Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[sayak83]

Really ? There are many physiological, identifiable differences between reptiles and mammals. These are perfectly clear. A mammal that fills a niche that may look like a reptile can be readily identified as a mammal by these differences.

No they are not. Monotremes lay eggs, have gait like reptiles and have a single outlet for excretion like reptiles while they have the three boned ear, have hair and produce milk like mammals. Warm bloodedness is shared by birds as well and is not a distinctive feature of mammals, neither is delivering live young.. as a significant fraction of lizards, snakes and fish do that as well.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you a person who is interested in discovery truths about the world we live in?

When was the last time you saw a creationist here who was?

@shmogie is just doing what all the others have done (as I described in my other thread)......arguing that unless evolutionary transitions are 100% fully demonstrated in the fossil record, then they are nothing but pure speculation. It's a pretty ridiculous argument, but then that's creationism.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, the spiny echidna and platypus lay eggs. Rattlesnakes give live birth, nevertheless, they are still easily classified as reptile and mammal. They aren't "transitional", they are species that have a particular reproductive mechanism for a particular reason. Now, if you could show a clear chain of slow physiological change from a specific reptile through many generations where these physiological features change, you would have something.

No, they are not easily classified as such. You are simply familiar with the classification, that is all.

 

[Polymath257]

Neither. I decide what has meaning for me, no one else

And you have questions that don't assume any type of answer?

For example: what is the meaning of life? That is a question that *assumes* that there is such a meaning.

 

[Polymath257]

Really ? There are many physiological, identifiable differences between reptiles and mammals. These are perfectly clear. A mammal that fills a niche that may look like a reptile can be readily identified as a mammal by these differences.

And those difference grade into one side or the other, especially when we look at the fossil record. The line is not clean and distinct. It is broad and fuzzy.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, the spiny echidna and platypus lay eggs. Rattlesnakes give live birth, nevertheless, they are still easily classified as reptile and mammal. They aren't "transitional", they are species that have a particular reproductive mechanism for a particular reason. Now, if you could show a clear chain of slow physiological change from a specific reptile through many generations where these physiological features change, you would have something.

So you need every generation to be convinced? Really?

We *have* a clear chain of fossils showing, for example, the transition between the bones in the jaw and the same bones being in the middle ear.

Since physiology doesn't fossilize, we often don't know the specifics of physiology for extinct species. Is that required to know there is a transition?

 

[leibowde84]

It depends upon the nature and the quality of the evidence. Ultimately the evidence must be judged by a jury of one. In that capacity the evidence of everything coming from nothing as a natural phenomena fails, just as life coming from non living chemicals fails, just as the Darwinian chain of life, fails, for me. To quote the great mythical Sherlock Holmes " when you have eliminated all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how impossible, is the answer"

But, you aren't following the advice from Holmes. You haven't come close to exhausting all of the possibilities, and neither has anyone else on the face of the earth. That is simply because we haven't come close to discovering all of the plausible explanations. Science is still in its relative infant stage. It hasn't been around for that long. It's limits aren't known and, most likely, will never be known.

What you are using here is the God of the gaps logical fallacy (or an "argument from ignorance"). It not logically consistent to contend that God is responsible for something simply because no other explanation makes sense to you. Without direct evidence showing that God created the universe, you don't have any evidence at all that it actually happened that way.

For example:
1. Evolution not making sense to you in no way provides evidence for creationism.
2. The lack of human understanding when it comes to life coming from non-life does not in any way evidence creationism.
3. The current lack of scientific understanding when it comes to everything coming from nothing naturally does not in any way evidence creationism or even the existence of God.

In short, you seem to incorrectly think that poking holes in things like evolution somehow magically provides evidence for creationism. That is a clear example of you falling for the logical fallacy of an "argument from ignorance" or "god of the gaps". We've come a long way since arguments like that held any weight. No lack of human scientific understanding produces any evidence for God. Actually, the lack of evidence for anything in no way evidences anything else.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, in Noah's day the bible records trees growing in weeks, and man living 1000 years. I assume the nature and laws at the time were different It is not like that today! In THAT time, evolution had to be rapid also, because we know about when the flood was, and all species had to come from the kinds on the ark! So evolving was rapid in that day also. There is reason to suspect that man could not slowly decay away after death and leave fossil remains either. From dust..to dust we went at that time probably. No fossils expected from man. Not till later, when THIS state or nature started. So the fossils we do see are only from that time.

The millions of years claim is also based on believing that the same laws always applied, such as radioactive decay. If there was none in the former state, then the ratios of isotopes we see now were NOT caused by radioactive decay! (except the bit that did come from decay in the last 4300 years since this state started.)

You are trying to force what we know into what you believe. All that exist of the flood is a claim. The same is true of magical growth and great age in people. There is no evidence for any of this. We do have remains of humans going back 200,000 years and many more that are much more recent. You can assume all you wish, but that is not evidence. It is trying to put 10 lbs in a 5 lb sack.

Based on the Bible and dates that have been extrapolated from the Bible, the flood is supposed to have occurred approximately 4300 years ago. We have human remains from before and after that time. There are continuous cultures that existed before, through that time and beyond. None of the evidence that exists makes any sense if there were a global flood anytime in the last 10,000 years and the evidence indicates nothing like it in nearly 20,000,000 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It also contradicts biblical creationism. The prints are clearly not the same as those modern man would leave. There is no place in the Genesis creation story for an almost-man who was an ancestor that has now evolved into modern man, or was a cousin on a branch whose line went extinct without leaving descendants. That's what evolution predicts that we should find, and something that biblical creationism has no place for.

I agree with you. The only supporting evidence for biblical creation is the Bible and so far, all the evidence contradicts it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice to see you on the threads again, Dan.

Although you might be correct, I's like to offer a different speculation regarding the origin of the flood story. Remember, it refers to the submerging of all land, not just widespread flooding. I don't think such a thing was likely ever witnessed - no dry ground anywhere. I've long suspected that it was the discovery of marine fossils - shells, body impressions - on mountaintops made from upthrusting of former ocean floors.

How would you account for that without the benefit of the modern understanding of orogeny? I'm sure that I would have agreed that those finding meant that the water had once risen to exceed the height of those mountains.

It's good to see you too. This is a much nicer place than where I used to hang out.

That's an interesting idea. I am used to it being thrown out as evidence for the flood, but I hadn't consider it as a source for the origin of the flood. It does make sense. People are always putting what they find in the context of what they believe. That is going on right here on this thread and in this forum. Lacking any sound knowledge of the world around them at the time, it would seem to be the simplest explanation for marine fossils on mountains.

 

[metis]

Perfect equivalency. It doesn't make one whit of difference about method. You believe something WILL answer questions that HAVE NOT been answered. That is simple faith. You put faith in your method, I do not.

I didn't say it "WILL" as I said I "hope", so there's your first mistake.

As to the issue of the "method", it has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that it works if used correctly, but the same cannot be said about finding any evidence that there's a god or gods.

BTW, you never answered my question, namely can you provide one shred of objectively-derived evidence that there's only one deity versus two or more?

 

[metis]

BTW, notice the tact that many creationists now take, namely to try and create an equivalency in regards to "faith" as if science is like a religion. So, I'm supposed to forget that I don't hear at a religious service anything about the "scientific method" being used to provide evidence.

So, why this tact? Obviously because there's no evidence they can put forth to establish that there is a "God(s)", so if they can't put forth anything positive, they go for the negative. If this were to be an actual debate that's being scored, they'd lose handily since one simply cannot take that approach without providing some evidence.

BTW, they used to televise the Oxford debates, which were quite impressive to watch, but I don't see them being broadcast any longer. Too bad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yep, different genomes. We have some genes in common with bacteria, that doesn't make us bacteria, any more than common genes with apes makes us apes

Man is classified among the apes. He differs from the other apes in a variety of ways just as the non-human apes differ from one another in a variety of ways. Man is also a primate, mammal, vertebrate, and animal.

The church might teach otherwise, but one should be wary of taking his science from non-scientists, especially those that see science as a threat to their faith based beliefs.

It's not much different than not taking your medical advice from a Home Depot clerk or your legal advice from a cashier at MacDonalds. Go to the experts.

 

[Sapiens]

...

BTW, they used to televise the Oxford debates, which were quite impressive to watch, but I don't see them being broadcast any longer. Too bad.

OxfordUnion

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Perfect equivalency. It doesn't make one whit of difference about method. You believe something WILL answer questions that HAVE NOT been answered. That is simple faith. You put faith in your method, I do not.

Religious faith and justified belief are radically different.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

life coming from non living chemicals fails, just as the Darwinian chain of life, fails, for me. To quote the great mythical Sherlock Holmes " when you have eliminated all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how impossible, is the answer"

Using your method - the wave of a hand - I can eliminate gods. And dogs.

 

[metis]

OxfordUnion

Thanks as I never thought of checking that source.

 

[Jose Fly]

BTW, notice the tact that many creationists now take, namely to try and create an equivalency in regards to "faith" as if science is like a religion.

Yep. That's part of what I was getting at in the thread I started yesterday. Creationists have been reduced to arguing that if scientists can't prove their conclusions to 100% absolute certainty, then those conclusions are no better than religious faith.

The funny thing is, it reveals more about creationists and creationism than actually having any impact on the state of science.

So, why this tact? Obviously because there's no evidence they can put forth to establish that there is a "God(s)", so if they can't put forth anything positive, they go for the negative. If this were to be an actual debate that's being scored, they'd lose handily since one simply cannot take that approach without providing some evidence.

As I noted in my thread, it's all they have left. They used to be able to blatantly say that since something is in the Bible it must be taught in schools. Once the courts struck that down, they went to trying to cast their beliefs as being scientifically verified and tried to get "scientific creationism" or "Biblical science" taught in schools. But the courts struck that down too. So they got rid of all the direct references to the Bible and their religion and tried to say that the scientific evidence pointed to a "designer", and therefore ID creationism should be taught. But the courts struck that down too.

So all they have left is to try and bring science down to their level, which means either both get taught or neither does.

 

[gnostic]

I read elsewhere on this thread and another poster mentioned Gilgamesh. This seems the most likely origin of the biblical flood story has become a common theme in Christianity. A story that most likely developed as an oral tradition about some catastrophic local or regional flood. It seemed like it enveloped the world to those that experienced it, because their world wasn't that big at the time in the sense of their perspective.

There are evidences that the Epic of Gilgamesh were popular and spread as far west as the Hittite empire in the north and Egypt in the south.

And since the Southern Levant - which Bronze Age Canaan, and Iron Age Israel and Judah - the region become hub and gateway, not only for wars and conquests, but also for trades and cultural exchanges.

Canaan, and the later Israel and Judah, were not isolated from neighbouring kingdoms or tribal nations.

The Epic of Gilgamesh were well known, during Bronze Age (mostly from mid to late 2 millennium BCE, so about 17th or 16th century to the start of 10th century BCE) and Iron Age.

Tablets, sometimes whole, but most of time fragmented and damaged, managed to survive complete destruction and loss, have been discovered with other Mesopotamian texts in these sites, outside of Babylonia (and Assyria).

For instances, during the mid-2nd millennium BCE, Middle Babylonian texts (during the Kassite empire), including the Epic of Gilgamesh, have found their ways to Mari, northern Syria, and even further north and west, in the Hittite capital, Hattsua.

And some tablets were found in religious capital of Akhenaten or Amenhotep IV (1353 - 1336 BCE, 18th dynasty, New Kingdom period) - Akhetaten, which is better known today as Amarna.

Fragments of the epic and other stories are found in many locations, including that of Ugarit and Megiddo, that are dated to the mid-2nd millennium BCE, hence the late Bronze Age.

These tablets are evidences that such a story predated the Genesis being composed during the Iron Age, 7th century BCE.

The Epic was still popular at the time of Genesis composition, where most of the extant collection of tablets (the epic of Gilgamesh, eleven tablets) were copied and kept in the Library of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh. The Library was discovered in the mid-19th century. This collection of 11 tablets became known as the Standard Version.

Even older version of the epic exist, tablets (fragments) kept at University Museum in Pennsylvania, and one fragment at Yale Babylonian Collection in New Haven, Connecticut.

An independent epic, known as the Epic of Atrahasis, was written in Old Babylonian, most likely dated to 17th century BCE. Atrahasis is mostly likely the original Semitic (Akkadian) name of the later Utnapishtim of Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian.

But even older legend of Utnapishtim and Atrahasis, from Sumerian, where his name is Ziusudra, the original Flood hero.

Ziusudra is only alluded to in one Sumerian poem, the Death of Gilgames (or Bilgames, as it transliterated from Sumerian), dated to the late 3rd millennium BCE. There are 5 distinct Sumerian poems of Gilgames, four of which later reappeared in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, so we know of the origin of Epic.

Although there are not much detail about Gilgames' journey to see Ziusudra, like the epic's tablets 9 to 11 of the Standard Version, where it narrated Gilgamesh's journey and encounter with Utnapishtim, we do know that it is obvious the Sumerians were aware of such tale.

Ziusudra and the Flood also appeared more fully in the Sumerian text, known today as the Eridu Genesis, however these tablets are badly fragmented. But what is clear, even with the damaged tablets, is that there are too many similarities to the later Akkadian or Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, and to the Neo-Assyrian Standard Version.

Ziusudra also appeared in one of the Sumerian King List, as well as tablet known as the Instructions of Shuruppak.

Shuruppak is the name of a city-state, as well as the name of a king who ruled that city, supposedly Ziusudra's father.

A lot of translations to Sumerian literature are available free at The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL), at this link:

• The instructions of Šuruppag
• The Flood story (Eridu Genesis)
• The death of Gilgames

I have my own translations in a single book, Harps That Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation, by Thorkild Jacobsen (Yale University Press, 1997).

For a collection of both Standard Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, that also of other tablets, including the Sumerian poems of Bilgames, I would recommend The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, by Andrew George (Penguin Classics, 1999).

For the Epic of Atrahasis and other Babylonian texts, there is a book by Stephanie Dalley - Myths From Mesopotamia (Oxford World's Classics, 2000). I think it is now available on-line.

I hoped that these information help.

 

[gnostic]

Also @Dan From Smithville, I would also like to mention Enûma Eliš, often translated as the Epic of Creation, a story about Marduk and Ea (Sumerian Enki).

A translation to the Enûma Eliš, also appeared in Stephanie Dalley's book.

It has been a long time, since I read this book, but I think there are 7 tablets. And from the last tablets, after Marduk defeated Tiamat and her 2nd consort, Kingu, used Kingu's body to create the world, animals and from Kingu's blood humans.

This is very story to the Epic of Atahasis and the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, where Marduk is not mentioned at all.

What is remarkable is that the order of creation is very similar to that of Genesis 1.

Just as scholars think Jews derived their Flood story from Atrahasis/Utnaphistim, they may have also adapted Enûma Eliš for Genesis 1.

Although, the majority of tablets were discovered along with the Standard Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh at the 7th century BCE Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, most scholars today believed this is merely a copy that was originally composed during the mid-2nd millennium BCE, by either the late Amorite dynasty or early Kassite dynasty in Babylon, when the height of worship of Marduk reached in zenith.