Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[metis]

Yes! In fact I LOVED Campbell's "Power of Myth." I think he has a lot of profound insights.

I remember reading some of Campbell's studies when doing my undergrad studies back in the 60's.

BTW, that's the 1960's.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

This sets a precept of a day is a year.

In the 6000 year calculation of using days as meaning years did Ussher, Newton and others consider a day could also be a thousand years?

This sets a precept of a day is a thousand years:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:4


If a day in the Bible could be a year, or a day could be a thousand years, then perhaps thinking in days is missing the point.

Like saying God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days. Because just like 6 days, it seems God also made the Heavens and the Earth in 6 metals.

These 6 metals of the law:

And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses; Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead, Numbers 31:21-22.


The metal order is showing highest to lowest, with gold down to lead.

The Earth is the iron, and above the Earth is the brass heaven.

And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Deuteronomy 28:23.

Can see the location of Earth here:
Lead - Tin - Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold


If we look at these metals as days, We can see the Earth and the heavens being made in 6 days, and maybe Jesus could be seen on Earth on the third day.

 

[YoursTrue]

This question is primarily directed to @Ben Dhyan. Right at the beginning of the book The Grand Design, the authors speak of "our species," (homo sapiens) originating in sub-Saharan Africa around 200,000 BC. Now my question is about how or why the word species is used, but basically how. In other words, what do scientists consider a species to be. Not about where it is said homo sapiens are said to originate.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now my question is about how or why the word species is used, but basically how. In other words, what do scientists consider a species to be.

A species is any group that shares enough genetics that they can reproduce fertile offspring together.

For example, dogs and wolves can have puppies together and so are still the same species as of right now, even though they are moving apart.

A donkey and a horse can produce a mule, but a mule is sterile, so donkeys and horses are now separate species.

A human and a chimp cannot reproduce any offspring at all, and so are separate species.

 

[YoursTrue]

A species is any group that shares enough genetics that they can reproduce fertile offspring together.

For example, dogs and wolves can have puppies together and so are still the same species as of right now, even though they are moving apart.

A donkey and a horse can produce a mule, but a mule is sterile, so donkeys and horses are now separate species.

A human and a chimp cannot reproduce any offspring at all, and so are separate species.

So then can you kindly explain how homo sapiens (as we are known to be part of) are ascertained to have begun 200,000 years ago?

 

[YoursTrue]

A species is any group that shares enough genetics that they can reproduce fertile offspring together.

For example, dogs and wolves can have puppies together and so are still the same species as of right now, even though they are moving apart.

A donkey and a horse can produce a mule, but a mule is sterile, so donkeys and horses are now separate species.

A human and a chimp cannot reproduce any offspring at all, and so are separate species.

It seems that scientists are having a problem defining or ascertaining what a species is. Please notice What Is a Species?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So then can you kindly explain how homo sapiens (as we are known to be part of) are ascertained to have begun 200,000 years ago?

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans. So now we see these three groups as different branches of the same species, similar to how we view wolves and dogs. Indeed, you will find scientists who have slightly altered the name of homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens for modern man (you and I) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis for what was previously called homo neanderthalensis.

It is still true that homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have come into existence about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans. So now we see these three groups as different branches of the same species, similar to how we view wolves and dogs. Indeed, you will find scientists who have slightly altered the name of homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens for modern man (you and I) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis for what was previously called homo neanderthalensis.

It is still true that homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have come into existence about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

How so, do you have data, fossils and genetics to verify the claim? I see the book says 200,000 years ago, not 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. But the more important question is what is the data, fossils and genetic examination to classify current humans belonging to the homo sapien species stemming from 200,000 now possibly 300,000 years ago?

 

[YoursTrue]

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans. So now we see these three groups as different branches of the same species, similar to how we view wolves and dogs. Indeed, you will find scientists who have slightly altered the name of homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens for modern man (you and I) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis for what was previously called homo neanderthalensis.

It is still true that homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have come into existence about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

How were the skeletal remains examined, do you know? How do you know which remains were examined and how they were dated and designated to be of the "homo sapien" species 200,000 maybe 300,000 years ago?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It seems that scientists are having a problem defining or ascertaining what a species is. Please notice What Is a Species?

Excellent article.

I'm aware of the difficulties. My post was an attempt to answer the question without going into a book long explanation of all the ins and outs of it.

First of all, science will always follow the evidence, so you can EXPECT opinions to change as new evidence is found.

Second, real life is messy. It doesn't want to fit into categories. As humans, we label everything--that is what language is. But how do you label things that exist on a spectrum? Usually we divide the spectrum up into pieces and then label the pieces, but where we divide it is usually ARBITRARY.

For example, we divide up and label the visible light spectrum. In my country red and orange and yellow are three separate colors. But in other cultures they share the same label.

I could say a hundred times, real life is messy. You have lions and tigers that as a whole do not mate together. But every once in a blue moon they will, and a liger is produced. Now, to make it more difficult, if the liger is female, she is fertile and can produce offspring. But if the liger is male, it is sterile. Oy vey!!!! So does that means lions and tigers are still the same species? Or have they successfully separated?

See the problem arises in that the question of whether two animals are the same species exists on that troublesome SPECTRUM. It is not a case of yes or no. It is a case of: To what degree are lions and tigers still the same species, and to what degree have they become independent.

Messy messy messy!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How were the skeletal remains examined, do you know? How do you know which remains were examined and how they were dated and designated to be of the "homo sapien" species 200,000 maybe 300,000 years ago?

Oh you are asking the wrong person. I don't have a PhD in any subject, much less in Archaeology. Your question is above my paygrade.

 

[YoursTrue]

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans. So now we see these three groups as different branches of the same species, similar to how we view wolves and dogs. Indeed, you will find scientists who have slightly altered the name of homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens for modern man (you and I) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis for what was previously called homo neanderthalensis.

It is still true that homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have come into existence about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

I would like to go back to this (your post) in time, if perhaps we can keep the conversation peaceable as possible. Right now I'm centering on how species is defined. Particularly in reference to the 200,000, now possibly 300,000 year denoted

Oh you are asking the wrong person. I don't have a PhD in any subject, much less in Archaeology. Your question is above my paygrade.

If you are to accept something you have questions about, I think it is good to ask questions of those who hold perhaps a varying opinion or issue their opinion. As I have often stated, I used to be an atheist but I am no longer one, I believe now in God, and have serious questions about the process of categorizing and dating artifacts and fossils regarding the theory of evolution. I used to accept and believe virtually anything (with some exceptions) an evolutionary scientist would teach.
You did mention about the history of homo sapiens is now thought of to be 300,000 years ago, and I ask you how is it you know that. Dr. Hawking's book said homo sapiens existed from 200,000 years ago starting in sub-Saharan Africa and of course many people accept(ed) that, maybe nothing was issued about the change to 300,000 years ago at that point, but again the question would be, how would someone know that homo sapiens began 200-300,000 years ago? What evidence do they go by? I truly understand if you do not know the answer but you did say something about 300,000 years ago.
The issue of species is seemingly a controversial topic yet among scientists. Perhaps we can go into that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Excellent article.

I'm aware of the difficulties. My post was an attempt to answer the question without going into a book long explanation of all the ins and outs of it.

First of all, science will always follow the evidence, so you can EXPECT opinions to change as new evidence is found.

Second, real life is messy. It doesn't want to fit into categories. As humans, we label everything--that is what language is. But how do you label things that exist on a spectrum? Usually we divide the spectrum up into pieces and then label the pieces, but where we divide it is usually ARBITRARY.

For example, we divide up and label the visible light spectrum. In my country red and orange and yellow are three separate colors. But in other cultures they share the same label.

I could say a hundred times, real life is messy. You have lions and tigers that as a whole do not mate together. But every once in a blue moon they will, and a liger is produced. Now, to make it more difficult, if the liger is female, she is fertile and can produce offspring. But if the liger is male, it is sterile. Oy vey!!!! So does that means lions and tigers are still the same species? Or have they successfully separated?

See the problem arises in that the question of whether two animals are the same species exists on that troublesome SPECTRUM. It is not a case of yes or no. It is a case of: To what degree are lions and tigers still the same species, and to what degree have they become independent.

Messy messy messy!

One doesn't need a book long explanation in many matters, a simple but verifiable explanation will do sometimes. Not always. Those questions I have are primarily concerning the subject of species, although I guess things changed from the idea in the book about the species of homo sapiens. I am wondering not about the timing presented at this point, but rather about the use of the word species.

 

[YoursTrue]

Its an approximation based on skeletal remains.

However, you should be aware that scientific opinion has shifted due to new evidence coming to light, from the field of genetics. It was originally assumed that homo sapiens was a species distinct from i.e. the Neanderthals. We now know that not to be the case. We know for a fact now that homo sapiens interbred successfully with a couple of other hominids--Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Would you happen to know about the evidence ascertaining what you have stated?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you are to accept something you have questions about, I think it is good to ask questions of those who hold perhaps a varying opinion or issue their opinion.

It depends. The rules of logic dictate that when the experts agree, it is reasonable to accept whatever they, but if the experts do not agree, we cannot appeal to them. In this particular case, the experts do have a consensus that modern humans appeared 2-300,000 years ago.

You did mention about the history of homo sapiens is now thought of to be 300,000 years ago, and I ask you how is it you know that.

If you google "When did homo sapiens first appear" all the scientific sites that come up will give the same general date. Of course you do have non-scientific sites that say things like 6000 years, but they are not experts, so their opinions do not matter.

Dr. Hawking's book said homo sapiens existed from 200,000 years ago starting in sub-Saharan Africa and of course many people accept(ed) that, maybe nothing was issued about the change to 300,000 years ago at that point, but again the question would be, how would someone know that homo sapiens began 200-300,000 years ago? What evidence do they go by? I truly understand if you do not know the answer but you did say something about 300,000 years ago.
The issue of species is seemingly a controversial topic yet among scientists. Perhaps we can go into that?

Again, above my pay grade

A decade ago, the consensus was more towards 200,000 years ago, but new findings were made that had them move the timeline back further. That's about all I know.

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends. The rules of logic dictate that when the experts agree, it is reasonable to accept whatever they, but if the experts do not agree, we cannot appeal to them. In this particular case, the experts do have a consensus that modern humans appeared 2-300,000 years ago.

So if I am to understand you correctly, you accept what experts say because they are considered experts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@YoursTrue
You quoted me but did not comment. ???

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends. The rules of logic dictate that when the experts agree, it is reasonable to accept whatever they, but if the experts do not agree, we cannot appeal to them. In this particular case, the experts do have a consensus that modern humans appeared 2-300,000 years ago.

If you google "When did homo sapiens first appear" all the scientific sites that come up will give the same general date. Of course you do have non-scientific sites that say things like 6000 years, but they are not experts, so their opinions do not matter.

Again, above my pay grade

A decade ago, the consensus was more towards 200,000 years ago, but new findings were made that had them move the timeline back further. That's about all I know.

What findings were those?

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue
You quoted me but did not comment. ???

Sorry, sometimes I press the wrong button and it just goes...I think I amended that but maybe it didn't take. I'll try to check, thanks.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What findings were those?

Don't recall. Just remember the main point, that the timeline was pushed back.

You know, you are not helpless here. You can google this on your own