Origin of Our Species Pushed Back 100,000 Years!

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, yeah...shooting the messenger again

Is it not true? Were you not telling the truth when you described all the things that would happen if you became an "evolutionist"?

we know that's all you have Mr Fly.

Demonstrably false, as even my last post shows where I described a few of the lines of evidence I've posted here.

The point has always been....STOP presenting a THEORY as fact, when there are NO FACTS....just supposition.

You can repeat this mantra to yourself all you like, but reality is clearly not with you.

Stop teaching children at school and students at college that evolution has "overwhelming evidence" when it has only an overwhelming amount of misinterpreted evidence....lots of suggestion, but no facts.

Teach it as theory if you must, but just be truthful about it. Is that too much to ask?

That raises an interesting question. Just how do you think public school science curricula should be set? Right now it's generally reflective of the conclusions of the relevant scientific communities. The life sciences community has overwhelmingly concluded for over a century that evolution occurs, and is the process by which populations changed over the last 3+ billion years. Since that's what they've concluded, that's what we teach.

What part of that process would you change? If we don't rely on the relevant scientific community to determine what to teach, what do we rely on?

 

[shawn001]

LOL....I used to believe in evolution in my youth, I even studied it for a time....but the more I learned, the more I saw amazing designs in nature that could not possibly have arisen by chance.......I 'saw the light' a long time ago.

I hear this all the time....'you don't understand how evolution works"...."there is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution"....blah. blah, blah....

Actually I do understand how evolution is 'suggested' to work, but I have never seen a single shred of solid evidence that did not rely heavily on assertion and inference. No historically documented evidence is available for things that took place millions of years ago. All evolutionary science has is their 'definition' of the evidence, which is of course, always skewed towards their pet theory. We can see how it is defended with almost religious fervor. But the truth is, it has no facts or any real evidence that it ever happened beyond any creature's ability to adapt to an new environment or food source. There is no real evidence that amoebas ever became dinosaurs.

Evolution has lots of diagrams and really good computer graphics, but no proof. It is a belief system, sold to the masses by the power of suggestion. If you think that can't happen, look up "perception management". The world is molded by it.



It comes from a brilliantly designed system implemented by the Creator. Trees and other green vegetation breathe in what we breathe out and vice versa. There is continual recycling, unless stupid, greedy humans interfere with the process.

The oxygen itself is mixed with other essential gases in just the right combination so that we can light a fire to warm ourselves and cook our food. Too much oxygen and the smallest spark would set off an explosion..... Imagine what that could mean?

Is that correct mixture of gasses that we breathe, just an accident of nature? Is that constant recycling of those gases also just a convenient accident?

Let me ask you something....what is water? Where does it come from? What unique properties does it have that makes it essential to our existence on this spaceship we call Earth?

So the empirical evidence is not your thing and you're going with your personal beliefs and will never change. I get it, even though everything changes and evolves. I can't debate water with you if that is the answer you gave for the oxygen we breathe on the "spaceship we call Earth" because the answer is too simplistic.

I can try to introduce you to the reason your breathing Oxygen, but no you won't care.

Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
Architects of earth's atmosphere

Introduction to the Cyanobacteria


By the way, something we actually agree on.

"There is continual recycling unless stupid, greedy humans interfere with the process."

 

[Deeje]

So the empirical evidence is not your thing and you're going with your personal beliefs and will never change. I get it, even though everything changes and evolves. I can't debate water with you if that is the answer you gave for the oxygen we breathe on the "spaceship we call Earth" because the answer is too simplistic.

Too clever for the simple truth....I understand.

Perhaps if God had just written his book in more scientific language, you might have understood it better?

You can't debate water because you can't explain it. It is the most miraculous substance known to man. We couldn't exist without it.

I accept that things can change....there is no doubt about that, but the extent of the change with no real evidence to confirm it, leaves me with only one logical conclusion. Design requires a designer. Design exhibits purpose and purpose comes from intelligence put into action. My personal beliefs come from examining the evidence, not just pie in the sky speculation.

Did amoebas morph into dinosaurs? Really? What evidence exists for that? I see adaptive change in countless creatures, but they remain within their taxonomic family. I have never seen conclusive evidence that they can go beyond that boundary. Have you?

I can try to introduce you to the reason your breathing Oxygen, but no you won't care.

From your link......

"Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth."

Well, how amazing......! Where did these bacteria come from? Did they just pop into existence one day, all by themselves?
If evolution is true...then why are these creatures still in existence? Did we leave these poor cousins behind somehow?

"The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth's history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria during the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today."

Hmmmm....funny that the Bible actually tells us the same story, though perhaps not so imaginatively.
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." (Genesis 1:2)

By the way, something we actually agree on.

"There is continual recycling unless stupid, greedy humans interfere with the process."

Wow! A point of agreement!

How much has science played a key role in the pollution and degradation of this planet and its delicate Eco-Systems?

Who invented plastic, poisonous chemicals and radioactive pollution that is taking life on this planet to the brink of extinction?
Science is a wonderful thing, unless its inventions are placed in the wrong hands. There are way too many of those hands apparently.

 

[Jose Fly]

So Deeje walks away from yet another set of questions and lines of evidence regarding evolution, then says "Where's the evidence". It's sad what happens to people when a religious organization uses threats of emotional and social ruin to keep them in line.

 

[shawn001]

Too clever for the simple truth....I understand.

Perhaps if God had just written his book in more scientific language, you might have understood it better?

You can't debate water because you can't explain it. It is the most miraculous substance known to man. We couldn't exist without it.

I accept that things can change....there is no doubt about that, but the extent of the change with no real evidence to confirm it, leaves me with only one logical conclusion. Design requires a designer. Design exhibits purpose and purpose comes from intelligence put into action. My personal beliefs come from examining the evidence, not just pie in the sky speculation.

Did amoebas morph into dinosaurs? Really? What evidence exists for that? I see adaptive change in countless creatures, but they remain within their taxonomic family. I have never seen conclusive evidence that they can go beyond that boundary. Have you?



From your link......

"Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth."

Well, how amazing......! Where did these bacteria come from? Did they just pop into existence one day, all by themselves?
If evolution is true...then why are these creatures still in existence? Did we leave these poor cousins behind somehow?

"The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth's history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria during the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today."

Hmmmm....funny that the Bible actually tells us the same story, though perhaps not so imaginatively.
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." (Genesis 1:2)



Wow! A point of agreement!

How much has science played a key role in the pollution and degradation of this planet and its delicate Eco-Systems?

Who invented plastic, poisonous chemicals and radioactive pollution that is taking life on this planet to the brink of extinction?
Science is a wonderful thing, unless its inventions are placed in the wrong hands. There are way too many of those hands apparently.

 

[shawn001]

Too clever for the simple truth....I understand.

Perhaps if God had just written his book in more scientific language, you might have understood it better?

You can't debate water because you can't explain it. It is the most miraculous substance known to man. We couldn't exist without it.

I accept that things can change....there is no doubt about that, but the extent of the change with no real evidence to confirm it, leaves me with only one logical conclusion. Design requires a designer. Design exhibits purpose and purpose comes from intelligence put into action. My personal beliefs come from examining the evidence, not just pie in the sky speculation.

Did amoebas morph into dinosaurs? Really? What evidence exists for that? I see adaptive change in countless creatures, but they remain within their taxonomic family. I have never seen conclusive evidence that they can go beyond that boundary. Have you?



From your link......

"Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth."

Well, how amazing......! Where did these bacteria come from? Did they just pop into existence one day, all by themselves?
If evolution is true...then why are these creatures still in existence? Did we leave these poor cousins behind somehow?

"The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth's history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria during the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today."

Hmmmm....funny that the Bible actually tells us the same story, though perhaps not so imaginatively.
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." (Genesis 1:2)



Wow! A point of agreement!

How much has science played a key role in the pollution and degradation of this planet and its delicate Eco-Systems?

Who invented plastic, poisonous chemicals and radioactive pollution that is taking life on this planet to the brink of extinction?
Science is a wonderful thing, unless its inventions are placed in the wrong hands. There are way too many of those hands apparently.

Water is one of the most common elements in the universe.


"Astronomers have discovered the largest and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe — a gigantic, 12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined."

Astronomers Find Largest


There is more water on Europa than on Earth.

"Hydrogen is the basic building material of the universe, created in the Big Bang. Oxygen is created by nuclear reactions in stars. If you put H and O together in the cold of space, you get H2O. There are enormous amounts of water in space. In fact, nearly all of the oxygen in space is in the form of water or carbon monoxide. Similarly, most the carbon and nitrogen in space are also in their most hydrogenated forms: methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3)."


"I accept that things can change....there is no doubt about that, but the extent of the change with no real evidence to confirm it leaves me with only one logical conclusion."

Again the whole universe has evolved as well as life on Earth. When scientist do research do they call you and ask if it's gonna fit your personal beliefs and if you will accept the scientific theory? Again billions to trillions of facts from all the sciences, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, Genetics, Anthropology, plate tectonics all of them. You basically insult all their work for the last 150 years. This was actually settled back in the late 1800's and not just by Darwin, lots of others.

"Did amoebas morph into dinosaurs? Really? What evidence exists for that?" Yes, but with many more steps and life forms in between.

Funny you started with the dinosaurs. They evolved into birds

Ever heard of the big mass extinction events that happened on Earth?

Big Five mass extinction events

Although the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or K-T) extinction event is the most well-known because it wiped out the dinosaurs, a series of other mass extinction events has occurred throughout the history of the Earth, some even more devastating than K-T. Mass extinctions are periods in Earth's history when abnormally large numbers of species die out simultaneously or within a limited time frame. The most severe occurred at the end of the Permian period when 96% of all species perished. This along with K-T are two of the Big Five mass extinctions, each of which wiped out at least half of all species. Many smaller scale mass extinctions have occurred, indeed the disappearance of many animals and plants at the hands of man in prehistoric, historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record as mass extinctions. Discover more about Earth's major extinction events below.

Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.
Late Devonian mass extinction
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.
Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.
Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.
Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

All life on Earth we see now is now evolved from the 4% that survived the Permian mass extinction.

The fall of the dinosaurs paved the way for mammals and us to evolve

I am surprised you actually read the cyanobacteria information.

"Where did these bacteria come from? Why don't you do some homework, but they created the oxygen your breathing right now through evolution.

It seems you believe in evolution, but don't like word and don't quite yet understand or know the evidence behind macroevolution, which of course you "can't see" and because it goes against your beliefs.

"Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

Here, you can examine the patterns of macroevolution in evolutionary history and find out how scientists investigate deep history.

Macroevolution

The Bible is not a science book and does not give an accurate account of life on the planet in Genisis chronologically.

 

[Deeje]

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

All life on Earth we see now is now evolved from the 4% that survived the Permian mass extinction.

The fall of the dinosaurs paved the way for mammals and us to evolve

Did you actually read what was written in your quotes? Through your own lens, you obviously see what you want to see....remove the lenses of scientific bias and then see what we see....

"This along with K-T are two of the Big Five mass extinctions, each of which wiped out at least half of all species. Many smaller scale mass extinctions have occurred, indeed the disappearance of many animals and plants at the hands of man in prehistoric, historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record as mass extinctions."

Now ask yourself how does science know this? Were any intelligent creatures there to document any of these events?
The reason for the disappearance of any species in "pre-historic" times is guesswork. IOW, science will offer what they assume took place without knowing why. The fossil record, as we all know, is really scant and not a true indication of what science suggests. It is supposition dressed up as fact.

The reason why mass extinctions of historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record will be because they are verifiable from written records.

"The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number."

Again we see how conjecture and guesswork are presented as factual events. How can science possibly know what happened in these events, "hundreds of thousands of years apart"? Who was there to tell them? And how do we know that their circumstantial evidence is even correct? More guesswork.

"Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later."

How can science possibly know if this is true? Interpretation of their evidence will always support their theory and those indoctrinated will never see through the language of suggestion.

"The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived."

96% of all species died out?! Seriously? How many species are we talking about here? It went on to say that 4% of all living things then became the basis for all the lifeforms we see living on earth today? Does that seem rational to you? The explanation went as follows.....
"The event turns out to have been complex, as there were at least two separate phases of extinction spread over millions of years. Marine creatures were particularly badly affected and insects suffered the only mass extinction of their history. Many causes have been proposed for the event: asteroid impact, flood basalt eruptions, catastrophic methane release, a drop in oxygen levels, sea level fluctuations or some combination of these."

When does fantasy end in these suppositions? Millions of years ago when humans were not around and they "propose" whatever will prop up their theory.

Then there's this....
"The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs."

The death of the dinosaurs.....who really knows why the dinosaurs were no longer necessary in the grand plan? All we know is that humankind are grateful that they don't still exist. Perhaps they served their purpose and their services were no longer required? We don't know the reason for their extinction but we could speculate about all those things too. Science is guessing......couched in the language is a lot of "might have's" and "could have's" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..."

Unless you can see through the rhetoric, you will imagine that scientists "know" all that they publish as fact....but they don't. Those who actively promote evolution as a fact have gone way out on a limb.....denying the existence of an Intelligent Creator. But if they are wrong, it will not end well for them, biblically speaking. They must defend their theory with all they have, because if they admit that they might be mistaken about the whole thing
.......imagine how many people will want to beat them up?

 

[Deeje]

I am surprised you actually read the cyanobacteria information.

I have made it my business to check out what people present as their facts.....it has always turned out that they didn't really read what they posted without the rose colored glasses distorting their perceptions IMO.

"Where did these bacteria come from? Why don't you do some homework, but they created the oxygen your breathing right now through evolution.

I thought it was a reasonable question actually. Where did "life" come from? Science has never been able to answer that one. ....and you know what? I don't believe they ever will.

It seems you believe in evolution, but don't like word and don't quite yet understand or know the evidence behind macroevolution, which of course you "can't see" and because it goes against your beliefs.

I know and understand more than you give me credit for. It is unfortunate for the gullible that science uses the same terminology for adaptation as it does for macro-evolution. To present them as one process is dishonest. No scientific experiment has ever produced evidence for macro-evolution. All it can prove is that adaptation is possible and demonstrable in most species. The Peppered Moth is one of science's favorite examples of "evolution". But it is only a wonderful example of adaptation. It was never anything but a Peppered Moth......and still is. The fact that the moth returned to its original color once the pollution problem was addressed, proves it.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

That is what science wants you to believe.....it simply isn't true. The "grand scale" is a figment of their overactive imagination. The grand scale is presented in diagrams because they have nothing more to demonstrate that it ever took place.

Here, you can examine the patterns of macroevolution in evolutionary history and find out how scientists investigate deep history.

It says.....
"It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

The reason its "not easy to see macroevolutionary history" is because there is no actual macroevolutionary history. There is a "reconstruction" of that history.....using pre-conceived ideas and misinterpretation of their "evidence". Do you see the admission in their own language? "The basic evolutionary mechansims CAN produce major evolutionary change given enough time". But there is not a single solitary shred of real evidence that they actually did what science is suggesting.
Its not science fact...its science fiction.

The Bible is not a science book and does not give an accurate account of life on the planet in Genisis chronologically.

I think its time that you did some homework. The order of creation listed in Genesis is that life began in the oceans. Then to flying creatures, which includes anything with wings. Then land animals, where a distinction is made between domestic and wild species. Man is last. How could the writer of Genesis know this? Was he guessing too...or did he have inside information?

The creative "days" were not 24 hour periods, but may well have been very long periods where the creation of many species took place over thousands or even millions of years. The Creator is not bound by earth time, a single "day" of which is only one rotation of the earth. Universal time has no limits. The Genesis account also allows for a very old earth. It simply says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".....it doesn't say how much time elapsed before God began to prepare the earth for future habitation, such as you mentioned before where the earth was originally not fit for living things to survive. (Genesis 1:2)

Isaiah 40:22... "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers."
How did Isaiah know that the earth was a circle?

Ecclesiastes 1:7....“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.”
How did Solomon know that water is constantly recycled?

Job 26:7....“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.”
How did Moses know that that the earth is "hanging upon nothing" when, from the viewpoint of an earthbound human of that time, this was a complete departure from prevailing notions?

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Science and the Bible are fully compatible....what is not compatible is science without the Creator or the Creator without science. Try somewhere in the middle to find the truth.

 

[VioletVortex]

Homo sapiens is not the same as Neanderthal or Denisovan. All separate species. Varying levels of hybridization between the three have figured historically, in multiple overlaps, especially in the Mediterranean area.

 

[VioletVortex]

You are either mistaken or you are lying, sir. The article explicitly states that they found much, much more than a single jawbone.

How would one know that the article itself is legitimate?

 

[VioletVortex]

I disagree...I think it is a very fair question. Where are all those intermediate species? Not just the humans but all living life forms? How do you tell an ape bone fragment from a human's if we share so much DNA? If we have loads of ape fossils an loads of modern human fossils why are there not loads of all the in between fossils? "They all died out" is a pretty lame explanation IMO. And who said "we are all just different branches on the same tree"?

You might be related to apes but I'm not. The gulf between humans and apes is unbridgeable. What apes do you know of that are in the process of evolving at present? What half/half creatures can you show me?

I don't believe that these guys ever existed....There are primitive people in the world even today, so what makes you think we all had to have such a beginning? That is an assumption, backed up by what?

If you are referring to Homo sapiens, then you are right. Neanderthals, however, had a complex culture. Many Neanderthal skeletons found in graves are missing almost exclusively the skull and the femur. This is because that, in Paganism the skull is sacred as it contains the mind and thus the soul. It was removed as a symbol of act, symbolizing the soul living on. The case is similar with the femur; it was recognized as playing a role in producing the life force, and we scientifically know today that it is a major site of red blood cell production. The Neanderthals were somehow familiar with this.

The absence of a skull and femur is common in ancient European graves even into Classical Antiquity, indicating that the cultural practices were contiguous from the Neanderthal era to near modern times. My point is that the ancient Neanderthals certainly had a culture.

 

[Deeje]

If you are referring to Homo sapiens, then you are right. Neanderthals, however, had a complex culture. Many Neanderthal skeletons found in graves are missing almost exclusively the skull and the femur. This is because that, in Paganism the skull is sacred as it contains the mind and thus the soul. It was removed as a symbol of act, symbolizing the soul living on. The case is similar with the femur; it was recognized as playing a role in producing the life force, and we scientifically know today that it is a major site of red blood cell production. The Neanderthals were somehow familiar with this.

The absence of a skull and femur is common in ancient European graves even into Classical Antiquity, indicating that the cultural practices were contiguous from the Neanderthal era to near modern times. My point is that the ancient Neanderthals certainly had a culture.

It appears as if the original thoughts on "Neanderthal Man" have changed quite remarkably over the decades.

Early reconstructions showed Neanderthals to be stooped and apelike, with long, ape-like arms, but we now have books that say that Neanderthals probably did not look very different from some people of today.

One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change from the original concept! Comparing the illustrations in various older books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being ape-like, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern humans!

One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthals as squat and bent is very interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, so how easy it was to make an assumption! but, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis! Oops.

This is how they are often portrayed......

But there is no proof that ancient humans were not exactly the same anatomically and mentally as ourselves and with just as much intelligence. Cave dwellers with primitive life styles still exist even in this modern world...what does that prove? That the power of suggestion should never be overlooked.

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were no “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing....the chain itself does not really exist. What has been presented as evidence has, in some cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied.

Man, however, is just what the Bible shows him to be....unique, a special creation. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:20) Not only is his brain far advanced in comparison with brains of any animals, but so is his body.

If evolution was true, then we should be seeing way more species on the same level of advancement as ourselves....what would prevent it?

 

[shawn001]

It appears as if the original thoughts on "Neanderthal Man" have changed quite remarkably over the decades.

Early reconstructions showed Neanderthals to be stooped and apelike, with long, ape-like arms, but we now have books that say that Neanderthals probably did not look very different from some people of today.

One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change from the original concept! Comparing the illustrations in various older books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being ape-like, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern humans!

One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthals as squat and bent is very interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, so how easy it was to make an assumption! but, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis! Oops.

This is how they are often portrayed......

But there is no proof that ancient humans were not exactly the same anatomically and mentally as ourselves and with just as much intelligence. Cave dwellers with primitive life styles still exist even in this modern world...what does that prove? That the power of suggestion should never be overlooked.

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were no “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing....the chain itself does not really exist. What has been presented as evidence has, in some cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied.

Man, however, is just what the Bible shows him to be....unique, a special creation. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:20) Not only is his brain far advanced in comparison with brains of any animals, but so is his body.

If evolution was true, then we should be seeing way more species on the same level of advancement as ourselves....what would prevent it?

How Ancient Neanderthal DNA Still Influences Our Genes Today
Far from being silent remnants, Neanderthal genes play a profound role in how modern human genes are expressed

"eanderthals may have gone extinct 30,000 years ago, but they still live on inside us. Ever since scientists discovered that Neanderthal DNA comprises roughly 2 percent of the genomes of modern humans of European and Asian heritage, they’ve speculated about how exactly those lingering genes affect us today. Now we’ve found that even though most humans hardly resemble Neanderthals in appearance, their DNA still influences how our genes work today."

"Humans and Neanderthals began splitting on the evolutionary tree about 700,000 years ago, but continued to interbreed up until at least 50,000 years ago. Despite a genetic incompatibility that may have made reproduction difficult, enough hybrid human-Neanderthals were born to enshrine bits of their DNA throughout the human genome. Previous research has found that the Neanderthal DNA sequences and genes found in modern humans are linked to depression, fat metabolism and a host of other traits and conditions.

How Ancient Neanderthal DNA Still Influences Our Genes Today | Science | Smithsonian


So if you're of European and Asian heritage you have 2 percent Neanderthal DNA.

 

[shawn001]

I have made it my business to check out what people present as their facts.....it has always turned out that they didn't really read what they posted without the rose colored glasses distorting their perceptions IMO.

I thought it was a reasonable question actually. Where did "life" come from? Science has never been able to answer that one. ....and you know what? I don't believe they ever will.

I know and understand more than you give me credit for. It is unfortunate for the gullible that science uses the same terminology for adaptation as it does for macro-evolution. To present them as one process is dishonest. No scientific experiment has ever produced evidence for macro-evolution. All it can prove is that adaptation is possible and demonstrable in most species. The Peppered Moth is one of science's favorite examples of "evolution". But it is only a wonderful example of adaptation. It was never anything but a Peppered Moth......and still is. The fact that the moth returned to its original color once the pollution problem was addressed, proves it.



That is what science wants you to believe.....it simply isn't true. The "grand scale" is a figment of their overactive imagination. The grand scale is presented in diagrams because they have nothing more to demonstrate that it ever took place.



It says.....
"It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

The reason its "not easy to see macroevolutionary history" is because there is no actual macroevolutionary history. There is a "reconstruction" of that history.....using pre-conceived ideas and misinterpretation of their "evidence". Do you see the admission in their own language? "The basic evolutionary mechansims CAN produce major evolutionary change given enough time". But there is not a single solitary shred of real evidence that they actually did what science is suggesting.
Its not science fact...its science fiction.



I think its time that you did some homework. The order of creation listed in Genesis is that life began in the oceans. Then to flying creatures, which includes anything with wings. Then land animals, where a distinction is made between domestic and wild species. Man is last. How could the writer of Genesis know this? Was he guessing too...or did he have inside information?

The creative "days" were not 24 hour periods, but may well have been very long periods where the creation of many species took place over thousands or even millions of years. The Creator is not bound by earth time, a single "day" of which is only one rotation of the earth. Universal time has no limits. The Genesis account also allows for a very old earth. It simply says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".....it doesn't say how much time elapsed before God began to prepare the earth for future habitation, such as you mentioned before where the earth was originally not fit for living things to survive. (Genesis 1:2)

Isaiah 40:22... "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers."
How did Isaiah know that the earth was a circle?

Ecclesiastes 1:7....“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.”
How did Solomon know that water is constantly recycled?

Job 26:7....“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.”
How did Moses know that that the earth is "hanging upon nothing" when, from the viewpoint of an earthbound human of that time, this was a complete departure from prevailing notions?

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Science and the Bible are fully compatible....what is not compatible is science without the Creator or the Creator without science. Try somewhere in the middle to find the truth.

The Bible has inconsistencies itself that are not compatible.


Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 3:22New King James Version (NKJV)
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

Talking to other Gods?

Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?

"Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html


"The order of creation listed in Genesis is that life began in the oceans. Then to flying creatures, which includes anything with wings. Then land animals, where a distinction is made between domestic and wild species."

Wow, this is so wrong. We know for a fact birds evolved from dinosaurs. It did not go from life in the oceans to the next step BEING birds.

 

[Deeje]

"eanderthals may have gone extinct 30,000 years ago, but they still live on inside us. Ever since scientists discovered that Neanderthal DNA comprises roughly 2 percent of the genomes of modern humans of European and Asian heritage, they’ve speculated about how exactly those lingering genes affect us today. Now we’ve found that even though most humans hardly resemble Neanderthals in appearance, their DNA still influences how our genes work today."

You post these things with such confidence.....but I have to ask...who said? How many living Neanderthals have been studied? O, wait...there aren't any.

Is this him...?

or this?

or this perhaps?

It seems no one is quite sure what he looked like.

I thought this was interesting....

A 400,000-year-old skull fragment found in Portugal points to mystery people
AN ANCIENT skull bone uncovered in Portugal points to a previously unknown subspecies of early humans.

Nick Whigham and AFP
news.com.au
MARCH 15, 20172:38PM

A skull fragment from nearly half a million years ago points to the possibility of a previously unknown species of early humans.

Researchers don’t know if it was from a male or female, how the person died, or even what form of early human it was.

The large piece of skull displays a new mix of features not seen before in fossil humans, reported Science.

It has traits that link it to Neanderthals, such as their famous fused brow ridge, as well as some primitive traits that resemble other extinct fossils in Europe. . . .
“There is a lot of debate currently in the anthropological literature about what species to call these fossils. There is not a lot of agreement,” said Mr Quam, who authored the study with Portuguese archaeologist Joao Zilhao and colleagues."

Is this him then? Needs a bath and a good haircut....seems as though he knew how to shave though...how modern of him!

‘There is a lot of debate currently in the anthropological literature about what species to call these fossils’

"Humans and Neanderthals began splitting on the evolutionary tree about 700,000 years ago, but continued to interbreed up until at least 50,000 years ago.

So it was OK for humans to mate with a half ape? When did humans determine that neanderthals were beneath them on the breeding scale? I suppose it was when they discovered the awful truth that one of them had evolved and left the other behind dangling from the evolutionary tree?

Despite a genetic incompatibility that may have made reproduction difficult, enough hybrid human-Neanderthals were born to enshrine bits of their DNA throughout the human genome. Previous research has found that the Neanderthal DNA sequences and genes found in modern humans are linked to depression, fat metabolism and a host of other traits and conditions.

Of course they were.....neanderthals are known to be overweight sooks. Look at that face....says it all really.

 

[Deeje]

The Bible has inconsistencies itself that are not compatible.

Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 3:22New King James Version (NKJV)
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

Talking to other Gods?

No actually...it is the Creator talking to his able assistant....mentioned in the Bible several times. (Colossians 1:15-16; John 1:2-3; Proverbs 8:30-31)

You don't have to yell...I can read the normal sized font. If you are going to quote the Bible at least know what you are quoting.

Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?

"Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.

We have updated our booklets now. Was Life Created? and very well written IMO.

"The order of creation listed in Genesis is that life began in the oceans. Then to flying creatures, which includes anything with wings. Then land animals, where a distinction is made between domestic and wild species."

Wow, this is so wrong. We know for a fact birds evolved from dinosaurs. It did not go from life in the oceans to the next step BEING birds.

"You" (science) knows no such thing. Science assumes that this is true, based on assumptions made about a few fossilized bones. The fossil record is vague and incomplete to say the least. Life in the oceans was created to live in the oceans. Amphibious creatures were created to inhabit both land and sea....land dwelling animals were created to live on land. Flying creatures were created with wings. Science has absolutely no proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that whales evolved from four footed land creatures. Its all smoke and mirrors...an illusion fed to the willing masses. You can believe it if you wish.....I can't swallow any of it.