Here is a link to a site which is going to require a lot of faith to ignore its informaation.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

I have the faith!

Sometime read "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. He's an orthodontist with an acute interest in prehistoric man. He did a lot of research on Neanderthal skulls at a couple universities in Europe until they found out he's a creationist and threw him out. He broke into a closed cave in France, the Bernifal cave, and took this photo of a cave drawing. The 2d one is an artists depiction for clarity. The scientific community in France is making sure that this drawing isn't seen by the public. It shows 2 animals that supposedly lived millions of years apart and certainly not in human history.

Evidence of dinosaurs?

More likely evidence of lizards?

Pretending that this is evidence of dinosaurs living with men is like pretending that the many Chinese representation of dragons is proof of their existence in the recent past.

What a joke.

Be careful - the Martians are watching...

Yepper, 32,000 mysteriously intact figurines conveniently located in pits just waiting to be found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac%C3%A1mbaro_figures

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are cited as dubious.... Di Peso observed that the surfaces of the figures were practically brand new and lacked any of the typical features that would be characteristic of pottery having been in the ground for at least 1500 years. For example, he noted that they lacked the surface scratches, marring, and patina that prehistoric pottery acquires in this part of Mexico from lying buried in the rocky soils and middens. Di Peso observed the diggers repeatedly broke many authentic artifacts while digging for the figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any marks of damage.

He also observed that the Ac�mbaro figures were found only in loose, black dirt that filled pits that had been recently dug down into prehistoric midden deposits and underlying sterile red earth and later refilled. The dirt filling these pits contained fragments of fresh manure. He also noted that the figures that he witnessed being dug up were filled with clods of loosely packed dirt that exhibited well-preserved fingerprints....[3

Birdwatcher

Thinking maybe he wasn't thrown out for being a creationist, but rather for being a criminal.

Check out this guys site. I've been there and it's pretty interesting. He has fossils with human footprints over top of dinosaur footprints.


http://www.creationevidence.org/

"Professor David H. Milne of The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington"

That's all I need to call BULLCHIT!

After listening to a lecture by a Ph.D in philosphy I understand there is not enough evbidence to perswade someone from their world view because the very world view tells them what to make of the evidence. Both creationist and evolutionist use the same facts. Never the less....

Here is part of an article by Dr. Carl Werner. He traveled about 100,000 miles making a documentary for T.V.

Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles
�Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.

�Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

�All of today�s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).�

Modern birds
�Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera.�

Mammals
�At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. I don�t know how close these mammals are to the modern forms because I was not able to see most of these, even after going to so many museums.�

Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. � But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing.

�Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;3 almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons."

Yep, that proves it all right.

Wow...

Birdwatcher,

There is something you may or may not have found in your reading. I doubt you would post it, though, because it doesn't fit your preconcieved view.

Some of the potery and figurines were date with thermalunemescents at least three times. The youngest date they could get was 1,500 years old.

If someone is going to make a hoax why would they go to the trouble of making thousands upon thousands?

not even close.....the real looking human footprints were not found intact with the dinosaur trackways and being planted is a more likely....

and the sorta human looking footprints found with actually in the dino trackways are poorly preserved plantigrade therapod tracks, better preserved plantigrade tracks have been found at other trackway sites....

as for the hand print, please look up what a salamander foot looks like and realize there were huge amphibians living in prehistoric times...

as far as the "mumified finger" why is there a mumified finger in a sea deposit that has preserved no other soft tissue in any species? its a limestone deposit, only hard objects like shells, shark teeth and bones are preserved in it.....

I'm voting for Ringman as the craziest [bleep] on this website.

And I mean crazy, like state hospital crazy, not funny crazy...

Can't argue with that kind of hard evidence. Might be a windfall for the Tootise Roll company too. Clearly, dinosaur sculptures made by primitive man were made of Tootsie Rolls. All so scientific. I do love paleodonkeyology and amateur paleodonkeyologists. Impressive work!

I don't know. He's got strong competition coming from Barak, Gus, TRH, and AKRat...

Please tell me you don't home school this stuff to your kids... please?

your making conspiracies where there are none, ive got books on the birds and mammals present alongside dinosaurs.....infact dinosaurs and mammals appeared at roughly the same time in the fossil record, however it was a time in earths history that was lower in oxygen than present and since the diaphragm muscle in mammals was poorly developed the bird like lung set up of dinosaurs proved more efficient and allowed them to dominate....

birds didnt suddenly appear when dinosaurs died out, birds appeared back in the Jurassic and had tens of millions of years of evolution under their belt before the end of the cretaceous......there were very modern birds living by the end of the dinosaurs, same with mammals, some up to the size of a coyote.....

"sigh"...

same source as previous...

Although attempts have been made to date these figures using Thermoluminescence, or TL dating, and the earliest results, done when TL dating was in its infancy, suggested a date around 2500 BCE, later work showed these dates to be artificially old.[8] For example, Gary W. Carriveau and Mark C. Han attempted to date 20 different Ac�mbaro Figures using thermoluminescence dating. They found that the figures had been fired at temperatures between 450�C and 650�C, which contradicted claims that these figures had been fired at temperature too low for them to be accurately dated. However, all of the samples failed the "plateau test," which indicated that dates obtained for the Ac�mbaro Figures using standard high temperature thermoluminescence dating techniques are unreliable and lack any chronological significance.

Based on the degree of signal regeneration found in remeasured samples, they estimated that the figures tested had been fired approximately 30 years prior to 1969.[9]



...and all of these "located" in the same few pits (musta been the central Indian repository for dinosaur images or something), almost like some guy was paying the locals a peso a piece for 'em (which he was).



I'd post credible evidence in a heartbeat.

The Creationist "evidence" for the most part is so flimsy its sort of pathetic, and always initiating with some "Doctor" somebody or other who is obviously spurned by them scheming, evil, Godless scientists....

Someone in these chains of evidence you post is flat out lying to you Ringman. I believe YOU are truthful and sincere, but you are being scammed, to what ends I ain't sure.

Birdwatcher

what creationsts seem to not realize is that we are closer in time to seeing a T-rex than T-rex was to seeing some other dinosaurs......dinosaurs were around for about 180 million years and no species seemed to stick around for more than 2 million years....65 million years seperates us and t-rex.....over 80 million years separates T rex from stegosaurus.....

birds showed up in the fossil record before stegosaurus, that means they had over 80 million years of evolving under their belt before dinosaurs died out....

RM's odds in the KOTY race just gained some traction. The true trolls don't count anyway. Barak and TRH are eligible, as the standard dictates that posters really believe most of the nutty shyt they claim/support/theorize, IMO.

C'mon you guys- 6,000 years is it. It's in the Bible or somewhere.

All this other stuff is just God's Hoax to trick us into using our "free will" to eternally damn our souls.

Unless we repent.

will also add the reason lots of modern sharks and stuff look like species from millions of years ago is they hit apon a body plan that works...evolution is not "the best wins", evolution is the animal that passes on its genes the most win.....there are lots of cases where a physical weakness equals successfully passing on your genes....

sickle cell anemia is a prime example, it leads to a shorter life span on average, but it also means you cant really get malaria which means in certain areas you live long enough to have kids....sickle cell anemia is a definite weakness in an individual but because "healthier" individuals are more likely to die of malaria before having kids the weakness wins in certain areas...

the primitive body plans of sharks and sturgeons and boas survive cause it works and they are able to keep passing on their genes.....that fact is all it takes to keep a body plan going.....and the species living now are not the same species from millions of years ago, although there is a superficial resemblance if you actually read anatomical descriptions there are enough differences to classify them as different species....

Did you boys miss this little embolded animal?

Like the philospher said in his lecture, "A philosophically astute person will not be convinced by mere evidence."

Well that's that, then. I'm corn-vinced. Can't argue with scientific proof!



Geez, I'm hoping someone's been at the sauce a bit...

you do realize "primates" includes more than things like humans and [bleep]......it also includes lil animals like tarsiers that dont even look like monkeys....

I have posted credible evidence in more than a heart beat.

The evlutionist "evidence" for the most part is so flimsy its sort of pathetic, and always initiating with some "Doctor" somebody or other who is obviously spurned by them scheming, evil, Godless scientists....

Someone in these chains of evidence you post is flat out trying to get the Truth out. I believe YOU want to be truthful and sincere, but you are being scammed, to what end I am very sure.

Following is a link to a site about Evlutionist Dr.Javier Cabrea (deceist); a medical doctor who lived in Peru. He beleived Darwin was correct about evolution. At the same time he was convince Darwin didn't have enough info about dinosaurs. In the musium he built he has hundreds of examples of men and dinosaurs living together from several sites.

http://www.labyrinthina.com/cabrera2.htm

lets see, why would there be primates with dinosaur bones? cause there were likely primates with dinosaurs.....lemurs are primates and its generally thought they arose about 75 million years ago......wich means they lived with dinosaurs for 10 million years.....

why is it creationists are the only ones that think birds and mammals werent around with dinosaurs.....all the evolutionists do but creationists say we are hiding the fact the fossils are found together.....seriously WTF? all im saying is modern humans werent there as well as dogs, cats, deer and similar things that have evolved in less than the 65 million years.....there were all kinds of mammals up to about 40 pounds as well as birds of all sizes and shapes living with dinosaurs....

"The Evergreen State College" doe NOT have a reputation for reasonable thought.

for those that believe the story of Noahs flood as written why is there no mention of platypus on the ark when euorpean scientists didnt believe it when they saw the first preserved specimen? how did the llamas get back to South America? Why did animals like plesiosaurs and megladon sharks die? a flood wouldnt have bugged them.....

if you believe dinosaurs and other fossil critters existed none of the stuff works......either the earth is billions of years old and all these critters existed at one time or its 6,000 years old and only the stuff thats alive today have lived and fossils are some sort of trick....you cant have a young earth and fossils....

I mean no disrespect to Ringman, but this is exactly why, say, the Creationist's inroads into Texas public schools' textbooks is so disturbing.

I wonder where all the dinos are hiding right now, because my kid made one of those in 2nd grade. That proves there are dinos around NOW...right?

Everybody believes they have evidence to support their belief system.Even the nuts that believe we come from outer space somewhere.They are all just belief systems,all based on faith,hope or whatever you choose to call it.We have no proof of anything.If you think you have proof you are just enjoying a fantasy.

You can tell Ringman has a ringer when none of the Christian brigade join in.

........and the jury is still out. My bet is that the thunder lizards did indeed die out millions of years before man evolved.

every one knows the earth is only about 400 years old
when the Flying Spagetti Monster created pirates!

http://www.venganza.org/

we still have monitor lizards,
they're just not as common as they were last year.

+1 Look, if evolution is false, the proof that it's false would be very commonly found, i.e., fossil remains of modern mammals in pre-tertiary strata where intrusive burial can be excluded as an explanation. This is an extremely easy standard, since evolution being false would result in these finds all over the planet. Just one case would do it. That not even one of these has been found, however, strongly contradicts Creationism.

Savannah monitors are thriving in South Florida. Tegu lizards as well.

What? You think that JAPAN doesn't bear some of the resposibility for all this?

Here's an inscription off of one of them famous Inca Dinosaur Stones....

....clearly depicting Godzilla wrecking Maccu-Picchu...


(what, you thought just the ravages of TIME ruined that place? That it was abandoned because of DROUGHT? HA!)




Ancient heiroglyphs uncovered with this stone were deciphered to say "Run Kato! Run!" (correctly pronounced with the lips not moving in time to the words).

Scholars are still puzzling over the meaning.....

Birdwatcher

Scientists in any field related to biology, geology, paleontology, can't avoid the evidence for evolution. In fact none of what they observe makes any cohesive sense if evolution isn't a reality. That's how pervasive the evidence for evolution is.

Creationists take everything too literally. Evolutionists get high on their own bullshyt. Neither are right, neither are wrong (to a degree).

Funny how scientists commit intellectual suicide on global warming on a daily basis, yet we think they must be 100% right on evolution. Evolution exists of course, but relying on eggheads in .edu to grasp anything beyond whoring to get their next grant is a stretch.

Sometimes this place is pretty.... ah, interesting. That's the word, interesting. :p

The post about Godzilla and Machu Picchu had me giggling into my coffee. Think I will watch 'Secret of the Incas' tonight in honor of the wrath of Gojira and all the secrets of the past. lol

Will

The most interesting thing to me about this entire topic, is how passionate people are on BOTH sides. It's almost like they feel threatened, personally, if anyone disagrees. I do realize how very important it is to be right on such topics because it will have such a direct impact on the quality of our lives today and tomorrow. (Sarcasm for those of you west of I-5 and east of I-95).
I guess I'm missing the boat on why this is so important to some folks. But that boat seems a little hectic anyway so I'm glad to be walking on by that pier....

I won't be convinced until I see an Aztec Mothra bobblehead.

Well yeah, there is that.

Ica Stones

You nailed it.

Brian.

So in about 20 million years all women will have really big boobs?

Sweeeeeet!!!

Yeah, but they're going to have no hair and heads shaped like big butts.

Interesting that the theropod's posture, illustrated above, is positioned exactly as paleontologists believed correct from a little over a century ago till about the 1960s, whereas more recent discoveries revealed that the posture of such creatures was nearly parallel to the ground, hind legs perpendicular to the spine, tail straight back following the back line, rather than a straight up posture with the tail dragging on the ground as a sort of weight support. The artist more likely saw an illustration dating between just before the turn of the Twentieth Century till about 1970.



vs

Why is the assumption necessarily that people were around millions of years ago? It could be that dinosaurs were around much more recently than we think. It doesn't mean that they weren't around millions of years ago either, it just means that some of them, at least survived whatever catostraphic event killed most of them and made to more modern times.

Relatively young fossils are very rare and surviving dinosaurs may have been rarer yet in most locations.

But, in any case, there are a surprising number of accounts from ancient and midieval times of "dragons" as they were called. Some of them are quite detailed and describe things like headcrests and the like. Herodotus, known for is accuracy, goes into great length describing the flying serpents present in great numbers in Egypt. There are numerous accounts of dragons in Wales that are not fanciful at all in nature, but detailed and matter of fact. With details such as, "Farmer John set his mastiffs on the beast and it gulped them down..." and so on and so on.

We don't need to go there, as we're speaking of a strata of earth, i.e., pre-tertiary.

TRH you're missing the more fundamental point. That image is proof that theropods lived in Japan up until at least 2000.

that or archeologists are going to be wondering why most of the women from the 2000 AD era had two water filled globes on their skeleton at burial

Sure its true, haven't you ever seen the Movie BC???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RigZ-c7tqY4

actually i dont doubt there is something to some of the dragon stories.....i just dont think they are dinosaurs, least not in the sense your thinking....your right that the younger fossils get the rarer they get but the problem is there are tens of millions of years where you dont find any dinosaur fossils what so ever....if some survived somewhere they should show up in the fossil record somewhere in the last 65 million years....

modern humans arent as removed from prehistoric beasts as we sometimes think......there were likely still mammoths when the pyramids were being built.....there is some circumstantial evidence that a small population of elasmotherium was around when the Romans were concuring Europe and ran into them in the Balkans and are the actual source for the unicorn myth....

elasmotherium:


modern humans faced 20 foot monitor lizards in Southeast Asia and Australia.....i would put money on giant ground sloths surviving into the last few centuries and possibly still alive in the Amazon basin.....

TRH is right that stance does not work for therapods.....does however work for a critter that i do believe was alive and possibly still is in isolated parts of the Amazon cause the stories are so close to the animal its scary:

That can easily be explained if the artist was drunk, or stoned.

I have, myself, seen giant lizards with whirly designs on them. Thankfully, not for a long, long time, though.

Yeah, but if they numbered only in the thousands or tens of thousands as opposed to millions, that might not be necessarily so. And of course, there could be literally thousands of fossils waiting to be discovered right now, that simply haven't been.

true, but i still think its highly unlikely that the dragons in myth are dinosaurs......however i think its probably likely there is some critter we havent figured out yet that may be the source.....

That's more cultural selection than enviornmental selection,So it will happen much,much quicker.

Really? So art found in burial mounds from a people that Archaeologists say lived there from 100-800 AD, traveled in time forward to 1899 just to draw Godzilla?

I finally found the courage to wade through this thread today and found about what I expected to see.

You don't have to believe in evolution if you don't want to. The process will continue to determine the diversity and abundance of species inhabiting the earth. There is nothing that you can do to change that. You can also be a Christian and recognize that evolution is the process by which species (including ours) evolve, prosper, persist or die out.

You don't have to believe in climate change either, regardless of what is causing it. It is happening and will continue until a new equilibrium is reached. You can argue that the human impact is not a major driver, but no other species has ever had the ability to impact natural ecological systems in the ways that humans have. As I have paraphrased before, natural systems are not only more complex than we think, but are more complex than we can think.

Personal beliefs have nothing to do with the progression of either of these processes. Trying to understand what actually drives them is an intellectual pursuit that we hope will help us understand where and how we fit into the world in which we live. Our religious beliefs are part of the process of understanding how we should relate to other human beings. There is no reason that they have to be mutually exclusive.

Man is still existing with the prehistoric.

http://listverse.com/2010/05/14/top-10-prehistoric-fish-alive-today/

The_Real_Hawkeye



Again you are being guided by your presupossion. Why do you think I beleive the dinosaurs and men lived millions of years ago? I don't! As much as you are convinced you are correct, I am convinced I am correct. You have to constantly appeal to something to rescue your theory. I don't. Consider the following.

http://byerly.org/whatifo.htm

All this conversation goes nowhere until we recognize we have the same evidence and look at it from different perspectives. There are thousands of Ph.D scientists who are evolutionist and don't accept the Big Bang. There are thousands of Ph.D scientists who try to reconcile the Bible with evolution. And there are thousands of Ph.D scientist who accept the Bible as God's Word and beleive the entire unverse to be about 6,000 years old. All have the same evidence.

Yeah, like footprints of humans on top of footprints of dinos. Some of us don't consider that "evidence" however. Just fakery.




You keep saying this, but I can't seem to find any of them. But then I don't know that many mail-order PhD "scientists" either...

Oh Hell yeah......

When I was a teenager (middle 1970s), I was staying at my grandparent's house in Southern Virginia. They were both strict, old fashioned, Southern Baptists. I was sitting on the floor watching that movie when my grandmother came out of the kitchen to see what I was watching, and seeing the cavemen with long hair and beards, etc., she exclaimed, "I just despise people who dress and wear their hair like that." All she saw were a bunch of hippies on the screen.

I believe Darwin was told by natives, while visiting the Galapagos Islands, that giant tree sloths were occasionally seen in the mainland jungles.

There you go.

I'm saying it's either a fake or an illustration of something other than a dinosaur, since dinosaurs became extinct long before man came on the scene.

if things that sort of look like dinosaurs on various pots and such are absolute proof dinos existed with man, WTF kinda critter was this drawn on a cave wall in France?

Rudolf! of course... They just didn't have any red pigment handy for the nose.

Ringman,
Please try using spell check occasionally, OK?

That is obviously a chickenbuck. Just ask Northern Dave.

I have had an enormously enjoyable time reading this thread! This is why I love the 24HCF.

What a bunch of maroons!

Ah ha..... so the Godzilla painting is obviously a fake because the posture is off, but y'all will claim it's really some overgrown Bear sloth which looks nothing like the Godzilla painting.

You boys would make good Climatologists.

http://www.mask-and-more-masks.com/images/Shaman%203.png
The image link reproduced above says "shaman"; it does not suggest any animal of any sort, but leads to consider a "which doctor mask".

Was that really seen on a French cave???

Which French cave and source please?

Trois Freres Caves in France, the painting is about 2 and a half feet tall.....my point is man has drawn all kinds of chit on cave walls and pottery that has lil bearing on real creatures....

Most of it was drawn after they ate a few magic mushrooms and other poisonous flora.

difference being giant sloths did live in South America and humans did interact with them before going extinct......if humans had really seen a dinosaur dont yah think they woulda got alot closer to getting it correct.....

Not if they were doing art and crafts in kindergarten.

I agree with your point; this was also the meaning of my earlier remark on dragons in Chinese art: it is not a proof that dragons existed and even less so that men and dragons lived at the same time.

This issue you see Foxbat... is that the CURRENT scientific school of thought is always the correct one. The fresher the better.

Thanks for the belly laugh, Mike.

Just for arguments sake, what area in the world would have been the most likely place for dinosaurs to have existed beyond the time period generally accepted?

Or put another way, what area in the Western hemisphere was least effected by the Ice Age, along with being remote and tropical enough to support dinosaurs, if a few species were to have existed beyond their assumed time?

Brazil? Columbia.... Peru?

Are there any anti-evolutionists on this forum who are not Christians?

The reason I ask is that I've been challenged the odd time by parents about the material we cover in the Geography 12 and Earth Science 11 courses that I teach.

I have been asked why I don't teach the "Creationist" theory. I always reply that that is because it a purely religious belief.

The Canadian text books that I use in SS 8 and 9 show that the "creation stories" are totally different for groups we study in Grade 8 and 9 - groups that include the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, the Romans, the Vikings, the Inuit, the Haida, the Blackfoot, the Algonquin and the Iroquois. Each culture has a totally different creation story.

Every time I ask if these are the creation stories they would like me to teach in my classes - the answer is always the same. It's only the Christian creation story that they wish to be taught - alongside of evolution. Not the other ones. No one has ever asked that I teach non-Christian creation stories - ever.

The amount of science that would have to be totally thrown out and discarded - for a young-earth theory and to discount evolution - would encompass hundreds (or perhaps even thousands) of totally unrelated scientific studies - all of which would have to be founded on lies or deception. Undiscovered by the great majority of scientific minds.

I'll let the anti-evolution people to figure out how likely that is.

Actually - it doesn't matter. Anti-evolution people and young-earth proponents are virtually all anti-science to begin with. Facts don't matter to them. Rather than believe thousands of scientists in hundreds of different fields - they'll believe the very few - who (without exception) that have no credibility in their field.

They are the kind of people who - when they hear hoofbeats approaching - think of unicorns - rather than horses.

I've often wondered who timed the clock (carbon dating,et al), and who double checked it for accuracy - who has been here long enough to do that comparison? Many claim carbon dating as "gospel"!
Mark

Ouch! that might leave a mark.

what i want to know is did Adam and Eve each have a belly-button or not? it's ok either way, i just want to know.

carbon 14 dating is useful for archeology, but not for studying things so old they're measured in the geological time frame.

They did a bang up job on getting this one correct. If you look at photos of cave art, none of it is even remotely close to correct.

difference being giant sloths did live in South America and humans did interact with them before going extinct......if humans had really seen a dinosaur dont yah think they woulda got alot closer to getting it correct..... [/quote] They did a bang up job on getting this one correct. If you look at photos of cave art, none of it is even remotely close to correct.

[/quote]

that image has a belly button. that must prove someone in her past is a mother, right?

Adam likely did, but Eve probably didn't, since she was cloned from Adam's rib. Adam, I believe, was the son of a physically modern human mother and father (born approximately 40,000 years ago), but was of an animal nature like his parents (who were of a kind of human hardly different in behavior from homo erectus). God breathed an immortal soul (supernatural life) into him, making him truly human (possessed, as it were, of the divine spark), i.e., he was the first Cro-Magnon Man, from whom all modern humans (the folks responsible for the elaborate cave paintings) descended. God then placed him in the Garden of Edan with, eventually, Eve. The genetic line from which Adam descended (along with Neanderthal) was eventually (over perhaps tens of thousands of years) wiped out by his descendants, either by being out-competed for limited resources, or killed outright when they came into contact.

It's possible that Cain married a member of the race from which his father descended, i.e., physically modern humans, absent an immortal soul, i.e., essentially animalistic. Whether Cain's descendants died off like those from whom Adam descended is unclear. Perhaps, through Cain, they inherited the character of possessing an immortal soul making them, like us, fully human, later to intermarry with the remainder of humanity. It's also possible, of course (considering the extended life span of Adam, Eve, and their early descendants), that Cain married one of his nieces before departing with her for the land of Nod, where he "knew" her, producing his own descendants, equally possessed of the character of having an immortal soul.

Carbon 14 is good to about 40,000 years, so they say. Past that, I think the most accurate is potassium - argon. As the potassium degrades, it changes to argon gas....I assume they are extrapolating observed short term data to arrive at the conclusion that it is constant. I'm not smart enough to know whether that is true or not.

well, that clears up a lot of the fine details. now if we can just get that information into the hands of the right folks, this debate might go on for another 200 years at least.

this God fellow you speak of, is he still around, or has he ventured to other parts of the Cosmos for both profit, and gain?

It just gets better and better! I would be interested to know which theological genius formulated this explanation.

I take full credit for it. It's not theological, really. It's an effort to align the current state of scientific knowledge with what I believe on faith to be true from Scripture. It doesn't bind anyone in faith to accept it. It might be helpful in my further development of it if you were to challenge portions of your choosing, either on a scientific or Scriptural basis or any combination thereof.

Without getting too bogged down in this: The creation story in the King James bible (which is mirrored more or less closely in other translations) is generally agreed by theologians to be more about the origin and nature of sin than about the nuts and bolts of how humans came to be. Conflicting accounts in the earliest Hebrew suggest that Adam was created and then Eve (in one version from Adam's rib, another version from Adam's bone and flesh) or that they were created simultaneously. It's hard to know, because we don't know exactly how some of these pronouns were perceived by the people who wrote the accounts nor by the people for whom they were intended. If there were Cro-Magnons or other prehumans in existence, the scriptures fail to mention them.

We know from both the archeological record and recent genetic discoveries that the line of the genus Homo which became Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals diverged from the line from which modern humans descended around 600,000 years before present time (bp).

The first overlap between these lines occurred 100,000 to 60,000 years bp in the Middle East, not in Europe as many had supposed. The first modern humans appeared in the Middle East approximately 100,000 years bp and were apparently coexistent with at least some Neanderthal ancestors. This is when the first mating of modern humans and Neanderthals occurred, based primarily on genetic analyses, but buttressed somewhat by the archeological evidence, as well. Again, the fossil and archeological record cannot give us a precise date for the emergence of modern humans. We just know where they lived at the points in time for which we have evidence.

The next time that we know that they lived side by side was in Europe where they lived 44,000 to 30,000 years bp, at which time the Neanderthal line disappeared from the archeological record. Recent genetic research suggests that as much as one to four percent of our modern human genome consists of Neanderthal DNA. Some archeologists believe that these estimates are too low and that as much as ten percent of our genome may have originated in the Neanderthal line. This record is not so neat as to support the hypothesis that you proposed.

Your attempt to reconcile biblical accounts with the archeological data reminds me of my high school biology teacher who was a devout Southern Baptist. Biologists had just discovered parthenogenesis in some lines of amphibians and hypothesized that it could be found in reptiles and mammals, as well. Mr. Robbins advanced parthenogenesis as a possible means of explaining the Virgin Birth. The only problem with his hypothesis is that parthenogenesis produces females, not males.

If you really believe, you just have to believe. There is no need to rationalize or try to prove your faith based on the meager facts that we think that we know to those who choose not to believe.

a carnivorous therapod the size of whats depicted on the pot? nowhere.....there is not the large herbivore population required to keep them going.....besides the fossil record in South America post-Cretaceous is actually pretty good and no dinosaurs show up......giant 10 foot tall predatory birds show up from 62 through 1.5 million years ago, running crocs show up, sabortooth cat looking possums show up but no dinosaurs earlier than 65 million years ago....

what also shows up in Peru is mummified skin from giant sloths in Peru which look an awful lot like the critter on the pot.....we know they were there for sure 10,000 years ago.....and the descriptions of a large weird creature encountered in various regions of the Amazon fits these creatures to the letter including bony plates in the skin....

??? "Paleontologists"? Which ones?

Long as I can recall (back to the '60's) folks have been speculating on colors and calls forever.

Anyhoo, google-fu continues, see....

http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/swift.htm

TRH, I like it too.

It's not a matter of rationalizing. Merely aligning the current state of scientific knowledge with the Biblical account. Errors in this regard are unimportant. It's pure speculation, and can be modified at will. I certainly agree that the Bible was never intended to provide any detail on matters so unimportant to essential religious truth.

You obviously haven't read the scriptures and therefore are speaking of that which you do not know.

Then again, this is the Internet.

Carry on....

This one disturbs me

I don't think its been mentioned, but advances in the knowledge of DNA all support Evolution. In many instances, science is having to look again at the fine detail because of what DNA is turning up, but it still supports evolution..

That's putting it very mildly indeed.

Of animals. Not people.

They try to say Lucy is the missing link, or this one is the missing link!

Fact is, it has never been found, when tons of other fossilized animal remains have been discovered that correspond to the time period in which scientists claim we changed from monkey to man.

However, if you look at Iran's President it is hard to deny that he is not descended from some type of ape.




JM

hate to be the one to tell you JM, but people are 'animals' too. Hard for some to accept, but THAT is not theory, but fact.

My post points out the lack of evidence supporting human evolution.

Stating the obvious doesn't change that.

I hard ever tread in these muddy waters JM, but "lack of evidence".......???

Dooooooood...they just don't teach it in the schools down there.....



Where exactly do you think us heathens came from???

Most of the carbon in the air is C12 but there is a small percentage of the C14 isotope. After the organism dies and quits taking in air, the C14 will slowly deteriorate back to C12. Carbon dating is based on measuring the percentage of C14 in the organism and comparing it to the known rate of decay. Good idea but there's a fallacy in the process. It's assumed that the level of C14 has always been the same but that's not known. The industrial revolution dumped huge amounts of pollutants into the air so the level of C14 today could be vastly different than the level before, say, 1500AD.

The whole concept of a "missing link" is archaic, and stems from misunderstanding, as if there was a direct line from, say, [bleep] to modern man. There were all sorts of distant and proximate dead ends along the way from our common ancestor with [bleep], branching off from that line, producing all sorts of close cousins now extinct, while not being in direct line of descent. There is no doubt whatsoever that there existed a species of ape (Australopithecus) that possessed the unique adaptation of routinely walking on two hind legs (this is determined conclusively by where the spinal column connected to the skull), starting about six million years ago. He was little different, other than that unique characteristic, from his close cousin, modern [bleep]. There is also no doubt that, as zoological classifications go, we also are a species of ape that walks on two legs. Apes walking on two legs is sufficiently rare to conclude that we are descended from Australopithecus. From Australopithecus to us (over millions of years) are found various approximations to us from Australopithecus, with increasingly expanding cranial capacities as they approach more recent times, also upright walking apes, zoologically speaking.

Notice, from the above two faces, the only truly significant differences are 1) nose shape, and 2) cranial size. That characteristically human nose shape is an adaptation to living in colder climates. Only the most intelligent of apes (later hominid variants) could adapt to such climates, after which nature selected out the flat ape-normal nose style in favor of the protruding kind for the purpose of creating an air warming chamber. Those humans who returned to the region where our early ancestors originated, soon lost a good bit of this nasal characteristic, returning to a shape somewhere in between, as cold weather adaptations were useless to them. Skin, too, returned to the more characteristic color, as light colored skin was also a useless cold weather (low light) adaptation if you live anywhere near the Congo line.

That's why they verify their findings by testing objects of known age predating 1500 AD.

yelp. the author Desmond Morris has long held the Naked Ape view of things.

i'm beginning to like the basic tenant of philosophy more and more, and that is: we don't know where we are, we don't know where we've been, and most certainly we don't know where we are going.

BINGO!

If "Christians" could grasp that simple concept they would be far better off. Alas, so many have a 'house of cards' faith that requires a literal word-for-word 'inspired' and 'infallible' reading of the Bible. Theerefore, they cannot allow for a single 'error' (read: interpretation other than what they've been taught) or else the whole house comes tumbling down. In a bizarre form of 'idolatry' they have made the Bible (as it has been taught to them) to be their god.

On the dinosaur discussion it is clear to me that nature produced a "super predator" that was responsible for the demise of the dinos. It had the power and ferocity of the thunder lizards themselves with the intelligence and posture of a man. It was called the ... Gorn. And it ruled supreme until defeated by the next supreme being on the food chain called the Shatner. (If you don't believe me Google it.)

FYI, giant sloths DO still exist--have you been to a Walmart recently?

Man that is crazy as crazy gets.

One of my favorite Star Trek episodes. And, no, I didn't need to Google it. I must have seen each episode fifty time since they first aired. I can say their lines before they do.