

But there you go, it betrays a deep and and kind of guilty doubt on your behalf, this desperation to harmonise your faith with the scientific evidence.

If you honestly believed the evidence supported your position, you wouldn't need any faith at a all.

So, ironically, not only does evidence mean nothing to you, but you are also undermining what it is to have faith.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by night_gaunt

Actually new evidence suggests we originated in Asia

wanna share it?

[night_gaunt]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

wanna share it?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...migration.html

[selig]

Originally Posted by johnfb

6000 only...according to you...excluding the Chinese of course....



Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[30] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[31]

Modern humans spread rapidly from Africa into the frost-free zones of Europe and Asia around 60,000 years ago[32]. The rapid expansion of humankind to North America and Oceania took place at the climax of the most recent Ice Age, when temperate regions of today were extremely inhospitable. Yet, humans had colonised nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe by the end of the Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago. Other hominids such as Homo erectus had been using simple wood and stone tools for millennia, but as time progressed, tools became far more refined and complex. At some point, humans began using fire for heat and cooking. They also developed language in the Palaeolithic period and a conceptual repertoire that included systematic burial of the dead and adornment of the living. Early artistic expression can be found in the form of cave paintings and sculptures made from wood and bone. During this period, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, and were generally nomadic; this means they hunted and foraged for food, and moved constantly from place to place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d#Early_humans


.

These are assumptions, not known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years; to around the time the bible was starting to be written...

Glad to have cleared that up.

[hhelmsley]

Originally Posted by selig

These are assumptions, not known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years; to around the time the bible was starting to be written...

Glad to have cleared that up.

They are assumptions based on facts, arrived at by means of a robust and repeatable method which just happens to reliably produce accurate and predictive models of how the world is.

We also assume that the quadratic equation will work every time it is employed, we don't know for sure. The assumption is based on facts, which are actually dwarfed by the sheer quality and quantity of independent evidence gathered across different disciplines which all, when the scientific method is applied, just happen to point at a common and converging answer for questions regarding age of the earth and common ancestry.

Can we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that these conclusions of what was happening millions of years ago are true? No, but only in the same sense that we don't know that numbers always behaved the same in the past. Perhaps numbers somehow responded differently to calculations and it was not possible to calculate the area of a square some millions of years ago.

This is the reality of denying the scientific method which shows the old earth/common ancestry model to be the correct one. To deny this is to deny the first basic assumption that one must make, that being, the universe exists and we can learn something about it. Now you are free to do so but then I don't understand where you have anything to say about any scientific process whether you agree with the conclusions or not.

[passerbye999]

Originally Posted by hhelmsley

They are assumptions based on facts, arrived at by means of a robust and repeatable method which just happens to reliably produce accurate and predictive models of how the world is.

We also assume that the quadratic equation will work every time it is employed, we don't know for sure. The assumption is based on facts, which are actually dwarfed by the sheer quality and quantity of independent evidence gathered across different disciplines which all, when the scientific method is applied, just happen to point at a common and converging answer for questions regarding age of the earth and common ancestry.

Can we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that these conclusions of what was happening millions of years ago are true? No, but only in the same sense that we don't know that numbers always behaved the same in the past. Perhaps numbers somehow responded differently to calculations and it was not possible to calculate the area of a square some millions of years ago.

This is the reality of denying the scientific method which shows the old earth/common ancestry model to be the correct one. To deny this is to deny the first basic assumption that one must make, that being, the universe exists and we can learn something about it. Now you are free to do so but then I don't understand where you have anything to say about any scientific process whether you agree with the conclusions or not.

I totally agree with you on this subject. I studied intensivly the developement of the moern Homo Sapien, Homo Sapian Sapian and our indirect cousins. Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man etc. It is quite facinating and it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the X chromosome came from Africa the Primordial Eve. So the Y chromosone developed there as well Primordial Adam.

This is based obviously on DNA analysis. Like you said many feilds of science contributed to make this assumption. Until it can be proven otherwise we are all out of Africa.

[johnfb]

Originally Posted by selig

These are assumptions, not known facts, and the known facts only go back several thousand years; to around the time the bible was starting to be written...

Glad to have cleared that up.

[extremecheese]

Originally Posted by johnfb

6000 only...according to you...excluding the Chinese of course....

From where I"m sitting I see no evidence of this - and what with me sitting in China, I happen to have an advantage over you!

Originally Posted by johnfb

Genetic measurements indicate that the ape lineage which would lead to Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that would lead to chimpanzees (the closest living relative of modern humans) around five million years ago.[30] It is thought that the Australopithecine genus, which were likely the first apes to walk upright, eventually gave rise to genus Homo. Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.[31]

Modern humans spread rapidly from Africa into the frost-free zones of Europe and Asia around 60,000 years ago[32]. The rapid expansion of humankind to North America and Oceania took place at the climax of the most recent Ice Age, when temperate regions of today were extremely inhospitable. Yet, humans had colonised nearly all the ice-free parts of the globe by the end of the Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago. Other hominids such as Homo erectus had been using simple wood and stone tools for millennia, but as time progressed, tools became far more refined and complex. At some point, humans began using fire for heat and cooking. They also developed language in the Palaeolithic period and a conceptual repertoire that included systematic burial of the dead and adornment of the living. Early artistic expression can be found in the form of cave paintings and sculptures made from wood and bone. During this period, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, and were generally nomadic; this means they hunted and foraged for food, and moved constantly from place to place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d#Early_humans


.

You believe this?
Can you give me some evidence please?
I see statements there, but not backed up by real testable evidence - for starters would you like to explain what DNA hybridization is? and why it's not trustable?

[extremecheese]

Originally Posted by night_gaunt

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...migration.html

I beg of you, please put on the same attitude towards this document as you put on when reading any other sort of news.
Look at the figures they are plucking from the sky! "1.75 million-year-old small-brained early-human fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia" - my bottom!
My wife has a very small brain - (evident by her skull size) but she's far more intelligent than me!
Youre being fooled, look at your hand, examine it's workings, move it, and wonder at it. It's plain to see it has a designer - are we really that far along the line that we believe that we made ourselves?
Here's Psalm 100 (KJV)

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

[johnfb]

Originally Posted by extremecheese

From where I"m sitting I see no evidence of this - and what with me sitting in China, I happen to have an advantage over you!



You believe this?
Can you give me some evidence please?
I see statements there, but not backed up by real testable evidence - for starters would you like to explain what DNA hybridization is? and why it's not trustable?

All the info is in the link left in my post....contact the scientists if you need further data....